Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0461
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
27,
2006
4
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0002
1
MS.
GUERRIERO:
Good
afternoon
again
and
2
welcome
to
Chicago
for
those
of
you
that
are
not
3
from
here.
I'm
going
to
start
the
meeting
today
4
by
introducing
the
panel
here,
and
I
should
maybe
5
start
by
introducing
myself.
6
I
am
Margaret
Guerriero.
I'm
the
7
Division
Director
for
the
Waste,
Pesticides
and
8
Toxics
Division
here
in
Region
5
EPA.
9
On
my
far
left
is
Julie
Simpson,
who
10
will
have
a
placard
in
a
few
minutes,
she's
the
11
Chief
of
the
Lead,
Heavy
Metals
and
Inorganics
12
Branch
in
the
Office
of
Pesticides,
Pollution
13
Prevention
and
Toxics
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
14
Washington.
15
To
my
immediate
left
is
Christine
16
Dustin,
our
guest
from
Region
7.
She's
the
17
Lead
Coordinator
in
the
Kansas
City
Office
of
18
EPA.
19
To
my
immediate
right,
Mardi
Klevs.
20
She's
the
Branch
Chief
here
in
Region
5
for
the
21
Pesticides,
Toxics
Branch
in
the
Division
of
22
Waste,
Pesticides
and
Toxics,
which
houses
the
0003
1
Lead
Program.
2
And
to
my
far
right,
Bharat
Mathur.
3
He's
the
Deputy
Region
Administrator
here
in
4
Region
5,
and
I
think
Bharat
is
going
to
begin.
5
MR.
MATHUR:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
here
also
6
to
add
my
welcome
to
you
all
for
attending
this
7
very
important
public
meeting.
8
First,
I
want
to
thank
Julie
for
9
including
Chicago
as
one
of
your
five
cities
to
10
have
such
a
meeting.
As
you
could
see,
Julie,
11
from
the
attendance
today,
this
is
a
very
12
important
topic
for
us
in
Region
5.
I
also
want
13
to
welcome
Christine
from
Region
7.
Hi.
14
Region
7
and
5
are
working
very
closely
on
the
15
issue
of
lead
poisoning,
and
I'm
very
pleased
to
16
see
Christine
here.
17
I
just
wanted
to
share
a
few
thoughts
18
regarding
lead
poisoning
with
you.
And
actually,
19
I
also
wanted
the
opportunity
to
meet
some
of
20
you.
I
was
looking
at
the
roster
and
several
of
21
you
are
not
only
in
Chicago,
but
within
the
22
bounds
of
Region
5,
and
it's
kind
of
nice
to
know
0004
1
all
the
good
people
who
are
working
on
this
2
subject.
3
I
particularly
wanted
to
welcome
some
4
of
the
folks
from
Naperville,
Illinois.
Are
they
5
here?
6
(
No
response.)
7
MR.
MATHUR:
Okay.
They're
not
here
yet.
8
It's
one
of
my
favorite
suburbs
in
Chicago
and
9
that's
simply
because
I
live
there.
10
(
Laughter.)
11
MR.
MATHUR:
As
you
know,
Region
5
has
the
12
largest
incidence
of
childhood
lead
poisoning
in
13
the
country.
The
latest
statistics
suggest
that
14
39
percent
of
all
the
children
under
six,
the
15
lead
poisoning
incidence
is
in
Region
5.
It's
16
not
a
statistic
that
we
are
proud
of,
but
it
17
certainly
encourages
us
to
do
as
much
as
we
can
18
to
combat
lead
poisoning.
19
We
have
made
progress
in
the
last
20
several
years.
In
fact,
the
latest
numbers,
I
21
guess,
from
CDC
suggest
that
the
number
of
22
children
with
lead
poisoning
has
reduced
from
0005
1
almost
22,000
in
2003
to
about
17,000
in
2004.
2
So
we
have
a
long
way
to
go
to
meet
our
objective
3
of
no
children
with
lead
poisoning
by
2010.
4
This
is
one
of
the
highest
priorities
5
in
our
region,
combatting
lead
poisoning
in
6
children.
And
we
are
doing
our
work
in
not
only
7
enforcing
and
implementing
EPA
mandates,
but
also
8
working
in
a
voluntary
fashion
in
partnerships
9
and
trying
to
be
innovative
and
providing
10
whatever
technical
assistance
we
can.
11
So
in
our
view,
the
subject
of
today's
12
meeting
is
very
critical.
It's
very
important
13
that
not
only
we
listen
to
you,
but
that
with
14
your
assistance,
we
finalize
this
rule
quickly
so
15
we
can
take
advantage
of
it
and
further
attack
16
the
problem
of
childhood
lead
poisoning.
17
So
let
me,
again,
welcome
you.
Let
me
18
close
by
saying
that
Margaret
and
Mardi
and
I,
in
19
particular,
in
Region
5
look
forward
to
working
20
with
all
of
you
over
the
next
several
months
and
21
years
and
hope
that
together
we
can
meet
our
22
objective.
Thank
you.
Thanks,
Margaret.
0006
1
MS.
GUERRIERO:
Thank
you,
Bharat.
Next,
I
2
wanted
to
introduce
Julie
Simpson,
again,
and
3
give
you
a
little
bit
more
background
before
she
4
begins
her
remarks.
5
As
I
mentioned,
she
is
the
Chief
of
6
the
Lead,
Heavy
Metals
and
Inorganics
Branch.
7
This
branch
administers
the
regulatory
and
policy
8
aspects
of
the
EPA's
Lead­
Based
Paint
Program.
9
She
also
has
served
in
EPA's
Office
of
General
10
Counsel
for
several
years
prior
to
coming
to
her
11
current
position.
Julie?
12
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thanks,
Margaret,
and
thanks
13
to
all
of
you
for
coming
today.
As
Bharat
said,
14
we're
doing
several
meetings
around
the
country
15
to
get
comments
from
the
public
on
the
Proposed
16
Renovation,
Repair
and
Painting
Rule.
17
This
is
the
first
of
five
that
we're
18
doing
in
the
next
two
weeks,
and
we've
had
by
far
19
the
greatest
turnout
for
the
meeting
in
Chicago
20
so
far.
So
I'm
very
glad
to
see
you
all
here
and
21
we're
very
interested
in
hearing
what
you
all
22
have
to
say.
0007
1
As
you
may
know,
there
is
a
public
2
docket
for
the
meeting
where
we're
accepting
3
written
comments.
There's
a
one­
pager
that
was
4
available
at
the
front
desk
that
will
tell
you
5
how
to
get
to
our
Web
site
and
the
various
6
Web
sites
where
you
can
go
to
if
you
want
to
7
submit
written
comments.
But
we're
also
going
to
8
be
transcribing
everything
that's
said
here
today
9
and
the
transcript
of
the
meeting
will
go
into
10
the
docket
and
be
treated
as
any
other
written
11
comment,
and
we
will
consider
all
of
this
12
material
when
we're
deliberating
and
deciding
13
which
way
to
go
when
we
do
the
final
rule.
So
14
all
of
your
input
is
very
important
and
we
really
15
appreciate
your
coming
to
give
it
to
us.
16
We
have
a
lot
of
people
who
have
17
signed
up
to
speak.
We
are
offering
everyone
ten
18
minutes
to
speak.
If
you
kind
of
talk
fast
like
19
me
and
you
don't
need
your
ten
minutes,
that's
20
fine
because
I
think
we
have
more
people
who
21
would
like
to
talk
than
may
have
the
opportunity
22
to.
We've
only
got
the
room
for
four
hours.
0008
1
We
have
two
people
from
ICF
Consulting
2
who
you
may
have
seen
out
front.
Pooja
is
taking
3
names,
and
if
you
haven't
registered,
please
do
4
so.
She's
sitting
at
the
back.
And
Amy
is
5
sitting
near
the
podium,
and
she'll
be
calling
6
the
speakers
in
the
order
in
which
they
signed
7
up,
and
she
will
be
our
enforcer
on
the
8
ten­
minute
rule.
So
if
she
suggests
to
you
that
9
it's
time
to
wrap
up,
please
do
so,
so
we
can
10
keep
things
moving.
11
Any
questions?
Anything
else
from
the
12
panel?
13
(
No
response.)
14
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thanks
a
lot.
Let's
get
15
going.
16
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
We're
going
to
start
17
with
folks
who
pre­
registered,
and
then
those
of
18
you
who
came
in
and
registered
today,
we'll
get
19
to
you
at
the
end.
20
So
the
first
person
on
my
list,
though
21
I
don't
know
if
she's
signed
in,
is
Cassandra
22
Alexander.
0009
1
(
No
response.)
2
MS.
MORTIMER:
Not
here.
Okay.
John
3
Bartlett
is
up
then,
and
after
John,
Steve
4
Brooks.
5
MR.
BARTLETT:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
6
John
Bartlett,
and
I'm
the
Executive
Director
of
7
the
Metropolitan
Tenants
Organization.
I'd
just
8
first
like
to
thank
the
EPA
for
holding
this
9
hearing
here
in
Chicago.
Appreciate
that.
10
The
Metropolitan
Tenants
Organization
11
is
the
largest
organizer
of
tenants
and
tenant
12
organizations
in
Chicago.
Our
tenants
rights
13
hotline
annually
answers
10,000
calls.
The
14
majority
of
these
calls
come
from
tenants
who
are
15
living
in
older
buildings,
pre­
1978,
which
have
16
lead
paint
in
them.
So
the
elimination
of
17
childhood
lead
poisoning
is
an
issue
of
great
18
importance
to
both
our
members
and
our
19
constituents.
20
On
that
note,
I
want
to
thank
the
21
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
its
proposal
22
to
require
lead
­­
the
use
of
lead
safe
work
0010
1
practices
in
all
older
buildings
unless
paint
2
samples
come
back
as
free
of
lead.
3
From
a
tenant
perspective,
we
believe
4
this
rule
will
help
prevent
the
poisoning
of
5
tenants.
All
too
often
we
receive
calls
from
6
tenants
whose
landlords
come
in
and
use
unskilled
7
laborers
to
replace
walls,
ceilings,
windows.
8
You
name
it,
they
come
in,
and
they
do
it
without
9
giving
tenants
notice
and
certainly
without
10
telling
them
of
any
­­
how
it
will
impact
their
11
health,
though
we
do
have
several
suggestions
12
that
we
believe
that
will
significantly
increase
13
the
effectiveness
of
the
rule
with
little
14
additional
cost.
15
First
is,
we
receive
many
calls
from
16
tenants
where
the
landlord
has
entered
their
unit
17
to
make
reservations
about
the
notice.
And
first
18
off,
we
believe
that
the
brochures
that
the
EPA
19
has
is
far
too
long
for
most
tenants.
You
know,
20
it's
geared
more
towards
homeowners
than
it
is
21
towards
tenants.
We
feel
a
two­
page
summary
of
22
what
the
laws
and
what
the
lead
safe
practices
0011
1
are
and
who
to
call.
I
think
that
is
the
most
2
important
thing
for
tenants
is
they
notice
3
something
going
wrong,
who
do
they
call,
and
what
4
can
they
do.
5
Secondly,
just
we
want
to
make
sure
6
that
the
notice
is
­­
the
enforcement
of
the
7
notice
actually
­­
that
notice
goes
out
because
8
all
too
often
­­
you
know,
I've
been
working
in
9
tenant
rights
for,
you
know,
20
years
­­
well,
10
20
years
counting
here
and
in
Seattle,
and
I
have
11
never
seen
a
notice
to
tenants
they're
­­
you
12
know,
that
they're
required
now
to
tell
them
that
13
there's
lead
when
they're
doing
renovation.
14
So
if
we're
actually
going
to
think
15
that
this
will
work,
then
I
think
that
there
16
needs
to
make
sure
that
tenants
get
this
and
that
17
it
needs
to
be
an
enforcement
policy
somehow.
18
You
either
need
to
give
the
city
or
the
local
19
governments
authority
to
enforce
this
or
you
need
20
to
give
tenants
some
way
to
say,
oh,
you're
not
21
doing
this
right,
and
that
we
can
then
do
22
something
or
that.
Or
else,
otherwise,
you
know,
0012
1
I'm
just
concerned
that
this
­­
even
though
you
2
have
this
great
rule,
that
it's
not
going
to
be
3
enforced
­­
or
how
is
it
going
to
be
enforced?
4
I
guess
the
next
thing
that
I
would
5
also
just
like
to
talk
about
is,
is
who
gets
this
6
notice.
And,
you
know,
I
think
it's
been
7
proposed
it
just
be
done
by
posting.
We
would
8
actually
suggest
that
it
actually
be
given
to
9
every
tenant
that
would
be
possibly
impacted.
Be
10
slid
­­
you
know,
either
put
on
their
door,
under
11
their
door,
or
in
their
mailbox
or
something
12
because
most
posting
does
not
always
work
for
13
several
reasons.
There's
oftentimes
multiple
14
entrances
and
tenants
use
different
ones.
They
15
may
not
see
where
it's
posted.
Sometimes
they
16
get
taken
down
or
other
times
there's
just
17
several
­­
four
or
five
postings
up
and
people
18
just
kind
of
walk
through.
So
if
we
really
want
19
to
get
that
to
tenants,
we
need
to
get
it
to
them
20
in
their
unit.
21
And
then
I
guess
we
also
just
want
to
22
make
sure
that
it
is
given
to
any
units
that
0013
1
could
possibly
be
impacted.
As
I
said,
2
oftentimes
we
see
landlords
that
are
just
open
up
3
the
windows,
take
out
the
walls,
and
throw
the
4
debris
out
of
the
window.
That
certainly
5
shouldn't
be
allowable,
but
that's
what
happens.
6
So
any
time
that
­­
the
tenants
and
all
the
units
7
around
there
should
be
notified
of
what
the
law
8
is
and
just
of
the
potential
impact
to
their
9
children.
10
We
would
also
like
to
see
that
­­
that
11
just
the
EPA
­­
let
me
just
­­
sorry
here.
That
12
the
disclosure
forms
­­
also
that
the
­­
that
13
after
the
landlords
­­
we
just
want
to
­­
I
guess
14
to
suggest
that
the
way
that
the
disclosure
forms
15
for
the
lead
has
actually
been
very
successful
16
and
we've
actually
noticed
a
much
higher
17
disclosure
rate
now
since
you've
been
prosecuting
18
landlords
for
failing
to
do
this.
We
think
that
19
something
like
that
would
be
both
useful
for
the
20
disclosure
now
of
the
lead
when
they're
going
to
21
be
doing
the
lead
work
and
also
for
making
sure
22
that
they
comply
to
the
rule
and
they're
0014
1
following
it.
So
that
there
needs
to
be
some,
2
you
know,
teeth
to
this,
and
we
really
want
to
3
see
that.
4
Lastly,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
5
the
­­
like
the
sandblasting
or
other
kind
of
6
things
like
this
are
not
used.
That
we
don't
7
really
feel
especially
in
an
occupied
building
8
that
they
can
be
done
safely.
That
it's
going
to
9
either
get
on
the
floor.
It
could
be
tracked
on.
10
It
could
just
get
all
around
in
a
unit
that's
11
occupied.
So,
you
know,
if
they're
going
to
be
12
using
these
kind
of
heat
burning
or
things
to
get
13
rid
of
the
lead
or
any
type
of
sandblasting
or
14
anything
like
that,
that,
you
know,
certainly
we
15
would
say
that
certainly
not
in
an
occupied
16
building.
17
And
lastly,
we
just
wanted
to
talk
a
18
little
bit
or
mention
that
we
don't
feel
that
a
19
white
glove
test
is
sufficient
to
be
used.
That
20
we
believe
that
you
can
come
up
with
a
cost
21
efficient
way
that
the
contractor
can
actually
22
perform
a
dust
wipe.
You
know,
I've
seen
the
0015
1
little
boxes,
and
you
can
get
them
for
$
25.00,
2
and
we
don't
feel
like
that
is
an
overly
3
exorbitant
test
to
be
done
before
allowing
4
tenants
back
into
a
unit
or
to
say
that
it's
5
ready
to
be
inhabited.
6
So
anyway,
I'd
just
like
to
close
by,
7
once
again,
saying
that
we
feel
that
this
is
a
8
very
positive
step
toward,
and
that
with
just
a
9
few
changes
we
believe
that
it
will
be
an
10
effective
measure
in
preventing
lead
poisoning.
11
Thank
you.
12
MS.
SIMPSON:
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
13
we've
got
a
separate
Federal
Register
Notice
out
14
for
comments
besides
the
rule
that
publishes
this
15
revised
brochure
that
kind
of
goes
with
the
16
rules,
"
Protect
Your
Family
From
Lead
During
17
Renovation,
Repair
and
Painting."
Mr.
Bartlett's
18
comments
reminded
me
of
that.
Both
of
the
19
comment
periods
close
on
April
10th
and
you
can
get
20
to
both
of
them
through
the
Web
site.
21
MS.
MORTIMER:
I
should
also
say,
if
you
22
brought
written
versions
of
your
comments,
you
0016
1
can
give
those
to
me
and
I'll
keep
them.
2
Next
up
is
Steve
Brooks.
And
while
3
Steve
is
coming
here,
let
me
check.
Did
John
4
Bieg
arrive
or
Susana
Borrero
or
John
Casey?
5
(
No
response.)
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
All
right.
So
Steve
is
up
7
and
then
John
after
him.
8
MR.
BROOKS:
Good
afternoon,
ladies
and
9
gentlemen.
My
name
is
Steve
Brooks,
and
I
am
a
10
Sanitarian
with
the
Macon
County
Health
11
Department
in
Decatur,
Illinois.
I
am
a
licensed
12
lead
inspector/
risk
assessor
with
IDPH
and
have
13
been
working
with
the
lead
poisoned
children
for
14
the
last
ten
years.
15
My
experience
also
includes
working
16
with
the
Chicago
Task
Force
for
Lead
Safe
Housing
17
since
its
inception,
which
was
started
by
18
Children
and
Youth
2000.
This
task
force
has
19
been
a
real
driving
force
for
lowering
the
number
20
of
lead
poisoned
children
in
Chicago.
And
21
congratulations
to
Loyola
Child
Law
Center's
22
Lead
Safe
Housing
Initiatives
for
being
selected
0017
1
by
the
USEPA
for
2006
Children's
Environmental
2
Health
Excellence
Award.
They
deserve
it.
3
I
also
just
served
on
the
Governor's
4
Advisory
Council
for
Lead
Safe
Housing
in
5
Illinois,
and
I
am
so
happy
to
see
so
many
of
my
6
colleagues
here.
7
Last
night
at
about
9:
30,
I
tore
up
8
the
speech
that
I
had
prepared
for
today.
My
9
speech
was
pointing
out
the
areas
that
I
10
disagreed
with
on
this
proposal,
and
I
decided
11
that
there
are
going
to
be
many
more
eloquent
12
speakers
here
than
myself.
So
I
decided
to
make
13
my
speech
more
about
examples
of
what
I
have
to
14
deal
with.
15
Everybody
can
point
out
problems
with
16
this
proposal,
but
not
many
people
can
speak
17
about
their
experiences
in
the
trenches
for
the
18
last
ten
years
as
an
inspector.
I
agree
19
wholeheartedly
that
we
need
to
streamline
this
20
process
and
make
it
economically
cheaper
to
do
21
lead
safe
work.
22
I've
been
working
on
a
master
degree
0018
1
at
the
U
of
I
in
Springfield.
I
did
a
risk
2
assessment
for
the
City
of
Decatur.
At
the
pace
3
that
we
are
moving
in
Decatur,
we
will
have
all
4
of
our
homes
lead
safe
in
about
800
years.
5
Please
keep
in
mind
that
I
work
downstate.
We
do
6
not
have
the
money,
the
courts,
the
enforcement,
7
et
cetera,
that
the
Chicago
area
enjoys.
The
8
lead
program
is
at
a
much
more
primitive
level
9
than
it
is
here.
That
is
one
of
the
reasons
I
10
have
been
looking
forward
to
a
proposal
from
the
11
EPA,
something
that
I
can
hang
my
hat
on,
as
the
12
old
saying
goes.
13
Unfortunately,
this
proposal
looks
14
like
it
was
put
together
in
a
hurry
without
much
15
forethought.
I
would
like
to
address
some
of
16
these
issues,
such
as
dangerous
practices,
17
enforcement,
training
on
the
job
site,
and
18
clearance
testing
with
dust
wipes.
19
Let's
start
with
dangerous
or
20
restricted
work
practices.
This
would
only
take
21
one
paragraph
to
include
in
the
proposal.
We
22
still
have
contractors,
the
guy
with
the
pickup
0019
1
truck
and
a
paint
brush,
landlords,
and
2
do­
it­
yourselfers
who
are
still
using
dangerous
3
work
practices
when
working
with
lead
paint.
We
4
even
have
one
licensed
lead
abatement
contractor
5
who
is
still
waterblasting
his
own
rental
6
properties,
blasting
chips
everywhere
on
7
boulevards,
other
people's
properties,
streets,
8
sidewalks,
et
cetera,
and
he
was
trained
not
to
9
do
that.
10
I
get
calls
every
year
from
people
11
upset
that
somebody
next
store
is
scattering
12
chips
onto
their
property.
That
is
why
I
had
13
developed
the
art
of
gentle
persuasion.
I
tell
14
them
they
could
work
with
me
or
I
will
call
the
15
EPA
and
they
can
deal
with
them.
Of
course,
I
16
tell
them
they
would
rather
work
with
me,
and
17
this
works
about
90
percent
of
the
time.
18
Of
course,
for
every
violation
I
see,
19
there
are
dozens
of
violations
going
on
that
I
do
20
not
see
or
hear
about.
Then
there
is
always
the
21
few
who
don't
care
what
I
say
and
they
tell
me
22
where
I
can
go.
I
had
one
gentleman
who
was
0020
1
using
an
illegal
heat
gun
to
remove
lead
paint.
2
He
told
me
you're
not
going
to
stop
me,
I'm
3
getting
paid
to
do
this,
and
I'm
almost
done.
4
We've
also
had
cases
where
the
parents
5
accidentally
poisoned
their
children
during
the
6
process
of
remodeling
or
repainting.
I
had
one
7
case
where
the
new
father
bought
a
house
in
the
8
older
part
of
the
city
and
decided
to
burn
the
9
paint
off
with
an
open
torch.
He
got
10
three­
fourths
of
the
way
done
when
he
found
out
11
he
had
poisoned
his
six­
month­
old
son.
This
12
caused
real
hardships
for
the
newly­
married
13
couple.
14
I
read
in
a
book
years
ago
where
15
Millie,
one
of
the
dogs
at
the
White
House,
was
16
poisoned
by
unsafe
lead
work
practices
during
a
17
remodeling
of
the
White
House.
18
Please
add
restricted
or
dangerous
19
work
practices
to
this
proposal
along
with
some
20
type
of
enforcement.
People
are
always
looking
21
for
the
gray
areas
and
enforcement
is
in
these
22
areas.
People
figure
that
out
in
a
hurry.
0021
1
Another
problem
I
see
with
this
proposal
is
that
2
there
may
be
nobody
on
the
job
site
that
knows
3
what
"
lead
safe
work
practices"
really
means.
If
4
workers
are
trained
on
the
job
and
the
certified
5
renovator
only
has
to
be
as
close
as
a
telephone,
6
who
is
doing
the
training?
7
From
my
experience,
when
the
cat
is
8
away,
the
mice
will
play.
I
saw
two
contractors
9
and
the
workers
go
through
training.
One
10
contractor
bought
all
the
equipment,
hired
an
11
industrial
hygienist
to
tell
him
all
his
workers
12
needed
PPE,
dedicated
vehicles
and
tools
through
13
lead
only
work.
Bought
nice
materials
to
do
the
14
job,
did
all
the
safety
requirements,
and
he
15
couldn't
get
any
bids.
The
other
contractor
did
16
it
as
cheaply
as
possible,
used
cheap
materials,
17
cut
every
corner
he
could,
didn't
do
all
the
18
safety
stuff,
and
he
survived.
He
was
also
the
19
one
I
mentioned
that
was
waterblasting
his
own
20
properties.
21
There
needs
to
be
a
good
training
22
program
with
enforcement.
This
proposal
also
0022
1
says
that
the
certified
renovator
may
use
an
2
acceptable
test
kit
to
determine
whether
3
lead­
based
paint
is
present
in
affected
areas.
4
Is
there
an
acceptable
test
kit
on
the
market
5
that
is
accurate
enough?
Not
according
to
HUD.
6
Which
brings
me
to
what
I
think
is
the
7
most
important
issue
in
this
proposal.
According
8
to
this
new
proposal,
a
certified
renovator
may
9
verify
the
cleanliness
of
the
work
area
using
a
10
procedure
involving
disposable
cleaning
clothes.
11
In
all
the
jobs
that
I
have
worked
on,
12
it
is
rare
for
all
the
dust
wipes
to
past
13
clearance,
which
means
we
have
to
make
the
14
contractor
go
back
and
clean
again.
Since
lead
15
dust
is
mostly
invisible
to
the
eye,
they
see
no
16
reason
to
do
any
more
cleaning.
Letting
the
17
contractor
do
clearance
is
like
letting
the
fox
18
watch
the
chickens.
There
may
be
more
hazardous
19
dust
there
now
than
there
was
before
he
started.
20
After
work
is
completed,
will
people
21
have
a
false
sense
of
security
and
not
have
their
22
children
tested
anymore?
If
it
is
grandma
or
0023
1
grandpa's
house
that
has
been
renovated,
is
it
2
safe
for
the
grandkids
to
come
over
and
play?
3
Especially
when
common
areas,
pregnant
women,
or
4
women
of
child
bearing
age
are
not
taken
into
5
consideration
for
targeting.
6
This
proposal
is
not
a
prevention
7
policy.
This
proposal
puts
us
back
to
square
8
one.
With
this
proposal,
to
only
do
lead
safe
9
work
practices
where
children
under
six
live,
the
10
diminimous
of
two
square
feet
per
component,
not
11
using
lead
safe
work
practices,
the
system
of
12
trying
to
conduct
a
thorough
cleanup
and
a
way
to
13
verify
that
cleanup
was
effective
leaves
our
14
children
exactly
where
they
were
before.
We
will
15
be
using
our
children
as
canaries
to
tell
us
when
16
jobs
have
been
botched.
17
Thank
you
for
listening
today.
And
by
18
the
way,
I
have
some
handouts
back
on
the
table
19
back
there
that
I
use
to
teach
people
what
20
deteriorating
lead
paint
looks
like
and
people
21
are
welcome
to
pick
one
up
there.
Thank
you.
22
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
0024
1
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
We've
got
John
Casey
2
and
Samuel
Churchill
after
him.
3
MR.
CASEY:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
4
John
Casey.
I'm
President
and
CEO
of
5
Greentree
Environmental
Services,
offices
in
6
Portage,
Indiana
and
Indianapolis,
Indiana.
I
7
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
8
USEPA's
Proposed
Renovation,
Repair
and
Painting
9
Rule.
10
Greentree
is
a
major
lead
contractor
11
throughout
the
midwest
with
12
multistate
license
12
risk
assessors.
We're
a
licensed
abatement
13
contractor
in
Indiana
as
well
as
offer
14
supervisory
services
including
lead
stabilization
15
crews
doing
work
in
several
states
for
like
VA
16
and
different
organizations.
17
Personally,
I'm
a
licensed
risk
18
assessor/
approved
trainer
for
all
lead
and
19
asbestos
disciplines
and
an
audited
safe
work
20
practice
trainer.
I
sit
on
several
lead
21
elimination
committees,
the
Indiana
Governor's
22
Task
Force
as
well
as
work
hand­
in­
hand
with
the
0025
1
Indiana
State
Department
of
Health
in
an
effort
2
to
identify
lead
poisoned
children.
3
We
do
the
EBL
investigations
for
about
4
65
of
the
counties
in
Indiana.
I
really
hope
EPA
5
in
this
instance
will
put
their
ear
to
the
ground
6
and
listen
to
the
gentlemen
who
preceded
me
as
7
well
as
the
ones
to
come.
I
have
some
other
8
comments
to
make,
but
my
most
important
point
9
here
is
that
I'm
one
of
the
ones
out
there
10
speaking
with
the
contractors
when
we
force
them
11
to
come
through
the
door
for
this
training.
And
12
when
I
say,
"
force,"
that's
literal.
The
only
13
time
­­
if
you
can
get
them
to
bid
because
lead
14
scares
them.
They
don't
know
what
to
do
with
it.
15
We
find
that
the
only
reason
that
they're
even
16
there
is
to
be
able
to
bid
on
the
city
projects
17
or
the
grants
that
are
coming
out
available
or
18
whatever.
19
The
most
comments
that
I
get
from
20
these
contractors
are,
number
one,
how
am
I
going
21
to
compete?
There's
no
way
that
I
can
do
22
everything
that
I'm
supposed
to
do
lead
safe
and
0026
1
compete
with
Joe
Blow
Contractor
across
the
2
street
who
does
absolutely
nothing.
One
of
them
3
commented
to
me
that
on
his
way
to
the
class,
and
4
this
was
in
Fort
Wayne,
Indiana,
he
watched
two
5
gentlemen
take
a
tarp
from
the
side
of
the
house,
6
as
he
was
at
a
stoplight,
with
paint
chips
on
it,
7
walk
it
out
to
the
street
and
flip
it
into
the
8
street.
This
is
a
common
practice.
When
asking
9
these
contractors
how
many
of
them
give
10
disclosure
for
pre­'
78
homes,
in
almost
1,000
11
students,
I
have
never
had
one
tell
me
that
12
they've
been
doing
it
or
know
any
other
13
contractor
who's
doing
it.
14
As
this
rule
is
set,
I
think
it
would
15
have
been
­­
one
of
my
colleagues
commented
that
16
when
we
started
this
ten
years
ago,
and
we've
17
been
in
business
since
'
96,
that
this
would
have
18
been
a
great
start
because
then
we
really
had
no
19
direction
until
lead
safe
rule
came
out.
Now
in
20
the
state
of
Indiana,
we've
been
working
for
ten
21
years
to
get
to
the
point
to
where
we're
at.
You
22
have
the
Attorney
General
willing
to
prosecute
0027
1
landlords,
but
in
order
to
fight
and
get
this
2
legislation
passed
and
all
the
things
that
we've
3
done
with
the
rule
makings
that
we
have
done,
it
4
takes
legislative
support.
5
When
the
EPA
comes
out
in
direct
6
conflict
with
their
initial
direction
when
all
7
this
started,
and
the
states
have
promulgated
8
laws
and
rules
to
support
those,
and
then
you
9
come
back
in
and
say,
oh,
that's
okay,
this
isn't
10
needed
anymore,
that
kind
of
sets
us
back.
I
11
mean,
we're
lost
pups.
12
I
really
think
that
a
lot
of
thought
13
went
into
your
proposal,
but
I
think
what
you
14
missed
is
­­
not
so
much
missed,
but
I
think
you
15
went
into
it
with
the
expectation
of
a
contractor
16
performing
due
diligence.
With
the
turnover
of
17
contractors,
their
workers,
I
have
to
tell
you
18
that
I
don't
know
­­
other
than
mine,
of
course,
19
I
don't
know
any
contracting
company
that
20
performs
due
diligence
when
it
comes
to
lead
21
work.
I
seldom
­­
I've
had
contractors
take
the
22
course,
as
it
stands,
go
back
to
their
office,
0028
1
tell
their
girls
to
go
out
and
clean
the
house
2
with
no
training,
no
nothing,
and
on
a
$
999
job,
3
one
instance
by
Terra
Haute,
the
man
had
to
get
4
six
clearances.
Now
­­
actually
seven,
and
I
5
helped
him
with
one,
didn't
charge
him,
and
he
6
called
the
head
of
VA
to
report
me
because
I
7
popped
a
paint
bubble
and
told
him
that
was
8
wrong.
9
So
­­
but
my
point
is,
is
that
seldom
10
ever,
as
the
gentleman
said
before,
do
clearances
11
pass.
A
white
glove,
it
would
be
great
if
we
12
were
clearing
dirt,
but
we're
clearing
lead,
and
13
I
mean,
some
of
that
can't
be
seen.
I
can't
tell
14
you
how
many
surfaces
I've
seen
that
looked
clean
15
and
did
not
pass
clearance.
You
get
to
a
16
basement
floor,
you
know,
unless
you
paint
that
17
basement
floor,
it's
not
going
to
pass.
There
18
are
several
instances,
bathtub
­­
and
to
put
this
19
on
the
contractor
to
say,
sure,
go
ahead.
And
I
20
mean,
you
know,
I'm
kind
of
torn
with
this
21
because
as
a
contractor
it
would
be
real
easy
for
22
me,
a
white
glove
test.
So
that
means
I
could
0029
1
have
my
guys
clean
wherever
I'm
going
to
sample
2
and
make
sure
that
area
is
cleaned
where
I
can
3
hold
up
the
card
and
white
glove
and
say,
gee,
4
we're
good
to
go.
And
that's
what's
going
to
5
happen,
if
they
even
do
that.
6
To
hear
these
guys
cry
about
having
to
7
do
this
stuff
­­
and
understand,
when
I
do
the
8
class,
I
was
one
of
the
ones
to
do
hands­
on.
9
They
called
me
to
D.
C.
because
of
it
years
ago.
10
And
so
with
that,
I
try
to
instill
in
these
11
contractors
that
it
will
save
them
money,
cleanup
12
time,
and
everything
else.
But
what
the
bottom
13
line
is,
is
they
have
another
job
and
they're
14
going
to
rip
and
run
just
as
quickly
as
they
can.
15
And
if
it's
up
to
them
to
pass
clearance,
they're
16
going
to
pass
it,
and
I'm
afraid
it
will
severely
17
affect
our
children.
18
I'd
like
to
note,
supplemental
19
information
based
on
EPA
studies
that
are
cited
20
in
the
proposed
rule
does
not
appear
to
be
21
followed.
Federal
Register
1595­
1597
40
CFR
22
Part
745
III
C.
1.,
Renovation
and
remodeling
0030
1
study,
EPA
identified
that
where
lead­
based
paint
2
was
present,
activities
that
are
routinely
3
performed
as
part
of
renovation
and
remodeling
4
can
create
significant
amounts
of
leaded
dust,
5
which
would
not
effectively
contain
and
clean
up
6
the
proposed
hazards
to
the
occupant.
7
Phase
III
of
the
study
found
a
8
statistically
significant
link
between
activities
9
that
are
routinely
performed
as
part
of
the
10
renovation
and
remodeling
projects
and
may
11
increase
risk
of
elevated
blood
lead
levels
in
12
children.
13
All
the
information
that
we've
got,
14
everything
that
EPA
has
published
and
HUD
has
15
published
has
told
us
that
the
prohibited
16
practices
need
to
be
prohibited.
That
the
17
contractors
leave
places
dirty,
which
in
essence
18
are
at
risk
for
children.
19
SBA
and
OMB
recommend
that
EPA
not
20
prohibit
work
practices
relying,
again,
instead
21
on
the
effectiveness
of
containment
and
cleanup
22
work
practice
requirements.
I
believe
this
0031
1
recommendation
would
be
based,
again,
on
the
2
due­
diligent
contractor
that's
supposed
to
be
3
following
the
rule.
4
A
State
of
Maryland
study
evaluating
5
the
effectiveness
of
visual
clearances
showed
6
that
dust
levels
remain
in
hazard
levels
above
7
clearance
levels
established
by
EPA
dust
hazard
8
guidelines.
R
and
R
panel
report
for
analysis
of
9
Phase
III
data
indicates
the
general
residential
10
R
and
R,
remodeling
and
rehab,
is
associated
with
11
an
increased
risk
of
elevated
blood
lead
levels
12
in
children,
specifically
a
child
living
in
a
13
residence
where
R
and
R
was
conducted
in
the
last
14
12
months
was
30
percent
more
likely
to
have
an
15
elevated
blood
lead
level.
Phase
III
also
shows
16
that
some
R
and
R
activities,
paint
removed
by
17
heat
gun,
open
flame,
chemical
stripper,
and
18
surface
prep
were
specifically
associated
with
19
higher
frequencies
of
elevated
blood
lead
levels
20
in
children.
21
The
agency
concluded
from
the
study
22
that
many
work
activities
can
produce
or
release
0032
1
large
quantities
of
lead
that
may
be
associated
2
with
elevated
blood
lead
levels.
The
study
goes
3
on
to
say
any
work
activity
that
produces
dust
4
and
debris
may
create
a
lead
exposure
problem.
5
The
geometric
mean
blood
lead
level
for
R
and
R
6
professionals
was
significantly
greater
than
for
7
homeowners.
8
The
agency
concluded
from
this
study
9
that
many
R
and
R
work
activities
can
produce
and
10
release
large
quantities
of
lead
and
may
be
11
associated
with
elevated
blood
lead
levels.
12
These
activities
include
but
are
not
limited
to
13
sanding,
cutting,
window
replacement,
and
14
demolition.
Lead
exposure
to
R
and
R
workers
15
appears
to
be
less
of
a
problem
than
to
building
16
occupants,
especially
young
children.
Some
17
workers
and
homeowners
are
occasionally
exposed
18
to
high
levels
of
lead.
Any
work
activity
that
19
produces
dust
and
debris
may
create
a
lead
20
exposure
problem.
21
And,
you
know,
to
that,
I
was
really
22
hopeful
when
I
saw
the
proposed
final
rule
come
0033
1
out.
And
now
I'm
almost
beginning
to
feel
like
2
I've
worked
ten
years
for
nothing.
Everything
3
that
Greentree
has
done,
I
mean,
granted
finally
4
there
started
being
some
lead
work
and
that
was
5
because,
again,
it
was
forced.
No
cities
could
6
do
work
with
federal
money
unless
it
was
­­
7
unless
there
was
safe
work
practices
being
used
8
and
risk
assessments
being
done.
9
We
were
hoping
for
five
years
before
10
we
ever
really
started
doing
any
business
off
of
11
the
lead
industry.
And
now
­­
and
that
was
only
12
because
the
government
forced
the
issue.
And
for
13
the
government
to
back
off
like
it
is
now,
and
14
that's
how
everybody
sees
this,
has
got
people
15
infuriated
from
coast
to
coast.
My
phone
hasn't
16
stopped
ringing
and
people
complaining
as
we
go.
17
Now
contractors,
again,
I
really
think
18
that
there
should
be
a
refresher
course
and
19
state­
applied
safe
work
practice
courses.
I
20
think
pregnant
women
should
be
included
in
the
21
rule
because
they're
not
now.
And
as
far
as
the
22
chemical
test,
it's
my
understanding
from
the
0034
1
industry
that
there
is
nothing
and
probably
will
2
be
nothing
that
will
go
down
to
those
levels.
3
There's
nothing
in
the
rule
about
the
interim
4
time
until
that
happens.
What
do
we
do
until
5
then
on
the
chemical
test?
At
worst
case,
I
6
would
like
to
­­
best
case,
I'm
sorry,
I
would
7
like
to
see
the
XRF
used
in
clearances.
That's
8
been
approved,
it
has
to
be
checked,
but
I
think
9
the
studies
are
there
and
the
numbers
are
there
10
to
show
that
that
can
be
and
done
safely.
11
Thank
you
for
your
time.
12
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you,
John.
13
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Samuel
Churchill
is
14
up.
Is
Monica
Dillon
here
yet?
15
(
No
response.)
16
MS.
MORTIMER:
Doug
Hanrahan?
17
(
No
response.)
18
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
You're
up
next.
19
MR.
CHURCHILL:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
20
Sam
Churchill.
I'm
the
Environmental
Lead
21
Program
Manager
for
the
Illinois
Department
of
22
Public
Health,
specifically
the
Division
of
0035
1
Environmental
Health.
2
I'd
like
to
echo
some
of
my
cohorts
it
3
sounds
like.
We're
all
on
the
same
page
at
least
4
when
it
comes
to
some
of
these.
Specifically,
5
let
me
just
quickly
state,
I've
been
involved
in
6
the
environmental
side
of
lead
poisoning
since
7
about
the
mid
1970s,
so
I've
seen
a
vast
8
progression
from
­­
to
where
we
wouldn't
even
go
9
out
on
a
child
unless
the
child
had
a
blood
lead
10
level
up
to
45,
50,
60
micrograms
per
deciliter
11
to
where
we
are
now.
And
we
applaud
them
12
literally,
the
EPA's
effort,
with
putting
forth
13
this
rule
and
regulation,
but
we
strongly
feel
14
that,
in
fact,
there
are
some
areas
that
may
­­
15
in
fact,
could
use
a
little
bit
extra
work.
16
Specifically
those
are
Item
IV.
E.,
Cleaning
17
Verification,
which
is
on
Page
1614.
We
feel
18
that
the
use
of
a
visual
test
in
comparing
a
19
wiping
cloth
to
a
cleaning
verification
card
to
20
determine
whether
or
not
the
surface
passes
21
clearance
prior
to
reoccupancy
is
insufficient
in
22
determining
acceptable
levels
of
lead
dust
and
0036
1
thereby
not
protective
literally
of
the
public's
2
health.
3
The
current
methodology
of
dust
4
sampling
used
in
an
accredited
lead
testing
5
laboratory
to
quantifiably
determine
the
level
of
6
lead
dust
should
be
utilized.
When
testing
7
measurements
such
as
nanotechnology
and
wiping
8
cloths
become
available,
then,
in
fact,
the
9
procedures
can
be
changed
to
reflect
that
10
particular
type
of
technology.
But
let's
not
put
11
that
in
effect
in
the
rules
until
it
becomes
12
available
for
use.
13
The
department
believes
that
a
better
14
alternative
would
be
for
a
third
party
to
conduct
15
a
sampling
to
determine
compliance
with
the
16
clearance
standards
rather
than
a
certified
17
renovator
determining
compliance
with
the
rule
on
18
work
that
he,
in
fact,
was
involved
in.
19
Hopefully
that
would
reduce
any
potential
20
conflict
of
interest.
21
Another
item
that
we
have
comments
on
22
is
Item
IV.
B.,
and
the
Scope
of
Proposed
0037
1
Regulations,
Pages
1598
through
1599.
We're
2
specifically
concerned
about
the
two­
phased
3
approach
in
this
particular
activity.
Literally,
4
since
I
can
remember
at
least,
1978
has
kind
of
5
been
our
standard.
A
lot
of
the
literature
6
points
to
1978
and,
of
course,
we
know
why
with
7
the
lead
being
removed.
In
fact,
maybe
a
little
8
bit
before
1978,
but
1978
is
a
good,
safe
area
to
9
go
into.
A
two­
phased
approach,
we
feel,
is
10
going
to
be
confusing.
Number
one,
it's
going
to
11
be
difficult
to
follow,
and
number
two,
there
may
12
not
be
a
lot
of
individuals
that
know
13
specifically
when
their
house
was
built.
14
In
fact,
is
a
1970
house
that
much
15
more
of
a
detriment
than
a
1978
versus
a
1950
16
house?
Sometimes
it's
real
difficult,
in
fact,
17
unless
the
individuals
actually
built
the
house
18
and
have
lived
in
it
ever
since.
So
we
feel
that
19
literally
to
abandon
this
benchmark
would
be
20
detrimental
to
our
program,
especially
since
all
21
information
and
literature
identified
pre­'
78
22
housing
as
reason
for
concern
for
a
child
with
0038
1
possible
lead
poisoning.
2
We're
also
concerned
in
allowing
the
3
use
of
currently
available
test
kits
to
determine
4
the
presence
of
lead­
based
paint.
It
was
stated
5
in
the
proposal
that
NIST
research
found
that
6
false
positive
rates
are
as
high
as
78
percent.
7
So,
therefore,
there
could
be
a
large
amount
of
8
work
that
was
done
with
lead
safe
work
practices,
9
of
course,
when,
in
fact,
it
wasn't
needed,
10
thereby
adding
the
cost
of
the
renovation.
11
This
department
agrees
with
EPA
that
12
with
improved
technology,
these
tests
can
be
13
reliable.
However,
we
believe
it
would
be
14
prudent
to
develop
and
test
the
technology,
then
15
include
it
in
the
rule.
16
My
last
item
concerns
Item
D,
and
I
17
think
I'm
echoing
it
from
my
previous
speakers,
18
and
that's
prohibited
practices.
The
department
19
is
concerned
that
allowing
practices
that
are
20
currently
prohibited
in
lead­
based
paint
21
abatement
activities
would
be
detrimental
and
22
could
possibly
cause
new
lead­
based
paint
0039
1
hazards.
Using
prohibited
practices
such
as
open
2
flame
burning,
machine
sanding,
abrasive
blast,
3
and
grinding
can
expose
the
occupants
and
the
4
renovators
to
additional
hazards.
We
feel
that
5
literally
that
would
be
a
step
backward.
6
We
would
suggest
that
if
a
prohibited
7
practice
must
be
utilized
­­
and,
again,
there
8
are
times
when,
in
fact,
it
could
be
appropriate
9
to
utilize
that
versus
historical
housing.
There
10
will
be
a
specific
activity
in
that
renovation.
11
A
variance
mechanism
should
be
put
forth,
thereby
12
allowing
the
renovator
to
approach
agencies
such
13
as
mine
and
ask
for
a
variance
on
the
particular
14
type
of
work
practices.
I
think
there
should
be
15
a
compromise
that
could
be
worked
out
between
the
16
renovator
and
the
enforcing
agency
and/
or
the
17
follow­
up
with
it
and
with
maybe
additional
18
cleaning
procedures
to
be
utilized
prior
to
19
reoccupancy.
20
Again,
I
applaud
the
USEPA
on
putting
21
forth
these
rules
and
regulations.
We
will
look
22
forward
to
working
with
you
in
the
future
on
0040
1
these
rules.
In
fact,
with
these
particular
2
rules,
I
think
I
could
honestly
say
that
at
least
3
something
is
better
than
nothing,
so
go
forth
4
from
that.
Thank
you.
5
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
Doug
is
up.
Is
Mike
Heuser
7
here
from
NARI?
Okay.
So
Doug,
then
Mike.
8
MR.
HANRAHAN:
Hi.
My
name
is
Doug
9
Hanrahan.
I'm
a
property
manager
with
Wirtz
10
Realty
in
Chicago.
I'm
a
member
of
the
Chicago
11
Association
of
Realtors
and
the
National
12
Association
of
Realtors.
I'd
like
to
thank
you
13
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
the
14
proposed
rule.
15
We
have
a
number
of
concerns
about
the
16
proposal.
First,
our
concern
has
to
do
with
17
enforcement
of
the
rule.
Even
if
this
rule
18
becomes
delegable
to
state
government,
it's
19
completely
unknown
how
this
would
be
enforced
20
given
the
fact
that
in
Illinois,
for
example,
21
most
renovators­
contractors,
painters,
carpenters
22
are
not
licensed
or
regulated
by
the
state.
It's
0041
1
unclear
how
the
renovators
will
be
even
aware
2
that
they're
required
to
be
certified
in
these
3
work
practice
standards.
4
If
the
states
do
create
a
new
5
regulatory
structure
to
ensure
that
renovators
6
are
certified,
the
cost
of
that
regulation
would
7
be
passed
to
the
renovators
who,
in
turn,
pass
it
8
on
to
the
property
owners.
That
cost
would
be
in
9
addition
to
the
cost
related
to
the
actual
10
compliance
with
specific
components
of
the
rule.
11
The
proposed
rule
requires
that
a
12
certified
renovator
supervise
each
and
every
13
renovation
defined
as
activity
that
disturbs
more
14
than
two
square
feet
of
paint.
The
Association
15
of
Realtors
believes
that
such
a
requirement
will
16
result
in
a
potential
disincentive
for
property
17
owners
to
conduct
regular
maintenance
of
their
18
properties.
This
could
result
in
deferred
19
maintenance
of
the
target
housing,
possibly
20
creating
greater
lead
hazards.
Due
to
the
21
increased
expense,
administrative
burden,
and
22
time
involved
in
complying
with
the
rule,
some
0042
1
owners
may
be
forced
to
defer
small
maintenance
2
activities
until
they
are
forced
to
deal
with
3
larger
problems.
4
EPA
has
also
requested
comment
on
5
whether
or
not
the
rule
should
apply
when
housing
6
is
unoccupied,
for
example,
during
the
turnover
7
of
a
unit.
We
would
argue
that
requiring
such
a
8
practice
in
a
vacant
unit
be
unnecessary
unless
9
the
unit
is
going
to
be
immediately
occupied
10
right
after
the
work
is
completed.
11
The
proposed
rule
requires
that
a
12
certified
renovator
be
present
at
the
work
site
13
on
a
regular
basis
to
oversee
the
work
practices,
14
but
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
or
not
this
15
individual
should
be
physically
present
at
the
16
work
site
at
all
times.
Comments
were
also
17
requested
about
whether
this
individual
should
be
18
prohibited
from
being
assigned
to
more
than
one
19
job
site
at
a
time.
We
believe
that
such
a
20
requirement
would
be
unnecessary.
Providing
21
oversight
by
a
certified
renovator
on
a
regular
22
basis
would
be
sufficient
for
quality
control
0043
1
over
the
project.
Furthermore,
the
rules
state
2
that
all
persons
performing
renovation
activities
3
must
have
on­
the­
job
training
by
a
certified
4
renovator.
This
is
sufficient
for
ensuring
that
5
the
practices
are
used.
6
We
are
opposed
to
the
possible
7
requirement
that
EPA
is
­­
be
notified
prior
to
8
the
start
of
all
renovation
jobs.
As
a
practical
9
matter,
this
would
be
infeasible
and
may
result
10
in
property
owners
deferring
all
maintenance
11
until
such
time
that
they
could
take
care
of
all
12
their
jobs
at
the
same
time
in
order
to
13
consolidate
notification.
We
urge
EPA
to
stick
14
to
their
proposal
not
­­
their
proposal
not
to
15
require
such
notification.
16
The
proposed
rule
does
not
require
17
dust
clearance
sampling
after
each
renovation
18
project.
We
fully
support
the
reasoning
the
EPA
19
has
used
in
not
requiring
this
testing.
Dust
20
sampling
is
expensive
and
time
consuming.
While
21
waiting
for
test
results,
the
renovation
area
22
would
require
­­
would
have
to
remain
unoccupied
0044
1
and
this
could
create
tremendous
burden
on
the
2
property
owners
and
residents.
Such
a
3
requirement
would
result
in
deferred
maintenance
4
and
deteriorating
properties.
In
order
to
gain
5
the
most
possible
compliance,
the
EPA
should
stay
6
away
from
requirements
that
make
­­
that
would
7
make
the
use
of
lead
safe
practices
more
8
difficult.
We
are
urging
the
EPA
to
stand
by
9
their
decision
not
to
require
dust
clearance
10
sampling
for
job
renovations.
11
Lastly,
the
proposed
rule
requires
­­
12
excuse
me,
the
proposed
rules
makes
several
13
mentions
of
fees,
fees
for
applications,
fees
for
14
trainings.
The
Association
of
Realtors
urges
the
15
EPA
to
make
the
training
for
certified
renovators
16
free
for
a
period
of
time
in
order
to
help
17
facilitate
the
creation
of
this
kind
of
18
workforce.
EPA
and
HUD
have
­­
they've
provided
19
this
kind
of
free
training
period
for
other
rules
20
that
have
been
helpful
in
gaining
compliance.
We
21
urge
the
EPA
to
do
the
same
with
this
rule.
22
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
and
good
0045
1
luck.
2
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
3
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Mike,
and
then
John
4
Hoose.
5
MR.
HEUSER:
Good
afternoon.
I
come
to
6
comment
a
little
different
than
some
of
the
other
7
speakers.
I'm
here
as
a
contractor
from
8
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin,
also
Government
Affair
9
Chair
for
the
National
Association
Remodeling
10
Industry.
11
I'm
here
not
to
talk
about
tenant
and
12
landlord
situations.
I'm
here
more
to
talk
about
13
remodeling
and
renovation
in
homes,
private
14
homes,
condos,
and
churches.
One
of
the
things
15
that
we
did
not
see
addressed
was
the
additional
16
insurance
cost
to
contractors.
This
subject
was
17
brought
up
and
we
had
a
meeting
in
Madison
with
18
Wisconsin
State
Bureau
of
Occupational
Health
and
19
Family
Services,
contractors,
insurance
20
companies,
and
lead
training
abatement
21
contractors.
The
State
of
Wisconsin
was
not
22
concerned
about
the
additional
cost
of
insurance
0046
1
for
contractors,
but
the
insurance
companies
and
2
the
contractors
are
concerned.
3
The
President
of
Tower
Specialty
4
Facilities
is
concerned
about
lead
liability
5
insurance.
He
said
it
would
be
available,
but
6
the
policies
would
cost
anywhere
from
$
2,500
to
7
$
3,000
a
year
for
a
contractor
doing
only
a
8
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
of
gross
receipts.
9
You
could
also
write
a
combined
10
general
liability
and
lead
liability
policy
for
a
11
higher
premium.
I'm
figuring
this
would
probably
12
cost
our
company
about
$
75,000
additional
per
13
year
to
cover
our
people
in
the
dollar
volume
of
14
work
we
do.
Their
feeling
also
was
if
a
current
15
contractor
becomes
certified
and
his
general
16
liability
carrier
finds
out,
they
may
not
renew
17
his
policy.
Even
though
general
liability
has
a
18
lead
contamination
exclusion,
carriers
do
not
19
want
to
be
drawn
into
lead
claims
or
lawsuits
20
from
a
defense
standpoint.
Contractors
might
be
21
hard­
pressed
to
obtain
general
liability
coverage
22
at
reasonable
prices
when
they
become
certified
0047
1
for
lead
work.
2
The
cost
of
doing
business
will
3
increase.
The
training
of
employees,
which
4
someone
just
brought
up,
will
run
about
$
250
per
5
person
with
additional
cost
of
wages
and
6
additional
cost
of
insurance.
Having
­­
the
way
7
we
do
our
work,
we
would
almost
have
to
train
8
every
one
of
our
people
and
it
would
become
very
9
costly.
We
also
feel
the
cost
of
doing
simple
10
projects,
a
simple
bathroom,
could
run
15
percent
11
higher
than
it
does
without
using
the
lead
safe
12
practices.
And
on
larger
projects
where
we
have
13
multiple
contractors
it
would
be
even
more.
14
We're
also
concerned
about
the
15
enforcement
of
the
new
regulations.
Who
will
16
enforce
this
regulation?
Will
an
additional
17
layer
of
state
employees
to
permit,
enforce,
and
18
inspect
projects
be
needed?
The
documentation
of
19
certifying
contractors
and
paperwork
will
also
20
add
costs
for
government
and
contractors.
21
If
we
put
this
responsibility
on
22
building
inspection
departments
that
are
already
0048
1
overworked,
we
will
add
to
their
cost
and
extend
2
the
time
frame
of
projects.
At
this
time,
3
getting
timely
permits
and
inspections
is
already
4
an
issue
in
the
building
trade.
Add
to
this
the
5
inspectors
obtaining
permits
and
inspections
will
6
become
a
larger
problem.
Although
the
7
regulation,
if
this
does
go
through,
will
not
8
work
if
it
is
not
enforced.
The
additional
costs
9
for
enforcing
this
will
be
an
issue
that
will
10
need
to
be
looked
at.
11
As
I
see
it,
if
it's
done
on
the
state
12
level,
it's
going
to
be
passed
on
to
all
13
taxpayers
and
the
additional
costs
of
remodeling
14
and
renovation
will
be
passed
on
to
everyone,
not
15
just
those
who
fall
under
the
regulation.
The
16
contractors
who
do
spend
the
money,
time,
and
17
additional
insurance
costs
will
be
at
a
18
disadvantage
over
those
who
do
no
work,
who
19
decide
to
do
the
work
without
being
certified
20
without
permits.
The
regulation
will
promote
21
additional
unpermitted
remodeling
and
a
wider
gap
22
between
professional
contractors
and
contractors
0049
1
who
do
not
carry
liability
and
workmen's
comp.
2
We
already
have
a
problem
with
this
3
type
of
work.
We
have
an
underground
society
4
that
does
work
for
cash,
that
does
­­
has
no
5
insurance
and
does
not
take
permits.
The
6
regulation
does
not
also
address
homeowners
doing
7
their
own
remodeling.
Many
young
families
with
8
children
buy
older
homes,
fix
them
up,
then
move
9
on
to
another
home
leaving
lead
contaminated
10
homes
for
the
next
owner.
The
responsibility
of
11
lead
paint
should
be
the
homeowner's
12
responsibility,
not
contractors.
13
For
contractors,
there's
a
problem
of
14
preexisting
conditions.
Lead
testing
will
become
15
the
norm
if
these
regulations
pass.
Contractors
16
have
to
document,
document,
and
document
in
order
17
to
cover
themselves
in
case
of
lawsuits.
The
18
money
to
enact
and
enforce
these
regs
might
be
19
better
spent
on
outreach
education,
awareness,
20
and
grants
to
fix
up
homes
for
homeowners
in
the
21
lower
income
brackets.
22
NARI
and
the
National
Association
of
0050
1
Home
Builders
have
worked
with
the
EPA
in
the
2
past
in
educating
contractors
in
lead
safe
3
practices.
Many
professional
contractors
work
to
4
have
lead
safe
practices.
We
are
concerned
about
5
contaminated
sites,
and
as
professional
6
remodelers,
we
feel
we
take
the
necessary
7
training
and
the
necessary
projects
to
try
and
8
maintain
lead
safe
sites.
9
As
we
see
it,
there
will
be
several
10
ways
for
contractors
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
11
new
regulations.
One
is
contractors
will
not
do
12
any
projects
that
fall
under
the
regulations.
13
This
will
put
homeowners
at
a
disadvantage
as
14
they
will
not
have
as
many
contractors
to
bid
on
15
their
project.
The
contractors
who
are
certified
16
and
follow
the
regs
will
charge
more
to
do
their
17
project
than
a
contractor
that
does
not
­­
or,
18
I'm
sorry,
that
will
follow
the
regs
will
charge
19
more
to
do
their
project
than
a
project
that
does
20
not
fall
under
the
regulations.
The
contractors
21
will
have
to
cover
their
costs
for
all
the
22
additional.
The
second
avenue
that
they
might
0051
1
take
is
they
might
hire
lead
abatement
2
contractors
to
do
all
the
work
that
is
required,
3
again,
resulting
in
a
higher
cost
to
homeowners.
4
We
have
a
mold
remediation
division
in
5
our
company.
I'm
familiar
with
the
costs
of
6
insurance
to
run
that
division.
I'm
also
7
familiar
with
the
work
and
time
it
takes
to
train
8
the
employees,
the
work
that
is
involved
in
9
setting
up
the
containment,
the
additional
safety
10
items,
the
respirators,
the
Tyvek
suits,
the
11
medical
evaluations,
the
whole
cleaning
process
12
and
time
frame
that
it
takes
to
do
the
job
13
properly.
Again,
with
mold
we
have
to
go
through
14
clearance
testing
by
a
third
party,
so
the
work
15
needs
to
be
done
properly,
and
it
is.
We
use
16
these
measures
in
our
renovation
and
remodeling,
17
and
I
believe
the
use
of
safe
lead
practices
in
18
remodeling
and
restoration
are
an
important
issue
19
and
most
professional
contractors
should
be
20
trained
and
should
do
it.
21
I
would
like
to
say
I'm
in
support
of
22
voluntary
lead
safe
practices.
I'm
in
support
of
0052
1
homeowner
education
and
grants
to
support
low
2
income
housing
and
similar
education.
EPA
needs
3
to
involve
the
trade
associations,
NARI,
NAHB,
4
the
architects,
designers,
big
box
stores,
5
realtors,
to
work
together
to
accomplish
a
goal
6
in
eliminating
lead.
We
should
not
overlook
the
7
responsibility
and
power
of
the
trade
groups
and
8
associations.
The
EPA
needs
to
look
at
these
9
groups
of
partners
and
work
with
them
to
achieve
10
your
goal.
11
I
would
also
like
to
ask
for
an
12
additional
90­
day
extension.
Not
enough
time
has
13
been
allowed
to
review
all
the
economic
data
that
14
has
been
put
on
the
Web
site.
So
I
would
just
15
like
to
go
on
record
and
say
that
I,
of
16
National
­­
NARI,
is
requesting
a
90­
day
17
extension.
18
And,
again,
I'm
talking
again
from
the
19
remodeler's
side,
from
private,
not
from
a
20
landlord­
tenant.
It
seems
that
the
remodelers
21
will
be
overburdened
with
the
rules,
with
22
certifications,
with
lead
samplings.
Under
the
0053
1
rules,
it
seems
that
we
won't
be
covered
unless
2
we
go
to
third­
party
clearance
testing
and
test,
3
test,
test
for
preexisting
conditions,
and
I
4
think
I'm
done.
Thank
you
very
much.
5
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
John
Hoose
is
up
and
7
Cassandra
Alexander
after
him.
8
MR.
HOOSE:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
John
9
Hoose.
I
am
the
CoChair
of
the
Greater
Cleveland
10
Lead
Advisory
Council's
Workforce
Subcommittee.
11
This
committee
aims
to
assist
contractors
and
to
12
increase
their
capacity
to
remediate
and
abate
13
housing
units
as
well
as
empower
traditionally
14
underemployed
populations
to
work
in
lead­
related
15
fields.
16
While
the
committee
believes
that
the
17
R
and
R
Rule
represents
a
critical
step
forward
18
in
preventing
lead
poisoning,
the
rule
has
a
19
number
of
blindspots
that
could
prove
20
problematic.
The
committee
believes
the
rule
21
does
not
have
an
adequate
enforcement
mechanism.
22
In
addition,
the
rule
does
not
adequately
address
0054
1
the
need
for
lead
safe
work
practice
training
in
2
the
renovation
and
remodeling
industry.
3
Recently,
the
committee
commissioned
a
4
survey
of
local
contractors
which
revealed
that
5
pending
­­
providing
lead
safe
work
practice
6
training
is
a
minimal
burden,
proving
additional
7
through
comments
would
not
affect
capacity
to
8
complete
renovations
in
a
timely
manner.
In
9
addition,
the
survey
revealed
that
contractors
10
had
difficult
time
attracting
workers
familiar
11
with
lead
safe
work
practices,
affecting
the
12
overall
quality
of
abatement
work
and
renovation.
13
Additional
training
requirements
could
provide
14
the
spark
needed
to
increase
the
pool
of
15
qualified
lead
workers.
16
The
committee
is
also
concerned
that
17
the
R
and
R
Rule
does
not
include
prohibited
work
18
practices
language.
The
general
feeling
of
the
19
committee
was
that
techniques
such
as
scraping,
20
sanding,
torching
are
more
likely
to
expose
21
children
to
lead
poisoning.
Overall,
the
22
committee
felt
that
the
R
and
R
Rule
would
have
0055
1
more
of
an
impact
if
the
rule
mirrored
the
lead
2
guidelines
set
forth
by
HUD.
3
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
applaud
4
the
EPA's
effort
in
drafting
this
proposed
rule
5
and
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
6
to
provide
input
on
such
an
important
issue.
7
Thank
you.
8
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
9
MS.
MORTIMER:
Cassandra
Alexander,
and
then
10
is
Joniaya
Ladd
here?
11
(
No
response.)
12
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
So
after
Cassandra,
13
we'll
have
Patrick
MacRoy.
14
MS.
ALEXANDER:
Good
afternoon
and
hello.
15
My
name
is
Cassandra
Alexander,
and
I'm
a
lead
16
poisoning
prevention
advocate
and
the
mother
of
a
17
lead
poisoned
child.
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
18
of
the
Austin
Lead
Task
Force
and
the
parents
of
19
lead
poisoned
children.
20
For
the
past
four
years,
I
have
worked
21
to
raise
awareness
of
childhood
lead
poisoning
22
and
the
importance
of
residing
in
a
healthy
home.
0056
1
As
part
of
our
work,
we
have
spoken
with
families
2
of
lead
poisoned
children,
property
owners,
and
3
home
repair
workers
in
an
effort
to
find
4
practical
solutions
to
eliminate
childhood
lead
5
poisoning
and
to
increase
the
availability
of
low
6
income
lead
safe
housing.
7
Chicago
has
especially
high
rates
of
8
childhood
lead
poisoning
due
in
part
to
the
9
prevalence
of
old
housing
containing
lead­
based
10
paint.
Fifty­
nine
percent
of
Chicago's
housing
11
stock,
which
is
over
660,000
housing
units,
was
12
built
prior
to
1950.
Almost
three
times
more
13
than
the
national
average,
which
has
23
percent
14
of
the
housing
stock
built
prior
to
1950.
15
In
March
1996,
my
son
became
lead
16
poisoned
when
we
relocated
from
Atlanta,
Georgia,
17
to
the
Austin
area
of
Chicago,
Illinois.
At
the
18
age
of
three,
his
lead
level
went
from
zero
to
19
seven.
Even
at
this
low
level,
lead
damages
his
20
central
nervous
system
resulting
in
reduced
21
intelligence,
shortened
attention
spans,
and
22
behavioral
problems
including
aggression.
0057
1
At
the
time
we
moved
to
our
apartment,
2
there
were
some
renovations
occurring
in
the
3
building.
Our
building
was
built
in
1916.
The
4
wood
was
being
stripped.
The
workers
not
only
5
used
a
hot
gun,
but
also
used
chemical
compounds
6
to
remove
the
paint
from
the
woodwork.
Also,
7
there
was
no
dust
containment,
so
the
dry
wall
8
was
removed
as
there
was
electrical
work
9
performed
on
the
building
which
created
more
10
dust.
At
that
time,
I
was
not
aware
of
the
11
presence
of
lead­
based
paint.
12
During
the
four
years
I
worked
as
a
13
Healthy
Homes
advocate,
we
had
worked
with
14
neighborhood
contractors,
painters,
handymen,
15
et
cetera,
in
an
effort
to
have
them
properly
16
trained
in
lead
safe
work
practices
and
to
the
17
dangers
and
effects
of
lead
exposure
to
18
themselves
and
their
families.
19
Due
to
the
recent
rise
in
renovation
20
and
remodeling
in
the
Austin
area,
it
is
a
common
21
sight
to
see
no
visible
dust
containment.
The
22
workers
were
not
wearing
protective
clothing
and
0058
1
workers
covered
in
dust
were
socializing
with
2
pedestrians
on
the
street.
This
is
a
recipe
for
3
disaster.
The
dust
from
a
work
site
is
settling
4
on
adjacent
buildings,
pedestrians,
and
in
some
5
cases,
classrooms
where
the
windows
are
open.
6
With
regard
to
the
proposed
7
regulations,
I
feel
that
the
following
are
some
8
important
concerns:
Work
must
be
done
correctly
9
so
that
current
and
future
child
occupants
will
10
not
become
poisoned
from
lead
dust
created
during
11
renovation
and
remodeling.
Renovation
and
12
remodeling
workers
must
be
trained
and
certified.
13
Consideration
should
be
given
to
smaller
14
contracts
such
as
mom­
and­
pop
businesses
who
may
15
not
have
the
operation
budget
to
pay
for
16
training,
however
they
should
not
be
exempt
from
17
training
and
certification.
18
Consideration
must
also
be
given
to
19
the
property
owners
who
are
first­
time
buyers
and
20
who
are
on
a
fixed
income.
The
cost
of
work
must
21
be
regulated
so
they
can
afford
to
have
the
work
22
done
and
performed
by
trained
and
certified
0059
1
workers.
Laboratory
documented
dust
clearance
2
testing
should
be
normative.
The
lead
dust
wipe
3
testing
is
the
only
proven
method
for
verifying
4
lead
dust
levels.
Dangerous
work
practices
then
5
in
HUD
regulations
should
likewise
be
banned
in
6
these
regulations.
It
is
well
documented
in
7
scientific
studies
that
the
practices
HUD
deems
8
aren't
safe
to
use,
powersanding,
sandblasting,
9
powerwashing,
and
the
use
of
heat
guns
above
10
1,100
degrees
all
create
high
levels
of
toxic
11
dust,
which
are
­­
that
are
extremely
difficult
12
to
clean
up.
Thank
you.
13
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Patrick
is
up,
and
14
then
Janet
McCabe.
15
MR.
MacROY:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
16
Patrick
MacRoy,
and
I'm
an
epidemiologist
with
17
the
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Program
18
at
the
Chicago
Department
of
Public
Health.
I'm
19
here
this
afternoon
on
behalf
of
the
City
of
20
Chicago.
21
Let
me
begin
my
comments
by
thanking
22
the
EPA
for
holding
public
hearings
on
this
0060
1
important
issue
and
especially
for
choosing
2
Chicago
as
one
of
the
locations.
We're
glad
to
3
have
you
here.
4
While
Chicago
is
a
great
city,
we
are
5
not
without
significant
problems.
One
of
them
is
6
childhood
lead
poisoning.
We
have
the
dubious
7
distinction
of
having
the
most
lead
poisoned
8
children
of
any
city
in
the
country.
Based
upon
9
the
most
recent
estimates
available,
upwards
of
10
12
percent
of
all
lead
poisoned
children
in
the
11
country
reside
in
the
city
of
Chicago.
12
Nearly
all
lead
poisoning
in
Chicago
13
is
attributable
to
lead­
based
paint.
As
we
14
strive
to
eliminated
lead
poisoning
as
a
public
15
health
program
in
Chicago,
we
must
move
from
a
16
strategy
of
responding
to
lead
poisoning
to
the
17
prevention
of
lead
poisoning.
We
firmly
believe
18
that
a
primary
prevention
strategy
must
19
incorporate
the
regulation
of
renovation
and
20
remodeling
activity
in
pre­
1978
buildings.
We
21
were
pleased
to
hear
that
the
EPA
issued
the
long
22
overdue
regulations
to
achieve
just
that.
0061
1
The
existing
regulatory
framework
2
around
lead
is
broken.
I
would
also
suggest
that
3
it
is
inherently
illogical.
Rather
than
4
encouraging
property
owners
to
identify
and
5
correct
hazards,
it
rewards
ignorance.
Rather
6
than
base
the
intensity
of
intervention
and
7
regulation
on
the
extent
of
risks
present
or
the
8
danger
posed
by
conducting
the
work,
the
current
9
framework
bases
everything
on
the
presence
of
a
10
poisoned
child.
11
As
a
way
of
example,
you
can
have
two
12
identical
housing
units,
both
of
which
may
13
require
window
replacement.
In
one
house,
a
lead
14
poisoned
child
has
been
identified,
and
as
a
15
result,
a
lead
inspection
has
been
performed.
16
Since
lead
was
identified,
the
windows
in
this
17
house
are
going
to
have
to
be
replaced
according
18
to
strict
lead
safety
standard,
utilizing
only
19
licensed
workers
and
under
the
strictest
of
20
government
oversight.
In
the
second
house,
there
21
may
also
reside
a
young
child,
but
because
he
was
22
never
tested
for
lead
and
knowing
the
potential
0062
1
for
additional
costs,
the
owner
has
never
tested
2
the
house
for
lead.
Therefore,
these
windows
are
3
going
to
be
replaced
by
largely
untrained,
4
unlicensed
persons
without
government
oversight.
5
Nothing
is
different
about
the
work
being
6
performed
in
the
two
houses.
The
act
of
ripping
7
out
a
window
is
the
same
in
both.
There's
8
nothing
about
the
windows
and
nothing
different
9
about
the
amount
of
lead
debris
and
dust
that
10
could
be
released.
And
there
is
no
difference
in
11
the
risk
that
this
dust
poses
to
the
occupants
12
and
the
workers.
Yet
because
one
house
was
13
caught
with
a
lead
poisoned
child
and
the
other
14
one
wasn't,
they
are
regulated
in
vastly
15
different
ways.
16
Requiring
the
use
of
lead
safe
work
17
practices
during
renovation
and
remodeling
goes
a
18
long
way
towards
fixing
the
illogical
nature
of
19
the
current
system.
The
goal
of
the
EPA
should
20
be
to
move
the
concept
of
lead
work
from
being
a
21
niche
market,
a
subsector
of
the
construction
22
industry,
and
into
the
mainstream.
Thinking
0063
1
about
lead
and
taking
simple
low­
cost
measures
to
2
work
safely
with
lead­
based
paint
should
be
part
3
of
standard
practices,
even
a
force
of
habit,
4
amongst
anyone
who
works
in
the
renovation
5
industry.
6
Some
folks
are
likely
to
tell
you
that
7
this
is
an
impossible
task.
It
will
be
too
hard
8
or
too
costly
to
implement.
They'll
put
an
end
9
to
the
renovation
industry.
These
views,
10
however,
are
not
supported
by
facts.
We
have
an
11
excellent
historical
example
to
prove
the
12
feasibility
of
this
rule,
and
that
is
the
13
implementation
of
HUD's
Lead
Safe
Housing
Rule.
14
This
rule
requires
everything
EPA
is
proposing
15
and
much
more
in
federally­
assisted
housing.
16
When
this
rule
is
proposed,
many
naysayers
said
17
it
would
be
impossible
to
comply
with
and
drive
18
local
housing
authorities
into
bankruptcy.
19
Although
many
here
were
nervous,
Chicago
dove
20
headfirst
into
implementing
those
rule's
21
requirements.
A
task
force
including
22
representatives
of
my
department,
housing,
and
0064
1
budget
came
together
to
make
the
process
work.
2
Contractors
obtained
training,
a
process
for
3
clearance
was
established,
and
as
a
result,
the
4
use
of
lead
safe
work
practices
is
now
just
part
5
of
the
routine
in
the
City's
housing
programs.
6
Although
Chicago
is
supportive
of
the
7
EPA's
efforts
to
require
lead
safe
work
8
practices,
several
aspects
of
the
proposal
9
concern
us.
Our
primary
interest
and
one
that
we
10
hope
is
shared
by
the
EPA
is
the
health
and
11
safety
of
those
doing
the
renovation
work
and
the
12
occupants,
especially
children
who
are
exposed
to
13
the
result
of
the
work.
In
several
key
areas,
we
14
fear
that
the
EPA's
proposal
is
inadequate
to
15
protect
the
health
and
safety
of
both
workers
and
16
occupants.
17
First
and
foremost,
we
are
deeply
18
troubled
by
the
substitution
of
traditional
dust
19
clearing
tests
with
a
clearing
verification
20
process
also
known
as
the
white
glove
test.
21
While
we
will
provide
written
comments
that
go
22
into
greater
detail,
suffice
it
to
say
that
dust
0065
1
clearance
has
been
a
cornerstone
of
lead
2
abatement
for
well
over
a
decade.
The
3
relationship
between
renovation
activities
and
4
the
generation
of
leaded
dust
is
clear,
as
is
the
5
relationship
between
leaded
dust
and
childhood
6
lead
poisoning.
Ensuring
that
lead
dust
is
7
eliminated
is
essential
to
ensuring
that
job
site
8
is
safe
for
children.
Measuring
the
lead
dust
9
upon
completion
is
the
only
practical
check
to
10
ensure
that
the
work
practice
and
cleaning
steps
11
were
followed
correctly.
12
Current
lead
dust
sampling
methods
13
have
been
rigorously
evaluated
over
the
last
14
decade.
We
know
how
to
interpret
the
results,
15
and
studies
have
shown
us
that
the
results
16
actually
correlate
to
the
most
important
outcome:
17
Preventing
increases
in
children's
lead
levels.
18
The
white
glove
test,
on
the
other
hand,
has
19
little
more
than
a
single
flawed
study
behind
it.
20
This
study
was
not
based
on
real
world
21
conditions.
It
used
highly­
skilled
testers
22
working
in
a
few
locations
in
potentially
cleaner
0066
1
units
and
using
protocols
substantially
different
2
than
what
the
EPA
is
proposing
in
the
rule.
The
3
"
result"
of
the
white
glove
test,
the
visual
4
comparison
of
a
wipe
to
a
reference
card,
is
so
5
inherently
subjective
that
it's
meaningless
for
6
the
purposes
of
liability
relief
or
enforcement
7
action.
8
We
emphatically
recommend
that
the
EPA
9
find
a
solution
that
incorporates
traditional
10
dust
sampling
and
clearance
into
the
final
rule.
11
Secondly,
we
are
troubled
by
the
EPA's
decision
12
to
explicitly
allow
a
number
of
highly
dangerous
13
work
practices
currently
banned
in
lead
abatement
14
activities,
including
open
flame
burning,
15
uncontained
powersanding
and
sandblasting.
These
16
activities
generate
large
quantities
of
lead
dust
17
or
even
lead
vapor
and
distribute
them
over
a
18
large
area.
19
EPA's
rationale
for
allowing
these
20
practices
does
not
stand
up
to
reason.
The
21
notion
that
a
minimal
containment
procedure
as
22
outlined
in
the
rule
that
was
just
clearly
0067
1
intended
for
low
risk
activities
is
adequate
to
2
contain
the
lead
release
during
open
flame
3
burning
has
no
basis
in
science.
By
allowing
and
4
even
endorsing
these
activities,
EPA
is
also
5
setting
up
contractors
to
violate
not
only
the
6
rules
in
many
states
and
localities,
but
also
7
Federal
OSHA
standard.
8
Although
we
doubt
the
veracity
of
such
9
claims,
should
the
EPA
determine
that
there
are
10
situations
when
unsafe
work
practices
are
the
11
only
methods
available,
then
it
needs
to
12
establish
separate
and
more
protective
13
requirements
for
doing
that
work.
These
14
requirements
would
include
the
use
of
negative
15
pressure
containment,
personal
protective
16
equipment,
training,
and
oversight,
which
are
all
17
necessary
to
protect
worker
and
occupant
safety
18
and
health
when
using
such
high
risk
methods.
19
We're
also
concerned
by
the
EPA's
20
reliance
on
the
use
of
spot
test
kits
to
exempt
21
renovation
activities
from
the
rule.
In
the
22
background,
EPA
frets
greatly
over
the
false
0068
1
positives
of
these
kits.
The
greater
problem
2
from
a
health
perspective
is
the
false
negatives,
3
which
are
largely
glossed
over
in
the
rule.
4
Using
EPA's
own
estimates
on
the
prevalence
of
5
lead
paint,
the
number
of
renovation
events
and
6
applying
this
to
the
five
percent
false
negative
7
rate
allowed
by
EPA's
specifications,
we
8
calculated
an
estimate
88,000
times
a
year
that
9
lead­
based
paint
will
be
incorrectly
exempted
10
from
the
requirements
of
this
rule.
That's
11
88,000
opportunities
to
cause
lead
poisoning,
the
12
liability
for
which
may
fall
upon
the
contractor.
13
These
figures
also
presume
the
correct
use
of
the
14
test
kit,
which
we
consider
to
be
a
rather
large
15
leap
given
the
common
failure
to
expose
all
16
layers
of
paint
prior
to
testing.
17
Given
the
risks
with
allowing
this
18
test
and
the
benefit
that
would
come
from
19
institutionalizing
lead
safe
work
practices
as
20
part
of
the
renovation
routine,
we
suggest
that
21
the
EPA
only
allow
the
results
of
a
licensed
lead
22
inspector
to
be
used
for
the
purpose
of
granting
0069
1
exemptions.
2
Although
time
does
not
allow
me
to
go
3
into
detail,
we
were
also
disappointed
by
the
4
rule's
failure
to
include
pregnant
women
and
5
regulate
child­
occupied
nonresidential
properties
6
such
as
day
care
facilities.
Issues
of
training
7
and
licensing
also
need
to
be
further
addressed
8
and
strategies
for
enforcement
improved,
9
especially
in
terms
of
how
EPA
entices
states
to
10
integrate
enforcement
into
existing
construction
11
regulation
programs.
We'll
provide
additional
12
suggestions
on
these
areas
and
others
in
written
13
comment.
14
In
summation,
the
City
of
Chicago
15
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
require
the
use
of
lead
16
safe
work
practices
in
renovation
and
remodeling,
17
and
we
hope
you
will
utilize
our
suggestions
to
18
improve
the
rule
to
better
protect
the
health
of
19
our
children.
Together,
lead
poisoning
is
a
20
problem
we
can
eliminate.
21
Thank
you
for
your
time.
22
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
0070
1
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
We've
got
Janet,
and
2
Mike
Nagel
is
up
next.
3
MS.
McCABE:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
4
Janet
McCabe.
I'm
the
Executive
Director
of
an
5
organization
called
Improving
Kids'
Environments
6
in
Indianapolis.
It's
a
nonprofit
advocacy
group
7
that
has
worked
on
lead
poisoning
issues
since
8
its
founding
in
1999.
We've
pushed
for
9
legislation
in
Indiana
that
now
prohibits
the
use
10
of
the
some
of
the
dangerous
work
practices
that
11
you
heard
about
today.
We've
supported
the
12
creation
of
lead
safe
coalitions
around
the
state
13
of
Indiana,
worked
actively
with
landlords
and
14
tenants
to
improve
compliance
with
the
current
15
federal
programs,
and
have
undertaken
projects
to
16
identify
at­
risk
housing.
17
I'm
relatively
new
to
the
advocacy
18
side
of
things.
For
eight
years
before
I
joined
19
IKE,
I
was
the
Air
Director
for
the
State
of
20
Indiana
and
had
responsibility
for
the
lead
21
licensing
and
training
provider
programs
that
are
22
implemented
by
the
Indiana
Department
of
0071
1
Environmental
Management,
so
I
have
a
few
2
perspectives
on
this
rule.
3
In
2004,
in
Indiana,
1.25
percent
of
4
the
children
whose
blood
was
tested,
and
that's
a
5
small
percentage
of
the
children
under
six
in
6
Indiana,
1.25
percent
had
a
confirmed
elevated
7
blood
lead
level.
Statewide,
28.3
percent
of
8
Indiana's
housing
stock
was
built
before
1950.
9
And
according
to
the
2000
census,
14.4
of
10
Indiana's
children
are
considered
to
be
in
11
poverty,
which
is
the
highest
risk
for
lead
12
poisoning.
All
these
statistics
pulled
together
13
means
that
a
lot
of
children
in
Indiana
are
at
14
risk
of
lead
poisoning
from
their
very
own
homes.
15
We
urge
EPA
to
consider
carefully
all
16
the
comments
that
you
receive
both
today
and
in
17
writing
­­
we
will
be
providing
more
detailed
18
comments
in
writing
­­
from
groups
that
have
real
19
world
practical
experience
on
these
issues.
20
Groups
such
as
the
ones
that
you've
heard
today,
21
national
groups
such
as
the
National
Center
for
22
Healthy
Housing
and
the
Alliance
for
Healthy
0072
1
Homes,
which
will
be
providing
thoroughly
2
documented
recommendations
based
on
studies
that
3
show
the
clear
linkage
between
renovation
and
4
repair
activities,
the
presence
of
lead
dust
and
5
high
blood
lead
levels
in
our
young
children.
6
These
organizations,
as
I
say,
have
real
world
7
experience
and
their
suggestions
really
must
be
8
considered
seriously
because
they
will
greatly
9
improve
the
effectiveness
of
this
rule.
We're
10
very
pleased
that
EPA
is
moving
forward
with
the
11
rule.
Lead
hazards
which
are
created
by
12
well­
intentioned
home
improvement
or
home
13
maintenance
projects
are
a
tragedy
and
should
not
14
be.
However,
we
are
concerned
that
in
a
variety
15
of
ways,
the
rule
has
­­
falls
short
and
will
not
16
prevent
the
creation
of
lead
dust
hazards
or
17
ensure
property
cleanup
or
ensure
protection
of
18
our
children.
19
I've
been
a
regulator
myself.
I
know
20
that
when
you
develop
rules,
you're
trying
to
21
strike
balances
and
evaluate
costs
and
benefits.
22
I
know
that
and
you
have
to
do
that.
One
thing
0073
1
that
I
will
observe
about
the
issue
of
lead
2
poisoning
is
that
unlike
some
of
the
other
air
3
pollution
issues
that
we
deal
with,
the
link
4
between
the
environmental
pollutant
and
the
5
health
effect
is
completely
well
understood.
6
This
is
not
like
something
that
might
cause
7
cancer
20
years
from
now.
It's
very
well
8
documented.
Moreover,
the
health
effects
that
9
are
the
result
of
lead
poisoning
are
crystal
10
clear,
are
permanent,
and
are
devastating.
This
11
makes
it
a
lot
easier
in
some
ways
to
understand
12
the
costs
and
the
benefits
on
the
health
side
and
13
makes,
I
think,
EPA's
job
easier
to
draw
those
­­
14
to
make
those
decisions.
I
think
that
the
15
concern
about
this
rule
is
that
in
many
different
16
places,
EPA
has
struck
a
balance
that
in
many
17
people's
view
will
not
sufficiently
protect
18
children.
And
when
you
put
them
all
together,
it
19
creates
a
real
problem.
20
And
I'll
just
touch
on
some
examples,
21
most
of
which
you've
heard
already
today.
22
Applicability,
the
fact
that
housing
can
be
0074
1
exempted
if
the
current
owner
says
that
there
are
2
no
children
under
six
living
there,
when
the
3
house
may
operate
as
a
day
care,
the
house
may
4
have
grandchildren
coming
to
visit,
the
house
may
5
be
sold
a
week
after
the
renovation
is
done
to
a
6
family
with
young
children,
or
the
house
may
have
7
a
pregnant
woman
living
in
it.
Not
including
8
public
and
commercial
buildings
is
also
a
9
problem.
The
white
glove
test,
which
I
won't
go
10
into
because
you've
heard
about
that.
Lack
of
11
meaningful
training
for
the
workers
who
will
12
actually
be
disturbing
the
paint,
not
only
13
creating
lead
hazards
potentially
for
the
14
occupants
but
for
themselves
and
their
family
15
when
they
go
home
with
lead
dust
on
their
16
clothes.
And
I
want
to
emphasize
what
you've
17
heard
already
today,
the
failure
to
prohibit
work
18
practices
which
are
known
to
be
dangerous.
The
19
best
way
to
prevent
lead
dust
is
not
to
create
20
lead
dust.
And
by
allowing
certain
activities
to
21
be
used,
that's
what
you
do.
You
create
lead
22
dust.
0075
1
As
a
last
point,
I
want
to
emphasize
2
how
important
outreach
and
enforcement
are
going
3
to
be
on
this
rule.
John
Casey
mentioned
that
he
4
polls
his
students
to
see
whether
any
of
them
5
have
had
a
contractor
give
them
the
lead
6
pamphlet.
Since
I
learned
about
the
requirement
7
that
renovators
provide
pamphlets,
which
I
didn't
8
know
about
until
I
got
to
do
this
work,
I've
9
informally
surveyed
friends
and
relatives
and
10
people
that
I
know
and
not
once
have
I
ever
had
11
anybody
tell
me
that
a
contractor
or
remodeler
12
gave
them
this
information.
And
I
have
been
13
asking
contractors
over
the
last
nine
months
and
14
only
one
has
told
­­
has
even
known
that
this
15
federal
requirement
which
has
been
around
for
ten
16
years
even
existed.
What
that
tells
us
is
that
17
the
industry
does
not
understand,
does
not
know
18
about
this
issue,
and
when
you
think
about
the
19
vastness
of
the
types
of
projects
and
the
number
20
of
projects
that
this
rule
is
intended
to
cover,
21
it's
going
to
be
a
huge,
huge
effort.
22
Having
been
on
the
state
regulator
0076
1
side,
I
don't
know
how
a
state
agency
is
going
to
2
manage
trying
to
oversee
this,
particularly
since
3
the
rule
as
its
written
now
doesn't
include
any
4
sort
of
notification
or
reporting
requirements.
5
State
agencies
are
often
essentially
prohibited
6
from
hiring
new
staff,
even
if
there's
money
to
7
do
so
because
there's
reluctance
in
state
8
government
to
add
state
workers.
So
this
will
be
9
a
real,
real
challenge
to
the
state
agencies,
10
which
tells
me
that
EPA
will
need
to
put
more
11
resources
into
outreach
and
enforcement
than
it
12
appears
that
they
are
thinking
they
will
need
to
13
do.
14
So
let
me
just
emphasize
how
important
15
this
program
is
to
go
forward.
You
have
the
16
opportunity
to
benefit
from
vast
experience
of
17
people
who
have
worked
in
this
field
in
much
more
18
practical
ways
than
I
have
over
the
last
ten
19
years
and
I
hope
that
you
will
take
that
input
20
into
consideration
as
you
consider
the
comments.
21
Thank
you.
22
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
0077
1
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Mike
Nagel
is
up,
then
2
Leslie
Nickels,
and
then
I
propose
we
take
a
3
short
break.
How's
that?
4
MR.
NAGEL:
Good
afternoon.
I'd
like
to
5
thank
the
EPA
for
allowing
us
to
speak
our
piece
6
at
this
hearing.
My
name
is
Mike
Nagel,
CGR.
I
7
am
the
President
of
Remodel
One,
Inc.
We're
a
8
design
build
remodeling
firm
in
Roselle,
9
Illinois,
which
is
a
western
suburb
of
Chicago.
10
Let
me
just
say
as
a
professional
11
remodeler,
we
are
all
for
addressing
the
lead
12
issue
in
protecting
our
children.
Just
to
show
13
you
how
involved
we
are,
NAHB,
or
the
National
14
Association
of
Home
Builders,
a
225,000
member
15
organization
has
budgeted
$
228,000
just
late
last
16
year
to
do
200
test
case
studies
to
determine
17
what
is
a
safe
work
practice.
These
are
18
currently
underway.
We
began
them
in
January.
19
We
ran
the
first
six
test
kit
case
studies
in
20
Roselle
back
in
January.
We
are
trying
to
do
as
21
many
as
possible.
It's
a
daunting
task.
22
As
the
NARI
member
said
previously,
we
0078
1
would
like
to
plead
for
a
90­
day
extension
to
2
July
10th
to
allow
us
to
achieve
these
200
test
3
case
studies,
so
that
when
the
ruling
finally
4
comes
out
it
has
some
real
data
as
to
how
lead
5
safe
work
practices
should
be
achieved.
Because
6
of
our
active
involvement,
we
would
like
to
­­
I
7
already
said
that.
Okay.
Let's
move
on.
8
The
rule
as
proposed
is
not
likely
to
9
succeed
in
significantly
reducing
lead
poisoning
10
in
children.
Since
a
proposed
rule
only
applies
11
to
remodelers
or
other
people
doing
renovation
12
for
compensation,
they
do
not
apply
to
the
13
homeowners,
do­
it­
yourselfers,
DIY
market,
who
14
already
do
their
own
home
remodeling
themselves
15
more
than
half
the
time.
16
According
to
the
Harvard
University's
17
Joint
Center
for
Housing
Studies,
more
than
half
18
the
kitchen
and
bath
remodeling
projects
are
19
conducted
by
do­
it­
yourself
homeowners
and
they
20
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
21
proposed
rule.
Even
if
remodeling
were
a
22
contributing
factor
to
children's
lead
poisoning,
0079
1
the
proposed
rules
exemption
of
over
half
of
all
2
the
remodeling
work
done
nationwide
would
seem
to
3
prevent
accomplishing
EPA's
stated
goal
for
the
4
rule,
to
eliminate
childhood
lead
poisoning
by
5
2010.
6
The
possible
approach
for
EPA
would
be
7
to
develop
a
voluntary
lead
safe
work
practice
8
for
both
remodelers
and
homeowners.
NAHB
has
9
long
supported
the
development
of
voluntary
lead
10
safe
work
practices
which
would
protect
occupants
11
and
workers
from
risks
of
disturbing
lead­
based
12
paint.
NAHB
had,
in
fact,
worked
with
the
EPA
13
for
five
years
developing
a
voluntary
program
14
that
focused
on
educating
both
the
remodeler
and
15
the
homeowner
on
how
to
safely
conduct
remodeling
16
activities.
17
Another
advantage
of
the
voluntary
18
program
are
the
potential
legal
conflicts
between
19
existing
state
laws
and
the
EPA
proposed
rule.
20
For
example,
EPA's
proposed
clearance
test
is
21
inconsistent
with
existing
state
regulations
in
22
many
states,
which
already
define
state
certified
0080
1
lead­
based
paint
testing
firms.
These
are
not
2
remodeling
firms.
EPA
abruptly
ceased
work
on
3
the
voluntary
program
last
spring.
NAHB
urges
4
the
EPA
to
return
to
a
voluntary
program
5
approach.
6
This
rule
as
proposed
will
likely
7
drive
more
homeowners
into
the
unregulated
8
segment
of
the
market.
More
rules
mean
more
9
costs,
which
will
lead
to
higher
prices
for
10
remodeling
work.
Increased
compliance
costs
will
11
lead
to
increased
remodeling
costs,
which
means
12
fewer
homeowners
will
be
able
to
afford
to
use
a
13
qualified
remodeler.
Driving
homeowners
into
the
14
unregulated
segment
of
the
market
due
to
15
increased
costs
as
the
result
of
more
stringent
16
rules
will
not
only
have
them
using
contractors,
17
who
in
most
case
will
not
even
draw
a
permit,
but
18
will
also
have
them
using
contractors
who
will
19
not
even
be
aware
of
these
new
lead
rulings,
or
20
if
they
are
will
be
willing
to
take
the
risk
of
21
being
caught
just
to
secure
a
job.
In
either
22
case,
the
lead
safe
work
practices
as
proposed
0081
1
would
not
be
followed.
2
According
to
HUD,
the
most
significant
3
source
for
lead
hazards
are
poorly
maintained
4
homes.
The
higher
prices
will
mean
homeowners
5
have
an
even
bigger
incentive
to
work
themselves.
6
The
regulations
don't
apply
to
DIY
activity
as
7
previously
mentioned.
Homeowners
are
more
likely
8
to
lack
experience
with
typical
renovation
and
9
remodeling
projects
and
tend
to
work
in
their
10
free
time
on
evening
or
weekends
so
the
project
11
could
take
more
days
and
weeks
to
complete.
This
12
increases
and
prolongs
potential
exposure
to
lead
13
dust.
14
Professional
remodeling
firms
clearly
15
have
the
experience
and
expertise
in
completing
16
projects
quickly
and
safely.
Remodeling
jobs
17
should
be
encouraged
not
discouraged.
Renovation
18
and
remodeling
activities
are
what
help
improve
19
the
condition
of
services
coated
with
lead­
based
20
paint.
If
lead­
based
paint
causes
a
lead
21
exposure
problem,
it
is
deteriorated,
22
poorly­
maintained
paint
that
is
most
likely
the
0082
1
culprit.
This
proposed
rule
will
make
2
maintenance
more
expensive
causing
more
3
homeowners
to
defer
necessary
maintenance,
which
4
would
create
an
even
more
deteriorated
surface
in
5
the
future.
6
As
currently
proposed,
these
rules
7
will
cause
many
remodeling
firms
to
elect
to
only
8
work
in
post­
1978
housing,
thus
limiting
the
9
amount
of
professionals
available
and,
therefore,
10
further
undermining
the
intention
of
the
rule:
11
To
keep
children
safe.
Even
if
this
rule
could
12
result
in
lower
lead
exposure
for
some
children,
13
the
rule
will
cause
other
children
to
face
higher
14
probability
of
exposure.
How
will
this
law
be
15
enforced?
16
Remodeling
and
abatement
are
different
17
activities
with
different
purposes
and
methods.
18
Because
remodelers
are
not
hired
to
remove
lead,
19
they
should
only
be
required
to
avoid
making
lead
20
exposure
worse.
21
The
only
clearance
test
necessary
for
22
typical
renovation
and
remodeling
jobs
should
be
0083
1
a
simple
standard
of
no
visible
dust
and
debris.
2
If
there
is
no
visible
dust
and
debris,
the
job
3
site
is
probably
at
least
as
clean
as
it
was
4
before
with
no
more
lead.
In
that
case,
the
5
remodeler
has
done
no
harm.
6
As
EPA
has
clearly
stated,
there's
a
7
big
difference
between
abatement
and
remodeling.
8
The
abatement
jobs
are
designed
to
eliminate
all
9
lead
from
a
structure,
but
the
primary
intent
of
10
renovation
and
remodeling
is
to
change
a
11
structure,
function,
or
appearance
of
a
room
or
12
building.
As
a
by­
product,
some
remodeling
13
activities
may
actually
result
in
a
reduction
in
14
lead­
based
hazards
through
the
replacement
of
old
15
windows,
for
example,
with
new
ones
that
have
no
16
lead­
based
paint
on
them.
This
important
17
distinction
provides
further
illustration
of
why
18
clearance
testing
should
not
be
required.
19
Requiring
renovation
and
remodeling
20
contractors
to
clean
up
to
an
abatement
standard
21
effectively
makes
a
contractor
responsible
for
22
all
lead
that
was
in
the
home
prior
to
the
0084
1
remodeling
work
commencing.
That
means
lead
that
2
had
no
relationship
to
the
remodeler's
jobs.
3
An
unintended
consequence
of
this
4
requirement
will
be
that
many
certified
5
renovators
will
become
good
at
judging
the
level
6
of
cleanliness
in
the
home
when
giving
an
7
estimate.
If
a
home
looks
dirty
or
poorly
8
maintained,
in
short,
if
it
looks
like
there
may
9
be
lead
dust
present,
a
remodeler
is
likely
to
10
refuse
the
work
or
charge
a
very
high
price
to
11
cover
the
increased
costs
of
compliance.
12
In
conclusion,
a
law
is
only
as
good
13
as
its
enforcement.
If
we
make
this
law
so
14
restrictive
that
costs,
both
direct
and
indirect,
15
insurance,
training,
et
cetera,
raise
the
cost
of
16
remodeling
beyond
of
means
of
a
higher
percentage
17
of
homeowners,
the
economic
impact
could
be
18
devastating.
No
matter
what
the
outcome,
if
19
there's
a
restrictive
law
put
in
place,
we
have
20
to
level
the
playing
field
and
require
that
every
21
permit
to
list
the
year
the
house
was
built
to
22
allow
the
EPA
to
be
informed
of
the
project.
0085
1
I
agree
with
everything
the
fellow
2
from
NARI
said
in
addition
to
other
items
I
3
brough
forth
and
agree
with
the
epidemiologist
4
that
something
needs
to
be
done,
but
to
compare
5
private
work
to
HUD
work
is
a
far
stretch.
As
6
far
as
the
lady
before
me
speaking
about
the
lead
7
pamphlet,
we've
handed
out
lead
pamphlets
to
8
every
customer
of
ours
for
the
last
five
years.
9
To
say
that
there
aren't
many
contractors
doing
10
it
means
that
they're
not
dealing
with
a
11
professional
contractor.
12
As
an
association
member,
I'm
involved
13
politically
on
a
national,
state,
and
local
14
level.
I'm
currently
National
Vice
Chairman
of
15
the
Remodelers
Council
of
NAHB.
We
push
these
16
regulations
constantly.
There's
also
an
act
in
17
Illinois
called
the
Illinois
Fraud
Act.
You
18
won't
find
a
lot
of
unlicensed
contractors
or
19
contractors
that
are
not
involved
in
an
industry
20
putting
that
out
either.
It's
a
matter
of
21
dealing
with
a
professional.
22
Again,
thank
you
for
your
time.
0086
1
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
2
MS.
MORTIMER:
Leslie
Nickels,
and
then
3
we're
about
halfway
done,
so
we'll
take
a
short
4
break.
5
MS.
NICKELS:
Thank
you.
Good
afternoon.
6
I'm
Leslie
Nickels.
I'm
Associate
Director
of
7
the
Great
Lakes
Centers
for
Occupational
and
8
Environmental
Safety
and
Health
at
the
University
9
of
Illinois
at
Chicago's
School
of
Public
Health.
10
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
Great
Lakes
11
Centers.
12
Based
at
the
University
of
Illinois'
13
School
of
Public
Health,
the
Great
Lakes
Centers
14
are
multidisciplinary
and
multi­
institutional
and
15
include
programs
at
the
University
of
Illinois
at
16
Chicago,
the
University
of
Illinois
at
17
Urbana­
Champaign,
John
H.
Stroger,
Jr.
18
Hospital
of
Cook
County.
The
centers
include
a
19
NIOSH
Education
and
Research
Center,
an
20
ATSDR/
USEPA
Center
for
Children's
Environmental
21
Health,
Fogarty
­­
an
NIH
Fogarty­
funded
Center
22
on
Global
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health,
0087
1
a
CDC­
funded
program,
the
Center
of
Excellence
2
for
Environmental
Health,
and
the
Occupational
3
Health
Services
Institute.
We
have
cross
4
training
programs
within
the
Great
Lakes
Center
5
that
includes
continuing
education
and
outreach,
6
research,
and
health
hazard
evaluation.
7
The
Great
Lakes
Centers
have
been
8
working
on
community
environmental
health
issues
9
for
over
25
years
and
provide
education,
10
outreach,
and
training
to
over
2,000
people
per
11
year
on
environmental
and
occupational
health
12
issues.
The
continuing
education
and
outreach
13
program
offers
both
classroom
and
distance­
based
14
courses
in
air
pollution,
asbestos
and
lead,
15
hazardous
waste,
housing
and
urban
development,
16
safety,
agriculture,
radon,
industrial
hygiene,
17
chemical
safety,
integrated
pest
management,
and
18
other
community­
based
interests.
Additionally,
19
the
Great
Lakes
Center
has
been
an
approved
20
provider
of
lead
and
asbestos
training
and
is
21
currently
an
approved
provider
of
radon
22
qualifying
and
continuing
education
courses
in
0088
1
Illinois.
2
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
training
3
requirements
under
Section
C,
Training,
4
Certification
and
Accreditation.
Our
primary
5
interest
at
Great
Lakes
Center
is
in
the
health
6
and
safety
of
those
doing
renovation
work
and
the
7
occupants
and
especially
children.
In
several
8
key
areas,
we
fear
that
the
EPA's
proposal
will
9
be
inadequate
in
protecting
the
health
and
safety
10
of
both
workers
and
the
occupants.
I
would
like
11
to
address
limitations.
One,
the
limitations
to
12
protecting
workers
and
children's
health
of
the
13
proposed
certification
renovator
training,
and
14
two,
the
lack
of
training
for
workers.
15
While
contractors
may
be
in
the
best
16
position
to
make
decisions
about
managing
17
projects,
they
do
not
generally
engage
in
health
18
training.
Therefore,
two
of
the
responsibilities
19
of
the
certified
renovator
under
the
proposed
20
ruled
are
seriously
flawed.
As
stated
in
the
21
proposed
rule,
they
are
to
provide
training
to
22
uncertified
workers
and
be
available
either
0089
1
on­
site
or
by
telephone.
Under
the
proposed
2
rule,
contractor
as
a
certified
renovator
is
3
provided
extensive
latitude
in
making
decisions
4
about
the
organization
of
work.
This
latitude
is
5
extended
even
further
when
there
is
more
than
one
6
contractor
on­
site.
For
example,
the
proposed
7
rule
states
renovation
firms
may
find
it
8
advantageous
to
decide
among
themselves
which
9
firm
will
be
responsible
for
providing
10
pre­
renovation
education
to
the
workers
and
11
occupants,
which
firm
will
establish
containment,
12
and
which
firm
will
perform
post­
renovation
13
cleaning
and
cleaning
verification.
In
many
14
situations,
having
the
general
contractor
15
discharge
the
obligations
of
the
pre­
renovation
16
education
rule
is
likely
to
be
the
most
efficient
17
approach
since
this
only
needs
to
be
done
once.
18
That's
what's
stated
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
19
focus
of
this
is
on
efficiency.
Requiring
the
20
certified
renovator
to
become
the
trainer
on
the
21
issue
of
lead
safe
work
practices
is
22
irresponsible.
From
my
experience
conducting
0090
1
lead
abatement
worker,
supervisor,
risk
assessor,
2
and
inspector
training,
I
believe
that
3
contractors
do
not
generally
have
the
background
4
or
the
experience
to
be
effective
trainers
on
5
health
issues.
Neither
do
they
have
the
6
knowledge
or
experience
in
understanding
the
risk
7
to
health
from
exposure
to
environmental
8
chemicals.
Additionally,
the
proposed
rule
does
9
not
provide
the
certified
renovator
to
learn
10
about
work
practices
that
should
be
prohibited
11
during
renovation.
The
lack
of
training
on
safe
12
work
practices
will
leave
a
gaping
hole
in
the
13
knowledge
that
certified
renovators
have
for
14
planning
and
managing
renovation
and
for
training
15
workers.
16
Next,
decisions
about
how
to
perform
a
17
job
are
made
all
the
time
by
supervisors
and
18
workers.
Often
the
plans
for
completing
a
job
19
change
as
the
job
progresses.
If
training
is
20
required
for
only
one
person
involved
in
a
21
project,
that
person
is
not
required
to
be
at
the
22
job
site.
Those
performing
the
work
may
make
0091
1
decisions
that
result
in
the
generation
of
lead.
2
Everyone
on
the
work
site
needs
to
understand
why
3
decisions
are
made
so
that
the
integrity
of
the
4
work
site
is
not
comprised.
While
supervisors
5
are
ultimately
responsible
for
the
safety
at
any
6
job
site,
cooperation
and
compliance
by
workers
7
is
essential.
Everyone
on
a
job
site
should
be
8
trained
in
the
principles
of
lead
safe
work
9
practices
both
in
the
classroom
and
on­
job
10
training.
On­
the­
job
training,
while
an
11
important
part
of
training
programs,
should
not
12
be
the
only
training
workers
receive.
Training
13
needs
to
be
multifaceted
and
include
health
14
effects
to
workers
and
children,
hazard
awareness
15
and
recognition,
and
control
strategies
for
16
reducing
generation
and
exposure
to
lead
dust
and
17
dealing
with
take­
home
lead.
Knowledgeable
and
18
educated
workers
need
to
become
part
of
the
19
solution
to
safe
renovation.
Since
the
proposed
20
rule
does
not
require
that
the
certified
21
renovator
have
this
training,
workers
will
not
22
receive
this
training.
0092
1
I
will
look
to
my
colleagues
to
2
address
the
other
important
training
issues,
3
including
the
lack
of
third­
party
licensure,
lack
4
of
requirements
for
certified
renovators
to
be
5
on­
site
at
all
times,
especially
given
that
6
workers
do
not
have
specified
­­
specific
7
training,
certified
dust
sampling
technician
8
training,
how
those
who
will
have
already
taken
9
the
HUD
training
will
be
affected,
and
the
10
duration
and
renewal
of
training.
11
In
summation,
the
Great
Lakes
Center
12
supports
EPA's
effort
to
require
the
use
of
lead
13
safe
work
practices
in
renovation
and
remodeling
14
and
we
hope
that
you
will
utilize
our
suggestions
15
to
improve
the
rule
to
better
protect
the
health
16
of
our
children.
17
Thank
you
very
much.
18
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
19
MS.
MORTIMER:
After
the
break,
Lara
20
Nochomovitz.
She's
there.
Okay.
Let's
take
a
21
five­
minute
break.
It
is
2:
10
by
my
watch.
So
22
at
2:
15,
Lara
will
be
up.
0093
1
(
WHEREUPON,
a
recess
was
had.)
2
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Lara
Nochomovitz,
and
3
then
after
that,
Nick
Peneff
from
Public
Health
4
and
Safety.
5
MR.
PENEFF:
I'm
here.
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
7
MS.
NOCHOMOVITZ:
Hi.
Good
afternoon.
My
8
name
is
Lara
Nochomovitz,
and
I'm
employed
as
the
9
Advocacy
Associate
at
the
Lutheran
Metropolitan
10
Ministry,
or
LMM,
in
Cleveland,
Ohio.
I've
been
11
employed
in
this
capacity
since
February
of
2004,
12
and
my
primary
job
responsibility
is
to
13
coordinate
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Program.
14
My
tasks
in
this
role
are
diverse
and
15
include
coordinating
training
for
­­
lead­
related
16
training
for
individuals
who
have
been
formerly
17
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system
and
18
assisting
these
individuals
with
job
placement.
19
Additionally,
I
served
as
the
secretary
to
the
20
Greater
Cleveland
Lead
Advisory
Council
and
its
21
five
subcommittees,
including
a
Work
Force
22
Development
Subcommittee.
The
GCLAC
as
the
0094
1
council
is
known
is
a
collaboration
spearheaded
2
by
LMM,
the
City
of
Cleveland,
Department
of
3
Public
Health,
and
the
Cuyahoga
County
Board
of
4
Health.
Our
primary
objective
is
to
5
eliminate
lead
poisoning
in
greater
Cleveland
6
where
11
percent
of
children
under
six
continue
7
to
be
affected
by
lead
poisoning
every
year.
8
Having
reviewed
the
EPA's
proposed
9
rule,
I
would
like
to
begin
by
applauding
your
10
efforts
to
encourage
lead
safe
renovation
and
11
repair.
The
proposal
will
be
beneficial
to
12
ongoing
efforts
to
eliminate
lead
poisoning
13
through
preventive
rather
than
reactionary
14
measures.
15
That
said,
I
have
some
concerns
about
16
four
major
areas
of
the
draft.
First,
I
do
not
17
believe
that
the
proposal
requires
sufficient
18
training
for
renovation
workers
nor
does
it
19
create
a
universal
training
system
or
any
written
20
verification
for
training.
By
providing
a
21
universal
training
system
as
well
as
written
22
verification,
training
would
be
more
efficient,
0095
1
there
would
be
less
confusion,
and
it
would
be
2
easy
to
verify
from
job
to
job
which
workers
had
3
been
trained
and
to
ensure
that
there
was
4
consistent
training.
Without
universal
training
5
or
some
sort
of
written
verification,
there's
a
6
chance
that
there's
inconsistencies
­­
there
are
7
inconsistencies,
different
trainers
by
different
8
measures,
so
we
feel
that
this
is
very
important.
9
We
don't
think
that
providing
­­
that
requiring
10
training
will
be
a
barrier
to
completing
lead
11
work.
12
As
I
believe
you've
already
heard
13
today,
the
Work
Force
Development
14
Subcommittee
of
the
GCLAC
completed
a
survey
of
15
over
30
contractors,
and
those
contractors
16
indicated
that
there
were
not
enough
qualified
17
lead
workers.
So
by
requiring
an
additional
18
training
you
may
actually
help
to
eliminate
this
19
barrier
rather
than
creating
an
additional
20
barrier
to
completing
lead
work.
21
Secondly,
the
proposal
as
you've
22
already
heard
does
not
prohibit
practices
that
we
0096
1
have
­­
that
have
been
shown
to
increase
risk
of
2
lead
exposure
to
workers
and
to
children
such
as
3
dry
scraping
and
sanding
or
torching
lead­
based
4
paint.
Prohibiting
these
practices
upfront
5
rather
than
having
to
clean
up
a
mess
after
using
6
these
practices
would
probably
be
more
cost
7
efficient.
I
think
that's
really
all
I'm
going
8
to
say
about
that
issue.
There's
science
that
9
shows
that
we
can
­­
that
we
can
avoid
these
10
practices
quite
easily.
11
Thirdly,
the
proposed
rule
relies
on
a
12
visual
clearance
technique
rather
than
a
dust
13
wipe
sample,
and
there's
not
really
enough
14
science
to
back
up
the
method
that's
proposed
in
15
the
rule.
The
National
Center
for
Healthy
16
Housing
completed
a
study
in
2002,
which
17
indicated
that
a
visual
exam
does
not
always
18
verify
the
dust
levels
in
a
home.
They
tested
19
121
housing
units,
and
of
those
that
passed
a
20
visual
clearance
exam,
54
percent
did
not
pass
a
21
dust
wipe
test
and
were
not
safe
for
children.
22
The
rule
also
doesn't
require
disclosure
of
the
0097
1
results
of
the
visual
clearance,
and
we
feel
that
2
this
would
be
disempowering
to
community
members
3
who
are
renting
or
buying
a
home
because
they
4
wouldn't
know
what
they
were
getting
into.
Other
5
federal
guidelines
such
as
the
HUD
guidelines
do
6
require
disclosure,
and
we
would
encourage
that
7
you
would
require
disclosure
of
whatever
8
clearance
technique
you
decide
on.
9
Fourthly
and
finally,
the
proposal
10
doesn't
include
any
enforcement
protocol
nor
does
11
it
create
any
infrastructure
for
enforcement.
We
12
already
know
the
federal
agencies
are
13
overburdened
with
enforcement
with
existing
rules
14
such
as
the
Pre­
Renovation
Information
Rule,
15
which
again,
you've
already
heard
about
today.
16
And
not
only
is
it
important
to
create
some
17
mechanism
for
enforcing
the
Proposed
Renovation
18
Rule,
but
it's
also
important
to
make
sure
that
19
we
can
sustain
that
enforcement
so
that
it's
more
20
than
writing
on
paper.
21
We
­­
again,
we'd
like
to
applaud
your
22
efforts
at
creating
a
rule
that
would
contribute
0098
1
to
preventive
lead
poisoning
prevention
rather
2
than
reactionary
lead
poisoning
prevention
3
measures,
but
we
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at,
4
again,
the
clearance
standards,
the
worker
5
training
standards,
and
the
prohibited
practices
6
as
well
as
the
enforcement
areas,
and
to
look
at
7
what
exists
already
in
federal
guidelines
such
as
8
those
created
by
HUD
in
creating
the
final
rule.
9
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
10
testify
11
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
12
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
I
forgot
one
key
13
announcement,
which
Lara
just
did
a
perfect
job.
14
When
you
speak,
especially
if
you're
speaking
15
from
your
notes,
please
slow
down
because
we
have
16
a
court
reporter
here
who's
catching
every
single
17
one
of
your
words,
and
if
you
­­
or
trying
to,
18
and
if
you
read
too
fast,
she
can't
catch
them
19
all.
So
please
give
me
your
written
comments
if
20
you've
got
them
and
do
try
to
slow
down
your
21
speech
a
bit.
22
Next
up,
we've
got
Nick
Peneff
0099
1
followed
by
Amy
Zimmerman.
2
MR.
PENEFF:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Nicholas
3
Peneff,
Doctor
of
Public
Health,
and
Operator
of
4
both
a
nonprofit
lead
worker
training
program
for
5
the
Salvation
Army,
and
a
for­
profit
company,
6
Public
Health
and
Safety,
performing
lead
7
inspections
and
risk
assessments.
8
My
first
health­
related
job
was
a
9
chemist
analyzing
paint
chips
for
lead
in
1971
10
while
I
interned
at
the
Chicago
Board
of
Health.
11
During
roughly
half
the
time
since
then,
we
have
12
collaborated
with
others
in
private
sector,
13
governmental,
nonprofit,
and
community­
based
14
efforts
toward
Title
X
goals
through
an
era
which
15
I
now
call
"
benign
neglect"
before
issuance
of
16
this
proposed
R
and
R
Rule.
Fortunately,
through
17
the
concerted
efforts
of
the
lead
poisoning
18
prevention
community
and
brought
to
the
forefront
19
by
Illinois'
own
Senator
Barack
Obama,
we
stand
20
here
today.
21
Unfortunately,
we
disagree
on
broad
22
grounds
with
elements
of
the
proposed
rule
which
0100
1
eliminates
safeguards
afforded
by
the
ban
and
the
2
use
of
dangerous
work
methods,
clearance
testing,
3
and
project
planning
as
currently
described
in
4
the
HUD
guidelines
and
federal
or
state
rules.
5
On
these
topics,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
6
appear
to
fulfill
Title
X's
promise
of
a
7
health­
based
hazard
standard
nor
does
it
support
8
the
Title
X
notion
of
a
lead
safe
housing
rule
9
from
HUD
for
purposes
of
providing
existing
10
exemplary
standards
for
lead
safe
work
practices
11
and
clearance
procedures
as
the
nation's
largest
12
landlord.
13
It
does
not
support
the
collaboration
14
of
HUD
and
EPA
in
the
spirit
of
Title
X
let
alone
15
state
or
local
jurisdictions.
Instead
it
16
conflicts
and
confuses
those
goals,
as
we
see
it,
17
and
contradicts
progress
already
made
toward
18
them.
19
Regarding
prohibited
work
practices,
20
EPA's
failure
to
include
prohibited
work
21
practices
will
sow
confusion
in
the
housing
22
renovation,
painting,
remodeling,
rehabilitation,
0101
1
and
repair
industry
because
there
will
be
two
2
different
sets
of
requirements
for
the
same
type
3
of
work,
depending
on
whether
the
work
is
done
in
4
federally
or
locally­
assisted
housing
on
one
hand
5
or
an
unassisted
housing
on
the
other
hand.
6
As
a
trainer
of
lead
workers,
I
will
7
testify
that
presentation
of
such
a
double
8
standard
for
child
protection
will
not
ring
true
9
and
will
undermine
the
public
health
message
that
10
is
essential
in
my
experience
to
alert
and
11
motivate
new
trainees
to
another
more
12
health­
conscious
way
of
fixing
homes.
13
We
expect
workers
to
recognize
this
14
discrepancy,
to
discredit
the
message
based
on
15
this
discrepancy,
and
worse,
to
use
this
16
discrepancy
to
invite
a
standard
of
work
progress
17
that's
unfettered
by
fuzzy
public
health
goals.
18
To
create
a
level
playing
field
as
well
as
to
19
ensure
the
public
health,
EPA
should
conform
its
20
requirements
to
those
in
the
HUD
regulation
which
21
has
now
been
in
place
for
nearly
six
years
and
22
OSHA
regulations
which
have
been
in
place
for
0102
1
decades.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
prohibition
2
against
using
these
work
practices
is
also
3
included
in
the
regulations
of
housing
4
administered
by
the
Department
of
Defense,
the
5
Department
of
Veteran
Affairs,
Department
of
6
Agriculture,
and
others.
Also
regarding
7
dangerous
work
methods,
we
are
concerned
that
8
previously
collected
data
may
not
account
for
9
different
particle­
size
distribution,
a
factor
in
10
both
the
potential
cleaning
efficiency
of
work
11
areas
and
the
toxicology
of
lead
poisoning.
12
Assuming
there's
no
studies
which
are
based
on
13
the
absence
of
prohibited
work
practices
may
not
14
be
valid
in
renovations
where
use
of
open
flame
15
burning
and
widespread
machine
sanding
is
16
permitted.
17
Further,
the
discussion
regarding
18
false
negatives
with
respect
to
chemical
paint
19
testing
before
disturbance
during
renovation
20
shows
a
flaw
in
its
initial
premise
before
21
renovation
or
cleaning
ever
take
place.
Testing
22
intact
paint
may
not
be
sufficient
to
avoid
a
0103
1
hazard,
especially
if
the
ban
of
prohibited
2
methods
is
lifted.
Hazard
generation
in
this
3
case
rather
is
a
function
of
the
type
of
work
4
method
which
would
be
employed,
the
area
or
5
extent
to
which
it
will
be
employed,
the
method
6
and
extent
of
containment,
and
the
final
7
conditions
of
surfaces
affecting
their
ability
to
8
be
effectively
clean.
Then
comes
the
cleaning.
9
In
short,
passing
a
color
test
will
not
10
necessarily
preclude
generation
of
hazard
during
11
renovation
employing
the
use
of
open
flame
or
12
machine
sanding.
13
Consider
the
following
scenario.
A
14
chemical
spot
test
or
an
XRF
measurement
for
that
15
matter
shows
less
than
1.0
milligrams
per
square
16
centimeter
of
lead,
and
as
such
indicates
no
17
lead­
based
paint.
To
the
extent
that
lead
is
18
present,
say,
in
the
0.5
to
0.9
milligram
per
19
square
centimeter
range,
open
flame
burning
and
20
machine
sanding
without
a
HEPA
filter
attachment
21
proposed
as
permitted
methods
can
create
dust
22
hazards
far
in
excess
of
quantitative
standards.
0104
1
Permitting
practices
which
produce
2
only
large
amounts
of
small
particle
dust
only
3
magnifies
the
unaccounted
false
negatives
4
resulting
from
the
most
complete
disintegration
5
of
lead
containing
paint.
In
this
scenario,
no
6
requirements
for
containment
or
cleaning
7
verification
would
apply
under
the
proposed
rule.
8
At
the
least,
EPA
should
assume
the
presence
of
9
regulated
lead
concentrations
where
the
most
10
dangerous
work
methods
are
contemplated
or
offer
11
a
new
statutory
action
level
for
paint
which
12
recognizes
the
far­
greater
potential
for
dust
13
generation
is
aggravated
by
these
work
methods.
14
To
go
forward
with
the
proposed
rule
15
in
this
respect
presents
the
appearance
of
an
16
OSHA
standard
more
presumptive
and,
therefore,
on
17
this
basis
more
protective
of
workers
and
18
pre­
renovation
planning
procedures
offered
19
children.
On
these
projects
where
the
20
presumption
of
lead
is
not
made
or
where
the
21
presumption
can
be
made
and
rebutted
lies
a
22
flawed
methodology
that
fails
to
evaluate
an
0105
1
important
class
of
false
negatives.
Also
on
this
2
basis
and
on
the
basis
of
a
standard
of
3
prevention,
there
should
be
no
difference
between
4
measures
taken
in
a
household
that
is
occupied
or
5
nonoccupied
on
the
theory
that
no
one
better
6
trained
in
cleaning
is
likely
by
design
to
return
7
preceding
occupancy.
8
The
prohibition
of
dangerous
methods
9
of
paint
removal
as
a
type
of
engineering
10
control.
Rather
than
attempting
to
control
11
emissions
after
they
have
occurred,
engineering
12
controls
are
designed
to
prevent
or
minimize
13
emissions
from
occurring
in
the
first
place.
14
Under
OSHA
Rules,
for
instance,
use
of
available
15
engineering
controls
must
be
exhausted
before
16
other
controls
can
be
put
into
place.
Under
the
17
proposed
rule,
such
controls
preventing
lead
dust
18
hazards
will
disappear.
Subversion
of
these
19
preventive
measures
as
it
may
affect
children's
20
health
gives
the
appearance
of
a
proposed
21
children's
health
standard
less
protective
at
22
least
in
theory
than
OSHA's
standard
for
0106
1
protecting
workers
exposed
to
lead.
2
Title
X's
promise,
as
we
understand
3
it,
lies
in
childhood
lead
poisoning
prevention,
4
not
in
what
may
be
regarded
as
Pandora's
Box
5
approach
to
indoor
lead
pollution.
EPA
needs
to
6
restore
the
protective
standards
that
now
define
7
the
industry
standard
for
lead
hazard
control
and
8
housing
modifications.
Failing
this,
EPA
needs
9
to
develop
a
body
of
peer­
reviewed
studies
which
10
support
proposed
controls
in
the
context
of
11
prohibited
work
practices.
12
Regarding
clearance
testing,
studies
13
show
that
dust
wipe
loadings
correlate
well
to
14
blood
lead
levels,
and
I
think
others
have
talked
15
about
this
enough,
so
I'm
going
to
skip
that
16
paragraph.
17
Although
there's
no
way
to
go
back
18
into
time
to
field
test
the
new
clearance
19
verification,
in
1992,
cafeteria
tables,
floors,
20
and
window
ledges
in
the
Kozkiesko
School
in
21
Chicago,
now
Lozano
School,
failed
clearance
22
testing
after
use
of
paper
towel
and
produced
a
0107
1
white
glove
look.
These
findings
may
be
less
2
significant
with
regards
to
their
similarity
or
3
dissimilarity
to
the
proposed
white
glove
method
4
than
they
are
with
regards
to
the
opportunity
for
5
an
unexpected
third­
party
evaluation
of
lead
safe
6
work
practices.
We
question
the
meaning
of
the
7
term
"
lead
safe,"
if
there
is
no
chance
for
8
unexpected
independent
review
built
into
the
9
proposed
rule
for
purposes
of
validating
the
10
theory
of
lead
safe
status
at
least
on
some
11
occasion
of
a
quality
control
basis.
We
suggest
12
that
EPA
require
program
managers
to
employ
13
independent
quality
control
using
traditional
14
wipe
sampling
protocol
at
least
to
qualify
work
15
on
multifamily
projects.
16
Regarding
planning
for
renovation
17
activities,
we
agree
with
the
EPA's
suggestion
18
that
renovation
firms
working
in
a
19
multicontractor
work
site
decide
among
themselves
20
which
firm
will
be
responsible
for
providing
21
pre­
renovation
education
to
the
owners
and
22
occupants,
which
firm
will
establish
containment,
0108
1
and
which
firm
will
perform
the
post­
renovation
2
cleaning
and
cleaning
verification.
Further,
we
3
believe
that
such
planning
should
be
formalized
4
in
training
included
as
part
of
the
curriculum
5
and
coordinated
as
part
of
both
the
bid
and
6
contract
requirements.
However,
we
disagree
that
7
the
certified
contractor
with
just
one
day's
8
training
is
sufficiently
equipped
to
weigh
9
without
provision
of
a
specific
design
format,
10
the
variability
of
such
factors
as
the
size
and
11
the
scope
of
work,
the
degree
of
dust
created
by
12
once
prohibited
work
methods,
whether
or
not
13
components
are
removed
substantially
intact,
and
14
the
all­
important
condition
of
horizontal
15
surfaces
subject
to
cleaning
verification
of
16
so­
called
washable
surfaces.
We
suggest
use
of
17
EPA's
own
abatement
model
for
an
occupant
18
protection
plan
to
develop
site­
specific
work
19
methods
with
corresponding
containment
designs
20
for
purposes
of
occupant
notification,
site
21
posting,
renovation
bid
comparison,
and
provide
22
written
basis
for
the
possible
enforcement
of
the
0109
1
rule.
Without
this,
we
don't
think
that
the
2
householder
has
really
much
chance
to
review
the
3
work
that
has
been
done
without
a
third
party.
4
Thank
you.
5
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
We
have
Amy
Zimmerman,
7
and
then
Frank
Spedoske.
8
MS.
ZIMMERMAN:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Amy
9
Zimmerman.
I
am
the
Children's
Policy
Advisor
to
10
Illinois
Attorney
General
Lisa
Madigan,
and
I'm
11
here
today
to
present
a
statement
on
her
behalf.
12
Each
year,
Illinois
reports
the
13
highest
number
of
lead
poisoned
children
in
the
14
nation.
The
Office
of
the
Attorney
General
has
15
enforcement
authority
under
the
Illinois
Lead
16
Poisoning
Prevention
Act
to
prosecute
homeowners
17
who
fail
to
remedy
lead
hazards
after
a
child
has
18
been
poisoned.
19
It
is
understood
that
children
are
20
routinely
poisoned
through
lead
dust
that
21
generates
from
both
deteriorating
lead
paint
and
22
lead
dust
generated
by
renovation
and
remodeling
0110
1
activities.
These
activities
kick
up
significant
2
amounts
of
lead
dust
that
permeates
carpets,
3
ductwork,
and
soil,
creating
both
short
and
4
long­
term
exposures
to
residents.
5
While
we
applaud
the
efforts
that
the
6
EPA
is
making
to
establish
requirements
for
the
7
conduct
of
renovation
and
remodeling
activities
8
that
disturb
lead­
based
paint,
there
are
several
9
gaps
in
the
proposed
regulations
that
should
be
10
addressed.
Our
office
is
especially
concerned
11
about
the
children
that
could
be
exposed
both
12
before
and
after
the
renovation
process,
but
we
13
are
also
concerned
about
the
health
and
safety
of
14
workers
involved.
15
We
ask
that
EPA
strive
to
avoid
any
16
unintended
consequences
of
the
proposal
by
17
amending
the
regulations
to
cover
all
homes
where
18
exterior
renovations
that
disturb
lead­
based
19
paint
are
being
conducted
and
not
just
those
with
20
children
under
age
six,
as
neighborhood
children
21
or
visitors
could
still
be
affected
by
22
renovations
on
the
exterior
of
such
a
residence;
0111
1
commercial
buildings,
specifically
child­
occupied
2
facilities
such
as
day
care
centers
and
schools;
3
homes
with
pregnant
women
to
protect
children
4
in
utero
and
newborns
that
are
highly
susceptible
5
to
even
small
amounts
of
ingested
lead.
6
Furthermore,
the
regulations
do
not
7
sufficiently
address
clearance
testing
once
8
renovations
are
completed
or
dangerous
work
9
practices.
The
Office
of
the
Illinois
Attorney
10
General
asks
that
the
final
regulations
include
11
scientific
testing
­­
clearance
testing
methods
12
which
should
be
used
to
completely
ascertain
that
13
there
is
no
lead
on
the
surface
rather
than
what
14
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
white
glove
test;
15
clearance
testing
conducted
by
an
impartial
party
16
to
ensure
compliance;
licensing
for
all
certified
17
renovators
and
a
requirement
that
they
must
be
18
on­
site
at
times
to
supervise
the
renovation;
19
prohibition
of
dangerous
methods
of
paint
removal
20
or
disturbance.
Use
of
these
methods
will
have
21
unintended
consequences
of
hurting
children,
22
workers,
and
others,
and
will
also
result
in
far
0112
1
higher
costs
associated
with
cleaning
up
the
2
widespread
contamination
that
will
occur.
Indeed
3
such
practices
may
violate
existing
OSHA
4
regulations.
5
Finally,
it
is
essential
that
6
penalties
be
strict
for
violators
of
these
7
regulations.
There
are
no
enforcement
guidelines
8
in
the
proposed
regulations.
States
are
9
authorized
to
administer
and
enforce
these
10
standards
and
regulations
in
lieu
of
a
federal
11
program.
In
order
to
provide
a
clear
12
disincentive,
the
regulations
should
propose
that
13
states
adopt
stringent
required
penalties
for
14
violators.
This
will
also
help
ensure
uniformity
15
among
the
states
as
well;
include
EPA­
mandated
16
assessment
of
compliance
by
instituting
routine
17
audits
of
all
authorized
contractors;
and
provide
18
states
with
the
resources
they
need
to
adequately
19
enforce
these
regulations.
20
The
Office
of
the
Attorney
General
21
commends
the
EPA
for
its
efforts.
While
these
22
regulations
are
an
important
step
in
eliminating
0113
1
lead
poisoning
among
all
our
children,
it
is
2
imperative
that
the
regulations
be
comprehensive
3
and
meaningful.
We
ask
that
EPA
issue
final
4
regulations
that
reflect
our
recommendations.
5
Thank
you.
6
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
7
MS.
MORTIMER:
Frank
is
up,
and
then
is
8
Marcelo
Tello
here?
9
(
No
response.)
10
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
So
after
Frank,
it's
11
Beth
Lauck
from
the
Illinois
Lead
Safe
Housing
12
Task
Force.
13
MR.
SPEDOSKE:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
14
Frank
Spedoske.
I
am
a
Marine
Science
15
Technician
with
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard.
I
am
an
16
instructor
in
hazardous
waste
operations
and
17
disposal,
but
I
am
not
here
to
speak
about
my
job
18
or
what
I
do.
I
am
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
19
lead
poisoned
son.
20
My
family's
experience
took
place
21
while
living
in
a
duplex
just
outside
of
22
Buffalo,
New
York,
in
2004.
We
had
been
living
0114
1
there
­­
when
we
moved
in,
my
son
was
four
2
month's
old.
And
we
had
been
living
there
about
3
a
year,
and
we
noticed
a
lot
of
developmental
4
delays
and
a
lot
of
problems.
And
so
we
got
him
5
tested,
and
he
came
back
with
a
blood
lead
level
6
count
of
47.
And
he
has
now
­­
after
we
found
7
that
out,
we
got
in
contact
with
hospitals
and
we
8
were
able
to
figure
out
ways
to
educate
ourselves
9
as
to
minimizing
his
exposure
to
the
environment
10
in
our
house
we
were
living
in
at
the
time.
11
We
got
his
lead
level
count
down
to
12
about
33
within
about
a
month,
which
we
were
on
13
our
way
down.
Once
the
landlord
hired
some
14
contractors
in
to
come
in
and
replace
the
15
windows,
first,
I
asked
them
if
they
had
been
16
trained
or
if
they
­­
I
have
a
fairly
decent
17
background
in
work
­­
you
know,
safe
work
18
practices.
I
know
what
to
look
for
and
what
not
19
to
look
for
anyway.
They
said
they
had
been
to
20
courses.
They
know
the
proper
procedures
to
use
21
with
lead­
based
paint
and
everything.
So
upon
22
returning
to
our
home
after
this
had
been
0115
1
completed,
we
found
our
entire
house
caked
in
2
dust.
Both
my
children's
rooms
were
caked
in
3
dust,
their
blankets,
their
beds,
couch,
floor,
4
everything.
5
Now,
here
again,
I'm
not
talking
­­
6
I'm
not
here
just
to
speak
about
one
particular
7
instance.
I'm
just
trying
to
show
what
happens
8
when
the
­­
when
this
situation
happens.
After
9
that,
my
son's
lead
level
spiked
up
to
55.
He
10
was
then
forced
to
be
hospitalized
for
a
week.
11
You
have
to
go
through
chelation
therapy.
And
to
12
have
a
two
year
old
go
through
this
for
a
week
13
was
our
own
hell
so
to
speak.
And
I
apologize
14
ahead
of
time
if
I
seem
too
abrupt
with
certain
15
things,
but
this
has
kind
of
have
been
a
16
sensitive
issue
in
my
family.
17
We
­­
for
that
week
stay
in
the
18
hospital,
it
was
extremely
traumatic
for
my
son.
19
Now
he
can't
go
into
waiting
rooms.
He
­­
every
20
time
­­
every
month
we
go
in
to
get
his
lead
21
level
count
tested
­­
he's
gone
down
to
12
now
22
and
he's
doing
much
better,
but
I
am
the
only
one
0116
1
who
could
take
him
in
to
get
his
blood
tested
2
because
I
have
to
physically
put
him
in
a
3
headlock,
lock
my
legs
around
him,
and
stretch
4
his
arm
out
so
that
the
doctor
can
take
the
blood
5
sample
out,
and
it
takes
every
ounce
that
I
have
6
to
even
hold
this
kid
still.
He
­­
it's
beyond
7
freaking
out
so
to
speak.
8
He
now
has
to
go
through
this
all
the
9
time,
and
to
hear
the
dollar­
and­
cents
arguments
10
really
hurts
because
I
want
­­
and
let
me
talk
11
about
the
dollar
and
cents.
I
have
to
spend
as
12
long
as
my
­­
and
my
insurance
company
has
to
13
spend
on
special
therapists
now
for
him,
special
14
schools
for
him
for
God
only
knows
how
long.
So
15
we
have
to
literally
­­
I
had
to
petition
to
the
16
Coast
Guard
to
get
transferred
to
this
area
17
because
I
knew
that
there
were
a
lot
of
good
18
facilities
here
for
him.
We're
living
in
19
Naperville,
and
there's
a
very
good
school
20
district
and
some
­­
you
know,
for
him
to
get
21
proper
treatment.
22
But
the
problem
does
not
end
with
the
0117
1
house
being
cleaned.
We
have
to
go
through
this
2
for
a
longer
period
of
time
than
just
a
3
renovation,
and
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
4
problems
I
have
seen
is
education
on
all
parties.
5
We
were
a
young
married
couple
with
a
new
kid,
6
and
I
was
not
aware
of
any
kind
of
possibility
of
7
there
being
a
problem.
I
found
out
our
place
was
8
built
in
the
'
30s
and
there
was
issues
with
that,
9
but
to
have
people
come
in
and
treat
our
house
10
like
that
really
alarmed
me
and
I
didn't
even
11
know
what
I
was
looking
at
yet.
12
I
just
strongly,
strongly
urge
that
13
this
become
a
meeting
and
a
notice
for
the
victim
14
not
for
­­
you
should
be
focusing
on
the
people
15
involved,
the
people
who
are
really
traumatized
16
by
this
not
the
people
who
have
to
make
it
work.
17
This
shouldn't
have
to
cater
to
the
people
who
18
have
to
do
the
work,
but
the
people
who
get
hurt
19
by
it.
And
the
issue
with
­­
I'm
sorry,
the
20
subject
of
becoming
a
voluntary
program
to
me
21
does
not
even
seem
possible.
I
mean,
the
speed
22
limit
is
mandatory
and
look
at
how
many
people
0118
1
follow
that.
2
It's
­­
this
should
be
something
that
3
should
be
so
stringently
looked
at
because
the
4
families
who
get
affected
have
to
deal
with
it
5
every
day.
And
something
as
simple
as
­­
my
son
6
has
a
cold
right
now
and
the
doctor
wanted
us
to
7
come
in,
just
a
regular
pediatrician,
but
it
is
8
an
all­
out
family
affair
when
we
have
to
do
that
9
because
the
second
he
sees
a
waiting
room,
10
everything
goes
to
the
pot
so
to
speak.
11
So
I
don't
want
to
use
up
any
more
12
time
as
far
as
just
our
own
family
story,
but
I
13
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
aware
that
14
this
should
be
catering
to
the
people
who
get
15
affected
and
not
to
the
people
who
have
to
make
16
sure
that
everyone
is
safe.
Thank
you.
17
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
18
MS.
MORTIMER:
Beth
Lauck
is
up
next,
and
19
then
after
that,
Daniel
Lince.
20
MS.
LAUCK:
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
21
the
opportunity
to
testify
today
regarding
the
22
EPA's
Lead
Renovation,
Repair
and
Painting
0119
1
Program.
My
name
is
Beth
Lauck.
I
am
a
staff
2
person
to
the
Illinois
Lead
Safe
Housing
Task
3
Force.
I
am
here
today
with
Mary
Burns,
Director
4
of
Community­
Based
Projects
for
Lead
Safe
Housing
5
Initiatives
based
at
Loyola
University
Chicago's
6
School
of
Law
and
a
member
of
the
task
force.
7
The
Illinois
Lead
Safe
Housing
Task
8
Force
was
organized
in
1997
in
an
effort
to
9
create
and
maintain
public/
private
partnerships
10
on
child
and
adolescent
health
issues
in
the
11
Chicago
metropolitan
area.
The
task
force
is
now
12
focused
on
the
entire
state
in
an
effort
to
13
implement
workable
strategies
to
eliminate
14
childhood
lead
poisoning.
It
is
made
up
of
15
representatives
from
realtor
associations,
the
16
insurance
industry,
state
and
local
public
health
17
departments,
and
housing
agencies,
as
well
as
18
tenant
housing
organizers,
community­
based
agency
19
representatives,
child
health
advocates,
20
physicians,
and
parents
of
lead
poisoned
21
children.
The
task
force
advocates
for
policy
22
reform,
promotes
public
awareness,
and
fosters
0120
1
collaborations
to
achieve
its
mission.
2
As
part
of
my
work,
I
have
interviewed
3
families
who
have
had
children
who
have
been
lead
4
poisoned.
I
have
seen
the
devastating
impact
5
that
lead
poisoning
has
on
these
families.
One
6
child
nearly
died
and
will
be
prone
to
seizures
7
all
of
her
life.
Many
lag
behind
their
younger
8
siblings
in
the
ability
to
read
and
concentrate
9
and
need
special
services
in
school.
Families
10
struggle
to
find
ways
to
deal
with
their
11
children's
academic
and
social
difficulties
that
12
stem
from
being
exposed
to
lead
poisoning,
all
13
the
while
knowing
that
this
could
have
easily
14
been
prevented.
15
Based
on
our
work
on
research
findings
16
and
on
information
we
have
gathered
from
health
17
professionals
and
parents,
we
have
seen
that
18
children
are
not
becoming
poisoned
from
eating
19
large
lead
paint
chips.
Rather
the
paint
from
20
which
children
are
poisoned
is
often
invisible
to
21
the
naked
eye.
22
One
family
we
interviewed
whose
0121
1
three­
year­
old
daughter
was
poisoned
stated
that
2
they
had
recently
bought
their
home
and
it
3
appeared
in
excellent
condition.
There
were
no
4
visible
signs
of
peeling
or
chipping
paint
on
the
5
window
sills,
walls,
or
stairs.
Even
a
home
6
inspection
completed
prior
to
purchasing
the
home
7
failed
to
detect
any
lead
hazards.
However,
8
during
a
routine
physical
exam,
their
daughter's
9
blood
lead
level
tested
in
the
30s,
three
times
10
the
level
at
which
the
CDC
considers
children
11
lead
poisoned.
Upon
inspection,
the
Department
12
of
Public
Health
found
that
the
child
was
13
poisoned
from
lead
on
the
window
sills
and
a
14
railing
that
led
to
the
basement.
This
lead
was
15
not
detectable
to
the
naked
eye.
16
Another
family
conveyed
the
tragic
17
story
of
their
son's
lead
level
increasing
from
18
poor
renovation
work.
After
their
son
was
19
diagnosed
with
a
positive
blood
lead
level,
the
20
landlord
hired
a
contractor
to
remove
the
lead
21
hazards.
The
contractor
assured
the
family
that
22
he
knew
how
to
remove
the
lead
hazards
properly,
0122
1
but
instead
he
ripped
out
the
windows
spreading
2
lead
dust
everywhere.
The
family
found
the
house
3
covered
in
paint
chips
and
dust.
Paint
chips
had
4
even
landed
on
their
lawn
and
on
the
neighbors'
5
driveways.
They
vacuumed
and
cleaned
everything
6
themselves,
but
even
after
their
thorough
7
cleaning,
the
house
still
remained
toxic.
The
8
new
exposure
sent
their
child's
lead
levels
so
9
high
that
he
had
to
be
hospitalized.
Two
years
10
after
the
diagnosis,
the
child's
blood
lead
11
level
still
remains
elevated.
12
Based
on
our
work,
we
are
very
13
concerned
about
the
following
proposed
14
regulations:
Work
must
be
done
correctly
so
that
15
future
child
occupants
will
not
become
poisoned
16
from
the
lead
dust
created
during
renovation
and
17
remodeling.
Owners
should
not
be
exempted
from
18
the
regulations
if
the
renovator
obtains
a
19
statement
from
the
owner
that
a
child
under
six
20
does
not
occupy
the
dwelling.
This
exemption
21
does
not
protect
children
who
come
to
reside
in
22
the
unit
in
the
future.
This
exemption
also
0123
1
undermines
the
goal
of
protecting
workers,
2
pregnant
women,
and
other
children,
and
residents
3
of
nearby
properties.
If
proper
practices
are
4
not
performed,
renovators
may
contaminate
5
surrounding
soil
and
blow
lead
onto
adjacent
6
properties
affecting
children
playing
outside.
7
There
should
also
not
be
an
exemption
8
as
proposed
in
the
regulations
for
emergency
9
situations
including
when
an
elevated
blood
lead
10
child
lives
in
the
unit.
The
justification
of
11
time
constraints
because
of
the
emergency
is
not
12
sufficient
to
warrant
foregoing
requirements
of
13
the
rule.
When
an
elevated
blood
lead
child
14
lives
in
the
unit,
we
understand
the
need
for
15
urgency
in
remedying
the
situation,
but
under
the
16
circumstances
in
which
a
child
has
already
been
17
poisoned,
safety
precautions
should
not
be
18
abandoned.
Abandoning
safety
precautions
creates
19
a
risk
that
the
poisoned
child's
lead
level
will
20
climb
higher
and
that
other
children
in
the
home
21
or
children
who
may
come
to
reside
in
the
home
in
22
the
future
will
be
poisoned.
0124
1
We
agree
with
the
proposed
regulation
2
the
common
areas
should
be
subject
to
the
same
3
safe
work
practice
requirements.
Unless
the
4
building
is
reserved
primarily
or
solely
for
5
elderly
residents,
there
is
a
high
likelihood
6
that
children
will
be
occupying
the
common
areas
7
and
can
be
exposed
to
the
lead
hazards.
8
Moving
on
to
our
concern
about
9
clearance
verification,
EPA
needs
to
adopt
10
adequate
methods
for
verifying
that
the
renovated
11
area
is
free
of
lead.
Clearance
verification
is
12
possibly
the
most
critical
part
of
making
sure
13
that
a
child
in
the
home
is
not
poisoned
or
14
further
exposed
to
lead.
15
Laboratory
documented
dust
clearance
16
testing
should
be
normative.
The
lead
dust
wipe
17
testing
is
the
only
proven
method
for
verifying
18
lead
dust
levels.
Failing
to
require
it
removes
19
the
final
safety
net
for
detecting
lead
that
may
20
only
then
be
discovered
when
a
child
becomes
21
poisoned
by
the
lead
that
was
left
behind.
22
Therefore,
this
objective
verification
test
is
0125
1
really
critical.
2
Finally,
dangerous
work
practices
3
banned
in
HUD
regulations
should
likewise
be
4
banned
in
these
regulations.
It
is
well
5
documented
in
scientific
studies
that
the
6
practices
HUD
deems
are
unsafe
to
use
7
powersanding,
sandblasting,
powerwashing,
and
the
8
use
of
heat
guns
above
1,100
degrees
all
create
9
high
levels
of
toxic
dust
that
are
extremely
10
difficult
to
clean
up.
11
In
conclusion,
the
Illinois
Lead
Safe
12
Task
Force
thanks
you
for
the
opportunity
to
13
testify
today.
We
will
also
be
submitting
a
14
written
report.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
15
the
EPA
on
further
efforts
to
eliminate
childhood
16
lead
poisoning.
17
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
18
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Daniel
Lince
is
up
19
next.
I
want
to
just
check
on
a
couple
people
20
though.
John
Bieg,
are
you
here?
Okay.
So
21
you'll
be
up
next.
I
just
have
to
check
on
a
22
couple
of
my
pre­
registered
folks.
Joniaya
Ladd?
0126
1
(
No
response.)
2
MS.
MORTIMER:
No.
And
Myrts
Sullivan?
3
(
No
response.)
4
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
So
Daniel,
and
then
5
John.
6
MR.
LINCE:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Dan
Lince.
7
I'm
the
Compliance
Officer
with
the
State
of
8
Michigan's
Lead
and
Healthy
Home
Section.
For
9
ten
years,
our
section
has
been
the
State
of
10
Michigan's
regulatory
authority
on
lead­
based
11
paint
issues.
We
are
­­
we
certify
the
12
individuals
in
the
state
that
perform
lead
13
abatement
and
lead
identification
activities
and
14
disciplines
you
all
know,
risk
assessor,
15
supervisor,
worker.
Our
current
roster
is
about
16
2,000
people
and
contractors.
We
accredit
and
17
train
­­
excuse
me,
accredit
and
audit
the
18
courses
of
six
training
providers
and
we
hold
19
exams
throughout
the
state
to
accredit
these
20
professionals.
We
also
run
a
fully­
involved
21
housing
program
of
our
own
which
has
made
more
22
than
1,200
homes
lead
safe
in
the
last
eight
0127
1
years.
2
I
say
all
this
to
show
that
our
3
program
mirrors
in
close
relation
many
of
the
4
aspects
of
the
proposed
rules
and
I
think
it
can
5
lend
a
special
insight
into
some
of
the
6
challenges
and
solutions
that
are
going
to
be
7
faced.
8
I'm
only
going
to
focus
my
comments
on
9
three
areas.
The
first
is
notifications.
As
an
10
enforcement
person,
I
can
tell
you
that
­­
and
11
it's
come
up
in
a
lot
of
testimony
here
today,
12
the
need
for
enforcement.
Any
successful
model
13
of
enforcing
this
law
is
going
to
require
some
14
form
of
notification.
And
I
am
not
here
with
15
just
an
empty
recommendation,
I
have
a
­­
I
have
16
an
idea.
17
Notifications
go
the
farthest
in
18
ensuring
the
compliant
mind­
set
among
contractors
19
and
the
knowledge
that
they
have
notified
of
20
their
job
is
a
powerful
incentive.
The
most
21
obvious
challenge
to
notifications
are
the
sheer
22
volume
of
notifications
you
can
expect.
0128
1
In
Michigan
alone,
there
are
60,000
2
remodeling
contractors.
This
would
lead
to
a
3
huge
number
of
notifications
coming
in
daily.
4
How
do
you
deal
with
that?
For
that,
I
look
to
5
the
credit
card
companies
and
the
banks
which
6
take
also
a
tremendous
amount
of
information
over
7
the
phone.
I
propose
a
call­
in
system.
The
8
system
will
consist
of
a
toll­
free
number
for
9
contractors
to
call
prior
to
beginning
a
job.
10
The
contractor
will
be
autoprompted
for
two
11
pieces
of
information.
One,
their
unique
12
contractor
identification
number.
Two,
the
zip
13
code
where
the
project
is
occurring.
Then
they
14
hang
up.
Less
than
a
minute.
They
all
have
15
telephones.
The
job
is
done.
This
will
go
into
16
a
central
database.
17
For
example,
in
one
week,
you
may
18
receive
5,000
of
these.
Compliance
people
are
19
able
to
­­
they
either
randomly
or
based
on
zip
20
code
draw
a
smaller
subset
of
these
numbers
to
21
gain
more
information
to
do
compliance.
The
22
remaining,
nothing
needs
to
happen.
In
this
way,
0129
1
by
using
this
system
of
going
from
general
to
2
specific,
EPA
can
successfully
handle
the
large
3
number
of
notifications
it
can
expect
to
receive.
4
Michigan
believes
it
would
be
wrong
to
5
dismiss
the
idea
of
notifications
because
they're
6
a
powerful,
passive,
and
free
compliance
tool.
7
Over
the
fear
of
the
technology
challenge,
the
8
challenge
can
be
met,
if
not
with
this
system,
9
then
with
another.
10
My
next
comments
will
be
on
the
phased
11
approach
that
has
been
proposed.
The
initial
12
proposal
calls
for
phasing
in
the
rule
in
stages.
13
The
somewhat
complicated
formula
for
determining
14
whether
the
rule
applies
to
a
given
project
15
involves
several
factors
including
the
phase
of
16
the
rule,
the
age
of
the
home
or
rental
unit,
17
whether
children
reside
in
the
dwelling,
the
18
children's
ages,
and
whether
or
not
one
or
more
19
of
the
children
have
an
EBL.
This
approach
will
20
create
more
problems
than
it
solves.
Oftentimes
21
the
homeowners
do
not
know
the
exact
year
of
the
22
home's
construction.
This
will
lead
to
major
0130
1
difficulties
in
enforcing
the
law
or
even
knowing
2
when
it
applies.
It
is
not
difficult
to
envision
3
contractors
going
with
varied
unsupported
4
assumptions
that
a
home
is
newer
than
it
is
when
5
this
is
in
doubt
to
avoid
the
law.
6
It
is
far
simpler
if
the
proposed
rule
7
is
applied
evenly
and
all
at
once
to
target
8
housing
in
pre­
1978
homes.
The
proposed
phasing
9
scheme,
however
well
reasoned
internally,
will
be
10
perceived
by
contractors
­­
and
we
deal
with
11
contractors
all
the
time
­­
will
be
perceived
by
12
contractors
as
unnecessarily
complicated
and
13
proof
positive
that
the
new
law
is
overly
14
burdensome,
out
of
touch,
and
nonsensible
for
15
anyone
except
the
bureaucracy
that
authored
it.
16
They
have
to
be
able
to
understand
it,
and
having
17
a
formula
with
five
or
six
factors
about
how
to
18
determine
whether
or
not
it
applies
in
a
given
19
project
isn't
going
to
fly.
It
risks
alienating
20
contractors
in
the
public
alike
who
will
feel
21
mired
in
red
tape.
The
EPA
should
be
mindful
of
22
the
value
this
kind
of
perception
has
for
0131
1
opponents
of
these
efforts.
A
single­
phased
2
introduction
is
the
simplest
approach
and
the
3
most
compatible
with
the
goals
of
education
and
4
broad
acceptance
in
a
regulated
community.
5
Clearances,
a
lot
has
been
said
about
6
clearances
so
far.
We
understand
the
factors
7
that
went
into
the
­­
necessitated
the
white
8
glove
test.
It
is
one
way
to
conduct
fast,
9
inexpensive,
immediate,
and
reasonably
­­
10
reasonably
fast
clearances
for
a
large
number
of
11
projects.
I
think
the
compromises
to
clearances
12
have
come
about
out
of
a
realistic
understanding
13
of
the
sheer
number
of
projects
that
you're
going
14
to
have
to
try
to
clear
and
to
keep
the
cost
down
15
in
all
of
them.
16
We
support
the
white
glove
test
with
a
17
caveat.
The
first
being
that
over
time,
the
need
18
for
change,
updates,
or
modernization
doesn't
19
become
obvious.
For
this,
it
seems
like
you
20
would
need
some
sort
of
objective
Q­
A
system.
21
Second,
that
it
is
understood
by
22
everyone
that
the
proposed
white
glove
clearance,
0132
1
a
compromise
on
the
current
standard
by
the
twin
2
necessities
of
efficiency
and
thrift,
will
fail
3
more
often
than
the
current
system
in
the
4
intended
goal
of
clearing
homes
and
making
sure
5
they're
lead
safe.
Statistically,
ours
fail
at
6
some
level.
This
will
fail
more.
7
Third,
Michigan
opposes
the
notion
of
8
a
renovator
doing
their
own
clearance.
This
is
a
9
conflict
of
interest
and
a
recipe
for
widespread
10
abuse.
As
a
compliance
officer,
I've
seen
abuse
11
on
simpler
things
than
doing
their
own
clearance.
12
In
conclusion,
LHHS,
the
State
of
13
Michigan,
strongly
supports
EPA
in
this
overdue
14
effort
to
close
the
remodeling
and
renovation
15
loophole.
Michigan
encourages
EPA
to
make
bold
16
decisive
steps
in
the
coming
months
to
shape
this
17
legislation
to
a
real
shield
for
children
and
18
while
keeping
in
mind
that
streamlined
simple
19
regulation
is
the
most
effective,
best
accepted,
20
and
easily
enforced.
Thanks.
21
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
22
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
John
Bieg
is
up.
Then
0133
1
I've
got
Ada
Duffey
after
that,
and
Tom
McCormack
2
after
that.
And
if
you're
not
on
that
list,
come
3
and
see
me
because
that's
all
the
names
I've
got
4
left.
Come
up
and
see
me.
5
MR.
BIEG:
Good
afternoon,
my
name
is
John
6
Bieg.
I
am
a
certified
property
manager
and
7
member
of
the
Institute
of
Real
Estate
8
Management,
Chicago
Chapter
23.
The
Institute
of
9
Real
Estate
Management,
IRAM,
is
an
affiliate
of
10
the
National
Association
of
Realtors.
The
11
institute
is
the
only
professional
real
estate
12
management
association
serving
both
the
13
multifamily
and
commercial
real
estate
sectors.
14
With
81
U.
S.
chapters
and
eight
international
15
chapters,
IRAM
is
an
organization
that
serves
as
16
an
advocate
on
issues
affecting
the
real
estate
17
management
industry.
Collectively,
IRAM
members
18
manage
more
than
6.5
billion
square
feet
of
19
commercial
space
and
more
than
13
million
20
residential
units,
totaling
over
$
848
billion
in
21
real
estate
assets.
22
I
have
been
in
the
real
estate
field
0134
1
for
21
years
and
currently
manage
$
200
billion
in
2
assets.
The
institute
has
concerns
with
the
3
proposed
lead­
based
paint
rule
issued
under
the
4
authority
of
Section
402
C.
3.,
of
the
Toxic
5
Substances
Control
Act.
The
proposed
rule
6
requires
that
a
certified
renovator
supervise
7
each
and
every
renovation
defined
as
any
activity
8
that
disturbs
more
than
two
square
feet
of
paint.
9
IRAM
believes
that
such
a
requirement
will
result
10
in
a
disincentive
for
property
owners
to
conduct
11
regular
maintenance
of
their
properties.
This
12
could
result
in
deferred
maintenance
of
the
13
target
housing,
possibly
creating
greater
lead
14
hazards.
Due
to
the
increased
expense,
15
administrative
burden,
and
the
time
involved
in
16
complying
with
the
rule,
owners
may
be
forced
to
17
defer
small
maintenance
activities
until
they
are
18
forced
to
deal
with
the
bigger
problem.
19
In
response
to
whether
or
not
the
rule
20
should
apply
when
the
housing
is
unoccupied,
for
21
example,
during
turnover
of
an
apartment
unit,
22
IRAM
would
argue
that
requiring
such
work
0135
1
practices
in
a
vacant
apartment
would
be
2
unnecessary
as
there
is
no
threat
of
exposure
3
when
nobody
is
living
there.
4
The
proposed
rule
would
require
that
5
signed
and
dated
records
be
kept
describing
the
6
work
practices,
signed
posting
procedures,
7
containment,
and
cleaning
for
every
job.
EPA
8
expects
this
recordkeeping
burden
to
take
no
more
9
than
five
hours
per
year.
IRAM
would
strongly
10
argue
that
this
recordkeeping
will
be
far
more
11
time
consuming
than
EPA
believes.
12
Finally,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
13
require
dust
clearance
sampling
after
each
14
renovation
project.
IRAM
fully
supports
the
15
reasoning
EPA
has
used
to
not
require
this
16
testing.
Dust
sampling
is
very
expensive
and
17
time
consuming.
While
waiting
for
test
results,
18
the
renovation
area
would
have
to
remain
19
unoccupied
creating
a
tremendous
burden
on
20
property
owners
and
residents.
Such
a
21
requirement
would
absolutely
result
in
deferred
22
maintenance
and
deteriorating
property.
0136
1
We
strongly
urge
EPA
to
stand
by
their
2
decision
to
not
require
dust
clearance
sampling
3
for
renovation
jobs.
Thank
you.
4
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
5
MS.
MORTIMER:
All
right.
Ada
Duffey.
6
MS.
DUFFEY:
Hello.
My
name
is
Ada
Duffey,
7
and
I'm
the
owner
of
Milwaukee
Lead
and
8
Asbestos
Information
Center,
and
we
conduct
over
9
90
percent
of
all
the
lead
paint
training
in
10
Wisconsin.
We've
been
doing
the
training
since
11
1993,
and
we
were
actually
the
first
approved
12
trainer
by
the
EPA
back
in
'
97
for
lead
training.
13
We
do
offer
courses
to
contractors
every
month
14
since
1993,
if
not
more
than
once
a
month
or
15
sometimes
two
and
three
times
a
month,
throughout
16
Wisconsin.
17
I
am
constantly
speaking
with
18
contractors
in
different
arenas,
and
I
do
think
19
something
needs
to
be
done
regarding
this
lead
20
abatement
versus
lead
safe
renovation.
A
few
21
people
have
mentioned
it
today,
gave
the
22
particular
example
of
window
replacements.
How
0137
1
can
one
particular
activity
in
one
situation,
if
2
it's
called
"
abatement,"
require
at
least
two
3
days'
worth
of
training,
notifications
to
the
4
state,
clearance
testing,
and
in
other
5
situations,
window
replacement
just
requires
6
OSHA
compliance?
And,
you
know,
in
a
lot
of
7
cases
that
OSHA
training
isn't
complied
with.
8
So
it's
very
confusing
not
only
for
9
contractors
but
for
a
training
provider
to
give
10
the
information
to
a
contractor
what
type
of
11
training
they
need,
and
so
I
do
think
something
12
needs
to
be
acknowledged.
And
if
this
rule
and
13
when
this
rule
goes
through,
being
very
clear
14
when
exactly
something
is
considered
abatement
15
and
when
is
something
considered
renovation.
16
Because
it's
very
confusing
right
now,
and
I
17
think
if
this
rule
comes
about,
it
will
need
to
18
be
clearly
stated
to
everyone.
And
for
the
19
people
that
have
taken
additional
days
of
20
training,
what
that
value
is
and
when
that's
21
going
to
be
serving
a
purpose.
22
I
have
five
different
points.
The
0138
1
first
one,
child­
occupied
homes,
or
with
the
2
focus
of
this
rule
focusing
on
where
children
are
3
and
not
including
other
types
of
properties.
I
4
think
this
contributes
to
avoiding
working
on
5
houses
where
there
are
children
or
people
­­
6
where
people
admit
that
children
live.
With
all
7
the
HUD
Rules
and
rent
assistance
rules,
people
8
always
bring
up
the
whole
issue
of
fair
housing,
9
and
as
far
as
landlords
and
tenants
and
­­
I
10
think
that
brings
up
an
issue
again.
11
Also,
I
don't
think
it
would
catch
all
12
the
situations,
grandparents'
houses,
if
you're
a
13
new
tenant,
so
the
old
tenant
didn't
have
14
children,
so
maybe
they
weren't
as
safe
now.
You
15
have
a
new
tenant
that
has
a
child,
and
now
16
they're
the
recipient
of
possibly
some
leftover
17
lead
dust,
and
new
homebuyers,
so
I
don't
know
18
that
excluding
those
types
of
properties
from
19
this
rule
helps
protect
children
in
those
20
particular
situations.
And
even
in
EBL
21
investigations
when
health
departments
go
out,
22
they
do
ask
where
did
you
previously
live
or
do
0139
1
you
get
baby­
sat
by
a
grandparent,
so
I
would
2
just
ask
that
that
be
looked
at.
3
As
far
as
training
and
the
in­
house
4
training,
it's
hard
enough
to
get
people
to
go
to
5
required
training.
OSHA
already
requires
6
training
for
lead.
So
ideally
all
remodelers
7
would
be
coming
and
saying,
hey,
our
guys
are
8
already
trained
in
lead
safe
work
practices
9
because
we're
already
compliant
with
OSHA
10
training
requirements.
So
I
do
think
there
needs
11
to
be
some
kind
of
program
for
administering
the
12
training.
And
as
someone
else
before
mentioned,
13
some
kind
of
structured
system
so
that
if
an
14
employee
goes
to
another
employer,
they
can
offer
15
proof
that
these
training
needs
were
met.
16
As
far
as
HEPA
vacuums,
there
is
a
17
point
in
here
asking
about
HEPA
vacuums,
if
that
18
could
be
addressed
in
more
detail
also.
We
19
actually
happen
to
sell
industrial­
strength
HEPA
20
vacuums
and
people
are
always
asking,
well,
what
21
about
the
HEPA
vacuums
offered
at
the
big
box
22
stores
and,
you
know,
the
shop
vacuums
with
the
0140
1
HEPA
filters,
and
if
that
could
be
elaborated
in
2
the
rule.
Also,
I
do
agree
since
OSHA
already
3
says
to
use
a
HEPA
vacuum,
to
make
it
simple
to
4
refer
to
that.
In
any
situations
where
you're
5
able
to
refer
to
another
existing
regulation,
I
6
would
encourage
that
because
that
reduces
the
7
confusion
out
there.
8
Clearance
testing,
the
wipe
sampling
9
is
already
an
established
standard.
We
have
10
established
regulatory
numbers.
I
don't
know
how
11
that
would
work
as
far
as
referring
­­
the
EPA
12
already
has
the
hazard
levels,
so
I'm
just
in
13
favor
of
anything
you
can
refer
to
existing
14
standards.
15
As
far
as
what
I
currently
see
out
16
there
with
contractors
that
we
train
and
that
we
17
talk
to,
first
of
all,
even
after
ten
years
­­
or
18
seven
years
of
telling
contractors
they
have
to
19
hand
out
the
pamphlets,
every
month,
I'm
still
20
running
into
more
contractors
that
haven't
even
21
heard
of
the
pamphlet
rule,
so
that's
one
group
22
of
contractors
that
I
do
see.
If
I
do
­­
0141
1
sometimes
when
I
do
see
that
they
do
hand
out
the
2
pamphlets,
they
say,
well,
I
don't
need
to
worry
3
about
any
lead
issues,
Ada,
because
I
hand
out
4
the
pamphlets.
And
I
tell
them,
well,
just
5
because
you
hand
out
the
lead
pamphlet
doesn't
6
mean
you're
still
not
obligated
to
be
working
in
7
a
lead
safe
manner
just
for
liability
purposes,
8
so
that's
another
scenario.
And
then
a
third
9
scenario
I
do
see
is
the
higher­
end
conscientious
10
contractors
that
are
concerned
about
liability,
11
have
common
sense
already,
and
are
already
12
installing
plastic
and
have
been
for
years
even
13
before
lead
paint
was
an
issue,
and
they
already
14
know
that
they
shouldn't
be
getting
lead
dust
or
15
any
kind
of
dust
on
people's
belongings.
So
a
16
lot
of
those
contractors,
I
think,
are
the
great
17
majority
of
the
way
there
to
working
in
a
lead
18
safe
manner
because
they
do
already
cover
the
19
furnace
vents,
the
heat
registers,
and
they
do
20
already
try
not
to
get
dust
throughout
people's
21
property.
So
for
the
higher­
end
people
that
are
22
already
conscientious,
I
don't
think
they're
0142
1
going
to
have
as
much
to
worry
about.
But
those
2
are
a
couple
of
the
scenarios
that
I
do
see.
3
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
4
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
5
MS.
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Tom
McCormack.
6
MR.
McCORMACK:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Tom
7
McCormack
of
McCormack
Painting,
and
before
I
get
8
started,
I'd
like
just
to
just
express
that
I'm
9
very
discouraged
that
I'm
the
only
painting
10
contractor
here
today,
to
my
knowledge,
and
I'll
11
get
to
that.
I'll
address
that.
I
started
­­
12
I've
been
a
residential
painting
­­
painter.
I
13
started
in
1974.
After
11
years
at
one
company,
14
I
started
my
own
company,
McCormack
Painting.
I
15
have
a
wife
and
four
children,
age
21
on
down
to
16
12.
I've
got
three
employees
who
have
been
with
17
me
for
14,
13,
and
eight
years.
They're
all
18
brothers.
They
all
have
children
ranging
in
age
19
from
about
ten
to
six
months.
And
I
have
a
20
customer
base
of
roughly
500.
21
Rest
assured,
I'm
very
concerned
with
22
the
aforementioned
people's
lead
levels,
myself
0143
1
included,
and
I
am
glad
to
see
that
they
are
2
making
strides
towards
implementing
regulations.
3
What
I
have
been
trying
to
deal
with
for
the
last
4
25
years
that
I've
been
painting
is
someone
to
5
please
help
us
with
this.
I
get
no
help.
I
get
6
no
help
from
anyone.
I
go
to
my
paint
suppliers
7
and
I
get
lip
service.
I
go
to
the
abrasive
8
companies.
I
get
lip
service.
9
My
customers,
and
this
is
probably
10
typical
of
a
lot
of
painting
contractors,
11
especially
smaller
ones
who
have
a
niche
market,
12
they
expect
perfection.
And
when
we're
talking
13
about
perfection,
particularly
on
exteriors,
they
14
want
the
house
stripped.
Okay.
If
I'm
looking
15
at
stripping
a
house,
average
size
frame
house,
16
$
35,000,
$
40,000.
I
have
no
idea
what
that
would
17
translate
into
in
terms
of
lead
abatement.
18
Now
as
far
as
these
regulations
and
19
everything,
the
EPA,
where
I
think
they're
20
lacking
is,
they're
not
in
touch
with
the
reality
21
of
the
situation.
Number
one,
the
painters.
How
22
did
I
find
out
about
this
today?
Absolute
blind
0144
1
luck,
which
is
probably
why
you
see
no
other
2
painting
contractors
here.
There's
nothing
3
posted
at
any
paint
stores
around,
no
­­
nothing
4
in
any
publications
that
are
going
out
to
general
5
painting
contractors.
And
I've
got
ideas
on
­­
6
on
how
we
could
better
and
more
effectively
7
contain
paint
and
have
systems
that
could
contain
8
paint
at
the
point
of
abrasion
or
scrapings,
9
sanding.
And
I've
talked
to
a
lot
of
suppliers
10
and
companies
about
this,
but
once
again,
I
get
11
lip
service.
I
would
do
it
myself,
but
I
have
12
just
a
small
operation
and
I
have
to
devote
my
13
time
towards
my
operations,
not
doing
the
rocket
14
science
of
this.
That's
what
the
manufacturers
15
of
paints
­­
paint
companies
­­
you
know,
we
talk
16
about
who's
liable
for
the
issue.
Well,
instead
17
of
looking
at
it
in
terms
of
­­
as
the
tobacco
18
industry
had
a
tremendous
number
of
liability,
19
you
know,
dollars,
and
it's
just
a
boondoggle
20
because
nothing
gets
worked
out.
21
I
think
what
needs
to
happen
is,
22
let's
make
a
plan
and
say
­­
Sherwin­
Williams,
0145
1
Glidden,
all
the
main
­­
you
know,
3M,
all
the
2
sandpaper
companies
and
everything,
listen,
3
you've
got
liability
in
this
situation
and
what
4
we
expect
from
you
is
not
dollars­
and­
cents
5
compensation,
but
how
about
a
little
R
and
D
into
6
effective
means
of
containment,
which
is
the
main
7
issue.
8
Thanks
for
your
time.
9
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thank
you.
10
MS.
MORTIMER:
So
is
there
anyone
here
who
11
wanted
to
speak
and
hasn't
had
the
chance
yet?
12
(
No
response.)
13
MS.
MORTIMER:
I
think
we're
all
set.
I
14
think
we're
all
covered.
15
MS.
SIMPSON:
Thanks
very
much,
everybody.
16
MS.
KLEVS:
On
behalf
of
Region
5,
we
want
17
to
just
thank
everybody
for
coming.
The
docket
18
is
open
until
April
10th.
There
are
lots
of
ways
19
to
do
that.
E­
mail
is
an
option.
20
(
The
meeting
was
adjourned.)
21
22
0146
1
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
2
)
SS:
3
COUNTY
OF
C
O
O
K
)
4
I,
GINA
M.
COOKINGHAM,
a
Certified
5
Shorthand
Reporter
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
6
CSR
No.
84­
4193,
do
hereby
certify
that
I
7
reported
in
shorthand
the
proceedings
had
in
the
8
aforesaid
matter,
and
that
the
foregoing
is
a
9
true,
complete,
and
correct
transcript
to
the
10
best
of
my
knowledge,
skill,
and
ability
of
the
11
proceedings
had
as
appears
from
my
stenographic
12
notes
so
taken
and
transcribed
under
my
personal
13
direction.
14
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
do
hereunto
set
15
my
hand
and
affix
my
seal
of
office
at
Flossmoor,
16
Illinois,
this
6th
day
of
April,
2006.
17
18
19
Notary
Public,
Cook
County,
Illinois
20
My
commission
expires
February
8,
2009.
21
22
CSR
Certificate
No.
84­
4193