~
E~~~~~~~
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENWP
T
HC;
REGION
111
1650
Arch
Street
2mJQCT
3
I
&
I$:
20
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
Mr.
Richard
Brewster,
Program
Manager
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
Environmental
Health
Administration
825
North
Capitol
Street
MAY
3
id38
Washington,
DC
20002
SENT
VIA
FAX
Dear
Mr.
Brewster,

I
am
writing
to
provide
to
you
a
summary
of
the
information
that
EPA
considers
to
still
be
required
from
the
District
of
Columbia
in
order
to
process
the
District s
application
for
Lead
Program
Authorization.
This
includes:

1.
Enforcement
Resources
­
Areas
where
clarification
is
still
needed:

,
[
A]
Page
12
of
the
Program
Description
lists
seven
positions
associated
with
the
District s
Lead
Program.
However,
functions
and
duties
are
not
listed.
Please
list:

­
all
enforcement
personnel
individually,
­
each
individual sjob
function,
­
associated
salaries
and
fringe
costs
(
and
indirect
costs
if
these
are
applied
to
either
personnel
or
fringe),
­
percentage
of
each
individual s
time
associated
with
lead
inspections
and
enforcement,
and
­
source
of
fimding,
by
individual
grant
or
other
source.

This
was
requested
in
the
February
22,
1999
teleconference
between
officials
of
Region
111EPA
and
the
District.

[
B]
Positions
listed
above,
if
fimded
by
EPA
grants,
should
be
associated
with
deliverables
to
conduct
enforcement
under
those
respective
grants.
The
application
states
that
the
one
of
the
two
Compliance
Monitors
is
funded
out
of
the
EPA/
HUD
grant.
However,
the
pending
HUDEPA
grant
does
not
appear
to
list
any
enforcement
responsibilities
for
the 
Comp1iance
Monitor 
nor
are
inspectiondenforcement
listed
in
the
grant
as
an
output.
Please
identify
where
in
the
pending
EPA/
HUD
grant
the
hctions
related
to
inspections
and/
or
enforcement
are
described.

[
C]
Appendix
B,
Fiscal
Impact
Statement,
may
be
missinga
page.
Page
1ends
with
 
expected
to
range
fiom 
and
page
2
(
unnumbered)
begins
with
a
new
paragraph,
 
Total
revenue
from
certification... 

Customer
Service
Hotline:
1­
800­
438­
2474
The
anticipated
revenues
associated
with
certification
of
individuals
are
listed
in
the
table
that
is
included
in
page
2(
unnumbered),
but
these
total
$
83,800
and
not
$
84,000,
which
is
listed
as
the
total
in
this
chart.
Neither
figures
are
consistent
with
the
$
106,500that
is
listed
on
the
top
of
this
page
as
 
revenue
from
certification
of
individuals. 
Please
correct
these
inconsistencies.

Please
provide
a
brief
(
Le.
less
than
one
page)
itemization
of
costs
associated
with
the
$
747,824
that
is
listed
on
page
1
of
Appendix
B
to
runthe
Program.
From
this
total,
please
identify
which
itemized
costs
are
enforcement­
related.
This
was
requested
in
the
February
22,
1999teleconference
between
officials
of
the
District
and
EPA
Region
111.
Enforcement
costs
should
correlate
with
those
listed
in
[
A]
above.
[
If
there
are
significant
equipment
or
other
costs
related
to
enforcement
and
the
District
would
prefer
to
provide
this
itemization
by
task
(
already
delineated
in
EPA
grants),
rather
than
by
personnel
and
fringe
costs
in
order
to
more
accurately
show
the
percentage
of
the
$
747,824
that
is
associated
with
enforcement,
that
would
be
fine].

[
D]
Plans
should
be
included
in
the
application
to
address
how
the
District
expects
to
continue
to
support
inspectors
after
the
Enforcement
and
EPA/
HUD
grants
expire.
These
are
eligible
costs
for
hture
404(
g)
hnding
so
the
District
may
make
this
commitment
contingent
upon
receipt
of
future
404(
g)
funds.

[
E]
work?
The
two
organizational
charts
in
Appendix
E
do
not
show
this.
In
what
offices
do
the
individuals
listed
on
page
12of
the
Program
Description
2.
Tracking
Tips
and
Complaints,
TargetingInspections,
Follow­.
upto
Inspection
Reports,
and
Compliance
Monitoring
and
Enforcement
[
Sections
327(
c)
4)­(
7)]
­
[
A]
At
the
February
22
conference
call,
EPA
informed
the
District
that
a
chart
of
all
different
violations
with
assigned
penalties
for
different
violations
(
the
 
penalty
matrix )
is
needed.
This
is
not
included
in
the
revised
application.
This
chart
should
include
current
penalties,
even
if
an
amendment
is
anticipated
that
addresses
minimum
penalties.

[
B]
Section
327(
c)(
6)
of
the
regulations
requires
the
state
to
 
demonstrate...
ability
to
process
and
follow­
up
on
inspection
rep0rts... 
Page
21
of
the
Program
Description
lists
the
tools
available
 
to
the
Mayor 
to
take
enforcement
action
against
violators,
but
an
outline
or
flow
chart
that
identifies
protocols
to
follow
to
identify
which
option
to
invoke
is
not
included.
When,
for
example,
does
an
enforcement
officer
decide
to
issue
a
notice
of
vioIation
instead
of
referring
a
case
to
Corporation
Counsel
in
court?
The
flow
of
this
process
should
be
outlined
on
page
29,
under
 
Follow
up
to
Inspection
Reports. 

3.
Training
of
Inspection
and
Enforcement
Personnel
­[
A]
Will
training
to
state
inspectors
include
chain­
of­
custody
and
methods
of
obtaining
consent
to
perform
inspections?

2
3­
[
B]
Why
are
training
requirements
for
inspectors,
risk
assessors,
supervisors
and
project
designers
listed
on
pages
25­
27
of
the
Program
Description
Section?
­
Section
327(
c)(
1)
is
supposed
to
address
training
of
District
Inspection
and
Enforcement
personnel
­­
not
the
individuals
that
the
District
regulates.

4.
Sampling
Techniques
­
Section
327(
c)(
3)
requires
the
state
program
to
 
implement
a
quality
assurance
program
that
ensures
appropriate
quality
of
laboratory
personnel
and
protects
the
integrity
of
analytical
data. 
Region
I11has
explained
on
numerous
occasions
that
we
interpret
this
to
mean
that
an
approved
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP),
or
equivalent,
is
required.
EPA
Region
111uses
the
Region
III
Guidancefor
Preparing
Lead
Monitoring
Project
PZans
as
the
criteria
to
ensure
that
a
lead
project
and/
or
Lead
Program
conforms
with
quality
assurance
and
quality
management
requirements.
The
paragraph
on
Page
28
and
Appendices
J
and
K
do
not
conform
to
the
Region
I11
Guidance.
Although
Appendices
J
and
K
begin
to
address
quality
assurance
requirements,
either
these
should
be
submitted
as
part
of
a
separate
document
that
is
structured
to
undergo
QAPP
review
by
the
Region
or
the
entire
authorization
application
must
be
held
up
(
or
the
application
disapproved)
while
the
appendices
are
fixed
to
conform
with
Regional
Guidance.
We
strongly
urge
the
District
to
submit
a
separate
Quality
Assurance
Plan
within
four
weeks
of
receipt
of
this
letter
so
that
this
does
not
hold
up
EPA
review
of
the
District s
application
for
authorization.
A
commitment
from
the
District
to
submit
the
draft
QAPPno
later
than
May
31
and
to
revise
the
QAPP
within
30
days
of
receipt
of
EPA
comments
should
be
included
in
the
discussion
of
Sampling
Techniques
on
page
28.

5.
Third
Pary
Exam
­
Region
I11
is
still
awaiting
confirmation
from
the
District
that
a
third
party
exam
is
available
for
individuals
seeking
certification.
This
was
due
to
Region
I11
by
the
end
of
March.

6.
Certzjkation
ofIndividuals
and
Firms
­
Page
37
of
the
Program
Analysis,
item
6,
refers
to
the
date
after
which
LBP
activity
may
not
be
performed
without
certification
at
745.(
a)(
5)
 
to
be
amended
to
8/
31/
98 .
This
should
be
explained
in
the
Program
Description
under
Program
Element
#
2.
Has
the
District
amended
its
rules
to
establish
a
date
after
which
performance
of
a
LBP
activity
is
considered
a
violation?
If
so,
that
date
should
be
set
forth
in
the
application
in
both
the
Program
Analysis
and
Program
Description
Sections.
Furthermore,
page
27
of
the
Program
Description
should
describe
the
District s
plans
to
communicate
this
deadline
to
the
regulated
community
as
part
of
compliance
assistance.
If
such
an
amendment
has
not
passed
to
date,
please
describe,
in
the
Program
Analysis
and
Program
Description
Sections,
how
the
District s
current
Program
is
 
as
protective 
as
the
federal
program
as
it
pertains
to
current
performance
of
a
LBP
activity
without
certification.

Similarly,
page
39
of
the
Program
Analysis,
items
1
and
7
under
Certification
Based
on
Prior
Training,
and
items
1
and
5
under
Certification
of
Firms,
indicate
 
Date
to
be
3
amended 
with
no
explanation
in
the
Program
Description
nor
in
a
footnote.
Has
this
amendment
been
passed?
If
so,
please
update
these
charts
and
provide
the
amendment
as
part
of
the
application;
if
not,
please
explain
in
the
Program
Description
and
in
a
footnote
to
this
table
and
outline
activities
to
communicate
the
current
deadlines
to
the
regulated
community.

In
EPA s
letter
to
the
District
dated
February
16,
1999,
a
timeline
which
reflects
implementation
of
the
District s
Lead
Program
from
March
1,
1999
was
requested.
This
has
not
been
received
in
the
Region.
The
information
requested
in
Item
9,
herein,
relates
to
that
request.

7.
Program
Description
­
Page
6,
line
1
­
Something
is
wrong
with
this
sentence.

8.
Progress
Reporting
­
Please
include,
on
page
30,
a
commitment
to
submit
the
first
progress
report
on
or
before
August
17,
1999,
which
is
one
year
after
the
District
self­
certified
and
thereby
was
deemed
authorized.
Subsequent
progress
reports
also
will
be
due
August
17
of
ensuing
years.

9.
OrganizationaZ
Chart
­[
A]
The
 
Organization
Order
Number
5 
that
is
included
in
this
section
appears
to
be
a
draft,
as
question
marks
are
included
on
pages
4and
5
of
this
document.
Please
provide
a
final
copy.
The
 
Organization
Order
Number
5 
document
has
no
reference
to
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
which
leads
the
reader
to
wonder
why
this
is
included
at
all.

[
B]
different
from
each
other,
and
only
one
chart
includes
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Two
organizational
charts
are
included
in
this
tabbed
section,
but
they
are
Division.
Please
include
one,
correct
chart
that
outlines
where
the
District s
Lead
Program
resides
in
the
Environmental
Health
Administration
or
explain
why
two
charts
and
the
 
Organization
Order
Number
5 
are
provided.

10.
Lead­
Based
Paint
TaskForce
(
Tabbed
Section
F
of
Application)
­
Please
provide
a
copy
that
does
not
have
the
right
side
cut
off.
Does
this
Task
Force
still
exist?
If
so,
has
the
Department
of
Health
become
a
formal
partner
in
the
Task
Force?
Please
provide
documentation,
on
page
13
of
the
application,
on
the
Department
of
Health s
role
in
the
Task
Force.

11.
Notzjkgtion
­
Pages
28
and
29
refer
to
 
lead
activity 
as
something
that
is
fully
addressed
through
the
permit
process.
However,
according
to
DC
Law
11­
221,
Section
8,
a
permit
(
which
involves
notification)
is
only
required
for
abatements
and
not
for
inspections,
risk
assessments,
and
project
designs.
If
DC
has
a
process
for
monitoring
compliance
of
inspectors,
risk
assessors,
and
project
designers,
this
should
be
outlined
in
the
above
respective
sections,
or
else,
the
word
 
lead
activity 
should
be
changed,
it
appears,
to
 
lead
abatements. 

4
Please
note
that
we
are
still
considering
other
issues
that
have
been
discussed,
such
as
the
limited
criminal
penalties
and
the
lack
of
a
minimum
civil
penalty
as
part
of
the
District's
Enforcment
Response
Policy.
Meanwhile,
a
revised
application
from
the
District
is
required
to
address
the
above
11
items.
I
suggest
that
this
be
provided
within
ten
days,
with
a
copy
of
this
letter
with
notations
in
the
margin
that
show
page
numbers
in
the
rev'ised
application
that
respond
directly
to
each
item
listed
above.
This
will
expedite
processing
of
the
revised
application.
Of
course,
no
pages
that
have
no
changes
need
to
be
resubmitted.

Please
call
me
at
215­
814­
2084
to
discuss
a
schedule
for
providing
the
above
information
to
EPA
and
to
discuss
any
questions
related
to
authorization
of
the
District.
Thankyou.

Sincerely,

Gerallyn
Valls
Region
111Lead
ProgramCoordinator
3WC33
cc.
Shana
Arnold
(
2245A)
Paul
Cestone
(
7404)
Mary
Coe
(
3RC30)
Dan
Gallo
(
3WC33)
Sandra
Handon
(
DC
DOH)

5
5
