J
***
­
GOVERNMENT
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL
ADMINISTRATION
­
HEALTH
MAILING
ADDRESS
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
June
1,1999
Gerallyn
Valls
Region
I11
Lead
Program
Coordinator
3WC33
US
EPA
Region
111
1650
Arch
Street
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
RE:
EPA
Authorization
Review
Dear
Ms.
Valls:
825
North
Capitol
St.,
N.
E.
5th
Floor
Washington,
D.
C.
20002
202­
442­
5828
c
%$
a
This
is
in
response
to
your
letter
to
Richard
Brewster
dated
May
3,
1999,
regarding
additional
information
and
clarification
to
the
District
of
Columbia
authorization
application.
Below
are
the
responses
and
the
applicable
attachments:

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,

'
e.
each
individual's
job
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
funding,
by
individual
grant
or
other
source.
Personnel
Salary
Fringe
Indirect
OhEnf.
Funding
Source
Lead
Abatement
Coord.
57,104
10,221
19,301
100%
EPA
Program
Assisstant
26,260
4,701
8,876
50%
EPA
Community
Outreach
47,525
8,507
16,063
60%
EPAMUD2
Compliance
Field
Monitor
42,625
7,630
14,407
100%
EPAfHUD2
Compliance
Field
Monitor
42,625
7,630
14,407
100%
EPA/
C&
E
Attorney
Advisor
52,156
9,336
17,629
35%
EPA
Permit
Processor
29,500
5,281
9,971
100%
EPA/
C&
E
A
description
of
job
functions
for
each
position
is
delineated
in
Appendix
M.

B.
Position
listed
above,
if
funded
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
EPA/
HUD
I1
grant
does
not
appear
to
list
any
enforcement
responsibilities
for
the
 
Compliance
Monitor 
nor
are
inspectiondenforcement
listed
in
the
grant
as
anoutput.
Please
identify
where
in
the
pending
EPA/
HUD
grant
the
functions
related
to
inspections
andor
enforcement
are
described.

The
compliance
monitor
position
that
is
funded
by
the
EPA/
HUD
II
grant
is
associated
with
compliance
and
enforcement
activities.
The
deliverables,
as
indicated
in
the
grant
application,
are:
developing
the
audit
forms
and
auditing
training
providers
for
compliance
with
the
EPA
regulations;
develop
and
administer
the
third
party
exams
to
certify
individuals
requesting
certification
and
developing
any
necessary
procedures
to
efficiently
carry
out
the
enforcement
program.
All
of
these
task
are
considered
to
be
enforcement
activities
since
they
are
regulations
and
a
monitored
indicator
in
our
program.
The
EPA/
HUD
I1
compliance
monitor
would
also
be
required
to
perform
onsite
inspections
with
the
other
compliance
monitor
when
scheduling
permits.

C.
Appendix
B,
Fiscal
Impact
Statement,
may
be
missing
a
page.
Page
1
ends
with
 
expected
to
range
from 
and
page
2
(
unnumbered)
begins
witha
new
paragraph,
 
Totai
revenue
form
certification... 
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
$
106,500
that
is
listed
on
the
top
of
this
page
as
 
revenue
from
certification
of
individuals. 
Please
correct
these
inconsistencies.

Corrected­­
See
Appendix
B,
Fiscal
Impact
Statement
Please
provide
a
brief(
i.
e.,
less
than
one
page)
itemization
of
costs
associated
with
the
$
747,824that
is
listed
on
page
1
of
Appendix
B
to
runthe
Program.
From
this
total,
please
identifl
which
itemized
costs
are
enforcement­;
elated.
This
was
requested
in
the
February
22,
1999
teleconference
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].

See
Appendix
B
for
current
cost
to
run
the
program.

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
future
404(
g)
funding
so
the
District
may
make
this
commitment
contingent
upon
receipt
of
fbture
4Oqg)
funds.

The
District
plans
to
seek
resources
for
the­
LeadEnforcement
Program.
Conceivably,
the
proposed
revenue
of
$
136,500
and
subsequent
fines
from
monetary
sanctions
will
in
time
cover
a
significant
amount
of
the
overhead
cost.
However,
h
the
interim,
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Program
is
unable
to
sustaiwcurrent
program
costs.
The
program
success
and
commitment
remains
contingent
upon
receipt
of
future
404(
g)
funds.

E.
In
what
offices
do
the
individuals
listed
on
page
12
of
the
Program
Description
work?
The
two
organizational
charts
in
Appendix
E
do
not
show
this.

Five
individuals
listed
on
page
12
are
located
in
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
under
the
Bureau
of
Hazardous
Materials
and
Toxic
Substances
within
the
Environmental
Health
Administration.
(
See
attached
organizational
chart
on
the
last
page
of
the
new
Organizational
Order).
The
Organization
Order
#
5
referenced
in
the
authorization
package
has
been
rescinded
and
the
new
Organization
Order
dated
11/
6/
98
has
been
substituted.

2.
Tracking
Tips
and
Complaints,
Targeting
Inspections,
Follow­
up
to
Inspection
Reports,
and
Compliance
Monitoring
and
Enforcement
[
Sections
327(
c)(
4)­(
7)]

A.
At
the
February
22nd
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.

3
See
Civil
Penalty
Matrix­
Appendix
N
B.
Section
327(
c)(
6)
of
the
regulations
requires
the
state
to
 
demonstrate...
ability
to
process
and
foIlow­
up
on
inspection
reports... 
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
violafion
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. 

Flow
chart
of
the
follow
up
of
inspection
reportsaee
Appendix
3.
Training
of
Inspection
and
Enforcement
Personnel
A.
Will
training
to
state
itspectors
include
chain­
of­
custody
and
methods
of
obtaining
consent
to
perform
inspections?

Training
of
Inspection
and
Enforcement
Personnel
All
state
inspectors
undergo
training
by
the
Office
of
Adjudication
as
stated
in
the
authorization
package.
This
in­
house
training
program
is
comprehensive
to
insure
continuity
of
informatioi
required
for
a
legally
sufficient
case
report.
Topics
include
the
inspection
process,
chain
of
custody,
method
of
obtaining
consent,
adjudication
and
penalty
assessment
policies.
A
copy
of
those
topics
is
attached.
See
Appendix
L.

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
Enforcementpersonnel
­­
not
the
individuals
that
the
District
regulates.

Section
327(
c)(
l)
describes
the
core
training
curriculum
each
state
enforcement
inspector
will
have
to
conduct compliance
inspections.
The
outline
of
the
course
content
represents
outside
training
as
a
risk
assessor
or
an
inspector.
This
would
meet
the
core
training
requirement.
The
additional
in­
house
training
with
the
Office
of
Adjudication
will
augment
the
basic
core
training
for
enforcement
personnel
and
enhance
the
effectiveness
of
program
delivery.

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
I11
has
explained
on
numerous
occasions
that
we
interpret
this
to
mean
that
an
approved
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP),
or
equivalent,
is
required.
EPA
Region
I11
uses
the
Region
1.1Guidancefor
Preparing
Lead
Monitoring
Project
Plans
as
the
criteria
to
ensure
that
a
lead
project
andor
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
111
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
QAPP
no
later
than
May
31st
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.

Sampling
Techniques
QAPP.
See
Appendix
J
for
the
draft
5.
Third
Party
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
111
by
the
end
of
March.

In
our
Second
Quarterly
Report
(
February
1,1998­
May
31,1998)
neither
issuance
of
exams
nor
trainer
accreditation
Fontained
an
April
30th
due
date.
The
issuance
of
exams
and
training
accreditation
was
based
on
obtaining
a
functional
database
and
the
expectation
of
hiring
additional
staff.
We
have
since
deyeloped
a
scope
of
work
for
the
FWP
for
the
examination
vendor
services.
A
copy
was
previously
submitted.
In
the
interim
of
selecting
a
vendor,
DOH
will
administer
the
exam.
A
letter
has
been
transmitted
to
Maryland
and
Virginia
requesting
a
copy
of
their
third
party
exam.
The
District
will
adopthcorporate
DCspecific
questions
to
the
exam.
We
have
yet
to
receive
an
exam
request
and
conduct
our
first
exam.
As
an
interim
procedure
we
are
employing
alternate
procedures
for
certification
based
on
prior
training.

6.
Cert$
cation
of
Individuals
and
Firms
­
Page
37
of
the
Progrd
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/
3
1/
98 .
This
should
be
explained
in
the
Program
Description
under
Program
Element
#
2.
Hasthe
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
appIication
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.

5
There
will
be
no
amendment
to
the
EPA
dates
and
the
program
description
has
been
updated
to
reflect
the
change.

Similarly,
page
39
of
the
Program
Analysis,
items
1
and
7
under
Certification
Based
on
Prior
Training,
and
items
1
and
5
under
Certification
ofFirms,
indicate
 
Date
to
be
amended 
with
no
explanation
in
the
Program
Description
nor
in
a
footnote.
Hasthis
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
thktable
and
outline
activities
to
communicate
the
current
deadlines
to
the
regulated
community.

There
will
be
no
amendment
to
the
EPA
dates
and
the
program
description
has
been
updated
to
reflect
the
change.

In
EPA s
letter
to
the
District
dated
February
16,
1999,
a
time
line
which
reflects
implementationof
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.

This
information
was
transmitted
to
A.
Dickens
of
EPA
in
the
District s
letter
of
March
15,
1999.

7.
Program
Description
­
Page
6,
line.
l
­
Something
is
wrong
with
this
skntence.

Corrected
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
17th
of
ensuing
years.

The
District
is
committed
to
submit
annual
progress
reports
on
the
anniversary
date
of
self­
certification
beginning
on
August
17,1999.

9.
Organizational
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
4
and
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.

The
 
Organizational
Order
Number
5 
is
addressed
under
1E
above.
The
authorized
copy
is
attached
with
the
organizational
chart
on
the
last
page.
 
See
Appendix
E.

B.
Two
organizational
charts
are
included
in
this
tabbed
section,
but
they
are
different
from
each
other,
and
only
one
chart
includes
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
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.

See
1Eabove
10.
Lead­
Based
Paint
Tasworce(
Tabbed
Section
F
of
Application)
­
Please
provide
a
copy
that
does
not
have
the
right
side
cut
off.
Does
this
Taskforce
still
exist?
If
so,
has
the
Department
of
Health
become
a
formal
partner
in
the
Taskforce?
Please
provide
documentation,
on
page
13
of
the
application,
on
the
Department
of
Health s
role
in
the
Taskforce.

The
Inter­
Agency
Taskforce
did
meet
for
the
budget
period
on
November
18,1997.
The
Lead
Staff
also
held
a
transitional
meeting
on
January
13,1998
because
we
were
no
longer
under
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
(
DCRA)
therefore,
our
Mayoral
Order
for
the
Lead
Taskforce
had
to
be
re­
written.
The
new
Mayoral
Order
will
change
the
authority
of
the
taskforce
from
DCRA
to
DOH.
The
Mayoral
Order
was
drafted
in
early
March
and
is
being
reviewed
by
the
General
Counsel.
See
Appendix
F
11.
Notijkation
­
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
desigriers,
this
should
be
outlined
in
the
above
respective
sections,
or
else,
the
word
 
lead
activity 
should
be
changed,
it
appears,
to
 
lead
abatements. 

Corrected­
See
page
28
7
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
contact
Ms.
Cheryl
Amisial
on
202­
442­
9097
Thank
you
for
your
assistance.

Sincerely,
/

Manager
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
cc:
Donna
Armstrong
(
3PM71)
Aquanetta
Dickens
(
3WC33)
Dan
Gallo
(
3WC33)
Jeanne
Sofield
