GOVERNMENT
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMB
Department
of
Health
Environmental
Health
Administration
~~~~

OCT
3
9:
1
***
­
Program
Manager
Risk
Assessment,
Remediation
and
CertificationDivision
Mrs.
Gerallyn
Valls
Region
III
Lead
Program
Coordinator
1650
Arch
Street,
Mail
Stop
3WC33
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
RE:
TSCA
404
Program
Authorization
Dear
Mrs.
Valls:
I
June
10,2000
This
is
hrther
to
the
District's
past
submissions
of
application
materials
in^
support
of
program
authorization
and
EPA
correspondence
dated
October
8,
1999.

1.
Enforcement
Resources
A&
B.
At
the
time
of
writing
this
letter,
I
understand
that
a­
question
is
outstanding
abaut
whether
one
Compliance
Monitor
is
to
be
hnded
fiom
the
EPA
HUD2
grant
and
another
Compliance
Monitor,
at
exact
same
salary,
is
to
be
hnded
out
of
the
EPA
404(
g)
grant.
I
understand
that
deliverables
are
still
being
negotiated
under
the
"
Enforcement"
Program
Element
for
these
two
grants.
Please
confirm
that
the
figures
and
discussion
about
the
roles
and
sources
of
hnding
that
are
set
forth
in
the
District's
June
1
letter
are
still
correct
or
make
changes
as
appropriate.
Development
and
administration
of
audit
forms
and
a
third
party
exam
is
typically
not
categorized
in
our
grants
as
"
enforcement"
activities
in
the
Guidance
for
Model
Lead­
Based
Paint
compliance
and
Enforcement
Programs,
issued
by
EPA
Office
of
Edorcement
and
compliance
Assurance.
Please
check
that
the
fbnctions
are
listed
consistently
in
the
grant
applications
and
in
the
authorization
application.

Also,
please
include
in
Appendix
M
a
description
of
the
job
fbnction
of
the
*
Compliance
Monitor.
Why
is
a
position
for
"
Lead
Inspectorhdustrial
Hygienist"
listed
in
Appendix
M
and
not
in
the
District's
June
1response
to
Item
lA?
..

51
N
Street,
NE.,
3d
Floor,
Washington,
D.
C.
20002
tal:
(
202)
535­
2690
far:
(
202)
535­
1396
A&
B,
Currently
one
Compliance
Monitorfinspector
position
(
George
Siaway,
Environmental
Specialist,
DS01301­
11/
05
replaced
Kent
Steinruck,
Lead
Inspector,
DS­
01801­
12/
1)
is
slated
to
be
funded
from
the
EPA
HUD2
grant
which
is
yet
to
be
awarded
and
a
second
Compliance
MonitorLInspector
position
(
Devasia
Karimpanal,
Lead
Inspector
DS­
01801­
11/
01)
is
being
funded
from
the
Enforcement
grant
under
its
no
cost
time
extension.
The
figures
associated
with
the
funding
of
staff
positions
as
presented
in
the
District's
June
1letter
have
now
changed
as
a
result
of
the
passage
of
time,
program
evolution
and
the
execution
of
new
grant
instruments
under
which
the
program
operates.
Appropriate
changes
have
been
made
in
the
authorization
package.
The
organization
chart
for
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
(
now
The
Division
of
Risk
Assessment,
Remediation
and
Certification)
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
funding
source
assigned
to
grant
personnel.
The
revised
organization
chart
is
submitted
as
part
of
Appendix
E.

The
following
represents
the
currently
projected
staff
funding
allocations
by
specific
grant
funding
source:

Personnel
1.
Attorney
Advisor/
Admin.
Officerneg.
Env.
Analyst
2.
Community
Coordinator/
.
EnvironmentalSpecialist
3.
Lead
Abatement
Program
Assistant
Salaq
FrinPe
Indirect
Funding
Source
&
YO
$
48,013
$
8,594
$
19,133
EPA
404(
g)
100%

$
49,335
$
8,831
$
19,660
EPA
404(
g)
100%

$
27,443
$
4,912
$
10,936
EPA
404(
g)
100%

4.
Compliance
Monitorfinspectorl
$
45,883
$
8,213
$
18,284
EPA/
NUD
I1
Environmental
Specialist
100%

5.
Compliance
Monitorfinspector
$
42,625
$
7,630
$
16,986
Enforcement
100%

6.
Information
Technologist/
$
4,139
$
741
$
1,649
Enforcement
Summer
Intern
100%
for
+
3
mo.

7.
Central
Receptionist/
$
2,371
$
424
$
945
Enforcement
Summer
Intern
100%
for
+
3
mo.

8.
Lead
Coordinator
(
currently
unfunded)

9.
Data
Entry
CIerWClerical
Assistant
(
currently
unfunded)

In
addition
to
the
above
positions,
the
following
staff
positions
augment,
enhance,
and/
or
provide
direct
assistance
in
support
of
the
grant
and
state
authorized
program
activities.

10.
Permit
ProcessorlEnv.
Engineer
$
45,648
$
8,171
$
18,191
No
cost
to
grant
11.
Supervisory
Environmental
Engineer/
$
73,505
$
13,157
$
29,292
No
cobt
to
grant
Program
Manager
12.
Program
Manager
$
77,641
$
13,898
$
30,940
No
cost
to
grant
Appendix
M
did
not
contain
a
separate
description
of
a
job
function
titled
Compliance
Monitor.
It
contained
the
description
for
the
Lead
Inspectorfindustrial
Hygienist.
Each
of
the
titles
Compliance
Monitorfinspectorfindustrial
Hygienist,
and
now
Environmental
Specialist
refers
to
the
functions
contained
in
Appendix
M
which
are
currently
performed
by
George
Siaway,
Environmental
Specialist
and
Devasia
Karaimpanal,
Lead
Inspector.
The
reason
for
the
differing
titles
is
due
to
the
ever
evolving
program.
Initially
the
title
of
Compliance
Monitor
was
utilized
in
grant
application
documents.
This
terminolo&,
"
Compliance
Monitor''
was
used
prior
to
the
actual
classification
and
recruitment
of
the
position
by
our
Personnel
Office.
Over
time,
the
position
and
title
evolved
into
what
was
officially
classified
by
personnel
for
recruitment
as
an
"
Inspectorfindustrial
Hygienist".
This
position
appears
in
current
grant
applications
as
a
Compliance
Monitorfinspector
which
was
consistent
with
the
actual
position
titles
on
one
of
the
occupied
positions
at
the
time
of
grant
application
in
1999.
The
job
functions
of
the
Complia­
nceMonitor
are
now
reflected
in
Appendix
M
under
the
heading
Lead
Inspectorfindustrial
Hygienist.

E.
The
District's
July
response
indicates
that
five
individuals
listed
on
page
12
are
in
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division.
Please
identify
which
positions
these
are
and
also
identify
the
DivisiodOffice
where
the
other
two
individuals
are
employed.
Seven
positions
are
listed
on
page
12.

E.
All
positions
listed
in
the
July
response
are
located
in
the
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Division
(
now
The
Division
of
Risk
Assessment,
Remediation
and
Certification).
The
number
five
referred
to
the
filled
positions.
At
the
time
of
the
July
response
neither
of
the
Compliance
Monitorfinspector
positions
had
been
filled,
thus
they
were
not
figured
in
when
calculating
the
number
five.
Both
of
the
Inspector
positions
have
since
been
filled.
Currently
the
Lead
Abatement
Program
Assistant
position
is
vacant.
The
previously
vacant
Attorney
Advisor
position
was
filled
on
June
5,2000.

New
Comment:
According
to
the
Mayor's
Order
98­
124
that
is
included
in
Appendix
C,
DCRA
is
responsible
for
conducting
hearings
under
Section
12
of
the
Act
for
decisions
made
by
Department
of
Health
on
denial,
suspension,
revocation
or
modification
of
certificates,
permits,
or
accreditations.
Please
outline
the
resources,
on
page
12,
available
in
DCRA
to
perform
this
function.

References
to
Mayor's
Order
98­
124
that
were
included
in
Appendix
C
concerning
DCRA
conducting
hearings
for
decisions
made
by
the
Department
of
Health
are
now
outdated,
as
new
Mayor's
Orders
concerning
Department
of
Health
hearings
are
now
in
effect.
Appendix
C
and
Appendix
N
have
been
revised.
The
resources
currently
associated
with
the
Department
of
Health's
hearing
related
functions
are
provided
as
part
of
a
revised
Appendix
N.

3
2.
Tracking
Tips
and
Complaints...
Enforcement
The
application
should
respond
to
EPA's
questions
by
citing
existing
authorities,
should
clearly
point
out
differences
in
the
District's
Program
fiom
the
Federal
Lead
Program,
and
should
state
(
since
the
district
self­
certified)
specifically
why
the
District
considers
its
Program
to
be
as
protective
as
to
provide
adequate
enforcement­
despite
those
differences.

A.
Appendix
N.
In
item
2A
of
your
June
letter,
you
state
this
is
a
Civil
Penalty
Matrix.
My
copy
includes
a
chart
entitled
"
District
of
Columbia
Civil
Infraction
Procedures"
and
a
"
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,"
which
appears
to
set
fine
levels
for
different
infractions.
Has
this
regulation
been
finalized?
If
so,
please
provide
the
final
version.
If
this
rule
is
not
in
effect,
it
should
not
be
included
in
the
District's
application.
Instead
regulatory
and
statutory
documentation
of
how
current
fines
are
set
should
be
included.
If
this
changes
in
the
future,
this
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
at
that
time.
We
cannot
approve
or
disapprove
an
application
for
full
authorizationbased
on
what
is
not
in
effect.

A.
The
District
has
included
a
copy
of
the
finalized
emergency
rulemaking
in
this
authorization
package
submittal
under
Appendix
N.
Proposed
rulemaking
notices
have
been
removed.
Appendix
N
now
reflects
penalties
and
procedures
in
place.

3.
We
requested
a
flow
chart
or
description
of
how
an
enforcement
officer
decides
to
.
issue
a
notice
of
violation
instead
of
referring
a
case
to
Corporation
Counsel,
etc.

B.

C.
the
District's
June
1response
refers
to
Appendix
0.
This
appears
to
be
a
duplicate
of
the
"
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking"
which
is
in
Appendix
N.
Whereas
it
appears
that
the
flow
chart
and
rules
in
Appendix
N.
if
in
effect,
might
address
the
issues
raised
in
EPA's
comments
2B,
it
is
not
clear
why
a
duplicate
appendix
is
included.
Again,
only
rules
and
procedures
in
effect
at
the
time
of
the
District's
application
should
be
included
in
the
District's
application
for
full
authorization.
Supplemental
material
that
you
believe
may
be
of
interest
and
that
would
document
the
District's
intent
to
develop
their
Lead
Program
Mer
should
be
forwarded
to
EPA
as
a
separate
document.
Such
idormation,
while
relevant
if
the
district
is
seeking
interim
authorization
for
the
District,
does
not
belong
in
the
District's
application
for
full
approval.

See
previous
comment
"
A"
above
concerning
Appendix
N.
The
flow
chart
has
been
revised
to
reflect
current
relationships.
The
previous
relationships
were
effective
when
DCRA
was
involved
and
are
now
outdated.

Training
of
Inspection
and
Enforcement
Personnel
A.
Please
cross
reference
Appenaix
L
on
page
35.

A.
A
reference
to
Appendix
L
has
been
inserted
on
page
25.

5.
Third
Party
Exam
If
no
one
has
requested
an
exam
as
is
stated
in
your
June
1
response,
how
are
individuals
being
certified
in
DC?
Also,
please
update
page
6,
Examination
Procedures,
with
a
complete
description
of
the
third
party
exam
process,
including
a
description'of
the
name
of
the
vendor
that
developed
the
exam
or
any
alternate
procedures
that
are
relevant,
the
district's
role
in
developing
the
exam
to
ensure
that
the
district's
regulations
are
adequately
addressed,
the
name
of
the
vendor
or
agency
that
administers
the
exam,
where
the
exam
is
offered,
at
what
frequency
the
exam
is
offered,
report
on
the
number
of
individuals
who
have
taken
the
exam
and
describe
processes
to
be
employed
to
keep
the
exam
current.

At
the
time
of
the
June
submittal,
the
District
had
begun
certifying
individuals
based
on
prior
trainingalternative
procedures
which
recognized
the
training
and
exams
given
by
EPA
and
other
authorized
states
in
the
absence
of
a
District
exam.
Until
the
District
specific
exam
was
developed
and
put
in
place,
individuals
needing
an
exam
were
granted
interim
certification,
allowing
time
for
notification,
scheduling
and
administration
of
the
examination.
Experior
is
the
exam
vendor
for
the
District.
Professional
experts
were
involved
in
the
exam
question
review
for
the
establishment
of
the
District
specific
exam.
A
work
shop
attended
by
the
exam
vendor,
District
Lead
officials
and
outside
professional
experts
was
held
to
effect
this
review
and
to
ensure
that
the
District's
regulations
were
adequately
addressed.
The
Candidate
Information
Bulletin
containing
the
examination
registration
form
can
be
found
in
Appendix
P.

6.
Certification
of
Individuals
and
Firms
Individuals
and
firms
are
currently
being
certified
by
the
District
of
Columbia.
Application
forms
for
the
certification
of
individuals
and
firms
are
provided
in
Appendix
Q.

11.
Notijkation
­
July
response
(
see
page
28)....

Notifications
are
only
required
for
abatement
projects.
The
District
does
not
require
notifications
on
inspections.
The
form
utilized
for
notification
is
provided
in
Appendix
R
Other
Items
A.
Table
of
Contents
­
Please
check
Appendix
titles
to
confirm
that
these
are
the
correct
titles.
For
example,
Appendix
N
is
entitled,
"
Civil
Infraction
Flow
Chart"
on
the
Table
of
Contents,
yet
page
1
of
the
Appendix
itself
is
entitled,
"
Department
of
Health
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking."
A
title
that
describes
the
information
that
is
conveyed
in
each
appendix
and
that
matches
the
front
page
of
each
appendix
would
be
most
useful.

A.
Table
of
Contents
­
Revisions
have
been
made
to
the
Table
of
Contents
to
more
accurately
reflect
their
contents.

5
B.

B.

C.

c.

D.

D
E.

E.

F.

F.

G.

G.

H.

H.
Page
12,
paragraph
I
­
Is
this
paragraph
still
current
with
the
recent
reorganization?

Page
12,
paragraph
1
­
This
paragraph
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
current
organization.
Revisions
have
been
made
to
pages
12
and
13.
Page
23,
East
paragraph
­
Is
this
paragraph
still
current
with
the
recent
reorganization?

Page
23,
lastparagraph
­
Revisions
have
been
made
to
this
paragraph.

Page
24,
paragraphs
1
and
2
­
Please
cross
reference
the
Appendix
where
the
regulations
that
are
cited
in
these
paragraphs
are
located.

Page
24,
paragraphs
1and
2
­
Cross
references
have
now
been
included.

Page
25,
paragraph
2
­
Please
cross
reference
the
Appendix
where
the
laws
that
are
cited
in
this
paragraph
are
located.

Page
25,
paragraph
2
­
The
cross
references
have
been
made.

Page
28
­
On
August
17,
your
office
resent
page
28
in
response
to
my
phone
call
in
which
I
stated
that
page
28
does
not
connect
with
the
page
before
it
nor
the
page
after
it.
However,
the
new
page
28
was
the
same
as
that
included
with
your
July
6
letter.
Please
resend
an
entire
copy
of
the
Program
Description
(
pages
14
through
30
in
my
copy),
and
check
that
pages
27
through
29
of
the
copy
that
are
resent
all
connect
to
each
other.

Tracking
Tips...
Please
identify
the
Appendix
where
the
laws
that
are
cited
in
this
paragraph
are
found.

Page
28
­
A
new
Program
Description
(
pages
14
through
30)
is
resubmitted
with
this
letter.

Tracking
Tips..
.
The
Appendix
has
been
referenced.

Page
30
­
The
document
now
has
two
page
30s
­­
the
last
page
of
the
Program
Description
and
the
title
page
of
the
Program
Analysis.

Page
30
­
The
document
now
has
one
page
30.

Program
Element
#
2
Chart,
Page
3
7
(
unnumbered)
­
Please
provide
footnote
to
explain
why
two
items
on
this
chart
have
two
asterisks.

Program
Element
#
2
Chart,
Page
37
(
numbered)
­
The
asterisks
are
used
to
relate
certain
explanations
contained
in
the
analysis
which
is
located
below
the
sections
of
the
chart
to
specific
segments
of
the
chart.
I.
Page
46
­
This
table
is
missing
a
title.

I.
Page
46
­
The
table
now
has
a
title.

J.
Page
47
­
Citations
under
"
Enforcement"
should
include
45
CFR
§
745.327(
b).

J.
Page
47
­
45
CFR3
745.327
Authorization
of
Indian
Tribal
Programs
is
not
applicable
to
the
District
of
Columbia.

K.
Appendices
J
and
K
­
Is
there
a
reason
why
these
are
included
in
two
separate
Appendices?
In
order
to
meet
Quality
Assurance
requirements,
A
Quality
Assurance
Plan
is
required
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
and
approved.
Appendix
J
contains
a
Quality
Assurance
Plan
that
now
is
undergoing
EPA
review.
Please
incorporate
relevant
portions
of
Appendix
K
and
the
one­
page
that
is
part
of
Appendix
J
entitled
"
Quality
Assurance"
into
the
QAPP
that
is
under
review
at
EPA,
if
they
are
not
in
the
QAPP
already,
and
delete
these
separate
pages.

K.
Appendices
J
and
K
­
The
QAPP
is
currently
being
revised
and
will
be
resubmitted
to
EPA
under
separate
cover.
The
content
of
Appendix
K
has
been
revised.
Appendix
J
is
reserved
for
a
revised
QAPP.

I
am
requesting
that
the
enclosed
pages
be
used
to
replace
corresponding
earlier
submittals.
Please
call
me
at
202­
535­
2690
to
confirm
receipt
of
this
authorization
submittal.
Legal
aspects
of
the
authorization
package
which
may
require
further
revision
are
currently
under
review
by
our
newly
hired
attorney.
Should
additions
andor
revisions
associated
with
this
review
be
required,
they
will
be
submitted
under
separate
cover.
If
further
clarification
of
the
enclosed
material
is
required,
feel
free
to
contact
Ms.
Amisial
of
my
staff
on
202­
535­
2629.

n
Y
Enclosure
cc:
dArnold,
OECA
A.
Dickens
R 3/
ca
\
7
