Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
1
LEAD
PROGRAMS
MEETING
MEETING
SUMMARY
September
25­
26,
2000
OVERVIEW
On
Monday
and
Tuesday,
September
25
and
26,
staff
from
EPA's
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
hosted
a
meeting
with
state
representatives
from
EPA
regional
lead
programs
to
obtain
input
on
drafting
a
proposed
rule
for
renovation
and
remodeling
as
it
relates
to
lead­
based
paint.
Attendees
and
their
affiliation
are
provided
in
Appendix
A
to
this
meeting
summary.

Additionally,
Appendices
B­
F
are
all
documents
that
were
distributed
during
the
meeting.
They
are:

C
Appendix
B
Meeting
Agenda
C
Appendix
C
Session
Highlights
°
Appendix
D
Lead
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Proposed
Rule
Pros
&
Cons
of
Potential
Options
and
Appendices
(
Pros
&
Cons
paper)

C
Appendix
E
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Sample
Options
Under
Consideration
(
Options
Table)

C
Appendix
F
Handouts
for
the
"
402
Present
and
Future"
Discussion
°
Appendix
G
Regulatory
Status
of
waste
Generated
by
Contractors
and
Residents
from
Lead­
Based
Paint
Activities
Conducted
in
Households
This
meeting
summary
has
been
prepared
in
a
narrative
format
and
reflects
key
discussion
points
in
the
order
that
they
arose.
These
notes
are
not
a
meeting
transcript,
however,
and
some
comments
have
been
summarized
and
paraphrased.

DAY
1
INTRODUCTION
(
10:
00
a.
m.
­­
10:
30
a.
m.)
 
Lin
Moos
Lin
Moos
opened
the
meeting
by
providing
a
brief
background,
communicating
the
goals
of
the
meeting,
and
walking
the
participants
through
the
two­
day
agenda.

Ms.
Moos
began
the
background
to
the
meeting
with
a
quick
overview
of
the
difficulties
posed
by
the
402
regulations.
When
the
402
regulations
were
developed
there
was
very
little
involvement
of
either
the
regions
or
the
states.
The
result
was
some
problematic
regulations.
The
framework
had
no
provision
to
effectively
and
clearly
separate
renovation
work,
interim
controls,
and
abatement.
Consequently,
the
regulations
encountered
tremendous
issues
in
the
field.
States
and
regions
found
it
difficult
to
match
these
regulations
with
dissimilar
programs
nationwide.
Additionally,
HUD
and
the
National
Center
issued
a
letter
which
led
to
considerable
confusion.
(
EPA
offered
to
write
a
letter
of
clarification
to
any
state
which
may
require
interpretation.)
Ms.
Moos
said
this
meeting
was
intended
to
help
prevent
similar
difficulties
with
new
legislation.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
2
Ms.
Moos
explained
the
goal
of
the
meeting
as
to
achieve
an
increased
understanding
of
the
various
positions
of
the
states
and
EPA
related
to
the
new
regulation.
Ms.
Moos
said
she
recognized
that
the
states
have
many
different,
and
potentially
contradictory,
needs;
however,
she
hoped
the
dialogue
would
help
craft
a
workable
and
effective
rule.
Ms.
Moos
noted
that
even
though
EPA
will
eventually
propose
a
set
of
regulations
with
the
normal
comment
period
to
follow,
this
meeting
is
intended
to
help
ensure
that
all
options
that
need
to
be
considered
are
articulated
before
anything
is
proposed.
She
also
said
that
the
political
implications
of
any
action
must
be
considered.
HUD
has
had
significant
trouble
with
its
program,
in
particular
maintaining
congruity
with
different
state
programs,
and
any
regulations
developed
must
consider
small
business
interests,
state
interests,
and
the
OMB
review
process.

SESSION
1
(
10:
30
a.
m.
­­
11:
15
a.
m.):
Identifying
the
Key
Elements
of
a
Successful
Program
Lin
Moos
began
the
session
by
outlining
three
components
necessary
to
identifying
the
key
elements
of
a
successful
program.
The
key
elements
include
identifying
important
descriptors
of
a
successful
program,
key
pitfalls
to
avoid,
and
key
constituencies
to
include.
In
response,
participants
made
the
following
comments:

Important
Descriptors
of
a
Successful
Program
Ernie
Kelly:
In
order
to
consider
the
success
of
a
program,
the
program
must
be
judged
by
the
goals
it
establishes.

Vern
Dander:
To
be
successful
the
regulations
must
have
unambiguous
requirements,
as
much
as
that
is
possible.

Larrie
Lance:
There
is
rife
confusion
in
the
states,
particularly
over
how
different
programs
interface.
There
must
be
an
effort
to
put
everybody
on
the
same
page.

Lin
Moos:
The
primary
difficulty
is
that
HUD
programs
interface
with
EPA
programs
which
interface
with
the
states.

Larrie
Lance:
Training
needs
to
be
better
publicized.
When
training
is
going
on
everybody
needs
to
know.
Often
important
groups
are
not
aware
of
the
necessity
of
training
and/
or
opportunities
for
training.

Barry
Brooks:
The
importance
of
publicity,
getting
the
information
out
cannot
be
understated
at
this
point.
Notifying
contractors
is
difficult
but
necessary
for
success.
This
is
particularly
important
and
correspondingly
difficult
in
small
states.

Ernie
Kelley:
Priority
must
be
given
to
creating
some
consistency
between
EPA
and
HUD
regulations.
Often
a
great
deal
of
confusion
is
created
directly
at
the
agency
level.
Any
program
proposed
should
be
simple.

Cathy
Atkins:
There
must
be
an
adequate
time
for
adaptation
to
any
new
regulations.
In
the
case
of
HUD,
regulations
have
been
introduced
too
quickly
and
compliance
with
the
regulations
has
been
mandated
too
soon
after
adoption
and
notification.

Perry
Manor:
Flexibility
is
an
important
part
of
any
program
that
might
be
proposed.
It
must
be
understood
that
any
federal
program
will
have
diverse
effects
in
the
states.
Many
people
are
confused
about
which
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
3
regulation
applies
when
confronted
by
HUD,
the
state,
EPA,
etc.
The
most
stringent
standard
from
each
applies.
Wisconsin
has
been
developing
a
training
program
which
integrates
all
programs.
Any
new
rule
should
not
cause
conflicts
with
other
programs.

Ernie
Kelley:
HUD
and
EPA
need
to
work
together
to
create
consistency,
with
concern
about
how
their
regulations
will
be
implemented
in
the
states.

Lin
Moos:
The
group
seems
to
be
focusing
on
HUD
problems,
are
there
more
EPA­
specific
issues?

Larrie
Lance:
I
don't
think
we
are
focusing
on
HUD
problems­
it
is
important
that
the
EPA
not
make
the
same
mistakes.

Ellie
Clark:
The
HUD
regulations
are
already
out.
Does
the
EPA
need
to
follow
the
HUD
framework
to
maintain
consistency?

Lin
Moos:
Consistency
is
difficult
because
of
the
many
differences
in
state
programs.
HUD
has
tried
to
adopt
one
federal
standard
regardless
of
locality­
there
are
no
delegated
HUD
programs.

Mike
Wilson:
EPA
has
been
thinking
a
lot
about
the
purpose
of
any
program.
The
focus
is
on
urban,
low
income,
and
minority
populations.

Pat
Curran:
The
housing
community
is
used
to
HUD
regulations,
but
environmental
regulations
are
something
new
and
different.
Any
EPA
regulation
must
be
simple
and
easy
to
implement.

Vern
Dander:
Some
distinctions
need
to
be
made
between
trainings.
For
example,
what
is
the
difference
between
a
technician
and
an
inspector?
Such
differences
are
not
always
clear
to
all
people.
Additionally,
there
needs
to
be
some
clarity
about
which
qualifications
(
and
training)
are
necessary
for
which
activities
and
similarly,
what
some
activities
may
require
for
qualifications.

Perry
Manor:
Changing
liability
requirements
have
created
difficulties
for
defining
"
lead
safe."
This
has
caused
a
review
of
training
requirements.
Wisconsin
has
worked
hard
to
minimize
requirements
and
training
time
by
developing
a
series
of
modular
courses.
Each
course
is
developed
to
build
upon
another,
leading
to
greater
levels
of
knowledge
and
certification.
The
program
is
organized
to
create
a
common
standard
by
incorporating
regulations
from
various
jurisdictions.

One
big
problem
is
that
there
no
common
understanding
of
the
difference
between
abatement
and
interim
controls.
This
differentiation
should
be
focused
around
risk
­­
high
risk
versus
low
risk
activities.
Lower
risk
activities
could
be
conducted
by
minimally
trained
personnel
while
higher
risk
activities
would
require
greater
training.

Lin
Moos:
What
is
an
example
of
the
difference
between
high
risk
and
low
risk
activities?

Perry
Manor:
Low
risk
activities
would
be
something
like
covering
over
a
painted
floor
(
lead­
based
paint)
with
linoleum.
Low
risk
activities
typically
involve
enclosure
or
encapsulation
as
opposed
to
removal.

Karen
Crampton:
The
problem
in
Vermont
is
that
contractors
are
not
regulated
by
any
agency.
Most
contractors
are
small
operations
making
them
hard
to
reach.

Mike
Wilson:
Please
explain
what
Vermont
does
in
its
lead
program.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
4
Karen
Crampton:
Vermont
relies
upon
owners
and
landlord
associations
to
spread
the
message.
The
Vermont
EMP
(
Essential
Maintenance
Practices)
training
program
has
recently
been
certified
by
HUD.
It
is
less
extensive
than
other
courses
but
it
requires
a
test.
New
EPA
training
requirements
will
create
a
big
political
problem
now
that
our
program
is
operating.

Ernie
Kelley:
Getting
back
to
the
elements
of
a
successful
program,
any
program
would
be
most
successful
if
it
was
based
upon
risk.
There
is
currently
a
big
problem
with
distinctions
between
different
agency
regulations.

Pat
Curran:
There
should
be
some
agreement
between
all
agencies
on
common
terminology.
Terms
like
"
inspector"
and
"
interim
controls"
need
to
be
clearer.

Key
Pitfalls
to
Avoid
Perry
Manor:
There
is
a
big
problem
when
the
regulations
of
a
granting
agency
are
different
from
other
agencies.
Just
because
the
granting
agency
says
everything
is
okay
does
not
mean
that
all
requirements
have
necessarily
been
fulfilled.
What
happens
with
a
person
working
on
a
HUD
funded
project
that
follows
an
EPA
approved
state
program?
The
other
requirements
are
often
overlooked
or
assumed
to
be
redundant
and
completely
the
same.

John
Sikes:
The
most
important
thing
is
to
keep
everything
simple.
It
may
be
necessary
to
go
back
to
the
state
legislatures
to
amend
state
legislation.

Larrie
Lance:
This
might
be
assumed,
but
buy­
in
from
contractors
is
absolutely
necessary.

Dan
Chatfield:
It
should
be
explicitly
stated
what
bad
could
happen
if
these
contractors
are
not
regulated.

Ernie
Kelley:
Contractors
are
an
established
constituency.
They
have
used
the
same
practices
for
many
years
and
will
be
extremely
resistant
to
change.
If
there
is
to
be
a
change
in
work
practices,
the
changes
should
be
phased
in
incrementally.
Otherwise
there
will
be
an
industry
uproar.
A
large
scale
education
program
is
going
to
be
needed
to
change
the
knowledge
and
attitude
of
industry.
Something
like
the
seatbelt
or
smoking
programs
might
be
necessary.

Mike
Wilson:
In
Vermont,
do
you
ask
homeowners
to
look
for
lead­
safe
contractors?

Karen
Crampton:
Yes,
we
are
spending
time
on
public
outreach.

Barry
Brooks:
The
blame
cannot
be
placed
upon
all
contractors.
I
have
found
that
EBL
children
(
elevated
blood
lead
level)
is
not
often
caused
by
the
work
of
contractors.
A
bigger
problem
is
homeowners
doing
their
own
work.

If
certain
practices
are
banned,
there
must
be
some
other
viable
options
offered.
These
options
must
be
both
safe
and
economical.
Additionally,
particularly
in
small
states,
most
work
is
done
by
small
operators
who
are
difficult
to
reach
­­
your
typical
"
Bubbas."

Keith
Alexander:
I
would
like
to
echo
Barry.
A
big
pitfall
is
not
to
justify
the
need
for
a
state
program
to
state
legislatures.
Also,
for
legislators
to
understand
the
requirements
they
should
be
simple
and
easily
understood
standards.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
5
Ernie
Kelley:
A
question
to
be
addressed
is,
what
fundamentally
distinguishes
de­
leading
from
renovation?
What
are
the
concrete
differences
in
knowledge
and
training?

Larrie
Lance:
Buy­
in
will
be
difficult
to
achieve.
Big
states
rely
a
lot
upon
local
elements.
Legislatures
need
to
hear
the
necessity
from
the
EPA.

John
Sikes:
It
is
not
feasible
to
certify
all
contractors
in
the
U.
S.
There
are
something
like
300,000
contractors
with
1.3
million
workers
(
Mike
Wilson).
The
initiative
will
need
to
come
from
owners.

Ernie
Kelley:
HUD
has
helped
in
a
way.
They
have
primed
the
pump
for
training
and
spread
the
message.

Perry
Manor:
The
risk
between
renovators
and
abaters
can
be
the
same.
We
need
to
look
at
activities,
not
persons.

Ernie
Kelley:
We
have
been
looking
at
risk
in
Massachusetts.

Keith
Alexander:
I
think
it
may
be
too
late
to
change.
There
are
already
a
lot
of
regulations
in
place
that
do
not
acknowledge
this
difference.
In
Texas,
HUD
grantees
will
simply
call
their
work
abatement
to
qualify
for
the
money.

Key
Constituencies
to
Include
Kerra
Roudebush:
The
landlord
must
be
considered
in
Section
8
housing.

Dan
Chatfield:
Metropolitan
housing
authorities
that
receive
HUD
money.

Perry
Manor:
Training
providers
need
to
be
involved
in
the
process
very
early.

Mazzie
Talley:
With
energy
efficiency,
DOE.

Pat
Curran:
DoD,
same
reason.

Dan
Chatfield:
FAA
funds
some
window
replacement
as
a
part
of
noise
abatement
around
airports.

Joe
Younger:
Municipal
agencies
and
schools
must
be
informed.

Perry
Manor:
The
involvement
of
associations
is
necessary.

Dan
Chatfield:
Daycare
providers
seem
to
be
almost
sacred
but
they
can
have
serious
problems.

Dave
Combs:
Head
Start
programs.

Cathy
Atkins:
State
legislatures
must
be
throughly
educated.

Session
2
(
11:
30
a.
m.
 
1:
00
p.
m.):
R
&
R
options
evaluated,
review
of
approach
presented
at
national
meeting,
potential
new
options
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
6
Mr.
Wilson
began
the
session
by
introducing
the
two
resources
he
would
use
during
his
presentation:
"
Lead
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Proposed
Rule
Pros
and
Cons
of
Potential
Options
and
Approaches,"
(
Appendix
D)
and
the
second
a
table
entitled,
"
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Sample
Options
Under
Consideration"
(
Appendix
E).
Audience
members
had
many
questions
and
often
interjected
comments
during
the
presentation.

Mr.
Wilson
began
with
the
pros
and
cons
paper
(
Appendix
D).
He
mentioned
that
most
participants
are
probably
aware
about
what's
been
done
with
the
renovation
and
remodeling
statute,
and
that
it
calls
to
modify
the
402
abatement
regulations.
EPA
extrapolated
the
structure
from
the
abatement
regulations
and
are
applying
renovation­
specific
components
to
it.
He
reviewed
these
in
the
order
they
were
presented
in
the
document.

The
applicability
section
discussed
renovation
specifically,
and
how
housing
is
affected
by
renovation
and
remodeling
rules.
It
presented
three
options:
Should
it
affect
all
pre­
1978
housing,
pre­
1960
housing
or
rental
housing
only?
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
one
of
the
interesting
things
to
look
at
is
how
the
data
appears
to
be
changing.
EPA
does
not
have
final
figures
yet,
but
has
learned
that
the
numbers
from
the
HUD
data
may
be
reduced.
The
original
survey
showed
that
75%
had
lead­
based
paint
and
now
that
figure
may
be
as
low
as
25%.
Mr.
Wilson
noted
it
is
difficult
to
regulate
the
housing
stock
if
such
a
low
percentage
of
houses
are
truly
at
risk.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
to
walk
the
group
through
the
paper.
He
next
discussed
two
potential
exemptions:
Exemptions
one:
Minor
repair
or
maintenance
and
Exemption
two:
Emergency
renovation
projects.

Mr.
Wilson
next
reviewed
the
range
of
options
for
certification
of
firms
and
employees
of
firms,
including
training
and
certification
of
individuals,
which
Mr.
Wilson
mentioned
was
similar
to
the
abatement
regulations.
At
this
point
in
the
presentation,
Mr.
Wilson
asked
a
question
of
the
audience:
"
What
is
your
impression
of
the
need
for
certifications?
How
important
is
it
to
certify
workers
and
supervisors?"

Bob
Ford:
Certify
supervisors.
Enforcement
actions
go
after
supervisors,
not
workers.
Don't
certify
workers.

Larrie
Lance:
I
agree
with
Bob's
sentiments.
There
is
a
need
for
financial
incentives
to
certify
people.

Barry
Brooks:
Certify
supervisors,
not
workers.

Keith
Alexander:
Don't
certify
workers.

Perry
Manor:
Supervisors
direct
and
control
the
project,
therefore
there
is
a
need
to
grasp
the
supervisors.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
presenting
the
pros
and
cons
position
paper.
He
next
discussed
the
options
for:

·
Accreditation
of
Training
Providers;
·
Work
Practice
Standards;
and
·
Prohibited
Practices.

Regarding
prohibited
practices,
Mr.
Wilson
instructed
the
audience
to
look
at
the
data
used
to
establish
the
restrictions
limited.
He
mentioned
this
was
only
created
because
the
work
caused
disruption
of
more
dust.
He
further
reminded
participants
that
this
rule
is
not
in
place
to
protect
workers,
but
to
protect
families.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
7
The
final
two
components
and
the
options
that
Mr.
Wilson
discussed
were
exterior
and
interior
clearance.
Regarding
the
latter,
Mr.
Wilson
mentioned
it
is
a
highly
charged
issue,
and
some
public
health
people
think
clearance
is
the
only
way
for
a
unit
to
be
safe
enough
for
re­
occupancy.
He
stated
that
contractors
are
concerned
about
standards
because
of
the
costs.
Mr.
Wilson
provided
an
example­­
if
you
have
to
clear
each
room,
and
you
are
performing
work
on
four
rooms
with
clearance
tests
at
$
160/
room,
that
is
an
extra
$
600
cost
to
the
project.

At
this
point
in
the
discussion,
Larrie
Lance
informed
the
group
of
a
study
she
heard
about
in
California.

Larrie
Lance:
I
heard
that
vacuum
cleaners
with
new
bags
are
being
tested
in
California
and
some
results
have
shown
you
have
the
same
clearance
testing
levels
as
using
a
HEPA
vacuum.

Mike
Wilson:
That
is
great
that
new
tests
are
being
performed,
but
until
enough
data
is
collected,
remember
EPA
must
comply
with
the
OSHA
regulations
and
use
HEPA
vacuums.

Larrie
Lance:
OSHA
regulations
apply
to
firms
with
less
than
ten
employees?

Mike
Wilson:
Yes,
any
time
there
is
an
employee­
employer
relationship,
OSHA
requirements
kick
in.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
to
summarize
the
position
paper.
He
informed
the
audience
that
the
paper
was
completed
in
March
and
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
small
businesses.
He
explained
where
EPA
was
today
on
these
options.
He
informed
the
audience
that
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
Association
provided
good
feedback
on
the
paper.
Their
feedback
helped
EPA
get
a
good
sense
of
how
other
Federal
agencies
might
react
to
the
proposed
rule.

EPA
thought
about
other
options
to
follow.
Mr.
Wilson
talked
about
the
previous
discussions
and
concerns
people
had
about
the
HUD
1012
training
for
interim
controls
work.
He
stated
that
people
wanted
to
know
when
work
needs
to
be
done,
and
who
does
what.
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
the
preamble
of
the
HUD
Regulations
needed
to
establish
a
definition
for
training
because
EPA
did
not
define
training.
HUD
acknowledged
that
EPA
might
have
regulations
regarding
training
in
the
future.

Mr.
Wilson
stated
it
will
be
at
least
18
months,
and
perhaps
two
years,
before
this
new
proposed
renovator
and
remodeler
rule
could
take
effect.

Next,
Mr.
Wilson
began
to
review
the
Table,
"
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Sample
Options
Under
Consideration"
(
Appendix
B)
presented
in
June.
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
the
table
has
the
same
issues
as
the
paper.
He
began
speaking
about
applicability.
He
said
EPA
is
treating
abatement
and
interim
controls
together.

At
this
point
in
the
presentation,
Mr.
Wilson
asked
a
question
to
the
audience:
"
Is
there
a
need
for
a
specific
group
of
lead
hazard
control
folks?
Is
it
necessary?
Two
to
three
levels
or
possibly
one
level
of
training
that
applies
over
interim
controls
and
abatement?"

Ernie
Kelley:
It
depends
on
the
condition
of
the
unit,
and
the
condition
of
the
paint
when
the
work
is
complete.
It
is
hard
because
there
is
no
consistency
for
job
completion
after
abatement
and
what
abatement
completion
should
be.

Perry
Manor:
I
think
that
one
standard
should
be
implemented
and
that
it
should
be
the
highest
level.
But
not
everyone
in
our
state
(
Wisconsin)
wants
the
highest
level
to
be
implemented.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
8
John
Sikes:
I
think
multiple
levels
should
be
implemented.
But
the
levels
should
be
more
targeted
to
activities,
such
as
people
who
perform
window
replacements.

Bob
Ford:
Some
do
and
some
don't.
Ninety­
five
percent
of
the
workers
trained
will
be
performing
renovation
and
remodeling
activities,
while
only
five
percent
will
perform
abatement
projects.
Utah
currently
offers
five
different
trainings
with
their
rule.
Now
we
are
talking
about
adding
new
training
requirements
for
renovation
and
remodeling
and
this
will
be
problematic
for
our
training
providers.
I
do
not
see
the
abatement
training
in
high
demand
in
five
years,
so
if
we
move
to
one
training
which
is
separate
from
the
state
training,
it
might
be
good
for
the
training
providers.
I
support
one
kind
of
training
to
help
the
training
providers
buy
into
the
program.

Mike
Wilson:
If
we
implemented
modular
training,
it
would
have
two
levels.
Level
one
would
be
the
basics,
level
two
would
train
on
interim
controls
and
abatement
specific
work.

Bob
Ford:
This
option
is
viable,
but
participants
from
the
classes
are
mostly
from
out
of
state,
but
I
support
modular
training.

Larrie
Lance:
I
would
like
to
see
standard
training
for
workers
no
matter
what
they
do.
Have
the
supervisors
responsible
for
making
sure
the
workers
did
what
was
right
when
doing
the
abatement
work.

Mike
Wilson:
One
problem
with
your
idea
is
we
don't
require
supervisors
to
be
on
site.
How
would
you
address
that?

Larrie
Lance:
Maybe
the
rules
will
change.

Perry
Manor:
I
would
like
to
re­
emphasize
my
idea
that
EPA
should
move
towards
activity­
based
classification.
I
think
you
should
avoid
the
word
"
intent."
If
you
look
at
the
activity,
it
doesn't
matter
what
industry
you
are
working
in.
You
could
arrange
training
as
high
and
low
risk
activities.
It
is
easier
to
build
up
the
modular
training
if
you
think
of
the
base
as
activities.

Barry
Brooks:
In
discussing
the
different
classifications
of
training,
Kansas
will
not
recognize
the
clearance
technician
classification.
Everything
will
be
done
by
an
inspector
or
risk
assessor.
We
started
having
conversations
with
HUD
about
a
year
ago
about
these
issues.
Kansas
only
has
five
training
providers.
Three
train
supervisors
and
two
perform
all
the
trainings.
Kansas
has
had
a
lot
of
trouble
finding
enough
business
for
them.
I
support
the
supervisor
training
and
also
wanted
to
tell
you
that
Kansas
requires
40
hours
for
their
supervisor
training.

Pat
Curran:
In
response
to
Perry's
comments,
follow
intent.
When
the
rule
came
out
it
talked
about
hazard
reduction
and
how
it
is
not
applicable
under
renovation.
We
need
to
have
simple
terminology.
In
response
to
Barry's
comments,
with
the
level
one
and
level
two
training,
we
are
concerned
about
how
we'd
get
our
training
providers
up
to
level
two.

Lin
Moos:
How
many
have
been
certified?

Pat
Curran:
Four
hundred
and
sixty.

Lin
Moos:
How
many
would
there
be
if
they
have
formal
requirements
required
by
the
regulations?
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
9
Pat
Curran:
Several
thousand.

Mike
Wilson:
I
want
to
address
the
comments
on
intent
and
to
see
consistent
standards
on
interim
controls
and
abatement.
Yes,
the
intent
will
stay.
As
far
as
the
renovation
and
remodeling
rule
is
concerned,
the
rule
will
be
based
on
intent.
What
the
grouping
of
interim
controls
does
is
eliminate
what
we
have
now
as
permanent
and
temporary
fixes.
It
provides
a
consistent
standard
among
abatement
and
interim
controls.
In
our
proposal
we
will
require
training
for
maintenance
workers.
I
think
we
are
in
agreement
that
as
far
as
abatement
jobs
are
being
done
today,
the
majority
of
those
are
being
performed
with
Federal
funds.
We
also
think
that
the
majority
of
future
interim
control
work
will
be
done
under
the
1012
rule
with
Federal
funds.

Any
time
an
EBL
child
is
involved
there
will
be
special
considerations
and
requirements
involved.
In
New
York
they
have
the
local
138
regulation
that
states
that
lead
hazard
reduction
work
will
be
done
in
response
to
an
EBL
child.
That
work
would
be
covered
under
hazard
reduction
work,
not
renovation.

In
other
activities,
or
at
least
those
covered
by
renovation,
the
renovation
requirements
are
suggesting
the
same;
containment,
safe
work
practices,
and
requirement
for
cleanup.
These
are
the
same
requirements
as
the
lead
hazard
reduction
activity
level.
There
is
a
level
of
safety
involved.

Perry
Manor:
Intent
for
me
is
problematic,
especially
with
the
1012/
1013
regulations.
I
asked
HUD
if
their
1012/
1013
activities'
intent
is
for
lead
hazard
reduction.
Their
reply
was
no,
their
intent
is
rehabilitation.
It
is
problematic
for
me
because
it
is
the
same
issue
and
they
are
using
different
terminology
and
avoiding
the
issue
by
using
the
term
rehabilitation.

Mike
Wilson:
HUD
clearly
states
their
purpose
in
their
preamble
as
the
reason
for
the
new
regulation.
The
preamble
states
that
the
new
regulation
establishes
procedures
that
eliminate
the
hazards
of
lead­
based
paint
in
residential
properties.

Lin
Moos:
HUD
probably
calls
it
rehab
because
it
has
always
been
called
rehab,
even
before
EPA.
They
are
not
dodging
the
issue
by
renaming
it,
they've
called
it
rehab
for
a
long
time.

Perry
Manor:
My
point
is
intent.
Because
1012/
1013
intent
is
lead
hazard
reduction,
it
should
meet
the
EPA
abatement
definition.

Mike
Wilson:
The
way
the
preamble
is
worded
now
could
establish
the
argument
that
intent
of
performing
lead
reduction
work
is
present
and
require
all
certified
workers
to
be
used.
1012/
1013
requires
risk
assessment
to
be
done
in
all
housing.
They
allow
one
contractor
to
address
the
recommendations
of
the
risk
assessment.
They
have
to
have
two
licenses
to
perform
the
work.

John
Sikes:
When
talking
about
the
HUD
rule,
people
on
the
local
level
are
confused.

Following
this
discussion,
Mr.
Wilson
directed
the
participants
back
to
the
tables
and
certification
of
firms
and
how
the
worker
training
is
different.

Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
the
requirements
for
the
workers
will
be
different
for
renovation
than
they
are
for
lead
hazard
reduction
activities.
For
renovation,
certification
will
not
necessary
for
the
worker.
He
informed
the
audience
that
training
will
be
required,
but
not
certification.
Some
other
informal
training
such
as
an
informal
course
or
something
held
by
the
employer
will
also
be
required
for
workers.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
10
He
stated
that
hazard
reduction
will
require
training
of
workers
by
an
accredited
training
provider.
EPA
would
receive
notification
of
who
has
been
trained
and
create
a
database
of
workers.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
to
present
the
table
discussing
supervisors,
sampling
technicians
and
work
practice
standards.
He
commented
that
the
nice
thing
about
the
HUD
guidelines
is
that
abatement
requires
clearance.

Continuing
with
the
table
under
the
interior
renovation
section,
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
EPA
would
recommend
that
clearance
be
obtained.
If
the
homeowner
requests
clearance,
the
certified
personnel
would
have
to
conduct
the
clearance.
That
person
could
be
employed
by
the
person
doing
the
work
in
house.

A
number
of
people
in
the
audience
had
comments
on
clearance
and
wanted
to
share
them
with
Mr.
Wilson
and
the
group.

Bob
Ford:
The
same
person
doing
the
work
and
the
clearance
have
to
be
different
under
the
HUD
regulations.

Mike
Wilson:
Yes,
HUD
requires
the
sampling
and
the
work
to
be
done
by
different
parties.

Bob
Ford:
If
they
don't
intermingle,
it
should
be
okay
under
EPA
rules.

Mike
Wilson:
HUD's
definition
is
similar.
They
do
allow
workers
from
the
same
organization
as
long
as
the
person
doing
the
clearance
is
not
actively
involved
in
performing
the
work.
HUD
has
more
restrictive
requirements
than
EPA.

Bob
Ford:
I
think
the
intent
was
that
the
same
person
was
not
performing
the
work
and
the
clearance.

Mike
Wilson:
We
will
discuss
more
tomorrow
when
we
discuss
whether
a
third
party
should
be
involved
in
the
clearance.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
presenting
the
section
about
interior
clearance
provided
in
the
table.
He
noted
that
EPA
has
grouped
the
abatement
and
interim
controls
together
in
response
to
a
request
from
Congress.
Congress
also
asked
that
the
work
be
cleared
by
a
sampling
technician.

After
finishing
presenting
the
section
on
interior
clearance,
Mr.
Wilson
began
presenting
the
section
on
exterior
clearance.
He
stated
that
sampling
technicians
could
also
do
the
clearance.
A
specific
individual
at
the
job
site
with
a
supervisor
and
homeowner
is
required
to
perform
the
clearance.
Mr.
Wilson
completed
presenting
the
table
and
informed
the
audience
that
both
the
table
and
paper
were
completed
in
June.

Mr.
Wilson
next
gave
a
brief
history
outlining
why
EPA
is
motivated
to
talk
about
new
options.
The
motivation
is
mainly
driven
by
the
fact
that
the
HUD
housing
figures
might
be
as
low
as
25%.
He
stated
that
the
focus
should
be
on
pre­
1960
housing
and
maybe
pre­
1950
housing.
They
are
waiting
for
the
final
report
this
fall.

Mr.
Wilson
said
EPA
has
also
heard
rumors
that
NHANES
data
for
children
with
EBL
could
be
as
low
as
350,000
to
400,000.
He
noted
this
a
large
decrease
from
the
previous
year's
numbers
of
890,000.
Therefore,
EPA
needs
to
determine
if
it
is
necessary
for
them
to
control
the
contractors
in
order
to
provide
safety
for
children.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
11
Mr.
Wilson
stated
EPA
also
talked
to
contractors
who
are
licensed,
bonded,
and
have
25­
30
employees.
They
found
that
these
contractors
are
all
using
HEPA
vacuums
and
other
lead
safe
standards
and
approximately
10­
15
%
of
the
renovation
contractors
are
willing
to
get
certification.
He
noted
that
contractors
find
the
certification
gives
them
justification
for
being
more
expensive.
Mr.
Wilson
informed
the
group
that
most
of
the
work
these
contractors
performed
is
upper
end
rehab.
These
contractors
are
not
working
in
targeted
low
income
neighborhoods.

Mr.
Wilson
next
informed
the
audience
that
EPA
did
a
training
video
in
Philadelphia,
which
will
be
included
in
a
training
course
expected
to
be
completed
at
the
end
of
this
month.
A
film
crew
was
able
to
capture
a
renovator
performing
work
at
a
job
site.

Mr.
Wilson
posed
a
rhetorical
question
to
the
group
and
provided
an
answer:
"
Will
lower
income
housing
benefit
from
this
kind
of
certification?
Of
the
kind
of
contractors
we
just
mentioned?
Probably
not
because
they
are
not
working
in
low
end
neighborhoods.
They
are
all
working
on
high
income
housing.
We
have
also
found
that
in
low
income
housing
the
work
is
being
done
by
the
owner
or
a
friend
of
the
owner.
There
is
a
higher
risk
of
creating
lead
hazards
when
the
owner
or
a
friend
completes
the
work."

Many
members
of
the
audience
were
intrigued
by
the
information
gained
from
the
discussions
between
EPA
and
the
contractors.
Many
had
questions
and
comments.

Ernie
Kelley:
What
do
these
contractors
say
about
sampling?

Mike
Wilson:
They
don't
want
to
do
it.
It's
no
longer
renovation
work
when
they
do
sampling
­­
it
turns
into
lead
hazard
reduction
work.
They
don't
want
to
be
liable
for
the
results.
They
don't
want
to
be
liable
for
existing
dust
that
was
there
before
they
did
the
work.

Some
studies
show
that
if
you
do
clean
up
with
detergent
and
HEPA
vacuum,
you
reach
standards
at
or
below
the
standards.
The
guidelines
state
how
cleanup
would
be
done.
They
would
rather
leave
it
up
to
the
owner
to
decide
how
clearance
should
be
completed.

A
modification
that
may
be
necessary
is
to
the
406
program.
We
need
a
new
pamphlet
for
the
homeowner
that
tells
them
what
to
look
for
when
the
contractor
is
doing
work,
such
as
have
them
look
for
a
HEPA
vacuum,
or
inform
them
how
to
better
protect
their
family.

Keith
Alexander:
Where
does
the
cost
for
the
dust
sampling
test
come
from?
The
swipes
and
lab
tests
are
fairly
cheap.

Mike
Wilson:
The
cost
comes
from
someone
coming
out
to
the
house
or
site.
And
because
of
the
certifications
of
the
person
performing
the
tests.
The
contractor
would
have
to
re­
evaluate
costs.

Keith
Alexander:
Test
would
be
built
into
the
costs.

Mike
Wilson:
True.

Keith
Alexander:
I
understand
that
costs
will
also
be
an
opposition
thrown
at
EPA.

After
the
brief
discussion
about
the
contractors,
Mr.
Wilson
directed
the
attention
back
to
the
table
again.
He
instructed
everyone
to
look
at
the
last
two
columns.
He
suggested
they
remember
the
basics
when
thinking
about
lead
hazard
reduction
work.
He
reminded
people
that
when
402
was
created,
the
intent
of
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
12
abatement
standards
was
abatement.
He
mentioned
the
same
standards
apply
for
hazard
reduction
work:
if
someone
is
looking
for
a
firm
to
perform
hazard
reduction
work,
they
can
find
a
certified
firm
to
conduct
such
work.
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
the
same
is
true
for
lead­
safe
renovation.
EPA
would
make
the
leadsafe
renovation
program
voluntary.

Mr.
Wilson
believes
that
406
came
too
early.
He
mentions
that
406
makes
the
homeowners
think
about
risk
and
not
require
anything
from
the
contractor.
Mr.
Wilson
does
not
agree
with
HUD's
options
and
believes
EPA
would
provide
different
options.
Mr.
Wilson
informed
the
group
that
EPA
would
also
receive
notification
from
training
providers
about
contact
information
for
those
trained.
EPA
would
create
a
database
using
this
information.

Larrie
Lance
had
a
comment
about
406.

Larrie
Lance:
The
training
certificate
terminology
is
confusing.

Mr.
Wilson
continued
summarizing
the
tables.
He
mentioned
they
wanted
to
add
required
language
that
would
state
"
when
doing
exterior
work,
dust
can't
migrate
to
adjacent
properties."
A
number
of
people
in
the
audience
had
comments
for
Mr.
Wilson's
last
statement.

Larrie
Lance:
It
is
a
good
idea,
but
only
if
is
tied
to
something
enforceable.

Lin
Moos:
By
certified
firms,
do
you
mean
voluntarily
have
certified
firms
do
the
work?

Mike
Wilson:
Yes.
When
you
look
at
the
applicability,
that
is
where
I
inserted
voluntary.
You
can
have
a
firm
who
voluntarily
received
certification
perform
the
work.

Ernie
Kelley:
If
the
idea
is
to
get
as
many
renovators
certified
as
possible,
not
require
the
certification,
but
you
want
them
to
obtain
it­­
how
do
you
do
that?
You
need
to
offer
them
some
financial
incentive.
Give
them
a
piece
of
the
"
de­
lead"
pie.
Let
them
do
window
replacements
in
a
lead
job.
The
owners
like
this
because
the
lead­
trained
renovators
are
the
carpenters,
etc.,
not
the
"
de­
leaders."
The
de­
leaders
are
not
the
skilled
craftsmen,
they
know
how
to
remove
lead.

Mr.
Wilson
wrapped
up
his
session
by
stating
he
wasn't
sure
if
the
incentive
Ernie
mentioned
is
one
we'd
all
want
to
implement,
but
he
definitely
thinks
that
in
a
voluntary
certification
scenario,
incentives
are
important.
He
stated
that
EPA
needs
to
think
about
ways
to
bring
contractors
into
a
voluntary
lead
certification
program.
Mr.
Wilson
stated
that
education
and
outreach
to
the
public
and
incentives
to
contractors
are
just
some
of
the
many
ways.
Mr.
Wilson
reminded
the
group
that
they
would
discuss
other
options
in
the
later
sessions.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
13
SESSION
3
(
2:
00
p.
m.
 
5:
30
p.
m.)
Discussion
on
Options
The
discussion
for
this
session
focused
on
two
documents
covered
by
Mr.
Wilson
before
lunch:
Lead
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Proposed
Rule
Pros
and
Cons
of
Potential
Options
and
Approaches
(
Appendix
D)
and
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Sample
Options
Under
Consideration
(
Appendix
E).
The
goal
of
the
session
was
to
focus
on
the
different
options
presented
in
the
two
documents.
Mr.
Casey
organized
the
discussion
around
several
key
questions.

What
is
R&
R
and
what
part
of
it
should
be
regulated?

Pat
Curran:
I
listened
to
Mike
and
Lin
and
I
am
worried
about
enforcement.
How
do
we
enforce
this
rule
without
notification?
At
least
with
HUD
we
have
strings
attached
such
as
money.
With
this
we
don't
have
any
strings
attached.
What
is
renovation
versus
hazard
reduction?
What
do
you
do
if
a
homeowner
hires
a
non­
certified
contractor?
Do
you
go
after
the
homeowner
or
the
contractor?

John
Sikes:
I
agree.
We
are
able
to
enforce
abatement
because
of
notification.
How
would
you
enforce
without
notification?
Maybe
limiting
the
applicability
to
certain
age
housing
or
certain
age
requirements
for
children
or
with
certain
regulatory
requirements...
I
don't
know.
Without
notification
I
do
not
know.

Ernie
Kelley:
This
is
an
after­
the­
fact
issue.
406
says
what
R&
R
is.

Mike
Wilson:
That's
right.
We
are
carrying
forward
the
definition
of
R&
R
as
it
is
defined
by
406.
This
definition
is
included
in
one
of
your
handouts.

Lin
Moos:
We
have
received
lots
of
comments
on
R&
R
versus
maintenance,
and
many
find
it
difficult
to
differentiate
between
the
two.
A
lot
of
commenters
thought
that
a
lot
of
things
that
were
general
maintenance
should
not
be
considered
R&
R.

Larrie
Lance:
I
am
concerned
about
enforcement
before
we
get
to
definitions
too.
Not
only
do
we
have
no
notification
with
these
options,
but
how
do
you
"
yank"
someone's
certification?
What
do
you
do?
In
California
we
have
a
complex
database
that
attempts
to
show
who
has
certificates
but
without
notification
it
is
very
difficult.
We
do
not
require
a
written
copy
of
the
certification.
We
are
able
to
cross­
check
for
who
is
certified.

Mike
Wilson:
What
are
your
thoughts
about
a
certified
firm?
In
other
words,
you
could
take
action
against
the
firm
for
the
work
done
by
a
supervisor
who
is
employed
there.
That
would
have
ramifications
for
that
supervisor.
Of
course,
the
supervisor
can
turn
around
and
go
work
for
somebody
else
without
anything
really
happening
to
make
sure
a
hazardous
situation
is
not
created
again.

Perry
Manor:
I
think
an
activity­
based
definition
is
needed.
That
goes
back
to
what
Lin
said.
It
does
not
matter
if
it
is
maintenance
or
R&
R.
Consistency
must
be
built
into
what
people
are
doing.
If
they
are
doing
a
certain
level
of
work
they
must
have
a
certain
amount
of
training.
Then
it
does
not
matter
who
is
doing
it
but
what
is
being
done.
I
think
on­
site
supervision
is
absolutely
necessary.
Classroom
instruction
is
no
place
to
learn
­­
there
needs
to
be
a
certified
supervisor
on
site
to
supervise
workers.
That
makes
a
big
difference.
At
worst
you
need
to
have
direct
supervision
until
a
supervisor
is
ready
to
say
that
they
are
competent.
They
learn
90%
of
these
effective
work
techniques
on
the
job.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
14
Barry
Brooks:
In
Kansas
we
have
406(
b).
We
sent
letters
to
contractors
throughout
the
state
about
the
rule,
telling
them
about
the
notification
and
the
requirements,
and
60%
came
back
"
out
of
business."
We
do
not
differentiate
between
R&
R
and
maintenance
­
if
you
disturb
more
than
two
square
feet
and
you
receive
money
(
federal
money),
you
are
under
the
regulation.
Enforcement
is
tough.
We
are
looking
at
building
permits
and
records
but
we
hope
to
have
a
color­
coded
permit
program
in
place.
Color­
coded
permits
would
work
by
requiring
green
permits
to
be
visibly
posted
for
post­
1978
work
and
red
permits
for
pre­
1978
work.
This
way
we
could
have
local
citizens
report
when
and
where
hopefully.
We
are
also
considering
the
"
narc"
concept
of
having
contractors
"
narc"
on
one
another.
We
are
thinking
along
the
same
lines
for
R&
R.

Perry
Manor:
Regarding
the
new
NHANES
study,
if
the
numbers
drop,
where
would
you
anticipate
the
new
numbers
coming
from?
In
other
words,
where
was
the
group
of
pre­
1960s
housing
stock
that
does
not
have
the
lead­
based
paint
that
the
survey
is
counting
to
come
up
with
the
new
numbers?
Where
are
the
houses
that
are
counted
in
the
survey?

Lin
Moos:
I
worked
on
the
task
force
and
most
of
the
kids
being
poisoned
are
coming
from:
(
1)
poor,
substandard
housing,
and
this
is
why
federal
money
is
so
important;
and,
(
2)
parents
doing
work
on
their
own
homes.
The
"
do
it
yourselfers."
The
NHANES
data
won't
give
sources.

Ernie
Kelley:
How
is
a
child's
blood
lead
level
affected
by
incidental
exposure
from
one
event
such
as
a
renovation
versus
living
in
an
old
house
with
deteriorating
lead
paint
for
years?
What
is
the
half
life,
2­
3
months?
What
is
the
potential
harm
of
an
incidental
spike?
The
spike
could
affect
the
percentage
of
houses
with
lead
and
may
make
the
housing
data
inaccurate.

Barry
Brooks:
There
was
a
GAO
study
on
blood
lead
data
and
we
came
up
with
about
the
same
numbers
as
that
study.

Larrie
Lance:
We
also
came
up
with
the
same
numbers
as
that
GAO
study
in
California.

Bob
Ford:
There
is
not
a
real
significant
difference
between
the
work
of
an
R&
R
contractor
and
a
"
do­
ityourselfer
in
terms
of
work
being
done.
The
homeowner
must
be
doing
something
significantly
worse,
even
though
the
contractors
have
power
tools
and
can
really
generate
dust.
The
do­
it­
yourselfer
takes
longer
to
do
the
job.

Mike
Wilson:
Most
likely
the
"
do­
it­
yourselfer"
is
working
while
the
children
are
at
home.

Bob
Ford:
We
receive
lots
of
complaints
about
the
mess
that
is
left
behind
after
the
contractor's
work
is
complete.
So
the
kids
could
have
access
after
the
job
to
lead
contaminated
materials.
I
just
don't
see
a
huge
difference
in
the
work
being
done
between
these
two
groups,
homeowners
and
contractors.

Lin
Moos:
Is
there
is
a
difference
between
who
hires
a
contractor
and
who
is
a
"
do­
it­
yourselfer?"

Bob
Ford:
No,
the
poor
do
not
do
it
(
renovation
or
fix­
up)
at
all.
The
rich
either
hire
the
best
they
can
find
or
do
it
themselves.
It
is
really
an
upper
middle­
class,
upper
class
thing
as
far
as
people
coming
to
us
with
poisoned
kids,
it
seems.

John
Sikes:
Rental
units
are
a
big
concern
for
me.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
15
Pat
Curran:
Regarding
the
data,
I
see
all
pre­
1978
and
all
pre­
1960
in
the
options.
Are
there
any
figures
prior
to
1950
and
between
1950
and
1978?
You
get
to
a
point
of
diminishing
returns
as
far
as
target
housing.
You
know
where
I
am
going
with
this.

Mike
Wilson:
That
data
is
coming.
We
may
indeed
find
that
pre­
1950
is
the
target
housing.

Ernie
Kelley:
We
all
have
a
habit
of
assuming
that
deteriorated
housing
is
the
most
serious
problem
and
risk.
With
regard
to
renovation
is
this
true?

Mike
Wilson:
There
is
some
data
out
there.
There
are
limitations
to
these
options,
one
of
which
is
that
we
based
these
options
on
data
based
on
chronic,
not
episodic
lead
poisonings.
We
are
talking
about
episodic
lead
exposures.
So
there
are
some
limitations.

Ernie
Kelley:
As
for
the
options,
I
think
the
newer
options
that
group
abatement
with
interim
controls
is
the
right
approach.
It
simplifies
things
considerably.
Putting
these
together
is
a
natural
progression
­­
hazard
reduction
and
renovation
are
not
separated
all
the
time.
To
allow
R&
R
contractors
to
do
some
deleading
would
be
helpful
and
is
probably
going
to
occur
anyway.
One
big
complaint
we
get
is
that
deleaders
are
not
skilled
carpenters
and
you
get
the
landlords
and
others
who
want
a
skilled
carpenter
in
there
to
do
the
work.
We
need
skilled
R&
R
contractors
to
be
able
to
do
some
de­
leading.

Perry
Manor:
When
the
HUD
regulations
came
along
we
had
a
major
increase
in
interest
in
the
required
training
and
lots
more
people
are
doing
training
now.
We
must
not
set
expectations
too
low.
In
many
of
these
options
I
see
very
few
expectations
there.
Do
not
set
expectations
too
low.

Bob
Ford:
Greater
than
two
square
feet
and
20
square
feet
for
interior
and
exterior
surfaces;
are
we
still
considering
the
option
of
10%
or
more
on
smaller
surfaces
for
the
de
minimus
issue?

Mike
Wilson:
We
received
a
lot
of
criticism
on
the
10%
de
minimus
option.

Bob
Ford:
I
worry
there
could
be
a
threat
of
exposure
with
current
de
minimus
levels.
The
de
minimus
issue
should
be
handled
with
existing
regulations.
I
would
be
apprehensive
to
create
new
standards.

Ernie
Kelley:
The
10%
option
is
large
­
especially
if
you
consider
a
room
such
as
this
or
larger.
That
is
quite
a
bit
of
paint.
On
the
other
hand,
when
you
look
at
many
components
at
one
time
or
in
one
situation
you
can
get
into
trouble.

Bob
Ford:
It
is
broken
down
I
think
between
large
walls,
two
square
feet
and
small
components,
10%
or
more.

Ernie
Kelley:
The
two
square
feet
per
component
is
bad.

What
are
interim
controls
and
what
part
of
them
should
be
regulated?

Perry
Manor:
Who's
defining
interim
controls?
There
is
no
consistency
in
use
and
therefore
no
consistency
in
applying
these
rules.
Applying
these
terms,
even
"
abatement,"
is
out
of
hand
and
is
largely
a
matter
of
convenience.
This
is
one
of
the
problems
with
the
1012
and
1013
rule.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
16
Larrie
Lance:
Maybe
we
should
redefine
some
terms
such
as
"
highest
level
risk"
and
"
low
level
risk"
or,
on
the
other
hand
maybe
we
should
be
more
activity­
based.
You
can
sand
the
wall
to
paint
it
or
you
can
sand
the
wall
to
do
an
interim
control.

Ernie
Kelley:
Regardless
of
variability
of
interim
controls
concerning
abatement,
interim
controls
are
temporary
and
renovations
are
more
focused
on
process
than
condition
and
are
thought
to
be
more
permanent.
The
controls
on
renovation
are
controls
on
process.
With
abatement
and
interim
control
you
are
trying
to
get
to
an
end
point
that
reflects
the
condition
of
the
paint.

John
Sikes:
Look
at
activities.
Two
square
feet,
20
square
feet,
10%,
components
versus
walls,
etc.
This
won't
go
anywhere.
A
lot
of
the
hazards
don't
even
have
anything
to
do
with
the
component
but
what
is
behind
the
component.
This
does
not
make
sense.
Is
it
even
flexible?

Mike
Wilson:
We
looked
at
different
jobs
to
see
different
types
of
work.
Where
do
you
make
the
cut?
What
is
a
high
or
low
hazard
when
it
comes
to
renovation?
A
job
such
as
window
replacement
for
example
can
be
very
hazardous
but
disturb
very
little
space.
We
are
considering
all
these
issues.

Should
there
be
de
minimus
levels
for
hazard
reduction
and
renovation
activities?

Ernie
Kelley:
Of
course
there
should
be
de
minimus
levels.
A
threshold
for
level
of
regulation
may
not
take
into
account
all
hazards
below
the
de
minimus
level
­
why
do
we
have
the
numbers
we
have;
two
square
feet
or
20
square
feet?
These
numbers
are
the
result
of
educated
guesses.

Keith
Bates:
I
disagree
­
there
is
no
need
for
de
minimus
levels.
Keep
it
simple,
keep
it
plain.
How
are
you
going
to
enforce
such
levels?
Someone
with
a
ruler
going
out
to
the
site?
De
minimus
levels
sound
great
but
do
not
work.

Perry
Manor:
Not
having
de
minimus
levels
would
be
political
suicide.
It
would
be
easier
to
not
have
them
but
it
will
not
work
that
way.
When
you
look
at
a
total
way
to
approach
work,
how
do
you
ensure
the
occupants
will
be
living
in
a
safe
residence?
We
need
something.
Who
do
you
let
do
clearance?
What
are
you
trying
to
accomplish?

Ernie
Kelley:
I
agree,
even
from
a
de­
leading
stance
because
there
is
no
uniformity
to
the
amount
of
lead
left
after
work
is
done.
There
must
be
a
guarantee
that
lead
has
not
been
added
to
the
work
site.
To
say
you
want
renovation
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
safe
environment
in
that
house
is
going
way
beyond
what
renovation
is.
You
should
only
be
able
to
assure
that
you
have
not
added
to
the
lead
that
may
have
already
been
there.

Sean
Casey
then
asked
if
Ms.
Moos
and
Mr.
Wilson
had
any
questions
for
the
group.

Lin
Moos:
How
much
of
a
role
does
public
education
of
the
homeowner
play?
As
opposed
to
focusing
just
on
regulating
the
contractor.

Jeff
Robinson:
In
our
part
of
the
country,
it
may
be
different
in
other
parts,
people
do
not
have
a
very
good
knowledge
of
lead
problems.
Especially
in
the
New
Orleans
area,
people
are
interested
in
getting
the
best
contractor
they
can
get.
The
poor
do
not
have
the
choice.
One
question
I
have
is
whether
we
make
it
mandatory
that
landlords
comply.
If
it
is
voluntary
no
one
will
care
or
comply.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
17
Mike
Wilson:
Some
of
the
landlords
we
heard
from
were
very
concerned
about
liability
and
would
hire
certified
contractors
and
even
go
a
step
beyond
and
do
clearance
sampling.
We
are
aware
that
the
landlords
we
heard
from
were
at
the
top
of
the
socio­
economic
spectrum.

Karen
Crampton:
Education
is
great,
but
cost
rules.
If
you
put
requirements
in,
that
is
great,
but
the
dollar
is
what
decides.

Perry
Manor:
If
you
have
money,
fine.
But
in
many
cases
landlords
have
no
money
and
must
put
up
notices.
In
Wisconsin
there
is
a
program
we
are
implementing
to
limit
liability
in
regard
to
level
of
cleanup,
but
it
took
a
definition
of
liability
that
was
clear
to
landlords
to
make
them
act.

Larrie
Lance:
There
is
no
consensus,
at
least
on
a
national
level,
on
what
"
safe"
means.
It
would
help
if
we
could
all
agree
on
what
"
lead­
safe"
means.
I
am
also
concerned
about
all
the
discussion
on
cost.
Cleaning
up
is
not
that
expensive.
Also,
education
in
California
has
been
a
failure,
I
think.
We
don't
know
what
works
and
what
doesn't.
Until
people
think
of
lead
like
they
think
of
seat­
belts,
we
have
a
lot
to
do.

Mazzie
Talley:
I
worry
about
the
"
slum
lords."
They
are
different
from
the
landlords
you
all
heard
from
during
SBREFA.
There
is
a
huge
population
of
slum
lords
out
there.
Think
about
the
1018
situation.
Many
of
these
people
have
never
heard
anything
about
lead
safety
and
liability
or
any
of
these
issues.
How
do
you
reach
these
people?
These
people
do
not
understand
liability.

Mike
Wilson:
You
are
exactly
right.
We'll
never
be
able
to
reach
100%
of
the
contractors
or
landlords.
We
are
going
to
miss
some
of
the
people
out
there.
We
acknowledge
that
during
SBREFA
we
only
heard
from
the
top
10­
15%
(
financially),
the
cream
of
the
crop,
of
the
landlords.
We
tried
to
use
this
to
our
advantage
in
setting
options
that
they
would
accept
and
hope
that
others
less
well
off
would
also
accept
such
options.
We
know
we
will
never
reach
100%
of
the
population.

John
Sikes:
I
agree
with
Mazzie.
Low
level
rentals
­
poor
people
­
do
not
have
the
options
or
the
access
to
the
legal
options.
We
have
to
get
at
the
low
income
rental
properties.

Lin
Moos:
How
do
we
get
at
that
lower
end?
Are
the
lowest
of
the
low
even
doing
any
R&
R?
Probably
not.
They
probably
just
have
lead
in
the
homes
that
has
been
there
for
ever.

Vern
Dander:
Contractors
are
looking
for
a
level
playing
field.
If
you
require
notification
and
clearance,
then
who
cares
about
certification
or
accreditation.
Notification
and
clearance
are
the
most
important.

Ernie
Kelley:
I
do
not
think
notification
is
feasible.
And
in
some
instances
neither
is
clearance,
for
that
matter.

Vern
Dander:
Clearance
gets
at
liability.

Ernie
Kelley:
Changing
contractors'
behavior
is
the
goal
and
we
need
a
concerted
effort
that
combines
many
of
the
issues
we
have
discussed
today.

Lin
Moos:
I
think
the
HUD
regulations
just
gave
us
a
$
3
billion
advertising
campaign.
The
people
doing
that
are
most
at
risk
and
are
the
ones
we
want.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
18
Ernie
Kelley:
In
our
state,
licensing
has
occurred
in
"
dribs
and
drabs."
Three
months
ago
training
providers
were
worried
about
1012
and
1013
and
asking,
"
Are
we
certified?".
With
1012
and
1013
there
is
a
lot
more
incentive.

Who
needs
to
be
certified
and
who
doesn't?

Perry
Manor:
If
you
want
to
regulate
individuals,
it
helps
to
have
certifications.
If
there
is
no
certification,
they
are
untouchable.

Ernie
Kelley:
It
boils
down
to
having
supervisors
on
site
at
all
times
if
there
is
no
certification
of
workers.
If
a
supervisor
can't
be
on
site
at
all
times,
the
workers
should
be
certified.
If
the
supervisor
is
on
site
at
all
times,
it
is
unnecessary
to
certify
workers.

Karen
Crampton:
There
should
be
a
change
in
the
rule
to
have
a
supervisor
on
site
at
all
times.

Perry
Manor:
In
Wisconsin,
supervisors
are
required
to
be
on
site
at
all
times.
We
have
something
like
100
workers,
and
everybody
else
is
a
supervisor.
With
mostly
small
renovation
operations,
you
find
that
if
you
mandate
supervisors
on
site
at
all
times,
everybody
trains
to
that
level.

Larrie
Lance:
Is
this
for
abatement
or
remodeling?

Perry
Manor:
We
still
have
the
Renovation
and
Remodeling
rule,
and
can
be
more
strict
on
it
than
EPA.
We
try
to
do
modular
training,
and
like
HUD,
do
it
all
at
once.

Keith
Alexander:
We
talk
about
requiring
supervisors
on
site
at
all
times
and
who
to
certify.
They
are
two
different
questions.
Workers
in
renovation
and
remodeling
shouldn't
have
to
be
certified
other
than
for
the
financial
reasons
for
the
states.
The
supervisors
and
the
firms
should
be
certified.

John
Odisio:
Oregon
has
certification
for
supervisors
and
firms.
It
comes
down
to
whether
we
can
fund
it
without
EPA
dollars.

Lin
Moos:
Think
about
certifying
1.2
million
workers.
It's
a
lot
of
people
if
that's
what
you
want.

Mike
Wilson:
We
guesstimate
that
with
just
firms
and
supervisors
we
could
be
certifying
300,000
firms
and
at
least
that
many
supervisors,
as
opposed
to
only
6,000
for
abatement.

Lin
Moos.
So
instead
of
twofold
or
threefold,
we'd
have
an
increase
of
twentyfold.
It
won't
work
if
you
can't
handle
all
of
the
training.
Another
issue
is
whether
you
give
the
money
to
the
general
fund
or
keep
it.

John
Sikes:
We
don't
have
the
enforcement.
If
you
don't
certify,
how
can
you
get
people
to
do
the
training
and
collect
without
an
external
motivations
for
why
these
folks
would
get
a
certification?

Mike
Wilson
and
Lin
Moos:
There
are
a
large
number
of
people
getting
certifications.

John
Sikes:
We
need
to
redefine
"
interim
controls"
and
"
renovation
and
remodeling"
and
then
determine
how
we're
going
to
get
at
people.

Mike
Wilson
and
Lin
Moos:
That
would
be
24
million
notifications
annually.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
19
Bob
Ford:
What
if
you
cut
that
to
pre­
1950s
to
reduce
the
numbers?

Mike
Wilson:
You'd
still
have
12
million
annually,
since
the
older
houses
are
more
common.
No
matter
how
you
do
it,
you'd
still
have
a
large
number
of
notifications
for
hazard
reductions.

Pat
Curran:
What
I
want
to
ask
is,
"
How
do
you
sell
certifications
to
state
legislatures?"
Every
time
a
house
requires
renovated
we'd
require
certification.
In
that
case,
training
is
the
key
 
it
has
to
be
good
and
the
$
3
billion
from
HUD
is
a
shot
in
the
arm.

Michael
Brandt:
Change
the
rule
for
supervisors
and
have
them
pay
money
for
each
worker
to
certify
supervisors
and
get
revenue
without
having
to
certify
workers.
If
we
have
2,500
licenses
and
the
number
rises
we
can
interface
training
with
HUD
and
renovation
and
remodeling.
If
it's
approved,
we
go
ahead
because
or
regulations
are
permissive
and
we
can
go
with
what
comes
out.

Ernie
Kelley:
Whether
you
perform
based
upon
a
standard,
responsibility
should
be
on
the
supervisor
to
make
choices
to
achieve
the
standard.
They
need
skill
to
choose.
When
you're
dealing
with
transient
workers,
they
aren't
expected
to
have
the
level
of
expertise.
There's
no
point
in
certifying
them.

Larrie
Lance:
What
about
permits
for
buildings?
Has
EPA
made
up
its
mind
on
certifying?

Mike
Wilson:
No.
We
are
just
noting
states
concerned
by
the
numbers
of
notifications.

Pat
Curran:
Are
we
allowing
certification
for
abatement
supervisors
to
do
interim
controls
and
remodeling
and
renovation?

Mike
Wilson:
Yes.
Hazard
reduction
includes
R&
R.
Abaters
are
more
than
capable
based
upon
their
training.
Hazard
reduction
is
interim
controls
plus
abatement.

Kerra
Roudebush:
Is
training
the
same
now
to
abate
as
for
R&
R?

Mike
Wilson:
The
current
course
is
32
hours.
It
covers
abatement
plus
interim
controls.
We'd
like
to
improve
the
quality
while
reducing
the
time,
and
include
worker
training.

Kerra
Roudebush:
Keep
in
mind
abatement
workers
often
don't
take
renewal.
It
would
be
more
costeffective
to
cut
worker
training
to
one
day
for
renewal.

Mike
Wilson:
We
could
shoot
for
eight
hours
instead
of
16
hours.
The
R&
R
supervisor
course
is
one
day.

Perry
Manor:
The
concept
of
merging
abatement
and
interim
controls
is
exactly
what
Wisconsin
does
and
it
works
better.
We
shrunk
supervisor
training
to
a
three­
day
course.
It's
two
days
of
work
practices
with
one
day
of
"
paperwork"
training.
You
cannot
shrink
worker
training
to
one
day
.
The
first
day
is
low
risk
work,
the
second
is
high
risk,
and
the
third
is
supervisory.
It
reduces
redundancy.

Mike
Wilson:
What
we
are
thinking
of
is
containment,
work
practices
and
cleanup.
The
second
day
is
abatement
techniques
and
the
third
day
is
supervisor.

Perry
Manor:
You
can't
shrink
that
down
because
of
the
hands­
on
for
workers,
HUD,
R&
R
and
maintenance
training.
One
day
can
do
all
the
maintenance
plus
the
low
risk
abatement
such
as
putting
down
flooring
or
stair
treads
and
window
sashes.
That
meets
virtually
all
HUD
and
R&
R
requirements
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
20
and
is
very
efficient.
We
have
a
proposal
for
similar
training
for
excluding
XRF
for
"
investigators",
our
term
for
"
risk
assessor."
You
add
XRF
for
a
risk
assessor.
The
first
day
is
the
sampling
technician,
the
second
day
is
the
risk
assessor,
and
day
three,
XRF.
This
allows
you
to
mix
and
match
plus
retain
current
certification.
We
have
a
series
of
combinations
matching
the
five
disciplines
in
programs.
You
can
stop
and
get
certified
up
to
the
level
of
training
for
HUD
and
R&
R.
The
current
rule
includes
OSHA.

Michael
Brandt:
Would
you
consider
hazard
reduction
apprenticeships?

Mike
Wilson:
We
want
to
present
the
EPA
manual
in
a
more
professional
manner
with
improved
graphics.
Becoming
a
supervisor
requires
experience.
The
worker
can
build
toward
that
with
experience
along
with
modular
training.

Ernie
Kelley:
I'm
partial
to
risk­
based
certification
training.
Contractors
want
to
satisfy
all
of
the
regulations
through
training
all
at
one
time.
Does
that
still
include
OSHA?
States
may
want
an
OSHA
Competent
Person
training
on
top.
They
want
three
to
four
day
maximum
and
be
done
with
it.

John
Sikes:
We
have
a
problem
with
availability
of
training.
It's
more
doable
with
modular
training.
The
large
attendance
at
the
front
end
covers
for
the
small
number
left
at
the
back
end
of
the
training.

Perry
Manor:
If
you
need
OSHA,
it's
offered
on
the
first
day
by
the
training
provider.
If
they
don't
need
it
they
skip
that
Monday.

Karen
Crampton:
Getting
back
to
certification,
some
proof
is
necessary
 
not
just
a
training
certificate.
Will
the
homeowner
recognize
an
expiration
date?
Are
people
keeping
up?
Training
providers
should
provide
a
photo
ID.

Ellie
Clark:
Do
you
have
graduated
requirements
for
each
level
of
training?

Perry
Manor:
Take
current
402
standards.
You
can't
move
on
until
they
are
fulfilled.

What
Should
be
the
Certification
and
Training
Requirements
for
Workers?

Perry
Manor:
You'll
never
have
people
just
deciding
to
train
workers
for
lead
work,
because
there
isn't
the
incentive.
You
need
an
incentive
to
train
the
workers
 
otherwise
there
is
no
spontaneous
move
to
training.
Even
if
they
are
ignorant
of
the
regulation,
how
do
you
establish
liability?
This
throws
out
civil
liability.
If
you're
interested
in
protecting
the
public,
you
need
some
sort
of
standard
for
all
workers.
In
my
opinion,
informal
training
is
nothing
 
like
the
OSHA
regulation.
It
won't
work.
You
must
have
formal
training.

Lin
Moos:
I'd
like
to
ask
the
states
if
they
think
informal
training
works?

John
Sikes:
I
did
asbestos
and
taught
certification
course
with
OSHA
components.
Workers
had
been
trained
but
had
not
heard
of
basic
rules.
Informal
training
doesn't
work.

Lin
Moos:
OSHA
training
regulations
are
ignored.
That's
why
state
legislatures
require
it.
Contractors
don't
know
because
it's
never
checked.
Voluntary
training
doesn't
happen.

Mike
Wilson:
If
supervisors
are
held
responsible
and
liable,
does
it
help?

Dave
Combs:
We
have
a
self­
study
manual.
We
found
it
a
good
tool.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
21
Karen
Crampton:
in
Vermont,
OSHA
is
not
enforced
and
people
don't
follow
it.

John
Sikes:
OSHA,
even
if
enforced,
doesn't
work.
They
will
accept
anything.

Perry
Manor:
We
don't
require
it
but
we
check
supervisors
on
basic
knowledge.

Jeff
Robinson:
OSHA
compliance
is
in
the
industrial
sector.
They
only
worry
about
things
like
steel
plants.

Mike
Wilson:
Contractors
do
their
best
to
avoid
OSHA.
They
claim
good
faith
to
do
some
monitoring
but
there
is
widespread
non­
compliance.
As
an
example,
they
don't
encourage
personal
protective
equipment.

Ernie
Kelley:
In
our
state,
self­
study
is
for
low­
risk
exclusively.
We
don't
have
a
problem
because
a
lowrisk
job
is
low
risk.
And
OSHA
doesn't
kick
in.
There
is
not
a
lot
of
attention
necessary.

What
Should
Be
the
Certification
and
Training
Requirements
for
Sampling
Technicians?

John
Sikes:
We've
seen
the
R&
R
materials.
The
materials
are
good
but
they
can't
be
done
in
eight
hours.
The
sampling
technician
materials
are
not
doable
in
five
hours.
These
materials
need
to
be
taught
to
the
lowest
common
denominator
 
the
person
who
hasn't
graduated
high
school.

Larrie
Lance:
There
has
been
no
demonstration
of
the
Internet
course.
We
need
skills
assessment
of
the
hands­
on,
and
think
through
a
number
of
scenarios
­
stuff
like
moving
from
site
to
site.
There
are
components
but
no
test.

Mike
Wilson:
We
ask
trainers
to
provide
a
blueprint
of
the
exam.

John
Sikes:
It
takes
time
 
a
full
day
course
 
to
make
sure
they
have
the
knowledge.

Mike
Wilson:
It
does
take
a
full
day.
The
five
hours
are
designed
for
a
full
day
 
not
straight
through.

John
Sikes:
That
wasn't
communicated
that
it
meant
a
full
day
when
it
says
five
hours.

Mike
Wilson:
I
was
disappointed
in
the
HUD
test.
They
asked
providers
to
include
more
hours
of
training
without
additional
funding.
I'm
surprised
that
training
providers
didn't
walk
out
of
the
room.

John
Odisio:
Look
at
the
status
quo
and
the
three­
day
inspector
course.
No
experience
or
education
is
required.
I
feel
unsure
about
it
and
capacity.
Why
is
the
additional
classification
needed?

Mike
Wilson:
There
is
a
shift
from
identification
and
removal
to
identification
and
handling.
Less
time
is
spent
on
the
XRF.

John
Odisio:
Many
trained
risk
assessors
can't
get
hired.

Keith
Alexander:
What
do
we
expect
and
require
sampling
technicians
to
do
now?

Mike
Wilson:
Today,
it's
dust
wiping
for
clearance.
In
the
way
regulations
are
framed,
it's
clearance
for
activities.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
22
Keith
Alexander:
With
402
,
that
should
be
okay,
unless
we
ask
or
allow
sampling
technicians
to
do
more
than
clearance.
One
day
is
enough
for
dust
wiping.

Perry
Manor:
There
are
questions
besides
the
curriculum.
Students
must
have
the
qualifications
and
ability
to
understand
and
the
instructor
must
have
the
ability
to
teach.
There
is
a
shortage
and
lack
of
quality
trainers.
They
also
didn't
use
accredited
trainers.

Lin
Moos
and
Mike
Wilson:
It's
only
offered
by
accredited
providers.
HUD
did
this
well,
and
introduced
the
exam
at
the
end.
EPA
can't
do
that
until
regulations
are
in
place.

Perry
Manor:
It
depends
on
the
students
they
let
in.
They
need
some
education
to
learn
 
having
wideopen
credentials
to
enter
is
dangerous.
Are
they
allowed
to
do
independent
study?
If
this
is
the
basis
for
clearance,
it's
risky.

John
Sikes:
This
is
a
big
issue
in
Alabama.
HUD
would
be
reviewed,
but
it's
up
to
the
states
on
some
issues.
Can
a
person
with
no
qualifications
learn
dust
sampling
in
one
day?
That's
frightening.
Politically,
if
HUD
doesn't,
it's
difficult
for
the
States.

Lin
Moos:
Are
education
requirements
the
biggest
problem?

John
Sikes:
You
need
more
training
or
more
experience.

John
Odisio:
It's
hard
to
have
background
and
training
in
one
day
or
inspectors
in
three
days.

Larrie
Lance:
Housing
wants
people
on
the
street
fast.
We
use
XRF
for
dust
wipes
in
California
for
a
screening
tool
when
you
have
lead
poisoned
children.
It's
easy
to
use.
We
provide
extensive
hands­
on
training.
Environmental
neighborhood
groups
are
expected
to
do
sampling.
If
you
start
at
that
level,
what
does
it
take
to
get
them
up
to
speed?
Do
people
have
to
be
trained
by
the
State
accredited
trainers?
HUD
will
reimburse
only
accredited
training.

John
Bevilacqua:
It
has
to
come
from
accredited
training
providers.

Mike
Wilson:
HUD
does
pre­
qualification
screening
of
who
is
in.

All:
The
number
trained
is
up
to
5,000
slots.
How
do
they
decide
who
gets
in?

Lin
Moos:
They
talked
about
apportionment
along
the
lines
of
electoral
votes.
They
should
base
it
upon
a
formula
of
pre­
1978
housing
with
children
in
poverty.
An
extra
$
4.5
million
may
move
through
colleges.

Larrie
Lance:
We
do
need
to
think
about
scope.
Do
you
just
wipe?
It
requires
judgment
and
insight.
California
might
require
work
permanently
under
someone
with
more
training.
Over
time
one
can
work
up
to
a
risk
assessor.

Ernie
Kelley:
The
National
Center
For
Lead
Safe
Housing
envisions
grass
roots
activists,
but
the
opportunity
to
be
a
professional
discipline
will
attract
all
types
of
persons
looking
to
bust
into
the
profession.
There
is
high
potential
for
failure
with
this
discipline.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
23
Dan
Chatfield:
There
is
a
shift
between
"
how
we
do
training
to
do
lead
hazards"
into
"
hinging
everything
on
clearance."
Insurance
agencies
want
third
party
inspection
and
people
with
college
degrees.
It's
a
bad
public
policy
to
hinge
everything
on
people
with
no
qualifications.

Pat
Curran:
Why
not
have
the
person
work
under
a
supervisor
and
get
a
signature?
It
would
make
the
risk
assessor
responsible
for
what
the
sampling
technician
does.

Barry
Brooks:
It's
possible
they
may
have
the
inspector
checking
with
dust
wipes.
That's
a
little
dangerous.
In
Kansas,
we
keep
it
simple
 
there
is
no
added
requirement
to
work
under
a
supervisor.

Kerra
Roudebush:
In
a
few
years
the
sampling
technician
takes
the
sample,
but
the
risk
assessor
won't
review
it
for
free.
It
may
reduce
demand
for
sampling
technicians
because
risk
assessors
may
not
want
to
use
their
insurance
for
other
persons
work.

Barry
Brooks:
We
did
an
internal
dialogue
in
Kansas
before
going
to
HUD
at
the
regional
level.

Lin
Moos:
Have
other
states
done
so
internally
with
a
dialogue?

Dan
Chatfield:
Ohio
has
done
so
for
the
past
nine
or
ten
months
due
to
federal
pressure
with
the
assumption
that
we
would
save
federal
money.
There
is
a
need
for
legislation.

Karen
Crampton:
Vermont
is
planning
to
go
through
the
process
next
month,
initiated
by
the
public
health
folks.

Keith
Alexander:
We
started
a
dialogue
by
administering
an
exam.
The
dialogue
goes
like
this:
"
I
flunked?"
"
Yes,
you
did."

John
Sikes:
We
have
for
several
months.
Some
are
progressive.
Other
housing
authorities
look
to
get
by
with
the
minimum
of
what
is
required.
It
was
initiated
by
the
public
health
folks,
trying
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
sampling
technician.

Bob
Ford:
Utah
has
two
types.
Some
get
direct
funding
because
they
are
so
large,
and
others
get
funding
through
the
state.
In
September
1999,
the
state
was
unaware
of
HUD.
We
contracted
with
ICF
to
take
HUD
10­
12
and
10­
13
to
Utah.
There
are
78
small
agencies.
We
don't
want
to
do
sampling/
clearance
technicians,
but
can't
change
regulations
for
that.

Keith
Alexander:
I
agree
with
Pat.
Housing
authorities
flunk
exams
and
blame
trainers,
even
though
they
have
no
background
and
don't
study.
We're
worried
 
the
requirements
are
tough.
We're
worried
about
certifying
people
without
the
background.

Bob
Ford:
The
housing
people
scared
people
and
only
three
of
64
didn't
pass
on
the
first
try,
and
have
on
the
second
go
around.

Perry
Manor:
Wisconsin
was
never
excited
by
the
sampling
technician.
We
deal
with
training
with
handson
by
limiting
the
student/
instructor
ratio.
There
are
two
areas
where
the
sampling
technician
is
useful:
for
clearance
and
landlords
who
do
maintenance
and
want
training
to
see
if
it
is
clean
enough
to
pass
clearance.
This
pre­
clearance
function
is
still
useful.

Lin
Moos:
Do
they
use
pre­
clearance
as
a
maintenance
monitor?
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
24
Perry
Manor:
OSHA
has
required
that
they
don't
expose
workers
to
undue
risk,
and
the
sampling
technician
may
be
useful
for
following
on
some
of
these
requirements,
such
as
with
pre­
job
and
preclearing
tests.
You
may
want
to
consider
advertising
the
dual
uses.

Larrie
Lance:
Nick
Farr
at
the
National
Center
for
Lead
Safe
Housing
sees
it
as
sampling,
not
clearance.
The
activists
would
go
to
the
landlord
and
say,
"
Hey
 
clean
it."
It
has
an
element
of
environmental
justice.

Lin
Moos:
The
alliance
sees
it
as
a
community
activist
role
and
not
necessarily
in
terms
of
the
HUD
regulation.

John
Sikes:
As
long
as
the
grass
roots
get
high
results,
it's
okay.
False
reports
of,
"
It's
safe,"
is
a
big
problem.

Jeff
Besougloff:
I
know
you
all
have
concerns,
but
these
are
people
that
give
market
penetration
at
the
low
end.
The
alternative
is
$
800
per
house
instead
of
a
less
expensive
person
who
is
from
the
community
and
more
accessible.

DAY
2
SESSION
4
(
8:
30
a.
m.
 
11:
50
a.
m.)
Review
of
Components
5
through
8
Session
4
sought
participant
input
on
four
of
the
eight
elements
identified
in
the
paper
Lead
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Proposed
Rule
Pros
and
Cons
of
Potential
Options
and
Approaches(
Appendix
D),
specifically:

°
Work
Practice
Standards
°
Prohibited
Practices
°
Exterior
Clearance
°
Interior
Clearance
Following
the
organization
of
the
pros
&
cons
paper,
which
identified
multiple
options
for
each
of
the
components,
participants
were
asked
to
base
their
discussions
around
three
questions:

°
Which
of
these
options
meet
the
needs
of
a
successful
program?
°
Is
there
a
viable
missing
option?
°
Do
any
of
the
options
listed
need
tweaking?

Work
Practice
Standards:
Prescriptive
or
performance
based?

Barry
Brooks:
Some
of
these
might
not
be
needed
for
two
reasons.
Sears
now
carries
HEPA
filters
and
attachments
for
their
Shop
Vacs
for
$
29.95.
If
you
believe
what
California
has,
that
shouldn't
be
in
there
anymore.

Perry
Manor:
You
can't
look
at
these
options
singularly
without
seeing
how
they
all
fit
together.
You
don't
want
to
stifle
technology,
but
you
need
some
checks
and
balances.
Keep
in
mind
that
there
are
many
changes
in
technology
taking
place.
Doing
nothing
would
not
be
a
viable
option.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
25
Mike
Wilson
and
Ellie
Clark:
We
still
have
to
cost
it
out
(
the
"
none"
option)
as
part
of
the
regulatory
process.
We're
just
showing
what
we
have
to
do
as
part
of
the
regulatory
drill.
With
these
eight
different
areas
we
need
to
break
it
down.
There
are
thousands
of
options
possible,
but
we
need
to
discuss
pairing
options
with
another
option
from
other
categories.

Vern
Dander:
One
technique
we
use
is
to
have
a
model
contingency
plan.
Contractors
want
specifics
such
as
what
performance
can
go
into
a
contract.
And
you
can
show,
this
is
what
performance
means.
The
model
doesn't
stay
fixed
­
we
can
change
the
model
as
technology
changes
and
we
can
also
use
this
with
a
performance­
based
option.

Perry
Manor:
People
are
liable
for
damages
because
of
their
participation,
and
you
can
look
at
the
work
practices
standards.
If
you
give
a
prescriptive
regulation,
it
reduces
liability
for
the
contractor,
because
a
lot
of
that
comes
from
making
judgements.
And
they
like
that,
but
they
don't
recognize
that
it
ties
their
hands
and
the
customer
can
take
a
beating
because
it
drives
costs
up.
Creativity
spurs
the
industry,
but
it
opens
the
door
up
to
contractors
to
getting
sued
when
they
do
nonstandard
things.
There
is
not
an
easy
answer
to
this
kind
of
problem.
Ideally,
you
have
critical
prescriptive
tasks
and
leave
the
rest
of
the
decisions
to
the
contractor.
You
identify
a
few
key
things
that
have
to
be
done
on
every
job,
and
let
them
handle
the
rest
of
the
decision­
making
process.

Mike
Wilson:
These
are
just
work
practices.
We
broke
a
few
things,
like
prohibited
practices
and
clearance,
out
separately.
Is
there
anything
else
you
can
think
of
where
more
prescriptive
rules
are
necessary?

Perry
Manor:
I
like
to
have
more
open
options,
and
I
think
most
people
do.
We're
a
civilian
society
and
this
is
not
the
military
way.
Many
of
these
things
are
so
interrelated.
It
is
a
difficult
call.
We've
been
going
through
work
practices
and
housing
standards
definitions
with
our
own
legislation.
It's
a
very
difficult
practice.

Gerallyn
Valls:
With
402
we
took
a
model
for
Federal
programs
and
it
became
the
lowest
common
denominator
or
an
example
to
follow.
There
are
two
options
­
something
like
402
as
a
model
than
can
be
adopted
or
not
adopted
and
as
a
preamble
for
the
various
things.

Barry
Brooks:
GSA
has
a
shopping
list
of
options,
some
required
and
some
optional.
But
people
want
to
know
what
to
expect
from
regulations
and
how
to
follow
them.
And
a
manager
can
go
through
that
list,
and
depending
on
the
work,
they
can
change
it
a
little.
A
number
of
tests
may
be
blank
there
and
you
fill
that
in.
This
levels
the
contractor
playing
field
to
bid
on
and
gives
the
contractor
something
to
go
on.
They
may
add
money
to
services,
some
which
are
required
and
some
are
optional.
And
there
is
a
framework,
and
customers
can
say,
"
That
guy's
doing
this
and
tell
me
why
you're
not."

Gerallyn
Valls:
Not
all
are
enforceable.

John
Sikes:
With
the
training
materials
for
renovation,
contractor
input
was
in
favor
of
performance­
based
wherever
possible.

Pat
Curran:
Abatement
contractors
in
our
state
are
trying
to
follow
HUD
regulations
and
they're
not
doing
a
good
job.
We're
looking
at
enforcing
some.
Prescriptive
regulations
give
you
somewhere
to
go
on
enforcement.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
26
Ernie
Kelley:
There
is
a
lot
of
diversity
out
there
­
there
are
many
different
jobs,
and
so
many
different
levels
of
work
and
workers,
so
there
are
very
few
common
work
practices
that
are
used.
How
can
it
be
anything
other
than
performance
based?
Cleanup
can
be
prescriptive,
however.

Perry
Manor:
One
other
component
is
providing
the
literature.
That
should
give
the
customer
a
better
idea
of
what
to
expect.
It
could
explain
the
work,
including
prohibited
practices
to
let
the
customer
know
what
to
expect
of
the
job.
I
also
mentioned
the
sampling
technician
working
with
the
contractor
to
pre­
clear.
It
also
helps
if
contractors
can
do
a
sampling
to
see
if
they
are
clearable.
They
are
concerned:
"
What
if
I'm
at
the
end
and
I
don't
clear?"
They
can
do
a
less
expensive
self­
test
to
see
that
they
are
ready
to
clear.

Ellie
Clark:
We
have
been
contacted
by
people
about
using
XRF
for
clearing.
We
only
cover
the
final
samples
that
are
taken
for
clearance
and
go
to
the
labs.
I
guess
we
need
to
make
that
clear.
We
don't
cover
pre­
clearance
so
anyone
can
pre­
clear.
Our
regulations
don't
cover
that.
We
talk
about
what
our
regulations
cover,
not
what
they
don't.

Perry
Manor:
That
may
not
be
clear
at
the
state
level.
If
somebody
does
something
in
our
state,
they
need
a
certain
level
of
training.

Ellie
Clark:
If
states
want
to
do
it
differently,
they
can
include
it
in
their
own
regulations.
This
is
only
for
Federal
regulations.
You
can
point
out
that
state
regulations
may
be
more
stringent
than
Federal,
and
the
Federal
regulations
advise
people
to
check
with
your
state
if
they
have
different
regulations.

Perry
Manor:
You
can
put
in
the
interpretive
guidance
that
states
may
have
more
stringent
rules.

Ernie
Kelley:
With
regard
to
work
practices,
the
toughest
nut
to
crack
is
interior
dry
scraping.

Larrie
Lance:
I'd
also
like
to
address
exterior
power
washing.

Lin
Moos:
Is
this
an
issue
for
target
housing
or
for
commercial
buildings?

All:
Target
housing.

Keith
Alexander:
I
favor
prescriptive
regulations
and
in
detail,
in
black
and
white,
what
to
do.
It's
much
easier
to
enforce.
Some
states
unfortunately
can't
be
more
restrictive
than
the
Federal
government.
When
it
gets
down
to
the
final
regulations,
the
states
have
to
enforce
it.
You
must
be
specific
in
how
to
address
these
when
a
neighbor
complains.
In
the
South,
we
have
Historical
Societies
renovating
old
homes
and
they
don't
know
or
don't
care
about
lead
until
something
like
this
comes
out.
And
they
are
going
to
look
to
the
government
on
how
to
do
it.
If
we
say
do
the
best
you
can,
I
can't
enforce
that.

Ernie
Kelley:
Just
consider
how
dissimilar
painting
and
plumbing
are.
Is
it
practical
to
write
prescriptive
regulations
that
cover
all
of
these
different
tasks?
It
is
not
too
difficult
to
enforce
performance­
based
regulations.
If
we
use
prescriptive
regulations,
we'd
wind
up
disallowing
things
that
we
aren't
aware
of,
but
that
we'd
like
to
see
in
use
if
we
knew
about
it.
It
requires
a
different
mind
set.

John
Sikes:
Contractors
talk
about
doing
things
we
don't
know
about,
like
using
landscaping
cloth
for
external
sheeting
on
the
ground
to
catch
paint
chips.
If
we
are
too
prescriptive,
you
would
disallow
things
we
wouldn't
want
to
prohibit
if
we
knew
about
it.
You
don't
want
to
be
too
prescriptive
about
the
way
this
industry
does
its
work.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
27
Pat
Curran:
If
performance­
based
regulations
are
enforced,
do
you
have
to
wait
until
after
they
don't
pass
clearance?

Ernie
Kelley:
You
can
write
it
to
be
enforceable.
If
you
have
a
regulation
that
says
to
restrict
dust,
then
you
can
go
in
to
a
site
and
look
to
see
if
there
is
dust
that
has
contaminated
a
room,
you
can
look
to
see
if
they
have
taken
proper
steps
to
isolate
things
or
if
there
is
dust
all
over
the
place.
You
can
take
a
picture.

Barry
Brooks:
We
talk
about
remodelers,
bricklayers,
the
whole
gamut
of
phases
of
R&
R,
and
the
whole
scope
of
work
from
one
wall
to
renovating
an
entire
apartment
complex.
You
have
to
take
into
consideration
that
this
has
to
apply
to
people
who
have
expertise,
and
renovators
that
have
no
expertise
at
all.
It's
a
whole
different
animal
to
talk
about
these
different
things,
and
I'm
not
smart
enough
to
give
an
answer
­
I
just
think
we
ought
to
think
about
it.

Lin
Moos:
There
is
a
tension
between
performance
based
and
prescriptive.
Can
a
rewriting
of
the
exemption
by
letter
be
useful
to
have
prescriptive
regulations
that
aren't
too
binding?
Is
this
something
where
there
can
be
more
flexibility
at
the
state
level?
Is
it
for
a
whole
process
or
for
guidelines?

Lisa
Schutzenhofer:
It
takes
us
a
long
time
to
make
changes
in
the
regulations.

John
Sikes:
The
amount
of
flexibility
will
vary
across
the
board.

Barry
Brooks:
We
have
a
technology
statute
in
Kansas
but
it's
not
used.

Perry
Manor:
It
depends
upon
how
you
do
the
definitions,
for
example,
"
Control
the
spread.."
You
need
to
be
general
enough
to
have
some
variability.
The
example
is
for,
"
Cover
the
ground
and
remove
paint
chips"
vs.
"
Use
6ml
plastic
lining."
The
first
gives
the
contractor
flexibility.
Too
often
we
seem
to
have
views
that
are,
to
borrow
from
political
terminology,
too
far
to
the
left
and
too
far
right.
Either
we
regulate
to
the
extreme
or
we
are
too
far
in
favor
of
the
contractors
and
consumers.

Ernie
Kelley:
There
is
a
lot
of
variability.
We
have
liberal
authority
to
revise
our
regulations.
The
problem
of
the
exemption
clause
is
the
allowance
of
the
request.
It
works
at
the
state
level,
but
not
the
Federal,
and
it
allows
us
at
the
state
level
to
be
responsive.

Karen
Crampton:
I
was
going
to
agree
with
what
Ernie
said.

Pat
Curran:
It
takes
us
two
years
to
make
changes.
I
want
to
change
my
position
and
go
with
Massachusetts
and
support
performance­
based
regulations.

Keith
Alexander:
We
can't.
In
Texas,
if
it's
not
in
the
rule,
it
won't
go
anywhere.
Take
a
poll
of
the
states
on
changing
rules.
Changing
the
rules
in
Texas
is
hard.
We
need
prescriptive
regulations.
For
example,
you
can
tell
someone
to
cover
the
ground,
and
they
might
just
put
some
plywood
down
and
say
it's
covered
­
to
me
that's
not
covered.

Larrie
Lance:
I
don't
want
the
exemption
request
­
we'd
get
too
many
letters
to
go
through.
It
takes
six
months
to
three
years
to
change
rules.

Ernie
Kelley:
Asbestos
rules
were
more
formalized.
Many
political
forces
are
involved
with
renovation
and
remodeling,
such
as
rental
organizations.
If
there
is
no
flexibility
and
prescriptive
regulations,
then
that
will
get
many
powerful
interests
mad.
There
should
be
sufficient
wiggle
room.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
28
Prohibited
Practices
Mike
Wilson:
(
Referring
to
the
pros
and
cons
paper)
Think
of
the
middle
two
options
(
adopt
abatement
prohibitions
but
allow
exterior
open
flames
and
eliminate
restrictions
on
dry
scraping;
and
to
adopt
abatement
prohibitions
but
allow
exterior
open
flames
and
eliminate
restrictions
on
dry
scraping
but
require
clearance
when
they
are
used)
as
variations
on
some
policies.
Think
about
prohibitions
from
abatement
that
should
be
allowed
for
R&
R.
What
about
clearance?

Dan
Chatfield:
We
have
different
rules
than
HUD.
Are
there
two
sets
of
rules
to
follow?
We
shouldn't
add
unrestricted
hydro
blasting.
Someone
could
innovate
a
process
to
do
that
in
a
cleaner
way,
blasting
but
catching
all
the
paint
chips.

John
Sikes:
I
like
the
current
prohibited
practices.
You
could
allow
OSHA
to
exempt
them
if
data
shows
that
it
doesn't
create
problems.

Mike
Wilson
and
Lin
Moos:
That
would
bring
in
letters
again.

Larrie
Lance:
Our
small
business
wouldn't
know
to
apply
for
the
exemptions.

Ernie
Kelley:
Some
contractors
argue
for
the
open
flame
burn.
How
do
they
justify
it,
other
than
having
no
alternatives?

Mike
Wilson:
This
is
often
used
for
ornate
woodwork.
The
higher
end
customer
will
ask
for
it,
and
contractors
say
there
is
no
alternative
that
will
get
the
high
quality.
This
not
unusual
for
historic
homes.

Ernie
Kelley:
Are
there
any
protections
for
the
occupants?

Mike
Wilson:
We
have
cleanup
and
containment.
They
claim
that
if
containment
and
cleanup
is
done
properly,
they
can
do
anything.

John
Sikes:
There
would
need
to
be
cleanup
with
dry
sanding.

Mike
Wilson:
We
weren't
concerned
with
that.
There
is
more
about
dry
sanding
and
scraping.

Ellie
Clark:
A
dust
test
can
be
added
to
prove
it
is
cleaned
up.

Mike
Wilson:
The
expectation
is
that
with
these
historic
homes,
they
can
afford
the
extra
cost.

Gerallyn
Valls:
Maryland
may
have
a
lower
requirement
on
heat
guns.

Mike
Wilson:
The
HUD
specification
is
1,100oF.

Gerallyn
Valls:
They
could
reduce
the
temperature.
.
Ernie
Kelley:
The
higher
end
market
won't
object
to
dust
tests
on
dry
scraping.
Large
numbers
of
small
firms
will
be
affected
and
might
not
comply.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
29
Mike
Wilson:
We
won't
require
clearance
after
sanding
and
scraping
because
it's
too
common.
What
about
requiring
clearance
for
other
tasks?

Ernie
Kelley:
Some
tests
showed
window
replacement
had
low
air
levels
but
a
high
floor
level.
It's
hard
to
avoid
a
threshold
that
doesn't
include
some
risk.

Dan
Chatfield:
Is
there
some
prior
notification
process?

Mike
Wilson:
We
use
tips
and
complaints
after
the
fact.
There
would
be
24
million
activities
subject
to
notification.

Ernie
Kelley:
Use
can
be
made
of
the
406B
process.
The
state
level
could
handle
the
call
back.
That
way
the
number
of
calls
would
be
spread
among
the
states
rather
than
concentrated
at
the
Federal
level.
They
should
call
local
offices,
not
the
EPA.

Gerallyn
Valls:
Where
the
local
authority
issues
permits,
they
are
stakeholders.

Larrie
Lance:
Enforcement
would
take
a
long
time
to
put
in
place.
Our
building
and
housing
folks
haven't
bought
in
yet.

Lin
Moos:
You've
talked
to
the
building
and
housing
people.
Would
a
national
push
getting
the
information
down
help?

Larrie
Lance:
We
tried
many
approaches
including
the
"
poor
children"
sob
story
and
none
of
them
were
successful.
They
don't
want
to
enforce
it.
After
HUD
1012
they
are
asking.
If
it
were
more
simple,
they'd
buy
in.

Barry
Brooks:
We
work
with
housing
code
officials.
In
rural
Kansas,
there
are
few
or
no
building
codes.
They
are
reluctant
and
won't
do
anything
without
getting
funding.
They
want
it
quick
and
easy.
You
only
have
sympathy
for
this
in
university
towns
when
you
have
larger
number
of
people
in
smaller
places.

Pat
Curran:
We
have
had
no
luck
with
the
building
code
people.
A
group
within
the
agency
works
on
new
technology.
If
we
had
a
simple
way
for
an
easy­
to­
use
field
test
for
lead
that
didn't
require
a
trip
to
the
lab,
that
would
make
the
program
easier.

Ernie
Kelley:
In
our
state,
we
have
a
range
of
attitudes.
We
ask
for
tips
about
renovation
jobs
with
big
risks
and
hazards
and
use
this
as
a
lever.
You
need
to
educate
contractors
to
bring
them
into
compliance.
They
can
be
useful
for
notification.

Barry
Brooks:
The
1999
building
code
does
not
mention
lead.

Joe
Younger:
In
DC
we
have
had
help
from
the
agencies.
We
have
an
environmental
review
checklist
for
renovation.

Ernie
Kelley:
Even
those
who
think
it
is
nothing,
they
pay
attention
if
people
complain.

Kerra
Roudebush:
Consider
making
certification
voluntary.
If
they
don't
get
certified,
they
have
to
have
clearance
after
any
project.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
30
Exterior
Clearance
Barry
Brooks:
If
the
clearance
tests
positive,
1018
requirements
are
triggered.
There
is
a
great
hesitation
to
test
so
as
to
avoid
1018.

Jeff
Robinson:
Should
pre­
testing
be
required
to
validate
potential
sources
of
contamination
on
the
interior,
the
exterior,
or
both?

Mike
Wilson:
Contractors
have
been
very
concerned
about
becoming
responsible
for
pre­
existing
conditions.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
we
will
require
any
pretesting.
However,
pretesting
may
be
useful
to
avoid
some
liability.
Some
have
proposed
taking
a
sample
and
not
testing
it
until
a
problem
arises.

Larrie
Lance:
Has
the
EPA
done
any
studies
to
see
how
many
houses
with
lead
do
not
have
pre­
existing
conditions
on
the
exterior?
Soil
testing
is
very
complicated
because
it
is
difficult
to
root
out
other
sources
of
contamination.

Pat
Curran:
Are
you
supporting
visual
or
no
clearance?

Larrie
Lance:
Visual.

Mike
Wilson:
The
requirement
is
unlikely
to
be
soil
testing.
It
would
be
very
difficult
because
abatement
does
not
require
soil
testing.
The
standard
is
likely
to
be
visual.

Kerra
Roudebush:
There
needs
to
be
better
homeowner
awareness.
Complete
reliance
on
the
supervisor
is
not
feasible.

Mike
Wilson:
Better
information
is
likely
to
be
provided
in
a
revised
406
publication.

Barry
Brooks:
In
Kansas,
clearance
must
be
conducted
by
a
risk
assessor
or
other
trained
and
certified
person
unless
conducted
independently
by
the
homeowner.

Pat
Curran:
How
much
compliance
is
there
with
406?

John
Odisio:
In
Oregon,
it
is
very
low.
Several
notices
have
been
put
out
which
have
elicited
some
response,
but
few
actually
comply.

Barry
Brooks:
We
have
been
in
the
406
business
for
about
18
months.
There
is
a
very
different
perception
of
406
­
people
take
it
less
seriously.

Dan
Chatfield:
We
do
not
apply
406.
Instead
we
send
out
mass
mailings
and
try
other
approaches
to
get
the
word
out.
Enforcement
in
the
region
is
minimal.

Shea
Jones:
Soil
sampling
is
impractical
but
soil
is
a
documented
exposure
pathway.
The
public
needs
to
be
alerted
to
this
danger.

Ernie
Kelley:
While
406
compliance
is
presently
very
low
it
is
not
a
useless
endeavor.
Persistence
could
easily
yield
higher
levels
of
compliance
and
education.
More
contractors
will
comply
over
time.
The
406
requirement
was
not
ill­
conceives
and
should
continue.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
31
Barry
Brooks:
406
is
a
useful
education
tool.
It
is
a
good
program
and
should
be
a
part
of
any
future
proposals.

Dan
Chatfield:
The
EPA
needs
to
conduct
better
enforcement
of
406.
Contractors
need
to
be
aware
of
the
necessity
to
comply.

Interior
Clearance
Larrie
Lance:
Dust
testing?
Does
this
mean
testing
or
clearance?

Mike
Wilson:
Clearance.

Perry
Manor:
I
still
think
that
the
type
of
activity
needs
to
be
considered.
What
is
being
done
is
more
important
than
who
does
it.
There
is
little
effective
difference
between
remodeling
and
renovation
and
lead
reduction
in
many
activities.
These
activities
create
great
hazards
no
matter
who
does
them.
The
differentiation
in
hazard
should
include
whether
there
is
a
child
present
or
not.
A
child
should
require
a
higher
standard.

Ernie
Kelley:
The
problem
of
preexisting
conditions
can
not
be
avoided.
Dust
testing
gives
only
limited
assurance
that
the
unit
is
safe.
It
only
clears
the
work
area
at
the
time
the
sample
is
taken.
The
only
thing
that
dust
sampling
may
be
able
to
prove
is
that
no
additional
hazard
was
contributed
by
the
work.
The
rest
of
the
house
could
still
be
grossly
contaminated
by
preexisting
problems.

Lin
Moos:
Should
clearance
be
necessary
for
lead
hazard
control
but
not
for
renovation?

Larrie
Lance:
There
is
a
possibility
for
an
expanded
role
for
the
sampling
technician
with
respect
to
renovation.

Lin
Moos:
The
basis
for
the
sampling
technician
was
to
support
HUD
regulations.

Vern
Dander:
There
seems
to
be
little
functional
difference
between
an
inspector
and
a
sampling
technician
except
for
the
length
of
training
(
one
day
versus
three
days).
There
will
be
little
incentive
to
train
inspectors
if
sampling
technicians
can
do
the
same
job
and
be
trained
in
less
time
costing
less
money.

Jeff
Robinson:
We
may
have
to
mandate
clearance
for
certain
activities
such
as
machine
grinding
or
large
scale
power
sanding.
The
risk
and
the
cost
savings
need
to
be
balanced.
Some
techniques
that
may
be
useful
for
a
contractor
because
they
save
time
should
be
held
to
a
higher
standard
when
they
create
large
potential
risks.

Pat
Curran:
I
am
just
worried
about
compliance
with
dust
testing
­­
will
people
comply?

Ernie
Kelley:
Jeff
raises
an
important
distinction
­­
there
are
some
activities
that
have
the
potential
to
cause
massive
contamination.
Clearance
should
certainly
be
required
for
these
activities.

Larrie
Lance:
A
particular
problem
is
that
there
is
no
effort
to
educate
people
who
buy
the
tools.
There
are
no
warnings
on
packages
or
literature
provided
with
the
tools.

Perry
Manor:
Does
the
target
population
restrict
to
whom
these
regulations
should
apply?
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
32
Lin
Moos:
No,
the
regulations
cover
all
housing,
which
is
why
activity
based
regulation
would
be
such
a
tough
sell.

Perry
Manor:
Renovation
standards
should
be
focused
at
the
target
population
­
a
higher
standard
for
units
with
children
under
six
­­
this
is
where
it
is
easy
to
show
that
harm
may
be
done.
Clearance
should
be
required.

Mike
Wilson:
It
is
difficult
to
set
aside
children
and
consider
them
specially.

Lin
Moos:
In
a
letter
to
Congressmen,
it
was
noted
that
the
regulations
apply
to
all
­­
not
just
homes
with
a
child.

Mazzie
Talley:
What
about
landlords
that
renovate
with
no
renters
present
but
then
rent
to
a
family
with
a
small
child?

Gerallyn
Valls:
The
renovator
may
not
be
aware
of
any
children
present.

Barry
Brooks:
This
has
the
potential
to
make
a
big
impact.
The
worst
public
relations
fear
is
a
photo
of
a
worker
with
full
moon
suits
but
residents
nearby
wearing
no
protection.
People
will
quickly
question
the
validity
of
the
problem.
Also,
this
would
prevent
church
groups
and
the
like
from
working
on
the
homes
of
the
elderly
­
something
they
have
probably
been
doing
for
years.

Larrie
Lance:
In
CA,
once
school
superintendents
were
educated
about
lead
in
the
schools,
parents
were
banned
from
summer
painting
and
the
like.

Keith
Alexander:
For
me,
clearance
is
important
but
I
do
not
know
about
Option
1
or
Option
2.

Ernie
Kelley:
The
impact
of
clearance
has
the
potential
to
be
very
disruptive.
Clearance
should
probably
be
required
for
some
activities
but
not
all.

Mazzie
Talley:
There
could
be
an
options
package
associated
with
enforcement.
The
first
step
could
be
a
letter
of
non­
compliance,
the
second
step
a
civil
penalty,
and
the
third
criminal
action.
With
a
child
present
­
direct
harm
­
criminal
action
could
be
brought
more
quickly.

Bob
Ford:
Another
option
would
be
to
make
sampling
optional
for
all
owners.

Barry
Brooks:
The
problem
of
focusing
around
risk
is
that
it
is
difficult
to
define.
High
risk
and
low
risk
depend
a
lot
upon
the
techniques
used
and
the
circumstances.

Jeff
Robinson:
I
have
not
received
many
requests
from
the
public
but
every
so
often
there
are
a
few
phone
calls.
These
mostly
come
from
expectant
mothers
or
women
of
childbearing
age.

Ernie
Kelley:
Clearance
is
very
difficult
to
pass
without
abatement
like
procedures
such
as
securing
large
portions
of
the
house.

Perry
Manor:
The
necessity
and
level
of
clearance
required
is
related
to
the
education,
training,
and
certification
of
supervisors
and
workers.
Anything
proposed
needs
to
be
looked
at
as
a
package.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
33
Ernie
Kelley:
Something
like
machine
grinding
will
be
easier
to
mandate
clearance
than
something
like
manual
scraping
which
is
so
widely
used.

Gerallyn
Valls:
We
need
to
look
at
incentives
for
compliance.

Larrie
Lance:
Clearance
is
an
incentive.

This
session
concluding
with
the
participants
examining
the
first
few
components
in
the.
Because
the
key
issues
with
the
components
were
covered
in
the
paper
Lead
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Proposed
Rule
Pros
and
Cons
of
Potential
Options
and
Approaches(
Appendix
D)
the
previous
day
in
Session
3,
participants
were
asked
to
limit
their
comments
to:

°
Is
there
a
viable
missing
option?
°
Do
any
of
the
options
listed
need
tweaking?

Applicability
Vern
Dander:
Abated
property
should
be
exempted.

Perry
Manor:
Would
this
violate
the
Section
10
definition
of
target
housing?

Mike
Wilson:
No,
there
is
flexibility
given
to
define
the
regulatory
scheme.

Certification
of
Firms
Perry
Manor:
What
would
large
scale
mean?

Mike
Wilson:
There
is
no
real
clear
delineation.
It
is
a
concept
that
is
largely
impracticable
because
large
can
not
be
identified
as
contributing
a
different
or
greater
hazard.

Lin
Moos:
The
differentiation
would
be
difficult
to
justify.
Small
projects
done
by
a
small
firm
can
cause
big
problems.

Perry
Manor:
Risk
is
quite
different
from
size.

Barry
Brooks:
At
the
state
level
certification
is
important
to
tracking
firms
and
mandating
enforcement.

Gerallyn
Valls:
Another
option
would
be
voluntary
certification.
But
what
qualifies
as
a
firm?

Ellie
Clark:
Even
sole
proprietorships
qualify
as
firms.

Training
and
Certification
No
further
comments.

Accreditation
of
Training
Providers
Perry
Manor:
All
or
nothing
seems
to
be
too
polar
­
there
are
intermediate
options.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
34
Mike
Wilson:
To
clarify,
formal
sit
down
training
was
envisioned
to
be
accredited
while
informal
training,
like
training
by
a
supervisor,
was
not.

John
Sikes:
Ideally
accreditation
is
needed
for
verification.

SESSION
5
(
12:
00
noon
­
1:
45
p.
m.)
Potential
402
Amendments
During
this
session,
Ellie
Clark,
of
EPA's
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
presented
suggested
changes
to
the
402
regulations.
Ms.
Clark
began
the
session
by
referring
to
four
handouts
that
were
distributed
to
the
group.
These
four
pages
can
be
found
in
Appendix
F,
and
are
listed
below:

1.
Suggested
changes
to
402
reg
text
2.
Sampling
3.
Sampling
(
continued)
4.
Risk
Assessment
Ms.
Clark
stated
the
purpose
of
making
the
changes
to
the
402
rule
is
to
eliminate
problems
in
the
text
that
led
to
implementation
problems.
Ms.
Clark
began
by
giving
a
brief
history
of
her
beliefs
of
prescriptive
vs
performance
measures.
She
stated
she
always
believed
in
prescriptive
until
she
tried
to
implement
the
lead
rules.
Now
she
is
leaning
towards
performance
standard
measures
rather
than
prescriptive
measures.

Ms.
Clark
informed
the
group
she
would
first
run
through
the
changes
to
402
and
then
staff
from
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
would
discuss
changes
made
about
the
debris
rule.
Ms.
Clark
began
reviewing
items
on
the
"
Suggested
changes
to
402
reg
text"
page.
After
reading
through
parts
A­
C
(
General,
Scope,
and
Definitions)
she
asked
that
if
the
participants
had
any
other
feedback
they
could
send
her
an
email.

Returning
to
the
first
page
of
the
hand
out,
part
D
(
Accreditation),
Ms.
Clark
stated
this
is
only
for
402.
She
said
it
will
not
accommodate
renovation
and
remodeling
rules.
Continuing
down
the
page,
Ms.
Clark
informed
participants
that
part
F
(
Work
Practice
Standards)
is
explained
in
more
detail
on
the
following
pages.

After
completing
the
presentation
of
the
first
page,
Ms.
Clark
introduced
David
Topping
and
Rajani
Joglekar
from
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
to
discuss
changes
in
solid
waste
management.
Mr.
Topping
and
Ms.
Joglekar
described
recent
changes
in
EPA
policy
regarding
the
management
of
certain
land
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
and
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA).
In
his
introductory
remarks,
Mr.
Topping
said
it
is
EPA's
desire
to
move
some
lead
wastes
out
of
the
RCRA
system
and
manage
them
completely
in
a
TSCA
context.

Ms.
Joglekar
next
reviewed
key
elements
in
this
policy
change
which
are
documented
in
"
Regulatory
Status
of
Waste
Generated
by
Contractors
and
Residents
from
Lead­
Based
Paint
Activities
Conducted
in
Households"
(
Appendix
G).

The
participants
had
several
comments
and
questions
about
this
EPA
policy.

Jeff
Besougloff:
How
is
lead
debris
to
be
regulated
under
RCRA?

Rajani
Joglekar:
As
household
waste.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
35
Jeff
Besougloff:
There
could
be
a
problem
because
tribes
don't
have
authority
under
RCRA.
Who
has
the
authority
to
move
the
lead
debris
from
the
household
to
the
edge
of
the
reservation?

Rajani
Joglekar:
Tribes
can
make
this
determination
and
the
waste
can
be
disposed
of
in
localities
that
have
municipal
landfills.

Jeff
Besougloff:
We
can't
do
RCRA.
Tribes
can't
make
this
determination,
they
don't
have
the
authority.

Mazzie
Talley:
I
believe
it
reverts
to
a
Federal
program.
It's
just
like
Iowa.
Iowa
did
not
accept
the
RCRA
Program.
So
Region
VII
runs
the
RCRA
Program
in
Iowa.
They
also
run
the
tribal
RCRA
program.

Jeff
Besougloff:
So
then
EPA
runs
the
waste
disposal?

Mazzie
Talley:
We
work
with
the
tribes
to
run
the
program.

Jeff
Besougloff:
Okay,
we'll
see
how
it
works
out,
but
I
think
there
is
a
major
jurisdiction
problem
here.

Gerallyn
Valls:
I
know
it
includes
architectural
debris,
but
does
it
include
sludges?

Rajani
Joglekar:
Yes,
unfortunately
it
does
because
it
is
considered
household
waste.
See
page
two
in
the
middle
of
the
page
of
the
memo.
"
Certain
LBP
waste
(
such
as
large
quantities
of
concentrated
lead
paint
waste
 
paint
chips,
dust,
or
sludges)
from
residential
de­
leading
activities
may
be
subject
to
more
stringent
requirements
of
state,
local,
and/
or
tribal
authorities".

Gerallyn
Valls:
Are
all
states
authorized
to
this
RCRA
program
at
this
time?

Rajani
Joglekar:
Most
states
are.
Some
states
are
more
lenient
than
RCRA
and
include
such
debris
as
batteries
and
pesticides
as
household
wastes.

After
Mr.
Topping
and
Ms.
Joglekar
had
finished
highlighting
the
policy
changes,
Ms.
Clark
informed
the
audience
that
she
has
attempted
to
add
on­
site
access
standards
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
745.27
in
a
new
section
called
waste
handling.
The
audience
was
also
informed
they
may
contact
Sue
Nogs
at
(
703)
308­
7251
if
they
had
any
questions
or
comments
about
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
waste.
Staff
from
OSW
will
also
inform
Lin
Moos
who
the
Indian
contact
person
is
and
Ms.
Moos
will
distribute
the
information
to
the
group.

Members
of
the
audience
had
more
comments
and
questions
they
wanted
answered
about
the
policy
changes.

Bob
Ford:
What
about
public
and
municipal
buildings?
TSCA,
not
RCRA?

Ellie
Clark:
Yes.

Bob
Ford:
Because
of
the
new
section
.227?

Ellie
Clark:
The
new
section
in
.227
will
only
deal
with
five
LBP
activities
plus
renovation
and
remodeling
in
target
housing,
while
the
proposal
deals
with
waste
handling
at
the
time.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
36
Vern
Dander:
I
want
to
make
sure
I
can
give
this
memo
to
our
training
providers.

Rajani
Joglekar:
Yes,
the
memo
can
be
distributed.

After
the
questions
on
the
new
lead
waste
policy
changes
were
answered,
Ms.
Clark
continued
with
her
presentation
of
the
402
amendments.
Ms.
Clark
posed
this
question
to
the
audience:
"
Does
anyone
have
any
comments
on
the
first
page?"

Larrie
Lance:
Did
you
talk
about
Hazard
Levels?

Ellie
Clark:
No,
we
will
be
following
the
403
standards.
The
final
rule
is
scheduled
to
be
published
in
December
and
will
be
available
for
comment
at
the
same
time.

Karen
Crampton:
I
have
an
issue
about
people
being
able
to
work
on
an
interim
basis
after
they
take
their
courses
and
before
they
become
certified.
We
didn't
adopt
that
part.
I'm
surprised
it
is
still
in
there
(
that
you
don't
require
certification
before
people
work,
before
the
3rd
party
exam
is
valid).

Ellie
Clark:
We
never
had
anyone
suggest
not
to
allow
the
interim
certification
until
today.
It
was
already
in
the
regulatory
text
and
we
left
it
there
because
no
one
ever
suggested
to
take
it
out.
No
one
from
I.
G.
ever
thought
to
bring
it
up.

Bob
Ford:
Maybe
it
is
better
to
have
representatives
from
the
states
review
it
than
I.
G.

Ellie
Clark:
That's
why
its
good
for
you
to
give
feedback
and
send
me
e­
mails
about
the
parts
you
question
or
are
concerned
about.

Ms.
Clark
then
posed
another
set
of
questions
to
the
audience:
"
Who
doesn't
like
the
"
interim
basis"
section
of
the
regulation?
Who
doesn't
think
EPA
should
continue
to
support
the
"
interim
basis"
and
why?"

(
About
15
hands
were
raised.)

John
Sikes:
I
thought
it
was
in
there
because
there
wasn't
an
exam
when
EPA
first
came
out
with
the
certification.

Ellie
Clark:
The
reason
it
was
in
the
regulatory
text
is
because
it
is
for
first
time
certifications,
not
people
re­
certifying,
or
already
in
the
system.
It
was
a
way
for
people
to
start
working.
People
who
had
state
certification
could
still
work
until
they
received
their
Federal
certification.
Those
of
you
who
have
been
around
for
a
while,
was
there
a
desire
to
let
people
work
by
waiting
for
the
certification
process?
Given
the
current
lag
time
for
the
program,
I
don't
think
we
are
in
the
position
yet
to
remove
the
interim
period.

Bob
Ford:
It
is
my
understanding
it
helps
EPA
get
through
the
lag
time.
It
is
tough
to
have
someone
go
through
the
training
and
let
them
work
and
then
tell
them
it
will
take
six
months
to
process
their
paperwork.

Utah
is
facilitating
that
and
giving
people
the
opportunity
to
take
the
exam
on
the
last
day
of
the
course.
It
is
a
3rd
party
exam
they
take.
We
come
down
to
the
training
and
oversee
it.
Then
we
reduce
our
process
time
to
24­
48
hours
once
we
receive
a
complete
application.
Now
95%
of
the
applications
we
receive
are
not
complete,
but
once
we
receive
a
complete
application,
we
can
mail
them
a
card
in
one
to
two
days.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
37
We
are
looking
at,
in
our
upcoming
rulemaking,
taking
the
interim
section
away
because
it
becomes
problematic
for
enforcement
issues
when
you
don't
know
who
is
out
there
working.

Larrie
Lance:
When
California
started
the
program,
there
was
no
certified
infrastructure
in
place.
The
interim
was
a
jumpstart
mechanism.
I
see
no
reason
at
all
for
California
to
keep
it
in
their
regulations.

Ernie
Kelley:
There
is
no
interim
in
Massachusetts.
People
have
to
take
the
exam
before
do
any
work.

Ellie
Clark:
What
is
your
lag
time?

Ernie
Kelley:
One
day.
We
offer
the
exam
on
site
the
day
after
the
course.

Kerra
Roudebush:
We
have
gotten
statements
from
our
industry
that
it
is
expensive
to
train
and
set
up
medical
monitoring
for
workers
and
get
them
certified
for
them
to
leave
two
weeks
later
because
they
don't
like
the
conditions.

Interim
certification
could
serve
a
purpose
to
see
if
a
person
would
work
out
as
an
employee.
But
on
the
other
hand,
if
you
are
thinking
of
eliminating
certification
for
abatement
workers,
it
would
eliminate
the
need
for
an
interim
period.

Ellie
Clark:
We
are
not
eliminating
certification
for
abatement
workers.

Lin
Moos:
It
is
one
of
the
options
in
the
paper.

Perry
Manor:
It
is
my
understanding
that
certification
exams
are
for
higher
level
disciplines
to
qualify
someone;
for
example,
to
demonstrate
recollection
and
knowledge
of
subject
matter
regarding
what
they
were
taught
to
be
a
supervisor.
In
Wisconsin
we
do
use
interim
certifications.
It
is
not
being
used
in
a
way
I'm
comfortable
with.
We
give
the
interim
as
a
supervisor
before
they
pass
the
exam.
It
is
not
the
best
way
to
do
it
because
theoretically
before
they
pass
the
exam,
the
best
they
could
be
is
a
worker.
They
can
work,
but
not
as
a
supervisor
until
they
pass
the
exam.
In
my
mind
the
interim
certification
should
equal
worker
as
opposed
to
an
actual
supervisor.

Ellie
Clark:
It
would
not
work
for
a
risk
assessor
or
inspector.

Perry
Manor:
No,
but
they
could
work
as
a
sampling
technician.

Vern
Dander:
We
often
get
certification
requests
from
people
working
for
a
state,
but
are
not
yet
EPA
certified.
It
seems
inequitable
that
these
people
who
are
probably
qualified
can't
work
in
the
region
until
they
are
EPA
certified.

Bob
Ford:
Doesn't
the
process
of
the
application
go
faster
when
the
application
is
accompanied
by
a
state
card?
Or
is
that
not
true?

Ellie
Clark:
It
is
all
relative.

Vern
Dander:
But
the
important
thing
in
this
scenario
is
the
person
has
a
prospect
for
a
job.
Someone
has
approached
him
and
wants
to
do
work
out
West.
They
want
to
know
how
long
it
will
be
before
they
can
do
the
work.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
38
Sean
Casey:
Bringing
the
group
back
to
Ms.
Clark's
original
question,
are
there
any
more
comments
on
page
one?
(
Page
one
of
Appendix
F,
"
Suggested
changes
to
402
reg
text").

Pat
Curran:
Look
at
the
definitions.
Why
doesn't
the
abatement
definition
change?

Ellie
Clark:
We
will
probably
add
hazard
reduction,
abatement
and
interim
controls
and
remove
references
to
temporary
and
permanent.
We
will
fix
various
definitions;
they
are
not
all
listed
on
this
sheet.

Larrie
Lance:
I
suggest
that
under
the
certification
section,
you
change
the
language
so
people
may
only
apply
to
EPA
after
they
pass
the
exam.
California
has
removed
the
section
that
they
apply
before
the
exam
in
their
grant
regulations.
It
eliminates
a
lot
of
extra
paperwork.
You
don't
send
in
an
application
until
you've
passed
the
exam.

Lin
Moos:
We
are
in
a
different
situation
from
you,
someone
pays
a
fee
and
it
goes
to
the
treasury.

Larrie
Lance:
We
don't
get
the
money.
It
doesn't
matter,
it
still
eliminates
a
lot
of
the
paperwork.

Ellie
Clark:
This
has
been
the
center
issue
of
many
discussions,
we
will
take
your
suggestion,
but
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
another
topic.

After
the
questions
were
answered,
Ms.
Clark
began
discussing
page
two
of
her
handouts
(
Sampling).
She
briefly
described
the
current
sampling
requirements,
implications
for
the
sampling
technician
today,
and
future
implications.
Ms.
Clark
next
walked
the
group
through
pages
three
and
four
(
Sampling,
continued
and
Risk
Assessment).
She
stated
this
is
an
example
of
the
simplification
of
the
regulatory
text.
After
presenting
the
rest
of
the
paper,
Ms.
Clark
solicited
the
audience
for
other
comments.

Larrie
Lance:
In
California,
there
is
no
distinction
between
an
inspector
and
risk
assessor.
We
have
one
category
and
anyone
doing
evaluations
must
fit
the
requirements
for
this
category.
Anyone
performing
evaluations
for
compensation
fall
under
our
certification
requirements.

Ellie
Clark:
What
do
you
do
for
state
agencies
doing
EBL
investigations?

Larrie
Lance:
They
must
be
certified
under
our
regulations.

Shea
Jones:
It
is
important
to
clarify
a
line
between
inspectors
and
risk
assessors.
I
have
seen
in
the
field
where
inspectors
have
written
up
evaluations
and
provided
recommendations
and
they
were
not
following
the
work
practice
standards.
They
were
testing
paint
and
dust.
This
is
dangerous
to
do
without
the
proper
certifications.

Bob
Ford:
Was
the
person
not
certified
as
a
risk
assessor?
Shea
Jones:
No,
they
were
not.
They
were
an
inspector.

John
Sikes:
If
they
don't
make
recommendations,
then
they
are
an
inspector.

Ellie
Clark:
So
if
they
don't
make
recommendations,
it
is
not
a
risk
assessment?

John
Sikes:
That
is
correct.
You
have
to
make
a
distinction
because
data
collection
is
just
one
step.
The
danger
is
when
people
are
collecting
data
but
are
not
certified
to
do
it.
They
are
collecting
the
data
and
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
39
misinterpreting
it
 
that
could
get
into
a
dangerous
situation.

Ellie
Clark:
What
do
other
people
think?
Do
you
agree
with
John?

Perry
Manor:
What
you
are
looking
at
is
a
couple
phases
of
a
risk
assessment.
If
you
are
doing
a
risk
assessment
for
EBL
case
you
are
looking
at
every
possible
source
of
lead,
not
just
lead­
based
paint.

Ellie
Clark:
Right.

Perry
Manor:
My
understanding
is
that
these
regulations
pretty
much
focus
on
lead­
based
paint.

Ellie
Clark:
No,
with
a
risk
assessment,
you
are
looking
at
paint
and
soil
samples.

Perry
Manor:
But
not
water?

Ellie
Clark:
It
is
not
required.

Perry
Manor:
There
are
differences.
By
not
making
recommendations
to
me
is
equivalent
to
a
risk
identification
and
that
may
be
sufficient
in
some
cases.
A
person
comes
in
and
identifies
the
risk
areas
and
leaves
it
up
to
the
property
owner
how
they
manage
these
risks.
While
a
risk
assessor
typically
offers
recommendations
but
may
not
be
as
important
to
make
the
recommendations
as
it
is
to
identify
the
risks.

Barry
Brooks:
In
Kansas
they
have
an
Elevated
Blood
Lead
Level
Investigator.
This
requires
four
more
hours
of
training.
First
they
have
to
be
certified
as
an
inspector
and
a
risk
assessor.
If
they
obtain
the
Elevated
Lead
Blood
Level
inspector
certification
they
don't
have
to
pay
the
fees.
They
must
pass
the
risk
assessor
3rd
party
exam.
This
usually
goes
to
health
department
nurses.
If
you
are
making
recommendations
you
are
a
risk
assessor.

Ellie
Clark:
What
if
you
are
just
collecting
data
and
give
the
report
to
the
homeowner
and
not
certified
in
anything.
as
Jeff
Robinson
had
told
me
about
earlier.
Does
this
break
your
rules?

Barry
Brooks:
Not
certified
in
anything?

Ellie
Clark:
No
certifications.
Is
that
right,
Jeff?

Jeff
Robinson:
That
happens
in
many
situations.
They
give
a
report
in
an
analytical
sense
and
walk
away
from
the
home.
We
call
it
a
lead
survey.

Barry
Brooks:
In
Kansas
if
you
are
doing
any
data
collection
and
writing
up
reports
and
you're
being
compensated,
you
must
be
certified
as
an
inspector
or
a
risk
assessor.

Bob
Ford:
Looking
at
this
from
an
enforcement
perspective,
I
would
encourage
EPA
to
follow
what
is
in
the
regulation
as
well
as
add
language
to
include
any
fraction
thereof.
We
have
a
situation
in
Utah
where
people
are
going
out
under
the
HUD
regulations
taking
samples
and
calling
them
partial
inspections.
Enforcement
problems
occur
because
for
certified
risk
assessors
if
they
are
not
following
points
on
227
they
are
out
of
compliance.
There
seems
to
be
a
disconnect
between
the
two.
Utah
will
include
language
in
their
modification
to
the
regulation
to
include
language
for
inspection
and
any
fraction
thereof.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
40
Lin
Moos:
Are
there
any
states
where
if
you
take
samples
other
than
for
your
own
use,
you
must
be
certified?

(
Representatives
from
the
states
of
Kansas,
Utah,
and
California
raised
their
hands.)

Lin
Moos:
How
many
states
require
risk
assessor
certification
if
being
compensated
for
the
sampling?

Representatives
from
the
following
states
raised
their
hands:

California
North
Carolina
Virginia
Illinois
Ohio
Wisconsin
Kansas
Oklahoma
Massachusetts
Tennessee
Missouri
Vermont
Lin
Moos:
How
many
states
do
not
require
a
risk
assessor
to
perform
sampling?

(
Representatives
from
the
states
of
Utah
and
Alabama
raised
their
hands.)

John
Sikes:
I
would
like
to
see
anyone
taking
samples
to
be
certified.

John
Odisio:
Oregon
requires
counties
to
be
certified
for
inspections,
especially
if
they
are
giving
services
to
other
agencies.
The
only
time
certification
is
not
needed
is
for
EBL
cases
in
rural
areas.
These
areas
don't
have
enough
funding
and
are
allowing
people
to
go
out
and
do
dust
sampling.
This
may
be
a
liability
issue
if
we
are
sending
people
out
to
perform
tests
without
proper
training.

Karen
Crampton:
I
have
an
issue
with
definition
of
surface
by
surface.
I
asked
our
attorney
if
we
could
do
less
than
the
definition.
The
attorney
declared
it
was
not
an
inspection
if
we
did
less.
In
Vermont,
If
you
are
collecting
one
sample
you
don't
need
certification,
for
more
than
one
sample
you
need
to
be
certified.

Perry
Manor:
If
the
test
is
used
in
the
decision
making
for
property,
the
person
obtaining
the
samples
must
be
certified.

Ellie
Clark:
We
realize
what
we
wrote
doesn't
work.
We
have
no
interim
guidance.
I
want
to
expand
the
questions.
We
see
problems
with
the
risk
assessment
definition.
We
are
thinking
of
reshuffling
the
sampling
roles.
An
inspector
doesn't
have
to
fill
a
role
any
more.
We'd
like
to
shuffle
disciplines
and
think
about
some
of
the
comments
made
by
other
states.

Mike
Wilson:
I
liked
combining
the
risk
assessor
and
inspector.
But
if
we
only
have
risk
assessors,
what
happens
to
the
XRF
testing
and
identification
of
paint?

John
Stiles:
I
think
it
is
a
good
idea
to
look
at
the
disciplines.
We
still
need
inspections.
I
also
like
the
modular
training
idea.

Pat
Curran:
I
like
getting
rid
of
inspections,
but
I
don't
know
what
to
do
about
the
XRF.

Barry
Brooks:
We
will
need
to
change
the
educational
requirements
for
the
risk
assessor
if
we
get
rid
of
the
inspector.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
41
Ernie
Kelley:
Sample
reports
are
complex.
If
the
sampling
technician
only
receives
one
day
of
training,
this
is
not
enough
time
for
them
to
understand
or
learn
about
the
XRF.

Perry
Manor:
I'm
concerned
that
if
we
collapse
the
risk
assessor
and
inspector
certifications,
the
building
inspectors
in
Wisconsin
would
not
want
to
become
lead
investigators.
They
have
no
interest
in
learning
about
the
XRF.

Ellie
Clark:
But
under
the
Federal
program
the
risk
assessor
would
have
to
take
the
inspector
course
first.

Mike
Wilson:
For
the
inspection
course,
two
of
the
three
days
are
spent
on
training
on
the
XRF.
They
discuss
safety
of
use
of
equipment
and
licensing,
etc.
Isn't
that
training
sufficient?
Could
use
the
XRF
to
test
the
whole
house
for
paint.

John
Stiles:
Manufacturer
training
could
be
good
enough,
depending
on
who
does
it.
These
people
are
not
from
accredited
training
institutions.

Mike
Wilson:
Is
the
manufacturer
training
not
enough?

John
Stiles:
The
radiation
training
is
not
long
enough.
It
needs
to
be
done
correctly
by
an
accredited
training
provider.

Mike
Wilson:
There
is
some
duplication
in
the
training
provider
review
of
XRF
and
the
manufacturer
training.

John
Oslo:
I
went
to
a
manufacturer
training
and
people
were
using
the
guns
in
unsafe
ways.
The
person
conducting
the
training
allowed
people
to
use
them
unsafely.

SESSION
6
(
1:
45
p.
m.
­­
1:
55
p.
m.)
Seeking
Comments
Since
Sessions
4
and
5
ran
over
the
time
allotted,
audience
members
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
comments
or
questions
about
information
to
seek
in
the
preamble
of
the
upcoming
rule.
To
extract
this
information
from
the
participants,
Sean
Casey
had
everyone
perform
an
exercise.
Audience
members
were
asked
to
write
the
following
on
their
papers:

Mike
and
Lin,
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
you
should
seek
comment
on,
or
information
on:

Barry
Brooks:
 
input
on
non­
profit
community
groups
on
projects.

Kerra
Roudebush:
 
the
current
usefulness
of
certified
inspectors.

Lisa
Schutzenhofer:
 
the
effects
of
including
interim
controls
in
the
definition
of
abatement
on
EBL
investigations.

Michael
Brandt:
 
if
it
is
necessary
to
be
consistent
with
the
new
HUD
rule
for
R&
R.

Mazzie
Talley:
 
requiring
anyone
who
takes
a
lead
sample
to
be
certified.

Ernie
Kelley:
 
where
dust
clearance
should
be
required
following
an
interior
renovation
involving
dry
scraping
of
lead
paint.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
42
Karen
Crampton:
 
when
to
conduct
clearance
sampling.
Prescriptive
vs.
performance
based
work
standards.
Provide
info
for
where/
what
type
of
emergency
would
fall
under
an
exception.

Bob
Ford:
 
expand
regulation
requirements
to
include
partial
LBP
inspections
and
LBP
risk
assessments.

Pat
Curran:
 
anything
to
do
with:
costs,
risks,
certifications.

John
Sikes:
 
which
R&
R
activity
produce
the
greatest
hazards
with
the
idea
of
developing
a
consensus
opinion
if
possible.

Barbara
Ross:
 
certification
requirements.
Who
should
be
required
to
be
certified
and
why.

Dave
Combs:
 
the
type
of
and
extent
of
performance
or
prescriptive
work
practices.

Lou
Bevilacqua:
 
eliminating
interim
certification
for
both
lead
hazard
reduction
and
renovations.

Molly
Magoon:
 
certification
of
inspectors,
technicians
and
risk
assessors.

Cathy
Atkins:
 
housing
affordability,
both
HUD's
definition
and
broader
definition
of
"
affordable".

John
Odisio:
 
existing
inspector
and
risk
assessor
capacity
in
state
programs.

David
Turpin:
 
quality
control.

Perry
Manor:
 
modularized
training,
certification,
clearance
accreditation,
etc
as
based
in
risk
activities
categories.

Daniel
Chatfield:
 
uncontained
hydro
blasting
practices
as
a
surface
preparation
of
painting 
how
widespread,
how
often?

Jeff
Robinson:
 
mandatory
clearance
sampling
for
interior
when
unsafe
paint
removal
methods
are
used
(
i.
e.
power
tools,
torching).

Joe
Younger:
 
priority
of
foreign
language
for
certification
training
courses.

Rose
Anne
Rudd:
 
scope
of
applicability
of
rule,
i.
e.,
pre­
1950
housing
vs.
pre­
1978
housing,
rental
housing
vs
all
target
housing.

Keith
Bates:
 
the
cost
savings
on
using
sampling
technician
workers
under
inspector/
risk
assessors
as
opposed
to
using
certified
inspectors/
risk
assessors
only.

Gerallyn
Valls:
 
including
partial
risk
assessments
with
the
definition
of
risk
assessments.

Larrie
Lance:
 
necessity
of
containment
for
power
washing/
blasting.

Shea
Jones:
 
studies
related
to
lead­
based
paint
renovation
activities
and
the
effects
on
bare
soil
exposure.

Name
not
given:
 
houses
which
are
renovated
prior
to
occupancy
(
which
includes
dry
scraping
sanding)
should
clearance
testing
be
done
given
that
house
may
be
sold
to
a
family
with
children.

MEETING
WRAP­
UP
(
1:
55
p.
m.
­
2:
00
p.
m.)

Lin
Moos
wrapped
up
the
session
by
highlighting
a
few
of
her
notes
she
took
during
the
session.
Draft
R&
R
Meeting
Summary
9/
29/
2000
43
1.
Think
of
lead
like
seatbelts.
2.
Successful
programs
should
be
simple
and
flexible
3.
HUD's
1012,
1013
program
moves
us
in
the
right
direction,
$
3
billion
dollar
advertising
campaign.
4.
Have
state
reps
in
the
south
write
an
article
on
lead
safe
restoration
of
historic
homes.
5.
Applicability,
issue
of
pre­
60
housing
as
a
comment
in
the
preamble.
6.
Certification 
revenues
generator,
liked
Michael's
idea
of
assessing
fees
by
the
number
of
workers
in
the
firm.
7.
Request
comment
on
activity
based
work.
8.
Blood
lead
level
inspector
9.
OSHA 
informal
training
not
a
viable
option
10.
Modular
training
11.
Sampling
technician,
concerns
about
education
12.
Cost
of
sampling
technicians
13.
See
how
works
with
HUD
Rule
14.
Work
practices
general
performance
accepted.
15.
406B
adjusted
pamphlets
for
homeowner
to
know
hazards
16.
Enforcement
for
work
in
thinking
of
future
use
of
the
property
Ms.
Moos
concluded
by
noting
that
they
(
Ms.
Moos,
Mr.
Wilson
and
Ms.
Clark)
do
not
have
an
easy
job
ahead
of
them,
but
they
have
a
better
understanding
that
will
assist
them
in
writing
the
preamble.
She
stated
they
had
collected
good
ideas
during
this
session
and
thanked
everyone
for
attending.
