0001
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
2
LEAD­
BASED
PAINT
HEARING
3
April
6,
2006
4
San
Francisco,
California
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0002
1
MS.
DOA:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Maria
2
Doa.
I
am
with
EPA's
Washington
D.
C.
office.
And
in
3
Washington,
we're
the
lead
for
EPA's
Lead
Paint
Program.
4
I'm
here
with
Paula
Bisson
with
EPA's
Region
9
office
5
and
Barbara
Ross
of
EPA's
Region
10
office.
And
I
think
6
the
three
of
us
would
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
public
7
meeting
on
EPA's
Lead
Renovation/
Repair
and
Painting
8
Program
Proposed
Rule.
9
This
is
the
fourth
of
four
public
meetings
10
that
we've
had
around
the
country.
We've
had
them
in
11
Chicago,
Atlanta,
New
York
City
and
Washington,
D.
C.
12
We've
heard
a
lot
of
very
good
comments
so
far,
and
we
13
look
forward
to
hearing
your
comments
on
the
proposed
14
rule.
Your
comments
are
critical
to
ensuring
that
we
15
develop
a
good
final
rule
that's
both
protective
and
16
practical.
17
This
rule
is
an
important
component
of
the
18
federal
government's
strategy
in
getting
to
our
goal,
19
and
as
important,
maintaining
that
goal
once
we
get
20
there,
eliminating
childhood
lead
poisoning.
The
21
comment
period
has
been
extended
to
May
the
25th,
2006.
22
It
was
originally
scheduled
to
close
on
April
10th.
0003
1
There
should
be
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
coming
2
out.
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
have
a
date
yet.
The
extension
3
was
just
recently
signed.
4
MR.
GENDEL:
I
heard
that
the
brochure
comment
5
was
not
extended.
6
MS.
DOA:
No,
just
the
proposed
rule
comment.
7
MR.
GENDEL:
So
you
better
tell
everybody.
8
MS.
DOA:
Right.
This
is
the
January
10th
9
proposed
rule.
And
the
Federal
Register
notice
that
10
will
go
out
extending
that
comment
period
will
be
11
specific
to
that
proposed
rule,
and
actually
on
our
12
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
lead,
there's
a
notice
on
that,
13
and
it's
specific
to
the
proposed
rule.
And
we
had
14
extended
this
comment
period
in
response
to
a
number
of
15
requests
to
extend
it.
Most
folks
had
asked
that
we
16
extend
it
ninety
days.
It's
been
extended
forty­
five
17
days
because
we
still
want
to
move
forward
as
quickly
as
18
possible
on
getting
the
rule
out.
19
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
taking
the
time
20
to
come
out,
and
again,
we
look
forward
to
your
21
comments.
I
would
just
like
to
go
over
some
background
22
information
on
this.
We
do
have
a
court
reporter
here
0004
1
who
will
be
transcribing
your
comments,
and
this
will
be
2
put
into
the
record,
into
the
public
document
for
this
3
rule,
and
it
will
be
an
official
part
of
the
record
on
4
the
rule.
And
the
comments
that
we
receive
here
today
5
will
be
evaluated
with
the
written
comments
that
we're
6
also
going
to
be
getting
on
the
rule.
Our
purpose
here
7
today
is
to
listen
to
what
you
have
to
say,
and
we're
8
going
to
listen.
We're
not
going
to
get
into
a
back
and
9
forth
with
anyone
on
any
of
the
issues.
We
just
want
to
10
hear
your
comments
on
this.
11
The
Federal
Register
for
this
meeting
had
said
12
that
we
were
limiting
comments
to
about
ten
minutes,
but
13
because
we
don't
have
a
very
long
list,
fifteen
minutes,
14
I
think,
will
probably
be
fine
on
that.
If
you
haven't
15
registered,
please
make
sure
before
you
leave
today
that
16
you
register.
And
when
you
speak,
please
speak
fairly
17
slowly.
This
will
help,
I
think,
the
court
reporter
18
out.
And
the
meeting
is
scheduled
to
go
until
5:
00.
If
19
you
have
comments,
but
you
don't
want
to
share
them
20
orally,
you
can
leave
written
copies
of
your
comments,
21
and
we'll
take
them
and
put
them
in
the
public
docket.
22
And
at
the
beginning
when
you
come
up
to
start
your
0005
1
comments,
please
state
your
name
and
your
affiliation.
2
And
then
the
bathrooms
are
outside
and
to
the
left
and
3
around
as
you
go
into
the
cafeteria,
so
before
you
4
formally
get
into
the
cafeteria.
5
So
I
think
with
that,
how
about
if
we
get
6
started?
The
first
person,
Tim
Carrico,
I
believe
is
7
not
here
yet?
No,
okay.
8
Everett
Collier?
9
MR.
COLLIER:
My
name
is
Everett
Collier.
I
10
represent
the
National
Association
of
the
Remodeling
11
Industry.
I'm
currently
serving
as
its
president.
I'm
12
also
a
remodeling
contractor
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
13
Area,
and
if
you
bear
with
me,
I'd
like
to
read
a
14
prepared
statement
that
we
have
regarding
this
15
particular
rule,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
16
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
very
important
issue.
17
NARI
is
a
nonprofit
trade
association
with
a
18
national
headquarters
based
in
Des
Plaines,
Illinois
19
with
fifty­
eight
chapters
in
most
metropolitan
areas.
20
NARI
is
composed
of
about
7,000
remodeling
contractor
21
companies,
local
suppliers
and
national
suppliers.
22
NARI's
core
purpose
is
to
advance
and
promote
the
0006
1
remodeling
industry's
professionalism,
product
and
vital
2
public
purpose.
NARI
members
voluntarily
subscribe
to
a
3
strict
code
of
ethics
and
standards
of
practice.
NARI
4
provides
a
rigorous
program
of
study
with
hands­
on
5
training
throughout
its
chapter
structure.
With
assets
6
of
examination
to
demonstrate
competence,
7
certifications,
holding
national
recognition
are
awarded
8
to
certified
remodelers,
certified
lead
carpenters,
9
certified
kitchen
and
bath
remodelers,
et
cetera,
et
10
cetera.
11
These
programs
are
a
NARI
hallmark
and
12
exemplify
NARI's
commitment
to
its
core
purpose.
NARI
13
demonstrates
a
ten­
year
history
of
strong
support
for
14
government
initiatives
on
lead­
safe
work
practices.
15
Since
lead
came
to
the
front
as
an
environmental
and
16
health
hazard,
NARI
has
taken
a
proactive
position,
17
training
both
remodeling
contractors
and
informing
18
consumers.
Between
1996
and
1998,
NARI
worked
with
both
19
the
EPA
and
HUD
and
conducted
two­
day
training
seminars
20
throughout
the
country
on
lead
safety
remodeling.
The
21
outreach
was
broad
and
offered
to
all
remodeling
22
contractors,
not
just
NARI
contractors.
0007
1
NARI
continues
to
work
to
ensure
that
its
2
members
employ
lead­
safe
work
practices.
NARI
3
certification
programs
and
skill
trainings
are
4
consistently
updated
to
reflect
the
most
current
5
lead­
safe
work
practices.
NARI
strives
to
ensure
that
6
the
public
remains
informed
about
the
hazards
of
lead,
7
about
hiring
contractors
trained
in
lead
safety
8
practices.
NARI
provides
brochures
entitled,
"
Protect
9
Your
Family
From
Lead
In
Your
Home."
The
brochure
is
10
available
in
both
Spanish
and
English.
As
required
by
11
law,
NARI
contractors
provide
this
brochure
to
12
homeowners
prior
to
commencing
a
remodeling
project
in
13
homes
of
pre­
1978
construction.
14
NARI's
position
on
this
particular
issue
is
15
that
we
are
opposed
to
current
rules.
NARI
is
strongly
16
in
opposition
to
the
EPA
New
Proposed
Rules
governing
17
lead
as
announced
on
December
29th,
2005.
NARI
requests
18
EPA's
review
and
serious
consideration
of
the
following
19
points.
20
One,
while
NARI
members
remain
concerned
about
21
the
incidence
and
effect
of
lead
in
young
children
and
22
have
every
reason
to
protect
their
clients
and
consumers
0008
1
in
this
regard,
the
new
proposed
rules
will
not
decrease
2
incidences.
3
Number
two,
the
New
Proposed
Rules
are
focused
4
on
lead
handling
during
remodeling
and
fail
to
address
5
the
other
real
and
potential
sources
of
lead
exposure
6
which
may
be
present
outside
of
remodeling.
7
Number
3,
the
New
Proposed
Rules
do
not
8
educate
the
homeowner
about
the
incidences
and
effects
9
of
lead.
Homeowners
are
likely
to
engage
in
remodeling
10
projects
within
two
years
of
new
home
purchases
and
do
11
not
consistently
look
to
professional
remodeling
12
contractors
for
assistance.
The
EPA
has
no
way
to
13
ensure
that
homeowners,
handymen,
or
installers
can
and
14
will
observe
lead­
safe
practices
in
remodeling
projects.
15
The
EPA
should
consider
point
of
property
sale
as
an
16
opportunity
to
educate
the
homeowner
beyond
the
existing
17
disclosures.
This
could
be
accomplished
through
a
18
requirement
that
buyers
of
homes
and
property
built
19
prior
to
1978
be
given
appropriate
information
at
the
20
opening
of
escrow
or
some
similar
milestone.
21
Number
4,
the
New
Proposed
Rules
are
entirely
22
focused
on
contractor
behavior
with
the
creation
of
more
0009
1
regulations
added
to
existing
regulations.
Further
2
restrictions
on
training,
licensing,
insurance,
will
3
only
raise
the
costs
of
remodeling
projects.
These
4
costs
cannot
be
absorbed
in
the
costs
of
the
projects
5
run
by
the
contractor
and
will
be
passed
on
to
the
6
homeowners.
There
is
grave
concern
that
the
New
7
Proposed
Rules
will
foster
unlicensed,
unethical
8
behavior
among
less
reputable
contractors
whose
only
9
appeal
will
be
to
lower
cost
and
shorten
deadlines.
It
10
will
encourage
the
avoidance
of
building
permits
and
11
inspection
processes.
Professional
remodeling
12
contractors
who
consistently
observe
competent,
diligent
13
work
practices
and
ethics
will
be
subject
to
unfair
14
competition,
and
thus,
economically
harmed.
15
In
closing,
NARI
urges
the
EPA
to
consider
16
these
points
in
amendment
of
the
New
Proposed
Rules
17
governing
lead­
safe
work
practices.
NARI
and
its
18
chapters
are
willing
to
work
with
the
EPA
and
any
other
19
private
or
government
entity
in
determining
and
20
implementing
better
solutions
to
lowering
the
incidence
21
of
lead
in
our
children.
Thank
you
so
much.
22
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Next,
Neil
Gendel.
0010
1
MR.
GENDEL:
My
name
is
Neil
Gendel,
and
I'm
2
the
director
of
The
Healthy
Children
Organizing
Project
3
which
is
based
here
in
San
Francisco.
And
if
I
respond
4
to
the
remarks
that
were
just
made,
I'd
spend
the
whole
5
fifteen
minutes,
so
I
won't
because
our
experience
here
6
in
San
Francisco
is
very
different.
And
I
just
would
7
invite
the
person
who
just
spoke
to
start
talking
with
8
some
of
us
in
San
Francisco
about
our
experience.
I
9
think
he
would
find
it
enlightening.
10
The
mission
of
the
Healthy
Children
Organizing
11
Project
is
to
protect
fetuses,
young
children
and
women
12
of
child­
bearing
age
from
exposure
to
toxic
chemicals
13
which
obviously
includes
lead,
and
we
began
that
mission
14
in
1990
as
the
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
15
Project
and
have
ever
since
been
working
on
this
issue.
16
San
Francisco's
profile,
unfortunately,
is
literally
17
painted
with
lead.
Over
90
percent
of
the
housing
was
18
built
before
1979,
and
that's
really
also
true
for
19
commercial/
industrial
properties
that
were
constructed
20
adjacent
to
homes
and
schools
and
recreation
and
park
21
places.
They're
all
very
important
places
in
terms
of
22
where
children
are
liable
to
be
or
women
with
respect
to
0011
1
work
that's
done
on
buildings,
all
of
which
are
painted
2
with
lead.
And
so
we're
very
concerned
about
buildings
3
which
are
not
private
residences
in
terms
of
what
we
4
believe
needs
to
be
taken
a
look
at
and
what
we
cover
5
here
in
San
Francisco.
6
Just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
extent
of
the
7
amount
of
lead
paint
that's
been
spread
in
San
8
Francisco,
it
has
the
highest
percentage
of
older
9
residences
in
California.
California,
as
you
may
know,
10
has
one
of
the
largest
percentages
of
older
housing
in
11
the
country.
The
Los
Angeles
area
is
about
third,
and
12
the
Bay
Area
is
about
ninth.
We
were
the
lead
sponsor
13
with
a
number
of
community
groups
in
1992
before
14
legislation
that
was
passed
creating,
in
essence,
a
15
blueprint
for
how
city
agencies
under
the
jurisdiction
16
of
the
Board
of
Supervisors
and
the
mayor
were
to
17
protect
children
from
lead
poisoning.
And
as
part
of
18
that,
a
citizen's
advisory
committee
was
set
called
The
19
Lead
Hazard
Reduction
Citizens
Advisory
Committee.
It
20
was
in
charge
of
recommending
to
the
Board
of
21
Supervisors
or
legislation
of
what
could
be
done
to
make
22
private
housing
and
child
care
centers
and
other
places
0012
1
where
children
were
and
are,
lead
safe.
I've
been
chair
2
of
that
committee
since
1993,
and
it
has
representatives
3
from
tenants,
contractors,
property
owners,
unions,
4
community
advocates,
parents,
and
city
agencies,
in
5
other
words,
all
of
the
stakeholders
on
the
issue
of
6
what
we
can
do
to
make
housing
and
other
facilities
lead
7
safe.
8
Three
major
pieces
of
legislation
were
passed
9
over
the
last
too
many
years,
and
two
of
those
have
to
10
do
with
lead­
safe
work
practices.
So
in
1997,
the
City
11
and
County
of
San
Francisco
passed
legislation
12
preventing
unsafe
work
practices
with
respect
to
all
13
buildings
in
the
City
on
the
exterior
of
those
14
buildings,
not
just
tenant
or
owner­
occupied
buildings,
15
but
also
industrial
and
commercial
buildings
because
in
16
this
city,
many
of
those
buildings
are
built
adjacent
to
17
schools,
homes
and
lots
of
other
places
like
that
where
18
any
work
done
on
them
that's
unsafe
could
be
unsafe
to
19
the
occupants
of
those
buildings
and
everybody
else
in
20
the
adjacent
area.
21
In
2004
the
City
passed
legislation
22
recommended
by
the
committee
prohibiting
unsafe
work
0013
1
practices
on
the
interiors
of
all
tenant­
occupied
2
buildings
and
all
child
care
facilities
in
the
City.
3
Those
pieces
of
legislation
are
funded
and
implemented
4
and
enforced
by
the
Department
of
Building
Inspection
in
5
the
City.
So
all
of
the
implementation,
enforcement
of
6
those
laws
are
by
a
local
agency
which
has
a
lot
to
do
7
with
condition
of
buildings
in
the
City
and
know
what
8
they're
doing.
The
State,
neither
the
State
nor
the
9
Federal
Government
is
involved
in
any
way
in
the
10
enforcement
of
that
legislation.
In
addition
to
that,
11
San
Francisco
in
its
health
code
defines
a
public
12
nuisance
as
a
lead
hazard
wherever
there's
a
child
under
13
the
age
of
six,
so
we
don't
need
lead­
safe
work
14
practices
to
protect
children
in
this
city.
The
mayor's
15
Office
of
Housing
has
a
lead
hazard
reduction
program
16
which
is
funded
by
HUD.
And
those
funds
are
used
to
17
help
with
respect
to
child
care
facilities
and
providing
18
funding
needed
to
clean
them
up
and
also
low­
income
19
homes.
All
of
those
agencies
work
closely
together
to
20
make
sure
that
we
have
healthy
housing
in
San
Francisco.
21
My
project,
The
Healthy
Children
Organizing
22
Project,
is
in
communication
with
nonprofits
throughout
0014
1
the
country.
We
know
what
they're
talking
about;
and
2
they
know
what
we're
talking
about.
We
support
their
3
critiques
of
the
proposed
regulations
with
respect
to
4
the
scope
of
the
regulations,
the
practices
allowed,
the
5
qualifications
and
training
required
and
the
clearance
6
required.
Plus,
we
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
7
comments
made
nationally
and
here
today
by
property
8
owners,
representatives
and
contractor
representatives
9
are
patently
untrue.
There
is
a
direct
connection
10
between
renovations
and
lead­
poisoned
children.
And
in
11
our
experience,
the
cost
is
often
insignificant
with
12
respect
to
any
additional
things
that
contractors
may
13
have
to
do
to
protect
themselves,
their
workers
and
14
anybody
inside
or
outside
buildings
they're
working
on,
15
especially
if
they're
well
trained.
16
That
said,
HCOP's
main
concern
in
making
a
17
presentation
today
is
the
potential
that
what
you're
18
doing
may
pre­
empt
what
we're
doing.
And
while
I'm
19
aware
of
the
fact
that
the
legislation
passed
in
1991
20
with
respect
to
TSCA,
the
regulations
that
you're
21
attempting
to
promulgate,
the
legislation
states
that
22
you
cannot
pre­
empt
what
we're
doing
now.
We're
well
0015
1
aware
of
that.
But
I
just
want
to
note
the
attorney
2
general
for
the
State
of
California,
and
I'm
well
aware
3
of
how
he
will
pre­
empt
things
both
explicitly
and
4
implicitly.
And
today,
Congress
and
federal
agencies
5
are
engaged
in
a
wholesale
effort
to
pre­
empt
anything
6
that
will
result
in
giving
an
advantage
to
the
industry
7
causing
the
problems.
And
that's
what
we're
facing
8
today,
and
it
wouldn't
take
much
for
somebody
to
find
an
9
author
in
Congress
to
remove
TSCA's
current
pre­
emption
10
with
respect
to
the
work
that
you're
doing.
What
we're
11
urging
is
the
EPA
fight
this
attempt
when
and
if
it
12
occurs
by
any
means
possible.
At
most,
we
all
are
aware
13
of
the
fact
that
while
you
can't
pre­
empt
what
we're
14
doing,
the
regulations
you're
attempting
to
promulgate
15
will
be
considered
as
at
least
a
minimum
for
what
must
16
be
done
for
those
areas
who
aren't
doing
this
already
17
and
aren't
doing
a
better
job.
18
Just
to
let
you
know,
in
terms
of
what
we've
19
gone
through
over
the
last
twelve
years,
is
that
we
20
worked
through
a
lot
of
difficult
times
with
all
the
21
stakeholders,
as
you
can
imagine.
This
is
a
22
rent­
control
city.
Nothing
happens
here
simply.
The
0016
1
landlords
and
the
tenants
are
at
each
others'
necks
most
2
of
the
time,
and
that
includes
all
kinds
of
legislation
3
and
litigation.
We
had
to
get
them
in
the
door
to
leave
4
their
guns
at
the
door
and
work
together,
and
they
did.
5
And
we
also
got
the
property
owners
and
the
contractors
6
to
work
together.
What
we
ended
up
with
is
some
7
legislation
that
protects
children's
health
which
is
8
first
and
foremost,
as
we
all
know,
but
too
often
9
sometimes
forgotten.
It's
something
that
the
10
stakeholders
can
live
with,
and
that's
very
important
11
because
if
some
of
the
stakeholders
can't
live
with
it,
12
it
often
isn't
implemented
and
enforced
very
well,
so
13
it's
absolutely
essential
that
everybody
agree
to
14
something
that
is
protective
and
also
works,
and
it's
15
very
important
to
get
people
to
the
table
to
make
sure
16
everybody
is
there
to
help
with
making
sure
it
works.
17
It's
real
easy
to
listen
to
lobbyists
and
18
representatives.
They
often
don't
really
know
how
it
19
works
and
what
really
affects
property
owners
and
how
20
they
need
help
too,
but
it's
something
that
can
be
done
21
in
order
to
protect
tenants
when
that
occurs.
It's
that
22
kind
of
dialog
that's
not
going
on
at
the
federal
level.
0017
1
It's
also
something
that
when
they
agree
to
it,
they
2
will
support
it
politically,
and
they
will
support
it
3
with
their
own
constituency.
There
may
still
be
people
4
who
stand
up
and
say,
Well,
it
just
costs
more,
and
it's
5
going
to
be
an
unfair
playing
field.
That
has
not
been
6
our
experience
here
in
San
Francisco.
7
In
addition,
it
is
adequately
funded
in
San
8
Francisco
to
the
job
needed.
There's
never
enough
9
resource,
but
it's
far
better
than
getting
an
unfunded
10
mandate
from
the
EPA
and
then
trying
to
find
somebody
11
that
will
enforce
it
locally.
As
you
and
I
know,
local
12
agencies,
for
instance,
the
Department
of
Building
13
Inspection,
isn't
going
to
start
enforcing
federal
14
regulations,
and
there's
no
support
for
these
15
regulations
here
in
San
Francisco.
And
if
there
were
an
16
attempt
to
pre­
empt
what
we're
doing,
what
in
essence
17
would
happen
is
everything
would
probably
fall
apart
18
here
in
terms
of
really
effective
implementation
and
19
enforcement.
You're
just
not
going
to
get
the
kind
of
20
volume
locally
that
you
might
like
to
get,
but
this
is
21
not
an
appropriate
way
to
do
it,
and
you
need
to
realize
22
that.
We
already
did.
0018
1
So
basically,
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
we're
2
urging
the
EPA
to
do
the
right
thing.
We
know
that
3
you're
also
out
there
as
best
you
can
under
the
current
4
circumstances
in
Washington
and
elsewhere
to
protect
5
fetuses
and
small
children
from
a
lifetime
of
diseases
6
and
disabilities.
But
our
own
experience
is
also
7
indicating
that
we
need
to
talk
about
things
that
are
8
not
being
talked
about.
This
is
more
than
a
childhood
9
disease,
and
it's
more
than
children
growing
up
with
10
disabilities.
It's
now
turning
out,
recent
research
11
shows
us
it's
an
extremely
serious
adult
disease.
There
12
are
kidney
problems.
There
are
heart
ailments.
13
Research
is
showing
lead
is
being
tagged
as
potentially
14
a
factor
with
dementia,
with
actually
life­
ending
and
15
life­
shortening
diseases.
And
what
we
all
need
to
do
is
16
work
together
to
stop
this
legacy
of
unsafe
housing
and
17
people
willing
to
work
unsafely,
unfortunately,
for
God
18
knows
what
reason
because
we
all,
I
think,
when
it
comes
19
to
our
own
health,
think
that
it's
paramount.
We
can't
20
deal
very
effectively
with
anything
if
we're
sick.
21
Imagine
how
all
the
people
who
could
have
avoided
being
22
sick
feel
because
they've
been
lead
poisoned.
It
isn't
0019
1
something
we
ask
for,
but
it's
something
we've
gotten
2
and
do
effectively,
and
I
urge
the
EPA
to
do
the
best
it
3
can
to
prevent
pre­
emption,
however
it
may
come
down
the
4
pike
at
any
time.
Thank
you
very
much.
5
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Perry
Gottesfield?
He's
6
not
here.
Linda
Kite.
7
MS.
KITE:
Hi,
I'm
Linda
Kite
from
the
Healthy
8
Homes
Collaborative
which
is
based
in
Los
Angeles.
We
9
are
a
coalition
of
community­
based
organizations
that
10
work
on
children's
health
issues,
housing
issues,
as
11
well
as
access
to
health
care
in
general
and
12
environmental
justice.
The
way
that
we
have
approached
13
this
problem,
and
it's
really
required
a
paradigm
shift
14
in
Los
Angeles,
is
looking
at
these
as
housing
problems
15
with
deleterious
health
consequences.
And
if
we
look
at
16
the
model
today
on
how
we've
dealt
with
lead
poisoning,
17
it's
always
been
kind
of
this
public
health
model
where
18
you're
trying
to
get
someone
to
change
their
individual
19
behavior.
And
while
that
might
work
with
weight,
20
obesity
or
cigarettes,
it's
not
exactly
working
on
lead
21
poisoning.
Telling
moms
to
wash
their
kids'
hands
or
to
22
mop
the
floor
hasn't
really
gotten
us
there.
If
we're
0020
1
going
to
work
on
changing
individual
behavior,
it
needs
2
to
be
property
owners,
contractors,
the
folks
who
end
up
3
creating
these
problems
that
then
mom
is
required
to
4
deal
with.
5
In
looking
over
the
rule,
and,
gee,
thanks
for
6
releasing
it
on
my
birthday.
I
think
it
was
a
birthday
7
present.
At
minimum,
we
have
to
require
clearance
at
8
the
end
of
these
jobs.
I
have
trained
over
250
9
community­
based
health
promoters,
tenant
organizers,
10
tenant
leaders,
on
the
EPA
one­
day
dust
wipe
sampling
11
technician
training.
Even
though
it's
not
approved
in
12
California,
I'm
willing
to
be
arrested
for
teaching
13
people
how
to
take
dust
wipes
and
protect
families.
14
Just
kidding,
right.
15
And
so
I
think
that
that
alone
had
helped
us
16
in
Los
Angeles
really
get
into
people's
homes
who,
in
17
fact,
didn't
know
they
had
a
lead
hazard,
and
certainly
18
after
work
has
happened.
And
we've
been
able
to
19
scientifically
show,
Hey,
you've
got
some
elevated
dust
20
levels
here.
What
are
we
going
to
do
about
it?
If
the
21
EPA
does
nothing,
we
have
to
look
at
some
prohibitive
22
practices.
We
know
that
power
sanding,
dry
sanding,
0021
1
especially
when
you're
using
power
tools,
is
just
like,
2
you
know,
releasing
an
atomic
bomb.
Not
only
does
it
3
harm
the
worker,
which
I
think
is
really
critical,
it
4
can
harm
the
family,
the
children.
It
harms
the
5
neighbors.
And
it
just
goes
on
and
on,
right?
Also
6
when
you're
looking
at
the
open
torch
flame,
whatever
7
the
proper
words
are,
I'm
sure
the
guys
could
coach
me
8
here,
you
don't
want
to
burn
it.
When
I'm
teaching
9
workers
about
this,
I
say,
If
you're
going
to
burn
that
10
stuff,
that's
like
smoking
crack.
It
gets
their
11
attention,
right?
It
makes
them
understand,
Oh,
okay,
12
and
get
them
to
kind
of
work
with
me
on
that
front.
13
In
listening
to
the
gentleman
from
the
14
contractor's
side,
with
all
due
respect,
it's
hard
to
15
even
find
contractors
who
understand
lead­
safe
work
16
practices,
and
I
have
a
lot
of
friends
that
are
yuppies,
17
and
they're
in
child­
bearing
states,
and
they've
said,
18
Linda,
what
can
I
do?
I
want
to
fix
the
nursery.
I
19
want
to
get
rid
of
the
windows.
But
every
contractor
20
I've
called
thinks
I'm
an
idiot
when
I
ask
about
21
lead­
safe
work
practices.
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
22
diligent
about
getting
those
trainings
out
there
and
0022
1
certainly
the
quality
of
the
training
and
the
amount
of
2
hands­
on
experience.
3
I
know
that
the
paint
coating
companies
4
settled
it
or
the
attorney
general
did,
some
of
those
5
trainings
through
MasiMax,
and
I
sat
in
on
a
few
of
6
them,
and
at
the
end
on
our
exit
interviews
with
folks
7
that
were
actually
going
to
go
out
and
put
this
into
8
practice,
they
felt
that
they
really
hadn't
had
enough
9
hands­
on
experience
to
understand
how
to
set
up
10
containment
and
how
to
clean
up
afterward.
So
arguing
11
about
whether
it
should
be
a
five­
hour
training
or
an
12
eight­
hour
training
or
a
twenty­
four
hour
training,
I
13
think
it's
not
about
the
number
of
hours.
It's
about
14
the
comprehension
and
the
actual
skills
that
you
walk
15
out
with
out
of
that
room.
And
also
to
move
away
from
16
this
kind
of
pedagogy
that
you
use
a
PowerPoint
17
projector
and
assume
that
people
can
read
PowerPoint,
18
and
I
find
that
most
of
the
workers
that
are
out
there
19
are
hands­
on
kind
of
folks,
not
really
folks
that
like
20
to
read
out
of
books
and
take
tests
at
the
end
with
21
complicated
trick
questions,
right?
So
you
know,
I
22
think
to
the
extent
that
we
want
to
build
capacity
on
0023
1
the
ground
for
real
workers
who
really
do
this
work,
we
2
need
to
look
at
that.
3
We
need
to
stay
away
from
exemptions.
I
was
4
horrified
to
see
that
if
there
wasn't
already
a
child
5
under
six
living
in
the
unit,
then
that
unit
would
be
6
exempt.
Having
just
bought
a
property
myself,
I
would
7
be
horrified
to
think
that
the
folks
before
me
left
this
8
hazard
behind
because
they
didn't
have
babies,
and
now
9
my
babies
would
be
harmed.
We
need
to
also
make
sure
10
that
we
put
money
in
this
for
real
enforcement
because
11
to
put
the
rule
out
there
but
to
have
only
12
community­
based
people
running
around
saying,
This
is
13
going
on.
What
are
you
going
do
to
do
to
make
it
stop?
14
You
know,
if
we're
going
to
do
the
rule,
and
we're
going
15
to
do
it
right,
then
put
money
in
there
also
for
real
16
enforcement
to
take
place.
17
As
far
as
communication
between
owners
or
18
occupants,
right
now
it
just
requires
signs.
I
think
19
all
of
us
are
bombarded
with
signs.
Do
we
really
pay
20
attention?
Do
the
signs
really
stay
up?
How
do
we
have
21
real
communication?
And
a
pamphlet,
the
only
way
that
22
is
going
to
protect
your
family
from
lead
poisoning
is
0024
1
if
you
take
the
staples
off
and
start
gluing
it
where
2
the
chipping,
peeling
paint
is.
It's
not
the
best
way
3
to
communicate
stuff
that
is
kind
of
ubiquitous,
right?
4
It's
this
bizarre,
invisible
stuff
that
we're
not
really
5
clear
about,
and
so
reading
about
how
to
wash
your
hands
6
and
mop
your
floor,
again,
is
not
the
best
way
to
go
7
about
it.
8
Finally,
I
want
to
echo
what
Neil
said,
that
9
we
can't
have
a
federal
law
pre­
empt
the
good
work
that
10
we've
done.
I
know
that
folks
in
the
Beltway
think
we
11
all
eat
granola
out
here.
And
I'm
here
to
tell
you
12
granola
grows
in
California,
okay,
but
there's
a
reason
13
we
grow
granola.
We
do
really
want
to
be
safe,
and
I
14
think
that
certainly
the
advocacy,
I've
been
doing
this
15
stuff
for
fifteen
years
now,
and
to
see
kind
of
the
16
learning
curve
that
has
had
to
take
place
to
really
get
17
traction
on
this,
it's
been
steep.
I
think
right
know,
18
I
mean,
Neil
and
I
are
doing
victory
dances
all
the
time
19
because
we've
really
gotten
the
local
building
code
20
agencies
to
take
this
seriously
and
look
at
it
as
a
21
housing
problem
with
health
consequences.
22
A
few
years
back
when
I
was
working
with
0025
1
health
promoters
in
a
particular
census
track
with
a
HUD
2
grant,
and
we
were
going
door
to
door,
and
we
were
3
educating
very
low­
income,
low­
literacy
tenants
about
4
lead
poisoning
and
other
hazards
in
their
homes.
They
5
would
listen
intently
and
go
out
and
get
their
children
6
screened
and
do
what
they
could
within
their
means.
Two
7
or
three
weeks
later
we'd
get
a
phone
call
saying,
You
8
know
all
those
bad
things
you
told
us
about,
those
9
unsafe
work
practices,
well,
someone
is
doing
it
right
10
now.
Can
you
make
them
stop?
And
we
would
call
11
seventeen
different
agencies
to
try
to
get
someone
to
12
stop
unsafe
work
practices.
Someone
would
be
power
13
sanding
a
windowsill
right
into
a
baby
crib,
and
I'm
not
14
even
exaggerating,
okay.
And
so
we
would
call
and
call
15
and
no
one
felt
that
they
were
authorized
to
stop
the
16
unsafe
work
practices.
Well,
there's
two
problems
with
17
that.
When
you're
going
to
fund
community­
based
18
organizations
to
go
out
and
do
education
and
empower
the
19
community,
that
was
the
big
buzz
word
last
decade,
you
20
just
disempower
them
when
they
took
action
on
that
21
information,
and
no
one
else
would
take
action
to
stop
22
the
insanity,
what
they
had
learned
was
wrong
and
0026
1
dangerous.
Now
no
one
was
there
to
stop.
The
Health
2
Department
would
say,
Is
there
a
poisoned
child?
Well,
3
we'd
say,
We
don't
know.
We're
running
to
the
clinic.
4
We'll
get
the
blood
lead
results
in
a
couple
of
weeks,
5
but
right
now,
can
you
stop
this
person
from
power
6
sanding
today?
Out
of
that
frustration,
we
went
and
met
7
with
our
code
enforcement
officials,
and
they're
the
8
folks
who
­­
L.
A.
is
also,
L.
A.
City
is
also
a
9
rent­
control
city.
And
there's
850,000
rental
units,
10
multifamily
rental
units
which
is
how
you
fall
under
11
rent
control.
And
so
we
went
and
met
with
those
12
inspectors
because
they
have
a
systematic
code
13
enforcement
program
where
they
proactively
go
out
and
14
visit
units,
it's
about
once
every
five
years,
and
then
15
cite
the
owner
to
do
the
repairs.
What
we
witnessed
in
16
that
same
census
track
was
when
the
tenants
took
action
17
and
got
the
inspectors
in
there
and
had
the
orders
to
do
18
the
repairs
to
the
owner,
their
children's
blood
lead
19
levels
tripled
on
average
because
regular,
ordinary
20
work,
patch
and
paint,
or
fix
the
window
that's
21
unoperable,
all
of
that
code
compliance
work
was
22
generating
lead
dust.
And
these
are
the
same
people
0027
1
calling
us
and
asking
us
to
stop
the
insanity
and
2
because
we
did
have
blood
lead
levels
before
work
3
happened
and
we
had
blood
levels
during
the
work
and
4
after
the
work,
we
have
actual
data
that
shows
the
5
blood­
lead
levels
tripled.
That
is
what
compelled
us
to
6
go
to
the
State
and
pass
Senate
Bill
460
which
basically
7
makes
a
lead
hazard
an
explicit
violation.
We
knew
it
8
was
implicit,
but
now
it's
explicit.
It
also
gave
us
9
authority
to
the
folks
in
code
enforcement
to
stop
the
10
work.
It
gave
authority
to
the
Health
Department
to
11
stop
the
work.
It
gave
authority
to
Building
and
Safety
12
to
stop
the
work.
Building
and
Safety
still
doesn't
13
believe
us.
We're
going
to
have
to
arm
wrestle
a
little
14
harder
with
them.
That's
a
local
jurisdiction
thing.
15
But
what
I
did
find
out
in
speaking
to
one
of
16
the
inspectors,
he
said
that
out
of
300
inspections
for
17
window
replacement
because
they
give
a
permit
to
replace
18
windows,
out
of
300
inspections
in
pre­
78
housing,
295
19
of
them
will
have
paint
chips
around
where
those
windows
20
were
replaced.
To
me,
that's
alarming,
that
if
we
could
21
at
that
permit
process
say,
Here's
a
little
pop­
up
quiz
22
because
you
can
get
these
permits
on­
line.
Lead
safety,
0028
1
here's
what
you
have
to
know,
and
you
don't
get
the
2
permit
until
you
pass
this
quiz,
right?
It
could
be
one
3
of
those
teachable
moments.
4
We
have
a
long
way
to
go
still,
but
we're
so
5
much
farther
along
than
we
were
a
decade
ago,
and
we
6
certainly
wouldn't
want
this
rule
to
undermine
the
hard
7
work
that
folks
have
done,
and
I'm
talking
about
really
8
low­
income
people,
particularly
in
Los
Angeles.
Some
of
9
the
statistics
show
that
folks,
families,
entire
10
families,
are
living
in
zero­
bedroom
units
because
we
11
have
a
dearth
of
affordable
housing,
and
according
to
12
your
rules,
zero­
bedroom
units
are
exempt
from
this
13
rule,
yet
entire
families
do
live
there,
and
babies
live
14
there,
and
there's
nowhere
physically
else
to
go
and
15
rent.
So
the
idea
that
we
exempt
it
because
technically
16
the
family
ought
not
to
live
there,
and
technically,
the
17
local
enforcement
agencies
ought
to
enforce
overcrowding
18
rules,
when
you're
asking
folks,
then,
to
move
out
and
19
there
isn't
anywhere
else.
There
aren't
two
and
20
there­
bedroom
places
for
rent,
and
we're
not
keeping
up
21
with
that
growth,
then
folks
are
looking
at
a
cardboard
22
box
and
skid
row.
And
we
have
90,000
homeless
people
in
0029
1
Los
Angeles.
60
percent
of
those
homeless
people
are
2
families,
especially
single
moms.
Many
of
them
live
in
3
residential
hotels.
Those
are
also
zero­
bedroom
units
4
exempt
from
these
rules.
So
I
think
the
EPA
has
power
5
to
do
much
more,
not
limiting
ourselves
by
these
rules
6
that
were
made
up
by
people
with
very
good
intentions.
7
The
reality
is
different.
We're
supposed
to
build
8
10,000
units,
affordable
units,
per
year
in
Los
Angeles
9
to
keep
up
with
growth.
On
a
banner
year,
we
build
10
2,000.
So
it's
real.
It's
not,
you
know,
it
isn't
just
11
my
opinion.
12
Finally,
if
in
respect
to
the
certification
13
stuff
for
the
contractors
and
all
of
that,
it's
all
well
14
and
good,
but
what
we
need
to
do
is
make
sure
that
those
15
contractors,
when
they
go
to
day
laborer
center
and
pick
16
up
day
laborers
to
cut
their
costs,
and
licensed
17
contractors
do
it
all
the
time.
I
spent
many
years
18
working
out
of
a
day
laborer
center.
That's
where
I
got
19
experience
training
workers
on
this
stuff.
They
need
to
20
also
know
that
just
because
they're
picking
someone
up
21
who
isn't
licensed,
that
those
folks
need
training
and
22
protection
as
well.
Not
only
are
they
causing
hazards
0030
1
for
the
families
that
live
there,
but
they're
taking
2
those
hazards
home
to
their
own
families
and
spreading
3
them
on
the
bus
on
the
way
to
and
from
work.
4
Did
I
forget
anything,
Neil?
I
think
I
got
it
5
all
in
my
Cliff
Notes
here.
We'll
be
submitting
written
6
comments
as
well.
Unfortunately,
I
left
everything
on
7
the
printer
at
work.
Thank
you
very
much.
Don't
forget
8
not
just
to
protect
the
children
but
protect
the
9
workers,
the
women
of
child­
bearing
age,
all
of
us
need
10
to
be
protected.
Thanks.
11
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Ruth
Ann
Norton?
Joe
12
Walseth.
13
MR.
WALSETH:
Good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
San
14
Francisco.
My
name
Joe
Walseth.
I'm
the
coordinator
15
for
the
Childhood
Lead
Prevention
Program
in
San
16
Francisco.
And
our
program
has
conducted
1,898
17
investigations
of
elevated
blood
levels
of
10
micrograms
18
per
deciliter
and
above
in
children.
In
301
of
those
19
cases,
renovation
and
remodeling
work
was
identified
as
20
a
potential
source
of
exposure.
This
represents
21
approximately
15
percent
of
our
caseload.
That
may
be
22
attributed
to
the
kinds
of
work
that
would
be
regulated
0031
1
by
this
proposed
rule.
Just
to
echo
what
Neil
and
Linda
2
have
said
that
at
the
local
level,
we
are
concerned
3
about
our
capacity
to
have
local
legislation
that
is
4
more
stringent
than
the
proposed
rule.
San
Francisco's
5
current
Building
Code
regarding
work
that
disturbs
paint
6
is
both
simpler
and
more
comprehensive
than
this
7
Proposed
Rule.
San
Francisco's
Building
Code
currently
8
requires
specific
lead­
safe
work
practices
for
all
paint
9
disturbing
exterior
work,
pre­
1979
buildings,
and
10
interior
work
in
pre­
1979
child
care
facilities,
hotels,
11
and
one
and
two­
unit
dwellings.
The
Building
Code
12
prohibits
specific
work
practices,
such
as
open
flame
13
burning,
manual
dry
scraping,
sanding
without
a
HEPA
14
vacuum,
etc.
Our
local
code
simply
recognizes
15
lead­
based
paint
as
a
hazard
and
requires
that
work
that
16
disturbs
paint
in
a
broad
range
of
pre­
1979
buildings
be
17
done
safely.
This
eliminates
the
needless
complexities
18
of
determining
target
housing,
whether
or
not
the
work
19
constitutes
lead
abatement
and
whether
or
not
the
20
proposed
work
will
disturb
paint
in
excess
of
de
minimus
21
levels.
The
primary
objective
of
our
local
code
22
regarding
lead­
safe
work
practices
is
to
promote
the
0032
1
understanding
that
any
work
that
disturbs
lead­
based
2
paint
is
potentially
hazardous
and
that
specific
work
3
practices
must
be
employed
to
prevent
hazards.
4
Our
experience
in
San
Francisco
has
shown
5
neither
the
property
owners
nor
building
contractors
6
find
it
difficult
to
comply
with
our
requirements
of
7
lead­
safe
work
practices,
regardless
of
the
type
of
8
housing
and
occupancy,
the
intent
of
work
or
the
area
of
9
painted
surfaces
that
would
disturbed.
Restricting
work
10
practices
to
target
housing
does
not
reflect
the
fluid
11
nature
of
tenancy.
Families
move
frequently.
12
Therefore,
efforts
to
control
lead
hazards
should
apply
13
to
the
full
range
of
housing
units
environments
that
14
children
may
live
in
or
spend
significant
time
in.
15
Also
the
definition
of
target
housing
seems
to
16
exclude
a
significant
subset
of
housing,
particularly
17
low­
income
housing,
single­
room
occupancy
hotels
and
18
other
zero­
bedroom
housing
such
as
studio
apartments.
19
In
very
expensive
housing
markets
like
San
Francisco,
20
many
poor
families
cannot
even
afford
minimum
rents
for
21
a
one­
bedroom
apartment.
In
this
city,
we've
identified
22
more
than
400
families
with
more
than
700
children
who
0033
1
live
in
single­
room
occupancy
hotels.
These
hotels
2
constitute
some
of
oldest
housing
in
San
Francisco.
It
3
would
be
safe
to
assume
that
other
cities
with
expensive
4
housing
markets
and
poor
families
have
similar
housing
5
situations.
Emphasis
on
the
type
of
occupancy
of
a
6
dwelling
as
a
criteria
for
using
lead­
safe
work
7
practices
detracts
from
the
objective
of
changing
work
8
practices
in
the
renovation
and
remodeling
industry.
9
Regardless
of
who
is
living
in
a
particular
dwelling,
10
people
should
be
following
lead­
safe
work
practices.
It
11
is
needlessly
intrusive
for
people
engaged
in
this
work
12
to
try
to
determine
the
characteristics
of
residence
by
13
trying
to
find
out
if
there
are
resident
children,
what
14
their
blood­
lead
status
is,
and
whether
a
pregnant
woman
15
lives
in
the
home.
16
Also
the
de
minimus
levels
are
not
adequately
17
protected.
The
San
Francisco
Lead
Prevention
Program
18
has
conducted
311
environmental
investigations
of
19
elevated
blood­
lead
levels
in
which
lead­
based
paint
20
hazards
were
identified.
In
158
of
these
residencies,
21
we
identified
lead­
based
paint
with
a
lead
content
of
22
100,000
parts
per
million
or
greater.
In
other
words,
0034
1
more
than
50
percent
of
these
homes
have
paint
with
a
2
lead
content
of
10
percent
or
more.
In
more
than
3
10
percent
of
these
homes,
we
found
paint
with
a
25
4
percent
lead
content
or
greater.
In
cities
like
San
5
Francisco,
with
a
large
quantity
of
very
old
housing
6
with
paint
that
is
a
very
high
lead
content,
disturbing
7
even
a
small
painted
area
could
create
a
hazard.
An
8
example
of
this
would
be
replacing
window
glass.
It
is
9
easy
to
see
how
someone
engaged
in
this
activity
could
10
disturb
less
than
2
square
feet
of
painted
surface
and
11
yet
create
a
significant
hazard.
12
Also
the
Proposed
Rule
should
require
13
clearance
testing
if
there
are
not
prohibited
practices
14
such
as
open­
flame
burning,
dry
scraping,
and
machine
15
sanding
without
a
HEPA
vacuum.
Allowing
work
practices
16
for
renovation
or
remodeling
that
are
prohibited
for
17
abatement
and
not
requiring
clearance
testing
may
create
18
opportunities
for
contamination,
improper
use
of
19
containment,
and
inadequate
cleaning.
Also
allowing
20
practices
that
are
prohibited
for
abatement
present
some
21
concern
for
worker
protection.
Also
it
is
not
clear
22
whether
or
not
this
rule
applies
to
owners
of
rental
0035
1
properties
who
do
their
own
work
and
have
their
own
2
maintenance
and
repair
staff
do
the
renovation
and
3
remodeling.
That
is,
this
rule
does
specify
that
it
4
applies
only
to
work
done
for
compensation,
and
unless
5
this
is
covered
under
some
other
regulations,
a
6
significant
amount
of
work
could
be
done
without
7
following
lead­
safe
work
practices,
and
that's
it.
8
Thank
you.
9
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Julie
Twitchell.
10
MS.
TWITCHELL:
My
name
is
Julie
Twitchell.
11
I'm
a
community
education
manager
for
the
Alameda
County
12
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Program.
We're
the
agency
13
that
case
manages
lead­
poisoned
children
throughout
14
Alameda
County.
We
also
have
a
comprehensive
program
to
15
do
public
education
as
well
as
training
of
contractors
16
and
services
for
property
owners.
17
These
are
just
some
initial
comments
I
have.
18
We
will
be
putting
together
our
written
comments
as
a
19
group
that
will
include
comments
from
our
industrial
20
hygienist,
our
training
director
and
some
of
our
project
21
designers.
I
want
to
echo
some
of
the
comments
made
22
here.
One
of
the
first
things
I
noticed
in
the
rule
was
0036
1
a
couple
of
housing
units
that
we
often
find
in
our
case
2
management
are
a
risk
for
children.
One
is
what
we
call
3
secondary
homes
of
poisoned
children.
There
could
be
an
4
owner­
occupied
home.
The
child
does
not
reside
there
5
but
spends
a
significant
amount
of
time
visiting,
for
6
example,
if
the
mother
is
working,
and
it
may
be
the
7
grandmother
taking
care
of
the
child
during
the
day.
8
That's
where
the
child
spends
most
of
their
time.
The
9
child
does
not
officially
reside
there.
We
have
10
regularly
lead
poisoning
cases
where
that's
the
case,
11
where
the
child
is
not
poisoned
in
their
homes.
They're
12
poisoned
in
the
home
they
visit
frequently.
So
we'd
13
like
that
to
be
included
in
the
rule.
14
Also
we
have
a
public
information
line,
and
we
15
regularly
get
calls
about
unsafe
renovations,
especially
16
when
it's
not
raining
and,
you
know,
that's
the
case
17
where
there's
some
unsafe
work
practices
being
done
on
18
the
exterior.
The
chips
are
everywhere.
You
know,
some
19
of
the
homes
here
are
close
together,
and,
you
know,
the
20
home
next
door,
there
are
children
living
there.
We
21
have
gotten
calls
saying,
There's
paint
chips
all
over
22
my
porch,
all
over
the
children's
toys
that
are
outside.
0037
1
So
that
can
be
a
significant
problem.
2
Also
the
other
thing
clearly
we
struggle
with
3
all
the
time
is
the
zero­
bedroom
units
with
our
HUD
4
grants
that
we
can't
provide
the
service
there,
and
we
5
know
there's
families
living
there
with
young
children.
6
I
realize
that's
in
the
TSCA
definition
of
target
7
housing,
but
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
include
8
those
in
this
rule.
9
Taking
a
look
at
the
pamphlet,
I
know
that's
a
10
separate
thing.
We'll
be
submitting
comments
on
that,
11
but
it
would
be
nice
if
we
had
a
little
more
time,
more
12
than
tomorrow,
I
guess,
the
comments
are
due
on
that.
13
They're
just
so
hand
in
hand
that
it
doesn't
seem
like
14
the
pamphlet
can
be
published
before
the
rule
is
15
finalized,
so
why
not
have
a
little
more
time
on
the
16
pamphlet
if
that's
possible.
17
I'm
concerned
about
the
education
that's
going
18
to
be
needed,
whatever
this
reg
ends
up
being,
people
19
are
going
to
need
to
know
about
it.
And
what
are
going
20
to
be
the
resources
put
into
letting
people
know,
and
21
especially
with
the
populations
we're
talking
about.
It
22
isn't
necessarily
the
large
contractors,
although
0038
1
sometimes
it
is.
It's
a
lot
of
the
small
painters
who
2
it's
going
to
require
a
lot
of
effort
to
get
the
word
3
out
to
them
and
make
the
training
accessible
to
them.
4
It's
a
matter
of
the
cost
of
the
course
as
well
as
the
5
time
they're
taking
off
from
their
work
to
actually
take
6
the
course.
That
can
be
a
barrier,
we
found,
in
our
7
training
program.
8
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
form
where
9
there's
a
question
asking
if
there's
a
child
with
an
EBL
10
at
the
property.
There's
a
lot
of
children,
11
unfortunately,
who
are
still
not
tested.
And
you
know,
12
the
parent
may
not
know
if
their
child
is
lead
poisoned.
13
We
know
there
aren't
always
obvious
symptoms.
So
a
14
contractor
could
be
working
in
a
home
where
a
child
is
15
poisoned
and
not
know
that.
The
similar
concern,
16
pregnant
women
are
definitely
a
high­
risk
group,
and
I
17
feel
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
18
We
do
have
concerns
about
no
prohibitive
19
practices.
You
know,
we
get
calls
all
the
time
about
20
contractors
that
are
using
practices
that
are
creating
21
lead
hazards.
That's
just
some
of
my
initial
takes.
22
We'll
have
some
more
written
comments.
I
appreciate
0039
1
your
work
on
this
and
listening
to
folks'
comments.
2
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Burt
Olhiser.
3
MR.
OLHISER:
You
got
it
right.
Good
4
afternoon.
My
name
is
Burt
Olhiser.
I'm
representing
5
The
Painting
and
Decorative
Contractors
of
America
and
6
Society
For
Protective
Coatings
today.
Just
a
little
7
background,
PDCA
represents
the
renovating
and
8
remodeling
contractors
who
work
on
residential
and
9
commercial
properties
and
have
been
strong
advocates
for
10
training
on
lead
issues.
I
know
that
we
hosted
many,
11
many
trainings
dating
back
into
the
early
'
90s.
In
12
fact,
the
first
training
of
the
City
and
County
of
San
13
Francisco
was
hosted
by
the
local
PDCA
chapter
here
in
14
1991.
The
Society
For
Protective
Coatings
reaches
back
15
in
the
'
80s,
mid
'
80s,
where
they
began
to
focus
on
16
their
market
force
which
is
the
industrial
market
and
17
began
to
develop
standards
and
specifications
and
ways
18
for
doing
things
leading
to,
currently,
SSPC's
Guide
6
19
that
defines
the
type
of
containment
that
is
to
be
used
20
is
actually
codified
in
the
State
of
California
in
21
Department
of
Health
Service
Regulations.
So
those
are
22
the
two
organizations
we're
representing.
0040
1
SSPC
is
currently
looking
at
this
rule
sort
of
2
with
a
stand­
back
look,
trying
to
judge
whether
this
is
3
going
to
be
something
of
a
model
when
the
4
superstructures
rule
begins
to
get
developed.
So
they
5
don't
have
a
real
active
part
in
this,
but
they're
just
6
sort
of
looking
over
their
shoulders
and
keeping
an
eye
7
on
what's
occurring.
PDCA,
though,
is
very
actively
8
involved
and
has
been
since
the
rule
was
released.
We
9
will
be
submitting
written
comment,
but
today
I
wanted
10
to
appear
before
you
and
read
into
the
docket
some
11
comments
we've
gotten
based
on
an
article
that
was
put
12
out
in
our
nationally
distributed
magazine,
and
I'll
get
13
to
that
in
a
second
here.
14
The
first
thing
I
want
to
do,
though,
is
15
address
extending
the
pamphlet
period
of
time,
and
I
16
know
this
is
because,
basically,
as
Julie
so
adequately
17
said,
it
does
coincide
with
the
rule,
the
pamphlet
being
18
released
before
the
rule,
in
my
mind,
would
be
a
real
19
waste
of
time
because
the
two
do
have
to
jibe
together.
20
The
other
thing
that
I
see
as
a
real
oversight
21
that
is
a
large
practice
in
the
painting
industry
in
22
this
rule
in
terms
of
a
work
practice
is
power
washing.
0041
1
Power
washing
is
used
extensively
on
the
exterior
2
buildings
throughout
the
nation.
EPA
in
conjunction
3
with
PDCA
and
Mike
Wilson
and
yourselves,
some
of
you,
4
came
up
with
the
Best
Management
Practice
a
number
of
5
years
ago.
It
would
be
nice
to
see
that
Best
Management
6
Practice
included
in
the
rule
because
it's
a
very
common
7
sense,
simple
approach
to
being
able
to
not
create
8
contamination
to
the
environment,
so
that
was
one
9
thought.
10
And
finally,
again,
we
did
put
out
an
article
11
in
PWC
and
asked
for
members
to
respond.
I
received
an
12
overwhelming
amount
of
response,
but
I
have
one
letter
13
here
that
I
thought
was
particularly
germane
and
summed
14
everything
up.
This
is
Brad,
a
painting
contractor
in
15
Washington.
He
writes,
"
I
was
just
reading
your
article
16
on
the
OSHA
and
EPA's
new
rules
on
lead­
based
paint
17
removal,
and
I'm
quite
concerned.
I'm
a
small
painting
18
contractor
in
Washington
State
and
sometimes
do
repaints
19
that
require
some
lead­
based
paint
removal.
I
am
20
seriously
considering
not
even
doing
any
more
of
these
21
jobs
because
of
the
cost
of
compliance.
The
problem
is
22
if
all
smaller
contractors
quit
doing
this
style
of
0042
1
repainting,
then
who
is
left
to
service
this
portion
of
2
the
industry?
Most
larger
contractors
do
only
new
3
construction,
so
it
is
left
up
to
the
smaller
ones
to
4
deal
with
the
homeowners.
With
the
state
of
the
economy
5
and
cost
of
real
estate,
the
consumer
does
not
want
to
6
pay
what
it
costs
to
do
it
right.
And
also,
as
you
7
state,
doing
a
lot
of
sanding
and
generating
dust
is
not
8
always
the
best
way
to
deal
with
the
chipping
lead­
based
9
paint.
My
favorite
method
on
exterior
applications
is
10
hand
scraping
followed
with
a
bonding
primer
like
the
11
XIM's
product,
Peel
Bond.
I
then
collect
as
many
of
the
12
chips
as
possible
and
tarps
and
vacuum
up
the
rest."
13
So
here's
an
individual
who's
learned
how
to
14
do
lead­
safe
work
practices.
We're
hearing
horror
15
stories
from
advocacy
agencies,
people
who
do
advocacy
16
work,
about
contractors
who
don't
do
lead­
safe
work
17
practices,
and
we're
going
to
hear
more
and
more
of
that
18
because
the
Brads
and
these
other
smaller
contactors
are
19
going
to
get
out
of
the
market
because
the
cost
of
20
compliance
is
too
high.
Our
comments
will
be
addressing
21
ways
that
we
do
believe
that
EPA
could
make
this
rule
22
more
universal,
more
accessible
and
much
more
effective.
0043
1
Thank
you.
2
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Tim
Carrico.
3
MR.
COLLIER:
I'm
Tim
Carrico.
I'm
a
rental
4
property
owner
and
a
property
manager,
and
I've
been
a
5
member
of
the
San
Francisco
Citizen's
Committee
that
did
6
the
local
lead
ordinances
for
the
last,
I
guess,
almost
7
twelve
years
now,
a
ridiculous
amount
of
time.
So
I
8
wanted
to
make
some
comments
about
the
proposal.
First
9
of
all,
it's
obvious
that
the
EPA
did
an
awful
lot
of
10
serious
work
on
this.
I
was
pretty
impressed
by
a
lot
11
of
stuff
that
I
read
in
the
report
and
the
depth
of
12
understanding
they
seem
to
have
about
the
issue,
whoever
13
wrote
all
that.
14
One
of
the
problems
I
have
with
the
proposal,
15
though,
is
it
assumes
that
the
people
doing
the
work,
16
what
they
call
"
renovation
contractors,"
are
going
to
be
17
able
to
comply
with
this,
and
in
San
Francisco,
it's
18
just
not
going
to
happen.
Every
day
there
are
hundreds,
19
maybe
thousands
of
people
disturbing
lead­
based
paint
in
20
apartments
and
houses
in
San
Francisco.
A
few
of
them
21
are
contractors
professional
enough
to
be
able
to
deal
22
with
the
certification,
record­
keeping,
and
all
of
this
0044
1
stuff
that's
in
here.
The
vast
majority
are
not
going
2
to
be
able
do
that,
frankly,
whether
they're
licensed
3
contractors
or
not.
And
a
great
many
of
them
are
not
4
contractors
at
all.
They're
people
that
are
so­
called
5
unlicensed
contractors,
do
a
lot
of
work
in
the
city,
6
and
they're
talking
about
people
doing
the
work
that
7
disturbs
lead­
based
paint,
repairing
apartments,
8
painting
apartments,
hallways,
fixing
things,
kitchens
9
and
baths
that
have
lead­
based
paint.
They're
resident
10
managers,
handymen,
employees
of
management
and
11
maintenance
companies.
They're
the
owners
themselves.
12
There
are,
you
know,
there's
probably
hundreds
of
13
independent,
one­
person
handymen
that
work
for
different
14
owners
in
the
City.
I
think
there's
10,000
rental
15
property
owners
in
San
Francisco.
We
have
lots
of
small
16
buildings,
which
I
think
all
old
cities
are
like
that.
17
So
it's
a
wide
variety
of
the
competency,
and,
you
know,
18
skills
and
professional
levels
available,
and
that's
not
19
going
to
change.
20
So
the
way
this
is
written,
what
I
see
21
happening,
is
that
people
that
are
actually
doing
the
22
bulk
of
the
work
will
have
to
go
more
underground,
which
0045
1
is
not
really
good
because
they're
not
going
to
get
the
2
training
they
need
to
do
it
right.
It's
not
that
hard
3
to
do
it
right.
People
just
need
to
learn
that.
That's
4
one
of
the
other
problems.
I've
been
going
on
about
5
this
in
our
local
committee
about
training
and
6
certification.
For
the
people
doing
the
work,
it's
my
7
opinion
that
they're
not
going
to
take
an
eight­
hour
8
course,
the
vast
majority
of
them,
and
they
don't
need
9
an
eight­
hour
course.
I
think
the
whole
thing
could
be
10
taught
in
about
two
hours.
I've
had
two­
hour
courses.
11
I've
sponsored
them
for
my
employees,
and
I've
had
quite
12
comprehensive
overview
and
training
on­
site
in
a
vacant
13
apartment
with
lead­
based
paint,
how
to
do
it.
14
Training
has
to
be
made
available
on
these
15
guys
when
these
guys
can
get
to
it.
There's
got
to
be
a
16
good
way
to
get
to
it,
like
a
lunch
hour
or
something
17
like
that.
A
lot
of
the
people
are
not
going
to
do
an
18
eight­
hour
course,
and
that
means
they
won't
get
19
trained.
So
there
has
to
be
a
different
model
for
this
20
kind
of
local,
routine
housing
maintenance.
So
along
21
those
lines,
you've
probably
already
heard,
we've
done
22
three
ordinances
locally.
The
first
two
took
two
or
0046
1
three
years.
The
Interior
Work
Practices
Ordinance
took
2
us
ten
years
of,
you
know,
just
grueling
detail
work,
3
and
we
started
out
with
a
much
more
kind
of
restrictive,
4
comprehensive
idea,
and
it
turned
out
to
be
pretty
much
5
what
you're
proposing
as
Safe
Work
Practices
Ordinance
6
is
what
we
thought
would
be
effective
and
manageable
and
7
get
the
job
done
which
is
the
point
being
to
reduce
8
childhood
lead
poisoning.
9
I
would
hope
that
you
could
find
a
way
that
10
would
allow
local
ordinances,
that
maybe
could
study
11
them
and
certify
that
they
are
designed
to
meet
the
12
intent
of
what
you're
trying
to
do
and
give
them
a
13
chance
to
do
that
either
through
the
EPA
or
through
the
14
State,
although
I'm
not
sure
which
would
be
better.
I
15
don't
know
how
many
other
cities
have
done
what
we've
16
done,
but
our
ordinance,
the
only
thing
I
find
about
17
enforcement
in
your
ordinance
is
that
the
EPA
would
do
18
some
periodic
checks.
That's
not
going
to
work.
That's
19
a
joke
in
a
city
like
this.
Our
ordinance
is
20
administered
and
managed
through
our
Building
Inspection
21
Department,
by
people
who
know
our
buildings,
know
how
22
they
work,
know
how
things
happen
here.
They
know
the
0047
1
contractors.
You
know,
the
Building
Inspection
2
Department,
a
lot
of
people,
they're
not
delighted
to
3
take
on
this
responsibility,
but
they
have,
and
they've
4
taken
it
very
seriously.
They
have
a
bunch
of
employees
5
and
lots
of
infrastructure
now
to
do
it.
And
our
Health
6
Department
works
with
them
and
has
very
serious
people
7
about
the
work
on
lead
poisoning
there.
8
Personally,
from
my
point
of
view,
all
of
our
9
housing
is
old
and
has
lead­
based
paint.
Not
100
10
percent,
but
almost
100
percent
of
the
housing
I'm
11
involved
with
is
pre­
1950,
so
it's
all
lead­
based
paint.
12
And
I
just
think
what
we're
doing,
the
Exterior
Work
13
Practices
Ordinance
that
we
did
a
few
years
ago,
I
14
think,
has
been
very
successful.
Practically
everybody
15
complies
with
it
now,
maybe
not
100
percent,
but
I
16
seldom
see
people
power
sanding
without
it
being
17
enclosed
or
more
than
one
story,
so
they
have
scaffolds
18
with
tarps
around
them
and,
you
know,
we
don't
hear
19
complaints
from
contractors
anymore,
and
I
don't
think
20
it's
added
that
much
to
the
cost.
I
mean,
I
don't
hear
21
complaints
from
my
clients
and
associates.
So
we
are
22
capable
of
doing
things
at
work,
so
I
would
hope
you
0048
1
find
a
way
to
do
that.
2
And
the
money
that
you
save
on
maybe
not
doing
3
the
inspections,
maybe
you
could
use
to
help
us
fund
4
training
because
that's
been
our
hang­
up.
We've
done
5
all
this
other
stuff,
but
we
haven't
been
able
to
pick
6
out
a
way
to
figure
out
­­
we
figured
out
how
to
do
7
training,
how
to
finance
it.
Where
is
the
money
going
8
to
come
from?
All
city
governments
seem
to
be
short
of
9
money.
The
Health
Department
doesn't
have
enough.
The
10
Building
Inspection
doesn't
have
enough.
So
if
there's
11
some
way
the
EPA
could
help
funding
with
training,
12
that's
really
where
the
results
are
going
to
be
is
13
training
all
these
people
doing
the
work,
so
it
would
be
14
great
if
you
could
find
some
way
to
do
that.
15
Also
the
zero­
bedroom
thing,
as
a
lot
of
16
people
have
said,
there's
a
lot
of
zero
bedrooms
with
17
children,
and
there's
also
lots
of
three­
bedrooms
with
18
no
children
because
this
is
a
city.
I
manage
like
150
19
buildings,
and
I
did
a
review
once,
and
I
think
20
1
percent
of
our
units
had
children,
and
the
State
had
21
proposed
a
couple
of
ordinances
that
would
have
required
22
massive
work
in
every
apartment
which
would
have
meant,
0049
1
literally,
millions
of
dollars
completely
wasted
for
no
2
health
benefit
whatsoever.
So
focus
on
what
the
real
3
problem
is.
In
many
older
cities,
zero
bedrooms
are
4
probably
a
bigger
problem
than
other
apartments
because
5
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
wear
and
tear
on
the
6
painted
surfaces
because
of
the
overcrowding.
Thank
7
you.
8
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
I
think
this
is
everyone
9
who
has
signed
up,
unless
Perry
Gottesfield
came
in
10
later.
If
anyone
else
would
like
to
make
comments,
11
there
certainly
is
time.
We'll
take
a
break
and
see.
12
We'll
adjourn
the
meeting
now.
Thank
you.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0050
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
REPORTER
2
3
4
I,
PATRICIA
A.
BABITS,
a
Certified
Shorthand
5
Reporter,
hereby
certify
that
the
foregoing
proceedings
6
were
taken
in
shorthand
by
me,
at
the
time
and
place
7
therein
stated,
and
that
the
said
proceedings
were
8
thereafter
reduced
to
typewriting,
by
computer,
under
my
9
direction
and
supervision.
10
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
11
attorney
for
either
or
any
of
the
parties
nor
in
any
way
12
interested
in
the
event
of
this
cause,
and
that
I
am
not
13
related
to
any
of
the
parties
thereto.
14
15
DATED:
APRIL
20,
2006
16
17
__________________________________
18
Patricia
A.
Babits,
RPR,
CSR
12848
19
20
21
22
0051
1
2
3
4
5
6
