[Senate Hearing 110-1234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1234
LEAD AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 18, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-577 WASHINGTON : 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 18, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. from the State of Rhode Island.... 10
Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri.. 11
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 13
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 15
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 16
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.......... 17
WITNESSES
Gulliford, James, Assistant Administrator For Pesticides,
Prevention, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Nagel, Mike, CGR, Caps, Remodelone-Design/Build Construction, on
Behalf of the National Association of Homebuilders, Remodeler's
Council........................................................ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 44
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 46
Lanphear, Bruce P., M.D., Mph, Director, Cincinnati Children's
Environmental Health Center; Professor of Pediatrics And
Environmental Health........................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 50
Neltner, Thomas G., on Behalf of Improving Kids' Environment,
Sierra Club, and Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis...... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 65
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 66
Jacobs David E., PhD., CIH, Director of Research, National Center
for Healthy Housing............................................ 69
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 92
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 94
Farrow, Olivia, Assistant Commissioner, City of Baltimore
Department of Health........................................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 131
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 131
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Toxics Link: Brush With Toxics, An Investigation on Lead in
Household Paints in India.................................. 139
ClearCorps: ClearCorps USA, Report on Investigation of Lead
in Children's Products..................................... 175
Articles:
Identifying Housing That Poisons: A Critical Step in
Eliminating Childhood lead Poisoning....................... 179
The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing... 186
Lead Content of Currently Available new Residential Paint in
Several Asian Countries.................................... 194
Lead Content of Dried Films of Domestic Paints Currently Sold
in Nigeria................................................. 198
Validation of a 20-year Forecast of U.S. Childhood Lead
Poisoning: Updated Prospects for 2010...................... 203
ClearCrops USA: Lead in Children's Jewelry....................... 216
Letters from:
The Sierra Club to Commissioner Stratton and Administrator
Johnson.................................................... 219
The United States Environmental Protection Agency to
Jacqueline Elder........................................... 227
The United States Environmental Protection Agency to Jane Doe 229
The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Richard
Blumenthal, to Bob Eckert.................................. 232
The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Richard
Blumenthal, to Michael A. Monahan.......................... 234
LEAD AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Barrasso, Bond, Cardin, Craig,
Inhofe, Klobuchar, and Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I want to welcome all my colleagues. I am
sorry I was running 5 minutes behind schedule. We call to order
the hearing on lead and children's health. I think we have some
very important people to hear from on this. We will each be
given 5 minutes for an opening statement, and then we will go
to the witnesses.
We have known for decades that lead is highly toxic, and
with every passing year more scientific studies show that lead
harms our kids at even lower levels than previously believed.
What does it do? Lead damages kids' brains, impairs their
learning, reduces their IQs and can cause behavioral problems.
Along with millions of other parents and grandparents
across the Country, I am outraged that lead still is in wide
use, especially in products designed for children. I just
became a grandmother for the second time. My little guy is 3
months old and he is starting to put everything into his mouth.
My children are trying to follow what products are safe and
what products aren't safe. But to tell you the truth, as
vigilant as they are, they are very concerned, and the little
one just loves all the bright colors. But you just can't help
but worry is something wrong here.
There has recently been what seems like an endless stream
of recalls of our children's toys, jewelry and other products
containing toxic lead levels. This includes over 1.5 million
Mattel toys contaminated with lead paint. These Mattel recalls
included Sesame Street and Nickelodeon characters such as Elmo,
Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer backpack, and the Giggle Gabber,
a toy shaped like Elmo or Cookie Monster, and many Barbie
accessories.
We invited Mattel to testify at this hearing to explain why
their products have been lead-contaminated and what they are
doing about the problem. Mattel accepted the invitation, but
then they backed out earlier this week. We intend to follow up
with the company on their failure to participate in this
hearing. It is important for companies like Mattel to be part
of the discussion about what has caused this problem, and about
the steps necessary to address the issue in the future. There
is no excuse for their failure to appear before this committee
today. They had nothing to fear, and they could help us
understand what is happening.
Lead contamination of children's products can have
extremely serious consequences. In 2006, a 4-year old child in
Minnesota swallowed a heart-shaped metal charm from a bracelet
that came with Reebok sneakers. Tests showed his blood lead
level was three times the level that is considered a medical
emergency, and the child died 6 days later. If you could just
pass that around to my colleagues, I would appreciate it. We
will have the staff help us do that. Three hundred thousand of
these Reebok charms were recalled.
In 2003, a 4-year old in Oregon got violently ill and an x-
ray showed that he had swallowed a vending machine medallion.
He had surgery to remove the object, which was 39 percent lead.
His blood level was 12 times the CDC lead safety level. His
life was saved by a painful treatment that uses chemicals to
take the lead out of the body.
In 2004, a 5-year old child in San Jose, CA was tested for
lead at the suggestion of her school. Her blood lead levels
were nearly three times higher than the CDC risk level. Charms
that she put into her mouth were found to contain lead.
These are but a few examples of the kinds of children's
products contaminated with lead. Among the other recalls are
35,000 Baby Einstein blocks contaminated with lead paint. How
ironic that these very blocks that should be helping babies
learn were actually contaminated with a brain toxin that could
lower a child's IQ.
Thousands of Wal-Mart bibs which babies often put in their
mouths that contained high lead levels were recalled. These
bibs were recalled by Wal-Mart after investigation by Illinois
authorities, and there they are.
Lunch boxes distributed by health officials in California
and labeled ``eat five a day for better health'' were
contaminated with excess lead. Over 1.5 million Thomas and
Friends railway toys with lead paint were recalled.
In all, there have been over 60 recalls of over 9.5 million
lead-contaminated products in 2007, and this is just the tip of
the iceberg. With more testing comes more recalls. But these
lead toys in kids' products are not the only source of lead in
kids' blood. Some of the other most significant sources of lead
exposure for children include deteriorating lead-based paint,
lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated residential soil,
lead in drinking water, lead in food contact surfaces such as
certain dishware and pottery.
Parents are stunned. They are confused. They are terribly
worried, and the Government, in my view, simply hasn't done one
of its most important jobs--protecting children from harm.
The failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
protect the public from kids' toys has received widespread
publicity recently. I sit on the Commerce Committee and I
commend them, both sides of the aisle, for looking at this.
But I want to focus attention on EPA's failure to use its
power, and it has the power, to protect our children from lead
in products. We will hear from a witness later today that EPA
explicitly denied a petition to use the agency's authority over
the Toxic Substances Control Act to address these risks. Only
after a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and Improving Kids'
Environment did EPA begin to act. If EPA had taken action in
response to the April, 2006 petition, the agency could at least
have had very useful information on quality control and other
procedures of companies such as Mattel, before the massive toy
recalls.
EPA's failure to act on this petition is similar to its
failure to adopt strong guidelines for lead paint remediation.
It also reminds me of the agency's recent announcement that EPA
is considering the possibility of revoking the standard for
lead in air. They are moving in the wrong direction.
I know I have gone over my time, so I will put the rest of
my statement in the record, and say this. It is our moral
obligation to protect our children from this devastating
poison. I intend to do my best and work across the aisle to do
this.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon, Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
We have known for decades that lead is highly toxic. And
with each passing year, more scientific studies show that lead
harms our children at even lower levels than previously
believed. Lead damages kids' brains, impairs their learning,
reduces their IQs, and can cause behavioral problems.
Along with millions of other parents and grandparents
across the country, I am outraged that lead still is in wide
use, especially in products designed for children. This is
absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable.
There has recently been what seems like an endless stream
of recalls of kids' toys, jewelry, and other products
containing toxic lead levels. This includes over 1.5 million
Mattel toys contaminated with lead paint.
These Mattel recalls included Sesame Street and Nickelodeon
characters such as the Elmo Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer
Backpack, and the Giggle Gabber, a toy shaped like Elmo or
Cookie Monster, and many Barbie accessories.
We invited Mattel to testify at this hearing to explain why
their products have been lead-contaminated and what they are
doing about the problem. Mattel accepted the invitation, but
then they backed out earlier this week. We intend to follow-up
with the company on their failure to participate in this
hearing. It is important for companies like Mattel to be part
of the discussion about what has caused this problem, and about
the steps necessary to address the issue the future. There is
no excuse for their failure to appear before this Committee
today.
Lead contamination of children's products can have
extremely serious consequences. In 2006, a 4-year old child in
Minnesota swallowed a heart-shaped metal charm from a bracelet
that came with Reebok sneakers. Tests showed his blood-lead
level was three times the level that's considered a medical
emergency. The child died 6 days later.
300,000 of these Reebok charms were recalled. One of these
charms is on the table in front of us.
In 2003, a 4-year old in Oregon got violently ill, and an
x-ray showed that he had swallowed a vending machine medallion.
He had surgery to remove the object, which was 39 percent lead.
His blood lead level was 12 times the CDC lead safety level.
His life was saved by a chelation, a painful treatment that
uses chemicals to take the lead out of the body.
In 2004, a 5-year old child in San Jose, California was
tested for lead at the suggestion of her school. Her blood
level levels were nearly three times higher than the CDC risk
level. Charms that she put into her mouth were found to contain
lead.
These are but a few examples of the kinds of children's
products contaminated with lead. Among the other recent recalls
are:
35,000 Baby Einstein blocks contaminated with lead paint.
How ironic that the very blocks that should be helping babies
learn, were actually contaminated with a brain toxin that could
lower kids' IQs.
Thousands of bibs, which babies often put in their
mouths, that contained high lead levels. These bibs were
recalled by Walmart after an investigation by Illinois
authorities.
Lunch boxes, distributed by health officials in
California and labeled ``Eat 5 a Day for Better Health,'' that
were contaminated with excess lead.
Over 1.5 million Thomas & Friends Railway toys with lead
paint.
In all, there have been over 60 recalls of over 9.5 million
lead-contaminated products in 2007. And this clearly is just
the tip of the iceberg. With more testing come more recalls.
But these lead toys and kids' products are not the only
source of lead in kids' blood. Some of the other most
significant sources of lead exposure for children include
deteriorating lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, lead-
contaminated residential soil, lead in drinking water, and lead
in food-contact surfaces such as certain dishware and pottery.
Parents are stunned, confused, and terribly worried. And
the government simply has not done one of its most important
jobs--protecting children from harm.
The failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
protect the public from kids' toy threats has received
widespread publicity recently. I want to focus attention on
EPA's failure to use its powers to help protect our children
from lead in children's products, and how EPA's authorities can
be strengthened.
We will hear from a witness later today that EPA explicitly
denied a petition to use the agency's authority under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address many of these risks.
Only after a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and Improving Kids'
Environment did EPA begin to act.
If EPA had taken action in response to the April 17, 2006,
TSCA petition, the agency could at least have had very useful
information on quality control and other procedures at
companies such as Mattel, before the massive toy recalls
revealed this serious problem to millions of Americans.
EPA's failure to act on this petition and use its Toxic
Substances Control Act authorities to crack down on lead is
similar to its failure to adopt strong guidelines for lead
paint remediation. It also reminds me of the agency's recent
announcement that EPA is considering the possibility of
revoking the standard for lead in air. EPA clearly needs to
take lead contamination far more seriously.
The good news is that when EPA and Government agencies are
doing their jobs, they can reduce children's lead poisoning
risks. From the late 1970's through the 1990's, EPA and other
agencies took several actions including phasing out lead in
gasoline and banning lead paint. According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of kids CDC
considers lead-poisoned dropped from 13.5 million in 1978 to
310,000 children in 2002. So when agencies put their minds to
it, and have the will, we can make a big difference.
But we still have a lot of work to do. According to a Work
Group of independent scientists convened by the CDC in 2004,
recent data show that there are adverse effects on children
from lead at blood lead levels below the current CDC level of
concern. The CDC agreed, but decided not to reduce the level
because of their concerns about the difficulty of implementing
a lower number. I think that decision needs to be reconsidered,
in order to better protect our children in light of all the new
data.
It is time for our government to put as high a priority on
lead-poisoned children as parents do. I intend to introduce
legislation to force EPA to eliminate lead in products that
children use. And I plan to carefully and vigorously oversee
EPA's implementation of its other lead authorities.
It is our moral obligation to protect our children from
this devastating poison. And I intend to do my best to make
sure that EPA and other agencies do their part to help assure
that our kids are safe.
Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe, thank you for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I do appreciate having this hearing. I think it is very
significant, but I would like to express my dismay about the
fact that despite our request over and over and over again from
the minority side, the Center for Disease Control wasn't
invited to testify. The National Center for Environmental
Health within the CDC is the lead agency regarding childhood
lead exposure, and their testimony would certainly have been
germane.
In preparation for this hearing, I sent the Director of the
center a letter with several questions about their work, and
would like to enter their responses into the record at this
time.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
[The referenced document follows:]
Responses by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to
Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Please describe CDC's most recent lead survey
data. Can you quantify the progress has been made to date in
decreasing childhood lead exposure and the rate of incidences
of lead exposure-related illness? What are the trends in
childhood blood lead levels?
Response. The most recent published data, the National
Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999--2002,
indicated that the percent of children 1--5 years old with
blood lead levels 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) has
declined from 4.4 percent in 1991--1994 to 1.6 percent. The
largest decrease in elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) was in
black non Hispanic children, from 11.2 percent to 3.1 percent.
Although the 1999--2002 prevalence of elevated BLLs was higher
for Non-Hispanic Blacks than for either white or Hispanic
subgroups, statistical power was not sufficient to examine
these differences because of the small proportions and large
variability around the estimates.
Question 2. Recognizing that lead is an element of the
environment and that there may be multiple exposure pathways
that accumulate in children, what is the single biggest
exposure pathway for children in the United States? How
accurately can we pinpoint the root of the major exposure
pathway? How can CDC's data be used to identify the locations
where children have been exposed to lead?
Response. Residential house paint is the most common high-
dose source of lead in children's environments. Paints that
were sold in the 1920's and 1930's contained as much as 50
percent lead by dry weight. Lead paint can be found in most
housing built before 1950 and in many houses built between 1950
and 1978. When this paint peels or is disturbed during
renovation, it contaminates house dust and soil and is ingested
by young children during normal hand-to-mouth activities.
However, lead is a pervasive environmental contaminant found in
air, water, food, and consumer products, usually at levels
lower then the levels found in house paint. Children are
exposed to lead from a variety of sources. Because children do
not excrete lead from their bodies very well, lead from all of
these sources accumulates and causes adverse health effects.
Question 3. Please explain the CDC's 10 micrograms/
deciliter (ug/dl) ''level of concern'' for lead in children
under 6. On what is it based? Is this a regulatory standard?
What exactly does this standard mean? What actions are
triggered when a child is found with a blood lead level (BLL)
above 10 ug/dl?
Response. The CDC ``level of concern'' of 10 ug/dL was
established in 1991 as a public health action level. It has
over time become the level at which individual children are
considered to have elevated BLLs that require an individualized
intervention. Depending on the jurisdiction, the resources
available, and the number of children with higher blood lead
levels, families of children with levels greater than or equal
to 10 ug/dL receive education about sources of lead and how to
control or eliminate them, referral for nutritional
intervention (i.e., Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]), an
inspection of their home, and enforcement of regulations that
require housing to be made ``lead safe'' if they live in a
jurisdiction that has implemented such regulations. Children
with blood lead levels of greater than or equal to 10 ug/dL
have more frequent blood lead tests done. and siblings and
housemates may also be tested to assess whether they too have
elevated blood lead levels.
Some have interpreted the CDC ``level of concern'' to mean
that CDC is not concerned about children with blood lead levels
less than or equal to 10 ug/dL. However, since 1991, CDC has
emphasized the need to use primary prevention of lead poisoning
by controlling or eliminating lead hazards before children are
poisoned. Primary prevention activities can be expected to
benefit all children, particularly those living in high-risk
communities. In 2005, CDC issued Preventing Lead Poisoning in
Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. This document describes strategies to
institutionalize primary prevention. It outlines specific
recommendations for Federal, state, and local government
agencies, healthcare providers, and community-based
organizations. These strategies institutionalize primary
prevention and are essential to achieving the Healthy People
2010 goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning.
The blood lead level of 10 ug/dL is not a regulatory
standard for Federal agencies. In 2005, CDC recommended that
Federal agencies discontinue using 10 ug/dL as a level for
regulatory action, and agencies such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have begun to do this (see the recent
Clean Air Standards). The blood lead level of 10 ug/dL also is
not a toxicologic threshold. No toxicologic threshold or safe
blood lead level for children has been identified.
Question 4. What are the demographic characteristics for
children who have BLLs above 10 u/dl? What are the demographic
characteristics for children who have BLLs below 10 ug/dl? Are
they different?
Response. Children with blood lead levels greater or equal
to 10 ug/dL are more likely to be African American, live in
poverty, and live in housing built before 1950 than their
counterparts with blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL. As a
result of an intense coordinated effort to control or eliminate
lead sources in children's environments by government
officials, healthcare and social service providers, and the
communities most at risk, disparities between the percent of
children with less than or equal to 10 ug/dL by race,
ethnicity, or socioeconomic status have decreased significantly
since the 1970's. However, disparities in level of lead
exposure still exist, especially among children with BLLs less
than or equal to 10 ug/dL, as seen in the mean BLLs and
distribution of BLLs that continue to be higher for low-income
children, non-Hispanic black children, and children living in
older housing stock (built before 1950).
Question 5. There is some interest in dropping the CDC
standard below 10 ug/dl. If the standard for lead was lowered,
how many more cases of lead poisoning would there be? What
would be the course of action that should be taken at levels
below 10 ug/dl?
Response. Based on the 1999--2004 National Health and
Nutritional Examination Survey estimate, 7.4 percent of U.S.
children have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 5 ug/
dL. Based on the U.S. census estimate of the number of children
1--5 years old (approximately 25 million), this means that
approximately 1.85 million children have blood lead level
greater than or equal to 5 ug/dL.
Question 6. Would an increase of the numbers of cases of
lead poising (due to a lowering of the standard) dilute the
resources available to those children we know are currently
exposed at levels above 10 ug/dl?
Response. Public health agencies would continue to triage
cases, prioritizing those children with the highest blood lead
levels and responding to children with lower levels as
resources allow. Although efforts to provide services to
children with blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL may deflect
needed resources from children with higher blood lead levels,
there are many more important reasons not to provide case
management to children at blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL.
These include the following:
No effective clinical or public health interventions have
been identified that reliably and consistently lower blood lead
levels <10 ug/dL.
No threshold for adverse health effects has been
identified; thus, lowering the level of intervention would be
arbitrary and a lower level may provide a false sense of
safety.
The adverse health effects of blood lead levels less than
10 ug/dL are subtle, making it difficult to predict the impact
of these levels on individual children.
The uncertainty associated with laboratory testing is too
great to ensure that a single blood lead test reliably
classifies individual children at levels less than 10 ug/dL.
Question 7. Some states have, on their own, lowered their
BLL levels of concern below 10 ug/dl. What is the standard for
care for that segment?
Response. Services provided to children with blood lead
levels less than 10 ug/dL vary by jurisdiction. In some
jurisdictions, families receive a brochure in the mail that
describes sources of lead and how to control or eliminate them.
In other jurisdictions, families may receive a home visit and
visual assessment of potential lead sources in the home.
Question 8. Given the recent spate of toy and jewelry
recalls for alarming levels of lead content, how do we address
imported products? Would a lowering of the level of concern
have changed the outcome?
Response. In 2005, CDC recommended a systematic approach
that allows the identification of lead contaminated items and
prohibits their sale before children are exposed and,
ultimately, that all nonessential uses of lead should be
eliminated. Lowering the blood lead level at which children
receive case management would not affect these recommendations,
which would prevent exposure before children have elevated
blood lead levels.
Question 9. As you know, in 2000--2004, many District of
Columbia residents' drinking water exceeded EPA's action level
of 15 ppb. What is CDC doing to examine the potential
correlation between the lead contamination in DC's water and
children's blood lead levels? Further, can you please explain
what the data in MMWR April 2004 is depicting and what it says
about blood lead levels for children in DC?
Response. CDC is analyzing blood lead surveillance data
from the Washington, DC, l1ealth department from 1998--2006 to
determine the trend in blood lead levels over time. The key
message from the 2004 Morbidity and A1ortality Weekly Report
(MMWR) article is that because no threshold for adverse health
effects in young children has been demonstrated (no safe blood
level has been identified), all sources of lead exposure for
children should be controlled or eliminated. Lead
concentrations in drinking water should be below the EPA's
action level of 15 parts per billion.
Question 10. If the Federal Government could do only one
thing to prevent childhood lead exposure, what would give us
the most bang far our buck?
Response. The ``biggest bang for our buck'' in preventing
childhood lead exposures would be a coordinated effort with
regard to three elements:
Target efforts to the clearly identifiable areas where
risk for lead exposure is disproportionately high. In many
urban areas, the prevalence of elevated BLLs is 10--15 times
higher than the national average. In 2003, 46 percent of the
children reported to CDC as having elevated BLLs lived in 10
cities. Within these cities, a small number of buildings, often
1 percent or less, account for a disproportionate number of
cases, as children are successively identified with elevated
blood lead levels in the same or adjacent apartments. In some
communities, 40 percent of this ``repeat offender'' housing
receives a Federal subsidy or is publicly owned.
Provide resources to address lead in all geographic areas
known or presumed to be high risk. Census characteristics
associated with risk for lead poisoning include a high
percentage of 1950's housing, rental property, the presence of
African-American residents, and children living in poverty.
These indicators for exposure are distributed throughout a
State in rural areas and very small towns. Addressing lead
sources in remote areas will require creative and coordinated
planning.
Identify special-risk populations and control or
eliminate exposure to both paint and non-paint sources of lead.
Newly arrived immigrant and refugee populations often have high
body burdens of lead when they come to the United States. They
may also be exposed to lead as a result of cultural practices
and traditional medicines. Once here, most families are not
familiar with the sources of lead; thus, their children are
more likely to ingest lead paint or lead-contaminated house
dust or soil.
Senator Boxer. This will not come out of your time. We are
having the CDC here on another hearing, and I will be happy to
set aside time for you to ask any questions that you wish.
Senator Inhofe. What hearing will that be?
Senator Boxer. This will be a hearing on global warming and
its impact on disease.
Senator Inhofe. Well, of course, that will be our 23d.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Well, anyway, still that doesn't change. Our request was we
want the Centers for Disease Control to be here to talk about
this, because this is the issue that is before us. They are the
ones who are responding.
Now, generally speaking, addressing lead exposure is one of
the great American success stories. We have a chart here. I
would you to look at it. According to the data from the CDC and
others, the median concentration of lead in the blood of
children 5 years old and under has declined 89 percent since
the period of 1976 to 1980, to 1.6 micrograms per deciliter in
2003 and 2004.
Now, despite our success, the CDC has found that ``There
are some populations and geographic areas that have
disproportionately higher risks of childhood lead poisoning.''
They recognize this and they want to address this in spite of
the successes that they have had in reducing the lead in
children.
Now, to get at this problem, the Department of Health and
Human Services has established an ambitious goal of eliminating
elevated blood lead levels in children by 2010. I recognize
this problem first-hand due to my involvement in the Tar Creek
Superfund site where the blood lead levels of children are the
highest in the State. Although these levels have been
decreasing, there is much work left to be done.
What I am saying here is in Northern Oklahoma, in our Tar
Creek area, the blood lead levels of these kids is higher
really than probably anyplace else in the Nation. Now,
according to the CDC, the two major remaining exposure pathways
for children are lead in housing and nonessential uses of lead
in other products such as toys, jewelry and so forth.
Regarding the toy issue, I have 20 kids and grand kids. I
know a little bit about kids. I am troubled by the recent toy
recalls due to the presence of lead paint. It is a reminder to
everyone that does business outside the United States to be
vigilant about product quality because other countries don't
share the same environmental and public health ideals as we do,
as the Chairman stated.
I have some studies here to enter into the record. It is
right here, if it would be all right.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The referenced documents can be found on page XXX:]
Senator Inhofe. They are regarding lead in household paint
manufactured outside the United States.
Now, as far as Mattel is concerned, Mattel, the company has
already testified twice on the toy recalls before the House
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Now, that is twice in the last month. I would just
suspect, Madam Chairman, that might have something to do with
their reluctance to come back and testify for a third time in a
period of a month. Their absence today should not be portrayed
as an unwillingness to participate. They have already
participated.
I don't want the toy issue, however, to make us lose focus.
According to the CDC, paint, paint dust, and paint-contaminated
soil account for more than 70 percent of exposure.
Additionally, it is estimated that 24 million housing units
have deteriorating paint and contaminated house dust. It has
been shown that poorer children who live in older housing units
are disproportionately at risk for elevated levels of lead.
The extensive assistance from State and local agencies, CDC
working with them, has identified housing down to the apartment
number in many cases, where multiple children with high blood
lead levels have been identified. These repeat offender
properties should be our greatest target.
Without objection, I would like to enter into the record a
study that appeared in Public Health Management Practice that
developed a method for identifying and prioritizing the high-
risk buildings that could be pursued for lead poisoning
prevention activities.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced document can be found on page XXX:]
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate the National Center for Health
Housing and the National Association of Homebuilders joining us
today to discuss their efforts. I know they have made efforts
to address these residential lead paint problems. The Centers
for Disease Control have established a national level of
concern for children whose blood lead levels are more than 10
micrograms per deciliter. This is the level at which public
health action is recommended.
Compelling studies done by one of our witnesses, Dr.
Lanphear, have shown adverse developmental and behavioral
effects at blood lead levels below this number. Thus, there is
an interest in lowering the national level of concern below the
10 micrograms that is current today.
My concern with this approach is that efforts to identify
and provide services to children at levels below 10 will
deflect needed resources from children who we already know have
blood lead levels above 10, and are the greatest risk from
exposure.
Resources are scarce at all levels of government. I believe
the biggest bang for the buck comes from directing our
resources at those housing units in neighborhoods where there
is documented chronic lead exposure and the revolving door for
kids with lead poisoning.
I am also concerned that the CDC has not identified any
effective clinical or public health interventions that reliably
and consistently lower blood levels that are already are below
10 micrograms today. Lead poisoning is a preventable disease,
and we should focus our efforts on reducing or eliminating
exposures before they happen. That will benefit all children
regardless of their current blood lead levels.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Madam
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Good morning. First, I'd like to express my dismay at the
fact that, despite repeated requests from the minority, the
Centers for Disease Control was not invited to testify. The
National Center for Environmental Health, within the CDC, is
the lead agency regarding childhood lead exposure and their
testimony would certainly have been germane. In preparation for
this hearing, I sent the Director of the Center a letter with
several questions about their work and would like to enter
their response in the record.
Generally speaking, addressing lead exposure is one of the
great American success stories. According to data from the CDC
and others, the median concentration of lead in the blood of
children 5 years old and under has declined 89 percent since
the period of 1976--1980 to 1.6 micrograms per deciliter in
2003--2004. Despite our success, the CDC has found that ``there
are some populations and geographic areas that have
disproportionately high risk of childhood lead poisoning.'' To
get at this problem, the Department of Health and Human
Services has established an ambitious goal of eliminating
elevated blood lead levels in children by 2010. I recognize
this problem first hand due to my involvement in the Tar Creek
Superfund Site where the blood lead levels in children are the
highest in the State. Although these levels have been
decreasing, there is much more work left to do.
According to the CDC, the two major remaining exposure
pathways for children are lead in housing and non-essential
uses of lead in other products, such as toys, jewelry, etc.
Regarding the toy issue, having 20 kids and grand kids
myself, I am troubled by the recent toy recalls due to the
presence of lead paint. It is a reminder to everyone that does
business outside of the United States to be vigilant about
product quality because other countries do not share the same
environmental and public health ideals that we do. I have some
studies here to enter into the record regarding lead in
household paint manufactured outside of the U.S. As for Mattel,
the company has already testified twice on the toy recalls,
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Mattel's absence today should not be
portrayed as an unwillingness to participate in the public
dialog on this issue.
I don't want the toy issue, however, to make us lose focus.
According to the CDC, paint, paint dust and paint-contaminated
soil account for more than 70 percent of exposure.
Additionally, it is estimated that 24 million housing units
have deteriorating paint and contaminated house dust. It has
been shown that poorer children living in older housing units
are disproportionately at risk for elevated blood lead levels.
With extensive assistance from State and local agencies, CDC
has identified housing, down to the apartment number in many
cases, where multiple children with high blood lead levels have
been identified. These ``repeat offender'' properties should be
our greatest target. Without objection, I would like to enter
into the record a study that appeared in Public Health
Management Practice that developed a method for identifying and
prioritizing ``high risk'' buildings that could be pursued for
lead poisoning prevention activities. I appreciate the National
Center for Healthy Housing and the National Association of Home
Builders joining us today to discuss their efforts to address
residential lead-paint.
The Centers for Disease Control has established a national
level of concern for children whose blood lead levels are more
than 10 micrograms per deciliter. This is the level at which
public health action is recommended. Compelling studies done by
one of our witnesses, Dr. Lanphear (LAN-FEAR), have shown
adverse developmental and behavioral effects at blood lead
levels below this number. Thus, there is an interest in
lowering the national level of concern below 10 micrograms per
deciliter.
My concern with this approach is that efforts to identify
and provide services to children at levels below 10 will
deflect needed resources from children who we already know have
blood lead levels above 10 and are the greatest risk from
exposure. Resources are scarce at all levels of government and
I believe the biggest bang for our buck comes from directing
our resources at those housing units and neighborhoods where
there is documented chronic lead exposure and a revolving door
of kids with lead poisoning. I'm also concerned that CDC has
not identified any ``effective clinical or public health
interventions that reliably and consistently lower blood lead
levels that already are below 10 micrograms per deciliter.''
Lead poisoning is a preventable disease and we should focus
our efforts on reducing or eliminating exposures before they
happen. That will benefit all children, regardless of their
current blood lead level. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. There is a lot
in what you say that I totally agree with.
We are going to call on you in order or arrival, so that
would be Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for
convening this hearing. Under your leadership, this Committee
is focused intently on the way in which we influence our
environment and how we can be better stewards of the world
around us, from cleaning up pollution in our air and water to
reversing the devastating damage that will be caused by global
climate change.
We do this to preserve and protect, to preserve the natural
resources on which we and future generations will depend, and
to protect families from changes in our natural and manmade
environments that can harm our lives and health.
All too often, these threats appear in places we least
expect. In recent weeks, we have been reminded of another
danger found where we least expect it, in our children's toys.
Hundreds of thousands of toys and other merchandise have been
recalled because they contain lead paint, a poison that poses a
serious risk to children's health and well being. Children
exposed to lead can develop learning disabilities, hearing
impairments, and behavioral problems even at extremely low
exposure levels. This damage cannot be reversed.
We in Rhode Island know the dangers of lead poisoning well.
For years, tens of thousands of Rhode Island children have
lived in homes contaminated by lead paint, exposed to lead in
paint chips or dust. More than 30,000 children have been
diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels in our little State.
Last year alone, lead poisoning was diagnosed in an additional
500 children.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, as many as 1.7 million children aged five and
younger--five and younger--are affected by lead poisoning.
Nationwide, more than 80 percent of older homes constructed
before 1978 contain lead paint.
While the danger of lead poisoning is in no way restricted
to Rhode Island, I am proud that our State has been a leader in
the fight to raise awareness about the dangers of lead
poisoning and taken strong action to reverse it. I am very
pleased that our Ranking Member noted that 70 percent of the
exposure comes from exposure to lead paint and dust, and that
this burden falls disproportionately upon the children of
America who are poor.
When I served as Rhode Island's Attorney General, we
brought public nuisance action against the companies that
manufactured lead-contaminated paint, an innovative approach
that after several years and two trials finally resulted in a
jury verdict last year that the paint companies must help abate
the damage they caused. That decision was a victory for Rhode
Islands and the first of its kind in the Nation.
Today, we are moving ahead on abatement plans to ensure
that our homes are safe for children and families. I am proud
that this Committee has turned its attention to the serious
risks presented by lead contamination and I truly look forward
to today's hearing.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If you will excuse me, I also have
an Attorney General to talk about his future with.
Senator Boxer. I understand.
Senator Whitehouse. But I will return, and I thank you for
your courtesy.
Senator Boxer. We look forward to having you return.
Senator Boxer. Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank
you for holding this hearing today on lead and children's
health.
Lead poisoning, as I think we all agree, is a terrible
tragedy for children who it afflicts. No child should have
blood levels that hurt their ability to think and learn. For
better or for worse, I have had extensive experience with lead
paint poisoning in Missouri. One in three children tested in
certain areas of St. Louis, Missouri in 2003 suffered from lead
paint poisoning. That is 30 percent of our kids in many of the
poorer neighborhoods who may not live up to their full
potential and who suffer needlessly.
As we know, and it has already been said, once lead damage
occurs, it cannot be reduced, but it can be prevented. And that
is where we need to focus our efforts.
I was very proud to have joined over the last several years
with my colleague, Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, on the
Appropriations Committee to bring additional Federal help to
cities like St. Louis with the worst lead paint problems. As
has already been said, we know that the overwhelming cause of
lead paint poisoning is the paint on window sills. Small
children hold onto window sills and often chew on them. If they
have lead, that may poison them.
Over the last 5 years, Congress has appropriated nearly
$250 million to HUD to remediate homes in high-risk areas
inhabited by low-income families. At the same time, because the
programs were not working as well as they could, I worked with
a community health center, Grace Hill Neighborhood Health
Center, and the children's hospitals and a broad coalition in
St. Louis to design and implement a new model lead paint
remediation program.
By focusing on primary prevention for pregnant women and
their babies, the Grace Hill model has turned the lead paint
remediation process on its head. For the first time, the
objective is to find and remove lead paint problems before
children are poisoned. New mothers will bring their newborns
home to a lead-safe environment.
Over 3 years, I have secured over $15 million in earmarks
to flow through the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Center to
St. Louis neighborhoods with the highest incidence of lead
paint poisoning.
Communities at the source of the lead chain also need
attention, as our witness, Mr. Gulliford, will tell you. Some
may know that Southeastern Missouri holds our Nation's primary
lead reserves. Nobody believes we can tolerate lead in infant
toys, but lead is used in everything from batteries,
televisions, to much high-tech equipment, from medical
instruments to musical instruments. To bring America the lead
it needs, thousands of Missouri workers support middle class
families with their jobs in lead mining and processing. Nature
has allocated Missouri 90 percent of the lead in the U.S., lead
which we do need.
If I had my choice, I would prefer to have natural gas. I
would be happy to have them drilling in my backyard if we had
that rather than lead, but you have to mine for lead where you
find it. When a lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri violated
ambient air quality requirements for lead, I worked with EPA
and the Missouri State agencies to put pressure on the company.
They, of course, needed to be treated fairly, but they also
needed to meet their environmental obligations. The company
made millions of dollars of plant upgrades, as they should
have, and now emissions levels are back in compliance.
Moving forward, I am working to bring Federal funding for a
new lead ore transport routes that avoid residential
neighborhoods on the way to the plant. I hope these examples
can serve as a model for other States and other areas where
lead is a problem, pushing where we need to, helping where we
can, and educating everywhere.
Lead paint poisoning is preventable and it must be
prevented because once it occurs, the damage is done and it is
unacceptable to sentence our future generations to the tragedy
of lead paint poisoning. This is a crusade I am happy to pursue
on a bipartisan basis in this body and anyplace else we can.
I thank the Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Bond. You
obviously have had a lot of experience in this area, and that
is going to be very helpful to us.
Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also thank you
for holding the hearing. It is encouraging to hear our
colleagues talk about the commitment to tackle lead poisoning
in our children.
Lead poisoning is an American tragedy. It is a tragedy for
the children who suffer from lead poisoning and their families.
The tragedy is compounded because this is an entirely
preventable disease. During today's hearing, we will hear from
a number of witnesses that will relate and tell us about some
important success stories.
Since 1995, for example, the number of Baltimore City
children with elevated blood levels has decreased by 92
percent. I am very pleased that Olivia Farrow, our Assistant
Commissioner of Health in Baltimore, is with us today. I thank
the Baltimore City Health Department for what you have been
able to do in tackling the problems of lead poisoning among our
children.
I am proud of the institutions in Baltimore that have been
working with national leaders in trying to develop strategies
to deal with preventing lead poisoning and dealing with the
health consequences of those children who have elevated levels
of lead in their blood. The Kennedy Krieger Institute is doing
an incredible job for children, not only in Baltimore and
Maryland, but around the Country. The University of Maryland at
Baltimore has been a leader in dealing with the lead poisoning
issues. I am proud of the role that we played.
Witnesses will tell us about the straightforward approaches
they have employed to help protect children. They are
identifying housing stocks where lead-based paint poses a risk
and other rental units where these risks have been abated. They
will tell us about excellent training programs for contractors
working in the housing industry. These skilled workers are
making our homes safer, while protecting themselves and their
fellow workers from the dangers of lead.
Unfortunately, there will also be heartbreaking stories. In
spite of all we know about the dangers of high-level lead and
the effective ways to eliminate those risks, there are still
more than 1,200 children in Maryland who are lead poisoned.
That figure of 1,200 is based upon the health standard of 10
micrograms per deciliter. Some of the best medical people in
the world at Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland
Medical School in Baltimore tell us that standard of 10
micrograms per deciliter is too high.
So we know that we have children who are poisoned today. We
know that the risks are probably much greater than we even know
today because the acceptable levels are probably too high.
Madam Chair, we know what the problem is. We have seen great
progress in reducing blood lead levels in our vulnerable
children because we know how to eliminate these risks, but we
need to do more.
I appreciate you bringing to our attention the problems
with toys. That is just unacceptable that we allow toys to come
into this Country or be sold to our families that contain lead.
That has to stop, and I thank you for bringing that to our
attention.
I agree with Senator Inhofe in regards to the housing issue
and lead paint in our homes today is still at an unacceptable
level. We need to do more to help eliminate and abate lead
paint in homes.
The Federal Government needs to do more. I introduced
legislation when I was in the House that dealt with one of the
issues that Senator Bond raised, that is to encourage the
recycling of lead, rather than having to mine more lead,
because the problem is that a lot of the lead batteries get
discarded in a way that produces an environmental risk. So we
should be doing things to try to encourage the proper
disposition of lead and recycling of lead, rather than just
trying to mine more lead in our community.
The legislation also created a responsible funding source
so the Federal Government could have a larger partnership
working with our State and local governments to have lead
abatement programs that work, that are effective, and reduce
the risk to our children.
The bottom line, Madam Chairman, it is time for us to act.
I thank you for holding this hearing because I think it gives
us the information we need to take responsible action.
I thank the witnesses for being here today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Madame Chairman thank you for holding this hearing today.
Lead poisoning is an America tragedy. It is a tragedy for
the children who suffer from lead poisoning and for their
families. That tragedy is compounded because this is an
entirely preventable disease.
During today's hearing we will hear from a number of
witnesses. They will tell us about some important success
stories. Since 1995, for example, the number of Baltimore City
children with elevated blood lead levels has decreased by 92
percent, while childhood lead poisoning in Baltimore City has
dropped by 96 percent since 1993.
The Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, based in
Baltimore, has brought extraordinary national leadership to the
prevention of lead poisoning in children. The Coalition's
technical expertise in developing lead elimination plans has
not only benefited the Baltimore area, but has aided local and
State governments across the country.
We also appreciate the work of, and look forward to hearing
the testimony from, Olivia Farrow, Assistant Commissioner in
the city of Baltimore's Department of Health. Baltimore City's
work in identifying children's jewelry with excessive levels of
lead and removing such jewelry from store shelves is an example
of the work being done at the local level to make conditions
safer for our children.
Other witnesses will tell us about some straightforward
approaches they have employed to help protect children. They
are identifying housing stocks where lead-based paint poses a
risk and other rental units where those risks have been abated.
They will tell us about excellent training programs for
contractors working in the housing industry. These skilled
workers are making our homes safer while protecting themselves
and their fellow workers from the dangers of lead.
Unfortunately, they will also have heart-breaking stories.
In spite of all we know about the dangers of high lead levels
and effective ways to eliminate those risks, there are still
more than 1,200 children in Maryland who are lead poisoned. And
that figure of 1,200 is based on a health standard of 10 micro-
grams per deciliter. Some of the best medical people in the
world work at Kennedy Krieger, Johns Hopkins, and the
University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore. These
doctors tell us that the current standard of 10 micro-grams per
deciliter is too high. In fact, there is probably no safe level
of lead in children's blood.
Madame Chairman, we know what the problem is. We have seen
great progress in reducing blood lead levels in our vulnerable
children, because we know how to eliminate these risks.
We need to do more. The time to act is now.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
This issue of child exposure to lead is a serious concern.
I appreciate the progress that has been made by the EPA, as
shown in Senator Inhofe's charts. But I am sure as the
witnesses will testify, child exposure is down, but we can do
more. It is down from where it was a decade ago.
I really understand the importance of preventive medicine.
We need to protect these children from lead exposure to prevent
the long-term adverse effects that they have on health care.
Last year, I served in the Wyoming State Senate on the Health
Committee, and we came out with a warning, actually the
Department of Health did a little over a year ago, the
Department of Health warned of unexpected lead dangers, with
the key word being ``unexpected.''
The Wyoming Department of Health officials are asking
parents to be aware of the dangers to children posed by items
that may unexpectedly contain lead. They talked about the
recall of the 300,000 heart-shaped charm bracelets, one like
you passed around today, Madam Chairman, that had been provided
as a free gift to children with shoe purchases. A young child
died from acute lead poisoning after swallowing one of these
charms, and it was because of it contained lead.
Infants and children are especially vulnerable to lead
poisoning. A child who swallows large amounts of lead may
develop anemia, severe stomach ache, muscle weakness, brain
damage. Lead can affect a child's mental and physical growth
even at very low levels of exposure.
Now, there has been actually a measurable change. I can
tell you this, Madam Chairman, when I was in medical school in
the late 1970's, when we studied x-rays, there would be
something called lead lines on x-rays where growth had been
delayed in a child and you could see it on x-ray. Just above
the knees on both sides, both sides on the femurs, you would
see these little lines because there had been a period of time
where the growth had been delayed, development delayed. These
were called lead lines. We learned that in medical school 25
years ago, or a little more. But now, I haven't seen one of
those lead lines on an x-ray for years, which says we are
making progress and we are making measurable progress.
We need to do more. Let's find solutions that are
attainable and reasonable based on sound science. I look
forward to the testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Thank you for
holding this important hearing.
I have been dealing with this all summer on the Commerce
Committee. I think as everyone has noted, it has been hard to
open a paper or to watch TV without hearing about another toy
recall because of lead. As a former prosecutor and a mother, I
am appalled by the number of toys. I think it is 20 million now
that have been recalled. It started with Thomas the Train sets
and SpongeBob SquarePants. My 12 year old daughter, Madam
Chairwoman, was very embarrassed I was working on this because
the toys at issue were SpongeBob SquarePants. But when it got
to Barbie, she came into the kitchen and said, Mom, this is
getting serious.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. One of the first products that was
recalled this summer was this Thomas the Train set that I have
here. One little interesting fact that I don't know if everyone
knows, the RC2 Corporation, these came from China, apologized
to their customers and to try to prompt them to get more
trains, they actually gave them bonus gifts for their troubles.
The bonus gift backfired in a big way. They then had to recall
the bonus gifts after that because they realized that those
also had lead in the paint. And this actually is a toy that
Tamara Fucile, my great staff person on this, her child bit on
this toy and it has now been recalled.
We have watched this process unfold over the summer. I
think it has given American consumers a sense of why we do need
good government and why we do need regulation. Senator Durbin
and I have been working together to make sure that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has the money it needs, and then on
the Commerce Committee, along with Senator Pryor and Senator
Nelson, we have been working toward getting some new standards
in place for lead in toys and other products.
Right now how it works, and I think people would be
surprised to know this, there really isn't a set Federal
standard. A lot of the States have standards as a voluntary
guideline, and there are a lot of hoops that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has to go through to actually recall
toys or other items.
So what we are trying to do instead of setting up another
rulemaking, which would take months, is actually put a standard
in place. We have drafted a bill suggesting a .04 parts per
million, with a lower standard for jewelry like they have in
California at .02. I will say that the retailers, especially my
hometown company of Target and others like Toys R Us have been
very helpful and supportive of these efforts. I think they
realize that we need to have a stronger Consumer Product Safety
Commission and that also we need to have some better rules in
place.
This really hit home for us in Minnesota when a little 4
year old boy swallowed a lead charm. He didn't buy it. He was
given it along with a pair of tennis shoes as a free gift. He
swallowed that charm and he didn't die from choking on it or
some kind of other problem with the air. He died when the lead
seeped into his bloodstream over a period of days. It crept
into his bloodstream. He died. The charm was later tested and
it tested at 99 percent lead and it was made in China. So if
that isn't enough to make people realize that we need to change
the way we are doing business, I don't know what is.
So I think it is time to act. While we will continue to
focus on the Commerce Committee on the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, as we know, on this Committee, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission cannot and should not do this alone. It
doesn't have the resources or the statutory authority. I am
pleased that we are taking steps to modernize the commission.
Right now, there is one guy who checks toys. He sits in the
back of a room. What is his name? Bob the Toy Guy, and he is
retiring at the end of the year.
So we need to improve the CPSC, but I will tell you that
the EPA must be a partner here. With a budget more than 10
times the size of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and
with greater authority to gather information, the EPA is
uniquely positioned to support the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's efforts to get lead out of stores and get lead off
of our shores.
I am pleased that you are holding this hearing today, Madam
Chair. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Yesterday when we were looking through this Committee at
Superfund and where we are with its administration and
response, I mentioned a situation that had occurred in Idaho a
good number of years ago, and I suspect all of us have those
stories. While we clearly don't have the legacy of old
metropolitan areas or old communities of the kind that Senator
Cardin spoke of, we were the second largest producer of lead in
the Nation for a century, following Missouri, as Senator Bond
has spoken to.
During that time and within the Superfund side of the Coeur
d'Alene basin, we had a smelter who through its filtration
system broke down and for well over a couple of years, lead
dust settled in over this valley. There was no question at the
time that it was stopped. The children of that valley and the
adults of that valley had a substantial elevated lead level.
Over the course of the 1980's and the 1990's, I have worked
with that valley to clean itself up. It literally is a matter
of vacuuming the valley, removing the dirt from the yards,
repainting the homes, vacuuming out the attics, and of course
changing the whole character. And the blood lead levels have
dropped dramatically.
While there are great success stories to be told, and
Senator Inhofe has mentioned one that we cannot walk away from.
The chart shows it. Because of the attention we have paid, this
Government has paid, and therefore the marketplace has paid to
lead, we have reduced those lead levels 89 percent. Senator
Cardin spoke of lead levels in Baltimore down 90 percent in
certain areas.
So there are tremendous success stories to be told, but it
also reminds us that effective and responsive oversight ought
to continue to be done because clearly this is not a story yet
that you can write its final chapter, nor should you.
And so I thank you very much today for the attention you
are giving. But as we have brought down our levels here, now we
have to focus offshore. That is where we have been at error,
and that is what this hearing offers us. It forces the
marketplace to get smart too, and they haven't been. It is
pretty obvious by all of the stories told and by the millions
of products recalled.
Between what we can do, what the Centers for Disease
Control can do, what the Consumer Product Safety Commission can
do, and what the marketplace is already doing to these toy
manufacturers, there is a phenomenal economic penalty that is
going on out there at this moment. That, in combination,
refocuses us as it refocuses the American consumer in a way
that is critically important.
So the combination of it all, Madam Chairman, your
attention to it, the attention of this Committee and this
Congress, is going to be very critical in continuing the
writing of the next chapter in what I think is a great American
success story yet unfinished, from a legacy of our industrial
past where we simply did not know, to a State where we now know
it today and we are doing the right things, in combination with
the EPA and all of the agencies involved, and in cooperation
with the marketplace and the private sector to get it right and
keep it right for the American consumer.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
I think all Senators have really made a contribution.
Before I call on Mr. Gulliford, I want to put something in the
record. I think everyone who said that paint, on average, is
the biggest source of lead is absolutely correct. And everyone
who cited these statistics is absolutely correct. On average,
paint is a bigger source of lead. But for kids who have lead
toys like some of these here, the biggest source of lead can be
a toy. So everything we are doing on paint is commendable. And
by the way, there will be more we have to do, which we will be
talking about.
So what I want to put in the record is a list of some of
these products. I want to make a point here that the safety
level of lead in paint, and correct me if I am wrong here, is
600 parts per million. Anything above that is deemed unsafe. I
want to give you an example. Vinyl bibs recalled in Illinois,
1,000 ppm lead, 1,000. Remember, 600 is the level that is safe.
We have some other ones here. Vinyl lunch box, the one that is
in California, Spanish language, 16,000 parts per million lead;
Spider Man lunch box, 1,000 parts per million; a teething toy,
900 parts per million lead; bendable toys, 10,000, et cetera,
et cetera. And a jewelry chain from Claire's, it appears that
one has 30,000 parts per million and there is a hair clasp with
450 parts per million. I mean, this is what we will put in the
record.
[The referenced document can be found on page XXX.]
Senator Boxer. The point is, my colleagues, you are so
right. This is a success story that we have had here, but it is
getting ahead of us and we need to catch up to it.
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Craig. Those products you have just mentioned, how
many of those are manufactured offshore?
Senator Boxer. I would bet most of them. I would say the
vast majority.
Senator Craig. Nearly 100 percent, I would guess.
Senator Boxer. Probably close to that.
Senator Craig. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. And Madam Chair, all the toys recalled
have been recalled from China this year.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but the question I was going to ask,
maybe the witnesses would have this, they can be manufactured
overseas, but many times that is by American companies.
Senator Boxer. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. There, we could have some control.
Senator Boxer. Exactly.
Senator Inhofe. The question is going to be how are we
going to control those that are not American companies that are
made overseas.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. That is the difficult thing.
Senator Boxer. You are exactly right. It does present a
challenge, and that is why I am so happy that you are all here
because together we can meet this challenge. I know that we
can.
So anyway, James Gulliford, welcome. Go ahead. We will put
your whole statement in the record. If you could summarize in 5
minutes, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF JAMES GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PESTICIDES, PREVENTION, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Gulliford. Thank you. I do appreciate the fact that the
statement is entered.
Good morning, Madam Chairman and Senator Inhofe and members
of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before
you today to discuss our efforts at the Environmental
Protection Agency to prevent lead poisoning of our Nation's
children.
Lead is a pervasive problem and many offices at EPA are
working to protect public health and the environment from lead.
My remarks this morning focus on the lead-based paint program
under TSCA, which is the responsibility of my office. Due to
the leadership from this Committee and the Congress, there has
been, as pointed out by many of our speakers already, many of
the Senators this morning, remarkable progress in significantly
reducing childhood lead poisoning.
In 1978, there were 13.5 million children with elevated
blood lead levels in the United States. As a result of
persistent efforts by countless individuals and organizations
at the community and State levels, as well as our agencies,
that number has dropped by 2002 to 310,000 children. CDC is
currently compiling the most recent data which will be released
later this year, and we expect to see a further decline in the
number of children that are lead poisoned. We thank you for
your leadership in this area.
However, much work remains to be done because, as I think
everybody has stated, one poisoned child is one too many. EPA
is working hard toward the goal of eliminating lead poisoning
in children as a major public health concern by a goal date of
2010. With that goal in mind, let me discuss our current
program and the activities underway to meet that goal.
EPA's primary goal is to prevent children from being
poisoned and avoid the consequences associated with childhood
lead poisoning. We have an active multi-pronged program to
combat the majority of the remaining cases of elevated blood
lead levels in children, which are caused by lead paint and
related sources in older housing.
Our lead paint program includes a national regulatory
infrastructure, outreach and education programs aimed at those
most at risk, and educating those who can help address the
problem. The program also issues grants targeted to vulnerable
populations whose children are at most risk for lead poisoning.
EPA requires the training and certification of lead-based
paint professionals who conduct lead-based paint inspection,
risk assessment, and abatement services in residents and child-
occupied facilities such as day care centers. We require
practices for lead paint abatement that assure the work is done
adequately and safely. EPA, together with HUD, issued the rule
that mandates lead-based paint disclosure requirements for
sales and rentals of pre-1978 housing, thus ensuring that home
buyers and renters are made aware of lead-based paint hazards
and provides the right to a lead inspection before purchases.
Similarly, the pre-renovation education rule implements a
very simple concept that all owners or tenants of pre-1978
housing should be given basic information about lead poisoning
prevention before paint-disturbing renovations are started. EPA
also issued a rule on the identification of hazardous levels of
lead in dust and soil.
EPA is now developing a new rule, known as the Lead R&R
rule, which when completed in 2008 will minimize lead hazards
that result from the disturbance of lead-based paint during
renovation, repair and painting work. In 2006, EPA issued this
proposed rule covering renovation activities in housing.
Earlier this year, EPA issued a supplemental proposal to extend
these requirements to renovations in child-occupied facilities.
All together, EPA received more than 250 comments on the
proposed rules and held five public meetings around the
Country. Our deliberations regarding the content of this final
rule are underway. I can assure the members of the Committee
that we are giving serious consideration to your comments, as
well as to those that we receive from many other important
organizations.
As I mentioned earlier, EPA is part of a broad effort in
this Country to protect our children from the hazards of lead-
based paint. Our Federal partners, including HUD, CPSC, and CDC
also have many activities underway to eliminate these risks.
States and all levels of local government have set up programs
to identify and treat lead poisoning in children and to
rehabilitate deteriorated housing. Parents, too, are the most
important individuals who have helped greatly to reduce lead
exposure to their children by cleaning and maintaining their
homes, by having their children's blood lead levels regularly
checked, and by promoting proper nutrition.
So thank you for the opportunity to discuss these programs.
I appreciate your support and commitment to this work to better
protect our children from lead-based paint poisoning. I am
pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford follows:]
Statement of James B. Gulliford Assistant Administrator Office of
Prevention, Pesticides And Toxic Substances
introduction
Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Committee.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to
discuss the Agency's efforts to prevent lead-based paint
poisoning of our nation's children. Lead is a pervasive problem
and many offices at EPA have various activities occurring to
protect public health and the environment from lead. My
responsibilities focus on the lead-based paint program and its
activities.
background
Since the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
of 1992 (Title X) was enacted, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, together with the U.S. Departments of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Health and Human
Services (HHS), the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC),
as well as our State partners, have made significant progress
in eliminating childhood lead poisoning. In 1978, there were 13
and one-half million children with elevated blood lead levels
in the United States. By 2002, that number had dropped to
310,000 children, and it continues to decline. We expect the
Centers for Disease Control to release updated data later this
year. While we still have a significant challenge, particularly
in reducing the incidence of lead-poisoning in low-income
children, EPA is very proud of how its Federal, State, and
private sector partners have coordinated their efforts with the
public to better protect our children.
The Federal Government has phased-out lead in gasoline,
reduced lead in drinking water, reduced lead in industrial air
pollution, and banned or limited lead used in products such as
mini-blinds, food cans, glazed china and ceramic wear, crystal,
and residential paint. States and municipalities have set up
programs to identify and treat lead poisoning in children and
to rehabilitate deteriorated housing. Parents, too, have
greatly helped to reduce lead exposures to their children by
cleaning and maintaining homes, having their children's blood
lead levels regularly checked, and promoting proper nutrition.
current activities
EPA has an active, multi-pronged program to combat the
majority of the remaining cases of elevated blood lead levels
in children, which is caused by leaded paint and related
sources in older housing. EPA's primary goal is to prevent
children from being exposed to lead based paint hazards and
avoid the consequences associated with it. EPA's lead-paint
program includes a national regulatory infrastructure, outreach
and education programs aimed at those most at risk, and
educating those who can help address the problem. The program
also issues grants targeted to vulnerable populations whose
children are at risk for lead-poisoning.
Regulations:
EPA requires the training and certification of lead-based
paint professionals who conduct lead-based paint inspection,
risk assessment and abatement services in residences and child-
occupied facilities, such as day care centers. The Agency has
also set work practice standards for these professionals so
that lead-based paint activities are conducted safely,
reliably, and effectively (TSCA 402(a)). EPA requires that
trainers be accredited to ensure that training programs provide
quality instruction in current and effective work practices. In
addition, EPA has authorized individual States, Tribes, and
Territories to develop and administer training and
certification programs, thereby extending the reach of these
efforts. At present, 39 States, Puerto Rico, two Tribes, and
the District of Columbia, assisted by Federal grants, are
authorized to carry out this program, with EPA retaining direct
authority in the remaining areas.
EPA, together with HUD, promulgated the Residential Lead-
based Paint Real EState Disclosure Rule (Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA) 1018). This rule mandates lead-based paint
disclosure requirements for sales and rentals of pre-1978
housing, thereby helping to ensure that home buyers and renters
are made aware of lead-based paint hazards before deciding on a
dwelling, and, in the case of home buyers, guarantees the right
to a lead inspection before purchase.
The Pre-Renovation Education Rule implements a very
simple concept: all owners/tenants of pre 1978 housing (about
15 million housing units) should be given basic information
about lead-poisoning prevention before paint-disturbing
renovations are started (TSCA 406(b)).
EPA promulgated a rule on the Identification of Hazardous
Levels of Lead in Dust and Soil (TSCA 403). This rule defines
certain locations and conditions of lead-based paint, and
specific levels of lead in dust and soil that are most likely
to pose a health threat to children. These standards effect
disclosure provisions, the need to use trained, certified lead
workers, and control and abatement requirements for federally
owned and federally assisted housing. These standards were
based in part on the level of lead in blood (10 ug/dl) that CDC
considers to be elevated.
EPA is developing a Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program rulemaking. On January 10, 2006, EPA issued a proposed
rule for contractors working in residences. On June 5, 2007,
EPA issued a supplemental proposal to extend these requirements
to renovations in child-occupied facilities. Altogether, EPA
received more than 250 comments on the proposed rules, and in
addition received comment at five public meetings it held
around the country
The growing concern about lead in children's toys and
jewelry has resulted in close cooperation between EPA and CPSC
regarding concerns about the content of lead in toy jewelry. As
you aware, CPSC is currently engaged in a rulemaking effort to
address lead in children's jewelry. Earlier this year, EPA
notified more than 120 companies of their obligations under
TSCA section 8(e), which requires manufacturers, processors and
distributors of chemical substances to inform the Agency if
they obtain information that a substance presents a substantial
risk to health or the environment. EPA is also nearing
completion on a rule under TSCA section 8(d) which will require
manufacturers of lead in consumer products intended for use by
children to submit existing health and safety studies to EPA.
Through this rule, EPA hopes to obtain existing studies that
relate to lead content in children's products or children's
exposure to lead from such products.
Outreach and Education:
EPA conducts outreach with potentially affected parties in
the development of regulations to assist regulated parties in
complying with regulations, inform citizens of their rights
under these rules, inform the public about the nature of lead-
based paint hazards, and provide guidance on how to reduce
risks. Our partners at HUD and CDC partially fund these
activities and provide technical support. This outreach
includes:
A bilingual National Lead Information Center (1--800 424-
LEAD). The Center operates a national hotline handling more
than 28,000 contacts per year, distributes 2200 documents
annually and operates a national clearinghouse where best
practices are shared.
Development of materials, such as brochures and sample
real eState disclosure forms, needed to comply with regulatory
requirements.
Creation and distribution of educational materials and
national lead awareness campaigns for parents, homeowners and
renters, medical professionals, child-care professionals,
renovation contractors and ``do-it-yourselfers,'' and others.
This includes the award-winning, bilingual ``Get the Lead Out''
campaign to increase awareness of lead-paint hazards; and the
``Keep Your MVP in the Game'' campaign, with President Bush and
the slogan: Lead Poisoning Can Steal Your Child's Future.
Partnership programs with nonprofit groups and other
government agencies to conduct lead awareness/education
activities, particularly targeted to minority and urban
populations often most at risk. This includes the ``Chance of a
Lifetime'' campaign for Head Start Centers.
Outreach to Spanish-speaking populations in the United
States.
Grants Targeting Low-Income and Other Vulnerable Populations
EPA has developed several grant programs targeted to
populations still at risk for lead poisoning. These grants are
intended to reduce the incidence of childhood lead poisoning in
populations most at risk, and include grants targeted to:
federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia:
These grants support Tribal educational outreach and the
establishment of baseline assessments of Tribal children's
existing and potential exposure to lead-based paint and related
lead-based paint hazards. These include a grant to the Houlton
Band of the Maliseet Indians of Houlton, Maine. This grant
includes several lead poisoning prevention workshops, such as a
``Lead-free Babysitting'' course for all tribal child care
providers, a health fair where blood-lead screenings will be
conducted, and lead risk assessments and inspections at the
homes of young children.
Low-income communities with older housing: These grants
support the partnership of national organizations with
community-based organizations and local governments to improve
the environmental health of a community regarding lead
poisoning prevention. One example is a grant to the Alliance
for Healthy Homes which will partner with several local groups
to serve community members from four low income populations.
Activities will include lead-awareness training, lead-safe work
practices training, and to address substandard housing
conditions such as lead-based paint, through ordinance
development
Populations still at risk for elevated blood lead levels:
These grants, which are intended to reduce the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations, include
projects to: (1) reduce lead poisoning to target communities
with high incidences of elevated blood-lead levels; (2)
identify and reduce lead poisoning in under-studied communities
with high potential for undocumented elevated blood-lead
levels; and (3) develop tools to address unique and challenging
issues in lead poisoning prevention, especially tools that are
replicable and scalable for other communities. One example is
the grant to the Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska,
which supports blood-lead testing and home assessments through
collaborative partnerships with Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) and Well Child public health clinics.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss some of EPA's
contributions to prevent lead-based paint poisoning. Again, I
want to thank you for your support and commitment to our work
to better protect children from lead based paint poisonings. We
remain committed to the goal of eliminating lead poisoning in
children as a major health concern by 2010. I would be pleased
to address your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
As you know, you have gotten many letters from me and other
colleagues talking about your rule for renovation. When EPA
sets its cleanup standard for lead paint renovation by
contractors, will the agency base its standard on the most
recent scientific studies showing childhood impacts at low
blood lead levels?
Mr. Gulliford. We appreciate what we are learning from
science and what is emerging in the science area with respect
to the importance of lead poisoning. We recognize that the 10
microgram per deciliter level is not a standard, but rather it
is a health threshold on the part of CDC which they consider as
the appropriate level at which to intervene in actions at the
community level.
So we will not be basing our rule decisions on that as a
level or as a threshold. Rather, we will look at our concerns
for levels of lead exposure. Our rule will be designed to
reduce lead exposure to children, and our goal then is to
assure that children at not poisoned by activities related to
lead renovation and repair.
Senator Boxer. When are you going to have this rule done?
It sounds to me like you are not going to follow your science
advisors. You didn't answer it that clearly. You said a lot of
words, but I didn't hear you saying that you were going to
follow and go with the science advisors. When can we anticipate
this rule?
Mr. Gulliford. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We anticipate
completing the rule in the first quarter of 2008, which was our
commitment to the members of this Committee.
Senator Boxer. I was told it was going to be December 2007.
That is what I was told the last time. Now you are moving it to
when?
Mr. Gulliford. Our commitment has been to the first quarter
of calendar year 2008.
Senator Boxer. And you have not decided to follow your
scientific advisors urging you to use this data?
Mr. Gulliford. In fact, we are. We are listening very
carefully to the reports from CASAC.
Senator Boxer. So you will come out and reflect the science
on this, because we know kids are exposed at very low levels.
Mr. Gulliford. Our concern is through the rule, and our
goal for the rule will be to reduce exposure to lead that is
involved in the rehabilitation and repainting of homes. Our
goal will be to reduce lead exposure. Again, this threshold of
10 micrograms per deciliter is not, again, a part of our actual
determination for our lead rule. You are correct.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think you are going to have some
concern by members of this Committee, so some of us will want
to weigh in with you because now you are saying it is first
quarter of 2008.
OK. Are you aware that recent studies have found highly
leaded jewelry with almost half of the pieces exceeding 80
percent lead by weight remains widely available in U.S. stores?
And that electronic waste exported from the U.S. could be the
source of that lead? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes, I am.
Senator Boxer. Has EPA issued or does EPA plan to issue any
rule under TSCA to gather data on these exports or to control
the export of such waste to ensure that this waste does not
come back into this Country and threaten our children?
Mr. Gulliford. We are doing several things. One thing that
we are doing is we have developed a concept called ePIT, which
is designed to make the materials that are in computers and the
electronics industry more appropriate for the actual recycling
of them, again to reduce the content of----
Senator Boxer. Well, that is in the future. I am talking
about now. Look at this. I am talking about now. What are you
doing now to stop this from coming back into the Country, sir?
Mr. Gulliford. The actual programs that are in place to
control the import of child toys and other materials such as
you have here displayed today are under the purview of CPSC.
Senator Boxer. We understand. You have control over TSCA,
and what are you doing under TSCA to gather data on these
exports or to control the export of such waste to ensure that
it does not come back and kill our children or harm them?
Mr. Gulliford. Two things that we are doing is that we have
notified 120 companies of their obligation to inform EPA if
they obtain information that products they manufacture for
import present a lead poisoning risk to children. This is a
TSCA 8(e) action that we are taking.
Senator Boxer. So they have to inform you--I am just trying
to get this right--if they obtain information, but they don't
have to obtain the information? You don't tell them they must
test and let you know?
Mr. Gulliford. That is the authority that we have under
TSCA. And yes, that is their obligation.
Senator Boxer. What is their obligation?
Mr. Gulliford. Is to report any information to us that they
have, that they are aware of the content of unsafe levels of
lead poisoning risks to children.
Senator Boxer. And these are the electronic people. And
then what are you doing to make sure they don't come back into
the Country?
Mr. Gulliford. Madam Chairman, this is regarding any
products that are imported that contain lead that children
might be exposed to.
Senator Boxer. Look, I am very confused. I am going to
repeat the question one more time and then I am going to come
back to you in a minute.
Recent studies have found highly leaded jewelry with almost
half of the pieces exceeding 80 percent lead by weight remains
available in U.S. stores, and that electronic waste exported
from the U.S. could be the source of this lead. Has EPA issued
or plan to issue any rule under TSCA to deal with these
exports?
Mr. Gulliford. The exports----
Senator Boxer. Yes or no. Could you try me with yes or no?
Mr. Gulliford. The exports of material for recycling are
not subject to our rules. The import of any products that
contain lead that children might be exposed to are under the
purview of CPSC.
Senator Boxer. OK. So EPA does not plan under TSCA, because
you have been sued several times and lost in court on your
point that TSCA doesn't do anything. So what you are saying is
you have no plans to issue any rule under TSCA to gather data
on these exports.
Mr. Gulliford. On the exports of electronics?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Gulliford. From the United States?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Gulliford. No, we have no plans to issue a rule.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for answering the question.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am not going to take my full time. I really wanted to get
to the next panel because I am going to have to leave at noon.
But let me just start off by saying, Mr. Administrator, that as
the chart shows up here, we have done a good job. For those of
us who are not really the experts in this area, try to simplify
it for me. That is, as I said in my opening statement, 70
percent of the problem is in the paint, the things we have been
talking about. We are concerned about the other 30 percent
because that is what more directly affects the children.
It is kind of interesting. I am not sure what we tools we
have in this Country. I know what we can do about American
manufacturers who make things in China and bring them over
here. I am wondering what is out there and what is the proper
authority to go to do something about the toys that would be
coming in that were manufactured by Chinese manufacturers. Can
you draw that distinction and tell me what authorities we have
we could be more aggressive with?
Mr. Gulliford. The strongest authorities are within the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have an ANPR, an
advanced notice for proposed rulemaking, to ban, again, the
import of any products, and there is a threshold standard of
lead content in those products, for products that children
would be exposed to, much as the products that are again on the
table in front. That is the most appropriate action that we can
take.
Similarly, the U.S. Government is working on import safety
activities right now. HHS Secretary Leavitt has put together a
working group to address the challenges of import safety of all
products, not just products containing lead, but everything
from food to other products that come into commerce. One of the
aspects of that initial plan, the framework that has been
advanced, is to do more on the prevention side and to help
people understand why these issues are of concern for us, to
look for traceability in the manufacture of products.
So there are activities that are projected in those areas.
Senator Inhofe. OK. That is good. Let's go back to the 70
percent now, which we have been talking about on the rule. It
is my understanding this actually was written into law back in
1992 or so, and it actually mandated a deadline for the report
and for the rule itself by 1996. Am I incorrect in that?
Mr. Gulliford. I believe that is correct.
Senator Inhofe. I think that is, yes. This is something
that we didn't do it during the Clinton administration. It is
not done yet, and yet we are looking right now just down to a
few weeks in having this done. So in terms of the first quarter
of 2008, we will be looking at it.
I think it would be a good idea, Madam Chairman, for them
to let us know between now and then of the progress so that if
there is a problem in meeting that deadline that we would be
able to address it.
Getting back to CASAC, we have dealt with them I remember
during the previous Administration on a number of things. Do
you feel that you are getting the full benefit of the advice of
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes, we do. In fact, we actually took a
number of issues to them for their advice with respect to this
rule and we appreciated their comments. They gave us comments
on other areas that have been helpful as well.
With respect to your other question, Senator, we will be
happy to inform the Committee if at any point in time we
project that we will not meet that first quarter goal.
Senator Inhofe. That would be good.
The last thing I wanted to ask, we have a witness on the
next panel from the Homebuilders. They have been working on the
renovation rule. Have you had a dialog with them? Do you feel
that they are making progress in making a contribution to the
ultimate rule that we will be able to adopt?
Mr. Gulliford. I have had an opportunity to speak with
Homebuilders on this issue a number of times. They have
submitted studies that they have done. They have submitted
comments on the rule as proposed, like many other organizations
have. We have welcomed their comments. We have welcomed the
comments from the environmental community, from the health
officials as well. So all of those help to inform us, as well
as those comments from Members of Congress.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
In your testimony, you talked about how you have been
working in close cooperation in your written testimony with the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. I was speaking earlier in
my opening statement about how important it is to beef up that
organization. I wanted to know, beyond notifying companies of
their statutory obligations under the Toxic Substance Control
Act, what specific actions has the EPA taken to coordinate with
the CPSC in light of this crisis we are seeing with lead in
toys.
Mr. Gulliford. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
Let me mention two other very specific things that we did.
We did send a letter to CPSC expressing our concern for lead in
toys, our concern that is again a very unfortunate, but
pervasive opportunity or exposure pathway for children to be
exposed. And second, then, we also have initiated a rulemaking
at EPA. We did this in discussion with them, and notified CPSC
about that, that will require any companies with studies on
existing health and safety studies on lead in children's
products, not just toys, but all products, to make that data
available to us. So there would be a requirement for that. Any
failure to do so, then, would be subject to enforcement action
on our part.
Senator Klobuchar. And when do you expect to deliberate on
that rule?
Mr. Gulliford. That rule, we project to have that rule
about a year from now.
Senator Klobuchar. And when do you think you can have it
done?
Mr. Gulliford. Fall, late fall of 2008.
Senator Klobuchar. You know, I talked about Bob the Toy Guy
in the back room in the CPSC. Are there other ways that the
EPA, when you have a budget 10 times bigger than the CPSC, can
assist them in working with them in testing these products and
trying to find a way to make this work?
Mr. Gulliford. One of the things that we try not to do is
duplicate the actions or the authorities of other agencies. So
CPSC has worked on the issue of toy imports, children's
products that are imported. We are really focusing on the lead
in homes.
Also in other programs of EPA such as the Superfund
program, as you heard Senator Bond refer to, we have a number
of cleanups of areas where, again, children are exposed to lead
that is in their yards. So we are working in the areas that are
clearly within our identified authorities. We want to be
supportive of the other agencies, and we do that by again
exchanging information as we become aware of it related to
health issues. But again, we do not try and duplicate their
functions.
Senator Klobuchar. To get into that area that you have been
focusing on, and that is the questions that Senator Boxer was
asking you about the EPA regulation, the status of it, to
protect children and others. HUD issued their rule for assisted
housing I think it was back in 1998, and it took effect in
2001. I think people had expected that the EPA would quickly
follow suit right after this was issued in 1998. What took so
long? It has been 11 years after Congress required that the
rule be passed, and there is still not a final. I know she
asked you about the timing. I just don't understand why it
could take so long when HUD was able to do this back in 1998. I
think it is something like 1.1 million kids could be protected
who are potentially exposed to lead.
Mr. Gulliford. Senator, I came to this position in July of
last year with a commitment to this Committee to implement, to
finalize and complete this rule. I am committed to do that. I
also come with a strong concern for the safety of children with
respect to lead because of my experience in the region where we
had, as the Senator indicated, a lead smelter. We have the
largest cleanup Superfund site from the actions of the past, an
historic smelter. So my commitment is to what I can do.
Senator Klobuchar. I know. But do you know why, in your
current position have you heard why it took so long when HUD
was able to do it? We are just trying to make it better going
forward. I am new at this, but I come in and I find out that it
takes this many years to get something done. It doesn't make
any sense to me.
Mr. Gulliford. I can speak to my actions and my commitment
to completing the rule. I am not aware of the history.
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
The other thing I wanted to ask about was the standard that
you have, because we are working on the Commerce Committee as
we speak. In the next 2 weeks, we would like to get the bill
done here and we are working to get a web standard in there for
these toys. As Senator Boxer mentioned, there is a voluntary
standard right now and it is not a strict standard, but it is
600 parts per million. A lot of States have that, but we don't
have any set standard on the Federal level. So we were looking
at this 400 parts per million. Part of that was the standard
that you use for soil in children's play areas. Do you know
what this standard is based on, the 400 parts per million?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes. That is not a hard and fast standard,
but it is a cleanup standard that is used. It is a cleanup
guideline. Actually, in cases where lead cleanups of soil are
done, an effort is made to--while that may be a working point
to take off from, an effort is made to determine the
bioavailability that may be in those soils which may require a
more strict cleanup standard or a less strict cleanup standard.
But the goal is to develop a cleanup threshold that clearly is
protective for children.
Senator Klobuchar. And does the EPA use the same technology
as the CPSC to test for this lead? It is not a trick question.
I don't know the answer. I am just trying to figure it out as
we go forward here.
Mr. Gulliford. I don't know the answer to that. I know that
we have equipment that measures the existence of lead in soils,
and contractors use that equipment in the field regularly. Lead
is actually then collected for analysis to determine the
bioavailability of it. There is a test, I believe we always
refer to it in the field as the pig test, because somehow there
is some exposure. It is an animal test. I apologize for that,
but it is designed to determine the bioavailability of that
lead, and we can then transfer that to the potential for
children to be exposed from just that lead.
So there are a number of tests with respect to lead
important to the health industry, but also important even just
to the recognition. I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. I am so sorry to interrupt. We found out we
have a vote that is starting at around noon, so we are going to
have to move on.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. That is fine.
Senator Boxer. We will leave the record open.
I did have just one more follow up to you, and I will be
quick if I can.
In April, 2006, the Sierra Club petitioned EPA to require
manufacturers or importers of toy jewelry with .06 percent lead
to notify the EPA prior to manufacturing or importing these
articles. That would have been a huge step forward if you had
done something. I don't mean you personally, the agency.
In July, 2006, EPA denied this petition because, ``These
actions are not petitionable under TSCA Section 21.'' Our
attorneys believe under Section 5 the EPA does have this
authority. What is your opinion?
Mr. Gulliford. Those actions that we have taken as a result
of that petition and as a result of a lawsuit that followed up
with that, we believe are consistent with the TSCA authorities,
and those are the three things that I have described that we
have taken since, again, that initial petition by the Sierra
Club, again to request information on existing health studies,
to inform companies of their obligation to disclosure, and also
though to express our concern to CPSC for again the import of
products.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, you haven't issued a rule on this.
Do you plan to do that?
Mr. Gulliford. Pardon?
Senator Boxer. Do you plan to issue a rule on that?
Mr. Gulliford. We at this point do not plan to. We are
preparing, yes, a rule again that requires any companies that
import products, they are aware of health studies related to
those products to disclose them. Yes.
Senator Boxer. What if they are not aware?
Mr. Gulliford. Pardon?
Senator Boxer. What if they are not aware? I mean, that is
the weakest thing I have ever heard, but let me move on.
In April, 2006, Sierra Club petitioned EPA to issue quality
control orders if EPA found companies producing toy jewelry
that presents an unreasonable risk. Do you know what EPA said?
``Information suggests there may be numerous instances where
toy jewelry containing lead is still available in the
marketplace.'' They refused to do it because the problem was so
widespread. I mean, this is outrageous. And you know, I have to
say, just because we need to move on, sir. I respect that you
are trying to do your best, but I have to say you just tell a
parent, oh, that was the Consumer Product Safety job, not my
job. I will let them do it. People don't get it out there. This
is America. We are one national Government. We are supposed to
protect our kids.
So I just want to give you a little encouragement to be
stronger than the agency has been in the past. Because I will
tell you why, Senator Inhofe is 100 percent correct on the
great progress we have made with lead paint. This is a new
problem, and he is also right to say the vast majority is
coming from abroad. Some of these products are assembled in
America, however, and all of them have American toy company
labels, pretty much.
So you have more jurisdiction than you are stepping up to
the plate to handle. So we don't have enough time to debate
this anymore today, but I think you get the sense that although
we might disagree on how to move forward, I think all of us on
this Committee really want to address this matter. We think it
is something we can do together. So if you could go back and
talk to your lawyers and folks. We are going to follow some of
your progress. I think Senator Inhofe is right on that. Keep us
informed on how the rule is coming, the remodeling rule. We
will stay in close touch with you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Gulliford. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. If I could ask the next panel to come up.
Because of time, do it fast as you can. Get the lead out of
your feet. Where did that come from?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Because I know Senator Inhofe is
particularly interested in the homebuilding perspective, we are
going to start with that witness first.
OK. We are also going to ask our friends on the panel to go
from 5 minutes to 4 minutes, so do your best.
The vote hasn't been set yet, Senator, so that is good
news.
OK. We can go back to 5 minutes.
Let's see. Let's start with Mr. Nagel, because I think you
represent the National Association of Homebuilders, and I think
Senator Inhofe had asked that you go first, sir. Go right
ahead.
Mr. Nagel. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE NAGEL, CGR, CAPS, REMODELONE-DESIGN/BUILD
CONSTRUCTION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOMEBUILDERS, REMODELER'S COUNCIL
Mr. Nagel. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Mike Nagel.
I am a professional remodeler from Chicago, Illinois, and
Chairman of the NAHB Remodelers, a 14,000 member organization
within the Association of Homebuilders, the federation
representing 235,000 members in the homebuilding, remodeling,
multifamily, and light commercial construction industry.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of
professional remodelers using lead-safe renovation and repair
practices and reducing lead levels in older homes and helping
to eliminate instances of lead exposure. I will also discuss
ways that Congress can encourage lead-safe remodeling and
training for contractors and enhanced public awareness of the
danger of lead hazards in do-it-yourself projects in older
homes.
Despite decades of effort, lead poisoning remains a
critical problem facing young children living in older homes
and housing units. The CDC estimates that nearly 40 percent, or
38 million homes, in the U.S. may contain lead-based paint, but
those built after 1960 only make up about 2 percent, according
to HUD research. In 1978, strict limitations were imposed on
the use of lead paint, but the Nation's housing stock continues
to age and deteriorate, creating pathways for exposure. For
young children, lead exposure usually comes from ingesting
peeling paint, chewing or mouthing painted surfaces, or hand to
mouth exposure from dust.
Thus, with limited resources, it is crucial to focus
attention on pre-1960 privately owned housing units, which are
disproportionately inhabited by lower-income residents and
where young children are more likely to reside. The challenge
is to find the best way to improve the conditions of older
homes and to maximize the public and private sectors' resources
in reducing childhood lead exposure.
NAHB Remodelers have responded to this challenge by
implementing extensive training and public awareness programs,
and have worked cooperatively with the EPA and other advocacy
groups to promote voluntary programs for lead-safe work
practices.
Because we are dedicated to lead-safe remodeling, NAHB
commissioned an extensive research project in 2006 to carefully
analyze remodeling and renovation work as it is performed in
the field. The project collected air and surface samples from
unoccupied homes that contain lead-based paint in the areas of
the home where the remodeling work was conducted. In all, 342
air samples and 407 surface dust samples were collected from
five homes in the Northeast and Midwest. My written testimony
details more specifics about the research, but the results
confirmed that lead-safe work practices substantially reduced
lead dust loadings after remodeling work, and did not create
new hazards either on surfaces or in the air.
Furthermore, the research showed that the additional
control and cleanup methods can deliver even better results.
Unquestionably, lead-safe remodeling improves conditions in
older homes, but only if it is performed by professional
remodelers who are well trained and use specialized equipment.
If they are subject to additional regulations, inevitably some
homeowners, particularly lower-income households, will find it
cost-prohibitive to hire professionals, resulting in homeowners
either undertaking the work alone or, worse yet, doing nothing
at all, thus completely undercutting efforts by both the
Government and our members to eradicate childhood lead
poisoning.
As I have explained, our industry is undertaking a
comprehensive approach to educate, train and inform both
consumers and contractors about the necessity of lead-safe work
practices not only in lower-income households, but for all pre-
1978 homes. However, we need Congress to help coordinate and
combine resources of the Federal agencies working on these
issues, specifically, EPA, HUD and OSHA, and target pre-1960
homes where young children reside.
Furthermore, Congress should support the use of lead-safe
work practices for owners of multifamily properties and
remodelers who work in pre-1978 housing. NAHB also urges
Congress to fully fund the training requirements of HUD and EPA
lead-based paint regulations so they are functional and operate
as Congress intended.
Finally, Congress should ensure that professional lead-safe
remodeling is encouraged, and not saddled with costly
regulatory requirements that could pose a further disincentive
for homeowners to undertake necessary repair and renovation
work.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
progress the our members are making in the fight against
childhood lead poisoning. We share the common goal of
eradicating it entirely and professional remodelers are
committed to helping homeowners create a lead-safe environment
for their children.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagel follows:]
Statement of Mike Nagel, CGR, Caps, Remodelone-Design/Build
Construction, on behalf of the National Association of Homebuilders
Remodeler's Council
This written statement is respectfully submitted on behalf
of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on the
issue of children's health and lead. NAHB is a national
federation representing more than 235,000 members involved in
single family and multifamily home building, remodeling, light
commercial construction and housing finance. This testimony, as
presented by Mike Nagel, a professional remodeler from Chicago,
Illinois, and the current Chairman of the NAHB Remodelers, a
14,000-member organization within NAHB, details facts about the
strides that are being made by professionally trained
remodelers to reduce lead exposure for children living in older
homes throughout the United States.
introduction
Despite decades of effort and more than 10 years of
continually declining lead levels, lead poisoning remains an
important problem facing some of our nation's youth. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as
reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
approximately 40 percent of all U.S. housing units (about 38
million homes) have some lead-based paint.\1\ For the most
part, older homes are more likely to have lead-based paint
hazards because of the use of lead as a primary ingredient in
many oil-based interior and exterior house paints used
throughout the 1940's and 1950's.\2\ Though the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finally imposed strict
limitations on the use of lead in paint for toys, residences,
and public areas in 1978, the nation's stock of pre-1980
housing continues to age and deteriorate, and the deteriorated
paint creates pathways for lead exposure to the residents in
our homes who are the most easily susceptible to the damaging
effects of lead poisoning--children.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. EPA, 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program Proposed Rule. Chapter 3.2.3, page 10.
\2\Ibid., Chapter 3.1.1, page 1.
\3\Ibid., Chapter 3.1.1, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children are more sensitive to health problems from lead
exposure, often attributable to contact with lead in their
home. Young children are the most affected by lead in the home,
first because they are more likely to ingest contaminants and
other toxics by virtue of hand-to-mouth contact, and second,
because their central nervous system is still developing. The
most likely source is ingestion from peeling or cracking paint,
paint chips, chewing, mouthing painted surfaces, or through
leaded dust on the hands. Additionally, outside the home, lead
can arrive on the property through airborne emissions from lead
smelting, battery manufacturing, solid waste incineration,\4\
or even transportation. In whatever instance it occurs,
children with elevated blood lead levels are reported to have
lower IQ scores and face other challenges in mental and
intellectual development. Therefore, it is imperative that
something be done to address childhood lead exposure in older
homes that may be in disrepair, or that may contain lead-based
paint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\U.S. EPA. 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following passage in 1992 of Title X Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act,\5\ three Federal agencies--U.S. EPA,
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and OSHA and
one Presidential taskforce\6\ conducted research, developed
policies and regulations, and made recommendations on how to
reduce the risks of childhood lead-based paint poisonings from
deteriorated lead-based paint. Some important findings came
from national surveys for lead-based paint in housing conducted
in 1990 and again in 2001 by HUD. For example, HUD's surveys
found only 2 percent of the homes built after 1960 were likely
to contain any deteriorated lead-based paint, however that
percentage increased to 25 percent for homes built between 1940
and 1959, and finally increased to 56 percent for homes built
before 1940.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Title X (pronounced Title Ten) of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, P.L. 102--550
\6\Presidential Task Force Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A
Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards, February 2000.
\7\U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National
Survey of Lead & Allergens in Housing: Final Report, Volume I: Analysis
of Lead Hazards. Office of Lead Hazards Control, Washington, DC,
Page(s) 4--6 and 4--7, April 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armed with this data, it makes sense for Federal agencies
to target their control strategies on housing and areas of the
country where the greatest risks are known to exist. HUD's
findings, coupled with numerous government and university
studies, confirm that the focus should clearly rest on
addressing the housing of primary concern. As identified in
extensive research by CDC, HUD, and the President's Task Force
on Lead-Based Paint: ``The program (elimination of [Lead-Based
Paint] poisoning in children) should continue to emphasize
control of lead paint hazards in pre-1960 low-income privately
owned housing units where young children are expected to
reside.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks & Safety
Risks to Children, Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards, Washington, DC, Page 29.
February 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the challenge before us today is to recommend the
best way to leverage the combined resources of private and
government sectors to focus on those residential structures
(pre-1960) that pose the most significant risks of lead-based
paint exposure to children while still providing an adequate
level of protection for children across all income levels in
all housing built before 1980. NAHB's response to this
challenge is to ensure that all contractors and homeowners are
aware of lead-safe work practices and to recommend that Federal
and State agencies continue to focus their limited resources on
finding and eradicating lead hazards in child-occupied housing
built prior to 1960.
professional remodeling improves lead hazards
Extensive public debate has already taken place about who
should ultimately be held responsible for children's exposure
to lead-based paint in homes. While this debate goes on, NAHB
Remodelers are improving the conditions of our nation's older
homes by renovating, repairing, and repainting with lead-safe
work practices performed by trained remodeling professionals.
Furthermore, NAHB members continue to educate consumers about
the dangers of lead hazards in homes and the potential
consequences of unprofessional or unsafe do-it-yourself
remodeling activities that can exacerbate lead hazards and
actually create more health problems in the long term.
In 2006, NAHB commissioned a substantial research project
to measure the amount of lead dust generated by home
improvement contractors using typical renovation/remodeling
activities and to assess whether these routine activities
increased lead dust levels in the work area and the property.
This research was conducted by Atrium Environmental Health and
Safety Services, LLC (Atrium), an environmental research
services firm that employs a staff of Certified Industrial
Hygienists and environmental and health safety specialists who
evaluate, develop, and implement programs to minimize hazards
and comply with current environmental, health and safety
regulations, standards and guidelines.
The Atrium project consisted of onsite field data
collection from actual homes containing lead-based paint in the
Northeast and Midwest. During the data collection phase, 342
air samples and 407 surface dust samples were collected during
60 typical R&R activities in five separate, unoccupied
residential properties located in Roselle, Illinois;
Wallingford, Connecticut; Farmington, Connecticut; Cheshire,
Connecticut; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The project was designed
to evaluate routine remodeling and renovation activities that
normally occur in the marketplace and that represent the most
common jobs performed by renovation and remodeling firms. Lead
dust loadings were measured on the surfaces and in the air both
before and after the work took place. The remodeling and
renovation work itself was performed by trained and licensed
professional renovation and remodeling contractors in each of
the areas where the property was located and the final survey
data was reviewed by the National Center for Healthy Housing
(NCHH) as a means of quality control, in which NCHH conducted
statistical analyses of the sampling results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Atrium survey
project. NAHB is happy to provide the entire Atrium report, which is a
comprehensive and substantive analysis detailing the entire work
project including all recordable data collection results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the research showed a clear improvement in
the amount of lead dust loadings from nearly every type of
typical remodeling activity with the exception of mechanized
sanding events.\10\ The Atrium project data revealed that
renovation and remodeling activities did not create new lead
hazards and in all properties except one (Farmington,
Connecticut, where an unshrouded power sander was used
extensively), the lead dust loadings on surfaces were lower
after the remodeling contractors completed the work than when
they arrived. As for air exposure, the results also showed a
trend of reductions in airborne lead based on personal
breathing zone air sample results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Additionally, work practices identified by HUD as
``prohibited''--including open-flame burning, torching, or the use of
volatile paint strippers in an enclosed space--were explicitly avoided
in this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these results, the Atrium project data also
demonstrated that several practices, associated with lead-safe
remodeling and renovation generally, produced remarkable
reductions in overall lead dust loadings. For example, misting
surfaces with water during the renovation work showed a
significant reduction in airborne lead dust levels when
compared to events where no misting was used. Furthermore, the
use of a HEPA filter-equipped vacuum cleaner, combined with
either wet wiping or Swiffer mops during post-work clean-up
showed the greatest effect on reducing lead loading in surface
dust. Combining these two activities could reap even greater
benefits for reducing lead dust and further improving pre-work
conditions in lead-affected homes.
The overall conclusions of the Atrium project reinforce
what has been commonly believed among remodelers for a long
time: lead-safe remodeling and renovation activities performed
by a trained professional can remarkably improve lead dust
loadings in older homes. It is also our belief that it can
improve the health and welfare of the home's residents,
particularly young children. Ultimately, lead-safe professional
remodeling is one of the best lines of defense for reducing
lead exposure for children living in older homes and it should
be encouraged. The CDC agrees that the ``use of lead safe work
practices during renovation can advance the goal of primary
prevention of lead poisoning.''\11\ As leaders in the fight to
reduce lead hazards in homes, and reduce pathways to childhood
lead poisoning, we applaud the work of professional remodelers
and the substantial improvements they make to older homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\U.S. EPA, 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program Proposed Rule. Chapter 3.2.3, page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the dangers of do-it-yourself and lead
In the U.S. today, there are approximately 120 million
existing homes that embody the full range of structural and
environmental soundness. Many of these homes and older housing
units need serious renovation and repair work, but often this
work cannot be undertaken due to cost limitations, especially
for lower-income households. To their own detriment, some
individuals attempt to undertake this work via untrained
contractors or do-it-yourself projects, and consequently
dramatically increase instances of lead exposure for the home's
residents. In this regard, Congress has a real opportunity to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by
prescribing methods by which professional remodeling using
lead-safe work practices becomes the viable alternative to any
potentially harmful do-it-yourself venture, or worse, the
hiring of cheap contractors who are not adequately trained to
undertake the work.
Unfortunately, there are many cases in which lead poisoning
has resulted from home renovation activities undertaken by
well-intentioned homeowners who simply want, or need, to save
some money. In reality, hiring a professional trained in lead-
safe work practices usually costs more than doing it alone, or
contracting an untrained handyman. Professionals are more
careful, which increases the length of time of the project;
require specialized equipment (respirators, HEPA vacuums,
etc.); and often employ highly skilled laborers. For homeowners
who want to be frugal, or that want to complete a project in a
faster timeframe, it may seem infeasible or less desirable to
hire a professional. The option of choosing the untrained
contractor, or undertaking dangerous work alone, can become a
real, albeit worrisome, alternative because it appears to be
more affordable.
In light of this situation, there are a number of
regulatory factors that need careful consideration for
addressing childhood lead poisoning in older homes. For
example, the EPA will soon issue new regulations for
contractors conducting renovations, repair, and painting for
pre-1978 homes. Initial drafts of these proposed regulations
have included a mandatory testing requirement called a
``clearance test,'' or third-party verification requirement.
This clearance test will supposedly demonstrate that the
contractor took the necessary steps to ensure that the home is
below abatement-level lead levels after remodeling and
renovation activities are completed. NAHB has substantive
concerns with the concept of a ``clearance test,'' as well as
the impacts of such a test's cost on consumer decision making
when remodeling their home.
A clearance test is basically designed to prove an
elimination of the presence of lead in the home, which is
technically the task of abatement work not remodeling. The law
already deals separately with abatement regulations. Because
clearance testing cannot distinguish between lead from
remodeling versus lead that may have blown in the window, been
tracked in from outdoors on someone's shoes, or is present in
the house from some other source, the requirement seems
inappropriate in a remodeling context. The results of a
clearance test depend on the entire history of the house and
its neighborhood, and a remodeler simply is not responsible for
having this breadth of information.
Compliance with clearance test requirements will only be
enforced upon trained remodeling professionals, the very people
who are most likely to do the work safely. Unlike these
individuals, the law does not apply to homeowners who do the
work themselves or to untrained contractors. Neither of these
two groups has the adequate knowledge, equipment, nor training
to undertake lead-safe work practices, nor will they be
required to verify or confirm that the presence of lead in the
home has been eliminated. This is an incredibly important
distinction because clearance testing will add additional costs
only for the professionally trained remodeler. So, choosing a
professional, in this instance, who will be subject to
clearance testing requirements is even less affordable to
consumers who may already have cost constraints.
It has been established that lead-safe remodeling
activities performed by professionally trained remodelers
improve the condition of the home, in terms of lead exposure.
This should be good for the health and quality of life for the
home's occupants, especially children. If the government
imposes a regulatory requirement like a clearance test on
professional remodelers that further increases costs of hiring
them, it could create a real disincentive for residents to get
lead-safe remodeling in the homes with the most critical repair
and renovation needs. Specifically, lower-income households
that lack the financial resources to pay for lead-safe
professional remodeling are disproportionately the ones who
live in homes that are in the greatest need of repair.
Potentially, the higher cost could create an incentive for
low-income consumers to do nothing at all, which further
undercuts the broader goal of eradicating childhood exposure to
lead.
recommendations--education and training programs
There is clear benefit to the safety of children and proven
reductions in lead exposures in older homes from professional
remodeling. NAHB recommends that a combined public and private
education and training program for home buyers, homeowners,
remodelers and home improvement contractors would help increase
public awareness of the dangers of lead exposure in older
homes. This effort has already begun in the remodeling
industry, but additional help is needed.
At the national level, NAHB has taken several steps in the
last 20 years to increase consumer education on lead-safe work
practices. NAHB has distributed materials to all its members
about training and lead-safe work practices from HUD, the
U.S. EPA, and OSHA. In 1993, NAHB began distributing its
own publication What Remodelers Need to Know and Do About Lead
regarding the dangers of prohibited practices (torching, belt-
sanding, scraping) and the importance of proper post-work
clean-up techniques that minimize lead dust exposure in both
the work area and the property. NAHB began a public/private
partnership with EPA in the late 1990's to establish a
voluntary program to address lead-based paint issues during
remodeling and renovation and has continually supported robust
training programs for remodelers and renovators that work in
pre-1978 homes.
NAHB also sponsors education courses for builders and
remodelers at its annual International Builders Show, and in
other conference settings. In fact, many NAHB Remodeler members
teach courses in lead-safe work training and mastering lead-
safe work techniques. Education and training has been
incredibly successful and continues to highlight the importance
of having adequately trained and knowledgeable remodeling
professionals to perform renovation and repair work in older
homes.
In addition to the efforts noted above, NAHB urges Congress
to do the following:
Instruct and ensure that HUD and the U.S. EPA target the
limited resources and enforcement assets concerning mandatory
lead hazard evaluation and reduction toward those units
constructed prior to 1960 and likely to be occupied by a child
under the age of six.
Support the development and use of voluntary training and
lead-safe work practices for owners of multifamily properties
and remodelers who work in residential properties built from
1960--1978 and are believed to contain lead-based paint.
Direct HUD, the U.S. EPA, and OSHA to work together to
reconcile the differences in work practices and allow
reciprocity for training and certification requirements for
remodelers and multifamily property owners to facilitate
achieving the goals of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in
the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
Fully fund the training requirements in the HUD and U.S.
EPA lead-based paint regulations so that they can operate and
function as Congress intended.
conclusions
Professional remodeling, renovation, and repair work,
performed by knowledgeable, trained contractors, can serve as
an agent against spreading lead hazards in older homes and
further endangering the health and welfare of our nation's
children. NAHB urges Congress to work with the relevant Federal
agencies (HUD, U.S. EPA, and OSHA) to coordinate efforts, to
fully fund important lead-safe training programs, and to
effectively use the combined resources in a way that maximizes
outcomes. NAHB cautions against imposing inappropriate and
costly regulatory burdens on professional remodelers that would
be cost-prohibitive for consumers to hire trained professionals
or that could lead to further proliferation of potentially
harmful do-it-yourself projects. NAHB is working hard to
promote the value of lead-safe work practices and the benefits
of professional remodeling for older homes and encourages
effort by Congress.
NAHB Remodelers are working hard to educate consumers,
train professionals, and perform lead-safe work practices.
Research data confirms that lead-safe remodeling and renovation
improves lead levels in older homes, and that new hazards are
not created when typical remodeling and renovation activities
are undertaken by trained professionals. NAHB has invested
significant resources in both education and research about the
benefits of lead-safe work practices and looks forward to
working with Congress to expand on efforts like these in the
future.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3577.100
Responses by Mike Nagel to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. How do we avoid creating a disincentive for individual
homeowners to take matters into their own hands and repair and
inadvertently increase the lead hazards to their chilren?
Response. The best way to avoid consumer disincentives is to ensure
that professional remodeling remains affordable to those who live in
/target housing. This is accomplished by reducing unnecessary or
excessive costs from training, extensive recordkeeping, cleaning
verification (third party abatement-style clearance testing as
suggested by some health advocates) and maintaining liability
insurance. The economic analysis EPA prepared for the Lead: Renovation,
Repair and Paint (RRP) rule addresses the first three of these cost
centers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule, (February
2006).
a. The benefits of the rule shown in EPA's economic analysis
can only be actualized if a professional remodeler performs the
work. In as much as the benefits from the rule scarcely
outweigh the costs, there are little benefits if a homeowner or
black-market contractor does the RRP project and no benefit if
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nothing is done.
b. Cleaning verification, or the more arduous dust-wipe
clearance testing provides very little benefit to achieve the
desired outcome.
i. EPA's economic analysis states that clearance testing
only adds a 2 percent benefit to the proposed rule and that
98 percent of the benefit is achieved by cleaning to a
level of no visible dust and debris.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule, ch. 7, p. 19
(February 2006).
ii. In a survey done by NAHB, 81 percent of consumers, who
were fully aware of the dangers of lead, were not willing
to pay $200 extra on a remodeling project for a clearance
test. This amount is a far cry from the actual costs of
clearance testing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\National Association of Home Builders, Report on Lead Paint Test
Survey (April 2007) (NAHB Report).
iii. This unwillingness to pay for clearance testing marks
a crucial disincentive for homeowners. Along with the
requirement to disclose ``the presence of any known lead-
based paint'' (40 CFR745.100), these disincentives provide
strong motivation for homeowners to avoid complying with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rule and performing the renovations themselves.
c. Some training costs are unavoidable as training in lead-safe
work practices is essential to the performance of proper
procedures in renovating target housing. However, the proposed
rule imposes a training regime that is unnecessarily costly
because of its inflexibility, inconsistency and authorizing
states, territories and tribes to establish their own training
programs.
i. Inflexible--the 8-hour training requires 2 hours of
hands-on training, which eliminates the option of distance
learning, video, or internet training.
ii. Inconsistent--individuals, renovation firms, and
trainers are working on different timelines for re-
certification. Individuals and firms re-certify every 3
years; training course re-accreditation occurs every 4
years. If training courses need to be updated every 4
years, then renovator refresher and firm re-certification
should follow the same timeline.
iii. Grandfathering'--remodelers who have already taken the
approved HUD/EPA ``Lead Safety for RRP'' is not addressed
in the rule.
iv. State/Local Program--Under EPA's proposed rule, either
states or EPA can provide certification to remodeling
firms. However, remodeling firms that work in metropolitan
areas bordering multiple states (e.g., Chicago, IL, New
York City, NY, Washington DC, St. Louis, etc.) face
multiple State licensing fees to comply with the same
Federal requirement. Therefore, training program
accreditation should remain with EPA alone. By retaining
responsibility for training accreditation, the rule can
avoid an unnecessary patchwork of differing State
requirements.
Considering the monumental task of training a sufficient
professional base, EPA estimates in its economic analysis that a
minimum of 311,000 certified renovators, expanding opportunities for
training, `grandfathering' and consistency are required.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule Table 4--14
(February 2006).
d. The recordkeeping requirements for the proposed rule are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
onerous and unrealistic.
i.The rule does not tie the record of the remodeling event
to the property, where it would be accessible for
subsequent purchasers or clientele of a child occupied
facility.
ii. They require meticulous detail concerning every
procedure--remodeling, cleaning, waste-handling,
certification, the posting of signs, even copies of
certified renovators training certificates, etc.
iii. Certain document retention is unrealistic. For
example, ``documentation of compliance'' can be defined as
requiring the firm to keep dust wipes on file for 3 years
after a project. In a filing cabinet, those dust wipes are
subject to contamination from sources foreign to the
project it is representing, rendering the wipes invalid and
subjecting the firm and renovator to noncompliance and the
liability associated with it.
Moreover, the excessive paperwork generated by the recordkeeping
requirements violates the principles of the Paperwork Reduction Act. A
simple checklist that identifies which renovation activities were
undertaken, lists certified renovators' registration numbers and a
simple statement of compliance that begins ``Under penalty of law. . .
'' could remedy the recordkeeping difficulties.
e. There is a lack of available liability insurance for
remodelers who disturb or might disturb lead-based paint. Most
policies contain ``absolute pollution exclusions'' which
exclude coverage for claims from RRP projects generating
presumed pollutants, including lead. There is also no
regulatory ``safe harbor'' for remodelers who perform RRP. In
1992, the Senate requested the feasibility of standards for a
``safe harbor'' that exempted owners and lenders from liability
if particular procedures and demonstrable compliance were
achieved.\5\ Remodelers working in target housing should be
given similar consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs,
Senate Report P.L. 102--550, Housing and Community Development Act of
1992, S. Rep. No. 102--332, p. 12 (July 23, 1992)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anecdotally, an NAHB remodeler member in Rhode Island recently had
liability coverage canceled by the insurer after the company realized
the member was working in homes, which may be contaminated with lead.
Question 2. What is the likelihood that remodelers will just avoid
performing renovations of homes built proir to 1978, therefore keeping
older housing ina state of continual deterioration?
Response. The likelihood that many remodelers will avoid working in
pre-1978 houses is extremely high, as a means to avoid non-compliance
with the proposed rule, as expressed in the response to Question 1.
Avoiding the repair or remodeling of a home is the worst-case scenario
for the nation's older housing stock. A 2003 study acknowledged that
simply cleaning dust and debris without addressing potential sources of
lead dust is ``unlikely to result in significant and sustained
reductions in dust lead loadings.''\6\ Similarly, remodeling done by
the homeowner or untrained contractor is also hazardous and does not
lower dust lead loadings, but in fact increases dust lead loading
levels and increases the potential for childhood lead poisoning (1999
U. of Iowa & 1999 EPA Wisconsin studies). Moreover, in situations where
untrained do-it-yourself renovations occur, children may be underfoot,
the children's eagerness to help tragically endangering their own
health. Likewise, in renovations done by untrained contractors, work
areas not cordoned off and left exposed pose sure risks for lead
poisoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Tohn, E.R., et al., ``An Evaluation of One-time Professional
Cleaning in Homes with Lead-based Paint Hazards.'' Applied Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene, 18 no.2, 138--143 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response. Studies by EPA/Battelle (2007), NAHB (2006), and the New
Jersey School of Medicine (2004) all established that professional
remodeling reduces lead dust loading levels from their pre-construction
levels. These studies also demonstrated which practices should be
prohibited and identified instances in which extra care needs to be
taken, i.e., cleaning rough surfaces.
Question 3. Are you concerned that contractore may be held
responsible for lead tht remains in the home after the work is
completed, even when the lead condition is drasticlly improved?
Response. Yes, NAHB Remodelers are concerned with potential
liability for lead sources left in homes after remodeling activities
are completed. Both Congress and the EPA have recognized that abatement
and renovation are separate activities.\7\ 40 C.F.R.745.83 states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\15 USC2682(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response. Renovation means the modification of any existing
structure, or portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of
painted surfaces, unless that activity is performed as part of an
abatement as defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation
includes (but is not limited to): the removal or modification of
painted surfaces or painted components (e.g., modification of painted
doors, surface preparation activity (such as sanding, scraping, or
other such activities that may generate paint dust)); the removal of
large structures (e.g., walls, ceiling, large surface replastering,
major re-plumbing); and window replacement.
and 40 C.F.R.745.223 reads:
Abatement does not include renovation, remodeling, landscaping or
other activities, when such activities are not designed to permanently
eliminate lead-based paint hazards, but, instead, are designed to
repair, restore, or remodel a given structure or dwelling, even though
these activities may incidentally result in a reduction or elimination
of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement does not include
interim controls, operations and maintenance activities, or other
measures and activities designed to temporarily, but not permanently,
reduce lead-based paint hazards.
Any removal of lead sources during renovation activities is
strictly coincidental and remodeling does not require the complete
removal of all sources of lead. As stated in response #1, there is no
``safe harbor'' for remodelers who use lead-safe work practices and
demonstrate compliance with the proposed rule. The Senate Committee
said,
The task force would, in particular, consider the efficacy of
adopting measures to reduce the liability of lenders and owners of
multifamily housing by clarifying standards of care or adopting a
statutory ``safe harbor''. The Committee expects that the task force
would consider whether it makes sense to develop a set of standards
that, if followed by owners and lenders, would adequately protect
building residents from exposure to lead-based paint. Owners or lenders
who could demonstrate compliance with such standards would be exempted
from liability for harm that resulted in spite of their exercise of
``due care.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Supra n. 5, S. Rep. No. 102--332 at----(1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These thoughts were expressed during deliberation of Title X. While
the quote addresses owners and lenders, at this time the same
consideration should be afforded the remodeler who legitimately
complies with the proposed rule. Current insurance products contain
``absolute pollution exclusions'' for contaminants including lead. The
proposed RRP rule exposes remodelers to potentially excessive legal
responsibilities with no statute of limitations and no relief for those
complying with the rule.
In homes with significantly deteriorated surfaces, such as degraded
wood floors and windowsills, several studies have shown that although
lead-safe work practices significantly reduced dust loadings, the
degraded surfaces still did not meet abatement clearance standards (40
ug/sq. ft. on floors, 250 ug/sq. ft. on sills).\9\ While the Yiin 2004
study stated that ``extra care may be necessary on rough surfaces,''
the core of the study proved clearance was achieved only 95 percent--98
percent using LSWP cleaning techniques. Additionally, in an
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute study on
carpets, there were no significant reductions in lead dust loadings
when using either a standard vacuum or a HEPA-filtered vacuum.\10\
These are instances where remodelers are potentially liable for lead
dust not generated by RRP activities, but which simply exist in the
conditions prevalent in the dwelling and for which they bear no
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\National Association of Home Builders, Lead-Safe Work Practices
Survey Project Report (November 9, 2006). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after renovation, Repair
and Painting Activities (January 2007). Yiin, L. et al., Evaluation of
Cleaning Methods in Home Environments after Renovation and Remodeling,
Environmental Research, 96 no. 2, 156--162 (2004).
\10\Yiin, L., et al., ``Comparison of Techniques to Reduce
Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and Upholstery: The New Jersey
Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial.'' Environmental Health
Perspectives, 110 no. 12, 1233--1237 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response by Mike Nagel to an Additional Question
from Senator Boxer
Question. EPA recently proposed to include certain child occupied
facilities in its lead paint renovation reulemaking.
Does the National Association of Homebuilders support this
expansion of the rule?
Response. NAHB does support the expansion of this rule to child
occupied facilities (COF) and NAHB has stated its support in the most
recent comments to the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM).\11\ NAHB believes this expansion can help meet the goal of
eradicating childhood lead poisoning. However, there are some concerns
that the COF only closes a minor `loophole' in reaching that goal. The
major problem is that it does not include do-it-yourself property
owners in target housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lead; Renovation, Repair
and Painting Program, 72 Fed. Reg. 31022 (supplemental notice June 5,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not EPA decides to apply
the proposed rule to COF, the majority of renovations covered under the
proposed rule (above the two-square feet de minimis disturbance) will
never be affected.\12\ Homeowners, who are not covered by the proposed
rule, perform the vast majority of these projects. This homeowner
exclusion is the single largest loophole under EPA's proposed rule.
While NAHB is not aware of any national data that attempts to quantify
this gap in coverage, the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing
Studies estimated in 2007 that approximately half of all of the
``major'' remodeling work (defined with a monetary value of $5,000 or
more) was performed by do-it-yourself-ers.\13\ Given these facts, NAHB
believes the current loophole allowing untrained homeowners to perform
renovations means that the vast majority of activities that disrupt
lead-based paint in target housing will never be covered by EPA's
proposed RRP rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program, 71 Fed. Reg. 1588, 1628 (proposed Jan. 10, 2006)
(to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 745)., see proposed 40 C.F.R.745.82
\13\Joint Center for Housing Studies, Foundations for Future Growth
in the Remodeling Industry (Harvard University Press. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the expansion in the supplemental notice to include
COF has many of the same pitfalls of the original proposed rule and
poses additional concerns.
a. The definition of COF is vague. The formula for deciphering
what is a COF is confusing and certainly, a more
straightforward method to determine a COF should be
established.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\72 Fed. Reg. 31022.
b. The notification requirements for the COF provision are
problematic. The SNPRM requires remodelers to inform clients of
the COF about the RRP activities. The remodeler has no
contractual connection to the COF client, as he or she is a
``subcontractor'' of the facility's proprietor. These
requirements would expose remodelers to further potential tort
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
claims.
c. Owners and lessees of COF have a disincentive to call on
professional remodelers because of increased costs that a
remodeler would have to absorb from the rule. Peer-reviewed
research has documented that ``do-it-yourself-ers'' and
untrained personnel leave facilities dirtier (with a higher
lead dust loading level) than before the renovation was done. A
comparison of the Yiin 2004 study to a University of Iowa 1999
study show that professional remodelers clean work areas better
than homeowners and landlords.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Yiin, 2004; Erte, LA, et al., An Evaluation of Effectiveness of
Lead Paint Hazard Reduction when Conducted by Homeowners and Landlords,
Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14 no. 8, 522--525
(1999).
d. There are no ``safe harbors'' for remodelers who comply with
the rule and remodelers are open to tort claims well after
renovations are complete. The SNPRM did not address these
liabilities and lack of insurance products available to
professional remodelers working in COF with lead paint and the
expansion of any claims to clients of the COF.
e. Cleaning verification or clearance testing blurs the line
Congress established between renovation and abatement.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
Now, we are in fact going to have a vote at noon, so we are
going to have to go back to our 4 minutes.
Dr. Lanphear, we welcome you. You are a doctor. You are
Director of Cincinnati Children's Environmental Health Center,
Professor of Pediatrics and Environmental Health. Go ahead,
sir.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
Now, we are in fact going to have a vote at noon, so we are
going to have to go back to our 4 minutes.
Dr. Lanphear, we welcome you. You are a doctor. You are
Director of Cincinnati Children's Environmental Health Center,
Professor of Pediatrics and Environmental Health. Go ahead,
sir.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE P. LANPHEAR, M.D., MPH, DIRECTOR, CINCINNATI
CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER; PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Dr. Lanphear. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer, Senator
Inhofe.
Despite the dramatic decline in children's blood lead
concentrations, which were unquestionably due to the dramatic
reductions in environmental lead exposure, rather than
educational efforts, which we continue to rely on for children
who have blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per
deciliter, lead toxicity remains a major public health problem.
Exceedingly low levels of exposure to environmental lead
have been associated with an increased risk of diminished
intellectual ability, reading problems, ADHD, school failure,
and even criminal behavior in children and young adults.
Moreover, there is no evidence of a threshold for the
adverse consequences of lead exposure. Indeed, studies show
that the detriments in children's intellectual abilities are,
for a given increase in blood lead concentration, greater at
blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter than
for the same level of exposure at blood leads above 10.
On average, there is an estimated two to three IQ point
decline for children whose blood lead levels increase from 10
to 20 micrograms per deciliter, but there is an estimated
decline of four to seven IQ points at blood lead levels below
10 micrograms per deciliter.
Thus, if we continue to rely on the 10 microgram per
deciliter cutoff, which all of us continue to refer to here
today, we will fail to protect children. Indeed, we will fail
to protect the vast majority of children, over 90 percent of
children, who are adversely affected by lead exposure.
But scientists and pediatricians are finding that the
affects on intellectual abilities are only the tip of the
iceberg. Overall, 8.7 percent of U.S. children are estimated to
have ADHD. In a nationwide survey, we found that children were
four times more likely to have doctor-diagnosed ADHD and to
take ADHD medication if they had blood lead levels above two
micrograms per deciliter. We estimated that one in five
children's cases of doctor-diagnosed ADHD can be attributed to
low-level lead exposure.
There is increasing evidence linking lead exposure with
conduct disorders, delinquency and criminal behaviors even at
levels considerably lower than the 10 microgram per deciliter
action level set by CDC. But lead's effects extend beyond
childhood. In adults, lead exposure has been associated with
some of the most prevalent diseases of industrialized society--
cardiovascular disease, miscarriage, chronic kidney disease,
and accelerated cognitive decline--at levels commonly observed
throughout the United States population.
Consistent with research on childhood lead exposure, there
is emerging evidence indicating that the risk for death from
heart attacks and stroke, as well as the risk for chronic
kidney disease, increase at blood lead levels considerably
lower than 10 micrograms per deciliter.
The key to prevention is to eliminate environmental lead
exposure. Federal agencies use a variety of standards for
unacceptable lead content. It is critical to recognize that all
of the existing standards were promulgated long before the
research demonstrated the harmful effects at blood lead levels
below 10 micrograms per deciliter.
The recommendations that I have are, first, the U.S. EPA
should request the National Academy of Sciences to update the
report on protecting infants, children and pregnant women. This
report should review and synthesize the existing evidence about
sources of lead intake. They should evaluate the adverse
affects of lead at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per
deciliter; review and synthesize existing evidence about the
primary prevention of lead exposure; and make recommendations
about the primary prevention of lead exposure.
The U.S. EPA should heed the advice of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee and lower the national ambient
air quality standard for lead to a level no greater than 0.2
microgram per meter cubed. As recommended by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, the U.S. EPA should reduce the
existing residential dust lead standards, which are
insufficient to protect children at blood lead levels of 10
micrograms per deciliter, let alone children below that value.
Finally, as recommended by the American Academy of
Pediatrics and other groups, Federal agencies should require
all products intended for use by or in connection with children
to contain no more than trace amounts of lead.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanphear follows:]
Statement of Bruce P. Lanphear, M.D., MPH, Director, Cincinnati
Children's Environmental Health Center; Professor of Pediatrics and
Environmental Health
Prior to 1970, lead poisoning was defined by a blood lead
concentration of 60 ug/dL or higher--a level often associated
with overt signs or symptoms such as abdominal colic,
encephalopathy or death (1). Since then, the blood lead
concentration for defining lead toxicity has gradually been
reduced from 60 ug/dL to 40 ug/dL in 1971, to 30 ug/dL in 1978,
and to 25 ug/dL in 1985. In 1991, the Centers for Disease
Control further reduced the definition of undue lead exposure
to a blood lead concentration of > 10 ug/dL (1).
Children's blood lead concentrations have declined
dramatically over the past 30 years. In the 1970's, 88 percent
of U.S. children younger than 6 years were estimated to have a
blood lead concentration > 10 ug/dL (2). When lead was at long
last banned from paint, lead solder in canned foods and phased
out of gasoline, children's blood lead levels plummeted (2). By
the early 1990's, fewer than 5 percent of children younger than
6 years were estimated to have blood lead concentrations > 10
ug/dL (3).
Despite the dramatic decline in children's blood lead
concentrations, lead toxicity remains a major public health
problem. Exceedingly low-levels of exposure to environmental
lead have been associated with an increased risk for reading
problems, ADHD, school failure, delinquency and criminal
behavior in children and adolescents (4--9). Moreover, there is
no evidence of a threshold for the adverse consequences of lead
exposure (10--13). Indeed, studies show that the decrements in
intellectual function are, for a given increase in blood lead
concentration, greater at blood lead levels < 10ug/dL (10--13),
the level considered acceptable by the Centers for Disease
Control. On average, there is an estimated decline of 2 to 3 IQ
points for children whose blood lead levels rise from 10 to 20
ug/dL, but there is an estimated decline of 4 to 7 IQ points
for children whose blood lead levels rise from 1 ug/dL to 10
ug/dL (10--11).
Lead's effects extend beyond childhood. In adults, lead
exposure has been associated with some of the most prevalent
diseases of industrialized society: cardiovascular disease
(14--15), miscarriage (16), renal disease (17--18) and
cognitive decline (19). Consistent with research on childhood
lead exposure, there is emerging evidence indicating that the
risk for death from heart attacks and stroke, as well as the
risk for chronic kidney disease, occur at blood lead levels
considerably lower than 10 ug/dL.
The key to primary prevention is to eliminate environmental
lead exposure. Federal agencies use a variety of standards for
unacceptable lead content. It is critical to recognize that all
of these standards were promulgated long before research
demonstrated the harmful effects of lead at blood lead levels
below 10 ug/dL. Because there is no known safe level of lead
exposure, exposure to lead below these existing standards
should not be considered ``safe.''
Prevention of lead toxicity will, first and foremost,
require a declaration of the full scope of the problem. Thus,
the CDC's level of concern should be lowered to a blood lead
level < 5 ug/dL because society cannot respond to a threat
until it first acknowledges it. It will require the revision of
regulations to further reduce airborne lead exposure; screening
of high-risk, older housing units to identify lead hazards
before a child is exposed--before occupancy, after renovation
or abatement; reductions in allowable levels of lead in water;
and stricter regulations and enforcement on the allowable
levels of lead in toys, jewelry and other consumer products.
Finally, protecting children will require eliminating all non-
essential uses of lead.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The US EPA should request the National Academies of
Science to update the Report on Protecting Infants, Children
and Pregnant Women. This Report should review and synthesize
the existing evidence about sources of lead intake; evaluate
the adverse effects of lead at blood lead levels < 10 ug/dL;
review and synthesize existing evidence about primary
prevention of lead exposure and; make recommendations about the
primary prevention of lead exposure.
2. The US EPA should heed the advice of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee and lower the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard NAAQS) for Lead to a level no greater than
0.2 ug/m3.
3. As recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, the U.S. EPA should review the existing residential
dust standards to ensure that they are sufficiently low to
protect children.
4. The US EPA should review the water lead standard to
ensure that it is sufficiently low to protect children.
5. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the Federal Government should require all products intended for
use by or in connection with children to contain no more than
trace amounts of lead.
6. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the US EPA should define a ``trace'' amount of lead in consumer
products as no more than 40 ppm, the upper range of lead in
uncontaminated soil.
7. As recommend by the American Academy of Pediatrics,
``children's product'' should be defined to ensure it will
cover the wide range of products used by or for children under
the age of 12 years.
8. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the limit on lead content must apply to all components of the
item or jewelry or other small parts that could be swallowed,
not just the surface covering.
9. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,
legislation or regulations should limit the overall lead
content of an item, rather than only limiting lead content of
its components.
------
Responses by Bruce P. Lanphear to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Have you been involved in reviewing EPA's
scientific documents dealing with the agency's lead paint
renovation rulemaking and clean air protection against lead
exposures?
Response. I have served as a member of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee for the ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Lead'' and the ``Lead Repair, Renovation
and Paint Rule''.
Could you please give me your opinion on whether the EPA is
moving in the right direction, or the wrong direction, in these
regulatory processes by using recent scientific studies to
protect children's health from lead exposure?
I was pleased with the deliberations and advice of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee about the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead. I was equally satisfied
with the recommendations of EPA Staff on Lead NAAQS, which were
remarkably consistent with the CASAC's advice. In contrast, I
was disappointed and troubled by the EPA's Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).
The ANPR showed surprising disregard for scientific
evidence, the NAAQS review process and the mandate to protect
public health. After citing the scientifically based advice and
recommendations of the CASAC and Agency staff, the ANPR made it
clear that options which had already been examined and
dismissed on scientific grounds by both CASAC and EPA staff
would be considered for the primary lead standard. Based on the
scientific evidence and the review process, the ANPR should
have retained lead as a criteria air pollutant and indicated
that the lead standard would be dramatically lowered from its
current value of 1.5 ug/m3--established over 30 years ago when
blood lead levels lower than 30 ug/dL were considered
acceptable for children--to a value less than 0.2 ug/m3, as
recommended by CASAC and EPA Agency Staff.
I was especially concerned that the ANPR consistently
selected options that underestimated the adverse effects of
lead, diminished the benefits of reducing the lead standard and
failed to provide an adequate margin of safety. As a key
example, the ANPR contemplated using the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) level of concern for lead in blood
of 10 ug/dL as an acceptable risk level by the EPA
Administrator. It is clear that the adverse effects of lead
occur at demonstrably lower levels, with consistent evidence
indicating that the effects of lead persist at blood lead
levels lower than 5 ug/dL. Any suggestion that the U.S. EPA
would use the CDC's level of concern as a starting point for
risk assessment is particularly troubling. This approach--which
ignores both the CDC and CASAC determinations that there are
adverse health effects at lower blood lead levels--would fail
to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety as
required by the Clean Air Act.
I was also pleased with the deliberations and advice of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee about the Lead Repair,
Renovation and Paint Rule. In contrast, my perception is that
the US EPA was intent on selecting inexpensive and unproven
methods to minimally comply with the congressional mandate to
protect children from lead hazards generated by renovation,
repair and painting. For example, the qualitative and
simplistic method proposed by the U.S. EPA to verify the
effectiveness of these cleaning procedures--i.e., the ``white
glove'' or ``white cloth verification tests''--is unproven and
did not yield consistently reliable results, thus leading to an
inaccurate assessment of cleaning efficiency after repair and
renovation activities. This was especially troubling because
there is a reliable, proven and inexpensive method (dust wipe
sampling method) used by environmental technicians to comply
with existing standards promulgated by the US EPA and US
Department of Housing and Urban Development. In my opinion, it
would be irresponsible to propose using a new method until
further research is conducted to validate that it is superior
or at least comparable to the existing dust wipe sampling
method. (See additional comments about LRRP in my response to
question 3.)
Question 2. While other Federal agencies can recall
dangerous products, EPA has strong authorities to control the
use of lead ? to stop dangerous exposures before they happen.
Can you please describe the importance to public health of
preventing dangerous lead exposures before they happen?
Response. Primary prevention of childhood lead poisoning is
critical. In spite dramatic reductions in childhood lead
exposure (1), levels of lead exposure previously thought to be
safe or inconsequential only two decades ago have consistently
been shown to be risk factors for reading problems,
intellectual delays, school failure, ADHD and criminal
behaviors (2--13). There is no evidence for a threshold for the
adverse effects of lead exposure; indeed, there is compelling
evidence that lead-associated decrements in intellectual
function are proportionately greater at blood lead <10 ug/dL
(8--13). On average, there is an estimated decline of 2 to 3 IQ
points for children whose blood lead levels rise from 10 to 20
ug/dL, whereas there is an estimated decline of 4 to 7 IQ
points for children whose blood lead levels rise from 1 ug/dL
to 10 ug/dL (7--8).
The key to primary prevention is to require the
promulgation of regulations to further reduce environmental
lead exposure; screening of high-risk, older housing units to
identify lead hazards before a child is exposed--before
occupancy, after renovation or abatement--and reducing lead in
drinking water, consumer products and industrial emissions.
These reductions in exposure will only occur with stricter
regulations and enforcement on the allowable levels of lead in
air, house-dust, water and consumer products.
Question 3. Are there studies that demonstrate cleaning up
indoor dust from lead paint to low levels is feasible? Has EPA
incorporated these studies in its current rulemaking on lead
paint renovation activities? Please provide a copy of any such
study.
Response. There is considerable evidence that cleaning
after lead hazard controls can result in dramatic reductions in
dust lead loading. In one EPA-funded study, dust lead levels
immediately following abatement were 8.5 ug/ft2, 8 ug/ft2 and
21 ug/ft2 for floors, interior windowsills and window troughs,
respectively--representing reductions of over 80 percent
compared with pre-abatement levels (14). In a large, national
study of over 2600 housing units, post-abatement dust lead
levels were 12 ug/ft2, 31 ug/ft2 and 32 ug/ft2 for floors,
windowsills and window troughs, respectively (15).
In unpublished data from our ongoing US EPA/NIEHS-funded
HOME Study, we found that we could consistently achieve dust
lead levels following lead hazard controls below 5 ug/ft2, 50
ug/ft2 and 400 ug/ft2 for floors, interior windowsills and
window troughs, respectively. Indeed, we achieved these dust
lead levels in over 98 percent of 165 housing units that
underwent lead hazard controls. Although 41 (25 percent)
housing units required 3 or more cleanings to achieve these
lower levels, we have shown that it is feasible to consistently
achieve levels below 5 ug/ft2, 50 ug/ft2 and 400 ug/ft2 for
floors, interior windowsills and window troughs, respectively.
The EPA proposes to use obsolete dust lead standards of 40
ug/ft2 for floors and 250 ug/ft2 for window sills for the
proposed Rule. These dust lead levels have consistently been
shown to be associated with about 15 percent to 20 percent of
children having a blood lead level exceeding 10 ug/dL (16--20).
Moreover, research indicating that adverse health effects are
found in children who have blood lead lower than 5 ug/dL
provides additional justification for further lowering the dust
lead standards (7--13). Existing studies thus indicate that it
is necessary to achieve dust lead levels < 15 ug/ft2 and < 50
ug/ft2 on floors and interior window sills after renovation and
repair activities to adequately protect children (14--21). The
results of these studies have not been incorporated into
current rulemaking on lead paint renovation activities.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
Tom Neltner, on behalf of Improving Kids' Environment,
Sierra Club, and Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. NELTNER, ON BEHALF OF IMPROVING KIDS'
ENVIRONMENT, SIERRA CLUB, AND CONCERNED CLERGY OF GREATER
INDIANAPOLIS
Mr. Neltner. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you
today. I was the lead attorney on the Sierra Club lawsuit
against EPA that forced those three actions that EPA described.
What we have effectively is lead becoming the poster child
for the breakdown in our Consumer Product Safety Commission and
our consumer product safety network. A lot of times we hear
about it being CPSC's responsibility, but EPA has a clear
responsibility and they have not fulfilled that role.
As a result of EPA's denial of the petition and a clear
reluctance to move ahead, people have lost faith in the Federal
Government's ability to protect people from lead in consumer
products. They went out and tested products. They used lead-
check swabs. They used Niton XRFs. And they found it. It is a
lot better than finding like the Reebok charm. A child died
finding the lead in a Reebok charm.
A grandmother in Bloomington, Indiana was showing people
how to use a swab. She grabbed one of the toys that they used
to give to kids when they read well. She rubbed the swab on the
bendable toy and it came out red. That was a product that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission would not quickly recall--
Indiana went ahead and did the recall.
There are other toys that you see up in front of you that
you entered into the exhibits that included ones that were just
bought 2 days ago. One is a snorkel. It is about 1000 parts per
million on the mouthpiece. There is a baby teething ring with
about 1,000 parts per million of lead in it. Those are products
that were just purchased. There is a vinyl lunch box with
12,000 parts per million on the surfaces. So there are still
products out there. They are still a problem, and we don't have
systematic corrections.
What we asked EPA to do in our petition and lawsuit was to
use its authority to go to the companies and require that they
submit their quality control procedures. EPA basically said,
you can't make us do that; you can't make us because of a
glitch in TSCA; you can make us issue a rule, but you can't
make us issue an order. If EPA had issued an order to these
companies, EPA and CPSC would have had the information so that
they could have proactively dealt with this problem . Instead
of being behind the curve on this case-by-case basis, the EPA
could have used its authority and gotten ahead of the curve.
On the RRP rule, the renovation, repair and painting rule,
I am glad to hear it will be coming out soon. It was promised
actually in January 2007. The problem is that rule relies
heavily on EPA and the Federal Government to enforce it. We
need a rule that allows the consumers and the contractors to
identify problems, make informed decisions, and to resolve
those problems. EPA did not do that in its proposal. We are
asking them to do that as well.
Two quick comments. The Assistant Administrator pointed out
that 400 ppm of lead in soil is not a hard and fast standard.
In fact, it is when it comes to bare soil around housing. The
standard is not part of the Superfund cleanup. It is a hard and
fast standard for play areas for children. And I was surprised
to learn, and I was the lead attorney on the settlement
negotiations, that it will be another year or so until that
rule goes into effect requiring reporting by companies of
measurable levels of lead. We were under the impression it
would be done in June 2008. I have no idea why the delay has
occurred. We have been asking about it without luck.
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neltner follows:]
Statement of Thomas G. Neltner, on Behalf of Improving Kids'
Environment, Sierra Club, and Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis
the situation:
Sixty-two recalls of more than 9.5 million items in 2007 with 10
weeks to go before the end of the year. There were 43 recalls by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the previous 3 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prerel.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public is dazed and confused. The CPSC is overwhelmed and left
to triage recalls based on the magnitude of the danger. In the absence
of Federal leadership, State and local legislators scramble to adopt
laws to fill gaps. State and local childhood lead poisoning prevention
programs struggle with calls from the public. These calls draw their
limited resources away from their core mission to protect children from
the primary source of lead poisoning lead-based paint in housing. By
all accounts, product retailers and importers of children's products
are faring little better.
what is happening?
Put simply, parents, local health departments, and children's
health advocates have lost faith in the Federal Government's ability
and commitment to protect children from lead poisoning.
The Minnesota child's death in February 2006 laid bare the tattered
network designed to protect children from toxic chemicals in consumer
products.\2\ As a result, citizens took matters into their own hands
and started testing products. They used low-cost swabs that change
color when the swabs contacted lead.\3\ They used expensive x-ray
fluorescent (XRF) devices designed for lead-based paint to measure lead
levels in plastic, metal, and coatings on toys.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, Dispatch, March 23, 2006 / 55(Dispatch);1--2.
\3\National Center for Healthy Housing, Testing for Lead in
Consumer Products for Children, August 14, 2007. See
www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/factsheet-leadtestconprod.pdf
\4\Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.154
When they found lead, they filed complaints forcing action. When
the Federal Government was slow to act, they went to their elected
officials. California, Illinois, and Baltimore adopted laws.\5\
Indiana, New York and Illinois issued their own recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\California Statutes 2006, Chapter 415, Article 10.1.1 Lead
Containing Jewelry. Illinois Public Act--4--0879: The Lead Poisoning
Prevention Act of 2006. Baltimore City, Maryland regulations at
www.baltimorehealth.org/jewelry.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these efforts, the problem remains. At the Indiana Black
Expo's Health Fair in August 2007, the Concerned Clergy of Greater
Indianapolis and Improving Kids' Environment found that 62 percent of
almost 400 children's metal jewelry items and 32 percent of 85 plastic
jewelry items contained more than 600 parts per million of lead--CPSC's
screening level.\6\ The Indiana Pacer's cheerleaders were passing out
mardi Gras beads containing 1400 ppm of lead. Children were wearing
this jewelry and some were mouthing it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Attachment 5. ``Results of Lead Content Screening of
Children's Jewelry Indiana Black Expo, July 20--22, 2007'' by Improving
Kids' Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
epa's complicity
While the focus has been on CPSC's shortcomings, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been complicit. EPA refused
to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
support CPSC's effort. Only after a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and
Improving Kids' Environment forced its hand did EPA act. The delay has
cost us dearly.
If EPA had responded constructively to the Sierra Club's April 17,
2006, TSCA Section 21 petition\7\, EPA could have had the quality
control procedures of companies such as Mattel in its hand 1 year
before the failings of those procedures became painfully apparent. EPA
could have identified the problems and taken steps to fix them. Instead
of putting CPSC in a reactive mode triaging complaints Congress gave
EPA the statutory authority to take action. EPA refused to exercise
that authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Attachment 6. Sierra Club's, April 17, 2006 Section 21
Petition to EPA and CPSC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of acting immediately, EPA chose to take advantage of a
loophole in the law claiming that Sierra Club could not force a
regulation on quality control procedures without EPA first issuing
orders to the companies. EPA refused to issue the orders--even to those
companies who already had recalls. Sierra Club maintained that a recall
was ample evidence that a company's quality control procedures had
failed. Unfortunately, many of these companies had additional recalls
after EPA denied the Sierra Club's petition.
In denying the petition, EPA said it planned to work ``in
coordination with CPSC to understand the scope of the problem.''\8\ EPA
claimed that a ``holistic and proactive approach may be more effective
and less resource intensive than the case-by-case approach provided for
under section 6(b).''\9\ Eighteen months and 72 recalls have passed and
there is no tangible evidence that EPA has found that ``holistic and
proactive approach.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\EPA's July 20, 2006 Denial of Sierra Club's Section 21 Petition.
See page 1.
\9\Id. See page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, parents must work through complicated websites and
conflicting guidance as they make decisions on Holiday presents for
their children. Retailers must resort to testing products on their
shelves to restore consumer confidence. And CPSC is left to issue
repeated recalls on a case-by-case basis.
Acting a year earlier would not necessarily have avoided the
recalls. But it would have given EPA and CPSC the opportunity to
proactively address the situation in a systematic method. This
proactive approach would have reassured the public and saved hundreds
of thousands of dollars in wasted resources, especially at the State
and local level.
While CPSC might have been able to take action on its own, the
failure of CPSC and EPA to work together and leverage EPA's more
powerful information gathering authorities was a lost opportunity.
EPA's failure is not limited to consumer products. Congress
mandated that EPA adopted rules regarding the renovation, repair and
painting of housing and child-occupied facilities by 1996.\10\ EPA
issued a proposed rule on January 10, 2006 under pressure from a
lawsuit by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
and others.\11\ It committed to finalizing the rule by January 2007 and
is now hoping for March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 402(c)(3).
\11\January 10, 2006 Federal Register. Page 1587. See www.epa.gov/
lead/pubs/renovation.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public confidence is going to take another hit if EPA finalizes
this rule as proposed. In the proposed rule, EPA rejected the use of
lead dust wipes to verify that contractors did not create lead hazards.
Lead dust wipes had been repeatedly validated as the most reliable
method to determine whether lead hazards were present or not. EPA's own
rules relied on this method.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\40 CFR Part 745, Subpart D. See www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/
2001/January/Day--05/t84.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's proposed rule was virtually unenforceable. Contractors would
have little documentation that they did or did not comply with the
rules. Instead of empowering consumers with information and the means
they needed to act, EPA proposed leaving consumers in the dark with
generic pamphlets instead of actual information on the work that was
done. Consumers who later tested their home would have to plead with an
understaffed EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
to ``recall'' contractors to the home to clean up lead hazards left
behind.
The situation would be a repeat of the children's products recalls
of 2007 but instead of dealing with hundreds of importers, consumers
would be left with hundreds of thousands of contractors.
what goes around, comes around
In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress declared ``it to
be the national policy of the United States that pollution should be
prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that
cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe
manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or
recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever
feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should be
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 40 USC 13101(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pollution prevention hierarchy makes clear that our top
priority should be to keep lead out of products. Recycling is a second
choice.
Congress' foresight was made starkly clear by research by Dr.
Jeffrey Weidenhamer of Ashland University in Ohio\14\ and an
investigation by the Wall Street Journal.\15\ They found that much of
the lead in toy metal jewelry from China was apparently recycled
electronic waste such as circuit boards from the West. Instead of
recycling the lead from electronic waste, it appears that it may have
been easier to remove the mixture of lead, copper and tin from the
waste, melt it up, pour it into the jewelry mold to be shipped back to
the United States for our children to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Jeffrey D. Weidenhamer and Michael L. Clement. 2007. Widespread
lead contamination of imported low-cost jewelry in the U.S. Chemosphere
67 961?965.
\15\Gordon Fairclough,Wall Street Journal, ``Lead Toxins Take a
Global Round Trip 'E-Waste' From Computers Discarded in West Turns Up
In China's Exported Trinkets,'' July, 12, 2007, http://online.wsj.com/
article/SB118420563548864306.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1990's, EPA had taken a leading role in working with
electronics makers to phase lead out of their products. In June 2001,
EPA published the ``Electronics: A New Opportunity for Waste
Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling.''\16\ Since 2001, EPA's focus on
prevention appears to have shifted from a balanced approach that
emphasizes prevention to a recycling focus. The industry may very well
have continued the prevention focus to engineer out lead. The lead that
is found in metal toy jewelry may also be a relic of circuit boards
from long ago. But EPA appears to have lost its leadership role on the
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\EPA 530-F--01--006. See www.epa.gov/osw/elec--fs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, EPA is responsible
for the broader management of solid wastes. Yet it has been silent on
the issue of the management and disposal of the recalled products. CPSC
apparently requires companies with recalls to follow Federal, State and
Federal law.\17\ Many organizations, including the Sierra Club, are
concerned that the lead-contaminated recalled product will be shipped
overseas to a country with lower standards, resold in the U.S. on the
second-hand market, or disposed of improperly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\In addition, there is no emphasis on using the Federal
pollution prevention hierarchy to require strict quality control
programs to ensure that lead is kept out of future products
manufactured or importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Times investigated the issue.\18\ It contacted many
of the companies with recent recalls. Most refused to return the call
or answer the queston. Mattel said ``Mattel said it planned to recycle
as many components of its returned toys as possible, including selling
or reusing zinc and some of the resins used to make the toys.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Abigail Goldman, Los Angeles Times, ``Disposal a murky issue in
recall of lead-tainted items; State law holds sway, but there's no
uniform procedure in place.'' October 8, 2007.
\19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, State and local elected officials stepped up when the
Federal Government was silent. On August 16, 2007, Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal sent letters to Mattel's Chief Executive
Officer and its Senior Counsel for Regulatory Affairs asking for a
response to detailed questions regarding the disposition of the
recalled products.\20\ Sierra Club applauds the leadership of Attorney
General Blumenthal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\See Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel's response was due September 16, 2007. As of October 4,
Sierra Club understands that Mattel has not responded to the request.
recommendations:
Regarding the EPA's Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, Congress
should:
Direct EPA to finalize the rule by January 2008 or prepare a
detailed explanation for its delay. January 2008 is 2 years after the
date of its initial proposal. The status report should describe EPA's
plans to finalize the rule and explain the delays in finalizing the
rule.
Direct EPA to prepare a report when the rule is finalized that
explains:
How the rule will be enforced to achieve at least 75 percent
compliance;
How the rule empowers citizens to:
Identify compliance problems that leave lead hazards in their
residence; and
Force contractors to clean-up lead hazards contractors create
without having to engage the Federal Government in the resolution of
the problem;
How EPA will assess compliance with the rule and report results
to Congress and the public on an ongoing basis.
Regarding lead in consumer products, Congress should revise the
Toxic Substances Control Act to direct EPA to:
Ban lead from children's products unless it can be affirmatively
demonstrated that the expected use of the product will not expose a
child to lead;
Routinely issue Section 6(b) quality control orders to companies
that have recalls to determine whether their quality control procedures
are adequate to exclude toxics from children's products;
Issue a Section 6(b)(2) rule establishing specific and effective
quality control standards for all manufacturers and importers;
Finalize the Section 8(d) rule as recommended by the Interagency
Testing Committee before the end of November 2008;
Send a letter, in cooperation with the CPSC, to all importers and
manufacturers of children's products:
Explaining the company's responsibilities to comply with the
new Section 8(d) rule;
Reminding the company of its long-standing obligations under
Section 8(e) to submit 8(e) notices of recalls;
Identifying the factories that have produced lead
contaminated children's products and encouraging the companies
to check all of their products for lead if they used the
factories.
finally congress needs to:
Adequately fund EPA and CPSC to address lead in children's
products in particular and toxic chemicals in consumer products in
general.
Build institutional links between CPSC and EPA so that CPSC
relies on EPA for its toxicological expertise and waste management
expertise and does not use its limited funding to duplicate this
expertise.
State that the level of concern for lead in children is any
measureable level of lead. The current level of concern of 10
micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood should be reclassified as the
level for individual case management.
On behalf of the Sierra Club, Improving Kids' Environment and
Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis, I greatly appreciate this
opportunity to describe the situation to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and make recommendations to the Committee
for tangible action to protect children.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.107
Response by Thomas G. Neltner to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. In your testimony you noted that Congress instructed EPA
to issue rules regarding renovation and remodeling by 1996. Do you know
why the previous administration did not comply?
Response. EPA is in the best position to answer that question
fully. I was not privy to EPA's reasoning and deliberations. But I will
provide my best answers to the question based on the public record and
my understanding of the situation.
In 1992, Congress set a rigorous rulemaking schedule for EPA to
address renovation and remodeling activities. See Table 1 for specific
deadlines and EPA's progress in meeting those deadlines. It is clear
that EPA quickly fell behind the deadlines. The gap increased over the
years despite consistent progress.
In the mid and late 1990's, EPA's progress was stymied by three new
hurdles that Congress established in the rulemaking process. In 1995
and 1996, Congress enacted three laws that established significant
requirements for agencies adopting major new rules. They are:
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Section
12;
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Title II; and
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996, Section 609.
These new laws, especially SBREFA, forced the Federal Government to
retool its rulemaking process resulting in delays for major new rules.
The laws also imposed significant new burdens on the agencies for major
new rules.
With an estimate annual economic impact of $500 million in costs
and almost ten times that much in annual economic benefits, the
renovation and remodeling rule was definitely a major new rule. There
is no indication that EPA under the previous administration received
additional time or resources to comply with the new requirements. As a
result, the renovation and remodeling was further delayed. When the
retooling was complete, EPA convened the SBREFA panel in 1999 and
published the SBREFA report in 2000.
After 2000, it appears that all work on the rule stopped until EPA
resumed work in 2005.\1\ EPA published the proposed rule 3 weeks after
being sued by ten organizations and individuals for failure to meet the
1996 statutory deadline.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On December 13, 2004, EPA stated in a Federal Register notice
that it was pursuing a voluntary program for renovation and remodeling
activities. It withdrew this plan in a May 16, 2005 Federal Register
notice.
\2\On December 20, 2005, the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) and nine other plaintiffs sued EPA for failing to
meet the deadline. EPA published the proposed Renovation, Repair and
Painting Activities (RRP)2 rule a few weeks later on January 10, 2006.
Note that on October 26, 2006, EPA moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the
basis that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue EPA for failing to
comply with the law. EPA's position makes its clear that concerned
citizens should not be too patient with EPA.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.177
3The statute only requires that these activities be
completed. In the transcript of the first meeting of the stakeholder
meeting on December 7, 1998, EPA clearly interpreted the statute as
requiring that the consultation occur before the rule was proposed.
This approach ensures more effective public participation. See
www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrmeet.pdf.
4In 1996, Congress passed the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness (SBREFA) Act. This law required EPA's Small
Business Advocacy Chairperson to convene a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel before proceeding with significant rulemaking. EPA
convened the panel on November 23, 1999 and published the report on
March 3, 2000.
5In December 1998 and March 1999, it held two meetings
to fulfill the requirement that it consult with key stakeholders. In
the March 1999 meeting, EPA stated that it anticipated publishing a
proposed rule before the end of 1999. See www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/3--8--
99.pdf at page 8 for comments by EPA's Mark Henshall.
6In its supplement to the proposed rule in the June 5,
2007 Federal Register, EPA finally made the long delayed determination
that it would exempt contractors working in public and commercial
buildings that were not child-occupied facilities. In 1992, Congress
specifically, directed EPA to address three areas: target housing,
public buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings that
create lead-based paint hazards. EPA's initial proposal on January 10,
2006 addressed only target housing.
______
Responses by Thomas G. Nelter to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. How would you assess EPA's response to your petition
that urged the agency to use its authorities under the Toxic Substances
Control Act to address threats from dangerous levels of lead in
consumer products?
Response. I have been involved in three petitions to EPA since
2006. We submitted these petitions pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). They are:
Lead in Consumer Products: Filed by Sierra Club and Improving
Kids' Environment in April 2006. EPA denied the petition in July 2006.
The petitioners filed a lawsuit challenging the decision in September
2006. The parties reached a settlement in April 2007 and agreed to
dismiss the case in June 2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0322.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Filed by Sierra Club, the Environmental
Law and Policy Center, Physicians for Social Responsibility, UNITE
HERE! and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and
the Washington Toxics Coalition in June 2007. EPA partially denied the
petition in August 2007. Five of the petitioners filed a lawsuit
challenging the denial in October 2007. The case is still in
litigation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See www.sierraclub.org/toxics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Fresheners: Filed by Sierra Club, National Center for Healthy
Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Natural Resources Defense
Council in September 2007. EPA denied the petition in December 2007.
EPA issued letters to the seven major manufacturers of air fresheners
asking that they voluntarily submit a list of chemicals in their
products, the range of concentrations for each chemical, the chemical's
function, and total annual amount used. The petitioners are considering
their legal option.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See www.sierraclub.org/toxics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, I also attended a stakeholder meeting convened by
EPA as a follow-up to its denial of a petition by Ecology Center of Ann
Arbor, Michigan in 2005 to ban the sale of leaded wheel weights.\10\
These weights are used to balance tires. More than 50 million pounds of
leaded wheel weights are sold each year with a significant portion
ending up in the environment. EPA rejected rulemaking options to
protect children from the danger of lead in these wheel weights and was
pursing voluntary options. At this meeting, the manufacturers of the
wheel weights and their retailers expressed a willingness to move to
more costly substitutes but said regulations would be needed. They
called for regulations and EPA indicated it was unable to follow
through despite clear statutory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See www.leadfreewheels.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The common theme running through EPA's responses to these petitions
is that EPA will do whatever is necessary to deny the petition. EPA
does not appear to be seeking to respond to important questions about
threats to public health. The sole exception is EPA's letter to air
freshener manufacturers. But these letters essentially mooted a
straightforward claim that would have been resolved in subsequent
litigation.
EPA does not appear to seriously consider actions that it cannot be
compelled to undertake without litigation. For example, regarding:
Lead in Jewelry, EPA refused to send a request to CPSC asking
CPSC to undertake rulemaking regarding lead in jewelry pursuant to
Section 9 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This action is a
critical first step to taking action under TSCA. EPA's failure to make
the request has been used as an excuse to taking subsequent action.
Lead in Recalled Jewelry, EPA refused to issue orders pursuant to
Section 6(b) of TSCA. These orders would have required companies that
had recalled products to submit their quality control procedures. With
these procedures, EPA could have identified in 2006 the quality control
problems that became apparent in 2007. EPA has the authority to issue
rules to require improvements in quality control procedures. Due to
convoluted language in TSCA, citizens cannot force EPA to issue a
quality control rule unless it first issues quality control orders. By
not issuing orders, EPA can block the citizen petitions. To the best of
my knowledge, EPA has never issued a quality control order.
Air Freshener Allegations, EPA refused to ask manufacturers of
air fresheners to report allegations by consumers of problems with
their products. Manufacturers and importers are required to track these
allegations pursuant to TSCA Section 8(c) and report them to EPA if EPA
requests them. In a narrow interpretation of TSCA, EPA concluded that
citizen's could not petition it to make an 8(c) request. It could have
made the request anyway, but apparently rejected that option.
Air Freshener Health and Safety Studies, EPA refused to ask
manufacturers of air fresheners to submit unpublished health and safety
studies regarding their products. EPA made this decision despite
petitioners clearly meeting the TSCA ``B'' exposure findings with more
than 10,000 people in the general public receiving significant
exposures. EPA could have worked with the Interagency Testing Committee
(ITC) pursuant to Section 4 of TSCA and, if the ITC agreed, issue a
direct final rule requiring the submission of the studies. This was the
approach the EPA took as part of its settlement with Sierra Club on
lead in consumer products. It involves very little resources and time.
Lead Wheel Weights, EPA denied the petition to ban lead in wheel
weights. In its denial, EPA identified eight areas where it needed
information to undertake a ban. EPA could have used its information
gathering authorities under TSCA to fill those gaps. But it did not.
Instead EPA undertook a voluntary program to get lead wheel weights off
of the market that had stakeholders scratching their heads wondering if
EPA understands market dynamics and the important role that regulation
plays in protection children from lead poisoning.
Given EPA's ``deny-if-at-all-possible'' approach to citizen
petitions, citizens are left with the option of litigating EPA's
decisions. Litigation is a time-consuming and inefficient method to
protect public health.
Question 2. Does EPA have authorities under the Toxic Substances
Control Act that it can use, if the agency chooses, to address lead
threats in children's toys?
Response. Yes, EPA seems reluctant to exercise its authorities
under TSCA regarding lead in consumer products. Based on its testimony
at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and its
handling of other petitions, EPA seems particularly reluctant to act
regarding consumer products.
Specifically, EPA could undertake the following actions to protect
our nation's children from being poisoned or killed from dangerous lead
exposures:
Issue final Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule that is no less
stringent than HUD's standards.
Make it standard practice to order any importer or manufacturer
that has a recall by CPSC involving a toxic chemical to submit to EPA
their quality control procedures designed to prevent future recalls.
TSCA Section 6(b)(1)
Order paint retailers to submit to EPA their quality control
procedures to ensure that imported paint does not violate the U.S.
standards for lead-based paint. TSCA Section 6(b) (1)
Order firms that handle electronic waste for recycling to submit
to EPA their quality control procedures to ensure that the lead from
the electronic waste does not get added to children's products. TSCA
Section 6(b)(1)
Undertake rulemaking to establish quality control procedures for
children's products importers to ensure that lead is not present in
those products except in trace amounts. TSCA Section 6(b)(2)
Investigate any company that has had a recall to determine
whether they properly notified EPA of substantial risks posed by the
lead contamination. TSCA Section 8(e)
Identify the overseas factories or companies that produced
products subject to a recall for lead contamination. TSCA 8(e) Follow-
up
Implement the recommendations of the Interagency Testing
Committee regarding lead and lead compounds so that importers must
report by the statutory deadline of June 14, 2007 12 months after
receiving the recommendations. TSCA Section 4 and 8(d)
Send a letter to importers of children's products alerting them
to their obligation to report pursuant to the ITC recommendations and
to check their products if they used any of the overseas factories or
companies that produced products subject to a recall for lead
contamination.
Adopt a testing rule requiring the lead manufacturers to fund a
National Institute for Health study evaluating the health implications
of lead to children at levels below five micrograms per deciliter. TSCA
Section 4
Adopt rules requiring companies to notify public and businesses
that distribute these lead contaminated products of such threats and to
replace or repurchase ? and prohibit the reselling of such products in
the U.S. TSCA Section 4 and 6.
Issue an order that requires facilities that export electronic
waste to businesses that make or distribute lead-contaminated
substances used in children's products sold in the United States to
notify EPA of such exports. TSCA Sections 4 and 12.
Work with the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit the
importation of products that fail to comply with the protections
described above. TSCA Section 13.
Question 3. Please provide the committee with a list of the lead-
contaminated children's items that were before the committee during the
hearing. Please include a description of the lead testing results for
each item.
All measurements were made using a Thermo Niton X-ray Fluorescent
(XRF) device.
Reebok Charms: Two sets of charms. These charms have been
recalled. They are similar to the charm that killed the child in
Minnesota in 2006 thought they have much lower levels of lead. The lead
levels in the Reebok charms varied dramatically. One charm was over
CPSC's screening level. The Chicago Health Department provided them.
Vinyl Bibs: One set of baby bibs with vinyl backing. The State of
Illinois recalled these bibs. CPSC refused to recall them. The vinyl on
the back has 1000 ppm lead. It was purchased from WalMart. The Chicago
Health Department provided them.
CA Vinyl Lunchbox: Two sets of vinyl lunchboxes. One has English
text. The other has Spanish text. These items were recalled. They were
distributed to children in California by the California Department of
Public Health. The vinyl on the English version is 900 ppm. The Spanish
language one is 16,000 ppm (1.6 percent) lead. Alameda County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program provided them. The Center for
Environmental Health originally found the problem.
Spiderman Lunch Box: A vinyl lunchbox. The vinyl inside is 1000
ppm. The Chicago Department of Health provided the lunchbox and
reported that 14 micrograms of lead could be wiped off the surface per
square foot of vinyl.
Teething Toy: A vinyl teething toy for babies in the shape of an
ear of corn. It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. It has 900
ppm lead. It has not been recalled yet.
Snorkel: A plastic snorkel for children with a vinyl mouthpiece.
It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. The mouthpiece is 2000
ppm lead. It has not been recalled yet.
Math Blocks in Bag: A bag of painted plastic blocks in a vinyl
bag. It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. Two of the blocks
are at 1500 ppm and 4000 ppm lead. It has not been recalled yet.
Baby Einstein Blocks: A fabric and vinyl cushion in the shape of
block intended for young children. It has painted symbols on several
sides. CPSC has recalled the blocks. It was purchased in Nebraska
block. It has well over 600 ppm lead on the white paint on the belly of
the turtle.
Bendable Toys: Three plastic figures about 5'' tall of different
characters. The paint on the dog is 10,000 ppm lead. It is 10,000 ppm
on the cat and 30,000 ppm on the snowman. These were found in Indiana.
Libraries were giving them away to children who did well in reading. A
Grandmother of a lead poisoned child was teaching kids about lead. She
used a LeadCheck swab to show how the work and was shocked to find it
came out positive. Indiana Department of Health recalled the items when
CPSC was slow to act. CPSC later recalled them.
Mardis Gras Beads: A chain of colorful beads commonly passed out
during Mardis Gras to children and adults. The beads are 600 ppm lead.
It was purchased in Minneapolis.
Hush Toy Ring: The small ring sold in vending machines. Commonly
referred to as a hush toy in the vending machine industry. The ring has
1300 ppm lead. It was purchased in Minneapolis.
Jewelry: A chain of jewelry purchased from Claires. It appears
that the solder is 30,000 ppm.
Hair clasp: A clasp for a child's hair. It has 450,000 ppm lead--
about 45 percent lead.
LeadCheck Swabs: A package of nine swabs commonly used to
qualitatively determine if wipable lead is present on a toy. They are
about $1.50 a piece. The vinyl bibs and bendable toys were found with
this type of swabs.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
When I get a chance, I want to talk more about how we can
help speed that up.
Mr. Neltner. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Jacobs.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. JACOBS, PH.D., CIH, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you.
Much has been said in this hearing already about housing
issues, so I don't want to belabor the statistics. But I do
want to take my time with you this morning to raise a warning
flag about a new emerging lead-based paint threat to our
children, and also to explore some of the lessons that we have
learned in how we dealt with the lead problem in housing and
their implications for other lead poisoning prevention efforts.
If we don't do more on the housing front, there will be
literally millions, and I am not exaggerating, millions of
children who will be poisoned in the decades to come. We are
currently running at about a clip of 300,000 children a year
who are poisoned, mostly from lead in housing stock. While we
have made tremendous progress, much, much more remains to be
done.
In my written testimony, I give you the statistics on
housing, but I do want to make the point that we know how to
fix houses. The intervention effectiveness has been shown. I
helped to design the Nation's largest study on residential lead
hazard control covering 3,000 housing units in 14 jurisdictions
across the country. Those kids had average blood lead levels
around 10 micrograms per deciliter. We were able to reduce
those blood lead levels by 38 percent over a 2-year period, so
this works.
If we don't do this properly, however, we can make matters
worse. If you take a single square foot of lead paint in a
house at the minimum regulatory level, and sand it, turn it
into dust, spread it over a 10 foot by 10 foot room, the
resulting dust level is 9,300 micrograms per square foot. The
current EPA standard is 40 micrograms per square foot. In other
words, a great deal of lead-contaminated dust can be released
from only a small amount of lead paint. In my written
testimony, I give some data that show why the current EPA dust
lead standard should be and can be reduced now.
When I was at HUD, we put a regulation in place to stop
those sorts of dangerous renovation and remodeling activities.
We thought, frankly, that EPA would quickly follow suit, but
there is still not a final EPA regulation. I have served with
the Federal Government. I can tell you this sort of regulation
can be done much more rapidly than has happened in this case.
EPA should pass the final rule. It should not include the
dangerous methods of paint removal that are allowed in the
proposed regulation and it should require dust lead testing
after the work has been completed to make sure the house is
safe for children to occupy.
Furthermore, HUD also needs to complete its own regulation
for federally assisted housing. Right now, the single family
mortgage insurance program is not covered. Does it make any
sense for children who are living in non-HUD assisted housing
to get no protection, while children who do live in HUD housing
get adequate protection? That makes no sense to me.
The low-income housing tax credit program has no lead paint
requirements. Why should taxpayers be asked to subsidize houses
that poison kids?
I helped write the first Federal interagency strategy in
2000. Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration has ever
funded the program adequately. We provided monetary estimates
on what it would take to clean up the Nation's housing stock.
Thankfully, a bipartisan consensus in the Congress with Senator
Bond, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe and many,
many others, such as Senator Jack Reed have helped to restore
those funding levels, but it is still well below the necessary
level.
Finally, I mentioned an emerging threat. I have with me
some paint samples from India, China and Nigeria that were
provided to me by my colleague, Dr. Scott Clark and Dr. Sandy
Roda of the University of Cincinnati and Drs. Eugenious and
Clement Adebamowo. This is new residential paint that is being
manufactured. This sample is from India. It has 131,000 parts
per million of lead in it, a huge level. Remember, the limit in
the U.S. is 600 parts per million. This is a Nigerian paint
sample, which has 38,000 parts per million of lead in it.
Now, it is bad enough that these countries are
contaminating their own housing stock, but given our global
economy it is only a matter of time before this paint starts
washing up on our own shores and then we will be faced with the
task of having to once again cleanup our Nation's housing
stock.
So if there is a single lesson to be learned from the lead
paint experience, it is that once we allow the uses of lead to
be entered into commerce and issued in a dispersed form,
whether it is gasoline or food canning or paint or toy jewelry,
it is going to cost the Nation far more to manage it after the
fact. There is really just no good reason to allow lead into
these products in the first place.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobs follows:]
Statement of David E. Jacobs, Ph.D., CIH, Director of Research,
National Center for Healthy Housing
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss recent
developments in childhood lead poisoning. Today, I will present
the scientific evidence demonstrating the prevalence of this
entirely preventable problem and where it is most severe. I
will show why housing with lead paint and the contaminated dust
and soil it generates remains the main source of exposure for
most children today in the U.S. Specifically, I will show how
uncontrolled housing rehabilitation that disturbs lead paint
and the failure to promulgate a 1992 congressionally mandated
EPA regulation have harmed millions of children in years past
and why action is needed to prevent millions more from being
harmed in the decades to come. federally assisted housing has
been covered by such a regulation since 1999 and such
requirements can readily be extended to cover all children, not
just those in federally assisted housing. I will also describe
how the reappearance of new residential lead paint from Asia
and Africa and other emerging exposures threaten the progress
that has been made; the adequacy of existing standards and
funding; and other matters. While the Nation has made important
progress, much more remains to be done if our children are to
have a future free of lead poisoning.
I am the Director of Research at the National Center for
Healthy Housing (NCHH). We have conducted numerous studies of
lead hazards in housing, including the nation's largest and
longest-term evaluation of residential lead hazard control,
covering 3,000 housing units in 14 jurisdictions across the
country. NCHH is a national technical and scientific non-profit
organization dedicated to developing and promoting practical
measures to protect children from residential environmental
hazards while preserving affordable housing. NCHH develops
scientifically valid and practical strategies to make homes
safe from hazards, to alert low-income families about housing-
related health risks, and to help them protect their children.
Previously, I served as the Director of the Office of Healthy
Homes and Lead Hazard Control at the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development from 1995--2004. I was the principal
author of the first Federal interagency strategy to address
childhood lead poisoning for the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children, and I have
published many scientific studies on the subject. I am also an
adjunct associate professor at the School of Public Health at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, a faculty associate at
Johns Hopkins University and a board-certified industrial
hygienist.
TRENDS IN CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING
In 1991--94, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) estimated that 890,000 children had blood lead levels
greater than 10 ug/dL (micrograms of lead per deciliter of
blood).\1\ The data also showed that 16 percent of low-income
children and 21 percent of African-American children living in
older housing where lead-based paint is most prevalent were
poisoned, compared to 4.4 percent for the general population at
the time. In December 2000, CDC provided more recent data
showing that while some counties had prevalence rates as high
as 27 percent, the average blood lead level in young children
had declined by 25 percent from 1996--99.\2\ The data show that
the problem is most severe in older housing in urban areas,
although rural areas remain less well characterized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Update: Blood Lead
Levels--United States 1991--1994,'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Public Health
Service, Vol 46, No.7, Feb 21, 1997, p. 141--146 and erratum in vol 46,
No. 26, p. 607, July 4, 1997. Also, Brody et al., Blood lead levels in
the U.S. Population: Phase 1 of the third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991, Journal of the American Medical
Association 272(4): 277--283, July 27, 1994 and Pirkle et al., The
decline in blood lead levels in the United States, Journal of the
American Medical Association 272(4):284--291, July 27, 1994.
\2\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Blood lead levels in
young children--United States and Selected States, 1996--1999,
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49(50): 1133--1137, December 22,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent CDC published report shows a further
decline. During 1999--2002, 310,000 children had blood lead
levels above 10 ug/dL, down from 1.7 million in the late
1980's.\3\ In addition, the racial and ethnic disparities in
lead poisoning have been greatly reduced (but not eliminated
entirely), as shown in the Figure below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Brody D, Brown MJ, Jones RL, Jacobs DE, Homa D, Ashley PJ, Mosby
JE, Schwemberger JG and Doa MJ. Blood Lead Levels-United States, 1999--
2002, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report 54(20) 513--516, May 27, 2005.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.156
(Figure above is reproduced from reference 3.)
The reason for this improvement is that the Nation took
action. Congress and government agencies mandated that lead
exposures from lead solder in food and infant formula canning,
gasoline and new residential and toy paint were eliminated.
Lead in air emissions, occupational exposures and water all
were controlled and older housing with lead paint is
continually being rehabilitated, abated or demolished. Studies
of the numerous (but often subtle and asymptomatic) harmful
effects of lead were completed and a consensus emerged,
reflected in a major report from the National Academy of
Sciences.\4\ All of these actions have caused average blood
lead levels to decline by over 90 percent since the 1980's, an
achievement that ranks as one the nation's most successful
public health stories. Yet if no further action is taken, the
current rate of childhood lead poisoning, now numbering nearly
300,000 children each year, means that literally millions of
children will be unnecessarily poisoned in the decades to come.
The means and methods to solve this long-running problem are
known and Congress should act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\National Academy of Sciences. Measuring Lead Exposure in
Infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations, Report of the
Committee on Measuring Lead in Critical Populations, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences,
National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSING IS THE LARGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING
The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the major high
dose source for most children in the U.S. today is existing
lead-based paint in older housing and the contaminated dust and
soil it generates.\5\,\6\ The existing limit for lead in new
residential house paint set by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission in the U.S. is 600 parts per million (ppm). But
older paints already coating surfaces in housing can be more
than 500,000 ppm. These older paints can produce
extraordinarily high levels of lead dust, exceeding 9,300
micrograms of lead per square foot (5g/ft2) from
only a single square foot of lead paint in an average sized
room.\7\ This is much, much higher than the existing EPA dust
lead standard of 40 5g/ft2. And it is also why
existing lead paint needs urgent attention and must be
addressed with great care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Jacobs DE. Lead-based paint as a major source of childhood lead
poisoning: A review of the evidence. In: Lead in Paint, Soil and Dust:
Health Risks, Exposure Studies, Control Measures and Quality Assurance
(Beard ME and Iske SDA, eds). Philadelphia: ASTM STP 1226, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1995;175--187.; Also: McElvaine MD,
DeUngria EG, Matte TD, Copley CG, Binder S. Prevalence of radiographic
evidence of paint chip ingestion among children with moderate to severe
lead poisoning, St. Louis, Missouri, 1989--90, Pediatrics 89:740--742
(1992). Also: Clark CS, Bornschein R, Succop P, Roda S, Peace B. Urban
lead exposures of children in Cincinnati, Ohio, Journal of Chemical
Speciation and Bioavailability, 3(3/4):163--171 (1).
\6\President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead-based paint Hazards. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, February 2000.
\7\HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based
Paint Hazards in Housing. 1995. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington DC, Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence that housing with lead paint hazards is the
main problem comes from several sources. Together with others,
I recently published a study showing that the reduction in
childhood lead poisoning from 1990 to the present can be
largely explained by trends in housing demolition, window
replacement and other renovation, and lead paint abatement.\8\
If housing were not the main contributor, then demolition,
window replacement and abatement trends would not have tracked
the trend in childhood lead poisoning as closely as it actually
has.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Jacobs DE and Nevin R. Validation of a Twenty-Year Forecast of
U.S. Childhood Lead Poisoning: Updated Prospects for 2010, Environ Res
102(3) 352--364, Nov 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, a HUD survey of the nation's housing stock
(conducted in 2000) shows that the estimated number of homes
with lead paint declined from 64 million in 1990 to 38 million
in 2000, out of a total of about 100 million houses. But of the
38 million housing units with lead paint, 24 million still have
significant lead hazards in the form of deteriorated lead
paint, contaminated dust, or contaminated bare soil. Over five
million of these houses have children under the age of 6, and
1.6 million have low-income families with children under 6, the
population most at risk. Forty-one percent of low-income
housing has lead paint hazards, compared to 18 percent of
middle and upper income housing.\9\ In short, these housing
data are consistent with blood lead surveillance data. The
problem is well-defined and the houses likely to pose problems
are well-known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JL, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW,
Zeldin DC, Broene P and W. Friedman. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint
Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ Health Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept
13, 2002. Also see HUD, National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing, 2001 (available at www.hud.gov/offices/lead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO REGULATION OF HOUSING BEING RENOVATED OR REPAINTED
The data also show that the problem is severe in housing
undergoing rehabilitation, repair or painting that disturbs
lead-based paint, creating dust and soil hazards. Consider the
following tragic case study:
(The following description of the Marino case report is
reproduced from the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing, Chapter 4.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.155
HUD issued a regulation that controlled exposures from
federally assisted housing undergoing renovation, repair or
painting (as well as other forms of assistance). The regulation
was issued in 1999, had a 1-year phase-in period and finally
took full effect in 2001.\10\ The experience with the HUD
regulation shows that renovation and repair work can be done
safely and is feasible and effective. But of course it only
covers federally assisted housing, which is only a small
fraction of the houses at risk. The cost of implementing that
regulation in its first year was approximately $253 million,
but the benefits were a minimum of $1.1 billion, yielding a net
benefit of at least $890 million in the first year alone.\11\
It is worth noting that the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget approved the economic analysis accompanying the HUD
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\24 CFR Part 35
\11\Nevin R, Weitz S, Jacobs DE. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Proposed Rule on Lead-Based Paint Hazard Evaluation and Reduction for
federally Supported Housing, ICF Corporation, Washington DC, September
8, 1995, final Economic Analysis published in September, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was every expectation that EPA would quickly follow
suit in 2000 and regulate renovation, remodeling and painting
activities in housing that does not receive Federal assistance,
as required by Congress in 1992.\12\ Yet it is now 11 years
after Congress required that this rule be passed, and neither
the Clinton nor the Bush administrations have issued a final
regulation. EPA's own estimate is that the regulation would
protect 1.1 million children each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question now before us is simply this: Why should
children living in unassisted housing receive no protection,
while those living in federally assisted housing are protected?
All children should be able to live in homes without lead
hazards.
The net economic benefits of EPA's regulation are even
larger than those associated with the HUD regulation, because
the EPA regulation covers more housing units. The current
estimates are that the EPA regulation achieves net benefits of
between $2.6 billion to $7.5 billion annually.\13\ In short,
the EPA regulation makes both good policy and good economic
sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair and Painting
Proposed Rule. Feb 2006. http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrp--nprm--ea--
revised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence that uncontrolled housing renovation, repair
and painting activities cause lead poisoning is overwhelming.
NCHH and others have reviewed this extensive evidence base in
earlier testimony provided to EPA.\14\ The administration did
finally propose a regulation covering these activities nearly 2
years ago, but only after bipartisan pressure from Congress.
However, the proposed regulation is badly flawed. The proposed
regulation would allow dangerous methods of removing lead
paint, such as power sanding, abrasive blasting, and burning.
All of these methods are now prohibited in federally assisted
housing and in many local jurisdictions, because they create
extraordinarily high levels of lead dust that is virtually
impossible to clean up and pose large exposures to workers (one
of my studies showed that workers engaged in these activities
have exposures to lead of 11,000 micrograms per cubic meter,
well above the OSHA limit of 50 micrograms per cubic
meter).\15\ When these practices are permitted, the cost of
cleaning up a single house has been shown to be nearly
$200,000.\16\ The cost of doing this work safely is a tiny
fraction of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\National Center for Healthy Housing, Comments Regarding
Dangerous Work Practices in EPA's Proposed Regulation on Renovation,
Repair and Painting. EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT--2005--0049, March 24,
2006. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/NCHH--Comment--Dangerous--
Work--Practices--Final--3--24--06.pdf.
\15\Jacobs DE. Occupational Exposures to Lead-Based Paint in
Structural Steel Demolition and Residential Renovation, International
Journal of Environment and Pollution 9:1 126--139, Inderscience
Enterprises, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, Switzerland, 1998.
\16\Jacobs DE, Mielke H, Pavur N. The High Cost of Improper Lead-
Based Paint Removal, Env Health Perspectives 111:185--186, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulation would also implement cleaning
methods that research has found to be ineffective\17\ and an
entirely unproven lead dust testing method at the end of the
job to ensure the dwelling is safe for children to occupy.
There are established cleaning and lead dust testing
procedures\18\ that are known to achieve very low dust lead
levels, up to 6 years following the repairs.\19\ In particular,
dust testing after the work has been completed is essential to
ensuring that cleaning has been adequate. Without dust testing,
many houses will contain high levels of lead dust, which is not
necessarily visible to the naked eye. The absence of dust
testing places children unnecessary risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Comments from NCHH on Two New Studies in the EPA Docket, April
16, 2007. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/Comment--on--EPA--and--
NAHB--Studies--Final--4--15--07.pdf.
\18\HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington DC, 1995.
\19\Wilson J, Pivetz T, Ashley PJ, Strauss W, Jacobs DE, Menkedick
J, Dixon S, Tsai HC, and V. Brown, Evaluation of HUD-Funded Lead Hazard
Control Treatments at Six Years Post-Intervention, Environ Res. 102(2)
237--48 Oct 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the National Center for Healthy Housing worked
with the National Association of Home Builders to once again
prove that uncontrolled methods of paint removal and housing
renovation result in very high dust lead levels.\20\ The
evidence is clear that renovation, repair and painting can
produce high dust lead levels. The Administration should
quickly promulgate a final, responsible regulation to eliminate
excessive exposures caused by lead from housing renovation,
repair and painting and should follow the procedures already in
place in the HUD regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Comments from NCHH on Two New Studies in the EPA Docket, April
16, 2007. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/Comment--on--EPA--and--
NAHB--Studies--Final--4--15--07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA regulation would also cover weatherization
programs. These programs often disturb lead-based paint and
create lead dust hazards. NCHH, in collaboration with Oak Ridge
National Laboratories, recently completed a study for the
Department of Energy. The study showed that between 29 percent
and 70 percent of the floors in the nearly 60 houses studied
had higher dust lead levels following weatherization than
before the work began or were above the existing EPA dust lead
standards after the work was completed.\21\ This means that
improved cleanup measures and dust testing after the work has
been completed are needed (DOE does not currently require lead
dust testing after the work is finished, unlike the other
Federal programs). Families receiving weatherization assistance
should not have their children inadvertently poisoned in the
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\National Center for Healthy Housing, Analysis of Lead-Safe
Weatherization Practices and the Presence of Lead in Weatherized Homes,
March 14, 2007. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/html/doe--study.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCOMPLETE HUD REGULATION
It is worth noting that the HUD regulation remains
incomplete. Only one HUD housing program remains that did not
incorporate modern lead hazard control methods and was not
covered in 1999, but it is an important one--the single family
mortgage insurance program. A section of the HUD regulation is
reserved for final action for this program (24 CFR Part 35,
Subpart E), but no such action has been forthcoming since 1999.
Why should children who live in housing with multi-family
mortgage insurance be covered, while children who live in
housing with single-family mortgage insurance remain
unprotected? HUD should finalize its regulation so that all
children in federally assisted housing are protected.
THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Furthermore, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program,
which is perhaps the Federal Government's largest housing
construction and rehabilitation program, does not have explicit
lead-based paint requirements. This means that approximately
14,000 housing units are rehabilitated each year without regard
to lead-based paint hazards.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Jacobs DE. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Final Report, Prepared for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Contract 200--2006-M--18771, April 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing housing rehabilitation
that could poison children.
FUNDING
In 2000, the Federal Government estimated that a minimum of
$2.4 billion would be needed to address lead paint hazards in
housing. To date, less than half of that amount has actually
appropriated. Indeed, although housing remains the most
important source of exposure to lead for most children today in
the U.S., major funding reductions have been proposed for the
past several years by this Administration. For example, last
year the President proposed only $115 million for HUD's lead
hazard control and healthy homes program, well below the $175
million appropriated in recent years, out of a total HUD budget
of over $30 billion. A long-standing bipartisan congressional
coalition has consistently resisted these reductions and
restored some of the funding. Yet funding still remains well
below the levels needed to eliminate the problem by 2010, a
goal that has been embraced in theory by this Administration
and previous ones.\23\ Neither the Bush nor Clinton
administrations have ever proposed full funding of the Federal
Government's lead poisoning prevention activities in housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy,
President's Task Force on Children's Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks, Washington DC (March 2000). Available at: http://
www.hud.gov/offices/lead/reports/fedstrategy.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 100]]
Furthermore, there have been reductions in funding for
important lead poisoning prevention programs at CDC and EPA,
which are also hampering the nation's efforts to address the
problem.
The Federal programs need to be fully funded if they are to
be effective in protecting the nation's children.
EXISTING STANDARDS
Lead Dust
Lead-contaminated settled dust is known to be a major
exposure pathway and its effect on children's blood lead has
been demonstrated in numerous studies that have been analyzed
elsewhere.\24\ In 1999 and 2001 respectively, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency established lead dust standards
for the home environment.\25\ Generally, the standards were
based on three criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Lanphear et al. Lanphear BP, Matte TD, Rogers J, Clickner RP,
Dietz B, Bornschein RL, Succop P, Mahaffey KR, Dixon S, Galke W,
Rabinowitz M, Farfel M, Rohde C, Schwartz J, Ashley P, Jacobs DE. The
Contribution of Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Residential Soil to
Children's Blood Lead Levels: A Pooled Analysis of 12 Epidemiologic
Studies, Env. Research, 79:51--68, 1998.
\25\24 CFR Part 35 (HUD) and 42 CFR Part 745 (EPA).
Health and the relationship between dust lead and
children's blood lead;
Feasibility of meeting and maintaining compliance with
the standards; and
Laboratory detection (reporting) limit capabilities.
Below, I present new evidence for each of these three
considerations, which suggests the dust lead standards can and
should be lowered.
The EPA and HUD standard for dust lead on floors was set to
protect 95 percent of children from developing a blood lead
level equal or greater than 15 5g/dL (the
environmental intervention level established by CDC in 1991),
holding all other measured exposures (e.g., soil, dust, water)
to their national averages (blood lead levels are discussed
further below). The EPA and HUD floor dust lead standard is 40
micrograms of lead per square foot of floor (5g/
ft2).
After the HUD and EPA standards were promulgated, we
published a study showing that a floor dust lead level equal or
less than 15 5g/ft2 achieved the highest specificity
and sensitivity (77 percent and 58 percent, respectively),
suggesting that such a standard would be both most protective
of health and at the same time be least likely to produce false
cause for concern.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\National Center for Healthy Housing, Study of HUD's Risk
Assessment Methodology in Three US Communities, Final Report, June 30,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, new evidence has emerged that a lower dust
lead level is feasible in today's housing. New national
estimates of the prevalence of lead dust in US housing were
published in 2002.\27\ That study showed that only 5 percent of
homes had dust lead levels above 13 5g/ft2 and the
geometric mean was only 1 5g/ft2. In addition, new
data from high-risk houses that were examined 6 years after
hazard control was completed showed that dust lead levels on
floors continued to decline, reaching a geometric mean of only
4.8 5g/sq ft.\28\ In high-risk houses enrolled in
the large-scale Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant
program (which was conducted in the mid-to-late 1990's), the
median dust lead level immediately following lead hazard
control work was 17 5g/ft,2 which declined to a
median level of 14 5g/ft2 1 year later.\29\ In the
preamble to its regulations, HUD and EPA stated that this
demonstrated the feasibility of both meeting and continuing to
maintain compliance with a floor lead dust standard of 40
5g/ft.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JY, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW,
Zeldin DC, Broene P and Friedman W. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint
Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ Health Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept
13, 2002. And: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
National Survey of Lead and Allergens, Volume 1, Analysis of Lead
Hazards, Prepared by Westat, Oct 31, 2002 Jacobs EHP and HUD report.
\28\Wilson J, Pivetz T, Ashley PJ, Strauss W, Jacobs DE, Menkedick
J, Dixon S, Tsai HC, and Brown V. Evaluation of HUD-Funded Lead Hazard
Control Treatments at Six Years Post-Intervention, Environ Res. 102(2)
237--48 with Oct 2006.
\29\National Center for Healthy Housing. 2004. Evaluation of the
HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, Final Report, National Center
for Healthy Housing and University of Cincinnati, Columbia, MD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the new data now show that this standard is obviously
well above the average level in high risk homes, and also
greatly above the average level in all U.S. housing. Together,
these data demonstrate that a dust lead standard of equal or
less than 15 5g/ft2 is feasible.
[[Page 101]]
The final issue is whether or not a lower floor dust lead
level can be measured reliably. A method detection limit used
by laboratories should be lower than a regulatory standard to
ensure measurement reliability and avoid the possibility that a
level above the standard is due to laboratory or sampling error
and not actual non-compliance with the standard. At the time
the HUD and EPA standards were promulgated, many analytical
laboratories used a method detection limit of 25 5g
per sample, so HUD and EPA stated that a standard of 40
5g/ft2 could be measured reliably, since
laboratories could measure levels well below the standard.
Laboratories have since improved and most laboratories today
use a detection limit of only 3--5 5g/sample.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Personal Communication, S. Roda, University of Cincinnati Lead
Reference Laboratory, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together, this evidence shows that lead dust loadings at
the existing Federal standard for floors of equal or less than
40 5g/ft2 produces harm in too many children and
that lower levels are both feasible and can be reliably
measured as new research and technology have advanced in the
years since the 1999 HUD and 2001 EPA standards were
promulgated. By reducing the allowable floor dust lead loading
from equal or less than 40 5g/ft2 to equal or less
than 15 5g/ft2 , the percentage of children who
would be protected from developing a blood lead level equal or
greater than 15 5g/dL would be cut in half, from 4.7
percent to 2.1 percent. Because no safe level of exposure to
lead has been established, dust lead levels should be kept as
low as possible.
Historically, allowable dust lead standards have been
reduced, as research has progressed. In the early 1990's,
Maryland enacted a floor lead dust standard of equal or less
thatn 200 5g/sq ft.\31\ EPA issued guidance in 1995
lowering the floor dust lead standard to equal or less than 100
5g/sq ft.\32\ And in 1999--2001, HUD and EPA
promulgated a floor dust lead standard of equal or less than 40
5g/ft,2 which has since remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Maryland Annotated Code 26.02.07.
\32\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on
Identification of Lead-Based Paint Hazards; Notice. Federal Register
Vol 60 No. 175 Sept 11, 1995 p. 47248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the evidence supports a further reduction in the
lead dust standard. The evidence shows that a standard of 15
5g/ft2 or lower for floors will reduce harm to
children significantly and is both feasible and measurable.
Blood Lead Levels
The preceding discussion of dust lead standards is based on
protecting children from developing a blood lead level that
would require an intervention under current CDC Guidelines and
HUD regulations, which were developed in 1991 and 1999,
respectively. It should be noted that the Federal environmental
intervention level is above the CDC level of concern, which is
equal or greater than 10 5g/dL.
Importantly, the CDC level of concern was not established
to be a ``safe'' or ``normal'' level, although some have used
it in this fashion. As early as 1991, CDC reported that adverse
health effects could be seen at blood lead levels below 10
5g/dL.\33\ More recent evidence from multiple
studies, reviewed by CDC itself, has confirmed the 1991 CDC
Statement that no safe level of lead exposure has been
found.\34\,\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 1991. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/plpyc/contents.htm.
\34\A Review of the Evidence of Health Effects of Blood Lead Levels
? 10 5g/dL, Feb 23, 2004. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/
nceh/lead/ACCLPP/meetingMinutes/lessThan10MtgMAR04.pdf.
\35\Canfield, Richard L., Christopher R. Henderson, Deborah Cory-
Slechta, C. Cox, Todd A. Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear 2003.
Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead levels below 10 ?g/
dL. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 1517--1522 and Lanphear
et al. 2005. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's
intellectual function: An international pooled analysis Env Health
Perspectives 113:894--899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians and other medical professionals have in recent
years suggested that CDC should lower its current blood lead
level of concern. While the level of concern has declined over
the years from 60 5g/dL to 30 5g/dL to 25
5g/dL to the current level of 10 5g/dL, I
believe that further reductions are unlikely to actually help
prevent exposures. This is because blood lead levels should not
be used to trigger exposure prevention. Instead of waiting for
a child to produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10, or 15
5g/dL (or any other level), we should eliminate
exposures before harm occurs. Quite simply, this means that we
should not wait for a child's blood lead level to increase
before taking action. Primary prevention (taking action to
prevent expo
[[Page 102]]
sure) is much more important than adherence to a medical
approach that is limited to treating children only after they
have been harmed. The nation should be testing and abating
houses and other sources to prevent exposure, not just use
children as detectors of lead problems. In order to avoid the
perception that a blood lead level of 10 5g/dL or 5
5g/dL is ``normal'' or ``safe,'' CDC and other
medical authorities might considering labeling blood lead
levels between 2 and 10 5g/dL what they really are:
``above average.''
The important point is that all exposures should be kept as
low as possible, because no safe level of exposure to lead has
been established. 1Lead-Safe Window Replacement
Together with colleagues, I have recently published a study
showing that window replacement is particularly important.
Specifically, replacing single-pane windows in older housing
(nearly all such windows are known to have lead paint) will
achieve net benefits of at least $67 billion over 10 years.\36\
Window replacement has emerged as a major form of controlling
lead-based paint hazards, because more than any other building
component, windows are known to contain the highest levels of
lead paint and lead-contaminated dust.\37\ The benefits come
from reduced childhood lead poisoning, lower utility bills from
heating and cooling, and increased market value. Yet energy
conservation professionals often fail to recommend window
replacement with energy-efficient windows, and lead hazard
control programs are often unable to afford this expense in
light of reduced funding. In short, a lead-safe window
replacement incentive can make a major impact on preventing
childhood lead poisoning, while also achieving improved energy
conservation and increased home value--all at the same
time.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Nevin R, Jacobs DE, Berg M, Cohen J. Monetary benefits of
preventing childhood lead poisoning with lead-safe window replacement,
Environ Res (accepted, in press).
\37\Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JL, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW,
Zeldin DC, Broene P and W. Friedman. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint
Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ Health Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept
13, 2002.
\38\Nevin R and Jacobs DE. Windows of Opportunity: Lead Poisoning
Prevention, Housing Affordability and Energy Conservation, Housing
Policy Debate 17(1): 185--207, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal energy, environmental, and housing policies,
together with local utility programs and policies should be
modified to encourage homeowners and others to replace lead
contaminated windows with new energy-efficient ones.
EMERGING THREATS
The nation is now faced with emerging exposures that
threaten the progress we have made. New residential lead-based
paint is now being manufactured in several Asian countries\39\
and in Nigeria\40\ and likely elsewhere. The concentrations of
lead in these paints is enormous, exceeding 100,000 parts per
million (ppm). By comparison, the existing US standard for lead
in residential paint is 600 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Clark CS, et al. 2006. The lead content of currently available
residential paint in several Asian countries. Environ Res 102: 9--12.
\40\Adebamowo EB, et al. 2007. Lead content of dried films of
domestic paint currently sold in Nigeria. Science of the Total Environ.
Article in Press. Available on line at www.sciencedirect.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is bad enough that these countries are contaminating
their own houses and putting their own workers and children at
great risk. But in today's global economy, it is only a matter
of time before these products appear in the U.S., re-
contaminating the very houses that taxpayers and parents have
already spent billions cleaning up.
The table below presents some of the recent data collected
by my colleague, Dr. Scott Clark from the University of
Cincinnati, and his co-workers. The table is reproduced from
reference 39.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.157
These emerging threats are not limited to paint. Lead
contaminated toy jewelry has already caused deaths in at least
one child\41\ and has likely exposed many others. There is no
reason for lead to be used in any children's product, including
plastic toys. Other non-toxic stabilizers and additives can and
should be used, as has been done in house paint here in the
U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\KK Berg et al. 2006. Death of a child after ingestion of a
metallic charm. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55(12) 340--341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not mean that all uses of lead should be
eliminated. Some applications have important uses and can be
properly managed. Shielding around X-ray machines and use in
batteries that are required to be recycled are two such
examples.
CONCLUSION
Lead paint in housing remains the largest and most
significant source of exposure for U.S. children today.
Programs to address this problem should be fully funded and
regulations should be promulgated to prevent exposures from
housing renovation, repair and painting.
If there is one lesson from the nation's experience with
lead poisoning, it is simply this:
Once non-essential uses of lead are permitted to enter
commerce in dispersed forms such as paint, gasoline, food
canning, toys and others, it is very difficult to prevent
exposure or to manage it after the fact. It is far more costly
to clean up the contamination than to prevent it at the outset.
Government policies should prevent all non-essential uses of
lead, especially the emerging use of lead in new house paint
from other countries.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Require EPA to promulgate a responsible and effective
regulation to prevent lead exposures from housing renovation,
repair, painting and weatherization without further delay.
Authorize a program to stimulate the replacement of old single-
pane windows in older housing, which will achieve net benefits
of at least $67 billion over 10 years in lead poisoning
prevention, reduced energy consumption, and increased home
market value.
2. For the first time, fully fund Federal lead poisoning
prevention programs at EPA, CDC and HUD. These programs have
been proven to work. The Administration's repeated attempt to
reduce funding in recent years has been rebuffed by a bi-
partisan consensus in Congress, but funding still remains well
below the recognized need.
3. Mandate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission and
other agencies with regulatory authority over international
trade take steps to prevent new residential lead-based paint
and other lead-contaminated consumer products from being
manufactured for U.S corporations or imported. Provide the CPSC
and other agencies with adequate resources to carry this out.
4. Initiate actions to eliminate all non-essential uses of
lead.
5. Require HUD to complete its lead regulations by
modernizing its lead requirements for single family housing
mortgage insurance (24 CFR Part 35, Subpart E.)
6. Require EPA to reduce the floor dust lead standard to 15
5g/ft2 or less. Such a reduction will protect more
children, is feasible, and is measurable.
7. Require the Department of Energy to improve cleaning
methods and to conduct clearance dust lead testing after
weatherization work that disturbs lead-based paint.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.153
Responses by David E. Jacobs to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Dr. Jacobs, there is a statement by the CDC
that said, ``Efforts to identify and provide services to
children with blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per
deciliter may deflect needed resources from children with
higher blood levels who are likely to benefit most from
individualized intervention.'' I guess what I would like to
know, and this would be fine to do for the record, do you agree
with the statement? And then, should we focus or should we not
focus our resources on those kids with the greatest risk? That
would be one.
Response. A long-standing public health principle is that
those with the worst conditions should be treated first and
most intensively, which means that resources should be focused
on those with the greatest need. Our public health workforce
has become adept at triage to accomplish this. However, a
medical approach where treatment is triggered by a clinical
blood lead test is not effective for the vast majority of
children today, because the key is to prevent blood lead levels
from increasing in the first place. Of course, for some
children who have very high blood lead levels, rapid medical
intervention is needed and CDC has established guidance for
those medical procedures at various blood lead levels. In
short, there is no single ``CDC level.''
Environmental interventions, such as controlling lead paint
hazards in a child's home, are entirely different than medical
treatment. CDC's position clearly calls for ``a systematic and
society wide effort to control or eliminate lead hazards in
children's environments before they are exposed?and is clearly
the foremost action''\1\ It is noteworthy that this statement
applies to all children, not only to children with a certain
blood lead level. Together with Dr. Pat McLaine from the
National Center for Healthy Housing and others, I worked with
CDC to publish an official statement on the importance of
primary prevention in housing.\2\ A part of this exposure
prevention effort ensures that homes undergoing renovation,
repair or painting do not create lead exposures in the process.
The idea that the long-delayed EPA regulation covering these
activities would inadvertently create more incentives for do-
it-yourselfers to do the work unsafely, instead of trained and
regulated construction workers is without merit. Similar fears
were expressed when HUD promulgated its regulation covering
renovation in federally assisted housing. Despite fears
expressed by homebuilders and others, there is no evidence that
the HUD regulation caused an increase in unsafe work by do-it-
yourselfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2005. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf
\2\Preventing Lead Exposure in Young Children: A Housing-Based
Approach to Primary Prevention, October 2004. Available at: http://
www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/Primary percent20Prevention
percent20Document.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CDC level of concern of 10 ug/dL was not established to
be a ``safe'' or ``normal'' level or a level below which
nothing needs to be done, although some have erroneously used
it in this fashion. As early as 1991, CDC reported that adverse
health effects could be seen at blood lead levels below 10 ug/
dL.\3\ More recent evidence from multiple studies, reviewed by
CDC itself as recently as 2005,\4\ has confirmed again the 1991
CDC Statement that no safe level of lead exposure has been
found.\5\ A further review of this evidence is unlikely to
yield any new fresh insights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 1991. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/plpyc/contents.htm
\4\Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2005. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf
\5\Canfield, Richard L., Christopher R. Henderson, Deborah Cory-
Slechta, C. Cox, Todd A. Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear 2003.
Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead levels below 10 ug/
dL. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 1517--1522 and Lanphear
et al. 2005. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's
intellectual function: An international pooled analysis Env Health
Perspectives 113:894--899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, a few physicians and other medical
professionals have suggested that CDC should lower its current
blood lead level of concern. While this level has declined over
the years from 60 ug/dL to 30 ug/dL to 25 ug/dL to the current
level of 10 ug/dL, blood lead levels should not be used to
trigger exposure prevention. Instead of waiting for a child to
produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10, or 15 ug/dL (or any
other level), the Nation should eliminate exposures before harm
occurs. Quite simply, this means that we should not wait for a
child's blood lead level to increase before taking action. This
is consistent with CDC's position. The idea that CDC recommends
no action at blood lead levels below 10 ug/dL is incorrect. In
fact, CDC has recently published guidance on what actions need
to be taken at blood lead levels below 10 ug/dL.\6\ Primary
prevention (taking action to prevent exposure) is much more
important than adherence to a medical approach that is limited
to treating children only after they have been harmed. We
should not use children as detectors of lead problems and we
must not wait until children's blood lead levels increase.
Instead, the Nation should be testing and abating houses and
other sources of lead to prevent exposure, and focusing
resources on where the exposures are greatest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Binns HJ, Campbell C, Brown MJ, Interpreting and Managing Blood
Lead Levels of Less Than 10 ug/dL in Children and Reducing Childhood
Exposure to Lead: Recommendations of the Centers For Disease Control
and Prevention Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention. Pediatrics 120 (3) e1285-e1298. Nov 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Dr. Jacobs, you have conducted numerous studies
that suggest housing is the biggest source of childhood lead
exposure in your testimony, you say that the nation should be
testing and abating houses to identify lead problems. Is
focusing on the housing problem the best way to get the biggest
bang for our buck? If we could do one thing inside of a home to
reduce lead paint exposure, what would it be?
Response. In my written testimony, I have provided
references to numerous studies demonstrating that for most
children in the U.S. today, exposure to residential lead-based
paint hazards constitutes the greatest threat of lead
poisoning. Most housing still remains untested and unabated in
this country. For individual children, of course, exposures to
other sources of lead, some of which can be quite severe and
even fatal, are critically important and therefore must be
promptly addressed. Generally speaking, focusing on housing
with lead paint does remain the best way to get the biggest
bang for our buck, because that is where most exposures to lead
are the greatest. We must focus on housing, while also
retaining and expanding the public health capacity to respond
to other important lead exposure sources. Within housing, lead-
safe window replacement is likely to be the best one thing we
could do to reduce lead paint exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Nevin R, Jacobs DE, Berg M, Cohen J. Monetary benefits of
preventing childhood lead poisoning with lead-safe window replacement,
Environ Res, (Accepted Sept 6, 2007, Available on line. doi: 10:1016/
j.envres 2007.09.003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. The CDC has stated that ``Efforts to identify
and provide services to children with blood lead levels less
than 10 micrograms per deciliter may deflect needed resources
from children with higher blood lead levels who are likely to
benefit most from individualized interventions.'' Do you agree
with this statement? Shouldn't we focus our resources on those
kids with greatest risk?
Response. The CDC level of 10 ug/dL was not established to
be a ``safe'' or ``normal'' level, although some have used it
in this fashion. In fact, CDC, together with the American
Academy of Pediatrics, has recently published new guidance on
what actions should be taken at blood lead levels less than 10
ug/dL.\2\ Sound public health practice requires that those with
the highest exposures or worst conditions be treated first, as
any visitor to a hospital emergency room knows. Yes, resources
must be focused on children at greatest risk and we should
provide additional resources so that no child is placed at
excessive risk The essential point is that blood lead levels
should not be used to trigger exposure prevention. Instead of
waiting for a child to produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10,
or 15 ug/dL (or any other level), we should eliminate exposures
before harm occurs. Quite simply, this means that we should not
wait for a child's blood lead level to increase before taking
action. Primary prevention (taking action to prevent exposure)
is much more important than adherence to a medical approach
that is limited to treating children only after they have been
harmed. The nation should be testing and abating houses and
other sources to prevent exposure, not just use children as
detectors of a lead problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Binns HJ, et al. 2007. Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead
Levels Less Than 10 ug/dL in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure
to Lead. Pediatrics 120; e1285-e-1298. Available at: http://
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/5/e1285
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. Does CDC suggest that blood lead levels below
10 are acceptable?
Response. No, CDC does not in fact suggest that blood lead
levels below 10 ug/dL are ``acceptable'' or ``normal.'' In
fact, CDC recommends that clinicians and others take specific
actions when blood lead levels are below 10 ug/dL.\3\ If such
blood lead levels were in fact ``acceptable,'' CDC would not
recommend specific interventions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Binns HJ, et al. 2007. Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead
Levels Less Than 10 ug/dL in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure
to Lead. Pediatrics 120; e1285-e-1298. Available at: http://
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/5/e1285
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by David E. Jacobs to an Additional Question
from Senator Boxer
Question. Please describe whether you believe that EPA's
lead paint renovation rulemaking makes adequate use of recent
scientific studies that demonstrate risks to children's health
from blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per decilter?
Response. The EPA proposed regulation on renovation,
repairs and painting estimated the large net benefits of such a
regulation to children with blood lead levels both above and
below 10 ug/dL using recent scientific studies, although the
economic benefits estimated by EPA are likely to greatly
underestimate the true benefits. The proposed regulation is not
triggered by a child with a particular blood lead level, which
I believe is the correct approach. Instead, the proposed
regulation is properly triggered by certain events in housing
that could disturb existing lead-based paint, regardless of
blood lead level. But, EPA has not used available scientific
studies in the proposed regulation that show certain paint
removal methods, such as open flame burning and power sanding,
must not be used; HUD has already banned these paint removal
methods in federally assisted housing in 1999.\1\ EPA has also
not used available scientific studies demonstrating that dust
lead testing following cleanup, i.e., clearance testing, must
be done to ensure the housing is safe at the conclusion of the
work. Finally, EPA has not used the available scientific
studies to modernize its lead dust standard, which of course is
the subject of a separate, but related regulation. EPA should
not establish a regulation based solely on a blood lead level
of 10 ug/dL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\24 CFR Part 35.140
Senator Boxer. That was very powerful testimony.
Ms. Farrow.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA FARROW, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CITY OF
BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Ms. Farrow. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member
Inhofe and members of the Committee. On behalf of the Baltimore
City Health Department, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify. My name is Olivia Farrow. I am the
Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health for the
Baltimore City Health Department.
The Centers for Disease Control State on their website that
there is no threshold below which adverse effects are not
experienced. There is no safe level for a child. As we have
worked diligently to reduce the hazards associated with lead-
based paint exposure, the lead-containing consumer products are
a growing concern nationwide and represent a major challenge
for local jurisdictions. Following are our attempts at the
local level to prevent poisoning from two consumer products.
In response to the tragic event in Minneapolis in 2006, the
Baltimore City Health Department began testing samples of
children's jewelry sold within its jurisdiction. Our tests
found excessive levels of lead in children's jewelry in
Baltimore. The products were being sold in stores that operate
throughout the Country, including Claire's and Wal-Mart. To
respond under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the
Baltimore City Health Department proposed and then promulgated
regulations on children's jewelry in December 2006. This city
regulation requires that the Health Department collect monthly
samples of children's jewelry and test for lead content.
Since we have banned the children's jewelry at the level of
600 parts per million, which went into effect September 1,
2007, part of that regulation is that no product can contain an
excessive amount of lead. A violation notice is issued if a
jewelry product is found to have more than 600 parts per
million. The notice declares all items of the same style and
from the same manufacturer to be a nuisance and order the
retailer to stop sale within 24 hours.
The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children's
jewelry in February of this year, and out of the 8 months we
have tested, we have found excessive levels of lead in four of
those months. Furthermore, the majority of the samples of
jewelry that are found to be poisonous are ones that are sold
for $1 or less.
In March, 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India
and sold for only 25 cents each in a city vending machine
tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. These rings were
previously subject to a product recall in July, 2004 by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. In August, our Health
Department discovered that a Spiderman ring, which I have here
now, a Spiderman III ring which sold for $1 contained 128,000
parts per million of lead by weight.
Other products that present a potential and real hazard to
children, in September 2006, we were notified by the Maryland
Department of the Environment that two children under the age
of two in different areas of the State had been lead-poisoned
by a product known as kohl, which I have here today. Each child
had a blood lead level greater than 20 micrograms per
deciliter, and the family had purchased the product at a small
Pakistani store in the city of Baltimore. Kohl, also known as
surma, jajal or al-kahl, is a black powdered substance applied
around the eyes of small children to improve health, according
to its packaging. As translated from the package, it is
``especially prepared for newborn children. This product at the
store was tested and two samples revealed lead levels of 39
percent and 45 percent lead by weight.
To respond, under the authority of the Health Commissioner,
the department identified the product as a health hazard and
issued a notice and order prohibiting the sale of any cosmetic
products containing Kohl within the city of Baltimore. We
immediately contacted the Food and Drug Administration's
Imports Operations Division. It resulted in an import bulletin
being issued and an updated import alert for products coming
from the identified vendors.
Our experience in Baltimore City has proven that many of
these imported products are not adequately regulated by the
Federal Government. The failure of the CPSC product recall
system exemplifies the Federal Government's failure to protect
the public from imported good. As I previously stated, the CPSC
recalled three rings in July, 2004 because of high lead
content, yet almost 3 years later, Baltimore City finds that
these rings are still available for sale to the public.
In the case of the Kohl poisonings, the Food and Drug
Administration issued an import alert for automatic detention
for eye cosmetics containing Kohl back in 1996, yet the product
continues to make it into the United States for retail sale.
The Environmental Protection Agency also has a role in
protecting the health of children with its authority to provide
oversight of toxic substances, including lead, and a local
jurisdiction's authority can only extend so far. Federal
agencies need to aggressively take the lead in preventing the
sale of these contaminated products, and current Federal
regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting children
from lead in imported products.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrow follows:]
Statement of Olivia Farrow, Assistance Commissioner, City of Baltimore
Department of Health
Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the
Committee, on behalf of the Baltimore City Health Department, I
would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
risks to children from lead and mechanisms for addressing and
preventing childhood lead exposure. My name is Olivia Farrow
and I am the AssistantCommissioner of the Environmental Health
Division of the Baltimore City Health Department.
Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard
facing American children today. It is also one of the most
preventable. Children are frequently exposed to lead by
ingesting lead dust from deteriorating lead-based paint.
Exposure may also come from soil that contains lead, drinking
water or lead-tainted consumer products such as food, jewelry
and even cosmetics. The Centers for Disease Control states on
their website that there is no ``threshold below which adverse
effects are not experienced.'' There is no safe lead level for
a child.
As we have worked diligently to reduce the hazards
associated with lead-based paint exposure, the lead-containing
consumer products are a growing concern nationwide and
represent a major challenge for local jurisdictions. Following
are our attempts at the local level to prevent poisonings from
two consumer products.
On March 23, 2006, a 4-year-old child in Minneapolis died
from lead intoxication after swallowing a piece of children's
jewelry that was sold with a new pair of shoes. In response to
this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health Department began
testing samples of children's jewelry sold within its
jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels of lead in
children's jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being sold
in stores that operate throughout the country, including
Claire's and Wal-Mart (Attached are the lab results).
To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of
Health, the Baltimore City Health Department proposed and then
promulgated regulations on children's jewelry on December 7,
2006. (Attached is the final regulation).
The City regulation requires that the Health Department
collect monthly samples of children's jewelry and test for lead
content. In order to give City retailers an opportunity to come
into compliance, the regulation initially banned children's
jewelry containing more than 1200 parts per million. Effective
September 1, 2007, we further reduced the
acceptable level of lead, banning all children's jewelry
with metal components containing in excess of 600 parts per
million of total lead. Once a product is found to contain an
excessive amount of lead, a violation notice is issued. The
notice declares all items of the same style and from the same
manufacturer to be a nuisance and orders the retailer to stop
sale within twenty-four hours. An owner can be charged with
multiple misdemeanor offenses and fined should he or she fail
to comply with the notice.
The City began the mandatory monthly testing of children's
jewelry in February of this year. Out of the 8 months we have
tested, we have found excessive lead levels in four of those
months. Our testing has revealed that the majority of the
products found with excessive levels of lead are sold in
discount stores that cater to a lower-income clientele.
Furthermore, the majority of the samples of jewelry that are
found to be poisonous are ones that are sold for a dollar or
less.
For an example, in March 2007, three rings that were
manufactured in India and sold for only 25 cents each in a City
vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty tested
approximately 5 percent lead by weight. These rings were
previously subject to a product recall in July 2004 by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
In August, our Health Department discovered that a
Spiderman 3 ring, which sold for one dollar, contained 12.8
percent lead by weight. This ring was sold at a Dollar Tree and
was imported from China.
Turning to other products that present a potential and real
hazard to children, in September of 2006, we were notified by
our State Department of the Environment that two children,
under the age of two, in different areas of the State had been
lead poisoned by a product known as Kohl. Each child had a
blood lead level of 20 ?g/dl or higher. One family purchased
the product at a small Pakistani grocery store in Baltimore
City.
Kohl, also known as Surma, Kajal or Al-Kahl, is a black
powdered substance applied around the eyes of small children to
improve health, according to its packaging. As translated from
the package it is ``especially prepared for new-born children.
. . ''
The product at the store was tested and the two samples
revealed lead levels of 39 percent and 45 percent lead by
weight. The limit for lead paint is 0.06 percent lead by
weight. To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of
Health, the Baltimore City Health Department immediately
identified the product as a health hazard and issued a Notice
and
Order to Remove Health Nuisance, prohibiting the sale of
any cosmetic products containing Kohl within the city of
Baltimore. We immediately contacted the Food and Drug
Administration's Imports Operations Division. FDA conducted its
own investigation tracing the product back to the importer and
manufacturer resulting in Import Bulletin being issued and an
updated Import Alert for products coming from the identified
vendors. Our experience in Baltimore City has proven that many
of these imported products are not adequately regulated by the
Federal Government. The failure of the CPSC product recall
system exemplifies the Federal Government's failure to protect
the public from imported goods.
As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three rings in
July 2004 because of high lead content. Yet, almost 3 years
later, Baltimore City finds that these rings are still
available for sale to the public. Cardinal Novelty would have
been free to continue to redistribute this poisonous product
had Baltimore City not enacted its regulations.
In the case of the Kohl poisonings, the Food and Drug
Administration issued an Import Alert for automatic detention
for eye cosmetics containing Kohl back in 1996, yet the product
continues to make it into the United States for retail sale.
The Environmental Protection Agency also has a role in
protecting the health of children with its authority to provide
oversight of toxic substances, including lead.
A local jurisdiction's authority can only extend so far.
Federal agencies need to aggressively take the lead in
preventing the sale of these contaminated products. Current
Federal regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting
children from lead in imported products.
I would like to conclude by stating that this country has
made tremendous progress in the fight to eliminate childhood
lead poisoning. But even one child poisoned is one child too
many. Stricter Federal regulation on products for children is
urgently needed.
On behalf of Baltimore City's Health Department and Mayor
Sheila Dixon, I thank you for the opportunity to offer comments
today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.141
Response by Olivia Farrow to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. In your testimony, you cited the terrible cases
where two children were poisoned when their family purchased a
product at a Pakistani grocery store that in some cultures was
used to improve the health of babies. CDC has identified these
types of cultural products as a real problem. How do we address
the lead content of these products while still being respectful
of the cultural practices of people who come to live in this
country?
Response. When a product is found to contain high levels of
lead, the only solution is to inform the public and have the
product pulled from sale. Certain products are used for certain
cultural practices. However, we find that parents, regardless
of cultural background, have the best intention for their
children. Thus, once they are informed of the health dangers of
a product, they voluntarily stop using the product. No parent
wants to endanger the health and safety of his or her child.
------
Response by Olivia Farrow to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. How important is it to city health departments,
like the one that you work for, that Federal agencies ?
including EPA ? take stronger actions to stop the use of lead
in consumer products, such as toy jewelry?
Response. It is extremely important that Federal agencies
take stronger action to stop the use of lead in consumer
products. At this time, local health departments, such as
Baltimore City, are only reacting to this health threat. Being
reactive can only protect consumers to a certain extent.
Baltimore City's monthly random testing has fortunately stopped
sales of some lead contaminated products. It does not, however,
prevent all contaminated products from being sold to the
public. In order to proactively address the issue of lead in
consumer products, Federal action needs to be taken.
Relying on local or State jurisdictions to enact laws and
regulations will result in a patchwork of regulatory oversight
that fails to protect children nationwide. Manufacturers would
also support a uniform regulatory guideline that would enable
them to create a product that meets one standard.
Only the Federal Government has the resources and authority
to stop contaminated products from entering the United States
or ensuring that manufacturers follow standards across the
country.
Question 2. Would stronger Federal efforts to collect
information on consumer products that contain dangerous levels
of lead help local officials' efforts to protect their
citizens? If so, please explain.
Response. More Federal action is needed in order for local
efforts to be more effective. Because products are distributed
nationally and are available to the public in multiple states,
it is necessary for Federal agencies to collect information on
those products that pose a risk immediately and notify all
affected states and locales. At this time, Baltimore City is
primarily relying on its monthly jewelry testing to find
products that endanger the public. We hope that we are able to
find all products with excessive lead levels. Realistically
though, we realize our resources are limited and there may be
lead products on store shelves that we have not tested.
Senator Boxer. I think you are just terrific in that. I am
going to stop you right there because of time concerns.
Ms. Farrow, I just want to say, it is funny to me. I am
taken aback. I can't speak for anybody else, that this burden
has fallen on the city. One of the problems is we have the
Government witnesses leave after they speak. With all of the
staff we have at the EPA, with all of the power they have given
the laws of the land, that you are now telling us that you have
to protect the kids, when the Consumer Product Safety
Commission acted and these goods are still on the shelves.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. I really have to. I am sorry I had to leave
9 minutes ago.
Senator Boxer. That is OK.
Senator Inhofe. So there won't be time for me to----
Senator Boxer. Go ahead. You take my time. It is fine.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Well, let me just not ask you to respond to any of the
questions, but maybe for the record you can respond. There are
some things that I think would be interesting. One would be,
well let's see.
Dr. Jacobs, there is a statement by the CDC that said,
``Efforts to identify and provide services to children with
blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter may
deflect needed resources from children with higher blood levels
who are likely to benefit most from individualized
intervention.'' I guess what I would like to know, and this
would be fine to do for the record, do you agree with the
statement? And then, should we focus or should we not focus our
resources on those kids with the greatest risk? That would be
one.
Then I wanted to, one of the concerns I have, Mr. Nagel, is
because I am very familiar with your--I used to do what your
people are doing. I worry a little bit about creating a
disincentive for people to have renovations done and end up
doing them themselves, which most likely in most cases is going
to end up with a higher lead level. This is a concern that I
have, and I am not sure how to address this. I think you
probably have given some thought to it, and I would like to get
your thoughts.
Then also, what would be the likelihood, if we have a rule
that comes out that would be very difficult to deal with, that
remodelers would just quit remodeling some of these homes? I
happen to be living in one of the oldest areas of Tulsa, and
frankly I have been guilty of a lot of this myself. But if you
just thought, well, the risk is too great, or perhaps you would
end up being responsible for something you had no control over,
just not taking those jobs, and therefore you are going to keep
older houses in a State of continual deterioration, where there
would be greater risk.
Maybe just on that last question you could just make a
comment, Mr. Nagel, and then I will have to leave, Madam
Chairman.
Mr. Nagel. Absolutely. Working as a professional remodeler
who has been trained in lead-safe work practices, working in a
pre-1978 house that is known to contain lead creates many
issues for us. Certainly, the least of which is a legal issue
for us because it puts us in a litigative State that we area
acknowledging the existence of lead in that house.
We are not abatement contractors. We are not required to be
kept at the standard that abatement contractors are kept at.
Having some form of clearance testing at the end of the
project, which basically only proves the existence of lead in
the house is putting us at risk from a litigation standpoint.
We also have the issue in some States, as in my State of
Illinois, where if I know there is lead in a house, I legally
am not allowed, as a non-abatement contractor, I am not allowed
to renovate that house without somebody coming in and abating
it beforehand.
We also have the issue of insurance. Current insurance in
our area where workman's comp and liability issues does not
cover. In fact, it specifically excludes hazardous waste, and
outside contractors working in a hazardous waste situation. So
as a professional remodeler who has been in the business for 22
years, if I know the house has lead in it, I will not work in
that house because it puts me at too much risk. It puts my
business and my family at risk.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I understand. I thought that should be
in the record. With that, I will have to leave.
Maybe for the record, Ms. Farrow, one of the things that
concerns me, and I think it concerns you, too, is if you are
dealing--we are talking about the Pakistani things that are
originating there--you are dealing with a culture, and you are
dealing with a cultural problem. I would like to have you
perhaps for the record let me know your thoughts on that. That
could be a problem.
Madam Chairman, I want to appreciate you for holding this
hearing. You guys don't know this, this is one of the few
hearings where we are almost in total agreement with each
other.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. So thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am just speechless at that, Senator.
Look, we are grandparents. We care about our kids.
Senator Inhofe. Right.
Senator Boxer. Let me just say, this has been a very
illuminating hearing for me in many, many ways. I want to get
back to Ms. Farrow. I want to understand exactly--you say you
do monthly testing. Do you say that in the law in the city of
Baltimore in order to sell retail, they have to do the testing?
Or do you come in and just test?
Ms. Farrow. No. Actually, we come in and test, and we just
pick a few retail shops throughout the city randomly. We are
not doing a lot of testing, just two or three stores each
month. We just take four or five items just randomly. So it is
the Health Department that is actually conducting the testing.
Senator Boxer. And then you put out an alert to all stores,
if you have this, they have to get rid of it?
Ms. Farrow. Exactly. We issue a violation notice to the
particular store that was selling the product. We issue a press
advisory so that everyone in the city is aware in the event
that someone has already purchased the product, and then we
notify the CPSC also.
Senator Boxer. OK. If the retailer continues to sell the
product, are they subject to fines?
Ms. Farrow. Yes. They are subject to misdemeanor fines if
found guilty.
Senator Boxer. And you are saying that you found products
that had been recalled that are still out there?
Ms. Farrow. Right. Three rings in a vending machine, they
had been recalled by the CPSC in 2004, and I can't speak for
what happened in 2004.
Senator Boxer. And you reported that to the CPSC?
Ms. Farrow. Right. We reported it to the CPSC, as we do
whenever we find positives. In March, we reported that to CPSC.
A couple of months later, CPSC actually issued a re-recall of
those rings because of our sampling. They realized that this
product was back on the market.
Senator Boxer. I guess the question I have, the issue of
recall and the product continues to come in, and people
continue to sell it, they ought to be--would you agree that
there ought to be some punishment out there for people who
continue to import a product that has been banned? It just
seems to me, it just sounds like these recalls are not working
as they are supposed to work.
Ms. Farrow. Meaningless, yes.
Senator Boxer. Well, I just can't get over the fact that we
have to have this enforcement at the city level. I just admire
what you are doing, because here is the thing. You could see
from the EPA, they are not that interested in getting involved
in toy safety. They have to be pushed by Sierra Club to do the
minimal amount of work, and they haven't even done that. They
are taking so long to do this rule on remodeling. So we have
the EPA just trying to bow out of this, and everybody is taking
credit for the lead in paint, which is a wonderful
accomplishment, but as my staff counsel pointed out to me, if
you are a child and you put one of these toys in your mouth, it
doesn't matter that the lead is out of the paint. This is
pretty much death, sickness, retardation and the rest.
So what you are doing in stepping in here is really
commendable. Do you know of other cities that are doing this as
well?
Ms. Farrow. No. We are trying to follow the model of
California and I believe there is some work going on in
Illinois. But as far as a local jurisdiction, I can't say right
offhand.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Neltner, in response to my questioning of Mr. Gulliford
about how he is responding to the settlement of those lawsuits,
you said that you were surprised that they were going to
slowly. I think I would just say to my staff, I mean I guess I
would like to ask you since you are the attorney who was
involved in this. Are you the attorney?
Mr. Neltner. Yes, I am.
Senator Boxer. Your expectation was that they would be
taking action much quicker on these imported toys?
Mr. Neltner. Right, that the rule would have been effective
in June 2008. It sounds like much longer than that now. They
are talking a year from whenever they issue this rule, and they
didn't firmly commit to a deadline to issue the rule.
Senator Boxer. Would you think that that is a violation of
the settlement agreement, if that is the case?
Mr. Neltner. Perhaps.
Senator Boxer. Well, this is what I want to do. I am going
to write a letter today and ask for immediate response, and ask
them how the timetable they laid out meets the settlement.
Mr. Neltner. It also seems inconsistent with the Toxic
Substances Control Act, because they received a recommendation
from the Interagency Testing Committee in June to issue this
rule to implement the recommendations. They have no industry
opposition. The industry said, fine, just do what you promised,
and there has been no opposition. So I don't understand why it
would take so long to do a simple rule on this one--because of
the way TSCA allows them to act more quickly. It is interesting
that it seems to be taking a long time.
Senator Boxer. OK. I have another question. That one we
will work on together. If you could give me your top three
recommendations on how EPA could use its authorities under TSCA
that so far it is refusing to do. Because my sense is, they
keep saying, we can't do this under TSCA, and we have a
different view. I wonder what you believe TSCA allows them to
do, without any change in law.
Mr. Neltner. Well, obviously issue the renovation, repair
and painting rule in a manner that allows consumers to be able
to take steps to protect themselves. Second issue quality
control orders to any company that has a recall. If a company
has had a recall, they have obviously had a quality control
problem. Issue an order, get those quality control procedures,
find out the factories--also under TSCA 8(e) they should be
submitting these notices--find out those factories that have a
problem and then begin to work on those factories and work with
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
In many ways, because of the failure of EPA, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and EPA have been working blind. When
you have facts, you make better decisions. They have been
reluctant to get those facts.
Senator Boxer. So you are saying under TSCA, without any
change in law, they could issue quality control orders to
companies who have been subjected to having their products
recalled.
Mr. Neltner. Correct. Their response in the negotiations
was, you can't force us to issue an order because it was a
glitch in the way the law was written for citizen petitions.
You can only force us to issue a rule, but you can't make this
issue a rule until we first issue an order. A little
complicated, but the bottom line is they have the authority and
they could do it very quickly, much quicker than the Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
Senator Boxer. Have they ever issued a quality control
order to a company that has been the subject of a recall?
Mr. Neltner. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. And if they were sitting here now say
they can't do it?
Mr. Neltner. That seems to be my impression. I would sure
like to figure that out. I can't figure out why they don't feel
they have the authority. If it means deference to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, we also asked them to formally ask
Consumer Product Safety Commission for that go-ahead, and they
refused to do that by saying, the Sierra Club can't force EPA
to issue a Section 9 report to CPSC.
Senator Boxer. OK. So in your opinion, they could go ahead
and do that.
OK, what else could they do?
Mr. Neltner. Well, because they issued one of those letters
to the 120 companies about Section 8(e) notices, reminding them
of their responsibilities, it became clear to us that EPA
wasn't going to act when the companies weren't submitting these
notices. So we ended up filing a notice of intent to sue
against 11 companies, including Mattel, saying, you have had
repeat recalls; you need to follow the law; you need to submit
the TSCA 8(e) notices.
We would like to see EPA enforce the law instead of having
to rely on citizens groups to do it. The citizen groups are
prepared to sue Oriental Trading Company and Mattel because EPA
won't. When EPA goes out to companies with this 8(e) reminder,
they could also remind them of their new responsibilities under
this 8(d) rule. EPA could include the names of the factories
that have been producing the lead-contaminated products in
China. They have that ability to get that information from the
companies. It is very hard for CPSC to get that.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Neltner. Get that information on the factories, and
then let all the other importers know that if you use these
factories, you should check your products. Right now, we have a
catch--as-catch-can system where local health departments, as
you correctly pointed out, are using their very limited
resources, resources that should be focused on housing, to do
what the Federal Government is unwilling to do.
If they would have done that, if they would have
systematically gone to importers to check their other products,
then we would be able to start fixing the system and
proactively get ahead of the curve.
Senator Boxer. It just seems to me that so much of the
problem is from these imported products. I don't know why we
can't easily have testing done. First ask the companies in
America to sign a statement that they know there is quality
control. But I guess if there is a quality control order, it
would be issued on a company like Mattel, for example?
Mr. Neltner. Right.
Senator Boxer. And then Mattel would have to--see if I am
right on this--then if they had a quality control order, Mattel
would have to go over to these factories and do the testing,
and they would be held liable if the products came in with
lead.
Mr. Neltner. Well, three points. One is the order would
only ask them to submit their procedures so EPA could identify
the shortcomings and adopt a rule to order that testing, to
require them to do more.
But you asked, why haven't the companies have not done the
testing. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been behind
the curve when it comes to the technology needed to test the
products. In large measure, you can test in a nondestructive
way using an XRF device. You can check products very quickly.
That is how we check these products here with a Niton XRF. You
can quickly check them.
What I understand now is that instead of relying on CPSC's
standard test, companies are going ahead and using the new
technology, checking lots more products, and that is part of
the reason we are getting so many recalls.
So CPSC is just behind the technology curve, and that is
another area where EPA could have provided some support to
Consumer Product Safety Commission because EPA knew all about
these XRFs and their ability to quickly determine the lead
content.
Senator Boxer. OK. I would greatly appreciate it if any of
the witnesses here today, because you are all so knowledgeable
on this, could send to the Committee, Senators Inhofe and
myself, your recommendations for what EPA could be doing right
now without any change in the law. Because I think there is a
reticence on their part. They are focused on the paint, which
of course is super critical. But even there, they are slow on
the home remodeling rule.
But it seems to me they have a great statement on their
website which says the following. One of their biggest goals
is, it says, ``to make significant progress toward our goal of
virtually eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public
health threat by advancing meaningful reductions in blood lead
levels for children at risk through a comprehensive program of
new regulations, technical assistance, education, outreach, and
community assistance.''
Those are nice words, but I don't get it from the EPA
witness today that that is what we are seeing here at all. I
see a great reticence, a slow-down, taking credit for past
efforts. Wonderful. They have been good, but we need to do more
because, again, even if the homes are 100 percent clean, if a
kid puts something in his mouth, it is going to undo it all.
Mr. Jacobs, you showed us the beautiful colors of paints
that are in these foreign countries that have astronomical
levels of lead. Are the people there unaware of the problem,
No. 1? And No. 2, how do you think they could make their way
in? You said they are going to make their way onto our shores.
Under our current laws, could they make their way onto our
shores?
Mr. Jacobs. It would be illegal, of course, because it
would violate the existing Consumer Product Safety Commission,
but so were a number of these other products that have already
crossed our borders.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Jacobs. These are children's products as well.
To borrow a lesson from the lead paint experience, one of
the things that often happens is agencies will point to each
other and say, this is not our job; this is CPSC's or EPA's
job.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Jacobs. Lead disclosure for properties was sort of like
that; it was not entirely clear which agency should required
owners to disclose information on lead paint hazards. The
solution was pretty straightforward: Congress required that HUD
and EPA pass a joint regulation. It is a little unwieldy, but
it works. Agencies don't like it, but it can be done and it is
quite effective, and you don't get the finger-pointing that
way. There is no reason that CPSC and EPA can't coordinate
their activities to take steps that are necessary through joint
regulation.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Jacobs. I suspectg many people in these other countries
are not aware of this problem. There are a few researchers in
India, Nigeria and other countries that working to make this
known and to have their governments take action. I have left
out one important element here, and that is it is the same
companies, some of them may have affiliations to U.S. paint
companies, who are manufacturing these paints with high amounts
of lead. Singapore actually has an effective regulation. The
same company will manufacture these products and comply with
the much lower Singapore standards. This green paint sample is
from Singapore, and it only had 300 parts per million. And yet
the same color paint, made by the same company in China, has a
lead content of hundreds of thousands parts per million.
So the technology is there to make paint with low levels of
lead. This is a matter of making sure that there are global
restrictions on the production of lead in paint. Back in the
late 1980's, there was an effort by the United Nations
Environment Program, UNEP, to globally ban all non-essential
uses of lead. Senator Inhofe was correct. There are some
essential uses of lead. They can be managed. We need to take
steps to make sure that happens.
But it is time to refocus our attention on a global ban of
nonessential uses of lead. We have been down this road too many
times. There is no reason to repeat it again.
Senator Boxer. I really do agree.
Anybody else have anything to add for the record before we
adjourn? Yes, sir, Doctor.
Dr. Lanphear. I would just like to add, just so we are
realistic moving into this. If you look at the dramatic
declines in blood lead levels that we have seen, we have to
realize that that too happened under great duress and great
resistance. In fact, for the air lead standard, EPA didn't take
action until they were sued by NRDC.
So to be realistic, they need this kind of pressure. That
is part of our job, but they really need it to protect kids.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Well, I couldn't agree with you more.
I just want to say to the whole panel, thank you so much.
It has just been a really good hearing. I am glad the votes on
the floor cooperated with us at the end.
We do stand adjourned.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73577.176