Comment submitted by Gian A. Cossa, Director of Government Programs, Rx Solutions International/BTS Laboratories, Inc.

Rx Solutions International/BTS Laboratories Inc. (RX/BTS) respectfully submits these comments regarding EPA?s Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. We understand that the Agency is seeking comments early in the rulemaking process so that it may continue working expeditiously toward its goal of publishing a final regulation in early 2007. As a preface, EPA?s regulation includes a ?white glove? methodology for verifying that no lead hazards remain following a renovation, repair, or painting job, and that the home is safe for reoccupancy. We believe EPA?s reliance on this methodology instead of the proven clearance dust testing methodology puts occupants at significant risk and fails to protect contractors from liability. In support of introducing a new Clearance methodology, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel has recommended ?that EPA take comment on options for Clearance that are less costly and less burdensome and yet still demonstrate the absence of lead hazards.? Consistent with the letter and spirit of this recommendation, we would like to offer these comments on the proposed Clearance methods of the rule. Consumer dust wipe test kits as a Clearance Option Low-cost, consumer friendly kits with laboratory analysis cost around $25 for 2 dust wipe samples. Rx/BTS has created the LeadSmart? 2 Do-It-Yourself dust wipe kits that are currently being used as part of housing-based primary prevention strategies for the following agencies: State Health Depts of Ohio, South Carolina, New Jersey and Delaware City Health Depts of Baltimore and St. Louis National Safety Council (through a HUD LEAP Grant) Coalition of Environmentally Safe Kids (EPA Targeted Grants to Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning [OPPT-2004-0119; FRL-7686-8] EPA should consider requiring that the contractor/renovator inform the property owner about their choices of Clearance at the completion of R&R activities: 1) Performing sampling themselves using a low cost, consumer kit using lab analysis 2) Paying the contractor to collect samples if certified in a qualifying discipline (risk assessor, lead inspector, sampling technician) 3) Hiring a 3rd party who is certified in a qualifying discipline Owner certification of the method chosen would be documented on the renovation certification form already required by EPA for other purposes. The current State-of-the-Art approach to Clearance sampling is to use certified personnel to collect dust wipe samples. However, there is a critical cost factor that makes this approach unfeasible. Typical costs associated with using certified personnel for Clearance sampling of a single area in a home after renovations are approximately $150-$300 per unit including laboratory analysis. In comparison, the price of our company?s LeadSmart? 2 kits based upon volume pricing could be as low as $25 per kit. This represents between 83% and 91% cost savings over the existing State-of-the-Art approach. Additionally, EPA would effectively increase the number of people capable of identifying lead hazards. If the EPA estimates that there are 26 million renovations in pre-1978 homes that contain lead paint each year, then it would be of tremendous value to empower 26 million property owners to act as an ?early warning detection? system by being able to identify lead hazards left after R&R activities. Are consumer dust wipe kits accurate? Analysis of the kit samples would still require the laboratory be recognized for the analysis by the EPA National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). That leaves the question as to whether untrained consumers can collect samples accurately. The following supports the fact that consumers CAN collect dust wipe samples accurately. A research study funded by EPA and conducted by the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) using LeadSmart? 2 kits is expected to be published in 2006. http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/html/dust_lead_test_kit_study.html The preliminary results from the NCHH Lead Dust Kit research project concluded the following: ?The NCHH Lead Dust Kit Study demonstrated the proficiency of untrained individuals is comparable to the proficiency of trained certified lead professionals when using field kits for dust lead testing after remodeling and renovation projects? and that ?untrained individuals can collect dust wipe samples that lead to meaningful results? The EPA?s Office of Children?s Health Protection recently acknowledged Rx/BTS Labs and LeadSmart? 2 Dust Wipe kits with a Children?s Environmental Health Recognition Award as a reflection of (Rx/BTS) dedication and ongoing commitment to protecting children from environmental health risks. Is Clearance testing more protective than a visual ?white glove? test? Clearance dust testing is the only objective methodology for determining the safety of a unit following renovation, repair, and painting. Clearance dust testing has been the primary method for determining the safety of a home for over a decade. Studies show that dust wipe loading correlates well to blood lead levels , . Clearance is the only method for determining the presence of actual lead hazards. In addition, dust wipe measures have been shown to be both reliable and valid. While the white glove methodology shows promise as an innovative proxy for determining the risk of lead hazards in a home following renovation, passing a white glove test has not been correlated with blood lead levels, and it fails to provide factual information about the presence or absence of lead or a specific numeric result that can be compared with EPA?s established lead hazard standards. Extensive research supports the fact that visual examinations are not sufficient to determine whether a home contains invisible lead dust. A 2002 NCHH study found that of 121 units enrolled, 54% passed a visual yet failed clearance levels (at that time clearance levels were 100 ?g/sq.ft. on floors, 500 ?g/sq.ft. on window sills, and 800 ?g/sq.ft. on window troughs). The subjectivity of visual ?white glove? tests creates serious risks for consumers and does not give them the information they need to protect their children.. Because the white glove test does not provide a numeric result, a family is given limited information from which to make informed decisions and worse yet, may be given a false sense of security. The Rochester study showed that 20% of children exposed to a floor dust lead level of 40 ?g/sq.ft. had blood lead levels greater than 10 ?g/dL and the baseline floor levels in homes enrolled in the National Evaluation were 17 ?g/sq.ft . In other words, although the federal floor dust standard is set at 40 ?g/sq.ft., there is sufficient evidence to suggest that floors well below this standard may endanger children. Property owners and residents should be provided quantitative information so they can choose what actions to take based on those levels. For instance, a clearance test could reveal that dust lead levels in the work area on floors are just below the EPA standard of 40 ?g/sq.ft. Although the contractor would have met the legal obligation, the property owner or residents may wish to take steps to carry out additional cleaning. The white glove test?s result would simply tell a property owner or resident that the floors met a measure for apparent ?cleanliness? as compared with the EPA-developed visual verification card. Recommendations: ? Make clearance dust testing a mandatory requirement in the final regulation. ? Require contractors to offer property owners a choice in Clearance methods to include a low cost, consumer dust wipe kit using laboratory analysis. Please contact me at 301.618.1641 or gian.cossa@rxenvironmental.com to discuss these comments. Thanks for you consideration, Gian A. Cossa Director of Government Programs Rx Solutions International/BTS Laboratories, Inc. 1221 Caraway Place, Suite 1010 Largo, MD 20774