Comment submitted by Roberta Hazen Aaronson, Executive Director, Childhood Lead Action Project

The Childhod Lead Action Project (Project), founded in 1992, works to eliminate childhood lead poisoning through education, parent support and advocacy. Childhood lead poisoning remains the most pervasive, yet preventable environmental health problem in Rhode Island. It is one of the most insidious indicators of environmental injustice ? children of color continue to have alarming rates of poisoning. Over the years, the Childhood Lead Action Project has come to be recognized as a leading education and information resource by the community and as a catalyst for social change. The Project is the only organization in Rhode Island devoted exclusively to this critical issue. The Project has considerable experience working with Property Owners, Contractors, Human Service Providers and Building Officials. Since May of 2004, the Project has successfully trained over 660 people with the Renovator/ Remodeler Course. Regulated under the RI Department of Health, we provide a program similar to that proposed under EPA?s new requirements to reduce exposure to lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint. Therefore, our specific concerns and suggestions are included in this letter. We have also attached our point-by-point response to the specific questions posed in the EPA document Renovation, Repair, and Painting Proposal: Points to Consider. ? The Project believes that the proposed 40 CFR 745.90(b) has a large loophole in the ?supervision? requirement regarding the presence of a certified renovator during renovation activities. This section would only require that a certified renovator be physically present on the site during initial posting of signs and construction of containment, as well as during clearance testing. At other times, the work could be performed either by a certified renovator or by individuals that have been trained by a certified renovator in accordance with the EPA specified training (i.e., no formal certification of these other individuals or training by authorized provider) as long as a certified renovator is ?available? by telephone [40 CFR 745.90(b)(5)]. However, while trainers in formal courses must meet specific knowledge and experience criteria, anyone who completes a certified renovator class (regardless of their qualifications as a trainer) would be authorized to ?train? any number of workers for their firm and turn them loose to perform renovations that are for (all practical purposes) unsupervised. We see this as a major weakness of the overall certification process because it would allow a single certified renovator to ?supervise? any number of projects at the same time without being physically present at any of them. Therefore, we would suggest that 40 CFR 745.90(b) be amended to require the on-site presence of at least one certified renovator during all phases of the renovation activity. ? The Project believes that the manner in which some proposed implementation timelines are described may be a source of confusion. For example, there is a general statement [745.81(a)] that training, certification and accreditation requirements and work practice standards will become effective one year after publication of final rule in all states without a currently delegated renovation program (i.e., directly administered by EPA). However, other aspects of this proposed rule appear to have implementation dates up to three years after the publication of the final rule. ? The proposed work practice standards in 40 CFR 745.85 would allow acceptable clearance to be determined by use of a ?cleaning verification card? rather than by dust wipes. The Project finds the information provided by EPA in support of this proposal to be less than compelling. Although one study appeared to indicate that there were no false negatives (i.e., acceptable clearance by this method when dust wipes showed a project would NOT have been cleared), several other studies appeared to have a considerably higher (and unacceptable) false negative rate. In addition, our experience has shown that even if EPA contractors under ideal/simulated field conditions could properly use the ?cleaning verification card?, most renovation contractors would not exercise the same degree of caution and would be more prone to ?accidentally? misread the card in an attempt to clear the job in a more rapid manner. Therefore, we believe that use of a ?cleaning verification card? poses an unacceptably high possibility of a false negative clearance for an area undergoing renovation, and that traditional dust wipes should remain as the only acceptable clearance method. ? The proposed initial renovator [40 CFR 745.225(d)(6)] and dust sampling technician [40 CFR 745.225(d)(7)] courses are both specified as at least 8 training hours, including at least 2 hours of hands-on training activities. However, the actual course requirements are only described in fairly broad terms. It seems apparent from their posting on the EPA Lead web site that either the Joint EPA/HUD Training Curriculum (July, 2003) or the EPA Model Renovation Training Course (September 2000) are the preferred formats for presenting this training. As a provider of the Renovator / Remodeler Training Course we believe that EPA should be consistent with their other lead training programs and specifically identify a ?model course? (or courses) which contain the essential training elements that must be included.