Lead initiative Briefing Book


Lead Initiative
Briefing Book
RCRA

-------
2 ^
m

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- 9 1991
Orf:!££ OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lead Initiative Briefing Book
FROM:	Scott C. Fulton
Director of Civil Enforcement
TO:	Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your
staff for all your assistance in launching the lead initiative
We believe that the preparation and hard work resulted in a
successful effort. For your reference, attached please f ind a
copy of the final briefing book accompanying the initiative. We
hope that you find it useful.
Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
,7 c I-1*
INDEX
OE Lead Initiative Pre-Briefing Agenda 			1
OE Lead Initiative Talking Points 	2
OE Lead Initiative Fact Sheets Case Background Materials	3
OE Lead Initiative Q's & A's 		4
Final Agency Lead Strategy 					5
EPA Lead Message 							6
Reid Hearing Q's & A's 			,		7
Administrator's Testimony of February 21, 1991 		8
Health and Human Services Profit Testimony on HK 2840 ..	9
Newsweek Article on Lead (July 15, 1991} 		10

-------

-------
^ ¦*.	United States Environmental Protection Agency
?	x	Washington, D.C. 204-60
w,
V	r<«
PRO^°
Office of Enforcement
EPA ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
TO REDUCE LEAD CONTAMINATION

-------
u»n» states
EHVIKMWMTAl PtOTlCTIOB
AGE MOT
CCWUHICATIOHS A NO
PUBLIC AMAI*S
(A-107)
ERA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 31/ 1991
NATIONWIDE CRACKDOWN TO ENFORCE LEAD REDUCTION REGULATIONS
The Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency today launched a nationwide crackdown to enforce
existing lead laws and regulations aimed at reducing lead exposure
to the public and the environment, with particular emphasis on high
blood lead levels in children. The Department of Justice today
filed 24 judicial enforcement actions in federal courts throughout
the country while EPA took direct administrative enforcement action
against 13 facilities, assessing over $10 million in administrative
penalties.
The actions filed today were developed and organized in a new
way to broaden the impact of EPA's enforcement program. For the
first time the federal government is coordinating the filing of
enforcement actions to reduce a specific environmental pollutant
through the simultaneous use of six environmental statutes: the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or
Superfund Law; the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Together these statutes
address a significant number of lead compliance problems across the
country.
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh said, "This initiative
demonstrates the federal government's commitment to use a wide
variety of statutes in our law enforcement arsenal to attack lead
contamination in this country. While none of these cases presents
immediate emergency and danger to the public health, the long-term
adverse effects of lead are well known.
Gven Brown (202) 382-4383
R-133
(more)

-------
-2-
"Our priority in these environmental cases is to halt illegal
practices, clean up the contaminated site, and where appropriate,
collect penalties and reimbursement for past cleanup costs incurred
by the federal government," Thornburgh said.
"In today's actions, 20 different United States Attorneys have
worked with us to file civil complaints and request injunctions to
stop continued contamination. In one case, we have even sought the
court's contempt power against a responsible party," Thornburgh
said.
"While the Agency's goal," EPA Administrator William K. Reilly
said, "is to reduce lead emissions through prevention and control
programs, today's enforcement actions by EPA and DOJ show that the
Administration is determined to enforce existing regulations on
lead pollution vigorously."
Lead is a highly toxic metal that produces a range of adverse
health effects, particularly in children and fetuses. Today's
actions are part of a broad interagency effort announced earlier
this year to reduce lead exposure. Over the past few decades, the
country has made significant gains in reducing lead exposure.
Specifically, as a result of EPA's lead phasedown regulations
implemented in 1975, the amount of lead in gasoline has been
reduced over 99 percent. Enforcement of the gasoline lead
phasedown regulations has resulted in the collection of some $20
million to date.
The 21 RCRA cases in today's initiative address lead
contamination in soil, water and air — all of which have the
potential of causing substantial harm to human health and the
environment. The judicial actions in this initiative call for
civil penalties of up to the statutory maximum of $25 thousand per
day per violation, with the administrative actions seeking
penalties in excess of $10 million.
As part of the enforcement initiative to reduce lead
contamination, DOJ and EPA also have filed six complaints and
lodged two consent decrees under the Superfund Law. These
Superfund enforcement actions involve various sites across the
country and over 100 potentially responsible parties. Together,
the six complaints request reimbursement of about $10 million
dollars in Superfund money that the Agency spent on cleanup actions
at sites where lead was a contaminant.
In one administrative case under the Superfund law, EPA has
reached a settlement that will require the cleanup and removal of
lead contaminated soil from daycare centers, parks, yards, schools,
playgrounds and unpaved streets and alleys in and around East
Helena, Mont. This action will reduce lead exposure to children
living and playing in the area.
R-133
(more)

-------
-3-
EPA is also filing two administrative cases under EPCRA
against companies in Pennsylvania and West Virginia seeking a total
of $219,000 in civil penalties.
In addition, there are three judicial actions alleging
violations of the Clean Water Act, and two cases under the Clean
Air Act. One of the Clean Air Act cases involves lead phasedown
violations, and alleges that a company improperly sold 25 million
grams of lead. In another air case, the company has already agreed
to a penalty of $200,000 plus over $400,000 in projects designed
to advance the environment, including one directly designed to
minimize use of lead at the facility.
EPA is also conducting a comprehensive review of lead
emissions to ambient air. The emissions of lead from 29 designated
primary and secondary smelters were reviewed in May 1990. Of the
29 smelters reviewed, 22 were in compliance with state and federal
air pollution requirements; six were in violation; and one is
currently being evaluated. The six violating sources have been the
subject of federal and state enforcement actions. EPA and the
states are currently negotiating with these violating facilities in
order to ensure installation of controls and to bring them into
compliance. The Agency expects to complete the analysis of the
lead emissions to ambient air by September 1991.
(List of today's enforcement actions attached.)
R-133

-------
¦,<•0 ST.,.
^	^	United States Environmental Protection Agency
sew
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Enforcement
PRE-BRIEFING AGENDA:
EPA ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE TO REDUCE
LEAD CONTAMINATION
INTRODUCTION:
On July 31, 1991, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice will file
a series of cross-media enforcement actions, both civil judicial and
administrative, against major sources of lead emissions in all of EPA's
ten Regions.
EPA ENFORCEMENT AND THE LEAD STRATEGY:
The enforcement actions are part of EPA's Strategy for Reducing Lead
Exposures (Lead Strategy), issued on February 26, 1991. The Agency's
lead enforcement initiative is an aggressive, coordinated cross-media
approach to improving compliance with existing regulations governing
lead emissions. EPA intends to put the regulated community on notice
that the Agency is committed to aggressive enforcement actions in all
media to ensure compliance with existing lead regulations.
OVERVIEW OF THE CASES:
The cases in the initiative will be filed under six environmental laws:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA,"~or Superfund Law); the Clean Water Act (CWA); Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA).
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY:
The regulated community and the general public will receive notice that
the Agency is committed to aggressive enforcement actions to ensure
compliance with existing lead regulations.
Critics may say that the Agency has not targeted the most egregious
sources of lead emissions. They might allege that EPA is pursuing
relatively simple enforcement actions in this initiative, rather than

-------
2
target the more complex, long-term contributors to the lead problem.
In response to this reaction, EPA should emphasize the cases of major
¦significance and point out that this initiative is only or ^ part, albeit a
very significant one in its own right, of the?overall comprehensive
Agency lead strategy. The Agency's long-term strategy including
enforcement, abatement programs and regulatory and pollution
prevention programs, will address more complex problems associated
with removing lead from the environment.

-------
&

-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Enforcement
IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HANK HABICHT
EPA ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE TO REDUCE
LEAD CONTAMINATION
WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice
are taking action to enforce existing lead regulations under six environmental laws to reduce
lead emissions that present a clear and present danger to public health and the environment.
•	Twenty-one cases in this initiative are brought under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the nation's hazardous waste management law. These 21 RCRA cases
address lead contamination in soil, water and air, all of which have the potential of
causing substantial harm to human health and the environment.
•	One RCRA site, for example, is a gray iron foundry, outside Charlotte, Michigan,
located within one-half mile of three City of Charlotte municipal water supply wells
and adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
•	The Superfund enforcement actions brought today will help reduce lead contaminated
groundwater, treat lead contaminated surface and subsurface soils, and eliminate the
airborne threat of lead contaminated dust to residences nearby various sites across
the country.

-------
2
In addition, EPA's direct administrative action at Superfund Sites will result in one
case in an agreement requiring the cleanup and removal of lead contaminated soil
from daycare centers, parks, ards, schools, playgrounds, and unpaved streets and
alleys in and around East Helena, Montana.
The actions taken under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act all
alleged violations of permit limits for lead. One case, an SDWA settlement with
EBCO Manufacturing Co., Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, involves the removal of lead-
contaminated water coolers from schools and businesses.
Finally, the actions taken under the Clean Air Act include a case in which EPA
alleges a Minneapolis, Minnesota company violated regulations which limit the
amount of lead permitted in gasoline. This kind of enforcement action indicates why
EPA's lead phasedown regulations have reduced the amount of lead in gasoline over
99 percent since 1975, thereby reducing the amount of lead contributed to urban soils
by motor vehicles.

-------
^ United States Environmental Protection Agency
* * "i Washington, D.C. 20460
-------

Examples of Federal Civil Enforcement Cases Involving Lead During
Past Two Years
1. United States v. Sharon Steel Corp. et al. (D.Utah)(CERCLA
106, 107) was an enforcement action concerning the Sharon Steel
Tailings Site in Midvale, Utah near Salt Lake City. The United
States sought an injunction directing cleanup of the site as well
as our past and future costs from the former and current site
owners and from a company that arranged for disposal of its
tailings at the site. The Midvale Tailings Site is an abandoned
230 acre tailings pile contaminated with lead and other metals
which threatened a nearly residential area and the local
groundwater. Material blowing from the pile and the resulting
lead contamination in the soils in residential Midvale presented
a risk to children through ingestion and inhalation of the
contaminated dust. In November, 1990, we settled separately with
the three defendants in the case for a total of about $62
million, obtaining $22 million from Sharon Steel Corporation, $21
million from Atlantic Richfield Company, and approximately $20
million from the UV Liquidating Trust. Cleanup operations at the
site are now underway.
/
2. United States v. Sanders Lead Company, et al.. is a RCRA
action that was filed in October 1989 in the Middle District of
Alabama. The Complaint alleges eight claims for relief against a
secondary lead smelter, two of its executive officers, and three
affiliated companies/corporations involved in recycling lead
contaminated plastic battery chips. The primary claim alleges
that Sanders Lead lost interim status to operate several land
disposal units after November 8, 1985. Those units were shut
down by Sanders in November of 1988. The Complaint also alleges
that Sanders violated the land ban regulations during parts of
1987 and 1988, illegally operated an off-site plastic battery
chip waste pile until 1990, illegally disposed of a small
quantity of lead-contaminated blast slag at the Wiley Sanders
Truck Lines Company site, and violated numerous other regulatory
provisions of RCRA. Although the case is scheduled to go to
trial on September 3, 1991, a settlement involving a payment of a
$2 million civil penalty is in the final stages of being
negotiated.
3. U.S. v. Gulf Coast Recycling. Inc.. et al. is a CERCLA cost
recovery case filed in the Middle District of Florida. The United
States entered into a Consent Decree in February of this year
with Gulf Coast Recycling Inc., ("GCR") a generator who arranged
for the disposal of several hundred truckloads of lead-acid
battery casings at a landfill in Hillsborough County, Florida,
which is a Superfund site. Under this Consent Decree, GCR agreed
to implement a remedy at the Site estimated to cost $3,500,000.
GCR also agreed to reimburse EPA for $130,000.00 in past costs,
and to be obligated to pay EPA's future costs. The owners of the
-------
Site agreed to pay $250,000 of EPA's past costs. This settlement
addresses 100 percent of EPA's costs.
4.United States v. Apache Energy and Minerals, et al. (D.
Colo)(CERCLA 106, 107)) is a pending enforcement action filed in
1986 concerning the California Gulch Superfund Site centered in
Leadville, Colorado. The site is an approximately 12 square mile
former mining area in the Rocky Mountains. The town of Leadville
is part of the site and much of the surface soils in the urban
area as well as the rest of the site are contaminated with lead
and other heavy metals from mining operations that lasting nearly
a century. We seek an injunction directing the defendants to
clean up the contamination and pay our past and future costs.
The major defendants are ASARCO, which operated many of the mills
and smelters that created the wastes, and other mining companies
which owned or operated mines, mills, or smelters throughout the
history of activities.
5. United States v. Smuggler Durant. et al. (D.Colo)(CERCLA 107)
is a pending enforcement action filed in September 1989
concerning the Smuggler Mountain Site centered in Aspen,
Colorado. Mining activities at this site generated tons of mill
tailings heavily contaminated with lead which over time were,
spread across large areas of the surface. Recently, homes,
apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes were constructed on
top of the contaminated tailings. The high levels of lead in the
tailings present risks to health, particularly if the surface
soils around the residences are disturbed. The enforcement
action seeks our past costs and a declaratory judgment holding
defendants liable for our future costs.
6. United States v. Atlantic Richfield Company. Inc. et al. (D.
Montana)(CERCLA 107) is an enforcement action filed in June 1989
concerning the Clark Fork Superfund sites in southwestern
Montana. These mining waste sites address the contamination
generated by mining, milling, and smelting activities of the
Anaconda Copper Mining Company in and around the cities of Butte
and Anaconda, Montana commencing in the 1880's. The entire basin
of the Clark Fork River, which eventually flows into the Columbia
River, is contaminated with slag, tailings, and mining waste from
Anaconda's operations. The waste contaminated with lead and
arsenic is present in surface soils in Butte, Anaconda, and other
communities, in the surface waters of the Clark Fork and its
tributaries, and in the groundwater. ARCO, the successor in
interest to Anaconda, is the primary defendant in this action
which seeks all the United States' past costs and a declaration
that ARCO is liable for all future response costs.
7. Tar Creek Site. CERCLA. This is a lead and zinc mining site in
northeast Oklahoma covering 40 sq. miles. EPA conducted remedial
action at the site to address lead contamination of surface and
groundwater. A CERCLA cost recovery consent decree was entered
with six mining company PRPs in May 1991.
-------
8. Cherokee County Site. This is a continuation of the Tar Creek
Site in southeast Kansas. EPA has implemented an alternative
water supply remedy for a portion of the Site. Negotiations
continue with PRPs for site-wide remedy.
9. Jasper County Site. This is the Missouri portion of Tar Creek
and Cherokee County Sites. An RI/FS will begin soon to address
lead and zinc contamination.
10. United States v. Michael Company.fS.D. Iowa, CERCLA) is a
cost recovery action filed in May 1990 involving multiple lead
battery recycling and reclamation sites in Bettendorf, Iowa.
11. Clark Oil & Refining. (E.D. Mo. Clean Air Act) is a case in
which the U.S. asserted claims in bankruptcy against Clark Oil
for violations of the lead phasedown regulations governing the
content of lead in gasoline. The case involved 5,250,000 grams of
illegal lead credits. The case was settled for a $520,000
penalty.
12-14 United States v. Gulf States Oil & Refining.(S.D. Tex.)
United States v. Jeffv's. Inc.. United States v. Lion Boulos
(S.D. Tex.) are cases that were brought in Texas against
refiners, wholesalers and retailers of leaded gasoline involving
violations of the lead content regulations under the Clean Air
Act.
15. United States v. Master Metals. Inc. (N.D. Ohio) is a pending
action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in
which the United States has sought to enforce the requirements of
a Consent Decree entered by the Court on January 15, 1990. The
defendant, Master Metals, Inc., owns and operates a lead smelter
in Cleveland, Ohio, at which it stores hazardous waste containing
lead, including spent industrial lead-acid batteries, in waste
piles, drums, and other containers prior to reclamation. On
August 29, 1990, the United States filed a motion asking the
court to enforce the Consent Decree and to hold Master Metals in
contempt. Based on inspections conducted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States alleged
that defendant was in serious violation of numerous requirements
of the Consent Decree, including that it had: failed to remove
waste piles containing lead waste; created new unauthorized waste
piles; stored lead waste in containers that were in poor
condition, resulting in leaks into the environment; and failed to
minimize releases of waste that could threaten human health or
the environment. Therefore, the United States asked the Court to
order Master Metals to stop accepting hazardous waste, to remove
from the facility the hazardous waste that was already there,
and, pending removal of the waste, to transfer it to secure
containers. In addition, the United States asked the Court to
enforce requirements of the Consent Decree that defendant obtain
liability coverage required under RCRA and the Decree, and set
aside sufficient funds to assure that defendant would be able to
-------
finance sampling and cleanup required under the Decree. The
United States also opposed defendant's requests for additional
time to comply with the liability coverage requirements of the
Decree, and opposed defendant's motion to consolidate this case
with another pending action against Master Metals under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act concerning employee exposure
to unsafe levels of lead at the Master Metals facility. In
addition, the United States has demanded that Master Metals pay
stipulated penalties for its violations of the Consent Decree.
16. United States v.USS Lead Refinery. Inc.. is a Clean Water
Act case filed in 1985 for violations at a lead refinery that has
now been shut down. Upon review of a motion for partial summary
judgment filed by the United States, the Magistrate, on March 9,
1987, recommended that summary judgment should be granted to the
United States, finding among other things, that USS Lead had: (1)
discharged without a permit; (2) failed to submit necessary
reports; and (3) had discharged in excess of permit limitations.
On August 2, 1990, the Court adopted the findings of the
magistrate and granted partial summary judgment for the United
States. A proposed Consent Decree was entered into between the
United States and USS Lead in May 1991. The Consent Decree: (1)
requires USS Lead to provide a weatherproof cover over certain
toxic dust and sludge piles on the site until they are removed or
closed; (2) prohibits USS Lead from operating the plant without
complying with a validly issued National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit; (3) requires USS Lead to pay certain
stipulated penalties and consent to Environmental Protection
Agency access to the site; (4) and requires USS Lead to pay a
civil penalty of $55,000, with $40,000 being paid in equal
quarterly installments over the first 300 days after entry of the
Decree. The balance of $15,000 is to be deferred pending the
occurrence of various events.
17. United States v. Refined Metals Corporation (S.D. Ind.) is a
pending action under two federal environmental statutes, the
Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA"). The action involves defendant's lead reclaiming
facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. The complaint, filed on
November 21, 1990, alleges that defendant's facility exceeded the
limitations for air emissions under the Clean Air Act, set forth
in the State of Indiana's State Implementation Plan. The
complaint also alleges that defendant violated requirements of
RCRA applicable to facilities that generate, treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste, including that defendant continued to
treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste after it had lost
authorization to do so? and failed to submit plans that meet the
requirements of RCRA for closing hazardous wastes units to
minimize the possibility of releases of waste to the environment,
and to demonstrate financial ability to perform sampling and
cleanup required under closure plans. In addition, the complaint
alleges that hazardous wastes have been released to the
environment. Therefore, the United States asked the court to
require the defendant to perform corrective action to cleanup
-------
contamination. The United States also asked the court to order
defendant to comply with all other requirements of RCRA and the
Clean Air Act, and to pay a civil penalty.
-------
,^£0
S1 ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency
"i Washington, D.C. 20460
'W AT
PRO**-
Office of Enforcement
TALKING POINTS FOR F. HENRY HABICHT:
EPA ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE TO REDUCE
LEAD CONTAMINATION
INTRODUCTION:
On July 31, 1991, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice will file
a series of cross-media enforcement actions, both civil judicial and administra-
tive, against major sources of lead emissions in all of EPA's ten Regions.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency for the first time is
coordinating the filing of enforcement actions to reduce a specific environmen-
tal pollutant, lead, through simultaneous use of six environmental statutes.
In that effort, the Justice Department will file approximately 24 judicial
enforcement actions in federal courts around the United States, and EPA will
announce direct administrative enforcement actions against 14 facilities,
iu
assessing some $ million in total penalties.
EPA ENFORCEMENT AND THE LEAD STRATEGY;
The enforcement actions are part of EPA's Strategy for Reducing Lead
Exposures (Lead Strategy), issued on February 26, 1991. The goal of the Lead
Strategy is to significantly reduce lead exposures to the public and the
environment, with particular interest in reducing the risk of high blood lead
levels in children. EPA is working under the Lead Strategy to reduce lead
emissions through enforcement, pollution prevention programs, and
educational and training activities.
-------
2
Lead causes a broad range of health and environmental problems. It
is a highly toxic metal, producing a range of acute and chronic health effects,
particularly in children and fetuses. Effects include nervous and reproductive
system disorders, delays in neurological and physical development, cognitive
and behavioral changes, and hypertension.
Elemental lead is indestructible and ubiquitous in the environment.
The three major sources of elevated blood lead are lead-based paint, urban
soil and dust (contaminated mainly by lead-based paint and gasoline) and lead
in drinking water. Other sources include stationary point sources, Superfund
sites, municipal waste and sewage sludge incinerators, and use of lead in
consumer products.
The federal government has made considerable progress in the past
decade. Children's blood lead levels have dropped dramatically due to federal
action. Particularly worth noting are the efforts of EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation's to address lead problems, including the significant decrease in the
amount of lead in gasoline, where, as a result of EPA's lead phasedown
regulations, the amount of lead in gasoline has been reduced over 99 percent
since 1975, thereby reducing the amount of lead contributed to urban soils by
motor vehicles. Penalties collected resulting from the settlement of lead
phasedown cases, including expenditures to obviate economic benefit, are
approximately $20 million to date.
The enforcement actions announced today comprise just one integral
facet of the Agency's overall Lead Strategy. The Agency's lead enforcement
initiative is an aggressive, coordinated cross-media approach to improving
compliance with existing regulations governing lead emissions. EPA intends
to put the regulated community on notice that the Agency is committed to
aggressive enforcement actions in all media to ensure compliance with existing
lead regulations.
-------
o
z
Uf

-------
^t0 sr«>
cr . . **

t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 26 1991
OFFICE OF
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Agency Lead Strategy
FROM: Joseph S. Carra, Deputy Direct^
Office of Toxic Substances
TO: Office Directors Lead Committee
Attached is the final version of the Agency-wide strategy to
Reduce Lead Emissions. This strategy was the basis for the
Administrator's Senate testimony on lead on February 21, 1990.
This strategy represents a great deal of hard work by all of
our offices. I am particularly proud of the coordination that
has taken place to produce this consolidated agenda to address
lead contamination, and am looking forward to continuing this
coordination as we move to implement this strategy.
Attachment
Office Directors Lead Committee:
Michael B. Cook, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
William H. Farland, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (RD-689)
Daniel J. Fiorino, Office of Policy Analysis (PM-221)
Scott Fulton, Office of Enforcement (LE-133)
Henry L. Longest, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OS-200)
Stanley L. Laskowski, Office of Pollution Prevention
(PM-222)
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
John S. Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(MD-10)
Peter w. Preuss, Office of Technology Transfer and
Regulatory Support (H-8105)
Martha 6. Prothro, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(WH-551)
Gerald H. Yamada, Office of General Counsel (LE-130)
Prinmd on Ricydid Pip*
-------
cc: HQ Staff:
Jan Bearden, OCM (EN-342)
Marlene Berg, OERR (OS-230)
Dorothy Canter, OSWER (OS-110)
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, AO (A-101)
Dave Cohen, AO (A-101)
Jeff Cohen, ODW (WH-550)
Jim Curtin, OGC (LE-132P)
Donna DeLeon, AO (A-101)
Rob Ellas, OHEA (HD-52)
Doug Elder, Region 7
Clarence Featherson, OE (LE-134A)
John Haines, OAQPS (MD-12)
Tom Hale, OPA (PM-223)
Bob Hall, OSW (OS-323)
Jon Jacobs, OE (LE-134P)
Laxmi Kesari, OAQPS (EN-341)
Renate Kimbrough, AO (A-101)
Ben Lammie, OE (LE-134S)
Ronnie Levin, OTTRS (H-8105)
Alex McBride, OSW (OS-331)
Daphne McMurrer, OAQPS (MD-15)
Judy Nelson, OPTS (TS-788)
Hope Pillsbury, OSW (OS-301)
Al Rubin, OWRS (WH-585)
William H. "Sanders, III, Region 5
Joel Schwartz, OPPE (PM-221)
Doreen Sterling, OSW (PM-301)
Lynn Vendinello, OPP (PM-219)
Al Vervaert, OAQPS (MD-13)
Roger Wolcott, OPA (PM-221)
Russel Wyer, OSW (OS-320)
Nancy Zahedi, OSW (OS-301)
OTS Staff:
Joe Cotruvo, Director, HERD, OTS (TS-796)
Dave Kling, Dep. Director, EAD, OTS (TS-799)
John Melone, Director, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Joe Merenda, Director, EED, OTS (TS-798)
Mary Ellen Webber, Director, ETD, OTS (TS-779)
Jim Willis, Dep. Director, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Dave Albright, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Chris Blunck, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Gina Bushong, EAD, OTS (TS-799)
Paul Campanella, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Doreen Cantor, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Gary Cole, ETD, OTS (TS-779)
Brion Cook, EED, OTS (TS-798)
Lois Dicker, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Ernie Falke, HERD, OTS (TS-796)
Conrad Flessner, EED, OTS (TS-798)
Gail Froiman, ETD, OTS (TS-779)
Odelia Funke, 10, OTS (TS-792)
Mark Henshall, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
-------
Karen Hogan, EED, OTS (TS-798)
Janice Johnson, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Nancy Laurson, CCD, OTS (TS-794)
Barbara Mandula, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Barbara Ostrow, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Libby Parker, ETD, OTS (TS-779)
Phil Robinson, EED, OTS (TS-798)
Jennifer Seed, HERD, OTS (TS-796)
Cindy Stroup, EED, OTS (TS°798)
Kathy Taylor, EAD, OTS (TS-799)
Harry Teitelbaua, ECAD, OTS (TS-778)
Esther Tepper, EAD, OTS (TS-799)
Regional Staff:
Elmer Akin, Region 4
Richard Brunker, Region 3
Dave Crawford, Region 7
¦Dana Davoli, Region 10
Doug Elders, Region 8
Peter Grevatt, Region 2
Gerry Hiatt, Region 9
Jim LaVelle, Region 8
Sarah Levinson, Region 1
Jon Rausher, Region 6
Mary Beth Snuts, Region 1
Francis Tran, Region 8
Pat VanLeeuwan, Region 5
Chris Weis, Region 8
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STRATEGY FOR
REDUCING LEAD EXPOSURES
* February 21, 1991 *
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STRATEGY FOR
REDUCING LEAD EXPOSURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary 1
I. Statement of Problem. 4
Health Effects 4
Environmental Exposures 4
Sources of Lead 5
II. Overview of Strategy 8
Goal 8
Objectives 8
Major Action Elements 9
Coordination 11
III. Research Program 13
IV. Abatement Program 15
Lead-Based Paint Exposures 15
Urban Soil 19
Superfund Sites 21
V. Regulatory and Pollution Prevention Program 22
Office of Drinking Hater 22
Office of Solid Waste 25
Office of Toxic Substances 27
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards . 29
Office of Pesticide Programs 32
Office of Hater Regulations and Standards. . . 33
Office of Enforcement 33
Appendices:
I. Glossary of Acronyms 35
II. Case Study in Coordination: Battery Cluster 36
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the coordinated strategy of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to address the significant health
and environmental problems our society is facing as a result of
lead pollution. Lead is a multi-media pollutant; accordingly,
the Agency plans to address lead contamination by coordinating
its authorities across programs.
Because the strategy includes research, regulatory,
enforcement, educational and training activities, we envision
this document will be a living document, and that it will evolve
as we begin to implement its various components. Several aspects
of the strategy will entail continued coordination with other
branches of government while others, such as regulations, will
require full compliance with the Agency's rulemaking
requirements.
THE PROBLEM
Lead is a highly toxic metal, producing a range of adverse
health effects, particularly in children and fetuses. Effects
include nervous and reproductive system disorders, delays in
neurological and physical development, cognitive and behavioral
changes, and hypertension. Adverse effects have been found at
lower and lower blood lead levels, and the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) anticipate lowering its level of concern from 25
/xg/dl to a level within the range of 10 to IS nq/d 1.
Elemental lead is indestructible, and ubiquitous in the
environment. Although the percentage of children with elevated
blood lead has declined substantially over the last twenty years,
with average blood lead levels dropping from 15 to 5 jig/dl, an
estimated 15% of children still have blood lead levels over 10
Mg/dl. The three major sources of elevated blood lead are lead-
based paint, urban soil and dust (contaminated mainly by lead-
based paint and gasoline), and lead in drinking water (moderate
exposures in large populations). Other sources include
stationary point sources, Superfund sites, municipal waste and
sewage sludge incinerators, and use of lead in products.
EPA'5 STRATEGY
The goal of the strategy is to reduce lead exposures to the
fullest extent practicable, with particular interest in reducing
the risk to children, to avoid high blood lead levels. Two
objectives will be used to set program priorities and gauge
program success: 1) to significantly reduce the incidence of
blood lead levels above 10 ng/dl in children while taking into
account the associated costs and benefits, and 2) to
1
-------
significantly reduce, through voluntary and regulatory actions,
unacceptable lead exposures that are anticipated to pose risks to
children, the general public, or the environment. These
objectives will necessarily evolve as ve better understand the
risks posed by lead.
The strategy includes several major action elements:
develop methods to identify geographic "hot spots",
implement a lead pollution prevention program,
strengthen existing environmental standards,
develop and transfer cost-effective abatement
technology,
encourage availability of environmentally sound
recycling,
develop and implement a public information program, and
aggressively enforce environmental standards.
EPA's research program, with other Federal agencies, will
define, encourage, and/or conduct research needed to 1) locate
and assess, in terms of both geography and media, serious lead
risks, and 2) develop methods and tools to reduce those risks.
EPA's Lead Research Sub-Committee will continue to define and
rank lead research program objectives and activities.
EPA's abatement program focuses on in-place lead, and
addresses lead-based paint exposures, urban soil and dust, and
Superfund sites. Lead-based paint is the most serious source of
children's exposures. Although the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) has primary responsibility for the lead-
based paint portion of this program, EPA is providing HUD with
technical and administrative assistance. HUD's Lead-Based Paint
Task Force, with representation from EPA, CDC, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other Federal
agencies, is providing a mechanism for the exchange of
information on Federal lead-based paint activities among the
various agencies. EPA is funding a number of initiatives in
support of reducing risk from in-place lead, and will continue to
serve as the focal point and overall manager of technical support
to HUD.
Lead-contaminated urban soil is believed to be the next most
important source of lead exposure, but relatively little is known
about it. Under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), EPA is conducting a pilot program to evaluate effects of
removing lead-contaminated soil and dust on children's blood
lead.
More than 400 National.Priority-List, sites..have lead as an
important contaminant. EPA has issued interim guidance on lead
soil clean-up levels at Superfund sites, and is working to
provide methods for determining site-specific soil levels.
2
-------
EPA's regulatory and pollution prevention program includes
efforts by a number of different offices to examine cost-
effective ways to reduce lead exposures using both voluntary and
regulatory approaches.. This includes actions which vill reduce
lead exposures as part of larger environmental programs.
Included are:
Lead in drinking water usually occurs at low levels, but
affects such of the U.S. population. Lead levels are due to the
leaching of lead from components of household plumbing and from
public and private water distribution systems. The Office of
Drinking Water is finalizing requirements for lead under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Lead-containing materials used in drinking
water systems and water coolers have also been banned.
The Office of Solid Waste has issued a number of
regulations involving smelter and other types of lead waste, and
is currently reviewing policy in those areas.
The Office of Toxic Substances is examining the risks
related to the use of lead in products. The Office is
considering several rules which may restrict lead use in specific
products (and possibly impose overall restrictions on use of lead
as well) and would encourage environmentally-sound lead-acid
battery recycling.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is
considering revising both the current National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for lead and specific standards for smelters.
Action by the Office of Pesticide Programs has resulted
in the cancellation or reformulation of pesticides containing
lead, and work to phase out lead vill continue where the risks
exceed the benefits.
The Office of Water Regulations and Standards is working
on regulations for lead, among other contaminants, in sewage
sludge.
The Office of Enforcement vill undertake a major
initiative to improve compliance with regulations affecting
sources of lead emissions.
3
-------
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
HEALTH EFFECTS
Lead is a highly toxic heavy metal. It produces a spectrum
of effects, both acute and chronic. Adverse effects include
peripheral and central nervous system dysfunction, anemia, and in
extreme cases, mental retardation and death. It has no
beneficial biologic effect, and current data do not permit
establishing a clear threshold for adverse effects.
Fetuses and young children are particularly susceptible to
lead. Considerable data suggest a correlation between elevated-
blood lead (EBL) and delays in early neurological and physical
development, cognitive and behavioral alterations, alterations in
red blood cell metabolism and vitamin D synthesis, and kidney
impairment.
Adults also face health risks. A positive association has
been found in adult males between EBL and hypertension. Lead has
also been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular
disease. Since lead is stored in bone, it may be mobilized
during periods of stress, during pregnancy, and among people
suffering from osteoporosis. Lead exposures also may play a role
in miscarriages and in damage to the male reproductive system.
Blood lead (PbB) is a surrogate for estimating recent
exposure. There has been increasing concern about PbB at lower
and lower levels over the past 15 years, as adverse effects have
been identified at levels not previously recognized as harmful.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has repeatedly lowered the
PbB level of concern, from 40 pg/dl in 1978 to 25 jug/dl
currently, and anticipates lowering this to a level within the
range of 10 to 15 ng/dl in the near future.
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
As an element, lead is essentially indestructible, and is
ubiquitous in the environment. However, there have been large
reductions in ambient air lead and food lead concentrations since
the late 1970's, primarily due to the phase-down of the use of
lead in gasoline and the removal of lead-soldered food cans from
domestic production. While no longitudinal or prospective data
are available on soil lead, it is likely that reductions in soil
deposition have occurred as air emissions declined. This, in
conjunction with other factors, has dramatically lowered
population PbB. While there has.been no .recent.national survey
of human PbB, it is estimated that mean PrB in U.S. children has
declined by a factor of three or four, from about 15-20 ng/dl in
1976-80 to approximately five pg/dl today. As the next table
4
-------
shows, there have been comparable declines in the estimated
percent of U.S. children with EBL.1
TABLE 1:
Estimated Percentage of U.S. children under 6 with EBL
PbB
197E-BP
(percent)
1990
(percent)
>25 M9/dl
>10 jig/dl
91.0
10.7
15.0
1.0
Thus, substantial progress already has been made in reducing
the more acute adverse effects associated with high blood lead
levels. As mean general population PbB declined to approximately
five /jg/dl, the focus of attention has shifted from general
population exposures to localized "hot spots". Given the
continuing identification of adverse effects at lower PbB levels,
however, EPA intends to continue efforts to lower general
population exposures as well.
SOURCES OF LEAD
The three major sources of lead contributing to PbB above 10
Mg/dl, in descending order of importance, are:
1. Lead-based paint (LBP)t Most PbB levels in U.S.
children above CDC's current level of concern (25
fig/dl) are due primarily to exposures to deteriorating
LBP, causing very high PbB in relatively large
populations. LBP for residential use was banned by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1978. The
control of existing LBP in residential units is
primarily the responsibility of the homeowners,
although the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs
(HUD) is responsible for public housing. Programs to
assist homeowners and property owners in the abatement
of residential LBP is the responsibility of HUD, with
EPA and several other agencies providing technical
support.
1 The estimates in this and the following table were
generated by program office staff, using the Agency for Toxic
Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) report "Mature and Extent
of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States", 1938, and
the most recent available information on lead occurrence in
various exposure media.
5
-------
2. Urban soil mad dusts These vere contaminated in the
past mainly by LBP and lead in gasoline. The extent
and severity of exposures are not well characterized,
but both are believed to be large.
3. Drinking waterI Drinking water generally contributes
low to moderate exposures to relatively large
populations. Lead contamination is due mainly to lead
solder joining water pipes in housing, the past use of
lead service lines to connect homes to public water
supplies, and the continuing use of lead in brass
plumbing fixtures. Lead use in pipes and solder was
banned in 1986; however, EPA enforcement of this ban is
extremely limited. Revisions to Safe Drinking Water -
Act (SDWA) regulations will gradually minimize
exposures from these sources.
Thus, the major sources of EBL today largely are regional
exposures to lead deposited when lead was extensively used in
gasoline and paint, and to previously installed lead and lead-
soldered pipes conveying drinking water. The next table
describes the extent of these exposures.
TABLE 2:
Estimated Number of Children under 6 Exposed to Lead Sources
Number and percent
with PbB >10 ua/dl
Total exposed Percent
LBP, plus
urban background 12,000,000 2,000,000 17
Urban soil/dust 12,000,000 ? ?
Drinking water 30,000,000 950,000 3.5
Although most EBL in the U.S. today is attributable to one
or more of the above sources,-there are additional contributions,
from other sources that add to total lead body burden. The
severity of lead exposures from other sources is unclear,
although these sources nay contribute to very high exposures in
smaller populations. These other sources include food and
continuing auto emissions, as well as the following sources:
* stationary point sources! Mainly smelters, which cause
high PbB in relatively small and local populations.
Exposures are due in part to current emissions, and in
6
-------
part to resuspension of dusts and soil contaminated by
past emissions.
* Superfund National Priority List (NPL) sites:
Approximately 400 of these sites have lead identified
as one of the major contaminants, and may have very
high soil lead levels.
* Municipal vast* combustors (MWC's): Presently about
200, with many more planned or under construction.
Stack emissions from these sources will be reduced by
recently promulgated regulations.
* Continued use of lead in products or for purposes that
could result in high exposure: For example, the use of
lead solder to seal food cans or (illegally) to join
pipes conveying drinking water; use in brass plumbing
fixtures; use in products (such as paints and solder)
used intensively by hobbyists or "do-it-yourselfers";
use in industrial paints, and use in ceramic glazes.
* Mining sites: Sites exist where significant residual
mine wastes remain. Many of these sites have ongoing
activities to remove or remill much of the existing
mine waste. The bioavailability of such lead is under
investigation.
* Sewage sludge disposal: Primarily a problem if the
sludge is incinerated without proper controls.
* Occupational exposuresi This would include secondary
exposure of children whose parents are occupationally
exposed to lead.
EPA, recognizing the varied sources of lead and the multiple
pathways of exposure which are possible, has developed this
strategy document to limit lead exposure.
7
-------
OVERVIEW OF STRATEGY
This section provides a summary of the goal, objectives, and
major action elements of EPA's lead strategy.
GOAL
The goal of this strategy is to reduce lead exposures to the
fullest extent practicable, with particular emphasis on reducing
the risk to children. This strategy document describes the
extensive set of actions underway or planned within EPA or other
Federal agencies to reduce lead exposure. As appropriate within
the context of the various statutes which EPA implements,
benefits to society of reducing exposures to lead will be weighed
against the costs of achieving those reductions before taking
action.
OBJECTIVES
To achieve this broad goal, EPA has set two objectives as a
means of setting program priorities and gauging success. These
objectives will necessarily evolve over time as we better
understand the risk posed by lead exposure. These program goals
include:
1. significantly reduce the incidence of blood lead levels
(PbB) above 10 ng/61 (subject to revision in light of the
forthcoming CDC report) in children, while taking into
account the associated costs and benefits.
This objective places EPA's priority on the highest
exposures and on the most sensitive population, the 15 percent of
U.S. children estimated to be at higher blood lead levels. This
target is consistent with the recommendation of EPA's Clean Air
Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the anticipated guidelines
of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Among these children
at risk, EPA will continue to work in close coordination with CDC
efforts to identify, through additional surveillance programs,
individual children with PbB above 25 pg/dl. These children
should have their sources of lead exposure abated on a priority
basis. All of the various initiatives will take into account
costs and benefits to the extent allowed by statute.
2. Significantly reduce, through voluntary and regulatory
actions, unacceptable lead exposures that are anticipated to
pose risks to children, the general population, or the
environment.
8
-------
Under this objective, priority attention vill be given to
voluntary and regulatory actions, including pollution prevention
activities, to reduce risks. This includes reducing or
eliminating-lead uses which may pose risks, encouraging
environmentally sound recycling, and end-of-pipe controls. Any
regulatory actions that will be taken under existing statutory
authorities will generally be subject to a balancing of benefits
and costs.
MAJOR ACTION ELEMENTS
To achieve the above objectives, EPA activities will proceed
along several basic lines of action:
Develop Methods to Identify Geographic "Hot Spots": Identifying
specific high exposure areas is critical to encouraging and
directing the actual abatement actions. A major element of the
lead strategy is to develop technical methods to assist other
Federal agencies, and State and local governments, as they locate
and map the regions*, cities, neighborhoods and homes with high
lead concentrations or EBL's. EPA will work with these other
agencies to develop methods to identify high exposure localities
and situations. For example, EPA will work with CDC's expanded
blood screening programs to help identify types of exposure
contributing to high blood lead levels in children. Another
example of such a program is the Lead Education/Abatement
Program, which is being implemented in EPA's Region 5. Data from
a number of sources (covering a range of pathways and media) will
be mapped into a geographic information system (CIS). Together
with demographic information, this will be used to determine
geographic areas with the highest at-risk populations so that
education, prevention, and abatement efforts can be concentrated.
Develop and Transfer Abatement Technology: Developing and
disseminating cost-effective methods and tools to abate "in-
place*1 lead exposure sources is crucial to ensure the use of
safe, effective and cost-efficient methods. This is important
because (1) significant reductions in lead exposures usually
entail abatement (including in-place management); and (2) most
actual abatement operations will be conducted at the state and
local level by property owners. EPA will develop and disseminate
technical assistance to.assist these efforts. Most of EPA's
present efforts in this area address the abatement of lead-based
paint. This includes the development of model training materials
and the establishment of university-based training centers for
the dissemination of materials, as well as providing funds to
labor organizations to encourage proper training. Many other
efforts, are listed in the section of the^. strategy discussing
abatement activities. As an example, EPA is coordinating with
the National Institute for Standards and Technology to develop
protocols to evaluate lead-based paint home/field test kits,
9
-------
including performance criteria. The ease of following
directions, and the ruggedness of the test procedure tfc>
departures from instructions, is also being evaluated for
commercially available test kits.
Implement Lead Pollution Prevention Program: While the major
tasks in reducing risks from lead are to abate or control lead
that is already deposited in the environment, the lead pollution
prevention program will seek to reduce future exposures
associated with the continued use of lead. This program will
include:
- exploring market-based incentives to limit or eliminate
lead use and exposure;
using regulatory mechanisms (such as the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)) to reduce the use of
lead in current and future products where risks
outweigh the benefits; and
identifying and encouraging cleaner technologies for
mining, smelting and processing lead.
In addition, the Administrator has stated a goal of reducing
lead releases (along with releases of selected other chemicals)
by one-third by October 1992, using voluntary means; and reducing
lead releases by 50% by 1995. The Administrator intends that
this goal be reached primarily through pollution prevention,
using toxics use reduction as the preferred approach. This goal
applies to reductions which go beyond any existing regulatory
requirements.
Minimize Human and Environmental Exposures through Traditional
Control Mechanisms: This activity includes controlling lead
contamination in water, air, and other media by setting
performance standards and other regulatory approaches. Because
lead presents risks through a wide range of media, the Agency has
clustered together the current and prospective rules and policies
addressing risks from lead from these various media. This will
allow the Agency and the public to review the regulatory programs
of each of EPA's program offices as a cohesive whole, and will
help prevent the human and environmental risks of lead pollution
from being simply transferred from- one medium to-another.
Encourage the Availability of Environmentally Sound Recycling:
This activity is unique in that it highlights the inherent
conflicts which are possible as individual offices strive to
minimize lead emissions to their particular media. In order -to
reduce .risks to populations -and ecosy stems, from^lead, And to
provide safe disposition of spent lead products, the Agency seeks
to encourage environmentally sound.recycling capacity.
Activities recently completed or under consideration by a number
10
-------
of offices (see following sections) may have a significant impact
on recycling capacity. For this reason, these activities will be
coordinated and sequenced in order to achieve significant
reductions in human and environmental exposure.
Develop and Implement a Public Information and Education Program:
Informing and educating the public about sources of lead
exposure, how to reduce or avoid exposure, and approaches to
preventing additional lead from being introduced into the
environment are essential to the success of EPA's lead strategy.
This includes outreach to the public, industry, retailers,
recyclers, labor, environmentalists, states, and the press.
Public information and education tools may include guidance
documents and brochures, specialized seminars and conferences,
speeches, and videos, as veil as media-directed activities such
as press releases and press conferences. For example, EPA will
produce a training video to assist schools in monitoring for lead
in drinking water, and will also publish lists of water coolers
containing lead and of certified analytical laboratories. EPA is
also preparing a strategy to inform the public on the health
risks associated with lead-based paint exposure, and has funded
development of a community-based primary prevention program.
Integrate Enforcement: EPA is initiating a cross-media lead
enforcement initiative, which will include coordinated
inspections and analysis of data, and culminating in a nationwide
filing of enforcement cases. This effort will highlight the
Agency's commitment to improving compliance with regulations
affecting major sources of lead emissions, as well as dealing
with lead issues in general.
coordinate Research Programs* A wide range of research is needed
to assist in achieving the goals of this strategy. Some of these
research needs are specific to a particular program office, while
others are more general in scope. EPA intends to review,
coordinate, and prioritize these research needs so that the
Agency's research agenda is directly supportive of the program
offices' most critical needs. The result of this effort, which
will be managed through the Lead Research Sub-Committee, will be
a ranking of research needs across the Agency, agreed to by each
program office, which will then be used to help set the research
agenda for coming years.
COORDINATION
In pursuing these objectives, risk reduction and research
efforts will be integrated across program offices and
environmental media. EPA will also coordinate its work with that
of CDC, HUD, CPSC, OSHA, and NIST. This effort is particularly
important since lead is a ubiquitous pollutant (in many areas,
EBL's are attributable to more than one route of exposure), and
since the impending regulations to deal with these exposures are
11
-------
highly interdependent. The EPA Office Director Lead Committee
(ODLC) is responsible for ensuring this coordination. The ODLC
will monitor and report on lead-related activities to the Deputy
Administrator on a continuing basis.
Specific Agency lead-related activities recently completed,
underway or planned are described in the following sections.
This document summarizes EPA's strategy for addressing lead
exposures as envisioned by the Agency at the time of its
publication. However, EPA's plans will be dynamic and evolving,
and will be subject to change as new research and our ongoing
programs indicate new priorities. Nevertheless, this strategy is
meant to convey the Agency's deep concern about lead exposure,
and its commitment to reducing associated risks to human health
and the environment in the most efficient and cost-effective ways
possible.
12
-------
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Background
A focused research program is critical not only to develop
sound regulations, but also to inform other Federal agencies and
State and local governments on matters relating to abatement.
EPA will, in conjunction with CDC, HUD, and the Department
of Commerce (through NIST), define, encourage and conduct the
research needed by all governmental entities to (1} locate and
assess, in terms of both geography and media, the most serious
lead risks; and (2) develop methods and tools to cost-effectively
reduce those risks. In this way, EPA can act as both a catalyst
and an information resource to local abatement efforts.
Needs
While the toxicity of lead is well recognized, the
biochemical mechanisms mediating its toxicity are unclear.
Additional information is needed on certain aspects of exposure,
including location, intensity, extent, accessibility, and
bioavailability. . In particular, the following efforts are
needed:
development of methods for identifying and mapping
specific localities, neighborhoods and homes with high
lead exposures from paint, soil, water and other
sources (geographic "hot spots");
determination of the relative contributions of these
sources and pathways to EBL and environmental lead
loading;
development and evaluation of cost-effective abatement
tools and methods;
identification and evaluation of cleaner technologies
for mining, smelting, processing and disposing of lead.
These research needs will be mentioned again as appropriate in
the discussions of the various lead exposure pathways.
Planned/Recommended Actions
The Office Director's Lead Committee (ODLC) will establish
an inter-office Lead Research Sub-Committee, with representation
from the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of
PolicyPlanning, and ..Evaluation (OPPE)-, and.the, program offices,
to define and rank EPA lead research program objectives and
activities. Particular emphasis will be placed upon efforts
13
-------
likely to effectively address major sources of elevated blood
lead levels.
The Lead Research Sub-Committee will report back to the ODLC
at least annually, with a ranked-list of research objectives.
Upon concurrence, the ODLC will include this list in their
periodic reports to the Deputy Administrator.
EPA's research program will also be coordinated with the
research activities of other government entities, including CDC
and HUD, through periodic meetings. Development of the methods
for identifying and mapping geographic "hot spots", for example,
must involve CDC, HUD, public drinking water suppliers, and ..State
and local governments.
14
-------
ABATEMENT PROGRAM FOR "IN-PLACE" LEAD
LBP EXPOSURES
Background
LBP is the most serious source of children's exposure. The
ATSDR estimates that 12 million children are exposed to lead-
painted homes, and that almost six million are exposed to the
highest concentrations, in homes built before 1940.
In 1971, under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention.Act
(LBPPPA), HUD began restricting FHA mortgages for new dwellings
to those with paint that did not contain more than one percent
lead. In 1973, amendments to the LBPPPA reduced this level to
0.5 percent, and designated HUD as the principal Federal agency
to eliminate the hazard of LBP in housing.
In 1987, Congress enacted the Housing and Community
Development Act, which among other things required HUD to prepare
plans for the abatement of lead-based paint hazards in housing.
A plan, Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of
Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing, was released in
December 1990. Another plan addressing lead-based paint
abatement in public housing is scheduled for completion by late
1991.
In 1988, Congress directed EPA and HUD to effect a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), under which EPA would provide
technical and program development support to HUD. EPA and HUD
signed the MOU in April of 1989, identifying the following areas
of technical and managerial assistance:
accreditation of abatement personnel,
establishment of training and information centers,
intergovernmental relations,
identification of gaps in existing technical standards,
new technical standard-setting, and
public outreach and education.
EPA's current work is in two major areas:
assistance in developing technical information
necessary to effectively administer abatement programs,
and
program assistance to help HUD and public housing
personnel administer the program, and ensure that
..contractor/designer personnel.do their.work .veil.
CDC has historically directed the targeted lead screening
program that identified lead-poisoned children, and has long
15
-------
advocated intervention to lower EBL in children resulting from
LBP. Recently, the Assistant Secretary for Health asked CDC to
design a program to eliminate the childhood lead problem,
including abating lead paint in deteriorated housing. EPA
provided assistance to CDC in performing a detailed cost/benefit
analysis of the program. CDC is expected to further lower the
PbB level of concern from 25 /ig/dl, significantly increasing the
number of children above the action level.
Other agencies also play a role in LBP abatement-related
programs. In 1978, the CPSC limited all residential paint to
0.06 percent lead. OSHA is actively pursuing a reassessment of
the worker protection issue. NIST is currently under contract to
HUD on a number of research issues related to measurement
techniques and procedures for lead in paint-films and dust.
LBP accounts for the largest single share of EBL. The LBP
problem is both large and complex;-the magnitude of these
exposures adds to the difficulty and expense involved in finding
and implementing solutions. This is exacerbated because, while
EPA and other Federal agencies can plan and otherwise assist
activities, these agencies are not equipped to perform most
actual abatement work. This field work will likely be performed
by property owners under State and local government programs.
Needs
It is essential to achieving the first of this strategy's
objectives that exposure to LBP be significantly reduced. There
is a clear need to coordinate the various strategic plans that
EPA, HUD and CDC are developing for dealing with LBP. State and
local governments must also become involved. Given the magnitude
of the problem, these jurisdictions will work with property
owners who will conduct most of the actual abatement work.
Guidance is needed on acceptable lead levels in dust
resulting from LBP to enable programs to set goals to reduce
these exposures. The relative contribution to dust from LBP and
soil needs to be established; and improved measurement methods
for soil, paint and dust need to be developed to reduce abatement
costs. More cost-effective LBP abatement and management
approaches have to be developed.
Responsibilities fall into three broad categories: direct
abatement; technical support and research; and operational
support. Abatement involves planning and implementing abatement
projects; technical support and research involves providing
consultation and information; and operational support involves
managing the infrastructure needed to support abatement programs.
Examples of the third category include PbB screening, training
and lab accreditation programs.
16
-------
Planned/Recommended Actions
HUD will maintain responsibility for abatement programs as
stipulated in the LBPPPA, and State and local governments should
maintain or assume responsibility for abatement operations. The
infrastructure programs will be handled by either HUD or
associated agencies. In some cases (e.g., lab accreditation
programs and development of standard reference materials), these
may continue to be performed by NIST under contract to HUD.
In EPA, both OTS and ORD will be involved in providing
technical support to HUD. EPA will use its technical facilities
and expertise to address research and technical questions on
exposure and analytical methods. In its research and technical
support functions, EPA will assist in establishing support
programs, but the operation of these programs should reside more
closely to ongoing abatement efforts.
A Lead-based Paint Task Force, made up of EPA, HUD, CDC,
MIST, and other Federal agencies, has been resolving these
important research areas by identifying and developing
initiatives to reduce exposures to in-place lead. A supplemental
Congressional appropriation provided resources for these
initiatives.
EPA will continue to pursue integrated strategic planning
with both CDC and HUD. EPA will continue to provide technical
support to HUD, and will coordinate closely with NIST and other
agencies. CDC will play a similar role with respect to medical
issues.
EPA's office of Toxic Substances and Office of Research and
Development, along with HUD, CDC, OSHA, CPSC, and NIST, have met
with lead industry representatives, and these meetings may lead
to a joint industry-Government research program in the area of
LBP testing and abatement.
OTS is currently pursuing the following specific
initiatives:
Completion of model curricula for three role-specific
training courses (for inspectors, abatement
supervisors, and workers) in 1991. A course for
abatement project designers will be developed by 1992.
Establishment of one or two training centers, which
will aid in the dissemination of training courses
throughout the country. These will be established in
1991.
17
-------
Provide worker training grants to major groups after
the model course materials are completed. This will be
funded during late 1991.
Initiate a flagship lead center at a leading
university, to serve as a focal point for information
transfer and to stimulate quality training by other
organizations. This center will be established during
FY 1991.
Promote state lead training programs with seed grants
to at least two states. It is expected that this
program will be funded in late FY 1991.
Develop a risk communication strategy to inform the
public, industry, labor, environmentalists, etc. on
health risks associated with LBP exposure. This will
be prepared in 1991.
Study of low-cost repair and maintenance activities
(management in place). The pilot study will be
completed in spring 1991; the study will continue
through 1993.
Study of the long-term effectiveness of abatement
methodologies. A pilot study is expected to be
completed in FY 1991; field work is expected to begin
in FY 1991 and continue through FY 1993.
Preparation of a Report to Congress on the
applicability of RCRA to wastes generated from LBP
abatement. This will be submitted to OMB in 1991.
Continuation of support to HUD on the Guidelines for
LBP abatement in public and Native American housing.
This includes analysis of data collected by HUD in a
national study and demonstration project. This will
occur throughout 1991.
Development of a test protocol to evaluate the
effectiveness and durability of LBP encapsulants. This
will be completed in 1991.
Evaluation of LBP test kits for commercial and home use
(with NIST and ORD), throughout 1991.
Development of key components of a laboratory
accreditation program (with NIST and ORD), including
the development ..of--protocols -and .standard reference
materials for various analytical methods, throughout
1991.
18
-------
Development of a community-based primary prevention
strategy/program for lead poisoning. This effort, to
be accomplished through a grant to the Alliance to End
Childhood Lead Poisoning, will result in a guide for .
local governments to develop multi-media primary
prevention programs. This guide should be completed in
1992.
URBAN SOIL
Background
Lead-contaminated urban soil — soil contaminated by (1)
non-industrial sources of lead such as paint, gasoline and
household wastes (e.g., used oil); and (2) industrial sources,
(e.g., battery recycling sites, mining and milling sites, and
smelters) — might contribute together as much as 30 percent of
exposures leading to EBL in children. Next to LBP, urban soil
and dust are believed to be the most important source of lead
exposure for children in many urban residential areas. There are
perhaps 12 million children exposed to high soil lead levels.
These exposures are often related to exposures from LBP — with
exterior paint breaking down to contaminate the soil, and the
soil being tracked into residences.
Although EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OEER) currently has a number of programs underway to address
soil, the focus is primarily upon soil contaminated by industrial
sources. An exception to this is OERR's Three City Study. Under
Section 111(b)(6) of SARA, OERR, with advice from ORD, CDC, the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and others, is conducting a $15
million pilot program in Boston, Baltimore and Cincinnati to
evaluate the impact of removal of lead-contaminated soil and dust
on children's PbB.
Boston was selected in 1987, based on evidence of high soil .
lead attributable to paint, and high EBL's in children.
Baltimore and Cincinnati were selected in 1988. The studies use
widely available (low technology) means of removing lead-
contaminated soil and dust.
The study has three components:
pre-abatement monitoring for PbB and environmental.lead
(i.e., soil, dust, water, and paint);
abatement of soil and dust contaminated with lead; and
post-abatement monitoring.
All three cities have completed pre-abatement monitoring and are
in the process of abatement. EPA will complete the study by the
end of 1992.
19
-------
Needs
Although believed to be one of the two most serious sources
of lead exposure, far less is known about urban soil than about
either paint or drinking vater. Data are limited on the location
and severity of the problem, on the extent to which abatement is
required, and on the best procedures for achieving abatement.
More information is needed to better characterize the problem, to
determine pathways of exposure, and to determine effective
remediation methods, as well as to developing methods to identify
geographic "hot spots".
Planned/Recommended Actions
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
is responsible for actions involving lead abatement at NPL sites.
Given the current lack of knowledge regarding urban soil,
priority will be given to develop information about the problem
and on methods of remediation. EPA will seek to establish a
joint effort with HUD, CDC and ATSDR to promote and assist a
national effort to identify the locations, extent,
bioavailability and severity of lead-contaminated soil.
EPA's Region 5 has initiated a multi-year (1991 to 1993),
$1.1 million project called the Lead Education/Abatement Program,
or Project LEAP, to address exposures from contaminated soil and
paint. This project/ which is the result of an OPPE/Region 5
Comparative Risk Project, includes education, intervention,
abatement of public and private areas, waste minimization, source
controls, and pilot clean-up.
In 1991, Region 5 will develop a database of exposure
(various media and pathways) to be used in a geographic
information system application. They will then map the data and
prioritize geographic areas on which to concentrate efforts
(education, pollution prevention, and abatement activities).
The Region will also initiate pollution prevention discussions
with air sources of Pb. They will coordinate the development of
education and training activities with OTS, and request
assistance from the States in the Region. Finally, they will
determine the compliance status of major sources of Pb, and
initiate enforcement action as appropriate.
Region 5 will refine and update the exposure database in
1992. They will also initiate pollution prevention discussions
with sources of Pb in targeted areas, with the goal of achieving
even greater multi-media reductions in Pb releases than included
in EPA's Industrial Toxics Program. They will begin
implementation of the education program (developing and
distributing brochures, stickers, coloring books, etc.), and will
begin intervention efforts (distribution of calcium supplements,
etc.). Finally, they will perform an abatement pilot project in
20
-------
a worst-case city, including abatement of soil, dust, and paint.
This will be expanded to six areas or communities in 1993.
The interim and final results of this program will be
extremely useful, to other Regions. -..OTS and OERR will assist
Region 5 to ensure that plans, progress, and results are
communicated.
SUPERFUND SITES
In 1988, ATSDR published its report on lead poisoning in
children, as required by SARA §118(f). In June 1990, ATSDR
published a toxicological profile for lead, as directed by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) §104(i) (2).
More than 400 NPL sites have lead designated as a major
contaminant or as a contaminant of concern in one or more media.
These may include battery manufacturing or recycling sites, and
mining and milling sites. The mining and milling sites, or
residuals left by these activities, can involve large volumes and
surface area, and can affect children/ adjacent residents, and ...
workers. The extent to which this contamination has contributed
to EBL in the surrounding populations is unknown. PbB levels are
not routinely measured at Superfund sites.
Soil lead levels are routinely measured at Superfund sites.
At some mining sites, these levels have exceeded 10,000 ppm lead.
OERR issued interim guidance last year indicating that lead soil
levels at Superfund sites should be cleaned up to levels of 500
to 1000 ppm.
0SWER is working with ORD to provide methods for determining
site-specific soil lead standards. One of the methods being
developed is a biokinetic uptake model for lead.
In June 1990, OERR recommended a cleanup level of 15 ppb for
lead in groundwater near Superfund sites if that.water is usable
for drinking water. This cleanup level, to be used until the
lead drinking water standard is promulgated, is based upon
analyses generated by the Office of Drinking Water (ODW) in
developing the drinking water regulations using a 10 *ig/dl PbB
criterion.
Finally, an adjusted reportable quantity for lead will be
completed. This will extend CERCLA 5102(b) requirements for
notification of release of hazardous substances to lead.
21
-------
REGULATORY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
EBL today is largely due to.exposures to "in-place".lead
previously deposited. Therefore, the highest public health
priority is to abate exposures to this nin-place" lead — with
particular emphasis on LBP and lead-contaminated urban soil.
There are, however, some continuing sources of new lead —
particularly lead smelters and drinking water — that warrant
attention by EPA. These exposures, in contrast to those from
"in-place" lead, are amenable to regulatory control. While EPA
has limited regulatory authority to address "in-place" lead, it
has ample authority under several statutes to restrict current
and future consumption of lead which might add to new exposures.
This nay include both traditional emission control restrictions
as well as pollution prevention measures that could, for example,
result in the use of new smelting technologies to reduce the
amount of lead waste generated. In addition, EPA may encourage
pollution prevention measures to reduce the amount of lead in
products.
This section summarizes the-roles of the various EPA Offices
in controlling new or ongoing lead pollution. All of these
activities are under consideration, but a final decision has yet
to be made regarding some of them. It is important to note that
the activities summarized here, while significant and important
in reducing lead contamination for specific localized populations
as well as ecosystems, are not sufficient in themselves to
adequately achieve the goal of significantly reducing the blood
lead levels of children at highest risk. Achieving this
objective is dependent upon significantly reducing risks due to
LBP and urban soil.
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER (0DW1
Background
Lead occurs in drinking water primarily due to corrosion of
lead-bearing materials in water supply distribution systems
(e.g., service lines, goosenecks, water meters) and in household
plumbing (e.g., lead-soldered copper pipes, brass faucets, and
brass fixtures). The highest levels are found in areas with
corrosive waters, especially in older urban areas with lead
service lines and mains, in homes with newly-installed lead
solder (though now illegal) and brass faucets, and in buildings
with drinking water coolers containing lead-lined tanks. Nearly
everyone is exposed, to lead .in-drinking water at some.ijavei.
Concentrations vary widely from city to city, house to house, and
even at the same tap depending on standing time of the water and
temperature. There are very few data to make reliable nationwide
22
-------
projections of current exposure, in 1986, EPA estimated that
approximately 20 percent of the population was exposed to lead
levels over 20 ppb in first-flush water. These data are being
used to estimate baseline risks as part of the current reviews of
the drinking water regulation and the lead National Ambient Air —
Quality Standard (NAAQS).
Assuming the highest PbB to water lead relationships
available in the literature, steady exposure to 20 ppb in
drinking water would contribute between 2.5-3.5 M9/dl to a
child's PbB. Host people are probably exposed to lower levels of
lead in drinking water, and only a small fraction is exposed to
much higher levels. Therefore, drinking water actually
contributes a smaller amount for most of the population. On
average, this is estimated at between one and two ng/dl.
EPA currently estimates that among U.S. children not living
in deteriorating lead-painted housing, and not exposed to highly
contaminated soils, approximately 3.5 percent have PbB above 10
ng/dl. Even if lead in drinking water could be completely
eliminated, the percentage of children with PbB above 10 nq/dl
would be reduced to 1.4 percent, although this shift would be
relatively small — from about 11 to 9 nq/dl on average.
Final Drinking Water Regulations
In 1988, EPA proposed revisions to the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for lead under the SDWA. The major
provisions of the proposal were for water suppliers to monitor
lead levels in first-flush, standing water in high-risk homes,
and to install and improve corrosion control and conduct public
education if lead levels were above various targets. The current
standard is a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 50 ppb measured
at free-flowing taps located throughout the distribution system.
The Agency is considering reducing this 50 ppb MCL to a 15 ppb
first flush "Action Level" at the tap. The Agency is also
considering requiring corrosion control, public education, source
water monitoring and possible treatment, and lead service line
replacement if the 15 ppb "Action Level" is exceeded in more than
10% of samples from high-risk homes (90th percentile). Further,
EPA is considering whether to require all large systems (those
serving more than 50,000 people) to optimize corrosion control
for lead without jeopardizing overall water quality. ODW plans
to promulgate the rule in April 1991.
ODW estimates that the final rule will result in the average
PbB among children not exposed to paint or soil contamination
hazards dropping from 5.3 to approximately 4.7 j*g/dl. EPA
estimates that actions by water systems to comply with the
revised rule will reduce exposures for millions of Americans.
Approximately half a million children will have their blood lead
levels reduced to below 10 jig/dl. Although the average shift
23
-------
will be relatively small, some children will have very
significant decreases in blood lead.
TinpT eraentation
The SDWA requires drinking water regulations to be
technologically and economically feasible. While corrosion
control and lead service line replacement meet those criteria, it
is difficult to predict the precise effectiveness of these
treatments in reducing lead levels at household taps. ODW
estimates that even after corrosion control, at least 17,000 of
the 66,000 public water systems would exceed a 90th percentile
level of 15 ppb.
In the final regulation, the Agency is considering whether
to account for the limits of available technology by: l) allowing
systems that fail the target tap lead level to be considered in
compliance if they demonstrate they have taken reasonable actions
to minimize lead levels from sources under their control (e.g.,
corrosion control, source water treatment if required by States,
and possible lead service line replacement); and 2) requiring
systems that exceed the target tap lead level to regularly inform
customers of easy ways that exposures from household plumbing can
be minimized (e.g., not drinking first flush water after long
standing times, checking for lead solder and pipes). ODW
conducted a pilot public education program in Raleigh, North
Carolina, that resulted in behavior changes to reduce lead
exposures. Materials developed from this pilot study will be
applied in the final rulemaking. ODW is developing brochures
and other communication materials for use by water suppliers.
Finally, ODW will use university-based centers to train
water suppliers, engineers, and regulators on practical ways to
minimize water corrosivity and reduce lead levels in drinking
water. This effort is being conducted in cooperation with
national corrosion control experts and large metropolitan water
suppliers.
Planned Actions
Several ongoing efforts should significantly reduce
exposures to lead in drinking water. The 1986 Amendments to the
SDWA banned the use of lead solder from public water supply
systems, and from plumbing in residential or non-residential
facilities connected to a public water system. The use of pipes
or faucets containing more than eight percent lead was also
banned. Given that much of the lead contamination comes from
water standing in faucets and in interior plumbing, effective
implementation of this ban is a high ODW priority. Although
States have authority to enforce the ban, ODW has used a
combination of regulatory and non-regulatory strategies to assist
States and localities, including guidance and training for
24
-------
Regions and States, an aggressive outreach program to educate
consumers, and technical assistance to manufacturers of plumbing
fixtures. 0TS, in conjunction with ODW and industry, is
considering using TSCA §6(a) to ban the sale of lead solder to
plumbers and plumbing supply houses> to further ensure
compliance.
The Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of 1988 mandated
recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined water reservoir
tanks, and banned the manufacture or sale of drinking water
coolers with lead parts. ODW has developed a program to help
schools correct lead contamination problems. This includes (1)
distributing a guidance document and testing protocol to monitor
for and remedy excessive lead levels in drinking water; (2)
conducting training on how to follow the necessary procedures?
(3) producing a training video; (4) publishing lists of brands
and models of water coolers containing lead; and (5) publishing
names of certified analytical laboratories.
ODW has also established a Safe Drinking Water Hotline to
provide information on the LCCA, the lead ban, and other aspects
of lead in drinking water.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE fOSW)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fRCRA)
Land Ban
In response to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
to rcra, osw promulgated the "Third third" rule in June 1990.
This rule specifies treatment standards (Best Demonstrated
Available Technology, or BOAT) for hazardous wastes exhibiting
the toxicity characteristic for lead, destined for land disposal.
Earlier land ban regulations have also established treatment
standards for lead in listed wastes. Land disposal includes any
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment,
wastepile, injection well, or other placement on the land. This
rule may establish more stringent requirements on temporary
storage of spent batteries pending recycling. While BDAT for
batteries is recovery of the lead, OSW is debating whether
certain storage areas for lead-containing products awaiting
recycling are considered vastepiles. Under the land ban, wastes
must meet a treatment standard before being placed in piles. OSW
has granted a two-year capacity variance for these storage areas
pending a final decision on this issue. A decision to treat
smelter storage areas as wastepiles could contribute to a
reduction in recycling capacity, if smelters choose to close
rather than meet the new requirements.
25
-------
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
OSW published a final rule in March 1990, under Subtitle c
of RCRA, replacing the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test vith
the TCLP.— Under the EP, if a waste.was a solid, homogeneous
material, a sample of the waste could be tested using the
structural integrity procedure (SIP), and did not have to be
ground to pass through a 9.5 mm sieve the way all other wastes
did. The TCLP no longer allows the use of the SIP for any
wastes, although alternatives to the grinding requirement are
being evaluated.
In addition, the final rule has a regulatory limit of 5 ppm
for lead in the TCLP leachate, based on the current drinking
water standard of 50 ppb. OSW will evaluate whether to change
the regulatory limit once the revised drinking water standard,
currently under development, is promulgated.
Both of these actions could cause additional secondary
smelter slag to be considered hazardous waste, although other
modifications to the standard setting procedure under
consideration could offset the effect of the revised drinking
water standard.
If additional slag is therefore characterized as hazardous
waste, more secondary smelters will be required to comply with
Subtitle c requirements. If, for example, a smelter is disposing
of hazardous slag at its own on-site landfill, the smelter will
have to comply with Subtitle C hazardous waste management
requirements, including corrective action for all solid waste
management units at the facility. These costs may cause some
secondary smelters to choose to close.
Regulatory Determination on Mineral Processing Wastes
Lead slag from primary lead smelting is one of twenty
mineral processing wastes currently excluded from regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C. OSW is currently evaluating whether any
of these twenty wastes should be regulated under Subtitle C,
which would include permitting, manifesting, and on-site and off-
site waste management activities. Subtitle C regulation may be
warranted for lead slag because of its toxicity, documentation of
damages, and widespread distribution of waste off-site. However,
Subtitle C regulation could also contribute to economic
disruption of the primary smelting industry; this is discussed
further under the "Battery Cluster" section of this document.
OSW plans to make its Regulatory Determination by June 1991.
Source Separation
OSW is considering issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments on a number of options to
26
-------
encourage recycling. OSW is also studying current State battery
recycling programs, and will develop and distribute information
on the proper implementation of cost-effective, environmentally
sound lead-acid battery recycling.
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (OTS)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA1
TSCA Lead Pollution Prevention Plan
The use of lead in products presents two types of exposures:
exposures that occur from specific lead products during
or immediately following production or use; and
potential exposures that might occur from any lead-
bearing product at some time in the future after
disposal.
OTS has two regulatory objectives with respect to each type
of exposure if they present unreasonable risks. In the first
instance, OTS intends to (1) prevent new uses of lead, and (2)
limit or, if appropriate ban, current uses of lead, if they
present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the
environment due to exposures generated during production or use.
For the second type of exposure, OTS plans to (1) encourage
environmentally sound recycling of essential products which
contain lead as essential component (e.g., lead acid storage
batteries), and (2) explore the desirability and feasibility of
discouraging overall consumption of lead in general.
Traditional pollution control rules, as well as pollution
prevention efforts to reduce the amount of lead generated
(including economic incentive or market-based approaches) may be
suitable ways of addressing these exposures. OTS will examine
both benefits and costs of possible actions, including an
analysis of materials which would be substituted for lead in
specific products. OPPE is working closely with OTS to evaluate
these alternative approaches.
Prevention of new uses of lead posing unreasonable risks
While new lead uses continue to be developed, they are not
subject to EPA scrutiny prior to commercial production. OTS is
considering rulemaking to require advance notice from anyone
intending to manufacture or process lead for a new use, in order
to ensure that these-uses do not pose unreatsonable risks. This
would afford EPA an opportunity to review the intended new use
and, where risks are unreasonable, to either limit or ban it.
27
-------
Phase-out of current uses of lead posing unreasonable risks
Several uses of lead that generate risk during use nay be
candidates for bans or restrictions under several Federal
statutory authorities. OTS will perform a regulatory
investigation on these uses, considering the benefits of each
product relative to the risks, in order to determine if the risk
is "unreasonable" and should be regulated under TSCA. Uses
currently under consideration for a ban or restriction under TSCA
include:
brass and bronze plumbing fittings and fixtures
(scheduled proposal January 1992),
lead solder used to join water pipes (scheduled
proposal January 1992), and
lead in non-residential paint.
This list may be expanded in the future.
Battery recycling
In 1989, 1,012,155 metric tons of lead, approximately 80
percent of total domestic consumption, went into batteries.
Because of the amount of lead involved, EPA is considering a rule
to increase and maintain the rate of battery recycling, in order
to reduce risks djue to lead discarded in the environment and to
primary lead mine'd.
Somewhere between 80 to 95 percent of spent batteries are
currently recycled; however, lead acid batteries still comprised
65% of all lead in municipal solid waste in 1988. In addition,
if the price of lead again falls, the market may not support even
the current recycling rate. OTS is considering a rule to
encourage battery recycling in an environmentally sound manner,
and to sustain high recycling rates through world market price
fluctuations. This rule is scheduled to be proposed in October
1991. EPA is involved in a regulatory negotiation, scheduled to
run through April 1991, to determine the best methods to
encourage maximum recycling.
The regulatory negotiation is considering a variety of
approaches, including requiring battery manufacturers to include
some specified fraction of recycled lead in the total amount of
lead they need to produce new batteries; require the battery
distribution chain to accept any spent batteries returned for
recycling; a combination of both approaches, or another
mechanism. This rule is particularly amenable to a market-based
approach using economic incentives, and this option is being
jointly explored by OPPE and OTS.
28
-------
Additional potent^;! restrictions of lead
OTS plans to publish an ANPR in 1991 under TSCA which will
begin the process of examining the feasibility and desirability
of additional restrictions on leadr-lf OTS determines that the
risks of lead use are unreasonable, this will be followed by a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) with proposed regulatory
remedies. A variety of TSCA 56(a) rules are possible, including
rules that would restrict general consumption of lead or provide
economic incentives for reducing lead use, based on a balancing
of the benefits to society of such reductions against their
associated costs.
Final risk management decisions regarding the entire TSCA
lead regulatory program will be made after consideration of
comments received on the ANPR, status of other rules, and
evaluation of an economic incentives analysis.
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS (OAOPS)
Background
The current lead NAAQS was set in 1978 at 1.5 nq/mz,
quarterly average. EPA's primary mechanism for attaining the
NAAQS has been the reduction of lead in gasoline. In addition,
lead emissions from industrial sources have been substantially
reduced by state Implementation Plans (SIP's) designed to attain
the particulate matter and lead NAAQS. Further reductions have
also resulted from the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for
smelters. In combination, these control programs have resulted
in major reductions in air lead and in children's PbB. Available
data indicate that the.lead NAAQS is being attained in all areas
except those near lead smelters, refineries and remelters. In
these areas, exposures are due both to current emissions and to
resuspension of soil contaminated by past emissions. OAQPS has
developed a compliance strategy to bring these areas into
attainment.
Strategy for achieving attainment of the current lead NAAQS
Twenty-nine sources (four primary smelters, 23 secondary
smelters, one lead refinery and one lead remelter) have been
identified under OAR's attainment strategy. Monitoring data from
the sources with monitors indicate that 10 of the 11 do not
attain the current NAAQS. Fifteen other smelters had modelled
violations.
Non-attainment is due-cither-to-non-compliance.with SIP
emission limits, or to insufficient SIP emission limits which
would not result in attainment of the NAAQS even with full
compliance. Bringing an area into attainment with the NAAQS
29
-------
typically involves three steps: (a) monitoring air quality, (b)
developing control plans (SIP requirements), and (c) enforcing
those regulations. However, in developing SIP requirements, a
series of estimates must be made to determine the emission
reduction needed to attain the NAAQS. Because of uncertainties
in such estimates, some areas might not attain the NAAQS even
when all sources in the areas are in compliance with their SIP
requirements. When this occurs, EPA can initiate a SIP revision.
Because the 42 facilities in the OAQPS Extended Exposure
Analysis affect only their immediate vicinity, the number of
children at risk is small compared to the number of children at
risk from LBP, contaminated urban soil or drinking water.
However, non-attainment of the NAAQS adds significantly to the
PbB level of these children. OAQPS estimates that the number of
children near these facilities with PbB greater than 10 pg/dl
would be reduced about 50 percent, from approximately 800 to 400,
if the current NAAQS was attained in all areas of the country.
OAQPS's lead NAAQS attainment strategy, approved by the
Deputy Administrator, contains four activities:
1. Expand monitoring to all 29 large lead sources.
An expanded ambient monitoring initiative is underway to
provide the necessary ambient monitoring database near
stationary lead sources. Ambient monitoring networks will
be initiated near each of the sources, and initial ambient
air data analyses should be complete by June 30, 1991.
2. Conduct Federal inspections of all 29 sources.
As scheduled, the Regions completed inspections of each of .
the 29 sources by December 31, 1990. Approximately six of
these sources were found to be in violation.
3. Implement "leveraged enforcement" by coordinating with other
program offices (multi-media approach).
OAQPS has asked the Regions to develop enforcement actions
by January 31, 1991? negotiate multi-media consent
agreements by October 30, 1991; and achieve emission
reductions expeditiously thereafter.
4. Designate, or require States to designate, non-attainment
areas with respect to the lead NAAQS, and to require SIP
revisions for these areas.
EPA began the designation process, in October 199GL*. States
must respond by February 1991, and designations will be
final by June 1992. Revised SIP's will be due by the end of
1993, and attainment of the NAAQS is expected by mid-1997.
30
-------
NAAOS review
The clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA review the NAAQS
every five years and make any appropriate revisions. The
-scientific and technical' assessment-portion of the lead NAAQS
review was completed in January 1990, when the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee gave final closure on the lead
Staff Paper and the supplement to the Addendum to the Criteria
Document. CASAC concluded that: (a) EPA should set a NAAQS that
minimizes the number of children with PbB greater than 10 /ig/dl,
(b) a NAAQS at the upper end of the range under consideration
(1.0 to 1.5 M9/®3) offers little if any margin of safety, and (c)
populations not quantitatively analyzed in EPA exposure modelling
should be considered for setting a margin of safety on the NAAQS.
CASAC also asked EPA to examine a NAAQS of 0.25 if only to
provide perspective on the higher alternatives.
OAQPS has analyzed the effect of NAAQS revisions by
reviewing 42 lead point sources — the 29 sources identified for
the NAAQS attainment strategy, and 13 other sources that are not
currently being pursued under the attainment strategy, but which
may be in non-attainment if the NAAQS is lowered. OAQPS has
estimated the number of children living near these sources who
would have PbB greater than 10 Mg/dl at each of the alternative
NAAQS levels, and at background air lead concentrations.
Approximately 126,000 children live near these sources. The
results shown on the following table should not be interpreted as
the absolute number of children at risk of elevated PbB from
point source emissions because (1) they are based on a sample of
sources, and (2) they do not specifically reflect the exposure
characteristics of children living in homes with deteriorating
lbp or children with an unusually strong tendency to ingest non-
food items. In addition, the results do not-represent the risks
faced by other sensitive groups such as pregnant women (for
fetuses) and adult men. However, the results are useful for
comparing the relative protection afforded by alternative
standard levels.
Estimated Number of Children Exceeding 10 ng/dl
PbB under Alternative NAAQS Situations
NAAQS alternatives
No. children with PbB
higher than 10 uq/dl*
1.5 ng/m3 quarterly, today
1.5 /jg/m3 quarterly, enforced
0.75 jig/m3 monthly
0.25 ng/n1 monthly
Background (0.10 M9/D3)
800
400
200
150
150
(Assuming water level ¦ 8 pg/1, constant soil level)
(* - rounded to the nearest 50)
31
-------
As the table shows, enforcing the current NAAQS would provide a
greater incremental public health benefit than any of the
contemplated NAAQS revisions. Most of the public health
improvements would be near primary and secondary smelters.
While cost and technological feasibility are not to be
considered in setting NAAQS, impacts on both primary and
secondary smelters have implications for the broader integrated
lead strategy. If none of the operating primary smelters could
attain the NAAQS level selected during the Agency's review with
readily available control technologies, the domestic primary
smelting industry may simply shut down. This could result in
increased importation of primary lead from countries with less
stringent standards. Should such smelters close, they could be
potential Superfund sites due to past contamination. In
addition, impacts on secondary smelter capacity have implications
for EPA's efforts to promote environmentally sound battery
recycling, and are discussed in the following section on that
topic.
Secondary Smelter NSPS
As part of the lead Pollution Prevention Program, OAQPS is
initiating work on a revised NSPS for secondary smelters to
ensure that new or reconstructed secondary smelters continue to
apply best demonstrated control technology. New sources also
must demonstrate compliance with the lead NAAQS. The analysis
for this revision will consider the feasibility of performance
standards based on alternative smelting technologies that would
reduce lead discharges to other media as well as air.
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS fOPP)
The last known use of lead as a pesticide active ingredient
(lead arsenate for use on grapefruit) was voluntarily cancelled
in 1989, generally due to concerns about the arsenate. EPA is
currently revoking the associated tolerance levels.
OPP found lead as an inert ingredient in 13 pesticide
products. As a result of this discovery, OPP issued data call-in
notices to all of the registrants of these products. Out of the
13 products, 11 have been cancelled, one has been reformulated
without lead, and one is pending cancellation, since the
registrant has not responded to OPP's request.
OPP believes these actions have removed lead from pesticide
products. There is, however,• one possible area..for additional
action, and that involves active ingredients registered before
1984. OPP is undertaking a review of pesticides registered prior
to 1984, in order to discover if any contain lead as an active
32
-------
ingredient. If OPP finds lead as an active ingredient, it will
initiate appropriate regulatory action.
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (OWRS1
Clean Water Act
EPA estimates that sevage sludge contributes less than 0.05
percent to total high hazard lead exposures, and virtually all of
this occurs with incineration of sludge.
Section §405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to
propose and promulgate regulations establishing numeric limits
and management practices regarding sludge that are adequate to
protect public health and the environment from any reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of each pollutant. Currently, EPA
(40 CFR Part 257) regulates the land disposal of sewage sludge
from publicly and privately owned treatment works. EPA has also
proposed a rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the CWA which would establish standards for the co-
disposal of sewage sludge in municipal solid waste landfills.
Because Part 257 covers only a limited number of pollutants
and use and disposal practices (land application and
landfilling), EPA is developing more comprehensive regulations
under 4 0 CFR Parts 501 (issued in May 1989) and 503 (scheduled to
be promulgated in January 1992). These regulations are expected
to reduce the number of children with PbB over 10 jig/dl (as a
result of exposure to sludge) by 360, from 414 to 54. Lead is
only one of the contaminants covered by these regulations. 0WRS
is constructing the final Part 503 rule to establish reasonable
worst case protective limits for lead-bearing sludge, to avoid
treating it as a "special case" requiring extraordinary
treatment. OWRS believes that there is minimal risk from lead in
sludge applied to land, and that tight restrictions on land
application of lead-bearing sludge could force transfer to
incineration, where exposures and risks are significantly
greater. Furthermore, stringent lead limitations may not reduce
lead concentrations in sludge because sources may be beyond the
control of the POTW.
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT fOEl
OE is working with the Regional Offices and Headquarters
Program Offices to implement a lead enforcement initiative to
improve compliance with existing regulations. This cross-media,
pollutant specific initiative will be the first of its kind
undertaken by the Agency. The initiative likely will include
filings under at least the CAA, CWA and RCRA.
33
-------
OE is assisting in coordinating inspections and analysis of
data collected from major sources of lead emissions. One focus
will be the use of the CAA to reduce air emissions of lead from
primary and secondary lead smelters, with an emphasis on
compliance with SIP lead.emission.limits. This is discussed
further in the section on OAQPS activities. OE will also focus
on violations of lead limits in NPDES permits for industrial and
municipal wastewater discharges and pretreatment requirements for
industrial users of municipal wastewater treatment systems. Some
RCRA actions likely will be brought against primary and secondary
lead smelters. Other offices are also exploring the possibility
of developing lead cases in other media. A national filing of
enforcement actions against sources of lead emissions is expected
in early July 1991.
The publicity surrounding this effort will highlight the
significance of this cluster filing and also to underscore the
Agency's commitment to improving regulatory compliance and
dealing with lead problems.
34
-------
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CASAC Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CPSC consumer Product Safety Commission
cwa Clean Water Act
EBL Elevated Blood Lead
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
LBP Lead-Based Paint
LBPPPA Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act
LCCA Lead Contamination Control Act
LEAP Lead Education/Abatement Program
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NPL National Priority List
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODLC Office Directors Lead Committee
ODW Office of Drinking Water
OE Office of Enforcement
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OPPE Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
ORD Office of Research and Development
osw Office of Solid Waste
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OTS Office of Toxic Substances
OWRS Office of Water Regulations and Standards
PbB Blood Lead
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
sdwa Safe Drinking Water Act
SIP State Implementation Plan (OAQPS issues)
or
Structural Integrity Procedure (OSW issues)
SNUR Significant Kev Use Rule
TCLP Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
fig/dl Micrograms per Deciliter
35
-------
APPENDIX II
CASE STUDY IN COORDINATION: THE BATTERY CLUSTER
Maintenance of environmentally-sound lead recycling capacity
— to prevent batteries from being discarded in the environment,
to reduce the need to mine and smelt new lead, and to reduce lead
concentrations near smelters to an acceptable level — is an
important part of this lead strategy. A number of regulations
have been identified in this document which could affect the
recycling of lead acid batteries.
The secondary smelting industry is essential to the
continued availability of domestic battery recycling. The
increased costs of pollution control associated with safe
recycling could result in a significant part of this industry
choosing to close rather than to install necessary equipment.
Losses of this domestic recycling capacity could result in a net
increase in risks to human health and the environment due to
lead,-because of the increased need to introduce primary lead
into the domestic market, and other consequences based on the
international market.
To avoid this outcome, the group of regulations affecting
battery recycling (and smelter operation) were clustered so that
they could be considered in a cohesive EPA plan to address lead
exposures and encourage environmentally sound battery recycling.
Background
In 1989, approximately 80 percent of total domestic
consumption of lead went into batteries. Although 80 to 95
percent of spent batteries are currently recycled, batteries
still comprised 65 percent of all lead in municipal solid waste
in 1988. EPA wants to encourage increases in the recycling rate.
Further, the price of lead has fluctuated over time. If the
price falls again, the market may not support even the current
recycling rate.
Several regulations, policy determinations, and programs
have been grouped together as the "Battery Cluster":
* Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Materials Separation
ANPR (under consideration), possibly addressing
batteries (OSW);
* Lead Acid Battery Recycling Proposed Rule, considering
alternative battery recycling strategies (OTS);
* Proposed Revision of National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead, possibly requiring smelters
36
-------
to meet more stringent air emission requirements
(OAQPS);
* Proposed Revision to NSPS for Secondary Smelters
(OAQPS) ;
* Regulatory Determination on Mineral Processing Wastes
for Lead Slag, possibly requiring primary smelters to
meet RCRA Subtitle C requirements (OSW);
* Land Disposal Restrictions ("Land Ban'1): the "third-
third" rule, including lead disposal and storage
requirements for smelters (OSW - promulgated June 2,
1990) ;
* Revisions to Toxicity Characteristics for Hazardous
Wastes (TCLP) (OSW - promulgated March 29, 1990); and
* Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy/Smelter Compliance Plan,
forcing smelters to meet lead air emission requirements
of the current NAAQS (OAQPS - ongoing).
An ad hoc Task Force, chaired by OTS, assessed and made
recommendations regarding the appropriate sequence and collective
impact of the several impending decisions that could adversely
affect secondary- smelting capacity. The task force consists of a
subset of offices which have been directly involved in
development of thi9 strategy. The workgroup developed a
regulatory plan, described below, outlining their
recommendations.
Ejects
-------
From the list of actions outlined above, several could have
particularly important effects on the industry. For ekample,
OAQPS analyses indicate that a revised NAAQS, if adopted, would
have an impact on domestic secondary smelting, or recycling,
capacity. A TSCA rule addressing battery recycling could provide
an incentive to continue smelter operation. If the Agency were
to pursue restrictions on battery disposal, that also may
encourage recycling. Another important action under review is a
Regulatory Determination that may require primary smelters to
comply with RCRA Subtitle C for lead slag. If EPA decides
Subtitle C is applicable, it could have significant effects on
the economic viability of the domestic primary smelting industry.
If less primary lead were available, recycling would become more
economically viable.
Other policies and actions outside the Agency, such as some
State requirements for battery recycling, could either promote or
counteract the effects of actions EPA is investigating.
This cluster of recent and impending regulatory decisions —
if carefully considered and coupled with a pollution prevention
policy — could conceivably encourage the smelting industry to
adopt new technologies that-would provide more efficient and
cost-effective means of complying with the set of regulations.
Description of Cluster Product
Agency offices are working on a consolidated plan which is
designed to meet virtually all of the program-specific goals of
each regulation to address lead releases into a particular medium
and at the same time address the unacceptable risks from lead
across Agency programs.
The rules and programs included in the Battery Cluster are
listed above and are being coordinated among program offices.
Coordinating the goals, programs, and schedules of the
participating offices will (1) improve the potential
effectiveness of individual programs by reinforcing their goals
through language in rules developed by other offices, and (2)
help achieve the Agency's goals in encouraging the continued
availability of environmentally sound recycling capacity for lead
acid batteries. Specifically, the following coordination will
occur between program offices, and is an example of the type of
coordination necessary when dealing with a ubiquitous pollutant.
Obviously, plans and schedules for specific rules may change as
the Agency analyzes regulatory alternatives and applicable costs
and benefits.
There are several linkages that EPA has identified. For
example, the third potential regulation on the list is the lead
NAAQS revision. If EPA lowers the NAAQS for lead, the new
standards will not be in place until well after decisions are
38
-------
made on the other actions in the cluster. However, the proposal
date of any NAAQS revision would signal the smelting industry
that new controls will be needed. Lowering the NAAQS could
therefore potentially have a significant adverse economic effect
on primary and secondary smelters. -While economic impacts are
not considered in setting a NAAQS, it is in the Agency's overall
interest to encourage continued smelting/recycling capacity.
Therefore, if a lowered NAAQS were to be proposed, EPA would want
to have finished its regulatory negotiation on recycling in time
to propose any recycling rule concurrently. The goal would be to
provide industry with greater certainty on investing in the
pollution control technologies needed to meet the new standards
and ensure safe recycling.
Implementation
Agency offices will continue coordination as each of the
regulations in the cluster is developed. The preambles of each
of the rules will cross-reference and reinforce the other rules
in the cluster, and will also state that the rule is a part of a
consolidated Agency action to reduce risks from lead.
The ODLC will identify emerging regulations and programs
which may affect smelting or battery recycling, and also new
issues affecting the rules already included in the cluster.
Coordination will include consideration of effects both on the
timing and substance of the other rules in the cluster.
As mentioned previously, the ODLC will report back to the
Deputy Administrator periodically, on the battery cluster as veil
as on other issues included in this strategy document.
39
-------
&
-------
LSi d Message
Pb T» An Old And serious Problem
The Federal Government sees Pb as a serious problem, especially
for infants and children. Pb poisoning is the most common and
socially devastating environmental disease of young 'children, and
it is entirely preventable. The American Academy of Pediatrics
calls it an "epidemic".
EPA is especially concerned about our children, because even at
low levels, Pb affects their mental development. Pb exposures in
a population result in diminished intelligence among large
numbers of children, additional numbers with.learning
disabilities, and fewer with superior intellectual ability.
Socio groups of adults also call for particular concern—
especially pregnant women, as Pb in their blood can be c
transmitted to the fetus; and workers in some occupations, who
can ^>e exposed to dangerous levels of Pb.
Pb is not a new problem. For centuries, people have found Pb a
very ussful material for a wide variety of purposes. It is
therefore ubiquitous. Pb contamination is a complex, aulti-nedia
problem with no easy or quick solutions.
•-Exposures of concern result primarily from past practices. Pb
already deposited in the environment poses the biggest problem.
The federal government has made considerable progress- in the past
decade or so. Children*s blood Pb levels have dropped
dramatically due to federal action—e.g., EPA's action to phase
out Pb in gasoline. Serious Pb poisonings occur much less
frequently, and deaths are rare, due to increased awareness,
childhood screening, and environmental intervention. "EPA
estimates for U.S. Children under 6 years old v/ Elevated Blood
Levels are:
>25 ug/dl: 10.7% (1976-80) 1.0% (1990)
>10 ug/dl: 91.0% (1976-80) 15.0% (1990)
B. / we*re Making Progress
But, science is now demonstrating serious health effects at lover
levels than previously recognized. There is much left to be done.
-------
2
Q pa'a intaoratAH
In response, EPA has developed a cross-media Pb Strategy to
announce the actions already underway, and those we are planning.
The goal of our Strategy is to reduce Pb exposures to the fullest
extent practicable, with particular emphasis on reducing the risk
to children.
EPA sees Pb as a major example of a truly multi-media
problem, for which traditional command and control
techniques are inadequate. In addition to regulatory
controls, EPA's strategy encourages recycling and seeks to
reduce uses to the extent practicable.
D. Comprehensive Federal Approach
EPA realized that addressing the problem separately vould not be
effective or efficient. Agencies are coordinating planning—to
integrate efforts across sectors, sets priorities for action,
target further data needs, and educate the public about risk
reduction. EFA, EVD, and EES/CDC all have major programs
undervay. Others (OSkA, DOC, CPSC, e.g.) are also participating.
Collectively, agencies are working to:
o get smart, so that we can target the worst problems of
existing exposures (due primarily to in-place Pb), and use
the most efficient and effective techniques to reduce risk
o set priorities by targeting "hot-spots," based on health
risks, for remedial action on Pb-based paint and other
sources, such as drinking water, point sources, and
contaminants in commercial uses.'
o look to the future, by evaluating ways to prevent
pollution and reduce exposures by eliminating unnecessary
high-risk exposures and encouraging recycling.
o integrate efforts across sectors — provide leadership
while emphasizing the importance of a partnership that
includes state and local governments as well as the private
,sector; one important effort is developing training programs
for workers.
o educate the public to Pb risks and how they can minimize
exposures; and to warn them against precipitous and
expensive actions that vould actually increase the risks to
our children; alert people to the risks while avoiding
public confusion or panic.
-------
3
yadaral Agency Activities
Activities in individual agencies include:
o HHS/CDC will pursue a surveillance program %o target' axeas
and populations of greatest concern and track progress in
eliminating the disease. HHS is reassessing its definition
of "poisoning,M and expanding its programs in a major nev
initiative to eliminate childhood Pb poisoning.
o HUD has been directed by Congress to develop workable
programs to deal with old Pb-based paint that is in many
homes throughout the country.
o EPA has been supporting HUD's work, including training
programs and technical evaluation for.more efficient and
effective remediation.
o HUD and EPA are co-chairing an interagency task force to
address Pb-based paint in the Nation's housing. Several
agencies are focusing attention on in-place Pb paint as .the
primary source of risk to children.
o EPA is evaluating contaminated urban soil, which is another
major source. EPA just revised its Pb drinking water
regulations in May 1991. Drinking water systems are a wide-
spread, but less intense, source of exposures.
****For some more specifics about EPA activities, see Tab D»***
What To Tell Parents And Homeowners
Pb still presents a serious health hazard to a large number of
Americans, especially our children—and .there are some things the
public can do. We want to encourage risk identification and
reduction by individuals.
o Have children up to 6 years old tested. Those with elevated
blood Pb levels should have follow-up testing and the source
of exposure should be found and removed.
o Keep dust levels in the home at a minimum, especially on
windowsills and floors.
o Wash children's hands frequently—their hand-to-mouth
activity is thought to be a major avenue of exposure.
o Use cold water for drinking and cooking, and flush out the
tap if it has gone unused for more than six hours.
-------
4
o Stabilize the soil around the home with groundcover to
minimize movement of soil and dust.
o Don't remove Pb-based paint yourselves. Be cautious about
especially about raising dust. Homeowners can have paint
analyzed for Pb (houses built prior to 19— are likely to
have layers of Pb-based paint underneath). Hire a trained
professional for removal work.
o Call state or local health department officials for
information.
-------
5
Message for Soil
o Soil might be an important source of exposure.
o We know far less about the scope of' Pb-contaminated soil
exposures than we know about other sources,\ including paint.
o It is clear that Pb-contaminated soil has resulted primarily
from past practices—leaded gasoline deposition, deteriorating
outdoor paint, point source emissions, and land disposal of
leaded waste products.
Leaded gasoline combustion has decreased substantially
with the phasedown of Pb in gasoline.
Implementation of 1978 EPA Pb air standards (NAAQS) has
markedly deceased contamination from point sources
(battery plants and smelters, e.g.).
Deteriorating Pb-based paint, however, continues to cause
new contamination; it is thought to be the major source
of urban soil Pb problems potentially affecting large
numbers of children.
o EPA1s Pb Strategy addresses the lack of information on urban
soil contamination by recommending that we "seek to establish
a joint effort with HUD, CDC, and ATSDR to promote and assist
a national effort to identify the locations, extent,
bioavailability and severity of lead-contaminated soil."
o Of special concern is ingestion of Pb-contaminated dust by
young infants or children, due to normal hand-to-mouth
activity. Contaminated soil is a problem both inside and
outside houses. During play, children are exposed around
houses and in playgrounds; contaminated soil and dust are also
tracked and blown inside, creating another route of exposure.
o The Three-City Study, required under Superfund legislation, is
an EPA-sponsored pilot study (in Baltimore, Boston, and
Cincinnati); it is designed to give us a better understanding
of soil contamination and how it contributes to elevated blood
Pb levels in children.
Researchers sought out contaminated urban areas and are
using simple methods to remove/control contaminated soil,
then assess whether these methods are effective in
lowering Pb contamination levels.
Data collection in the three cities began in 1988 and has
progressed somewhat beyond the mid-point. Final results
are expected to be released in late 1992.
-------
6
o Other EPA research is planned to evaluate and develop more
cost-effective ways to decontaminate high Pb soils, and to
improve methods by which to detect Pb in soil.
o Soil contamination is also an issue at Superfund sites. The
primary emphasis of the Superfund program is to clean up soil
contaminated with industrial sources of Pb—e.g., smelters,
mines, battery recycling operations.
o Approximately 1/3 of the sites on the Superfund National
Priority List have Pb as either the major contaminant or one
of the contaminants of concern.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
rwTBnntJCTIOH
This document presents the coordinated strategy of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to address the significant health
and environmental problems our society is facing as a result of
lead pollution. Lead is a multi-media pollutant; accordingly,
the Agency plans to address lead contamination by coordinating
its authorities across programs.
Because the strategy includes research, regulatory,
enforcement, educational and training activities, ve envision
this document will be a living document, and that it vill evolve
as we begin to implement its various components. Several aspects
of the strategy vill entail continued coordination with other
branches of government while others, such as regulations, vill
require full compliance Vith the Agency's rulemaking
requirements.
THE PROBLEM
Lead is a highly toxic metal, producing a range of adverse
health effects, particularly in children and fetuses. Effects
include nervous and reproductive system disorders, delays in
neurological and physical development, cognitive and behavioral
changes, and hypertension. Adverse effects have been found at
lower and lover blood lead levels, and the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) anticipate lowering its level of concern from 2 5
ug/dl to a level vithin the range of 10 to 15 Mg/dl*
Elemental lead is indestructible, and ubiquitous in the
environment. Although the percentage of children with elevated
blood lead has declined substantially ever the last twenty years,
with average blood lead levels dropping from 15 to 5 Mg/dl, an
estimated 15% of children still have blood lead levels over 10
yg/dl. The three major sources of elevated blood lead are lead-
based paint, urban soil- and dust (contaminated mainly by lead-
based paint end gasoline), end lead in drinking water (moderate
exposures in large populations). Other sources include
stationary point sources, Superfund sites, municipal waste and
sewage sludge incinerators, and use of lead in products.
EPA'fi STRATEGY
The goal of the strategy is to reduce lead exposures to the
fullest extent practicable, with particular interest in reducing
the risk to children, to avoid high blood lead levels. Two
objectives vill be usad to set program priorities and gauge
program success: 1) to significantly reduce the incidence of
blood lead levels above 10 pg/dl (subject to revision in light of
the forthcoming CDC report) in children while taking into account
the associated costs and benefits, and 2} to
1
-------
significantly reduce, through voluntary and regulatory actions,
unacceptable lead exposures that are anticipated to pose risks to
children, the general public, or the environment. These
objectives will necessarily evolve as we better understand the
risks posed by lead.
The strategy includes several sajor action elements:
develop method# to identify-geographic "hot spots",
implement a lead pollution prevention program,
strengthen existing environmental standards,
develop and transfer cost-effective abatement
technology,
encourage availability"or invironaentally sound
recycling,
develop and implement a' public information program, and
aggressively enforce envir«na*ntal?. standards.
EPA's research program, with: other:federal agencies., will
define, encourage, and/or conduct research needed to 1) locate
and assess, in terms of both geography and media, serious lead
risles, and 2) develop methods and tools to reduce those risks.
EPA's Lead Research Sub-Comaittee will continue to define and
rank lead research program objectives and activities.
EPA's abatement program focuses on in-place lead, and
addresses lead-based*paint exposure*,-urban soil and dust, and
Superfund sites. Lead-based paint-Isthe most serious source of
children's exposures. Although the Department of Housing-and
Urban Development (HUD) has priaary responsibility for the lead-
based paint portion of this progrsav- EPA is-providing HUD with
technical and adainistrative assistance. HUD's Lead-Based Paint
Task..Force, with representation fro® EPA, CDC, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NXST) and other Federal
agencies, is providing a mechanism "-for * the exchange of
information on Federal lead-based tfaint activities among the
various agencies. EPA is funding"#'nuaber of initiatives*in
support of reducing risk froa in-place lead, and will, continue to
serve as the focal point and oversll manager of technical support
to HUD.
Lead-contaminated urban soii. l*. b«lievedi to be .the next most
important source of lead exposure, but^relatively little is known
about it. Under the Superfund Aaendaents and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), EPA is conducting a pilot prograa to evaluate effects of
removing lead-contaainated soil and dust on children's blood
lead.
More than 4 00 National Priority- List sites have lead as an
important contaainant. EPA has issued interia guidance on lead
soil clean-up levels at Superfund sites, and is working to
provide methods for determining site-specific soil levels.
2
-------
EPA's regulatory ?pd pollution prevention pragma ..Hoc
efforts by a number of different offices to 'e&ai
effective ways to reduce lead _ exposures using both voluntary ar.d
regulatory approaches. This includes actions which will I'reduie-
lead .exposures as part of larger environmental programs.
Incl-ced are:
Lead in'drinking water usually 0ccudV=tt&4&t>- l4\xets-X Sit
affects much of the (J*S. population. Lead-TrfevWacLjir* the
leaching of lead from components of housetwia frcm
public and private water distribution syst«b6. The Office o'f-
.Drinking Water is finalizing requirements for lead under.'the Saf<
Drinking Water Act. 'Lead-containing mate£i*l*fius*$da?drlnking
.water systeas and water coolers have also.l«M.,feaJ*syBd,.*i
The Office ofi Solid Waste has issued. ioioabdaF-'fc'fk;.
regulations involving smelter and other typfS.":-*^fc«&diTOaj6te, and
is currently reviewing policy in those areatfie.vs, 'si-. '.
•-The Office of Toxic Substances is examining tfre" risks
related to the use' of 'lead, in products. The Office is
considering several rules which may restrict lead use in specifi<
fcrodufc'ts (and possibly' impose overall restrictions on use of lea<
as wekt). and would encourage environmentafcly^ourtil.Tlqwftf-ficid
battery recycling.
it- The office of Air Quality Blanniri^ffiftrttafsiaVdii is
ccnsi'dering revising.both the current Natl£ns£3Bmb£e£e Air -
jQua-1 tty Standard for' leid and specific staTGiaartfs stoc^ne Iters,
Action by the Office of Pesticidfufirogrssf KW 'reaulted,.-
in the.cancellation or reformulation of pesticides containing
J^adTsand work to ;pfta.s« out 'leaAj/il^contiwr*.whfcce. tfa^ risks*.*-
exceed the benefit^*'
The off ice .'of .Water Regulations and ttattctscd^iiVorXihg
on regulations tor lead, among other contaiidanfisp «*5*ewage: *.-)v
sludge,.-
The Office of Enforcement will undeftaJs«i a in--,
initiative to improve 'compliance with regulatiort*!-"4r£^*££-i-rig
sources of lead emisji'djjs.
3
-------
LEAt>-Aax> &A-n,e£i£s'
Fact Sheet -- Lead-Acid Battery Recycling
Amount of Lead Used in Batr.pries T 1989)
o 80% of total domestic lead consumption in 1989 went into lead-
acid batteries. This amounts to approximately 800,000 metric
tons of lead in 1989.
Battery Recycling Rates
o While the recycling of lead-acid batteries has always been
high, battery recycling rates have historically fluctuated ir.
response to a number of factors, particularly the price c:
lead. In 1982, a significant drop in the price of lead
contributed to a decline in the battery recycling rate to a
low of 61%.
o Today, however, it is estimated that over 90% of all lead-acid
batteries are being recycled.
Whv are We Concerned About Increasing Recycling Rates?
o Given that most lead consumption in the U.S. is for lead-acid
batteries, if even a small percentage of batteries are net
recycled, this is still a significant amount of lead. "or
example, if 10% of all batteries were not recycled in 19S9,
this is equivalent to approximately 80,000 metric tons o:
lead.
o Recycling these batteries not only reduces the amount of lead
discarded in the environment, but also minimizes the amount
of virgin lead that must be mined and smelted.
State Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Legislation
o 28 States have enacted mandatory lead-acid battery recycling
legislation.
o To encourage recycling, these States have prohibited th=
disposal of lead-acid batteries in municipal solid waste and
usually also require retailers and wholesalers to take back
used batteries from their customers.
o OSW is currently evaluating the effectiveness of State battery
recycling programs. A report will be available by Fall 1991.
i
-------
LEAD ACID BATTERY RECYCLING REGULATORY NEGOTIATION
Lead is a ubiquitous and toxic heavy metal used in a wide
variety of consumer and industrial products including lead acid
batteries. The largest percentage of lead consumed domestically
is used in lead acid batteries. Lead acid batteries are also the
major source of lead entering the municipal waste stream. EPA
believes that lead acid battery recycling is necessary to reduce
the amount of lead entering the environment.
EPA has established an Advisory Committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to negotiate issues regarding the
regulation of lead acid battery recycling under section 6 of
TSCA. EPA's negotiated rulemaking goal is to achieve and
maintain 100% lead acid battery recycling in a manner that
considers the environmental, economic, and social impact of any
actions taken to accomplish this goal.
Participants on the Advisory Committee include State and
local Government representatives, environmental groups, battery
manufacturers-, primary and secondary lead producers, lead
industry trade associations, batteries retailers, automotive
industry representatives, consumer and industrial battery
representatives, and labor groups.
There are a number of recycling approaches under TSCA which
may be considered as an outcome of the regulatory negotiated.
EPA could require retailers, wholesalers, distributors or battery
manufacturers to accept or take-back batteries from consumers to
ensure they are recycled, and/or could require battery
manufacturers to recover in spent batteries, a specified fraction
of the toatl amount of lead they need to produce new batteries.
The Agency could also provide economic incentives to encourage
recycling by ensuring that recycling remains economically
competitive with mining of primary lead.
The regulatory negotiation will conclude in April 1991, and
any consensus reached will be used as a basis for a proposed
battery recycling rule scheduled to be published by the end of
1991.
-------
fact sheet on materials separation
On December 20, 1990, EPA proposed air emissions standards for new and existing
municipal waste combustors (MWCs) which included mandatory materials separation
requirements and a ban on the combustion of lead acid batteries.
In response to comments on the MWC rule, the Agency began work on a similar
materials separation requirement for landfills.
Due to concerns about how this requirement for landfills could impact State and
local governments, and differences between the landfill and combustor universe, the
Agency is considering issuing instead an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) presenting several options the Agency could use to foster recycling.
One option under consideration is a mandatory material separation requirement
which includes a ban on the disposal lead acid batteries.
The ANPRM was intended to serve as a companion piece to the MWC rule.
The MWC Rule, finalized on January 11, 1991, did not include the proposed
material separation requirements.
Red Border review of the ANPRM closed on January 15, 1991.
Given that the material separation requirements were dropped from the MWC rule,
we need to decide whether to proceed with the ANPRM.
-------
vr\Vurv^
LEAD FACTS
Blood lead levels (most common index of exposure) in U.S. children
have dropped 3-4 fold since late 1970's; from 15-20 micrograms per
deciliter (ug/dl) on average to approximately 5 ug/dl or lower.
For several health effects including delays in early mental
development, and biochemical alterations in brain neurochemistry
and heme synthesis, no threshold for lead has been detected.
Between 2 and 3 million children are estimated to have blood lead
levels above the EPA/CDC level of concern (10 ug/dl).
Drinking water contributes approximately 20% of total lead exposure
in children on average.
New drinking water regulation will be issued in April, 1991; it
will reduce exposures in millions of people by small increment (0.5
ug/dl on average); approximately half a million children will have
blood leads reduced below level of concern.
Roughly 20% of schools may have water coolers with elevated lead
levels (>20 parts per billion in first draw samples).
Testing for lead costs schools approximately $5-20 per outlet.
-------
UfckAw so\l
February 5, 1991
THREE CITY URBAN SOIL LEAD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INTERESTED GROUPS. CDC, ATSDR, state/local health agencies,
environmental groups, lead research institutions.
Section 111(b)(6) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act(SARA) of 1986, set aside $15 million for
"a pilot program for removal, decontamination, or other
action with respect to lead-contaminated soil in one to
three different metropolitan areas". The history of the
amendment focused on soil contaminated with lead-based
paint.
EPA, with advice from CDC, U.S.D.A., and others is
conducting a study in the cities of Boston, Baltimore and
Cincinnati to evaluate the icpact of soil/dust removal on
child blood-lead levels. The project does not compare the
effectiveness of different abatement techniques.
The studies are being conducted by the City of Boston,
Maryland Department of the Environment and the University of
Cincinnati, with assistance from EPA and other technical
experts.
The project is divided into pre-abatement monitoring of
child blood-lead levels and environmental lead (eg., soil,
dust, water, and paint), abatement and post-abatement
monitoring.
Abatement of soil and dust is being conducted using low
technology means of removal. To date, all three cities have
initiated abatement activities.
Each city will prepare an individual city report. Upon
completion of the third report, EPA will prepare a final
summarized report.
The report for the City of Boston is scheduled for
completion by the summer of 1991, for the cities of
Baltimore and Cincinnati, by the summer of 1992. The
summarized report is scheduled for completion by the end of
1992.
-------
SHEET FOR TSCA LEAD ANPRM
Regulatory investigation exploring use of TSCA section 6 to:
Limit, phase out, ban or otherwise regulate existing
uses of Pb which pose an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment.
Limit the amount of new Pb mined, and/or the amount of
all Pb introduced into commerce.
Potential rules would be based on traditional pollution
control rules and/or pollution prevention efforts to reduce
the amount of lead generated, including economic incentive
or market-based approaches^
One specific initiative described includes a possible phase-
out of "high exposure" uses of lead, including brass and
bronze plumbing fittings and fixtures, lead solder used to
join water pipes and lead in non-residential paint.
Another initiative includes the possibility of using TSCA to
reduce general Pb production and use on the grounds that
continued environmental loading of Pb presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.
The Pb acid battery recycling initiative is not discussed in
the ANPRM because it was described in a separate Federal
Register notice and is the subject of an ongoing regulatory
negotiation.
-------
TSCA Issues
Fact Sheet for "Hiah Exposure" Uses of Lead
Several uses of lead that generate risk during use may be
candidates for bans or restrictions under several Federal
statutory authorities. OTS will perform a regulatory
investigation on these uses, considering the benefits of each
product relative to the risks, in order to determine if the risk
is "unreasonable" and should be regulated under TSCA. Uses
currently under consideration for a ban or restriction under TSCA
include:
brass and bronze plumbing fittings and fixtures
(scheduled proposal January 1992),
lead solder used to join water pipes (scheduled
proposal January 1992).
Srass and Bronze Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures
* Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 stipulate
that plumbing brass contain nQ more than eight percent lead.
However, The impact of this standard has been minimal
because most brass products typically contain three to eight
percent lead.
* Studies indicate that brass and bronze plumbing fittings and
fixtures can be a significant source of lead leached into
drinking water.
* EPA is evaluating the feasibility of using authority of the
Toxic Substances Control Act to place additional
restrictions on brass plumbing fittings to further reduce
the amount of lead in drinking water.
* These restrictions may take the form of a prescribed lead
limit or a performance type standard. The goal of the
regulation will be to limit the risk posed by lead leaching
from brass plumbing fixtures.
* A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published
in January, 1992.
Lead Solder
* Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 banned use of lead solder in
plumbing supply systems connected to public water supplies
(but the amendment did not require the States to ban use of
Pb-containing solder on pipes connected to a non-public
drinking water supply).
* The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) requested OTS in 1988 to
initiate action under TSCA to ban Pb-containing solder use.
-------
ODW based its request on the following reasoning:
* The Office of Water does not have sufficient authority
under the SDWA to adequately control the risk for the
entire population at risk, including 20 million people
served from private drinking water sources.
* ODW has little leverage to encourage states to look for
violators and enforce bans.
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published
in January, 1992.
Affected parties include solder manufacturers and consumers.
-------
FACT SHEET
Proposed TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Rule on
Pb-Containing Compounds
Proposed Rule Requirements:
The proposed SNUR, as currently contemplated, would require
persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the
manufacture, import, or processing of any Pb-containing compound
for a non-ongoir.g use. (EPA is in the process of identifying
categories of ongoing Pb-containing compound use.)
Need for the Information:
EPA believes that this action may be necessary because Pb
containing compounds may be hazardous to human health and any new
use and associated activities may result in significant human
exposure. The required notice would furnish EPA with the
information needed to evaluate an intended use and associated
activities, and an opportunity to protect against potentially
adverse exposure to the chemical substances before it can occur.
-------
919+-541 *U'/sr
FEB ic '=1 17:5!
-c ;JD- ? I > th-Fl?
LEAQ.NAAQS ATTAIKXEHT STRATPfiy
fUakaround
o Lead SIP9, in conjunction with reduction of lead in
gasoline, have helped to reduce the numi>«r of areas
violating the lead National Ambient Air Quality standard
(NAAQS).
• Anbient monitoring data near 16 primary and secondary lead
smelters indicate the NAAQS continues to be violated.
• Other areas around primary and secondary lead smelters do
not have a sufficient ambient monitoring network to
determine whether the lead haaqs it being attained.
L«ad NAA05 Attainment Strategy
, EPA's pro-clean Air Act strategy called for:
enhancing the ambient monitoring network by Decenber
31, 1990 around the 29 targeted lead spelters,
completing federal inspections of the smelters by
September 30, 1990 and issuing notices of violations-
where appropriate, and
Issuing calls for SIP revisions by September 30, 1991
where leveraged enforcement cannot produce attainment.
• 1990 Cleacn Air Act Amendments now provide EPA with expanded
authority to designate areas violating the lead NAAQS as
nonattainment and require Part D SIP revisions to be
prepared.
• States must submit SIPs within 18 months after EPA
promulgation of nonattainment designations.
o Areas must attain the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but not later than 5 year# after designation to
nonattalrment.
status of Lead NAA03 Attainment Strategy
« 20 of 29 smelters had a minimum ambient monitoring network
by December 31, 1990.
All but one smelter (now shut down) will have
monitoring in place by Jun« 30, 1991.
» All smelters currently operating (27 of 29) were inspected
by September 3&> 1990.
-------
919+541+023?
FEB 12 -9! 17:52 FP0h E^P-PQMD-SIXTH-PlR t0 0 OC-5 -"-£.601
Governors of affected States were notified in January 1991
that areas in which 16 snelt»rs w«r« located should t*
designated to nonattainment, with final designations
expected by July 1991 and 91Pe due by January 1993.
-------
— -\
(O ^ IV
Fact Sheet - Lead in Sewage Sludae
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (OWRS)
Clean Water Act
* EPA estimates that sewage sludge contributes less than 0.05
percent to total high hazard lead exposures, and virtually all of
this occurs with incineration of sludge.
* Section §405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to
propose and promulgate regulations establishing numeric limits
and management practices regarding sludge that are adequate to
protect public health and the environment from any reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of each pollutant.
* Currently, EPA (40 CFR Part 257) regulates the land disposal
of sewage sludge from publicly and privately owned treatment
works. EPA has also proposed a rule under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the CWA which would
establish standards for the co-disposal of sewage sludge in
municipal solid waste landfills.
* Because Part 257 covers only a limited number of pollutants
and use and dfsposal practices, EPA is developing more
comprehensive regulations under 40 CFR Parts 501 (issued in May
1989) and 503 (scheduled to be promulgated in January 1992).
These regulations are expected to reduce the number of children
with PbB over 10 ^q/dl (as a result of exposure to sludge) by
360, from 414 to 54. OWRS is constructing the final Part 503
rule to establish reasonable worst case protective limits for
lead-bearing sludge, to avoid treating it as a "special case"
requiring extraordinary treatment.
* OWRS believes that there is minimal risk from lead in sludge
applied to land, and that tight restrictions on land application
of lead-bearing sludge could force transfer to incineration,
where exposures and risks are significantly greater.
Furthermore, stringent lead limitations may not reduce lead
concentrations in sludge because sources may be beyond the
control of the POTW.
-------
I. FACT SHEET FOR THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT'S LEAD INITIATIVE
The EPA Office of Enforcement (OE) is working with the
Regional Offices and Headquarters Program Offices to implement a
lead enforcement initiative to assist in coordinating inspections
and analyzing data collected frcn major sources of lead
emissions. One focus will be the use of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to reduce air emissions of lead fron primary and secondary lead
smelters, with an emphasis on compliance with State
Implementation Plans (SIP) lead emission limits. Our office will
also focus on violations of lead limits in National Pollutants
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pernits for industrial and
municipal wastewater discharges and pretreatment requirements for
industrial uses of municipal wastewater treatment systems. RCRA
actions against primary and secondary lead smelters are another
potential avenue of enforcement. We are also exploring the
possibility of developing lead cases in other media. A national
filing of enforcement actions against sources of lead emissions
is expected in early July of 1991.
-------
Reld HearincAFebruarv 21, 1991
Questions and Answers
1. How much housing in thi8 country contains unacceptable levels-
of lead-based paint?
Based upon a national survey which we undertook in 1989-
90, approximately 57 million units, about three-fourths of all
units built before 1980, contain lead-based paint. Of these, 9.9
million units are occupied by families with children under the age
of 7.
A much smaller number of units represent a priority
hazard: 3.8 million units are occupied by children under the age of
7 and have peeling paint, excessive amounts of lead dust or both.
2. What is the income of families that occupy these "priority
units?
1.8 million have incomes above $30,000, the national
median income* Two million are occupied by lower income families.
In general, however, it is important to note that there is no
correlation between the incidence of lead-based paint and family
income. While studies indicate a higher incidence of elevated
blood lead levels among poor children, it probably stems from poor
physical condition of the home, nutritional habits and greater
exposure to lead in water from older pipes.
3. Where is lead-based paint most commonly found?
Contrary to popular belief, more units have lead-based
paint on the exterior than on the interior. Of the 57 million
unite with lead-based paint, 18 million ha/e LB? only on the
exterior, 11 million only on interior surfaces, and 28 million on
both the exterior and interior.
4. Is there a relationship between lead-based paint and excessive
levels of lead in dust and^soil?"
Yes, the chance of a home having excessive lead dust
about twice as great if the home has high levels of interior le?1
based paint. Fourteen percent (10.7 million homeshave in'teri
surface lead dust which exceeds HUD guideline* (20&mlcrogrj!ynfl/sq.
ft on floors, 550 micrograms/sq. ft on window sills afi3 *8u0
-------
micrograms/ sq # ft in window wells).
With regard to lead in soil, about 16 percent of all
homes built prior to 1980 have concentrations of lead in soil
around the house which exceeds EPA guidelines- This occurs four to
five times more often than houses which do not have exterior lead-
based paint.
5. What is the coat of testing and abating?
We estimate testing costs to be approximately $400/unit
for single family and $320 for a multi-family unit. Factors such
as size of the unit, need for supplemental testing and economies of
scale which might be realized in multi-family structures may change
these estimates considerably..
As for average abatement costs, the results of the FHA
demonstration are as followst
encapsulation - $5,500/unit
removal - $7#700/unit
Mote that these numbers are preliminary and represent an
"average" unit based upon the results of the HUD survey and do not
include costs of relocation of people and their belongings or the.
disposal of hazardous waste.
What is also important to bear in mind is that many units
can probably be done for far less. We estimate that approximately
SS percent of all units with lead-based paint can be abated for
less than $2,500. Conversely, about 10 percent of such units would
cost more than $15,000 to abate by encapsulation (almost 20 percent
if done by a removal strategy). In the case of priority units
(with children under 7 and non-intact lead based paint or excessive
dust), the average cost is higheri $8,900 for encapsulation and
$11,900 for removal.
6. What is the current capacity of the abatement industry?
Based upon the number of portable XRFs and qualified
testing laboratories currently in operation, we estimate that only
about 350,000-500,000 units could be tested annually.
As for abatement capacity, our information is only
anecdotal but based upon our experience in the FHA demonstration,
I would suggest it is limited. We had a difficult time finding
qualified contractors and had to conduct aggressive outreach to
find them in the areas where abatement was conducted. In addition,
the quality of the abatement work was highly variable. Work ofte-
had to be redone to meet HUD standards. Capacity should improve a.
demand increases and as a result of stepped up training efforts
which are taking place.
-------
7. Describe your relationship with other Federal agencies.
o For the past two years, HUD has enjoyed excellent
coordination and support from other Federal
agencies. Our relationship with EPA is especially
strong as the result of a memorandum of
understanding on lead-based paint executed between
the two agencies in April 1989.
o EPA has been very helpful in a number of ways
including assistance in research design, laboratory
support, the development and implementation of
abatement training programs, and long term efficacy
of abatement studies.
o Through the HUD-EPA research task force formed as a
result of the MOU, we have engaged in continuing
consultation with a number of other agencies
including the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Diseaa*
Control, National Institute of Environmental Beall
Sciences, the National Institute of Standards ar>
Technology, the Agency for Toxic Substances anw
Disease Registry, and Consumer Product Safety
Commission. We have been very pleased with the
level of cooperation*
8. What is the status of the interim containment plan for public
housing?
Interim containment, as you know, is a maintenance
oriented protocol designed to mitigate the lead-based paint and
dust hazard for units not scheduled for abatement in the near
future. Staff from my office and the Office of Public and Indian
Housing are cooperating in this effort.
I believe that we are close to having a final draft plan
ready for outside review and comment. I would like to see it ready
for implementation later this year.
9. What actions have you taken to implement the strategy aet
forth in the CWP?
To date, we have taken the following actions:
-Established a Task Force on HUD Lead-Based Pai
Regulations to develop common regulations for all HUD housii.„
programs other than public housing -(first meeting - 2/4/91).
-------
-Created a Federal Inter-agency task force on property
disposition to develop lead-based paint regulations which will
govern the diepoaition of any Federal properties intended for hurr.an
habitation (first meeting - 2/11/91).
-Preparing HUD Notice regarding lead-baaed paint to be
provided to all tenants and purchasers of HUD related housing.
-Funded HIST to undertake research on identifyijxg_aaid
evaluating inexpensive and reliable methods of lead detection.
-Continue to work with EPA under the MOU on a number of
efforts includingt
o investigation of the long term efficacy of various
abatement techniques used in the FHA demonstration as
well as some innovative repair and maintenance approaches
which are less costly.
o development of a laboratory accreditation plan
including the development of protocols and standard
reference materials for various analytical methods.
o development of testing protocols to evaluate the
effectiveness and durability of varioue encapsulants.
o development and implementation of various model
training programs for lead inspection, project designers,
abatement supervisors and workers.
-completing the FHA lead-based paint abatement
demonstration report (4/91 completion)*
-conducting the public housing lead-baaed paint abatement
demonstration (2/91 completion).
-preparing the Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the
Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Public Bousing (12/91 completion) .
-completing the interim containment plan for public
housing (Fall 1991 completion).
-will provide demonstration grants to local governments
to build their capacity to undertake effective programs.
-will provide $25 million annually to assist low income
families undertake abatement.
10. In Mr. Reilly's testimony, reference was made to th<»
establishment of a policy level task force on lead based pair
composed of the major concerned agencies to assist in carrying ou.
the recommendations of the CWP. What will be HUD's role in this
task force?
-------
For the paBt two years we have had a working group with
EPA and other agencies at the program level. The new policy level
taak force will provide guidance as necessary. Although the task
force has not yet met, HUD intends to continue to carry out the
goals and objectives of reducing the LBP hazard in housing and will
work cooperatively with BPA as we have on interagency efforts at
the program office level.
11. What is the current status of the LBP regulations implementing
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988?
The Department is currently in the process of preparing
a regulatory amenditajit to 24 CFR Parts 941, 965, and 968 which will
incorporate the provisions of the McKinney Act into the current
regulations. We anticipate that this final rule will be effective
for the Fiscal Year 1991 CXAP application processing cycle which
begins in April 1991. However/ until the revised regulations are
in effect, the June 6, 1988 regulations - as limited by the
amendments to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act in
Section 1088 of the McKinney Act,' apply.
12. Have the Interim Guidelines been distributed?
The revised Interim Guidelines have been made available
to the general public through our national publication distribution
"HUD USBR" (1-880-245-2691 or (301) 251-5154). Revisions to
Chapter 8 of the Interim Guidelines (related to Worker Protection)
were published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1990.
13. What is the status of training for all PEAs on the Interim
Guidelines?
We conducted training on the Interim Guidelines in May of
1990 and will use this curriculum format as the basis for future
training. We are working closely with EPA to finalize this
training. A source of funding for the training continues to be a
problem since there was not an allocation of funds for this
purpose.
14. What is the status of the Public Housing Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Demonstration? Why has it taken so long to get off the
ground?
I am pleased to report that the demonstration is well
under way. All testing.;has. been completed. Abatement has;alread**-
started in Omaha. In Albany and Cambridge, bids for the work wij
be sought in late Febcuajry or early March. We expect to comple
all abatement by the fall of this year-
There are several reasons for.the delayt
-------
1) finding public housing structures which
possessed both lead-based paint and enclosec
corridors and were scheduled for modernization
proved very difficult.
2) PHAs were reluctant to participate because of
liability concerns. Congress resolved this issue
in the 1990 HUD Appropriations Act by providing up
to $1 million in liability indemnification to
participating PHAs.
3) the method of funding the demonstration was
cumbersome. Congress directed BUD to use
Comprehensive Modernization (CIAP) funds to carry
out this effort. Unfortunately, the law requires
that CIAP may only be provided to PHAs. As a
result, each PHA had to execute a separate contract
with the HUD demonstration contractor, resulting in
major coordination and research management
problems.
15. Have insurance requirements related to LBP been addressed?
The Department identified PHA insurance requirements an
advised all PHAs by a notice issued on January IS, 1991. Due to
the difficulty in securing an agent which could provide adequate
insurance, the Department worked with the High Point, NC Housing
Authority to develop a full, open and competitive bid solicitation
for this coverage. The "Master Insurance Contract", as it is
called, was awarded to the American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance
Company and it has been in effect since October 1, 1990. PHAs may
continue to seek other insurance coverage, through proper bidding
procedures, as long as the identified requirements have been met
and costs do not exceed those for the master policy.
16. Are risk assessment fees an allowable expense for PHAs?
Under the Comprehensive Assistance Program, risk
assessment fees are an allowable expense for projects which have
approved modernization funds.
17. How will LBP be treated under the CIAP and upcoming
Comprehensive Grant (COKP Grant) programs?
1 Under the CIAP (which will continue for all PHAe/lHAs
during FY 1991), PBAe/IHAs will be allowed to. receive priority
consideration for funding of Lead based paint testing and abatemen*-
activitlfs, either as an emergency, if one exists, or in tfc
category immediately after emergencies - Level 2A. Once the
Comprehensive Grant Program is in place in FY 1992, those PHAs/IHAb
that qualify for that program will be required to identify their
-------
in the category immediately after emergencies - Level 2A. Once
the Comprehensive Grant Program is in place in FY 1992, those
PHAfl/IHAfl that qualify for that program will be required to
identify their Lead Based Paint needs in their five year action
plana and to prioritize the testing and abatement of their
inventory.
18. What is the status of LBP testing and abatement effort to
date?
The Department has limited data on PHA expenditures
related to LBP activities. This is because the degree of needed
LBP activity is not known at the outset of modernization work,
hence, resultant futfrfi/ used for LBP will be reflected as part of
the total modernization effort. We are currently implementing
changes which will permit us to capture data on expenditures/
type of activity (testing v. abatement) and number of units. We
also anticipate conducting a survey to assess the level of PHA
activity for inclusion in the Congressional report which is due
in December of 1991.
19. What monitoring and enforcement efforts are underway?
We are working closely with EPA and OSBA to develop thai
framework for a certification procedure which would ensure that
qualified contractors are conducting abatement activities
properly. Additionally, we are developing procedures for use by
our field staff to monitor ongoing LBP testing and abatement
activities at the PHAs. Simultaneously, we are developing
procedures to assess the effectiveness of the Guidelines.
-------

February 5, 1991
THREE CITY URBAN SOIL LEAD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INTERESTED GROUPS. CDC, ATSDR, state/local health agencies,
environmental groups, lead research institutions.
Section 111(b)(6) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act(SARA) of 1986, set aside $15 million for
"a pilot program for removal, decontamination, or other
action with respect to lead-contaminated soil in one to
three different metropolitan areas". The history of the
amendment focused on soil contaminated with lead-based
paint.
EPA, with advice from CDC, U.S.D.A., and others is
conducting a study in the cities of Boston, Baltimore and
Cincinnati to evaluate the icpact of soil/dust removal on
child blood-lead levels. The p'roject does not compare the
effectiveness of different abatement techniques.
The studies are being conducted by the City of Boston,
Maryland Department of the Environment and the University of
Cincinnati, with assistance from EPA and other technical
experts.
The project is divided into pre-abatement monitoring of
child blood-lead levels and environmental lead (eg., soil,
dust, water, and paint), abatement and post-abatement
monitoring.
Abatement of soil and dust is being conducted using low
technology means of removal. To date, all three cities have
initiated abatement activities.
Each city will prepare an individual city report. Upon
completion of the third report, EPA will prepare a final
summarized report.
The report for the City of Boston is scheduled for
completion by the summer of 1991, for the cities of
Baltimore and Cincinnati, by the summer of 1992. The
summarized report is scheduled for completion by the end of
1992. .
-------
SHEET FOR TSCA LEAD ANPRM
Regulatory investigation exploring use of TSCA section 6 to:
Limit, phase out, ban or otherwise regulate existing
uses of Pb which pose an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment.
Limit the amount of new Pb mined, and/or the amount of
all Pb introduced into commerce.
Potential rules would be based on traditional pollution
control rules and/or pollution prevention efforts to reduce
the amount of lead generated, including economic incentive
or market-based approaches.
One specific initiative described includes a possible phase-
out of "high exposure" uses of lead, including brass and
bronze plumbing fittings and fixtures, lead solder used to
join water pipes and lead in non-residential paint.
Another initiative includes the possibility of using TSCA to
reduce general Pb production and use on the grounds that
continued environmental loading of Pb presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.
The Pb acid battery recycling initiative is not discussed in
the ANPRM because it was described in a separate Federal
Register notice and is the subject of an ongoing regulatory
negotiation.
-------
TSCA lssu.es
Fact Sheet for "High Exposure" Uses of Lead
Several uses of lead that generate risk during use may be
candidates for bans or restrictions under several Federal
statutory authorities. OTS will perform a regulatory
investigation on these uses, considering the benefits of each
product relative to the risks, in order to determine if the risk
is "unreasonable" and should be regulated under"TSCA. Uses
currently under consideration for a ban or restriction under TSCA
include:
brass and bronze plumbing fittings and fixtures
(scheduled proposal January 1992),
lead solder used to join water pipes (scheduled
proposal January 1992).
Brass and Bronze Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures
* Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 stipulate
that plumbing brass contain no more than eight percent lead.
However, The impact of this standard has been minimal
because most brass products typically contain three to eight
percent lead.
* Studies indicate that brass and bronze plumbing fittings and
fixtures can be a significant source of lead leached into
drinking water.
* EPA is evaluating the feasibility of using authority of the
Toxic Substances Control Act to place additional
restrictions on brass plumbing fittings to further reduce
the amount of lead in drinking water.
* These restrictions may take the form of a prescribed lead
limit or a performance type standard. The goal of the
regulation will be to limit the risk posed by lead leaching
from brass plumbing fixtures.
* A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published
in January, 1992.
Lead Solder
* Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 banned use of lead solder in
plumbing supply systems connected to public water supplies
(but the amendment did not require the States to ban use of
Pb-containing solder on pipes connected to a non-public
drinking water supply).
* The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) requested OTS in 1988 to
initiate action under TSCA to ban Pb-containing solder use.
-------
ODW based its request on the following reasoning:
* The Office of Water does not have sufficient authority
under the SDWA to adequately control the risk for the
entire population at risk, including 20 million people
served from private drinking water sources.
* ODW has little leverage to encourage states to look for
violators and enforce bans.
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published
in January, 1992.
Affected parties include solder manufacturers and consumers.
-------
FACT SHEET
Proposed TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Rule on
Pb-Containing Compounds
Proposed Rule Requirements: .
The proposed SNUR, as currently contemplated, would require
persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the
manufacture, import, or processing of any Pb-containing compound
for a non-ongoing use. (EPA is in the process of identifying
categories of ongoing Pb-containing compound use.)
Need for the Information:
EPA believes that this action may be necessary because Pb
containing compounds may be hazardous to human health and any new
use and associated activities may result in significant human
exposure. The required notice would furnish EPA with the
information needed to evaluate an intended use and associated
activities, and an opportunity to protect against potentially
adverse exposure to the chemical substances before it can occur.
-------
919 + 5^ t
FEB ;i "=1 iT:5!
I- K ' 1
LEAD NAAQS ATTATkHENT STRATEGY
Ba ok.gr ound
o Lead SIPs, in conjunction with reduction of lead in
gasoline, have helped to reduce the number of areas
violating the lead National Ambient Air Quality standard
(NAAQS ) .
. Ambient monitoring data near 16 primary and secondary lead
smelters indicate the NAAQS continues to be violated.
• Othee areas around primary and secondary lead smelters do
not have a sufficient ambient monitoring network to
determine whether the lead NAAQS is being attained.
Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy
. EPA's pro-clean Air Act strategy called for:
enhancing the ambient monitoring network by December
31f 1990 around the 29 targeted lead shelters,
completing federal inspections of the swelters by
September 30, 1990 and issuing notices of violations
where appropriate, and
issuing calla for SIP revisions by September 30, 1991
where leveraged enforcement cannot produce attainment.
, 1990 clean Air Act Amendments now provide EPA with expanded
authority to designate areas violating the lead NAAQS as
noJiattairunent and require Part D SIP revisions to be
prepared*
. States must submit SIPs within 18 months after EPA
promulgation of nonatt&iruaent designations.
o Areas must attain the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but not later tfian 5 year# aftar designation to
nonattainaent.
status of Lead HAApg Attainment Strategy
• 20 of 29 smelter* had ® minimum ambient monitoring network
by December 31, 1990.
All but one smelter (now shut down) will have
monitoring in place by Jane 30, 1991.
• All smelters currently operating (27 ot 29) were inspected
by September 30> 1990.
-------
919+541^0237
FEB I? '91 1-52 from E - fl-PQhD-$ [ x TH-F LR TQ cnr;F5 =i'3E.eP.i
Governors of affected States were notified in January i99l
that areas in which i$ snelters waro located should bo
designated to nonattainment, with final designations
expected by July 1991 and 91Pa due by January 1993.
-------
(Lj ^,v
Fact Sheet - Lead in Sewage Sludae
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (OWRS)
Clean Water Act
* EPA estimates that sewage sludge contributes less than 0.05
percent to total high hazard lead exposures, and virtually all of
this occurs with incineration of sludge.
* Section §405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to
propose and promulgate regulations establishing numeric limits
and management practices regarding sludge that are adequate to
protect public health and the environment from any reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of each pollutant.
* Currently, EPA (40 CFR Part 257) regulates the land disposal
of sewage sludge from publicly and privately owned treatment
works. EPA has also proposed a rule under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the CWA which would
establish standards for the co-disposal of sewage sludge in
municipal solid waste landfills.
* Because Part 257 covers only a limited number of pollutants
and use and disposal practices, EPA is developing more
comprehensive regulations under 40 CFR Parts 501 (issued in May
1989) and 503 (scheduled to be promulgated in January 1992).
These regulations are expected to reduce the number of children
with PbB over 10 nq/dl (as a result of exposure to sludge) by
360, from 414 to 54. OWRS is constructing the final Part 503
rule to establish reasonable worst case protective limits for
lead-bearing sludge, to avoid treating it as a "special case"
requiring extraordinary treatment.
* OWRS believes that there is minimal risk from lead in sludge
applied to land, and that tight restrictions on land application
of lead-bearing sludge could force transfer to incineration,
where exposures and risks are significantly greater.
Furthermore, stringent lead limitations may not reduce lead
concentrations in sludge because sources may be beyond the
control of the POTW.
-------
I. FACT SHEET FOR THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT'S LEAD INITIATIVE
The EPA Office of Enforcement (OE) is working with the
Regional Offices and Headquarters Program Offices to implement a
lead enforcement initiative to assist in coordinating inspections
and analyzing data collected frcn najor sources of lead
emissions. One focus will be the use of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to reduce air emissions of lead fron primary and secondary lead
smelters, with an emphasis on compliance with State
Implementation Plans (SIP) lead emission limits. Our office will
also focus on violations of lead limits in National Pollutants
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for industrial and
municipal wastewater discharges and pretreatment requirements for
industrial uses of municipal wastewater treatment systems. RCRA
actions against primary and secondary lead smelters are another
potential avenue of enforcement. Ke are also exploring the
possibility of developing lead cases in other media. A national
filing of enforcement actions against sources of lead emissions
is expected in early July of 1991.
-------
Reid Hearina\February 21. 1991
Ouestiona and Answers
1. How much housing in this country contains unacceptable levels
of lead-based paint?
Based upon a national survey which we undertook in 1989-
90, approximately 57 million units, about three-fourths of all
units built before 1980, contain lead-based paint. Of these, 9.9
million units are occupied by families with children under the age
of 7.
A much smaller number of units represent a priority
hazard: 3.8 million units are occupied by children under the age of
7 and have peeling paint, excessive amounts of lead dust or both.
2. What ie the income of families that occupy these "priority"
units?
1.8 million have incomes above $30,000, the national
median income* Two million are occupied by lower income families.
In general, however, it is important to note that there is no
correlation between the incidence of lead-based paint and family
income. While studies indicate a higher incidence of elevated
blood lead levels among poor children, it probably stems from poor
physical condition of the home, nutritional habits and greater
exposure to lead in water from older pipes.
3. Where is lead-based paint most commonly found?
Contrary to popular belief, more units have lead-baaed
paint on the exterior than on the interior. Of the 57 million
units with lead-based paint, 18 million have LBP only on the
exterior, 11 million only on interior surfaces, and 28 million on
both the exterior and interior.
4. Is there a relationship between lead-based paint and excessive
levels of lead in dust.and^soil?
Yes, the chance of a home having excessive lead dust is
about twice as great if the home has high levels of interior lead-
based paint. Fourteen percent (10.7 million homes^ have interior
surface lead dust which exceeds .HUD guidelines (200'm£cr6gr^na/8q.
ft on floors, 550 micrograms/sq. ft on window sills and 800
-------
micrograms/sq. ft in window wells).
With regard to lead in soil, about 16 percent of all
homes built prior to 1980 have concentrations of lead in soil
around the house which exceeds EPA guidelines. This occurs four to
five times more often than houses which do not have exterior lead-
based paint.
5. What is the cost of testing and abating?
We estimate testing costs to be approximately $400/unit
for single family and $320 for a multi-family unit. Factors such
as size of the unit, need for supplemental testing and economies of
scale which might be realized in multi-family structures may change
these estimates considerably.
As for average abatement costs, the results of the FHA
demonstration are as followst
encapsulation - $5,500/unit
removal - $7,700/unit
Note that these numbers are preliminary and represent an
^average" unit baaed upon the results of the BUD survey and do not
include costs of relocation of people and their belongings or the
disposal of hazardous waste.
What is also important to bear in mind is that many units
can probably be done for far less. He estimate that approximately
55 percent of all units with lead-based paint can be abated for
less than $2,500. Conversely, about 10 percent of such units would
cost more than $15,000 to abate by encapsulation (almost 20 percent
if done by a removal strategy). In the case of priority units
(with children under 7 and non-intact lead based paint or excessive
dust), the average cost is highert $8,900 for encapsulation and
$11,900 for removal.
6. What is the current capacity of the abatement industry?
Based upon the number of portable XRFs and qualified
testing laboratories currently in operation, we estimate that only
about 350,000-500,000 units could be tested annually.
As for abatement capacity, our information is only
anecdotal but based upon our experience in the FHA demonstration,
I would suggest it is limited. We had a difficult time finding
qualified contractors and had to conduct aggressive outreach to
find them in the areas where abatement was conducted. In addition,
the quality of the abatement work was highly variable. Work ofte-
had to be redone to meet HUD standards. Capacity should improve a.
demand increases and as a result of stepped up training efforts
which are taking place.
-------
7. Describe your relationship with other Federal agencies.
o For the past two years, HUD has enjoyed excellent
coordination and support from other Federal
agencies. Our relationship with EPA is especially
strong aB the result of a memorandum of
understanding on lead-based paint executed between
the two agencies in April 1989.
o EPA has been very helpful in a number of ways
including assistance in research design, laboratory
support, the development and implementation of
abatement training programs, and long term efficacy
of abatement studies.
o Through the HUD-EPA research task force formed as a
result of the MOU, we have engaged in continuing
consultation with a number of other agencies
including the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration/ the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease
Control, National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Dise^s>e Registry, and Consumer Product Safety
Commission. We have been very pleased with the
level of cooperation.
8. What is the status of the interim containment plan for public
housing?
Interim containment, as you know, is a maintenance
oriented protocol designed to mitigate the lead-based paint and
dust hazard for units not scheduled for abatement in the near
future. Staff from my office and the Office of Public and Indian
Housing are cooperating in thiB effort.
I believe that we are close to having a final draft plan
ready for outside review and comment. I would like to see it ready
for implementation later this year.
9. What actions have you taken to implement the strategy set
forth in the CWP7
To date, we have taken the following actions:
-Established a Task Force on HUD Lead-Based Paint
Regulations to develop common regulations for all HUD housing
programs other than public housing :(first meeting - 2/4/91).
-------
-Created a Federal Inter-agency task force on property
disposition to develop lead-based paint regulations which will
govern the disposition of any Federal properties intended for human
habitation (first meeting - 2/11/91).
-Preparing HUD Notice regarding lead-based paint to be
provided to all tenants and purchasers of HUD related housing.
-Funded NIST to undertake research on identifying-_and
evaluating inexpensive and reliable methods of lead detection.
-Continue to work with EPA under the MOU on a number of
effortB including:
o investigation of the long term efficacy of various
abatement techniques used in the FBA demonstration as
well as some innovative repair and maintenance approaches
which are less costly.
o development of a laboratory accreditation plan
including the development o£ protocols and standard
reference materials for various analytical methods*
o development of testing protocols to evaluate the
effectiveness and durability of various encapsulants.
o development and implementation of various model
training programs for lead inspection, project designers/
abatement supervisors and workers.
-completing the FHA lead-based paint abatement
demonstration report (4/91 completion).
-conducting the public housing lead-based paint abatement
demonstration (2/91 completion).
-preparing the Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the
Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Public Bousing (12/91 completion).
-completing the interim containment plan for public
housing (Fall 1991 completion) .
-will provide demonstration grants to local governments
to build their capacity to undertake effective programs.
-will provide $25 million annually to assist low income
families undertake abatement.
10. In Mr. Reilly's testimony, reference was made to th*»
establishment of a policy level task force on lead based pair
composed of the major concerned agencies to assist in carrying ou,
the recommendations of the CWP. What will be HUD's role in thiB
task force?
-------
For the past two years we have had a working group with
EPA and other agencies at the program level. The new policy level
task force will provide guidance as necessary. Although the task
force has not yet met, HUD intends to continue to carry out the
goals and objectives of reducing the LBP hazard in housing and will
work cooperatively with EPA as we have on interagency efforts at
the. program office level.
11. What is the current status of the LBP regulations implementing
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988?
The Department is currently in the process of preparing
a regulatory amendment to 24 CFR Parts 941, 965, and 968 which will
incorporate the provisions of the McXinney Act into the current
regulations. We anticipate that this final rule will be effective
for the Fiscal Year 1991 CIAP application processing cycle which
begins in April 1991. However, until the revised regulations are
in effect, the June 6, 1988 regulations- as limited by the
amendments to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act in
Section 1088 of the McKinney Act,' apply.
12. Save the Interim Guidelines been distributed?
The revised Interim Guidelines have been made available
to the general public through our national publication distribution
"HUD USSR" (1-880-245-2691 or (301) 251-5154). Revisions to
Chapter 6 of the Interim Guidelines (related to Worker Protection)
were published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1990.
13. What is the Btatus of training for all PBAs on the Interim
Guidelines?
We conducted training on the Interim Guidelines in May of
1990 and will use this curriculum format as the basis for future
training. We are working closely with EPA to finalize this
training. A source of funding for the training continues to be a
problem since there was not an allocation of funds for this
purpose.
14, What is the status of the Public Housing Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Demonstration? Why has it taken so long to get off the
ground?
I am pleased to report that the demonstration is well
under way. All testing:;has been completed. Abatement has.already,
started in Omaha. In Albany and Cambridge, bids for the work will
be sought in late February, or early March. We expect to complete
all abatement by the fall of this year-.
There are several reasons for.the delay:
-------
1) finding public houaing structures which
possessed both lead-based paint and enclosec
corridors and were scheduled for modernization
proved very difficult.
2) PHAs were reluctant to participate because of
liability concerns. Congress resolved this issue
in the 1990 HUD Appropriations Act by providing up
to $1 million in liability indemnification to
participating PHAs.
3) the method of funding the demonstration was.
cumbersome. Congress directed HUD to use
Comprehensive Modernization (CIAP) funds to carry
out this effort. Unfortunately, the law requires
that CIAP may only be provided to PSAs. As a
result, each PHA had to execute a separate contract
with the HUD demonstration contractor, resulting in
major coordination and research management
problems.
15. Have insurance requirements related to LBP been addressed?
The Department identified PHA insurance requirements an
advised all PHAs by a notice issued on January 15, 1991. Due to
the difficulty in securing an agent which could provide adequate
insurance, the Department worked with the High Point, NC Housing
Authority to develop a full, open and competitive bid solicitation
for this coverage. The "Master Insurance Contract", as it is
called, was awarded to the American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance
Company and it has been in effect since October 1, 1990. PBAs may
continue to seek other insurance coverage, through proper bidding
procedures, as long as the identified requirements have been met
and costs do not exceed those for the master policy.
16. Are risk assessment fees an allowable expense for PHAs?
Under the Comprehensive Assistance Program, risk
assessment fees are an allowable expense for projects which have
approved modernization funds.
17. How will LBP be treated under the CIAP and upcoming
Comprehensive Grant (COMP Grant) programs?
' Under the CIAP (which will continue for all PHAs/IHAs
during FY 1991), PHAb/IRAs will be allowed to receive priority
consideration for funding of Lead based paint testing and abatement-
activities, either as an emergency, if one exists, or in th
category immediately after emergencies - Level 2A. Once the
Comprehensive Grant Program is in place in FY 1992, those PHAe/IHAs
that qualify for that program will be required to identify their
-------
in the category immediately after emergencies - Level 2A. Once
the Comprehensive Grant Program is in place in FY 1992, those
PHAa/XHAa that qualify for that program will be required to
identify their Lead Based Paint needs in their five year action
plans and to prioritize the testing and abatement of their
inventory.
18. What is the status of LBp testing and abatement effort to
date?
The Department has limited data on PHA expenditures
related to LBP activities. This is because the degree of needed
LBP activity iB not known at the outset of modernization work,
hence, resultant funds used for LBP will be reflected as part of
the total modernization effort. We are currently implementing
changes which will permit us to capture data on expenditures,
type of activity (teBting v. abatement) and number of units. We
also anticipate conducting a survey to assess the level of PHA
activity for inclusion in the Congressional report which is due
in December of 1991.
19. What monitoring and enforcement efforts are underway?
We are working closely with SPA and 0S3A to develop the
framework for a certification procedure which would ensure that
qualified contractors are conducting abatement activities
properly. Additionally, we are developing procedures for use by
our field staff to monitor ongoing LBP testing and abatement
activities at the PHAs. Simultaneously, we are developing
procedures to assess the effectiveness of the Guidelines.
-------
5
a.
CO
-------
TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM K. REILLY
ADMINISTRATOR
C.8. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TOXIC SUB8TANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL
OVERSIGHT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED 8TATE8 SENATE
FEBRUARY 21, 19 91
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk
about the Agency's comprehensive strategy and activities to
reduce risks associated with.exposure to lead.
Over the last two decades the federal government has taken a
number of key actions to reduce risks associated with lead
exposures. It has banned the use of lead in house paint and in
the solder and pipes used in public drinking water systems. It
%
has encouraged the phaseout of solder in food cans. EPA's major
contribution to these efforts was aggressive action to virtually
remove lead from gasoline.
These actions have been very effective in reducing major
sources of exposure. As a result, there have been dramatic
reductions in average blood lead levels over the past 10 to 2 0
years from 15 ug/dl to 5 ug/dl. Deaths from lead poisoning,
which up to 20 years ago were not uncommon, have been almost
eliminated. However, continuing scientific research has
demonstrated that harmful effects may occur at blood lead levels
previously considered safe. Based on this new information, our
threshold level for lead toxicity concern has declined steadily
-------
2
over the past decade. Experts agree that a large number of
children are still at unacceptable levels of risk. While much
has been accomplished, clearly much remains to be done.
As you heard in testimony before this Subcommittee in March
and June of 1990, lead poses a substantial public health threat
— and our children are the most vulnerable. The experts
testified that lead exposures to infants and young children are
particularly widespread and serious, and demand attention from
federal, state and local governments, health care and
environmental professionals, and concerned parents and citizens.
Lead causes a broad range of health and environmental
problems. It is toxic to both humans and animals, and produces
chronic, as well as acute, effects. As an element, lead is
indestructible and, after millennia of use, is ubiquitous in the
environment. EPA has long recognized that lead is a significant
health and environmental problem — in fact, it is one of the
nation's most toxic multi-media contaminants.
THE AGENCY'8 LEAD 8TRATEGY
In order to reduce lead exposure, the Agency has a number of
ongoing efforts that cut across EPA program offices and often
involve our regional offices, other federal agencies, and the
states. Many of these efforts were described in our testimony
before you last year. Today, I would like to outline the
Agency's new comprehensive, cross-media strategy for lead, which
I directed EPA senior managers to develop last year in
consultation with other federal agencies, such as the Centers for
-------
3
Disease Control (CDC) under the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
I realized that an extraordinary effort to coordinate Agency
activity would be necessary in this case, because in addition to
its severe toxicity, lead is truly a multi-media contaminant.
Accordingly, the Agency plans to address unacceptable lead
exposure by coordinating the use of its authorities across
programs to further reduce risks from lead. This strategy will
ensure that the efforts conducted by EPA in cooperation with
other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the
private sector will control lead pollution problems in a unified
and coherent way.
I have designated the Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) to coordinate the development and implementa-
tion of this Agency-wide strategy. Under their various statutory
authorities, the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, the
Office of Water, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and the Office of Air and Radiation are working
together to implement a consolidated plan for significantly
reducing lead exposures from different media. In addition to
traditional regulatory and enforcement programs, EPA offices are
coordinating non-regulatory activities, including integrated risk
management, public education, and research efforts.
EPA is also working with other agencies to implement a
coordinated federal program to control risks from lead — efforts
-------
4
which are particularly important since many of our activities are
highly interdependent. EPA and HUD have established a Memorandum
of Understanding to govern EPA technical support to HUD in the
detection, measurement, and abatement of lead-based paint hazards
in housing. EPA is also working closely with CDC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) through an interagency task
force, which we co-chair with HUD.
I believe that EPA's lead strategy is a solid, ambitious,
and comprehensive plan for lead risk reduction. It includes a
commitment to an impressive number and wide variety of
activities. It reflects what we know today about lead
contamination, and what we still need to learn through research,
to increase the effectiveness of our efforts. It will continue
to evolve as we learn more about lead hazards and better identify
inspection, control, and abatement technologies to address them.
Although the details of our strategy may well change over time, I
do not expect our overall goal to change.
The Agency has focused its strategy on the goal of reducing
lead exposure to the fullest extent practicable, with particular
emphasis on reducing the risk to children. To achieve this goal,
we have set two objectives: Our first objective is to
significantly reduce the incidence of elevated blood lead levels
above 10 ug/dl in children, while taking into account the
associated costs and benefits. (The 10 ug/dl level is subject to
-------
5
revision in light of a forthcoming CDC report.) we estimate that
approximately 15 percent of U.S. children have elevated blood
levels above 10 ug/dl, and one percent above CDC's current level
of concern, 25 ug/dl. EPA supports CDC's efforts to identify,
through surveillance programs, individual children with blood
lead levels above 25 ug/dl. These children should have their
sources of lead abated on a priority basis.
Our second objective is broader: to significantly reduce,
through voluntary or regulatory actions/ unacceptable lead
exposures that are anticipated to pose risks to children, the
general population, or the environment. In pursuing this
objective, we will base our decisions on an assessment of the
benefits to society against the costs associated with such
changes in product uses. This second objective focuses attention
on ways to cut emissions, expand recycling, and reduce risks from
uses of lead. It is based on several characteristics of lead
pollution:
o Scientific experts are finding that adverse health
effects occur at lover and lover levels of lead;
o Current lead exposures are already above acceptable
levels in many locations, and increased use may
increase then further; and
o Lead vhich is nevly introduced into the environment may
pose potential for additional human exposure and
ecosystem damage in the future, since lead is
indestructible.
-------
6
This approach also recognizes that background levels will
become more important as we better control existing pathways of
exposures.
In pursuing both of these objectives, we will base our
decisions on an assessment of the benefits to society against the
costs associated with any changes in product uses.
The Agency's strategy is based on our overall understanding
of the lead problem. There are three major sources of lead
exposure today: (1) lead-based paint: (2) urban soil and dust
(depositions from paint, gasoline and industrial sources); and
(3) drinking water, primarily from leaching solder, brass
fittings, and service lines. These sources are considered major
because many people are generally exposed; other sources can
result in high exposures in individual cases. The first two
sources, lead-based paint and urban soil and dust, are by far the
largest contributors to risk. In contrast, lead in drinking
water affects nearly everybody, but at relatively low levels. In
specific cases, however, it can also be a significant contributor
to high exposure levels.
From a strategic point of view, it is important to note that
the bulk of the current problem comes from regional exposures to
high levels of lead previously deposited when lead was used more
extensively. Therefore, reducing elevated blood lead levels in
children requires that we turn our efforts first toward
management or abatement of in-place lead.
The extent and severity of lead exposures from other sources
-------
7
is either limited to relatively small populations or, in other
cases, is uncertain. Such sources include stationary point
sources, sewage sludge disposal (especially incineration),
Superfund National Priority List sites, municipal waste
combustors, mining sites, occupational exposures, and certain
product uses — for example, imported food cans, hobbyist paint
and solder uses, and remaining small uses of leaded gasoline. In
any case, contributions from these sources add to the total lead
body burden and are therefore of potential concern.
EPA has identified several cross-media activities that
will help focus our planning and future risk reduction efforts.
These activities will improve the public's understanding of risk
and how to minimize that risk, and also help our state, local,
and private sector partners improve their capabilities to
identify hazards and reduce risk. These action elements are:
Develop methods to identify geographic lead "hot spots".
Our asbestos experience tells us that the federal government
cannot abate the risks from diffuse sources effectively or
efficiently. However, it can play a vital role in
developing the necessary tools to identify priority areas
requiring attention. An important part of EPA's lead
strategy is to develop techniques that will assist other
federal agencies, and state and local governments, to locate
and map the regions, cities, neighborhoods, and homes with
high lead concentrations or children at risk. To accomplish
this, EPA will work with other agencies, e.g., with CDC on
-------
8
its planned screening initiative. EPA's Region 5 has begun
a multi-year project to collect and map information on lead
exposures from multiple pathways to target high-risk
neighborhoods. This project represents a pilot effort to
develop new methods, including coordination with state and
local authorities, and to promote abatement and in-place
management activities.
Develop and transfer abatement technology, in order to
ensure that safe, effective, and cost-efficient technical
tools are available, we have to develop, evaluate, and
disseminate cost-effective methods and tools to abate in-
place lead exposure sources. This element includes
assessment of methods for in-place management, including
cost and long-term efficacy. In this area, EPA's initial
efforts have been focused primarily on lead-based paint. We
have been coordinating our efforts with HUD and NIST, and I
will discuss that cooperation in more detail later in this
testimony.
Develop and implement a public information and education
program. Informing and educating the public about sources
of lead exposure, how to reduce or avoid exposure, and
approaches to preventing additional lead from being
introduced into the environment are essential to overall
risk reduction. EPA is particularly concerned that,
whatever activities government implements with regard to in-
place lead, we need to properly inform people about how to
-------
9
reduce exposure and avoid actions that will increase risk.
Implement a Lead Pollution Prevention Program. Given the
major sources of lead exposure, the Agency's principal tasks
are to abate and control lead that is already in the
environment. However, we think it is also prudent to direct
attention to reducing lead production and consumption which
are likely to add to future exposures and unacceptable
risks. One aspect of this activity is the Administrator's
Industrial Toxics Project, which aims for dramatic voluntary
emissions reductions over the next few years for 17
chemicals, including lead. Other aspects include exploring
market-based incentives, promoting recycling, identifying
and encouraging cleaner technologies, and regulating some
high-exposure uses.
Encourage the availability of environmentally sound
recycling. In order to reduce risks to populations and
ecosystems from lead, the Agency seeks to encourage
environmentally sound recycling. This element is also meant
to ensure that the collective impact of pollution control
activities does not have a negative effect on safe recycling
or net risk.
Kintals* lead pollution through traditional control
mechanisms. This element involves EPA's traditional "end-
of-pipe" regulatory approaches. It focuses on cross-program
planning within EPA to ensure that offices are using
compatible assumptions and approaches, and that program-
-------
10
specific activities are coordinated to maximize risk
reduction.
Coordinate research programs. A focused, integrated
research program is critical to developing sound regulations
and a balanced approach to risk reduction. EPA programs are
working to set priorities for research and coordinate
activities within and outside the Agency. It is
particularly necessary to coordinate with other government
agencies (federal, state and local) and the private sector
on matters relating to.testing and abatement.
Integrate enforcement. EPA is initiating a cross-media
approach to enforcement activities, including coordinated
inspections, analysis of data, and filings for noncompliance
cases.
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
Let me now describe our efforts to address the three major
sources of lead associated with past practices — lead-based
paint, urban soil, and drinking water. I then will outline other
important elements of our control program, medium by medium, and
turn to our pollution prevention program for lead.
A. LEAD-BABHP PAINT
Lead-based paint is the most significant source of lead
exposure; to children. It is responsible for a large percentage
of elevated blood lead levels in children (i.e., >10 ug/dl), and.
most very high levels (above 25 ug/dl) in children are due to
this source. EPA is working very closely with HUD to provide
-------
11
technical support for the development of a national lead-based
paint program. A technical working group, co-chaired by HUD and
EPA, provides a mechanism for coordination and communication
among federal agencies involved in lead paint issues. This task
force also includes participation from CDC, OSHA, the National
Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CPSC,
NIST, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), and the National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS).
Last December, with the.release of HUD's Comprehensive and
Workable Plan for the Abatement of Lead-based Paint in Privately
Owned Housing. Secretary Kemp invited EPA and other agencies to
form a federal task force to help HUD implement the plan.
Creation of this policy level task force underscores the
continuing close coordination and communication among federal
agencies on these issues.
EPA is aware that cognizance of this potential health hazard
is not sufficient to protect the public; the technical means and
the infrastructure to support a national lead-based paint control
and abatement effort must be available. EPA, in its support role
to HUD, has a number of initiatives planned to ensure that
efforts to reduce exposure to lead-based paint are technically
sound and feasible. Lessons learned through our experience with
the asbestos program is particularly important to our research
planning and our nationwide exposure reduction effort for lead-
based paint.
-------
In FY 1991, Congress provided EPA with $4 million for lead-
based paint abatement, control, and compliance activities, of
which $1.5 million was earmarked specifically for worker
training. Working closely with HUD, we have developed an agenda
that complements initiatives underway at HUD, including:
1. Investigation of the long-term efficacy of the various
abatement technigues (including encapsulation, removal,
enclosure, and replacement) as performed by HUD in their
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Demonstration Project.
This work will tell us how abatement methods hold up over
time in reducing exposures.
2. Investigation of the long-term efficacy of other control and
abatement methods, including repair and maintenance as
performed in Baltimore, and low-cost abatement techniques as
performed in other urban areas. These techniques, in
contrast to the full abatement approach used in HUD's
demonstrations, were applied in such a way that we can
evaluate their individual efficacy, and thereby set
priorities to give preference to extreme health hazards.
3. Evaluation of various lead measurement methodologies,
including spot test kits and portable and non-portable
x-ray fluorescence analyzers for measuring the lead content
of paint. We are working closely with NIST in these
efforts.
4. Development of a laboratory accreditation implementation
plan, including the development of protocols and standard
-------
reference materials for the different analytical methods.
NIST is involved in this effort, especially in the
development of standard reference materials.
5. Development of testing protocols to evaluate the
effectiveness and durability of certain encapsulants.
6. Continued consideration of the applicability of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to wastes generated
from abatement. A report to Congress is currently
undergoing Agency review. We will collect additional data
to estimate the cost of treating abatement waste as
hazardous, and to evaluate how costs will affect the number
of abatements that can be undertaken.
Other activities that are necessary to develop the
infrastructure for a nationwide lead-based paint program include:
1. Completion of model training courses that establish state-
of-the-art abatement practices and procedures for lead
inspectors, abatement supervisors, project designers, and
workers. We are working with OSHA to develop training
programs for workers.
2. Establishment of training centers to disseminate the
training courses. These centers would provide a
geographically diverse network to help provide training
courses where they are needed.
3. Development of a risk communication strategy to get accurate
information to the public. Many aspects of exposure to
lead-based paint are currently unknown, and our research
-------
14
efforts will help answer some of these questions. We
realize that getting the correct information to the public
is a primary responsibility of the Agency.
4. Development of a community-based primary prevention guide
for lead poisoning, that will be developed through an EPA
grant to the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning.
Of the $1.5 million that was ear-marked for worker training,
EPA will use a large percentage of the funds to provide worker
training grants to labor and contractor groups for the delivery
of the new model courses. In addition, the Agency is considering
the establishment of a flagship lead center to foster information
transfer and stimulate quality training by other institutions.
It is also considering seed grants to help develop state lead
training programs.
B. PRBftM SOIL
Another area of concern is lead-contaminated urban soil.
Soil may be contaminated by non-industrial sources of lead, such
as paint, gasoline, and household wastes, or by industrial
sources, such as battery recycling sites, mining and milling
sites, and soalters. Lead-contaminated soil might contribute as
much as thirty percent of exposures leading to elevated blood
levels in children.
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response is
conducting a $15 million study of soil contaminated by non-
industrial sources in Boston, Baltimore, and Cincinnati. With
advice from CDC, the Department of Agriculture, and other
-------
IS
Agencies, EPA is conducting this pilot study to evaluate the
effect on children's blood lead levels when lead-contaminated
soil and dust are removed.
This study, which will be completed by late 1992, has three
components: 1) pre-abatement monitoring for blood lead levels
and environmental lead in soil, dust, water, and paint; 2)
abatement of soil and dust contaminated with lead; and 3) post-
abatement monitoring. All three cities have completed pre-
abatement monitoring and are in the process of abatement. EPA
intends to establish a joint effort with HUD, CDC, and ATSDR to
promote and assist a broader effort to identify the locations,
extent, and severity of lead-contaminated soil.
C. DRINKING WATER
While virtually everyone is exposed to some lead in drinking
water, average exposures from drinking water are not very high.
We estimate the average contribution to a child's blood level to
be approximately 1.0 ug/dl, but a small fraction of the
population may be exposed at much higher levels. As with soil
and paint contamination, exposures caused by drinking water are
due primarily to past practices, especially the use of lead in
solder and pipes in household plumbing and water distribution
systems. EPA is considering how to reduce risks through a
regulatory control program as well as research and education.
In 1988, EPA proposed revisions to the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for lead under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). Lead occurs in drinking water primarily due to
-------
16
corrosion of lead-bearing materials in water supply distribution
systems and in household plumbing. The highest exposures occur
in areas with corrosive waters, especially in urban areas with
lead service lines, and in buildings with lead solder, brass
faucets, or drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks.
Concentrations vary widely.
The major provisions of our proposed revisions required
water suppliers to monitor lead levels in high-risk homes, under
conditions expected to produce the highest concentration of lead
(i.e., in first-flush, standing water). .The proposal also
required water suppliers to lower corrosivity of the water and to
conduct public education if lead concentrations were above target
levels. EPA plans on promulgating the final rule by the end of
April. We estimate that actions by water suppliers to comply
with the new rule will result in the average blood lead level
among children not exposed to paint or soil contamination hazards
dropping from 5.3 to approximately 4.7 ug/dl. (As noted earlier,
this estimate refers to average blood lead levels.) In some
cases, where drinking water contributes a larger share to total
body burden, the drop would be sharper.
EPA's Office of Drinking Water has conducted a pilot public
education program in Raleigh, North Carolina, that resulted in
simple behavioral changes that can help people avoid elevated
lead exposures from drinking water. As part of the final
rulemaking, EPA is developing brochures and other communication
materials from this pilot study for use by water suppliers. In
-------
17
addition, EPA will use university-based centers to train water
suppliers, engineers, and regulators on practical ways to
minimize the corrosiveness of water and reduce lead levels in
drinking water.
EPA's Office of Drinking Water developed an extensive
program to help schools correct lead contamination problems in
accordance with the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of
1988. This program includes: distributing guidance and a
testing protocol to monitor for and remedy excessive lead levels
in drinking water; conducting training on proper testing and
remediation procedures; publishing brands and models of water
coolers that contain lead; and listing certified analytical
laboratories. Our guidance and training has been disseminated to
thousands of schools across the United States.
To further assist action by schools, EPA recently completed
a video on testing and remediation of lead contamination in
school drinking water. We also are evaluating the sensitivity of
field test kits that can reduce the costs of monitoring lead in
water for schools, as well as the general public. EPA's Office
of Drinking Water also was instrumental in the consent agreement
between CPSC and a leading manufacturer to recall water coolers
that failed EPA's recommended action level; that office also
continues to oversee state implementation of the 1986 ban on lead
plumbing products. The Agency is reviewing the need for
additional rulemaking that would effectively eliminate further
use of lead-containing solder and fixtures. Finally, a Safe
-------
18
Drinking Water Hotline has been established to provide
information to hundreds of callers each month on the LCCA, the
lead ban, and other aspects of lead in drinking water.
D. OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE REGULATORY PROGRAM
Through its various statutory authorities, EPA is pursuing
other traditional regulatory mechanisms (aside from those in
drinking water), most of which EPA has discussed in previous
testimony. Because lead presents risks through a wide range of
media, the Agency has clustered together the rules and policies
addressing lead risks from these various media. This approach
will allow the Agency and the public to review the regulatory
programs of each of EPA's program offices as a cohesive whole,
and it will help ensure that lead pollution is not simply
transferred from one medium to another.
Because EPA has outlined individual program activities in
previous testimony, I will cover only a few of the more important
elements now.
The TokIc 8ubatanc«a Control Act (TSCA)
EPA's Office of Toxic Substances is investigating the use of
TSCA rulemaking to support the lead-in-water program. All of our
actions under TSCA will require a balancing of the benefits of
reduced lead exposure with the costs associated with reducing or
eliminating uses of lead in specific products, one potential
rulemaking would minimize the amount of lead that is leached from
brass and bronze plumbing fixtures. Studies indicate that these
fixtures can be a significant source of lead in drinking water.
-------
19
The second rulemaking being investigated would limit the sale of
lead solder, or use other mechanisms, in order to extend coverage
of the Safe Drinking Water Act ban on lead solder used to join
pipes.
EPA will assess specific products and uses of lead in order
to determine if the health or environmental risk is
"unreasonable" and should be regulated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The Agency also is exploring a rule to require
advance notice from anyone intending to manufacture or process
lead for a new use, thus giving the Agency an opportunity to
review the intended new use and, if appropriate, limit or ban it.
Another initiative under TSCA is to investigate how to
encourage the availability of environmentally-sound lead
recycling. Recycling lead acid storage batteries is important
because of the sheer volume of lead involved — 80 percent of
domestic lead is used in batteries. Recycling is beneficial
because it reduces the risks from the amount of lead discarded in
the environment and the amount of virgin lead that must be mined.
Approximately 80 to 95 percent of spent batteries currently are
recycled; however, lead acid batteries still comprised 65 percent
of all lead in municipal solid waste in 1988.
EPA offices have agreed on a consolidated plan designed to
increase and maintain lead battery recycling in an
environmentally sound manner and thereby reduce the introduction
of lead into all media. In fact, a cluster of rules across the
Agency is based on lead battery recycling. In January 1991, EPA
-------
20
began a regulatory negotiation process to further investigate
this issue and arrive at a recommended solution.
National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Current EPA activity under the NAAQS falls in two general
categories: compliance with existing standards, and revising the
standards. The current lead NAAQS was set in 1978 at a quarterly
average of 1.5 ug/m3. The reduction of lead in gasoline, EPA
controls on categories of stationary sources, and controls on
individual industrial sources through state implementation plans
have been the principal mechanisms for widespread attainment.
These actions, particularly the lead gas phasedown, have resulted
in major reductions in air lead emissions and children's blood
lead levels. However, available data indicate that near some
lead smelters, refineries, and remelters, the NAAQS are not being
attained.
The number of children exposed in these non-attainment areas
is small compared to the number of children at risk from the
major lead sources discussed earlier. However, for these
children, non-attainment of NAAQS can add significantly to their
blood levels. Consequently, EPA's Air Office has developed a
compliance strategy to bring these areas into attainment, which
in some cases requires enforcement action, and in other cases
requires revisions to the state implementation plans. EPA
estimates that the number of affected children with blood lead
levels greater than 10 ug/dl would be reduced about 50 percent,
if the current NAAQS were attained in all areas of the country.
-------
21
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the NAAQS every
five years and make appropriate revisions. Scientific and
technical assessments were completed in January 1990. EPA has
been working on its final analysis of the appropriate level to
achieve the health level recommended by the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee (CASAC). We have analyzed the effect of a
NAAQS revision by reviewing 42 lead point sources and estimating
the number of children living near these sources who would have
blood lead levels greater than 10 ug/dl at each of the
alternative NAAQS levels under consideration. We expect that our
analysis and reviews will be completed by October 1991.
E. ENFORCEMENT
While working to tighten lead emissions and exposure
controls on the various sources just described, we also want to
ensure that facilities are complying with existing limits. The
EPA Office of Enforcement is working with our Regional offices
and headquarters programs to implement a lead enforcement
initiative that will assist in coordinating inspections and
analyzing data collected from major sources of lead emissions.
One focus will be the use of the Clean Air Act to reduce air
emissions of lead from primary and secondary lead smelters, with
an emphasis on compliance with State Implementation Plan (SIP)
lead emission limits. Our enforcement office also will focus on
violations of lead limits in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for industrial and municipal
wastewater discharges and pretreatment requirements for
-------
22
industrial users of municipal wastewater treatment systems. RCRA
actions against primary and secondary lead smelters are another
potential avenue of enforcement. We also are exploring the
possibility of developing lead enforcement cases in other
environmental media. This spring, EPA will be filing enforcement
actions against sources of lead emissions that are out of
compliance with SIP limits.
F. POLLUTION PREVENTION
While the major tasks in reducing risks from lead involve
control and abatement of lead that is already deposited in the
environment, EPA is concerned that many existing uses of lead,
irrespective of current exposures, eventually may give rise to
exposures of concern. The use of lead in products presents two
types of exposures: l) exposures that occur from specific lead
products during or immediately following production or use; and
2) potential future exposures that might occur after disposal of
a lead-bearing product.
Pollution prevention in this context, means finding
innovative ways to decrease or eliminate unacceptable exposures
that we anticipate to pose risks from lead use, rather than
relying solely on "end-of-pipe" controls to limit emissions. It
must play an important role in achieving this objective. Because
EPA believes that pollution prevention can benefit both the
environment and the economy, the Agency's policy will be designed
to maximize private sector initiatives by working with industry
to achieve reasonable pollution prevention goals. This approach
-------
23
should encourage more businesses to identify and profit from
opportunities for prevention, which in turn will yield
significant public dividends in the form of increased
environmental protection.
It could also include a variety of TSCA rules, including
rules that would restrict or eliminate some lead uses, based on a
balancing of the societal benefits of these reductions against
their associated costs. Specifically, EPA is developing its
strategy to encourage recycling and reduce unnecessary or
nonessential uses. At the same time, EPA believes that there is
a continuing need for a strong regulatory and enforcement program
under existing statutory authorities, because they provide
further incentives to prevent pollution.
CONCLPSION
EPA has done a great deal over the past two decades to
address lead pollution problems. Much more needs to be done, and
we have many efforts underway. In order to move efficiently to
higher levels of protection for public health and the
environment, EPA has taken a comprehensive assessment of the
problem and formulated a strategy that will bring together both
our traditional pollution control authorities across the Agency
and new concepts of pollution prevention.
This strategy also will result in a coordinated effort to
better reduce harmful exposure to lead in our society. It will
recognize the need for close coordination and cooperation with
-------
the other federal agencies that play major roles in this
important effort to protect public health and the environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak before this
subcommittee.
-------
£
-------

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
July 24, 1991
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for comments on HHS draft testimony on H.R. 2840,
Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991, for a
hearing to be held July 2 6th.
COMMENTS DUE TODAY: WEDNESDAY. JULY 24. 1991 — 12;30 P.M.
Attached is a copy of HHS draft testimony on H.R. 2840, Lead
Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991, for a hearing to be
held July 26th. OMB has asked for EPA's comments on this
testimony.
Please review the testimony and send any comments you may have
on it to Steven Rollin of my staff (382-5417, Fax 252-0516, WT-811)
by 12:30 p.m.. TODAY. WEDNESDAY, July 24. 1991.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Attachment
cc: Jon Stevens
Robert Coronado
FROM:
Thomas C. Roberts
Director
Director nj
Legislative Analysis Division
See Addressee List
TO:
Printed on Recydod Paper
-------
ADDRESSEE LIST
LaJuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator
for Water
ATTN: Bill Matuszeski
Jim Elder
David Schnare
Linda J. Fisher, Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxic Substances
ATTN: Reed Benson
Erich Bretthauer, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development
ATTN: Jean Croft
Richard Morgenstern, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
ATTN: Edgar Thornton
Ray Ludwiszewski, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement
ATTN: Kathy Bundy
E. Donald Elliott
General Counsel
ATTN: Charles Breece
Susan Lepow
Jim Nelson
Nancy Firestone
Associate Deputy Administrator
Office of the Administrator
ATTN: Betsy LaRoe
-------
Ui rl 15: ^. OMB Lr'D FX1!
SWT BY:X«rox TeHCOPiJr 7021 : 7-23-81 J 14:21 : 2922456351-*
003
93955801;« Z
DRAFT
Taatisony by
Vimon Mo Kouk, M«D«
Assistant flurgaon danaral
Dlrtotor
Canter for Environmental Health and Injury Control
Cantara for Diaeaae Control
Public Haalth larvioa
U. S. Department of Haalth and Hunan Services
on
Laad Poisoning Prevention
Befora tha
Health and Snvironaent Subooaaittaa
committee on inargy and Commerce
2123 Raybum Kouaa Office Building
JUly 2$, 1991
U.S. Hoyse of Hepreaentativea
-------
iWi -JJ-J U0 7 1
QT 2~ '?! 1 j : 2" OMB !_?!' r-"['i qqj
SENT 3Y:X«r»* Tilicoplir 7021 : 7-23-H1 : H:21 ; 2322456351- 939556813
fltood morning, Kr. Chairman. 2 am Dr. Vernon N. HouX of the
Centers for Disease Control. I as pleased to testify before tble
Subcommittee on behalf of the Department on the subject of lead
poleonlng prevention. You have asked for our views on the causae
and extent of childhood lead poisoning and actiofie needed to
eddrees tha problem. Zn particular, you have requeeted our views
on tha ralationahlp of the KHB "strategic Plan for the
elimination of childhood Lead poleonlng" and H»R. i640, tha Lead
Contamination control Aot Amendments of 1991.
Tha Department strongly supports efforte to prevent lead
poisoning, which remains the most common and eocietally
devastating anvironnental disease of young children. The tragic
consequents of thia anvironnental diaaaee on our children are
all tha more deplorable whan one recognizee that they are
preventable.
The riske of lead exposure ere not based on theoretical
©alouletiona. They are veil known from studies of ohlldren
themselves and are not «xtrapolat«d from data on laboratory
animals or high-dose occupational exposures. Lead la a poison
that affects virtually evory eysten in tha body. It has been
linked to kidney dieeaae and hypertenelon in adulta and ia
particularly harmful to the developing brain and nervous system;
therefore, lead exposure is especially devastating to ohildran
and fetuaea baoauee it oan cause neurobehavioral problems,
learning dis&bilitiee, and defioite in IQ.
-------
07 23 ?i i5 J 2T OMB Lrl' FX' I
SINT BY!XerOX T#HCOPi»r 7021 : 7-23-81 > H=22 ! 2022456351"
00?
63955591:« 4
•tudies on the health effeota of lead over the past twenty yeare
unoovar a consistent trend; the aore that is learned about
lead's effects on the child and the fotua, the lower tha blood
laad level at which adverse affaota o«n be docuaantad. Because
of tha recent aoientifio Information on advaraa affaota of lov
laval laad exposure in children, tha CDC guidelines on ohllCUlOOd
laad poisoning prevention are currently being revised. The new
guidelines will plaoe an inoreaeed eaphasls on primary prevention
— elisinating the aouroeo of lead exposure before children are
poisoned. It will oall for prinary prevention activities
direoted at the community to ba initiated when nany children in
the ooaaunlty have blood lead levels 10 aiorograas per deciliter
(M9/41) and greater. We will reoomnend individual case
serageaent—educational, nodical, nutritional, and environmental
interventiona directed at individual children—when an individual
ohild baa a blood lead level of 19 P9/dl or greater, we
understand that there are many issues surrounding revising the
CDC lead guidelinea, Including working out iapleaentation with
public health officials, health oare provider*, and others. We
ere working through these isaues oarefully, including discussing
then with our colleagues ouch as tha Association of atata and
Territorial Health officials, the National Association of county
Health officials, and the U.S. conrarence of Local Health
Offioers.
a
-------
0" 23 rl 15:23 0MB !_?:• PE'i
SENT fly:X#rcx Tflicopler 7021 ; 7-ZJ-il : 14:22 ; 202245B351-
006
3385535:;* ;
Over the last twenty years, we ae a aocicty have nade substantial
progress in reducing lead exposure in the population. The
decline In blood laad levela has been in part aidad by government
and private steps to reduce lead exposure, euch as the removal of
lead from gasoline, from paint nanufactured for interior
residential use, and from food. Neverthelaaa, in 1984, at least
J to 4 aillion children lit the united States (17 percent of ell
children) had blood lead levels above 1$ pg/di. The large number
of Ohildren with blood lead levele in the toxio range •hove that
existing environmental lead levels in the United states provide
no aargin of safety for the proteation of ohildren.
childhood load poisoning is entirely preventable. We believe
that a concerted, society-wide effort could eliainate this
disease in the U.S. in the next 20 years.
On February 21, 1991, the Secretary of Health and Human servloea
released a Strategic Plan for the Elimination of childhood Lead
Poisoning, outlining the first 5 yeere of this effort. Like the
new coc guidelines on preventing ahlidhcod lead poisoning, the
Strategic Plan eaphasiaas the need for primary prevention of this
disease. It describes actions that oan be taken by all levels of
fovariwent and the private sector. The overall benefits to
society of preventing Childhood lead poieoning are
incontrovertible.
J
-------
07 >3 '?1 15:1:3 0MB l='D- rt! CO?
SINT BTXfrox T|l#C8Pt#r 7021 ; 7-23-91 : 14123 I 202?45B3^W 03855801!# 5
The strategic plan includes both a program and a researoh agenda.
The program agenda, which will target efforts first to children
with the highest blood lead levels, call* for the following;
o Expanded childhood lead poisoning prevention programs
and aotivitiee.
o Effective end u(« abatement of lead-based paint in
housing.
o Reduction in sources of lead exposure in addition to
lead-based paint,
o National surveillanoe for elevated blood lead level*.
The first ele&ent of the strategic plan ia increased childhood
lead poisoning prevention activities. This includes screening
children for lead poisoning, ensuring appropriate follow-up for
poisonad children, and education and outreach about childhood
lead poisoning and its prevention. Those secondary prevention
activities will continue to bs essential while, over tine, ve
voric towards achieving priaary prevention of this disease. The
CDC grant program focuses on these activities. The Departaent
strongly supports the reauthorication of the lead poisoning
prevention prograa adoinistered by the Centers tor Disease
Control, as included in H.R. 3M0.
te x have testified aany times, effective and safe lead-based
peint abatement is essential for the elimination of childhood
l*ad poisoning, and this is the second critical elenent of the
4
-------
07 13 'rl 15:2? UtlE LFE1 r['i OOS
SWT 8Y:Xtro* T§l«opi«r 7021 ! 7-Z3-S1 i U!23 I 202245835 1- 83955881:« 7
Itrategic Plan. Lead-based paint la the aoet concentrated source
of lead to children and, historically, Is the source most closely
linked to overt load poisoning in children. For children with
the highest blood lead levels, that is, ohildron vith overt lead
poisoning, lead-baaed paint is of particular iapertanoe because
of both the contribution of lead paint ingeetion and the
ingestion of soil and duet contaminated toy leaded paint.
Tou have asked &• to diocuss the relationship between the
strategic Plan and h.r, 2S«o. h.r. 2840 addresses effective and
safe lead-baaed paint abatenant by oalllng for training and
lloenelng of lead inapeotors and deleadere and certification of
laboratories measuring the lead oontent of environmental samples,
tfeeee ere tapios identified in the Strategic Plan as essential to
ensure the safe, appropriate, and effective abatement of lead*
based paint nenouslng. H.R. 2840 also calls for regulations to
require testing for lead-based paint, and disclosure of these
reeulte at certain transactional events Involving residential
property. Z agree that no child should be poisoned by their
residence because the fatally does not know lead-baaed paint
basards exist in their new hoae. Also, as noted in H,R. 2840, no
bone that has been shown to be negative for lead-based paint
should be required to be reteeted every tiae the hoae is rented
or sold. X also wish to point out that the definition of e "lead
besard" in H.R. 3640 does not Include intact paint that children
oan south, like that en door and window oaeing sills, such paint
9
-------
202 395 5691
07 23.-31 15:2? 0MB LPD PDI ®
SiHT ftYWrox TiUCOpier 7021 : 'J-23-91 i u:24 ; 2022456351-* 938558811*8
oan also b« responsible for high-dose lMd poisoning and ahouid
be included in th« definition of a "lead haiard."
Where theea activities contained in section 4 ahould be plaoad la
for othere to decide, but those aotivitlas ara aasentlal if va
art to daal affectively with the lead poisoning Jroblen. Z
believa that theaa activities will be aoat affective if they ara
dono at the state level, with federal guidanoe. I believe it la
appropriate that H.R. 2B*0 has provialona for statea to carry out
these actlvltlee.
Yh« third critical element of the Strategic Plan focuses on other
widespread sources and pathways of lead exposure to children. In
th* past, v* tended to think about each source of lead
individually. We failed to oonaldar that once the lead gets into
the child, It doesn't natter what the source was; all sources of
lead add up. Lead in water, food, soil, and air, in particular,
aay affeot large nuabers of children and contribute to overall
levela of lead in the population. Continued efforts to reduce
tbeee souroos and pathwaya of lead exposuro will result in lower
average blood lead levele in the United States and will thereby
further diminleh the likelihood of lead poieonlng developing even
in children oxposod to a high-dose source.
Jt is also lnportant to reoognik* that high-dose exposure aay
result from eouroes other than lead-baoed paint In specific
s
-------
Q7 13-91 15:30 ONE LFD-PDi 010
5INT BY'XtrOK Tllicopler 7021 I 7"28"'1 • 14*2* 2022*5035W 99B559S1i# 9
situations. We reoently investigated the source* of exposure for
e faaily In whioh s of the 4 ohll ran beoaae lead poisoned, with
one ohild developing e blood leed level olose to 100 pg/dL.
Jtrter e comprehensive evaluation, ve diseovered that the source
et lead was pottery that had been used to six punch Cor a party.
Ve subsequently meaoured blood lead levels in other people who
attended the party. Alsoat two sonthe after the party occurred
we could atill show higher blood lead levela in people who had
drunk the punch.
The fourth element of the Strategic Plan ie the call for national
surveillance for blood load levels. Such aurveillanoe, in
oonjunction with data from screening programs, is essential for
m
defining thoee areaa in greatest need of intensive interventions
and for evaluating our progresa in eliminating this disease.
Ve have a landmark opportunity to aeke a aajor inpaot on the
livee of the children of this country. This is one of the few
times where we have enough knowledge and ability to eliminate one
of the aajor diseases of ohildren. The Federal Government or any
•ingle Federal agency cannot solve this problem alone. Mo state
government or single agency within a state can solve this problem
alone* The private sector oannot eolve this problsa alone.
Individual oitisene oannot solve, this problea alone, However,
through continued coordination at the Federal level, and work
with state end local government*, the private seotor, and
7
-------
3*
Co
C>
-------
WHAT BLACK CONSERVATIVES WANT
Clarence Thomas and the Court
till
eT&v:'
fXt ..
W ¦
A
V'
I - ? t-
:l V "
~ >»

[I]
¦ t
, ' f
•v*-i
L * *
I* I.'n
o " rwwc d 9
28
.-tr* M
•!* *
_ " S, •
J* ' ^
-------
AND YOUR
KIDS
Public-health officials say lead is the No. 1
environmental threat to children—whether they
live in public housing or neat suburban homes
Ni
By Steven Waldman
When Helene and Bruce Tack-
ling found their two-story
house in New London. Conn-
in December 1989, they called
it "our Christmas miracle." It
seemed perfect. On the very same street
where Bruce grew up, it had two parks
nearby, a big backyard and enough space so
their 2-year-old, Jessica, and
the baby on the way could have
their own bedroom It needed
some renovation, but Bruce
was handy with a Spackle knife
and the family moved in on
March 1,1990. -
Bruce immediately went to
work, scraping the old paint
off the pantry and sanding
the bathroom walls down to
the original wood. The place
was looking sharp. But within
months of moving in, the chil-
dren had become increasingly
demanding and irritable. Nich-
olas, the new baby, wouldn't
•top crying, his voice some-
times locking into a continual
eerie screamr"like he^wasn't
even awake," says Helene. Doc-
tors said it was colic, and nurses
told her to feed him bananas
and rice. Jessica kept complain-
ing of stomachaches, but check-
I ups found nothing wrong. One day Helene
i was cleaning out a filing cabinet when
i she found a pamphlet on lead poison-
i ing, which she vaguely recalled as a
i disease kids used to get from chewing pen-
j cils. But the symptoms listed matched her
i children's behavior, so she called her pedi-
i atrician's office. The nurse said not to wor-
| ry. "She's not eating paint chips, is she?"
j the nurse asked. Helene had never seen
: the kids eating paint chips, and she
icholas
McFadden of
Baltimore
undergoes painful
chelation
therapy to cleanse
some lead from
his body. His
serious
poisoning kept him
in the hospital
(or si* weeks.
42 NEWSWEEK: JULY IS. 1991
"-0O

f f I'
-------
egularly vacuumed any peeling paint.
But this April, the Tackiings learned
hat much of what they and most Ameri-
ans believed about lead poisoning was
rong. Tests showed both Jessica and
."icholas had lead poisoning. They proba-
iy got it not from eating paint chips but
-om fine paint dust—stirred up in part by
he renovations Bruce did to make the
louse just like new and the vacuuming
-lelene did to make it pristine. Helen® con-
¦oled herself by thinking they had caught it
;arly enough so doctors could cure her kids.
Doctors had to repeatedly tell the disbelieve
ng mother the disturbing news: damage
rom regular exposure to lead is usually
rreversible. It's too early to tell how the
ead has affected them, but odds are, Jessi-
a and Nicholas will not be quite as inteili-
:ent as they were bom to be. "I'm living it
very single day, every single day," says
ieler " iust think of this nightmare. I
jo' hildren and wonder what I've
a^> { i from them." _ .
A Silent Hazard
Seventy-four percent of all pri-
vate housing built before 1980
contain* some lead paint.
Three million tons of old lead
line the walls and fixtures of 57
million American homea.
¦
One of nlae children under age
6 has enough lead In his blood to
place him at risk.
¦
Children with high lead levels
are six times more likely to have
reading disabilities.
joitkco ocptjmasT or holwc aso cmas
OCVTLOPMI.NT. CSC ADVISORY CCSfXITTtt
JOtl. SCHWAm 3LYT0R JOINTST. t?K
KIMHT VUDUMA.N STUDY
PHOTOS BY JOH> riOAA-NIWSWEOC
Lead poisoning? Most middle-class par-
ents would have the same reaction as the
Tackiings: denial and disbelief. Isn't lead
poisoning something that happens only in
the ghetto, where poor children eat flakes
of paint? On the surface, the incredulity
makes sense. The federal government did,
after all, ban the use of lead-based paint in
1978, and phase out most lead in gasoline in
the 1980s. Kids today on average ingest far
less lead than their parents did—and they
don't seem to have suffered an epidemic of
lead poisoning. There shouldn't be a prob-
lem at all, let alone one affecting people
in decent houses. Yet the fact is that
lead poisoning is now being' called the
nation's No. 1 environmental threat to
children—not by Greenpeace or Ralph Na-
der, but by top officials of the Bush adminis-
tration. To be sure, some liberals of late
have excitedly spotted lead as a politically
attractive "children's issue." But the new
j assessment of lead's dangers comes from
scientists and public-health officials who
NEWSWEEK : JULY 15, 1991 43
-------
have formed two conclusions: first, while
government stopped new lead from being
poured into the environment, it never actu-
ally dealt with the 3 million tons of old lead
-u
-------
S -

paint dust or tiny loose chips, which were
plentiful on the windowsill in Nicholas's
playroom. Within a year of moving in,
Nicholas had severe lead poisoning.
Poole now has to observe the conse-
quences. Last month she stood anxiously
in rW - hallway at the Kennedy Institute
ir_ _ lore, afraid to look in the room
icholas was undergoing a painful
int called chelation, which uses
in, rons to cleanse the. blood of some
lead. When Chrystal entered first grade
last fall, Stephanie watched as the other
kids whizzed through drills on vowels and
consonants, while Chrystal gazed blankly
out the window. She is far behind the other
kids in spelling and math. "I'm hoping
she's just slow," Stephanie says, tears well-
ing, "and there's not something
wrong with her."
Only in the past decade have
researchers focused on how
lead damages development,
even when kids don't show
obvious medical symptoms. In
the 1970s, the CDC defined lead
poisoning as occurring when a
child had 30 micrograms of
lead per deciliter of blood
(30 jig/dl), the level at which
problems like anemia, stomach
ailments and noticeable learn-
ing troubles appear. But a 1979
study by Dr. Herbert Nee-
dleman, then a physician at
Children's Hospital in Bos-
ton, found that asymptomatic
woru"' '-class children in Chel-
s<»' lmerviile, Mass., who
1 .er lead residues in
th performed worse on
development tests than
Ivy
those with less lead. A subse-
DOUCLAl kouclano—syc VA
JOHN RCaRa—NEWSWTIK
quent follow-up study showed that chil-
dren with lead levels equal to 25 to 35 >ig/dl
were six times more likely to have reading
disabilities and seven times more likely to
drop out of high school.
The Needleman study was one of the first
that tried to factor out other possible expla-
nations such as family stimulation and pa-
rental IQ, and it triggered a wave of re-
search on low-level effects of lead. A 1987
study of 249 mostly middle- and upper-
middle-income infants in the Boston area
reported that those exposed to 10 to 25
jig/dl of lead in the womb lost four to six
points on developmental tests measuring
memory, learning and tasks like putting
pegs into a board or naming parts of a doll.
41987 study of 501 children in Edinburgh,
Scotland, found that those with average
blood levels of 11 jig/dl suffered similar
intelligence losses, while another Scottish
study reported that children with slightly
elevated blood-lead levels were more likely
to be considered hyperactive or aggressive-
ly antisocial by their teachers. Other stud-
ies have linked low-level exposure to hear-
ing loss, slower reaction time, reduced
attentiveness, delays in the age at which
children first walk and problems with bal-
ance. In part because of these studies, the
CDC in 1985 lowered the definition of lead
poisoning to 25 jig/dl, where it remains.
The CDC is planning to draw new warning
lines below that number, advocating fam-
ily or community action between 10 to 25
/ig/dl. It has not yet decided what level
should be labeled lead "poisoning." "The
more we learn, the more toxic we find it to
be," says James Mason, head of the
U.S. Public Health Serviee.
No unanimity: While there is a strong con-
sensus that lower levels of lead cause dam-
age, there is no unanimity. Studies fi-
nanced by the lead industry have found
little damage at low levels, and one inde-
pendently funded study found that early
intelligence losses associated with lead
may fade in later years. "You see tremen-
dous inconsistencies among the results,"
says Rosalind Volpe, a consultant with the
International Lead Zinc Research Organi-
zation. an industry-sponsored group. The
key health statistic, according to Jeffrey
Miller, spokesman for the Lead Industries
Association, is that average blood levels
have dropped dramatically in recent dec-
ades, from 17 ^g/dl in 1978 down to about 6
Hg/dl now. "One might get the sense it's a
billowing epidemic, when in fact the oppo-
site is true," he says.
It's a fair point, which makes one won-
M
ark
Rosenbaum
and
Barbara Faacher of
Los Angeles flew
In a contractor from
Massachusetts to
repair their house
after discovering
that Samara had
slightly too much
lead in her blood.
-------
L I F
der: if lead is so bad, why aren't half of
today's adults suffering the effects of child-
hood lead poisoning? The answer is that
many probably are, but couldn't possibly
know it. "I guess we all might have been a
httle smarter than we turned out," says
David Bellinger, a lead researcher at Har-
vard University. "It's hard to tell if some-
one goes from 140 IQ to 135."
The changing notion about how kids get
poisoned is altering beliefs about who gets
poisoned: if children can get lead poisoning
without eating peeling paint, they can get
it without living in dilapidated housing.
The Children's Hospital in Boston reports
that from 1987 to 1990, 40 percent of its
infant-poisoning cases resulted from vic-
tims ingesting dust while the family, often
well-to-do, renovated an old house. The
daughter of a financial consultant and a
management consultant became sick from
renovations on an old farmhouse in Con-
cord, Mass. Paul and Gerry Francoeur's 3-
year-old daughter, Heather, seems to have
gotten lead poisoning from playing in her
sandbox, which apparently became con-
taminated with lead dust after her father
sanded paint off the house's exterior.
arc and
Catbryn
Perrone
did extensive
research on the
safest way to
remove lead
paint from their
home in
Milwaukee. But the
information they
got was wrong, and
their baby
Miranda (in
Cathryn's arm's)
was poisoned.
BUCK Mom
Is Your Home Safe? Here's How to Check
Testing your child: Children
should be tested for lead
poisoning unless they live
in areas where widespread
screening has revealed no
problem, according to the Cen-
ters for Disease Control's advi-
sory committee on lead. It rec-
ommends screening at 12
months and then again at 24
months. High-risk kids (from
older run-down homes) should
be tested earlier and more of-
ten. Make sure doctors use the
"blood-lead test" instead of the
FEP CFree Erythrocyte Proto-
porphyrin) test, which is ex-
tremely inaccurate. If results
show elevated levels, get a con-
firmation test because even
the blood-lead tests are inex-
act. The blood-lead test should
cost about $30.
| What level It dangerous? Many
i doctors mistakenly believe
| that a blood-lead level under
J 25 micrograms per deciliter
(written "25 jig/d]") is safe.
But the CDC is about to estab-
lish 10 ng/dl as the level
above which some sort of ac-
tion should be taken. A child
with a blood-lead level of 10-
15 fig/dl is not in imminent
health danger but should be
tested again three months lat-
er. If the lead level has not
declined, the family should
take steps to pinpoint and re-
move hazards by cleaning
thoroughly and testing paint,
drinking water and other po-
tential sources (below). Make
sure your child gets enough
iron and calcium. If the level
is more than 15 ^g/dl check
with a doctor for a nutritional
and medical assessment.
Who is most st risk? If your
home was built before 1950,
you probably have some lead
paint, but others may have it,
too. The Northeast, Midwest
and Western states have more
lead than the South.
Testing year pslat: If your local
health department won't test,
two home kits have been rated
by Consumers Union to be ef-
fective tests for highly leaded
painted surfaces. LeadCheck
Swabs are sold by HybriVet
Systems Inc. (800-262-LEAD).
Fran don Lead Alert Kit is sold
by Frandon Enterprises, Inc.
(800-359-9000).
Lead paint but no signs of trouble:
If your child's blood-lead level
is below 10 ^tg/dl and the house
has no cracking, peeling paint,
don't panic. Odds are, renova-
tions to remove the paint will
just increase the dust level.
Scrutinize windows ills, base-
boards and doorframes, where
friction grinds up the paint
layers and creates lead dust.
Watch for dust, not just
peeling. To remove the dust,
damp-mop or wipe with a high-
phosphate detergent. Ask for
trisodium phosphate washes
(TSP) at paint or hardware
stores. (It may not be availa-
ble in some states.) Consider
joining with other tenants
or homeowners to buy a
HEPAvac (High Efficiency
Particulate Air Filtered Vacu-
um), which costs about $1,000,
for an occasional superscrub-
bing, or check with the health
department to see if one can be
rented. Other experts recom-
mend scrubbing with a TSP-
drenched sponge. Or use a wet-
and-dry or shop vacuum with
this procedure: sponge down
all smooth surfaces with TSP
soap twice. Wet-mop the same
surfaces using a solution of di-
luted high-phosphate soap.
Make sure the surfaces are
plenty wet and then clean with
the shop vacuum.
Removing lead tram a boos: Do
not attempt a full-scale abate-
ment yourself. If tests show
you have a major hazard, hire
Squeaky clean: A workmar
46 NEWSWEEK : JULY 15. 1991
-------
The Francoeurs were lucky because they
Iiv» Massachusetts, the only state that
re nandatory testing of children for
lej oning. Several states and cities
ha _ -essive programs to screen inner-
city ..aldren for lead poisoning. But all
those programs together in 1985-86 tested
just 800,000 kids, about 4 percent of chil-
dren under age 6. And pediatricians of mid-
dle-class kids test even less frequently than
those of the poor.
It takes strikingly Little lead to cause
lead poisoning. A child can become severely
lead poisoned (60-80 jig/dl) by eating one
milligram of lead-paint dust—equivalent
to about three granules of sugar—each day
during childhood. To achieve blood-lead
levels of 35 jig/dl, a child would have to eat
just the equivalent of one granule of sugar a
day. That's why a child can become ill mere-
ly by regularly touching a windowsill and
then sucking his thumb. Why is lead so
toxic? The body, in effect, mistakes it for
calcium. The lead attaches to and disrupts
enzymes essential to functioning of the
brain and other cells. Because lead is an
element, it never decomposes into another,
more easily tolerated, substance. While it
can be removed from the bloodstream
through chelation, most of the lead that is
absorbed intoachild's brain sitsthere, liter-
ally, forever.
Children are most likely to get lead poi-
soning between the ages of 6 months and 6
years, when lead dust from carpeting, toys
or the floor is more likely to find its way
into their mouths. (An adult can tolerate
larger doses.) If exposed, developing fetus-
es are the most vulnerable of all. Some-
times mothers subject their children to
lead by eating, drinking or breathing lead
during pregnancy. Researchers are now
examining theories that women store lead
in their bones and years later may with-
draw it, along with the calcium, during
pregnancy and pass it on to their fetuses.
Sandra Roseberry of Portsmouth, N.H.,
probably passed lead on to her daughter
Julianne- by stripping wallpaper during
pregnancy. Julianne's blood-lead level
went as high as 100 p.g/dl.
Although a less serious culprit than
paint, drinking water can raise blood lev-
els, too. When Vice President Dan Quayle
recently had his Washington mansion test-
ed, he was disturbed by the levels of lead
found in the water. The Environmental
Protection Agency estimates that lead in
water causes 10 to 20 percent of overall
childhood lead exposure.
Maw prism: The new science about lead's
effect on the brain may force policymakers
to re-examine some social issues through a
new prism. For example, if lead can cause
aggressive behavior, learning disabilities
and hyperactivity, might it not also be a
contributing factor in poor educational per-
formance among low-income blacks, who
suffer the most lead poisoning? "The educa-
tion community has not really understood
the dimensions of this because we don't see
kids falling over and dying of lead poisoning
in the classroom," says Bail us Walker, dean
of the public-health school at the Universi-
ty of Oklahoma and former commissioner
of public health in Massachusetts. "But
there's a very large number of kids who find
it difficult to do analytical work or [even]
line up in the cafeteria because their brains
are laden with lead."
It's not just the educational community
that has ignored the problems of lead. Civil-
rights advocates, environmental lobbyists,
even children's welfare advocates have un-
a qualified contractor. An im-
properly done abatement will
makj_ ' -vgs worse. The safest
aa is encapsulating,
c
-------
L I
E
til recently done almost nothing about
'~M. The inaction stems mostly from two
adictory beliefs: that the problem had
solved and that it is too big to solve
>ving old paint would be a gargantuan
Congress gave most of the responsi-
Diuty for solving the lead-paint problem to
the HUD in 1971 But HUD has done little
about most private housing, and in govern-
ment-assisted housing it has regulated
only peeling paint, whether it has lead in it
or not. Many localities still believe they
only have to fix peeling paint up to five feet
high on walls, ignoring both the laws of
Congress and gravity. When trying to pro-
mote research about lead, HUD has had
mixed results too. In 1975, for example, it
paid the Johns-Man ville Corp. to find a way
of sealing off lead paint. Incredibly, Mans-
ville suggested covering it with asbestos.
The failure for years of government and
liberal advocates to focus on lead has been
so stark that it begs an uncomfortable ques-
tion: have attitudes about race and poverty
affected people's willingness to take on this
problem? Consider Wanda Johnson, a wel-
fare mother from Baltimore with eight
children—five of whom have suffered from
lead poisoning. Psychological tests have
shown her poisoned kids far behind their
age group, yet their future teachers or
bosses may not have expected much more
a- v. "They're going to walk around
0-pouod weight," says James Ruf-
aiversity of Maryland School of Law
! who tried to force the Johnsons'
j ¦ .id into making repairs. "But most
people are just going to assume they're
naturally slower and lazier."
New research and an awareness that
lead hazards touch people like the Tack-
lings of New London, Conn., as well as the
'ohnsons have*helped prod the govern-
Lead and Money
There are 3.8 million homes
witb peeling lead paint or lead
dust inhabited by children un-
der the age of 7.
32% of these families have an
annual income less than
<30,000; 48% have incomes
more than $30,000.
Two thirds of the families with
incomes less than $30,000 per
year rent their homes.
More than 75% of the families
with incomes over $30,000 per
year own their homes.
soimct DtFjurrvrNT or housing
A.VD URBAN D£VttOPMBfT
ment into stronger action in the past two
years. After years of delay, EPA in May
issued rules attempting to reduce lead in
drinking water. HUD has, for the first
time, asked for funds to de-lead private
housing, and is writing rules on how to
improve a house through small, practical
steps without ripping it entirely apart. One
bill being drafted in Congress by Rep. Hen-
ry Waxman would require house sellers to
notify prospective buyers of lead paint. The
most important governmental action will
be CDC'a new guidelines for doctors and
public-health professionals. But CDC faces
a dilemma: how to make people more
Doctors
believe
Julianne
Roseberry of
Portsmouth,
N.H., probably
got lead
poisoning because
her mother
worked with
lead-based
paint during
pregnancy.

aware of lead's hazards without creating a
stampede of hysterical parents. Health de-
partments and medical labs could not now
handle a surge in demand for blood tests.
And outside Massachusetts or Maryland,
few contractors are actually qualified to
test and remove lead.
Over the next few years, parents' con-
cern will likely rise faster than the under-
standing of what they should or shouldn't
do. When Baltimore began publicizing lead
hazards in the early 1980s, about half the
poisoning cases treated by the Kennedy
Institute resulted from houses that had
leaded paint improperly removed. Marc
and Cathryn Perrone of Milwaukee actual-
ly consulted an engineer to find out how to
get rid of old lead paintsafely. They decided
on a heat gun. After they'd stripped most of
the paint, they learned that heat guns were
very dangerous. When they tested their
kids, their daughter Miranda, then 21
months old, had a 33 )ig/d1 reading.
$70,000 |ob: Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer
in Los Angeles, had already renovated his
85-year-old house when he decided to have
his 16-month-old daughter, Samara, test-
ed. The tests revealed a blood level first of
8 fig/dl and then of 12 fig/dl. The family
moved out right away. Tests of the house
showed lead dust on the floors and car-
pets, but the Rosenbaums couldn't find a
contractor in all Los Angeles who knew
how to remove the lead-based paint. "You
go to the Yellow Pages for lead abatement
and you might as well be looking for kryp-
ton abatement," he says. They flew in a
licensed professional from Massachusetts.
The cost: $70,000.
The Rosenbaums' experience was har-
rowing, but it should be kept in perspective.
Research has shown that if the exposure to
low doses of lead is halted early, parents can
make up for most potential
learning deficits through good
diet and extra stimulation. It's
unlikely that paint dust will
really alter Samara's life. And
Rosenbaum is lucky in another
way. As general counsel of the
American Civil Liberties Union
in California, he was able to
vent his anger by helping sue
California for not teiiing
enough for lead poisoning. But
most families won't take such
dramatic steps, or, for that mat-
ter, test their own children. The
problem for them isn't lack of
money or legal expertise. They
simply don't realize—or can't
believe—that the dust on their
windowsill might be quietly
stealing part of their child s
potential.
With Dm* Bolts
,n Bet«*«"
P»T»1CI Roctmn Ui'.uaMi*
DU WYH*>' ro* STwmn
-------
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT LEAD INITIATIVE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION #1
Q. HOW WERE THE COMPANIES WHO WERE NAMED IN THE OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT'S LEAD INITIATIVE SELECTED?
A. The Twenty three civil judicial cases were selected by EPA
and the Department of Justice through their existing
screening and review procedures, and through a special
process et up by EPA and DOJ to determine which cases might
be appropriate for judicial action. EPA elected the 12
administrative cases from the existing administrative
caseload.
QUESTION #2
Q. HOW DID YOU DECIDE WHICH CASES TO BRING ADMINISTRATIVELY AND
WHICH TO BRING JUDICIALLY?
A. Generally, candidates for judicial action include cases
against particularly egregious or repeat violators or
violators of administrative agreements, cases that seek
particularly large penalties, cases where court-supervised
injunctive relief is needed, cases that may establish useful
legal precedents interpreting key aspects of the regulations
or statute, and cases with a multi-medi enforcement
approach. This enforcement initiative includes case fitting
these criteria.
The decision to bring a case administratively or judicially
rests initially in EPA's regional offices. The Regional
Offices have established screening process to help make such
determination. Once EPA refers cases to the Department of
Justice, the assistant attorney general must decide whether
to approve the case for filing in court.
QUESTION #3
Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
CASES AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT CASES?
A. Administrative enforcement cases are issued directly by EPA
(or by states using their own enforcement authorities) to
the facility, without the involvement of a state or federal
court. Respondents in administrative enforcement case have
several levels of administrative review available should
they wish to contest the administrative complaint issued
against them. In most instances, respondents can ask for an
"informal review of their case, usually with the issuing
official in the Regional Office. Should they request
further review, a formal hearing, open to the public, before
-------
an administrative law judge (ALJ) is available. Finally, a
direct appeal to the EPA Administrator's office is also
available.
EPA's judicial enforcement actions are lawsuits in federal
court, involving all of the trial and appellate procedures
normally associated with civil litigation in federal court.
In these instances, federal judges preside over the trial or
appeal of the case. Although both administrative and
judicial cases generally involve the assessment and
collection of penalties, civil judicial penalties are
usually higher than penalties obtained in administrative
cases. In addition, violation of a judicial decree could
constitute contempt of court, subjecting the violator to
civil or criminal sanctions. This serves as a significant
deterrent to violations of a court order.
QUESTION #4
Q. WHY FILE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASES TOGETHER IN THIS
ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE?
A. Both administrative and judicial cases were filed in order
to send a very strong and unmistakable message that the
government is aggressively committed to enforcing existing
regulations involving lead.
The inclusion of both administrative and judicial cases
reflects the government's willingness to use a variety of
enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing
regulations. A strong enforcement program includes a
balanced mix of judicial and administrative cases. This
combination of administrative and judicial enforcement also
maximizes the deterrent impact on the regulated community.
QUESTION #5
Q. WHY IS LEAD-ACID BATTERY RECYCLING DESIRABLE?
A. The sheer volume of lead consumed in lead-acid batteries
makes recycling important. In 1989, 80% of total domestic
lead consumption (approximately 800,000 metric tons) went
into lead-acid batteries. Given lead's toxicity and its
indestructible nature once it enters the environment, it is
important to recycle this significant quantity of lead
consumed each year rather than introducing that lead into
the environment.
-------
QUESTION #6
Q. IF THE LEAD-ACID BATTERY RECYCLING RATE IS OVER 90%, 18 IT
NECESSARY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS
TO MANDATE BATTERY RECYCLING?
A. The battery recycling rate is high today, but has
historically fluctuated based on the price of lead and the
impact of federal regulations on secondary smelting. In the
early 1980*s, lead-acid battery recycling reached a low of
61% when the price of lead dropped significantly and a
number of secondary smelters chose to close rather than meet
federal regulations. This meant that about 25 million
batteries with over 200,000 metric tons of lead were not
recovered in one year alone. Even at a 90% recycling rate
today, some 80,000 metric tons of lead may be entering the
environment each year. Accordingly, the Agency is
considering regulatory options under TSCA §6 to maximize
lead-acid battery recycling.
QUESTION #7
Q. ARE SMELTERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS
GOVERNING AIR QUALITY?
A. As of October 1990, 22 of 29 smelters in the United States
were found to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is however considering a
revision of the lead NAAQS to further reduce potential
environmental risks from lead smelting.
QUESTION #8
Q. HOW IS EPA PLANNING TO PROMOTE LEAD-ACID BATTERY RECYCLING?
A. EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is currently conducting an
evaluation of the effectiveness of State lead-acid battery
recycling programs. This study will provide useful
information on the mandatory take-back model adopted by
States. In addition, the Agency is considering an number of
regulatory options under TSCA Section 6 foster the recycling
of lead-acid batteries.
QUESTION #9
Q. How does the Agency's Lead Strategy affect the recycling of
lead-acid batteries?
A. As an outgrowth of the Lead Strategy, a number of
regulations have been identified which could affect the
recycling of lead-acid batteries. These regulations are
designed to minimize release of lead into the environment,
-------
and several are likely to require the smelting industry to
employ costly control mechanisms to meet this goal.
However, the viability of the secondary smelting industry is
essential to the continued availability of domestic
recycling capability. The increased cost of pollution
control could result in a significant part of this industry
choosing to close rather than to install necessary
equipment.
To avoid these effects, the group of regulations affecting
battery recycling (and smelter operation) have been
clustered so that they can be considered in a cohesive EPA
plan to minimize lead releases and maximize battery
recycling. such a cluster approach could also encourage the
smelting industry to adopt new technologies that would
provide more efficient and cost-effective means of complying
with the set of regulations.
QUESTION #10
Q. Why has EPA decided to place such a high priority on
reducing the amount of lead in the environment?
A. EPA is placing such a high priority on reducing the amount
of lead in the environment because of its adverse health
effects particularly in children and fetuses. Lead
poisoning is the most common and socially devastating
environmental disease of young children. The American
Academy of Pediatrics calls it an epidemic.
QUESTION #11
Q. What are some of the most common effects of lead at high
levels of exposure?
A. Effects of exposure to lead at high levels include nervous
and reproductive system disorders, delvays in neurological
and physical development, cognitive and behavioral changes
and hypertension.
QUESTION #12
Q. How many Superfund sites does today's enforcement action
effect?
A. DOJ, on behalf of EPA, filed six complaints and lodged two
consent decrees in various U.S. Federal District Courts.
EPA is also taking administrative action at three sites.
A total of nine Superfund Sites are being addressed today.
-------
QUESTION #13
Q. How many sites on the Superfund National Priority Listing
(NFL) have identified lead as a primary contaminant?
A. Over 400 NPL sites have listed lead as one of a number of
contaminants of concern, other contaminants include
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, PCBs, etc.
QUESTION #14
Q. Why is EPA focusing only on a selected few lead sites with
over 4 00 known sites in existence?
A. Of the 400+ Superfund sites, lead is only one of several
known contaminants. Another contaminant may be causing the
most risk and driving EPA's remedial action. Moreover, the
Superfund program requires that today's actions conform to
the Superfund prioritizing processes established by the NPL
and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Superfund must
balance the health threats of lead contamination with other
threats posed by other Superfund sites.
Today's Superfund action is a small part of the overall
Superfund process. The 400 sites mentioned earlier have
already passed through Superfund's screening and
prioritizing process. About 80% (this is an approximation)
of those 400 sites have undergone a remedial investigation
and feasibility study that gathers site specific data and
provides alternatives to site cleanup while 31% (exactly
126) of those sites have a Record of Decision with a
selected cleanup alternative.
To summarize, EPA is currently taking action at these sites,
but they are in different stages of remediation. More
importantly, EPA has screened the sites for any immediate
threats to human health and the environment and in many
instances, EPA or the responsible party may have already
taken some action, like security fencing, immediate removal
of drums, soil treatment, water line hookups, etc. to limit
exposure to the Superfund site.
QUESTION #15
Q. in what ways will the Superfund actions taken today help
reduce lead exposure?
A. Superfund's enforcement actions will increase attention on
lead contaminated sites and will create the impetus for
-------
response actions by potentially responsible parties, thus
reducing costs to the government. EPA's actions today will
reduce the risk of exposure from lead contamination at
Superfund Sites by requiring cleanup of soils and
groundwater, and in some instances, require the soil cleanup
of playgrounds, schools, day care centers, yards, and
unpaved streets and alleys, (i.e. the ASARCO site in East
Helena, Montana, and the NL site in Granite City, Illinois).
EPA has used Superfund monies in the past to cleanup lead
contaminated sites because potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) refused to take action. EPA, by filing these suits
today, will show PRPs the government is serious about
recovering our costs and enforcing any order issued to the
PRPs. EPA's vigorous enforcement actions should make the
PRPs less willing to be recalcitrant at future Superfund
Sites resulting nationally in a more expeditious cleanups at
less expense to the federal government.
QUESTION #16
Q. What is Superfund's role in EPA's effort to focus on lead
contamination and reduce its harmful impacts?
A. Superfund*s role in the lead initiative is to reduce any
threats to human health or the environment caused by lead
contamination at Superfund sites.
EPA has selected Superfund sites which were targeted for
action under the Superfund program based on prior EPA
response or enforcement actions. Those sites being
highlighted today involve actions that will reduce lead
contamination at Superfund sites either through EPA's
response actions or the actions of potentially responsible
parties.
-------
QUESTION #17
Q. Does this enforcement action only involve sites that are on
the NPL?
A. With the exception of one site (B & H Battery, Norco, CA.),
all our judicial actions involve NPL sites. The three
administrative actions do not involve sites on the NPL
The non-NPL sites required immediate action based on
threats to human health and have not yet undergone the
Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) process that determines where (or
whether) a site will be placed on the NPL.
QUESTION #18
Q. Will the cleanup actions affect the health and safety of
nearby residents?
A. Superfund cleanup actions, whether undertaken by EPA or the
potentially responsible parties, are closely monitored, and
prior to any response action (except in emergencies), a
health and safety plan for the cleanup actions must be
approved. Of course, the reason for the action in the first
place is because of the danger to human health and the
environment from the present contamination.
QUESTION #19
Q. What is EPA1s, lead contamination cleanup level for soils
and groundwater?
A. EPA is currently revising its lead soil cleanup standards at
Superfund sites. New guidance on this will be forthcoming
and will probably be issued later this year (current
standards are between 500ppm-1000ppm and are based on Center
for Disease Control standards, See "Interim Guidance on
Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites"
(Sept. 7, 1989, H. Longest). EPA's groundwater standard
is based on EPA's new lead level just issued (50 ppb
triggering level).
-------
OPE8TION #2 0
Q. We notice that EPA is taking Superfund action at a couple of
sites (ASARCO in East Helena, Montana, and NL Industries in
Granite City, Illinois) that involve lead contaminated soils
in residential or urban areas. Has EPA taken similar action
at other residential sites in the past? Or does EPA
contemplate taking such action in the future?
A. EPA has, in the past, taken action at other Superfund sites
that involve lead contamination in residential areas. EPA
is also taking action at other sites.
For example, EPA is cleaning up over 150 properties
(including 140 residences) at the Mariol Battery site
(Region III) in Throop, Pennsylvania. EPA is cleaning up
soil contamination at the Bunker Hill site (Region IX) near
Kellogg, Idaho (fairly political, may not want to mention
this, DOJ (re: John C. Cruden) had some problems. At the
Interstate Lead Co. site in Leeds, Alabama, EPA and
responsible parties took action to reduce exposure to lead
contamination from airborne particulates. Last September,
EPA and the state of Utah agreed to spend $22.6 million to
clean up lead and arsenic contaminated soils in residential
yards and businesses near the Sharon Steel-Midvale
Tailings hazardous waste site in Midvale. (This is the
same case where EPA's total settlement with PRPS exceeded
$60 million).
Other sites include:
1. The Beachwood Berkeley Wells site in New Jersey where
EPA connected affected private wells with a public drinking
water supply. The private wells were contaminated by lead
and other heavy metals.
2. The Smuggler Mountain site in Colorado where EPA plans
on removing lead contaminated soil from residential areas.
QUESTION #21
Q. We understand that lead contaminated soil in residential and
urban areas is a problem that needs to be addressed because
of the harmful impacts of lead on children. What, if
anything, is EPA doing to rectify this situation?
A. (This is what ve are doing. Hovever. ORD and OERR mav vant
to be notified of the potential for airing this in a public
and nation*! *r>nini) .
The Superfund Amendment and Re-authorization Act of 1986
added Section 111(a)(6), which states inter alia: "The
President shall use the money in the Fund for the following
purposes....
-------
Payment of not to exceed S15,000,000 for the costs
of a pilot program for removal,decontamination, or
other action with respect to lead-contaminated soil
in one to three different metropolitan areas.
Based on the amendment, EPA is undertaking three urban lead
soil studies in Boston, Cincinnati, and Baltimore based on
the 1986 Amendments to the Superfund Law. EPA's pilot
programs are not yet completed, but most of the data has
been compiled. The studies are designed to understand more
fully the possible abatement measures necessary to reduce
lead exposure.
EPA is taking action in cooperation with HUD and other
governmental agencies to address this problem.
At this time, the problem is, we do not know that soil is
the primary cause of elevated lead levels in urban children.
Most likely, the causes are varied and there is no guarantee
that a costly EPA abatement action would actually work. We
need more and better information about this subject.
QUESTION #22
Q. Are other groups besides children particularly at risk for
exposure to lead?
A. Some groups of adults are also at risk, especially pregnant
women as lead in their blood can be transmitted to the
fetus, and workers in some occupations who can be exposed to
dangerous levels of lead.
OOESTION #23
Q. Has the federal government made progress in the past decade
in reducing the amount of lead in the environment?
A. The federal government has made considerable progress. This
is reflected in the dramatic drop of lead in children's
blood level due to federal action e.g., EPA's success in
phasing out lead in gasoline.
QUESTION #24
Q. How does the Office of Enforcement* lead initiative relate
to EPA's Lead strategy?
A. The Office of Enforcement's lead initiative is part of EPA's
Strategy for Reducing Lead Exposures Lead Strategy (Lead
Strategy). The goal of the Lead Strategy issued on
February 26, 1991, is to significantly reduce lead exposures
to the public and the environment with particular
interest in children. EPA is working under the Lead
Strategy to reduce lead emissions through regulatory
-------
research and enforcement, pollution prevention control
programs, and educational training activities.
The Office of Enforcement's lead initiative is intended to
be an integral component of EPA's Lead Strategy with an
emphasis on improving compliance with existing regulations
governing lead emissions.
QUESTION #25
Q. Why are no enforcement actions being brought against sources
identified on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) list of
the top 100 sources of lead emissions in the United States?
A. Just because sources are major emitters of lead emissions
does not mean that they are not in compliance with the
applicable environmental regulations. Enforcement actions
are brought only against sources that are alleged not to be
in compliance with environmental regulations.
QUESTION #26
Q. Why are no enforcement actions in today's lead initiative
being bought against lead smelters?
A. As of October 1990, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
had conducted inspections of all 29 smelters in the country
(27 are currently in operation). At this time 22 of the 27
smelters in operation are in compliance with Federal and
State air pollution requirements, six are in violation and
one is currently being evaluated. The six violating sources
have been the subject of Federal and State enforcement
actions initiated before the Office of Enforcement's lead
initiative commenced. EPA and the affected States are
currently negotiating with the six smelters that are not in
compliance to ensure the expeditious installation of
controls and return then to compliance.
QUESTION #27
Q. What is RCRA?
A. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the
nation's primary authority for dealing with the management
and handling of solid and hazardous wastes.
QUESTION #28
Q. What are the goals of RCRA?
A. The goals established by RCRA are to protect human health
and the environment, to reduce waste and conserve energy and
natural resources and to reduce or eliminate the generation
of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible.
-------
QUESTION #2 9
Q. Why are so many of the actions being filed in this
enforcement initiative being brought under RCRA?
A. RCRA is a multi-media statute that provides tremendous
opportunities for addressing diverse environmental problems
and contains legal authority for addressing air, surface
water and soil contamination.
QUESTION #30
Q. How does enforcement activity against recyclers relate to
the Agency's interest in promoting recycling?
A. EPA is trying to promote environmentally sound recycling.
In this regard, RCRA mandates that recycling be done in a
manner that is consistent with protecting human health and
environment.
QUESTION #31
Q. How can EPCRA and/or the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) help
reduce exposure to lead?
A. Because TRI requires manufacturing industries to report
publicly their releases of lead and lead compound into the
environment, the inventory is a key tool in targeting
industries and specific facilities for enforcement. Of
course, not all major emitters of lead are violating the
law, but the TRI provides the public, EPA, and the regulated
community the data we need to make intelligent decisions
about lead emissions. It allows us to relate releases of
lead into the environment to increased risks of lead
exposure, to set priorities in terms of industries and
locations like inner cities for developing ways to decrease
lead releases into the environment, it allows us to identify
those types of emission and other releases that are in need
of new regulations or legislation.
Because EPA, State, tribal and local governments and the
public rely on TRI to make informed decisions, TRI data must
be complete, accurate, and reliable. EPA's enforcement
efforts are designed to bring lead manufactures into
compliance with the § 313 reporting requirements and
therefore enhance the integrity of the TRI.
-------
QUESTION #32
Q. What is the enforcement history of EPCRA §313 cases?
A. In fiscal year 1989, EPA issued 132 complaints, closed 26
cases, and assessed $489,930 in civil penalties. In fiscal
year 1990, EPA issue 210 complaints, closed 42 cases, and
assessed $535,553 in civil penalties. In fiscal year 1991
EPA filed over 135 cases seeking over 2.6 million dollars.
QUESTION #33
Q. What are the lead compounds that must be reported under TRI?
A. Lead and lead compounds are subject to § 313 Reporting to
the Toxic Release Inventory pursuant to EPCRA § 313(c).
Industries in SIC codes 20 - 39 are required to report EPCRA
313 information. Lead releases would be expected to be
reported primarily from industries in SIC codes 3 3 and 3 4
(Fabricated Metals and Primary Metals, respectively).
Industry reported release or transfer of 22,434,784 pounds
of lead to the TRI in 1988, as compared to a reported
47,615,994 pounds in 1977.1 In 1988, the largest percentage
of lead was released to land, accounting for 36.99% of total
lead released. 4.31% of lead releases were to air, and
only 0.53% of lead was released to surface waters. The
majority of lead, 57.9%, was reported as transferred off-
site for treatment, storage, or disposal. Texas had the
greatest amount of lead releases or transfers of the 50
states.
The following lead and lead compounds are subject to § 304
reporting:
(1) Tetraethyllead and Tetramethyllead are on the list of
EHS chemicals required to be reported.
(2) The CERCLA § 103 chemicals, found at 40 C.F.R. § 302.4,
that contain lead are:
"lead and compounds"
Lead Arsenate
Lead, bis(aceto-O)tetrahydroxytri
Lead chloride
Lead fluoborate
Lead iodide
Lead nitrate
Lead phosphate
Lead stearate
1 EPA, Toxics in the Community; National and Local
Perspectives, at 99 (September 1990).
-------
Lead subacetate
Lead sulfate
Lead sulfide
Lead thiocyanate
QUESTION #34
Q. Why are lead and other lead compounds listed as extremely
hazardous substances?
A. Because of their very serious effects upon human health and
the environment.
QUESTION #35
Q. What does the Clean Water Act require?
A. The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants to
"Waters of the U.S." (surface waters). It places
enforceable limits on point sources" of pollution (eg. and
of the pipe discharges) as opposed to "non point sources"
(eg. agricultural run-off). The Act also requires
industries to "pretreat" wastes that may damage, interfere
with, or pass through the operation of a publicly-owned
sewage treatment works, or that may contaminate sludge.
QUESTION #36
Q. What is the NPDES Program?
A. Industrial and municipal facilities need facility - specific
NPDES permit limits governed by discharge limits set by EPA
or an authorized State. EPA sets national technology-based
discharge limitation that are implement through the NPDES
permit system; each state sets water quality standards
establishing beneficial uses for water within the state.
Where the technology-based limits or controls are not
sufficient to achieve the designated water quality
standards, the water body is classified as water-quality-
limited and additional steps are taken to achieve the water
quality standards.
QUESTION #37
Q. what action can EPA take if someone violates the lead limits
in their permit and discharges lead without a National
Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit?
A. EPA can bring enforcement actions against anyone who
discharges without complying with their permit such as those
who exceed their permit levels for lead. EPA can also bring
enforcement actions against any person discharging a
-------
pollutant, such as lead from a point source, who lacks the
required permit. States are the primary enforcers, although
EPA retains authority to take enforcement in authorized or
unauthorized States.
QUESTION #38
Q. What penalties may be imposed if EPA brings an enforcement
action for a violation of the Clean Water Act?
A. Under the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, EPA may
issue administrative orders requiring compliance within a
specific time and may assess administrative penalties of up
to $10,000 for each violation with a maximum ceiling of
$125,000. EPA can also bring civil suits in a United States
District Court seeking appropriate injunctive relief and
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation.
QUESTION #39
Q. what future and\or additional enforcement initiatives is EPA
planning to take against major sources of lead emissions?
A. Although no date has been set for additional enforcement
initiatives targeting major sources of lead emissions, EPA
will continue to make compliance with existing regulations
an enforcement priority.
QUESTION #40
Q. It appears that today's enforcement action's have not
targeted the most egregious sources of lead emissions
and that EPA is pursuing relatively simple enforcement
actions rather than target the more complex, long term
contributors to the lead problem ?
A. Many of the enforcement actions being brought today have
major environmental significance, i.e. a CERCLA Consent
Order for the ASARCO\East Helena, Montana, Superfund site
that will require the cleanup and removal of contaminated
soil from daycare centers, parks, yards schools, playgrounds
and unpaved streets and alleys in and around East Helena,
Montana. This action, in particular, will reduce lead
exposure to children living and playing in that area.
EPA is also seeking between $7 million and $15 million in
penalties in an administrative case under RCRA involving
Amoco Oil Company's Yorktown, Virginia refinery and is
seeking more than $1 million in penalties in another
Administrative case under RCRA involving AT&T's Richmond
Works in Richmond, Virginia.
-------
QUESTION #41
Q. Has EPA's phasing out of leaded gasoline significantly
reduced the amount of lead being introduced into the
environment?
A. As a result of EPA's lead phasedown regulations the amount
of lead in gasoline has been reduced over 99% since 197 5.
The lead phasedown regulations reduced the amount of lead
allowed in gasoline from the approximately 2.5 grams per
gallon of the early 1970's, to 0.1 grams per gallon since
1986. In order to allow industry to achieve these greatly
reduced standards, EPA in 1985-1987 allowed the banking and
trading of lead rights, one of the Agency's first major
market-based incentive programs.
QUESTION #42
Q. What previous enforcement actions have been brought by EPA
involving the lead phasedovn program?
A. Enforcement of the lead phasedown regulations has resulted
in the issuance of over 130 notices of violation, with
proposed penalties of $100,000,000. Penalties collected
resulting from the settlement of lead phasedown cases,
including expenditures to obviate economic benefit, are in
the range of $20,000,000 to date. As a result of the lead
phasedown regulations over 150,000,000 grams of excess
lead were eliminated from gasoline production as a direct
result of EPA's enforcement activities, with an estimated
environmental benefit of over $40,000,000.
QUESTION #43
Q. What are the three major sources of exposure to lead?
A. The three major sources of elevated blood lead are lead-
based paint, urban soil and dust (contaminated mainly by
lead-based paint and gasoline) and lead in drinking water.
QUESTION 44
Q. What are other major sources of exposure to lead?
A. Other sources include stationary point sources, Superfund
sites, municipal waste and sewage sludge incinerators, and
use of lead in consumer products.
-------
QUESTION #45
Q. Isn't lead primarily an environmental threat to inner-city
children and children living in public housing developments?
A. Public health officials say lead is the No.#l environmental
threat to children whether they live in public housing or
suburban hones.
Seventy percent of all private housing built before 1980
contains some lead paint.
QUESTION #46
Q. If lead in paint is such a major source of lead exposure/
particularly to large numbers of children/ why is the Office
of Enforcement's lead initiative not addressing this topic?
A. EPA at the present time is lacks the statutory jurisdiction
to address the very serious problem of lead in private
housing.
EPA is however working with other federal agencies, e.g. the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other
agencies to develop a comprehensive federal approach to deal
with lead problems.
QUESTION #47
Q. What environmental statutes are being used in today's
enforcement actions against sources of lead emissions?
A. Today's enforcement actions are being brought under six
enforcement authorities: the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the
Clean Water Act (CWA); the Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA);
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and; the Emergency Planning, and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA).
QUESTION #48
Q. How many of EPA's Regions are participating in today's
enforcement initiative against sources of lead emissions?
A. All of EPA's (10) ten Regions are participating in the
Office of Enforcement's lead initiative.
-------
QUESTION #49
Q. How many enforcement actions are being brought today?
A. 24 civil enforcement actions are being filed today.
12 administrative cases are being filed today.
-------