{"id":5095,"date":"2016-04-28T07:26:26","date_gmt":"2016-04-28T12:26:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=5095"},"modified":"2016-05-09T17:13:58","modified_gmt":"2016-05-09T22:13:58","slug":"lead-based-paint-hazard-standard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2016\/04\/28\/lead-based-paint-hazard-standard\/","title":{"rendered":"Unfulfilled: EPA\u2019s 2009 commitment to fix lead-based paint hazard standard"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>[pullquote]<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 2009, EPA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca\/tsca-section-21-petition-requesting-epa-lower-lead-dust\">committed to fix<\/a> its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/articles\/2001\/01\/05\/01-84\/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead\">rule identifying dangerous levels of lead<\/a>. The evidence since then has only gotten more compelling. EPA needs to fulfill its commitment and revise the rule consistent with the recommendations of its own Science Advisory Board.<\/p>\n<p><em>[\/pullquote]<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/tom-neltner\"><em>Tom Neltner, J.D.<\/em><\/a><em>,\u00a0<\/em>is Chemicals Policy Director<em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama, supported by then-Senator Hillary Clinton, forced the Bush administration to issue a long-overdue rule to ensure contractors used lead-safe work practices when conducting renovations, repairs, and painting work at homes and child-occupied facilities. So when Senator Obama became President Obama, there was tremendous promise for advances in lead poisoning prevention.<\/p>\n<p>By the second half of 2009, it appeared that promise was turning into reality. Under President Obama\u2019s leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made lead poisoning prevention a priority and undertook a series of important commitments to protect children. Despite that initial success, many of those prevention efforts were foundering by late 2010.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>One of the several critical commitments Obama\u2019s EPA made was to<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca\/tsca-section-21-petition-requesting-epa-lower-lead-dust\"> revise<\/a> the agency\u2019s outdated <a href=\"https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/articles\/2001\/01\/05\/01-84\/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead\">2001 \u201cIdentification of Dangerous Levels of Lead\u201d Rule<\/a> that set standards for health-based <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecfr.gov\/cgi-bin\/text-idx?SID=876f84e6519f368645e34face46950d6&amp;mc=true&amp;node=sp40.31.745.d&amp;rgn=div6\">lead-based paint hazards<\/a> in homes and childcare centers. The standards are an essential building block for lead poisoning prevention because they define when the risk posed by lead in paint, in dust, and in soil is so high that action is needed to reduce those hazards. The uses include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>EPA and state-certified <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/CFR-2012-title40-vol32\/xml\/CFR-2012-title40-vol32-part745.xml#seqnum745.227\">risk assessors<\/a> use the standards to advise property owners and families;<\/li>\n<li>Do-it-yourself test kits reference them when telling families whether or not they have a problem;<\/li>\n<li>Health departments and housing code officials often rely on these standards for citations;<\/li>\n<li>The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) references the standards in its <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecfr.gov\/cgi-bin\/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;SID=e1741143a75841f15fcfd930d325ac2b&amp;rgn=div5&amp;view=text&amp;node=24:1.1.1.1.24&amp;idno=24#se24.1.35_1110\">lead-safe housing rule<\/a> to protect residents of federally subsidized housing; and<\/li>\n<li>EPA and state environmental agencies use them to guide cleanup of contamination.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Since 2011, EPA has taken no apparent action to follow through on its commitment.\u00a0 We will explore the status of the other commitments in other blogs, but for now let\u2019s consider what happened on the lead-based paint hazards rule.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1999 to 2001: Establishing the hazard standards <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The lead-based paint hazard standards rule is one of many that Congress mandated in the <a href=\"http:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title42\/chapter63A&amp;edition=prelim\">Residential Lead-based Paint Hazards Reduction Act of 1992<\/a>, a comprehensive program to protect children from paint. Part of the bill, which included establishing <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/USCODE-2014-title15\/html\/USCODE-2014-title15-chap53-subchapIV.htm\">Title IV the Toxic Substance Chemical Act<\/a>, directed EPA to issue a hazards standard rule by 1994 (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 2683).\u00a0 It wasn\u2019t until 1999 that the agency released a proposed rule. And it was another two years before the EPA finalized the proposal and promulgated a rule on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/articles\/2001\/01\/05\/01-84\/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead\">January 5, 2001<\/a> in the last days of the Clinton Administration (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecfr.gov\/cgi-bin\/text-idx?SID=876f84e6519f368645e34face46950d6&amp;mc=true&amp;node=sp40.31.745.d&amp;rgn=div6\">40 CFR \u00a7 745.61 to 65<\/a>). The Bush Administration had the option to reverse the decision but declined to act<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecfr.gov\/cgi-bin\/text-idx?SID=876f84e6519f368645e34face46950d6&amp;mc=true&amp;node=sp40.31.745.d&amp;rgn=div6\">rule<\/a> established three types of hazard standards:\u00a0 paint-lead hazard, dust-lead hazard, and soil-lead hazard. The dust-lead hazard standard established 40 micrograms of lead per square foot (\u00b5g\/ft<sup>2<\/sup>) of the floor of homes and child-occupied facilities as a hazard\u00a0that must be eliminated. This is equivalent to one gram \u2013 the same amount of sugar in a packet we add to our tea \u2013 spread evenly over about 1\/2 of a football field. The agency set this level because it would \u201cresult in a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/FR-2001-01-05\/html\/01-84.htm\">1 to 5 percent probability<\/a> of an individual child\u2019s exceeding a blood lead level of 10 \u00b5g\/dL\u201d.\u00a0 The definition of elevated blood lead level in 2001, when the rule was promulgated, was 10 \u00b5g\/dL; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nceh\/lead\/ACCLPP\/blood_lead_levels.htm\">it was reduced to 5 \u00b5g\/dL in 2012<\/a>.\u00a0For interior window sills, the level was 250 \u00b5g\/ft<sup>2<\/sup>. For bare soil, a hazard was defined as levels over 400 parts per million (ppm) in the play area and 1,200 ppm in the rest of the yard.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2007 to 2009: Standards found to be \u201cinsufficiently protective of children\u2019s health\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 2007, one of <a href=\"https:\/\/yosemite.epa.gov\/sab\/sabproduct.nsf\/96CFAD50E89BE5638525734D00452675\/$File\/casac-07-006.pdf\">EPA\u2019s scientific advisory committee<\/a>s told the agency that the dust-lead hazard standard was \u201cinsufficiently protective of children\u2019s health, as indicated by recent epidemiological studies.\u201d The National Center for Healthy Housing (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nchh.org\/\">NCHH<\/a>) reevaluated the available data and concluded that the risk of an elevated blood level was 18% not less than 5% as EPA claimed in 2001.<\/p>\n<p>Two years later, 12 groups, including <a href=\"http:\/\/sierraclub.org\/toxics\">Sierra Club<\/a>, NCHH, <a href=\"http:\/\/upal.org\/\">United Parents Against Lead<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/leadsafekids.org\/\">Childhood Lead Action Project<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/ikecoalition.org\/lead-poisoning\/\">Improving Kids Environment<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/healthyhomescollaborative.org\/\">Healthy Homes Collaborative<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ehw.org\/\">Environmental Health Watch<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.omahahealthykids.org\/\">Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/njcitizenaction.org\/\">New Jersey Citizen Action<\/a>, and others <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/production\/files\/2015-10\/documents\/epa_lead_standards_petition_final.pdf\">petitioned EPA<\/a> to revise the rule.\u00a0 They asked EPA to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Reduce the lead in dust standard from 40 to 10 \u00b5g\/ft<sup>2 <\/sup>on floors and from 250 to 100 \u00b5g\/ft<sup>2<\/sup> on interior window sills; and<\/li>\n<li>Change the definition of lead-based paint from more than 5,000 ppm lead to 600 ppm, the maximum allowable level of lead in paint after 1978.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca\/tsca-section-21-petition-requesting-epa-lower-lead-dust\">October 22, 2009, EPA granted the request<\/a> and said it would coordinate with HUD to revise the definition of lead-based paint because of the agencies&#8217; shared responsibility. EPA stated that it did not commit to a specific rulemaking outcome or a certain date to promulgate a final rule.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2010 to 2011: Affirmation from agency science advisors<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>EPA sought feedback from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) on a <a href=\"https:\/\/yosemite.epa.gov\/sab\/SABPRODUCT.NSF\/PeopleSearch\/9C733206A5D6425785257695004F0CB1\/$File\/ResidentialPbDust.pdf\">proposed approach<\/a> to revise the dust-lead hazard standard in 2010. Later that year, a <a href=\"http:\/\/yosemite.epa.gov\/sab\/SABPRODUCT.NSF\/F8DA254881FEC6898525778F004C789A\/$File\/EPA-SAB-10-011-unsigned.pdf\">panel convened by the SAB<\/a> to consider the issue, found the approach \u201cto be well conceived, clearly described, logical, and reasonable.\u201d It commended EPA for initiating a revision to the standard.\u00a0 In 2011, the <a href=\"http:\/\/yosemite.epa.gov\/sab\/sabproduct.nsf\/CD05EA314294B683852578C60060FB08\/$File\/EPA-SAB-11-008-unsigned-revised.pdf\">full SAB issued its final report<\/a> supporting the agency\u2019s overall approach and made recommendations to improve the modeling.<\/p>\n<p><strong>No activity for more than 5 years<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since the SAB report in 2011 affirming the approach, EPA appears to have made no further progress towards updating these standards. With its limited resources, EPA chose to focus on one of its other commitments made in late 2009: implementing an agreement the agency made to settle a lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, EPA agreed to reconsider flaws in its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead\/lead-renovation-repair-and-painting-program-rules\">renovation, repair and painting rule,<\/a> including extending the rule to include <a href=\"https:\/\/www.regulations.gov\/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173\">public and commercial buildings<\/a> and not just housing and child-occupied facilities. Expanding lead poisoning protections to these sites is necessary, but it should not be an either-or proposition. It should not come at the expense of action on other commitments to protect children from lead.<\/p>\n<p><strong>What\u2019s next?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>With lead poisoning prevention back in the news, the demand for updated lead standards is all the more urgent. Families are asking about lead more than ever. In February 2016, 24 groups led by <a href=\"http:\/\/povertylaw.org\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/advocacy\/housing\/hud-petition-for-rulemaking-lead-poisoning.pdf\">Loyola University and the Shriver Center petitioned HUD<\/a> to update its lead-safe-housing rule. Within a month, HUD moved forward on a proposal to fix the rule. In March 2016, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Mike Quigley (D-IL) <a href=\"http:\/\/www.durbin.senate.gov\/newsroom\/press-releases\/legislation-to-protect-children-in-public-housing-from-lead-exposure-introduced-in-house-and-senate\">introduced legislation<\/a> directing EPA to revise rule. In addition, EPA has been asked by an National Drinking Water Advisory Council to issue a <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2016\/03\/25\/lead-hal\/\">health-based action level for lead in drinking water<\/a> that is similar to the lead-based paint hazard standards.<\/p>\n<p>The lead-based paint hazard standards rule is an essential part of the federal lead poisoning prevention program.\u00a0 In the six years since EPA agreed to fix the rule, the evidence of the harm caused by lead has become even more compelling.\u00a0 The agency needs to immediately revise its lead-based paint hazards consistent with the latest science and the recommendations of its own Science Advisory Board.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[pullquote] In 2009, EPA committed to fix its rule identifying dangerous levels of lead. The evidence since then has only gotten more compelling. EPA needs to fulfill its commitment and revise the rule consistent with the recommendations of its own Science Advisory Board. [\/pullquote] Tom Neltner, J.D.,\u00a0is Chemicals Policy Director. In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama, &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":69548,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[56094,1,44,5009,114106,56096],"tags":[91624,91674,91667,68,39158,91665,91656,91670,312,91668,91669,864,91666,91672],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-5095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-new-testing-methods","category-general-interest","category-policy","category-health-science","category-lead","category-omboira","tag-citizens-petition","tag-clinton","tag-durbin","tag-epa","tag-lead","tag-lead-dust-hazard","tag-lead-based-paint","tag-nchh","tag-obama","tag-quigley","tag-science-advisory-board","tag-sierra-club","tag-soil-lead-hazard","tag-tsca-title-iv"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/69548"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5095"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=5095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}