EPA Calls for Comment on New Framework to Identify Lead-Based Paint Hazards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking for input on its newly released “Framework for Identifying and Evaluating Lead-Based Paint Hazards from Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings.” The purpose of this Framework document is to allow EPA to determine if renovation, repair and painting activities in public and commercial (P&C) buildings do, in fact, create a lead-based paint hazard.  If EPA’s analysis indicates that hazards are created, then the agency would propose appropriate regulatory controls to reduce or prevent exposure to the general population. To read the Federal Register announcement and the Framework document, click here.  Public comments are due by June 30. EPA will consider all public comments as it continues the process of assessing whether or not “hazards” are created by P&C building renovations. By July 2015, EPA plans to propose nationwide legal requirements to reduce any hazards, if found.  Such new requirements would also undergo public review and comment and would most likely stem from the current Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rule. Hazard Identification The Framework document explains, in general terms, how EPA would define a “lead‐based paint hazard” – solely for the purposes of evaluating how interior and exterior renovation work affect the dust-lead levels inside P&C building.  According to the document, a “hazard” would be identified as any renovation condition or situation that exposes a group of occupants (e.g., children or adults) to levels of lead-paint dust that would result in adverse health effects. For children, EPA would likely evaluate Intelligence Quotient (IQ) decrements. For adults, EPA anticipates that it will consider concentration-response functions, such as renal effects, cardiovascular effects and others; however, EPA is reviewing currently available scientific literature to determine if appropriate adverse health effects for adults can be selected and analyzed. Hazard Evaluation In addition, the Framework describes a “scenario‐specific approach” to assessing risk that EPA says is “designed to account for the variable amounts of time spent in P&C buildings, the broad heterogeneity in building sizes and configurations, and the short‐term nature of the exposure resulting from renovation activities.”  EPA would model different types of interior/exterior renovation activities on variety of building types and attempt to determine the lead-dust levels that would be generated, in each instance.  EPA would then evaluate whether or not – and for how long – different age groups of occupants might be exposed to lead dust and the resultant impact on their blood-lead levels and other health-based functions. The document states that EPA would assess a “broad range of scenarios, considering variations in types of renovation activities, building types, sizes and configurations, use and occupancy patterns, cleaning frequencies, etc., which are designed to be reflective of actual P&C building settings.” For those scenarios where EPA’s models show adverse health effects, EPA would make a “hazard” finding. If EPA decides to move forward with this scenario‐specific approach, the agency would use it to identify hazards inside P&C buildings resulting from renovations of the same or nearby P&C building. The approach would NOT address hazards to passers‐by or individuals that could be exposed to lead outside of P&C buildings through air, soil, or other media, or for exposure at homes and child-occupied facilities (COFs), for which federal hazard standards are already established. More Rules? For those renovation activities in P&C buildings that create lead‐based paint hazards, the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to address the hazards through regulation. EPA would craft new regulatory requirements to apply only to those renovation activities and P&C building categories where the modeled scenarios show an exposure that would be deemed hazardous. Applicability EPA acknowledges that its analysis could indicate hazards in scenarios that are unlikely to occur, or occur in only very limited instances affecting a small number of people. EPA would consider how to generalize the hazard findings from the scenario‐specific analysis to assess the effects of a potential regulation on the population (and on sensitive sub‐populations) in considering regulatory options  Nearby Residences and Child-Occupied Facilities EPA also is considering how to evaluate whether exterior renovations of P&C buildings would pose a health risk to the occupants of nearby homes and child-occupied facilities. EPA already has dust‐lead hazard standards place for residences and COFs. Specifically, lead is considered a hazard when equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on floors (40 µg/ft2 for floors) and 250 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on interior window sills (250 µg/ft2 for interior window sills). Background Currently, EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rule applies to paid contractors working in pre-1978 housing and a small subset of P&CBs; specifically, buildings where children under 6 years spend significant amounts of time such as daycare centers and schools (commonly called “child-occupied facilities”). The rule requires that renovators are trained in the use of lead safe work practices, renovators and construction firms be certified, providers of renovation training be accredited, and that renovators follow specific work practice standards.  It includes provisions for the retention of compliance records, and the verification of compliance with work practice obligations, as well as pre-renovation education requirements (i.e., the distribution of EPA pamphlets and document compliance). Additional information is on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm. Click here for AGC’s summary of what the current lead-paint rules require. If you have additional questions, contact AGC’s Leah Pilconis at pilconisl@agc.org.