Skip to main content

Full text of "The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 : hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, on S. 2341 ... March 19, 1992"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/ 

Digitized by 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 



— X- 








^^ ON 

S. 2341 


MARCH 1^992 

Printed for the use of the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

58-662 i^ WASHINGTON : 1992 

; by the i7^( 

For sale by the ui^Govemment Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congimional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-038655-1 

Digitized by 



DONALD W. RIEGLE, Jr., Michigan, Chairman 




JIM SASSER, Tennessee CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TERRY SANFORD, North CaroUna WILUAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware 



TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

Sfeven B. Harris, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

Lamar Smith, Republican Staff Director and Economist 

Jeannine S. Jaookes, Professional Staff Member 

Edward M. Malan, Editor 

Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs 

ALAN CRANSTON, California, Chairman 


TERRY SANFORD, North Carolina PHIL GRAMM, Texas 


JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CONNIE MACK, Florida 

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada WILUAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware 




Bruce J. Katz, Staff Director 

Eileen Gallagher, Legislative Assistant 

Nancy D. Smith, Counsel 

Garth B. Rieman, Republican Staff Director/Subcommittee 

on Housing and Urban Affairs 

Pamela Ray Strunk, Republican Staff Member 

Falue Bolen, Staff Assistant 


Digitized by 





Opening statement of Senator Cranston 1 

Copy of proposed bill S. 2341 54 

Opening statements of: 

Senator D'Amato 4 

Prepared statement 4 

Senator Bryan 5 

Prepared statement 5 

Senator Riegle 6 

Senator Sarbanes 18 

Senator Bond 28 

Senator Specter 28 


Timothy & Antoinette Burke, Emmaus, PA 7 

Prepared statement 102 

Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Professor of Pathology, University of Maryland Medical 

School, Baltimore, MD 11 

Prepared statement 112 

Prevention of lead poisoning requires reductions in exposure 119 

This legislation is timely and appropriate 122 

Additional comments 128 

Paper entitled, "Current Issues in Assessing the Health Risks of 

Lead," by J. Michael Davis 131 

Joseph SchifT, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 11 

Prepared statement 156 

Current activities 160 

Comments on the bill 167 

Conclusion 172 

Arthur Newburg, Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement & Poisoning Preven- 
tion, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 16 

George Peek, Chairman, NAR Working Group on Lead-Based Paint, National 

Association of Realtors, Washington, DC 19 

Prepared statement 174 

Introduction 175 

Lead hazard inspection tied to the point of sale of property 176 

Economic impact on housing values and affordability 177 

Multifamily property 180 

Financial and lc^;al mcentives to encourage voluntary action on lead.. 181 

Creation of a lead testing and abatement infrastructure 183 

Public education 184 

Seller disclosure 185 

Duties of real estate agents 186 

Conclusion 187 

Don Ryan, Executive Director, National Alliance to End Qiildhood Lead 

Poisoning, Washington, DC 21 

Prepared statement 196 

Scope and severity of the hazard 197 

ThcSfrimary cause of the problem 197 

Historical backdrop 198 

Alliance support for S. 2341 198 

Provisions of S. 2341 which need strengthening 199 


00 (* 


^^^^^ 53-005-00 (* 

Digitized by ^ 



Don Ryan, Executive Director, National Alliance to End Childhood Lead 
Poisoning, Washington, DC— Continued 
Prepared statements— Continued 

Summary 202 

Harold Shultz, Assistant Commissioner for Legal Affairs, City of New York 

Department of Housing and Development, New York, NY 23 

Prepared statement 203 

Milan Yager, Legislative Director for Environment and Energy, National 

Association of Homebuilders, Washington, DC 24 

Prepared statement 205 

Lead exposure and the Nation's housing stock 206 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, S. 2341 206 

Need for a comprehensive lead exposure polipy 207 

Targeting a comprehensive lead exposure policy 208 

Achievable and cost-effective lead exposure policy 208 

Encouraging news 209 

Analysis of S. 2341 209 

Mandated abatement of intact lead-based paint 209 

Grants for abatement of intact lecul-based paint 210 

Testing (assessing) housing units 212 

Public education and national clearinghouse 213 

Disclosure of lead hazard 213 

Conclusions 214 

Carroll Vinson, Chief Executive Officer, Insignia Financial Group, National 

Multi-Housing Council, Washington, DC 26 

Prepared statement 215 

I. Introduction 216 

II. A sound framework for national action 216 

ni. Need to emphasize housing affordability 218 

IV. Recommenoations for improvement 219 

V. Conclusion 225 

Gushing Dolbeare, Chairperson, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 

Washington, DC 26 

Preparedstatement 227 

Low mcome needs and lead-based paint hazards 228 

Provisions of S. 2341 230 

Conclusion 231 

Lisa Mihaly, Children's Defense Fund, Washington, DC 30 

Prepared statement 234 

David Jacobs, Environmental Research Scientist, Georgia Institute of Tech- 
nology, Atlanta, GA 31 

Prepared statement 240 

Karen Florini, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, 

DC 33 

Prepared statement 244 

Lead poisoning as an environmental problem 245 

The role of the Federal Government 247 

Regulatory issues 248 

Federal funding issues 250 

The Federal Government as modelproperty owner 251 

Nick Farr, Vice-President, The Enterprise Foundation, Columbia, MD 33 

Prepared statement 254 

William Ewall, Senior Contract Administrator, Cambridge Housing Author- 
ity, Cambridge, MA 34 

Prepared statement 261 

AUce Brown, Staff Counsel, NAACP L^al Defense Fund, New York, NY 36 

Prepared statement 266 

Introduction 266 

Lead poisoning: The need for legislation 268 

The proposed legislation 270 

Conclusion 271 

Miles Mahoney, President, Housing Environmental Services, Inc., Cambridge, 

MA jf 42 

Prepared statement 272 

HES and HARRG 272 

Short-term and long-term responses 273 

Guidelines for assessment and reduction activities 274 

Digitized by 




Miles Mahoney, President, Housing Environmental Services, Inc., Cambridge, 
MA — Continued 
Prepared statement — Continued 

HES experience 274 

Herbert Tasker, President, All Pacific Mortgage Company/Mortgage Bankers 

Association, Concord, CA 45 

Prepared statement 276 

Additional Material Suppued for the Record 

Denise Muha, Executive Director, National Leased Housing Association, 

Washington DC 279 

Prepared statement 280 

California Association of Realtors, Chuck Lamb, president 282 

Anne M. Sheehan, Chatham, NY, statement submitted for the record 288 

Digitized by 




Digitized by 


Digitized by 




U.S. Senate, 


Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs, 

Washington, DC, 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-538 of the Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Senator Alan Cranston presiding. 


Senator Cranston. This hearing roundtable will please come to 

I thank all of you who are on the panel and others present for 
your interest in this very important topic. 

We are here for the purpose of discussing S. 2341, the Residential 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, a bill designed to 
expand significantly the commitment of the Federal Government 
to reduce and eliminate lead-based paint hazards in older homes. 

Lead poisoning is the most serious environmental health problem 
facing America's children today. The Centers for Disease Control 
now considers over three million American children to have unsafe 
levels of lead in their blood — 17 percent of all children under the 
age of 6. 

It is really a shocking statistic and circumstance. 

In some inner city communities, the percentage of poisoned chil- 
dren exceeds 75 percent — ^virtually an entire generation affected by 
this debilitating disease. 

We now know that even low levels of lead poisoning can perma- 
nently damage the physical, emotional and mental development of 
a child. A victim can suffer irreversible learning and reading dis- 
abilities, reduced IQ's, shortened attention spans, h3rperactivity and 
hearing loss. 

The cumulative effects of childhood lead poisoning on our society 
and our future are sobering: low educational achievement, high 
dropout rates, diminished economic competitiveness. 

We also know that lead poisoning is caused primarily not by chil- 
dren eating paint chips in dilapidated buildings, but by children 
breathing and ingesting lead dust — generated through home ren- 
ovation and through common wear and tear of household paint. 

The simple act of a child wiping his hand on a windowsill and 
placing it in his mouth — an act repeated daily countless times 


Digitized by 


throughout this country — ^is a major conduit for ingesting lead 

Lead-based paint was used pervasively in America's housing 
stock before 1978 — ^the year such paint was banned. Seventy-five 
percent of all America's housing — 57 million homes — contain lead- 
based paint. Contrary to ordinary expectations, lead-based paint is 
just as common in the homes of the rich as the poor, in owner occu-*" 
pied housmg as rental units. 

The hazards of lead-based paint, however, are not distributed 
democratically throughout the housing inventory. HUD estimates 
that 3.8 million homes and apartments present priority risks — ^that 
is, are occupied by young children and have peeling paint, exces- 
sive amounts of lead dust, or both. 

Not surprisingly, victims of lead poisoning are disproportionately 
low income, minority children — children whose opportunities in life 
are already curtailed by extreme poverty, inadequate health care, 
substandard housing and poor schools. Yet children of any race or 
income strata are put at risk when lead-based paint is disturbed 
during the renovation of their homes unless proper precautions are 

I believe we are at a watershed in the national response to child- 
hood lead poisoning. After years of research, development and ex- 
perimentation, we have learned much about how to reduce lead 
hazards and are learning more all the time. 

We have the technology to assess housing for the presence of 
lead hazards. We know how to remove or seal in household lead 
without harm to workers or future occupants. Finally, we know the 
risks of do-it-yourself home renovation work and how these risks 
can be avoided. 

Despite this significant knowledge and expertise, and despite two 
decades of Congressional mandates, two decades, the Federal Gov- 
ernment still lacks a comprehensive, coherent and cost effective 
strategy to reduce the hazards of lead-based paint. 

Federally owned and insured homes — contaminated with lead- 
based paint hazards— continue to be sold to unsuspecting buyers. 
Developers across the Nation continue to use Federal subsidies to 
rehabilitate older housing and, in the process, increase the risk of 
exposure to lead hazards. 

State and local governments neglect to address lead concerns 
when formulating their comprehensive housing affordability strate- 

Only in public housing is HUD — ^under persistent prodding from 
Congress — ^implementing a full scale testing and abatement pro- 

Even reliable, easy to understand information for homeowners, 
landlords and renters — crucial to preventing lead poisonings — ^is 
unavailable in many areas of the country. And, perhaps most sig- 
nificantly, the infrastructure for carrying out assessment and re- 
duction activities — certified laboratories and contractors, trained 
workers, available financing and insurance — remains in what I 
think we have to call an infant stage. 

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 
would put an end to the indecisiveness that has characterized Fed- 

Digitized by 



eral action and get the Nation moving quickly on the most danger- 
ous lead-based paint hazards. 

The bill has five primary components. I will briefly summarize 

First, the bill would establish a $500 million matching grant pro- 
gram to make the Federal Government an active partner with 
cities, States and the private sector to assess and reduce lead-based 
paint hazards in non-Federal housing. 

Second, the bill would make the assessment and reduction of 
lead-based paint hazards an integral part of federally assisted hous- 
ing programs as well as State and local housing strategies. 

Third, the bill would require all properties sold by the Federal 
Government be lead safe. Direct Federal complicity in the poison- 
ing of our children must come to an immediate end. 

Fourth, the bill would incorporate far-reaching notification and 
assessment provisions for private real estate transactions. 

Finally, the bill would launch an aggressive education campaign 
to provide the public with accurate information about the nature of 
lead-based paint hazards and technical assistance on how to pre- 
vent them. 

I look forward to our discussion here this morning where I hope 
we can examine and refine this bill with representatives of the 
health, environmental and housing communities. 

The written testimony demonstrates that there is a wide range of 
opinion about the bill's general course and specific provisions. 

The administration decries the potential cost of the bill, despite 
the fact that vast costs are entailed in doing nothing, and questions 
the feasibility of moving so quickly, after the long delays we have 
already seen transpire. 

Others claim we are not doing enough and call for stronger 
action in various areas. Still others seem to fundamentally misun- 
derstand key provisions. 

Given this wide range of opinion of viewpoint, I urge you to 
sharpen the debate and make your disagreements and agreements 
with other witnesses known. I ask you to be candid and to give us 
the full benefit of your experience and your best judgment. And, 
most of all, I urge you not to be shy. 

Normally, Senate or House hearings are conducted with various 
witnesses testifying for 5 or 10 minutes and rotated from one to an- 
other for their time period. Then the members of Congress ask 

I find this roundtable approach that we are engaging in this 
morning is much more productive in terms of learning the facts, 
because it is just going to be a free ranging discussion. 

And I urge you who are on the panel to disagree when you feel 
you should, to state contrary viewpoints when you feel you should, 
come up with facts that are different if you have them, and support 
what is S€dd when you agree. 

That's the best way we can develop a consensus and the mem- 
bers of this committee can learn more than we presently know 
about this very difficult situation facing America's children and 
hence facing our society. 

Digitized by 


I would like to assure all witnesses that their written testimony 
will be included in the record in full. You don't need to go through 
long written statements that some of you have offered to us. 

Finally, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Wofford, has 
asked me to extend a special welcome to the Burke family, who are 
here today from Emmaus, Pennsylvania. Their story expresses 
better than any words of mine or any other witness the importance 
of our mission. 

Working together, we can and we must commit the Federal Gov- 
ernment to an aggressive, comprehensive and cost effective assault 
on the health tliureat imperiling our Nation's children and our Na- 
tion's future. 

I would now like to call on the ranking minority member of this 
committee. Senator Al D'Amato of New York, for any remarks he 
chooses to make. 


Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I commend you 
for holding this hearing and the manner in which you have made 
this opportunity available for those who are involved in the indus- 
try and in housing and in health care to become involved in this 
process in a meaningful way. 

I am pleased to co-sponsor the Residential Lead-Based Paint 
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and I am going to ask that the bal- 
ance of my remarks be included in the record as if read in its en- 

Senator Cranston. Yes, they will be. 

Senator D'Amato. I encourage those of our witnesses here to 
make known their concerns about certain elements of the bill 
known, and to also give their suggestions as to how we can improve 
the legislation so that we can take more effective steps to address 
this problem. 

Thank you. 


Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this second 
hearing on legislation to reduce the health hazards of lead-based 
paint in our Nation's housing stock. I would also like to congratu- 
late you for developing and introducing the Residential Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which I am pleased to co-spon- 
sor. I look forward to hearing the distinguished witnesses here 
today comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, the poisoning of a child by lead-based paint is the 
American Dream transformed into a vicious nightmare. The idea 
that the paint in a child's own home is robbing that child's ability 
to reach his or her greatest potential is truly awful. 

According to HUD, 3.8 million homes across America occupied by 
young children are hazardous because of peeling lead-based paint^ 
or lead dust. Because recent research indicates that even low levels 
of lead poisoning can damage the mental and phjrsical development 
of children, these figures underscore why health professionals are 
calling lead the nimiber one environmental problem facing Ameri- 
ca's children today. 

Digitized by 


We need to help children begin their lives and arrive at school 
ready and able to learn, not held back by a chemical ball and chain 
that is an unnecessary and avoidable as it is pernicious and tragic. 
Any threat to our children is a threat to our future as a strong so- 
ciety and Nation. Any threat to our children's health and mental 
development raises the specter of a m3n*iad of serious problems 
ranging from increasing health care cost to declining international 
economic competitiveness. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 2341 promotes our efforts to reduce lead haz- 
ards by creating a strat^c plan for how to focus our efforts, pro- 
viding resources to execute this plan, and establishing an education 
and awareness campaign to complement the overall plan. Specifi- 
cally, S. 2341: 

Authorizes $250 million for each of the next 2 years to assist State and loc€d gov- 
ernments identify and treat lead hazards in private housing. 

Builds a network of contractors and other technictd professional who are experts 
in the assessment and reduction of lead paint hazards. 

Launches a Federal campaign to educate the public about the seriousness of the 
lead threat and the practical steps that families can take to ensure that lead expo- 
sure is reduced in the home. 

Expands efforts to research lead hazards and develop methods for testing, contain- 
ment, and abatement. 

Tm sure that many of our witnesses today will want to discuss 
particular provisions of this bill and have concerns about certain 
elements of this bill. I encourage them to explain their concerns to 
us so we can improve this bill and take effective steps to address 
this problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman — I look forward to hearing 
what our witnesses have to say about S. 2341 in their testimony 

Senator Cranston. Thank you all very much. Senator Bryan? 


Senator Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the com- 
ments of Senator D'Amato and commend you on your leadership in 
convening this hearing and the selection of experts that we have 
available to us today. 

Consistent with tne theme that you have suggested, one of infor- 
mality, I would like to ask imanimous consent that my statement 
be made a part of the record and leave the time for our very distin- 
guished panelists to speak. 

But before concluding, let me just acknowledge the presence of a 
friend of mine and a constituent from Nevada, George Peek, whose 
testimony I have read, George, and have taken note thereof and 
look forward to hearing your comments and that of the other mem- 
bers of this very distinguished panel. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding this hearing 
today and that you have introduced legislation to raiuce the inci- 
dence of childhood lead paint poisoning. I am also pleased to see 
Mr. George Peek, of the Nevada Realtors Association, here to rep- 
resent the National Association of Realtors. George is chairman of 
the national association's subconmiittee on lead-based paint abate- 

Digitized by 


Lead in paint in housing constitutes the most intensive source of 
lead for young children. Lead is present in the daily environment 
of the child's home, school, shelter, or daytare center. Although 
HUD has taken some steps to diminish the hazards of lead-based 
paint in public housing, the Federal Government must take a 
stronger role in reducing the risk to children in federally owned 

Hazards from lead-based paint are estimated to be in approxi- 
mately 4 million homes with young children. A response to reduc- 
ing the risk of poisoning will require all sectors of the housing in- 
dustry and government to work together. I am glad to see repre- 
sentatives here from all facets of the housing industry here — ^HUD, 
realtors, homebuilders, consumers — ^to develop a policy that eradi- 
cates the hazard to children while taking into account all the inter- 
ests and impacts. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much, Dick. 

I have a prepared statement from Senator Riegle that I would 
like to add at this time. 


Senator Riegle. I would like to begin today by commending Sen- 
ator Cranston for taking on this very serious and persistent prob- 
lem of lead paint poisoning in housing. It has been almost a quar- 
ter of a century since the problems associated with lead-based paint 
hazards first became a national concern. In response to the serious 
health hazards— particularly among young children — ^that lead can 
cause, the Congress passed the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven- 
tion Act of 1971. The intent of the Act was to guarantee that no 
future generations of children have to suffer the consequences of 
lead poisoning. Yet, two decades later, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development has failed to adequately implement the 
Act. Today, the Centers for Disease Control estimate that more 
than 3 million children under the age of 7 suffer from lead poison- 
ing—or 1 out of every 6 children! 

If we were to look at an average American classroom, Tm sure 
we would find a significant portion of children that suffer from per- 
manent learning and reading disabilities, reduced attention span, 
hyperactivity, hearing loss, and anti-social behavioral problems in- 
cluding violence and delinquency. These are all symptoms of lead \ 
paint poisoning. A study published in the New England Journal of 
Medicine found that children exposed to low levels of lead demon- 
strated a six point drop in I.Q. scores compared to children not ex- 1 
posed to lead. The same study found that young adults that had/ 
been exposed to low levels of lead as children were six times more/ 
likely to have reading disabilities and more likely than average to 
drop out of school. 

Ctf the 57 million homes in the United States that contain lead 
paint, 10 million house children imder the age of seven. In my 
home State, the Michigan Department of Public Health reports 
that annually 2,000 children are identified with elevated blood-lead 
levels which can effect their long term cognitive abilities. These 
statistics and findings are a tragedy because lead poisoning can be 

Digitized by 


The administration contends that it is too expensive for the Fed- 
eral Government to eliminate lead hazards. But, I contend it is too 
expensive not to even try. There is no way to measure the impact 
of lead poisoning on our society in terms of lower educational 
achievement, special education costs, crime and law enforcement, 
welfare and health care costs, productivity loss, and loss of human 
potential. The findings by researchers that even small amounts of 
lead can cause aggressive behavior and learning disabilities, leads 
me to question whether lead poisoning may be a significant factor 
in the problems facing low income youths in our inner cities. I am 
very interested in hearing the thoughts of our witnesses on the 
impact of this environmental hazard in undermining the human 
potential of our young people and what is the most cost effective 
way to address this problem. 

Senator Cranston. Each of you have, I believe, an outline that 
we have prepared to sort of guide the discussion so that we don't 
stay overlong on any one aspect of it, because we have quite a few 
specific aspects that we hope to cover in the course of this session. 

I would like to start thus with an opening' set of questions for 
you to address, and again, I want to ask for a real give and take 
discussion in which agreements and disagreements are made clear 
for the members of the subcommittee and the staff representing 
members not present. 

First, what is your general perception of the bill from your per- 
spective? And there are different perspectives present. What is the 
most significant change in current law and practice that the bill 
will bring? 

Please discuss the provision you feel strongest about, either posi- 
tively or negatively. Tell us what we've got to change. Tell us what 
we've got to keep in. 

I would like to hear first from Toni and Tim Burke, who are 
seated on my left. I think their story provides an appropriate con- 
text for discussion of the lead-based paint issue and the particular 
provisions of this bill. 

It is good for you to come. 


Mrs. Burke. We want to thank you for inviting us, Senator Cran- 
ston. It means a lot to us to know that somebody somewhere is con- 
cerned about what has happened to our family. I don't want to get 
upset. The past couple of months for my family has been very, very 
difficult time. 

I have never testified before a subcommittee and I am a little 
nervous and I would like to bring that out. 

Senator Cranston. We are all just folks here, sharing problems. 

Mrs. Burke. We recently had our children routinely tested for 
lead exposure because we had heard that that is what the Centers 
for Disease Control calls for. 

It came out that our children both had lead poisoning. 

Anybody who has read our testimony sees that our house is in 
good repair. We could not understand how this could happen. 

The Board of Health C£une into our home, they tested it with an 
X-ray machine and they found these very high levels of flaking, 

Digitized by 



chipping and worn paint in the window wells. And they said that 
there was most likely lead dust around our house. 

There are fans in the windows and our children were probably 
continually ingesting this lead dust through normal hand to mouth 
activity that small children have. 

We called around looking for help. We bought our house FHA. 
We called around. We called the FIIA, the HUD, we asked them to 
help us. They wouldn't do it at that time. 

We got ourselves a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations. We 
found out that that code was violated when we were sold the house 
with defective paint surfaces. 

We went back to them again and they denied that there were 
any defective paint surfaces in our house. But these surfaces clear- 
ly have been defective for years. 

We were given inadequate warning as to how children get poi- 
soned, and that is in our testimony. The warning simply states 
"Don't let your children eat paint chips," only longer than that. So 
there was no reason for us to ever fear the defective paint surfaces 
because we believed that if our children didn't eat paint chips, they 
would be OK. 

Since this has all happened, we had to leave our home. We have 
been almost financially ruined. 

In the meantime, we are worried about our children and the fact 
that they both have been lead poisoned. And we don't know how 
this is going to affect them. 

We called the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. They^ 
were very helpful to us. Just to get hold of experts that could give \ 
us some idea about what was going on. We knew nothing about ^ 
this. Nobody told us an3rthing. 

We can't understand why somebody would not tell us. We know 
that they knew. We have reports back as far as 1980 that cites lead 
dust as a major cause of childhood lead poisoning. Why weren't we 
told that? 

We have come here today because we have read this bill and I 
really truly believe that if this bill had been enacted when we 
bought our house, we would not be here. Our children would not 
have been poisoned and we would not be losing everything that we 

We have had to borrow money out of our children's education ac- 
counts just to feed ourselves throughout this thing. 

In the meantime, the FHA continues to threaten foreclosure on 
us because we can't pay our rent and pay for the house at the same 

We believe we were sold the house fraudulently and we know 
this is happening to other people. We have met other people this is 
happening to. 

These children, my children, have been poisoned. My children 
may not be all they can be, and if this bill had been enacted in 
1989, my children wouldn't have gotten poisoned. We would have 
known to get the house tested. We would have known that children 
get lead poisoning other ways besides eating lead paint chips. 

We would have been aware of the actual — . We thought you get 
lead poisoning, you get sick and you get better. You know, the 

Digitized by 


warnings stated that there could be neurological damage, but we 
didn't believe that this affected people like us, middle-class people. 

I mean, the only thing we ever saw about lead poisoning was the 
poverty child eating paint chips in the commercial. 

We would like to see this bill passed. 

I don't know if my husband has an3rthing he wants to add. 

Senator Cranston. Let me ask you a couple of questions. 

When was the house built? 

Mrs. Burke. They don't even know. The house was built prob- 
ably before the turn of the century. They have no date. 

Senator Cranston. How long did you live in it? 

Mrs. Burke. 2y2 years. 

Senator Cranston. When did you leave? 

Mrs. Burke. December 5. 

Senator Cranston. Is the house empty now? 

Mrs. Burke. Yes. I didn't bring out in the testimony, after the 
Board of Health came and tested our home, we still didn't know 
what was going on. We started making phone calls, maybe we can 
get it fixed. 

We found out the cost of abatement is very high and there is no 
certification in Pennsylvania to get it done. 

We have no money. I mean, we have no equity in the home. We 
have no collateral. We couldn't get the loan if we wanted to. 

We also found out that abatement that is not done correctly 
could poison our children even more. 

The day that we decided to move out, the Board of Health came 
to our house and posted this sign on our front door. The sign states 
"Warning. This dwelling unit contains dangerous amounts of lead 
paint and is unfit for habitation by pregnant women and children 
under 6 years of age." 

My house is no different now than it was in June 1989 when I 
moved in there. It is no different than in May 1989 when the FHA 
went in and inspected that house. 

There is nothing different. We have pictures of the defective 
paint surfaces. 

How could they sell me a house and insure a house and say that 
that house was safe to live in if it is unfit for habitation by small 

They knew I had a child. My son was a year and a half old. He 
came with us to everything. 

The house is empty now and of course it will probably remain 
empty for a long time with that sign on the door. 

We also would like to state that the last piece of correspondence 
we received through Congressman Kostmayer from the FTIA gave 
us two options, and one option, they told us to sell the house, which 
is outlandish. And the other option, they told us to give them a 
deed in lieu of foreclosure, which would mean that we have lost ev- 
erything that we have ever worked for, and that our credit would 
be destroyed. 

Both of those things. And in that letter, nobody even stated that 
there was even the slightest bit of remorse for the fact that both 
my small children had been poisoned and that both my small chil- 
dren may have disabilities, learning disabilities, as a result of that. 

Digitized by 



Senator Cranston. At the moment, in addition to the problems 
connected with your children, you are having to pay a mortgage 
pa3rment on that house and rent somewhere else. 

Mrs. Burke. We have had to stop paying the mortgage, Senator. 
We cannot afford to pay the mortgage and rent. We have asked 
them to dissolve the mortgage and to reimburse us for our loss and 
to help us to get into a lead-free house that is safe. 

We believed that we were getting a safe Government-funded 
home that was safe for our children. We were led to believe that. 
And we believed that and we believed in our Government program, 
and our Government program didn't follow through with their re- 

Senator Cranston. Toni, thank you. You have made the situa- 
tion very dramatically clear. It affects not only you but a lot of 
other people, and Tm very grateful to you for your courage in 
coming. Tim? 

Mr. Burke. Thank you. I would like to echo what Toni said. She 
used the word "would." It wouldn't have happened if we would 
have been warned. 

I would like to change that to say, "we should have been," and 
that's really how I feel. 

It amazed me the data that we collected about lead paint poison- 
ing when we really set our mind to it, when we were faced with a 
situation where we felt like we had to find out as much as we could 
about lead-based paint hazards and about lead poisoning. In 3 or 4 
months, the data that we collected is amazing. 

What we found out through that is that a lot of other people 
knew 10 years ago, as you said in your opening statement. Decades 
ago they enacted laws about lead-based paint. 

That's why I say we should have been told. People knew and 
they neglected to tell us, and it is my personal feeling that the 
reason they neglected to tell us — ^they had a reason for doing that. 
Maybe it was money, maybe they felt the houses won't be sold, 
people won't buy them. 

I can honestly say if we were told the true hazards of lead-based 
paint at the time we looked at the house, either we would have had 
it tested or we wouldn't have bought it. We would have made sure. 
You just don't take a chance. 

I think that is evident by the fact that we risked our whole 
future financially just by moving out of there when we found out 
what we did find out. 

I can honestly say if this bill had been enacted before that, I 
know that it would have helped us. I agree with Toni we would not 
be here. 

And I think most parents would agree that your children's 
health is something that you don't take a risk with. 

Senator Cranston. When did you become aware of this danger? 

Mr. Burke. Mostly from the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poi- 
soning. We contacted them and they put us in touch with a lot of 

Senator Cranston. What made you aware that there might be a 

Digitized by 



Mr. Burke. We just had heard on the news that all children be- 
tween the ages of 9 months and 6 years should be tested, and so we 
had our children tested and they C£une back poisoned. 

And that's when we were aware that there was a problem. They 
found the problem in the home. 

Senator Cranston. Does anybody on the panel, Al or Dick, wish 
to ask any questions of them or comment on their statements? 


Dr. SiLBERGELD. I am Ellen Silbergeld from the University of 

I think the Burkes have said it eloquently with personal experi- 
ence. It is most important to underline because there is a kind of 
vicious perversion of truth that has been floating around recently, 
and that is that contaminated dust, which sdfects millions of 
houses in this country, and the Burkes are here in eloquent testi- 
mony for millions of other families throughout our cities and 
towns — ^there is a m3rth going around that dust now is the villain in 
this story and lead and dust, and there is an attempt to kind of 
detach this from lead paint or from other sources, as if the lead 
gets into dust from some extraterrestrial source. 

There are very good studies, and I cite them in my testimony, 
which demonstrate conclusively that the lead in house dust comes 
from lead painted surfaces, with very few exceptions, for instance, 
in close proximity to smelters, where there is an overwhelming 

But let's not get into creating a new m3rsterious cause of lead poi- 
soning called dust, because wli^t your bill does for the first time is 
move us toward that public health goal of primary prevention. 

And in this case we mean identifying and interdicting the pri- 
mary source of the problem. 

It is not sweeping up the houses of America. It is getting the con- 
tributing source of lead into house dust off the walls and woodwork 
of America. 

Senator Cranston. Yes, Al? 

Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, I have another subcommittee 
having taken place at this time also. I will not be able to remain in 
this hearing for its entirety. 

Fm wondering if the people from HUD, Assistant Secretary 
Schiff and Mr. Newburg — ^have you had an opportunity to review 
our legislative propos€d, as it relates to the kind of notice, et cetera, 
that would be required? 


Mr. ScHiFF. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you. 

We have done a preliminary review of the legislation. We would 
like to agree with the Burkes on a number of points that they 

Digitized by 



There is a distinct lack of consumer education in the market- 
place today. There is absolutely no question about that, and while I 
think it is improving in recent times, it still has a long ways to go. 

We are ourselves in the midst of revising all of our disclosure no- 
tices to review knowledge that has recently come to the fore. 

We agree with the chairman when Senator Cranston said earlier 
that while we have knowlec^e today about what can be done, the 
knowledge is constantly evolving. It is a very evolving field, and we 
are concerned that we get the latest information out to people. 

The most recent draft that we are working on right now to revise 
our notification, in fact suggests to people that if the information 
given to them is more than 1 year old, that they should be seeking 
newer information. That is how rapidly information is evolving. 

I believe the disclosure for the Burkes was printed in 1987, and 
frankly, an awful lot has transpired since 1987. We are in the proc- 
ess right now of updating the acceptance of dust not as the villain, 
because it is not the villain, but as a vehicle — is of relatively recent 
vintage as far as the importance of it. 

It has always been known that dust can transmit lead and that 
people can ingest lead through breathing and through the dust in 
their homes, but I think the importance of dust to this issue is of 
relatively recent vintage. 

We are recognizing that and trying to deal with it. 

We are also concerned with the lack of an infrastructure. I, as 
you know. Senator, represent the Department in the area of public 
and Indian housing. We have gone a lot further in the area of 
public and Indian housing than we have in privately owned hous- 
ing. Public and Indian housing authorities report to us difficulty 
with finding qualified contractors to help them in either the testing 
or the abatement of lead-based paint. 

We are very concerned with the state of the infrastructure in 
this particular situation. 

Senator D'Amato. Can you be a little more specific? 

Mr. ScfflFF. Sure. 

Senator D'Amato. As it relates to the legislation and the require- 
ments that would basically prohibit the sale of FHA housing unless 
it was certified to be a home that did not present a hazard from 
lead. What are your feelings with respect to that? 

Isn't that really the key area that we are looking at as it relates 
to HUD? 

Mr. ScHiPP. It is one of the key areas, certainly. One of the ques- 
tions to ask is 

Senator D'Amato. Mr. Schiff, don't give me a dissertation, and 
answer whether or not you support that key provision as it relates 
to certification. The provision that would prohibit FHA and HUD 
from selling homes with lead hazards. Alright? 

Mr. Schiff. That's correct. 

Senator D'Amato. So? I want to hear from you what position, if 
any, you take as it relates to that. 

Mr. Schiff. We are very concerned about the projected $280 mil- 
lion a year cost to the FHA fund for implementing that. 

Senator D'Amato. Take a look at the case of the Burkes. Right? 

Mr. Schiff. Right. 

Digitized by 



Senator D'Amato. First of all, it would seem to me that without 
them having to go prove their case, certainly there is a moral obli- 
gation. They would get thrown out in a court of law. It may cost all 
kinds of money. They would have to get free counsel, et cetera. 

But I think the FHA has a responsibility. 

Now obviously, if they took responsibility in the Burke case, 
there would be other cases that would come to the fore. 

As a moral situation and legally and ethically, we are basically 
telling people you can go in, this house is OK. And it really is not. 
And through no fault of their own they find themselves in this 
tragic situation. 

I want to recapture, try to recapture the eloquence and the 
drama and the heartache that has taken place to the Burkes. 

Certainly I think you ought to take a look individually to see 
what you can do to hold them harmless and take that house. Look 
what a Catch 22 this situation creates. Now the Board of Health 
comes in and says it's unfit. 

Are they supposed to pay the mortgage on a house that is imfit 
for their children to live in? Are they supposed to sell it? How can 
you sell it? Who is going to buy it? 

They would be, in effect, perpetuating the same kind of situation. 
This is Catch 22 for them. 

But there are many other potential "thems," and there are many 
other children, so let's get to the heart, and don't tell me about the 
$280 million dollar price tag. Indeed, if that has to be part of the 
cost of certification for getting Federal housing insurance, then 
maybe that's what it has to be. 

But are you going to simply say that we're going to continue 
business as usual? Are you satisfied with the status of the law as it 
exists today in terms of protecting people? Do you think it is suffi- 

Mr. ScHiPP. I think we need to get new regulations out, which we 
are working on, and we will continue to work on, and we will have 
new regulations out both this year and next. 

Senator D'Amato. When? 

Mr. ScHiFF. To deal with all of our program areas. 

Senator D'Amato. I really don't care about your other program 
areas. I can only do one thing at a time. 

Right now I am talking about this regulation. When? This isn't 
new. We have been around here, around these tables now for quite 
a while. 

Can you give us a comment as it relates to the legislation that 
we call for here? 

Mr. ScHiFF. Senator, we are talking about the sale of HUD- 
owned properties, the $280 million figure I mentioned. If we are 
tcdking about the Burkes' situation, I don't believe they bought a 
HUD-owned property. 

Senator D'Amato. FHA insured. When people hear FHA insured, 
isn't there something that goes along with that? If the FHA is 
going to insure it, it would seem to me that if you have a lead- 
based problem, you better understand what that entails before you 
give the insurance. 

Digitized by 



Otherwise you are going to have many more of these situations 
as people become more educated on this issue. Lots of people walk- 
ing away from properties, et cetera. Lots of foreclosures, et cetera. 

And I don't know how prevalent that is but the fact of the 
matter is it is a very real situation. 

It really comes down to the same thing. What are we going to do 
as it relates to that? 

Mr. ScHiFF. Absolutely. As the chairman mentioned in his open- 
ing statement, we estimate that there are 57 million homes in 

Senator D'Amato. Tm not talking about 57 million homes. Tm 
talking about that process where you have an FHA insured house. 
Are you going to require any kind of certification? Are you going to 
keep the same kind of standards, rules and procedures? Are you 
going to do an3rthing about it? 

Mr. Newburg. Sir, the change that is contemplated in the regu- 
lations that would affect them would provide a much better notice 
of the nature of the hazard, so that informed buyers could make 
their decision that they should not buy a house of that kind. 

It will disclose the question of dust. It will say that even sound 
paint on windows and doors can be a source of the dust which can 
lead to the poisoning. 

It will give an opportunity and will suggest that if this house has 
been built before 1978, they should in fact get a lead test to deter- 
mine whether they should undertake that risk or not. 

Senator D'Amato. I have gone past my time. 

Senator Bryan. Go ahead, Al. 

Senator D'Amato. I don't understand what you said. 

Are you satisfied with the statistics on lead paint and the related 
illness that govern today? I am reading from the HUD disclosure 
notice — ''The house you are purchasing may contain substantial 
amounts of lead.'' It tells parents to watch out for lead poisoning, 
and tells parents what to do if they see their child eating paint 

You're not satisfied with that, are you? 

Mr. ScHiPP. No, sir. Not at all. 

Senator D'Amato. In the sale of FHA insured homes should 
there be some kind of undertaking that would go further than the 
current insurance program? 

Mr. ScHiFF. Yes. The disclosure should be much more detailed 
than what we have today. 

Senator D'Amato. Should there be certification as it relates to a 
house being lead free or not presenting a hazard? Can there be 
some certification that is required? 

Mr. ScHiFF. I think that is between the buyer and the seller to 

Senator D'Amato. Buyer and the seller? And what about the in- 
surer? I mean, look, if you have a buyer and a seller, that's one 
thing. But it seems to me that if you add in there the ingredient of 
the FHA, the Federal Government backing that up, it is more than 
buyer /seller. It is buyer /seller and the guy ultimately who is guar- 
anteeing the payment of that mortgage. 

The bank sells. It is the Federal Government that is providing 
the guarantee. 

Digitized by 



Mr. ScfflPP. We are insuring the bank will receive their repay- 
ment. You are correct. 

Senator D'Amato. Sure. And if, indeed, there is a substantial 
defect in this home, that is going to affect the likelihood of a fail- 
ure for the bank to receive its pa3rment. 

Now you can't forget about that. 

Mr. ScHiFF. Correct. 

Senator D'Amato. This is kind of a new area for me but it 
shouldn't be new for you. 

Mr. ScHiFF. Senator, I am involved in the public and Indian 
housing, not in the area of 

Senator D'Amato. We are talking about the same situation, 
whether it is Indian housing, or FHA. 

Do you see where the Government has a very real responsibility 
and a financial stcJce, not just a moral responsibility but a real n- 
nancial stake, as well? 

Mr. ScHiFF. Absolutely. We have a financial stake. 

Senator D'Amato. So? 

Mr. ScHiFF. So I think what we should be doing is disclosing the 
situation much more so to the buyers, and allowing the buyers and 
sellers to negotiate how to handle the situation if one exists. 

Not all homes built before 1978 had lead-based paint in them. 

Senator D'Amato. In the case of an FHA-insured home or mort- 
gage, shouldn't there be some kind of insurance so that we don't 
have the kind of problems that Mr. and Mrs. Burke have run into, 
before they buy? 

Yes or no? Do you think there should be? 

Mr. ScHiFF. My question would be, should it be an all housing 
transaction, not just FHA. 

Senator D'Amato. You are obfuscating the situation. You are 
just putting up a straw dog over there, a straw man, so that all of 
the industry can say "What, are you crazy?" 

Mr. ScHiFF. I don't believe so. why should not all families bu3ring 
homes be safe from lead-based paint, reg€urdless of the financing? 

Senator D'Amato. I understand that. I'm trsring to make one 
inch of progress. I'm trsring to find out whether or not, in case of 
an FHA insured mortgage, where there is a very real direct Gov- 
ernment relationship, they should not require that it be free from 
the kind of contcunination that the Burkes have run into? 

Mr. ScfflPP. I don't think anyone should have to suffer what the 
Burkes have had to suffer, whether it be an FHA buyer, a conven- 
tional buyer or any other kind of buyer. 

Senator D'Amato. Should there bie, as part of a requirement for 
FHA insurance, a certification that would preclude the sale of a 
home that had the same kinds of conditions that the Burkes' home 

Mr. ScHiFF. Senator, if we put this all in FHA, and I assume you 
would do the same with VA homes, in my humble opinion what 
you would end up doing is shutting down the FHA and VA pro- 
grams because I do not believe the sellers would abate, given the 
cost of abatement and given the lack of an infrastructure. 

It would shut down the programs. That's whv I say it is a realis- 
tic approach. You've got to look at the entire housing market, not 
just this program. 

Digitized by 



Senator D'Amato. We're getting to the point of view that hereto- 
fore you seemed reluctant to express. It just took a lot of time to 
get you to reach that far and I wish you had said that when I first 
raised the question. Tm not saying to you that that may not be a 
very realistic point of view. 

But let's get it out. And then what do we have to do to address 

I have taken entirely too much time, but I think it certainly is a 
central issue. 

Senator Cranston. Tm glad you did what you did. 

Let me review the matter of the regs. IVe just been handed a 
note that describes what has been occurring about getting regs out 
of HUD. 

We have been waiting for the upgrade for a long time. The regs 
are hopelessly out of date, as we all know. They rely on rejected 
notions of what the cause of the lead-based paint poisoning is. 

In October 1991, Assistant Secretary Weicker told this subcom- 
mittee that the administration would complete its work on upgrad- 
ing the regulations late last year. 

Last month we were told that the regs would be ready by the 
spring of this year. And now, Secretary Schiff tells us that the de- 
tailed changes will not be available until late this year and 1993. 

When can we get the regs? Why does it take so long? Why does 
the date keep being shoved over? 

I am delighted you are here, Mr. Newburg. Mr. Newburg is head 
of the new Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning 
Prevention, and I would like to hear what you would like to say in 
answer to the questions that are already before us that Al and I 
and the plight of the Burkes have made very plain. 


Mr. Newburg. When the Office was formed 

Senator Cranston. Move the mike up, please. 

Mr. Newburg. When the Office was formed, and I assumed di- 
rectorship of the Office, it was clear that the first thing that we 
had to deal with were the regulations. 

And in examining why there had been delay, there is honest dis- 
agreement among the professionals in housing as to whether or 
not, if we centered the changes on the Federal programs, that they 
would be shut down. 

But even in the face of that, we thought that we could break the 
regulations into several parts and deal with the most urgent and 
get them out, and most quickly deal with the changes in knowledge 
that have occurred since last written, and deal with the corrections 
that might lead people to abate in an unsound way. 

And our Office has been working on that, is working on it, and 
we expect that that first part which deals with the major threats 
and deals with the information that should be made available to all 
people, will be out this summer. And we are working very hard on 

Digitized by 



And then we are going to try to move through the program and 
deal with the parts where the Federal Government has some con- 
trol over the budget. 

Public housing is a clear place where we can move on that. 
There are other assisted programs that we will have the opportuni- 
ty to discuss. Then we will try to wrestle with the very difficult 
problem of what are we doing to affordability of housing. 

My understancUng is that the Burkes paid about $62,000 for their 
house, and from their research, they thought that it might cost 
$10,000 to abate. 

Mrs. Burke. More than $10,000. 

Senator Cranston. What estimate did you get? 

Mrs. Burke. Senator, we couldn't get an estimate. To get an esti- 
mate we probably would have had to pull somebody in from an- 
other State and we didn't have the money to do that. 

I know that we called a man in Atlanta, Georgia who is a lead 
abater who was also a personal friend — ^we had met through this 
stuff, not a personal friend — and we asked him just to do the work, 
not counting the testing and removing the carpet and probably the 

It would probably cost $12,000. We have 23 windows, large old- 
house windows that are loaded with lead paint. Those are not the 
only surfaces in our home that would have to be completely re- 

And anybody who has bought windows knows how expensive it is 
to get new windows. 

Senator Cranston. Can I ask you? What can you do for the 
Burkes, given their situation in an FHA financed home? 

Mr. Newburg. I understand that the Department is going to 
meet with them. 

Mr. ScHiPP. We would like to meet after the hearing is over at 
our offices at the Office of Single Family Housing, which is in 
charge of the single family program, to see what can be done. 

The options that have been outlined today are inadequate. We 
have got to do much better for the Burkes. Exactly what can be 
worked out, I think we need to discuss with them and we would 
like to do that this afternoon if we could. 

Senator Cranston. Do you have any thoughts that we can hear 
now of what you might be able to do for the Burkes? 

Mr. ScHiPP. I would like to defer to the Office of Single Family 
Housing rather than someone from public housing suggesting what 
the Single Family Housing Department can do. 

I know that tnere are other options that can be explored, but 
they should be explored with the Burkes. 

Senator Cranston. Would you let Mr. Kantz of the staff know 
what has happened with the meeting with the Burkes? It is an ex- 
ample of what affects many more people than the Burkes. 

Mr. ScHiFF. I would be glad to talk to Bruce. 

Senator Cranston. We should focus now on the actual bill. The 
regs is one matter. The bill is another. 

And to repeat the advice we would like to get, what is the most 
important part of the bill that we should retain that will contrib- 
ute the most, part or parts? Are there any parts that you who are 
experts in this field feel should be changed and why? 

Digitized by 



And again, I want to hear differing viewpoints where they exist. 

Who would like to start a discussion of the actual bill? And Sena- 
tor Sarbanes will make an opening statement. 

And I would like to say, Paul, we had some very dramatic testi- 
mony from the Burkes, who are seated at our left, a family from 
Pennsylvania who bought a home with FHA financing, didn't get 
any warnings, discovered that there was lead-based paint problems, 
discovered their children had been affected by it and damaged, to 
what d^ree no one knows, by it. 

They had to get out of the home. They weren't able to continue 
the mortgage pa3rments and rent on a new home so they have had 
a very, very difficult situation. 

And that's just an example of what is facing many, many other 
families in our country. 


Senator Sarbanes. I will just tcdce a moment. 

First of all, I apologize to the Burkes for not being here to hear 
their testimony, but I have to say to you this is not a problem with 
which I have not had experience. 

I have talked to many such families, particularly in Baltimore, 
but elsewhere in my State, who have been afflicted by the very 
problems you are talking about. 

I don't know that they were quite as deceived as you were, since 
you went in under certain assumptions. 

These are people who are living at risk all the time. 

So it is kind of a way of life, unfortunately, which is something 
we are trying very much to change in this legislation. 

And I want to commend Chairman Cranston for the lead he has 
taken on this legislation to develop a comprehensive national strat- 
^y to identify and abate dangerous lead paint in housing, prevent 
child lead paint poisoning, and I am pleased to join with Alan, as I 
know my colleagues have been co-sponsoring this legislation. 

Actually, I was a member of the House of Representatives some 
20 years ago when we passed the original Lead Paint Poisoning 
Prevention Act. That was back in 1971. 

And I have grown increasingly concerned and alarmed over the 
years by our inability really to bring this— to master this problem 
and bring it under control. 

I do want to say a few words about the pioneer work that has 
been done in Maryland on this issue. 

We have two distinguished Marylanders at this roundtable who 
have done a great deal, Nick Farr of the Enterprise Foundation 
and Ellen Silbergeld from the University of Maryland. Where is 
Ellen? I don't even see her. Oh, there you are, Ellen, hiding behind 
the reporter — ^who is a very respectod expert on the hazards of lead 

I'm delighted that they are here along with the other members 
of the panel. 

We have been trying at the State level to address this problem, 
and we have one of the few active State-wide coalitions in the coun- 
try that is working on it to try to find approaches to deal with 
childhood lead poisoning. 

Digitized by 



It is a coalition that has been working with the landlords, with 
health experts, with housing advocates, and they are now in the 
process of trying to develop a State strategy in Annapolis. 

I am pleased that a good friend of mine, Clinton Bamberger, a 
very distinguished lawyer, former head of the legal clinic at the 
University of Maryland Law School — ^he was on the Board of the 
Maryland Coalition Against Childhood Lead Poisoning — ^is here 
with us today and in the audience. 

So Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you again for this hearing. 
We used the same format when we ^ally put together the Afford- 
able Housing Act. It worked very successfully then and I am hope- 
ful it will work as successfully in this instance and we will be able 
to move this legislation in this Congress. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 

To get the discussion of the bill started, I would like to ask 
George Peek, who is chairman of the National Association of Real- 
tors working group on lead-based paint if you have any comments 
on the bill. 


Mr. Peek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to 
be here and to present the comments from the Nationial Associa- 

Senator Cranston. Could I interrupt for one moment? Senator 
Sarbanes suggests that Clinton Bamberger, who is a distinguished 
lawyer from Baltimore and is on the Board of the Maryland Coali- 
tion Against Childhood Lead Poisoning, come to the table and join 

Please proceed now, Mr. Peek. 

Mr. Peek. Thank you. 

We view the situation, of course, as a health issue and not neces- 
sarily as a housing issue, and in many instances we are being 
asked to solve the problem. 

We feel that our assistance can be used in many instances, but 
we don't feel that the situation of every time a house changes 
hands that a mandatory abatement is necessary. 

We feel — and I think that the Burkes eloquently put it — ^if they 
were informed properly, they wouldn't have done what they did. 
This is the view that we are taking, that mandatory disclosure be 
made as opposed to mandatory abatement. 

Our statistics show — and it really is something that is a guess 
anyway— that it would take 25 to 40 years with homes changing 
hands to do total abatement anyway. The atrrisk category has to 
make their own decisions and it has to be placed graphically in the 
disclosure of what can happen so that that decision can be honestly 
made, whether they want to buy that home, who is going to pay for 
the abatement, and again, how much it costs. 

My written testimony shows that all homes concerned can be as 
high as over $600 billion for abatement, a cost Tm not sure that we 

Digitized by 



could afford all in one hit. A period of time, through the disclosure 
process and the like, I think can handle that. 

Also, the education portion. Through public education, and we're 
not in an area in Nevada where this is a major problem, however, 
the Burkes were put on to this through advertising, I presvune on 
television or some other means. But it is something that people 
have to be educated on. 

Again, we are for the disclosure. And in the leasing, rental hous- 
ing, multifamily housing, it is a major problem. In subsidy housing 
and the like. 

Our position is that in this type of housing, that again, disclosure 
be made as soon as possible, possibly even mandated under the act, 
and people be given the opportunity for recision at that time, even 
if they have signed a long-term agreement. 

Other items in the bill that we do like is we like to see the test- 
ing of the children. We think that that is important to detect it at 
an early time and I think it would also give some assistance in 
finding out where the problem comes from. 

It was also mentioned how long — or how much money it would 
cost. And a later question, how long is it going to take. Well, I see 
it is going to take 3 to 5 years to gear up in both the testing and in 
the area of abatement and have qualified individuals do this. 

I don't think we've solved where the hazardous waste is going to 
wind up. 

Other possible solutions mentioned in the bill that we like is that 
lead-safe concept, as opposed to abatement, which may be much 
more cost effective. 

Encapsulation, in many instances, I think, will solve the prob- 

Again, we don't feel like that we should be the policemen for a 
health issue. We believe we do have a responsibility to inform the 
public, as an agent of a seller, concerning the hazards. 

Also, I think it should be pointed out that not all homes are sold 
with an agent. And so that again brings back the idea of education 
where people are necessary, particularly targeting the at risk cate- 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. I want to try to give 
other people plenty of opportunity. 

And Senator Bryan wished to make some remarks. 

Senator Bryan. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to another hear- 
ing, but I wanted to follow up on Mr. Peek's testimony and ask a 

George, I would presume, and I do not know the situation with 
respect to the Burkes' sellers, but we own a home in the District of 
Columbia that's over a 100 years old. 

If I were asked, today, does that home have any lead dust, any 
lead paint that might be hazardous, I don't honestly know the 
answer. Bonnie and I have our children, they're older, they're 
adults, so clearly our focus of concern is much less so than the 
Burkes' have a very tragic situation. 

How does disclosure alone solve the problem, if indeed, the seller, 
the transferor of the house, himself or herself, has no knowledge 
that they have a problem? 

Digitized by 



Don't you have to have some kind of inspection? Because not 
every old house has the problem, as you point out. 

Embellish, if you will, what your view is of the disclosure re- 

Mr. Peek. Senator, in the instance you're speaking of, you, as a 
buyer, would receive a disclosure form. Since the age of the home 
is a 100 years, it would be presumed that it has lead-based paint in 
it, just by its age. 

Then, you have to make the decision, you, your age, Bonnie, her 
age, not anticipating any children, it doesn't make any difference. 
We are not an at-risk category. Read the pamphlet. Say, I don't 
care, I will live with it, I am not at risk, my wife's not at risk. My 
children and the period of time that maybe my grandchildren 
might spend in there, I don't feel at risk. 

These are decisions that have to be made. But the disclosure has 
to graphically point out what the risk is. 

Senator Bryan. So disclosure, as you view it, would not be disclo- 
sure with respect to the condition of the house, but disclosure with 
respect to what the risks are if indeed there is a lead problem in 
that house. 

Mr. Peek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cranston. May I call, please, now on Don Ryan. He's 
Executive Director of the National Alliance to End Childhood Lead 
Poisoning, and I'd like very much for all of us to hear your view- 


Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would join in the remarks of the homebuilders that we can't 
bite this all off in one bite and chew it. 

At another level, I think estimates of $600 billion as the total 
cost of abating the lead surfaces in this country are counterproduc- 

As I see it, the beauty of this bill is its enlightened approach 
which, for the first time, lays out a path down which we can begin 
to start making progress. 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, we have the housing industry now 
saying this is a health problem and they don't want to be hung 
with it. 

For the past 20 years, lead poisoning has been called a housing 
problem, and it has been a nuisance level housing problem, and it 
has received virtually no attention. 

We have missed the boat with lead poisoning in this country, and 
not by a little bit; we've missed it by a lot. 

We are currently sitting dead in the water. We need a piece of 
legislation and an enlightened approach which is going to make 
progress possible. 

And I think your bill, and its basic framework it establishes, goes 
a long way in that direction. 

Digitized by 



The current statute, as it stands, really takes an all-or-nothing 
approach. It focuses on the presence of lead paint, and it implies 
that full and immediate abatement is needed. 

And under this framework, nothing is happening, aside from the 
statutory requirements in public housing, and aside from a few 
random, but very expensive, court cases. 

We have ten times more victims out there than we had 6 months 
ago, based on the CDC guidelines change. The whole system is 
heating up here, and getting ready to explode. 

I think your bill, which discriminates between lead hazards and 
the existence of lead paint, and validates the proper role and the 
inevitable need for interim controls as well as full abatement, goes 
a long ways in that direction. 

We need disclosure, we need public education, we need public 
service announcements on the television, but we need much more. 

And we need the Federal Government to take responsibility and 
to send the proper signals across the whole housing world, by 
taking an array of strategies in federally assisted housing, which 
can differ, based on the degree of hazard. Which would differ, 
based on the immediacy of the Federal role and responsibility. 

Senator Cranston. Is there anything you would change in the 

Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir. I would recommend that the bill be strength- 
ened in a number of ways. 

Let me comment on just two, if I could. 

First, I would like, in commenting on these, to draw the distinc- 
tion in terms of the Federal role. 

With property disposition, with federallv owned housing, the 
Government is the owner, the landlord is selling that property and 
forever relinquishing control over it. That is the extreme case. 

And in this case, I think it is the Government's obligation to un- 
dertake an inspection and a full abatement of those properties. 

With respect to FHA and other insurance programs, the Alliance 
sees that the Federal Government's role is at arm's length, if you 
will. I think, at this earlv stage in the ball game, the requirement 
to abate every home that's undergoing FHA insurance, would 
choke us all. 

And in that situation, and keeping in mind that every FHA in- 
sured home is a potential future foreclosure and federally owned 
property, I think there should be an inspection and the occupants, 
the respective buyers notified of the haz£u-ds. 

And an inspection means a house-by-house inspection, not a boi- 
lerplate theoretical piece, if your house was built before 1978, 
there's a chance. 

Senator Cranston. Do you know, or does anyone else on the 
panel know how the European countries deal with this problem. 

Dr. SiLBERGELD. Yes. I've been working with the lead poisoning 
prevention program that's recently been set up in the city of Paris 
in connection with the universities of Paris. And they, in continen- 
tcd Europe, are only beginning to realize the nature and depth of 
the problem that they're confronting. 

At present, they have absolutely no connection, which your bill 
is trying to forge and which Congress and many agencies have over 
the last two decades, they have no connections between public 

Digitized by 



health and health care delivery, and environmental follow-up, in 
terms of source identification and assessment. 

In Paris, children who are identified as being lead poisoned, even 
if they are admitted to hospital for chelation therapy with very 
high levels of exposure, are then sent back to the same housing. 

Senator Cranston. Td like to call on a member of the panel, 
who's been seeking recognition, Harold Shultz, who is Assistant 
Commissioner for Legal Affairs in the city of New York Depart- 
ment of Housing and Development. 


Mr. Shultz. Thank you, Senator. 

What I, in terms of general perceptions, what I would like to 
focus on, for the moment, is the question of the tension between 
lead paint abatement and affordability of housing. 

I think we all agree that we have to act on the lead paint hazard. 
I think we also all agree that the resources for that are very limitr 
ed to do so. 

Your bill proposes $250 million worth of authorization. While I 
don't want to get into a numbers game as to what the amount is 
that's actually needed, I think we can all agree that $250 million is 
just a start toward that. 

Our estimates for what it would cost in New York City approach 
that number for New York City, alone. 

Our concern is, and Td like to focus for a minute on rental, 
rather than sale of buildings, is that the bill is not sufficiently tar- 
geted toward those cases where the limited resources that we have 
available should be focused. 

The bill seems to require an assessment of every apartment 
that's being rented in the private market, whether or not there are 
children going into that apartment, whether or not there's an atr 
risk population. 

We're concerned that this dispersion of resources will take away, 
will restrict our focus on those places where the children at risk 
are going to be going into. We're going to spend a lot of time testr 
ing, and I believe we're going to wind up spending a lot of time 
abating in apartments and in houses in which there are not chil- 
dren at risk, or in which there are not children at all. 

And what resources we do have to do this are always going to be 

They should be focused on lead hazard reduction and abatement 
in those situations where there's the greatest risk for children. 

And that focuses, also, on the question of affordability, too, be- 
cause the problem that we have is that whatever it costs overall, 
we know that it costs thousands of dollars per apartment to do lead 
paint abatement. 

And we have estimates that it could possibly raise the rental of 
an individual apartment to turn over by $100-$200 a month or 

And that is going to restrict the availability of those apartments 
to people who need affordable apartments. 

Digitized by 



With regard to that, portions of this bill redirect existing pro- 
gram money in HOME and HOPE and other programs into lead 
paint abatement, where the result is that, since there is no addi- 
tional money in those programs for lead paint abatement, it's 
simply going to reduce the amount of housing funds that are avail- 
able under those programs. And we will, as a result, have less af- 
fordable housing. 

Senator Cranston. Td like to call on Mr. Yager, who represents, 
he's Legislative Director for Environment and Energy of the Na- 
tional Association of Homebuilders. 

Tm beginning to get quite a few of you who are now seeking rec- 


Mr. Yager. Well, Senators, I hear a number of general trends 
that are coming from the statements being made around the 
roundtable this morning. 

First off, I would encourage anyone looking for a new house, 
looking for housing, to consider new homes. Actually, new homes 
are more safe. [Laughter.] 

And, in fact, that would spur the economic recovery our coun- 
try's now experiencing. 

But in seriousness, we have a serious problem. I think that the 
thing that we might consider this morning is there are some com- 
ments being made around here that we all agree on. 

First off, the Burkes' statement, we ought to work off of that 
knowledge. They did not know that there is a threat, even if you're 
not eating peeling paint. So we ought to address knowledge. 

And we agree with the realtors and other people around the 
table suggested that there needs to be knowledge. Aiid that's a cost 
effective way of informing people of the risk. 

The second thing is that we ought to look at the fact that it's just 
not the presence of lead paint, but it's the deterioration. There may 
be disagreements about how much we address lead dust and where 
lead dust comes from, but it is the dust. 

And there are some cost effective strategies we can take to ad- 
dress the dust, because children digest the dust into their blood- 
streams much quicker. 

The third thing is abatement. We talk about it's nice to have 
mandatory testing, but the next question is, once you test, what 
good does it give you to know that there's a presence of lead if you 
can't abate it. 

In the case of the Burkes, we're talking about $12,000 or more in 
a $60,000 property. 

So I guess what we have to do is start targeting your legislation. 

No. 1, targeting, if there is going to be testing, targeting the testr 
ing only to those homes in which there's children involved. 

No. 2, it doesn't do any good to test if you can't have the funds to 
abate. The fact is that HUD has determined that of the 4.9 million 
tons of lead that was put in paint, over 80 percent of it was put in 
homes built prior to 1940. So, once again, we ought to be targeting. 

Digitized by 



How do we use those limited resources. We're not in an ideal 
world where we have unlimited resources to go in and test and 
abate all homes. So we need to start looking at strategies to get the 
real programs that will implement things that will actually help 
people like the Burkes. 

And that's targeting homes, that's better education, that's more 
research. The hotline in your bill's a good idea. The fact that it's 
just not the presence of lead paint, it's the deterioration of lead 
paint. And we ought to start targeting the legislation. 

Senator Sarbanes. Could I put a question on that point, maybe 
to Dr. Silbergeld, but anyone. 

Are we in agreement as to which population is at risk? Is it chil- 
dren under the age of what? 6? 

Mr. Yager. Approximately. 

Dr. Sn^ERGELD. Well, I think we run a risk, however, of sort of 
classifying the world into those at risk and those with no risk. 

Lead is 

Senator Sarbanes. That's what I was interested in. I mean, it 
used to be that flight attendants who did not themselves smoke, 
didn't think they were at risk. Now we have a lot of evidence that 
they're very much at risk, because they're in that environment, 
even though they, themselves, are not smokers. 

And so I want to be clear before we start constructing all these 
sort of frameworks for the at-risk population. 

Is it true that an adult couple that bu3rs a home that's got big 
lead paint problems, if there was a 3-year-old child, are themselves 
not at risk? 

Dr. Sn^ERGELD. No, it's not true no one is immune from lead. 
The factors that convey risk are the opportunities for exposure and 
then the response of an individual to the lead, once they've been 

Obviously, a lot of the normal behaviors of children place them 
at much higher probability of exposure, particularly to lead in 
dust, but adults living in contaminated homes also have higher 
blood lead levels, and there are effects of lead on the kidney, brain, 
heart, and the reproductive system of adults. 

I'm also very much troubled by this notion that we can somehow 
segregate the U.S. population into people who are childless and 
people who have children. 

Last summer, for example, I rented a house from a retired 
schoolteacher, and I took my children there for a month's vacation. 
Now that house I guess would fall in the category that some of the 
gentlemen at this table are talking about as a no-risk house. It's 
owned by a person who has no children and is in fact past child- 
bearing age. 

Yet, we know, at lead poisoning clinics in Baltimore, that a child 
can become poisoned in 30 days in a risky house. 

So I'm venr worried about the practicality of this kind of ideal 
world that they're constructing, whereby children never go from 
one place to another, and adults are totally immune to the hazards 
of lead. 

I share your concern, and I'm grateful you raised it. 

Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Vinson, I gather you were seeking recog- 
nition. Is that right? So I understand. 

Digitized by 




Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

And our primary focus being in the multifamily business is on 

First of all, I think the bill has been very well thought through 
and constructed. 

However, in order to make it more effective, and work, we do 
have some suggestions and some points of emphasis which, of 
course, is in our written testimony. 

However, a couple of the highlights that I wanted to mention 
today is, a focus on how the money is going to be spent. 

I think everyone who has spoken gets around to how much 
money can we spend, how fast, as an acknowledgment of the prob- 

One of the pitfalls that I see is the creation of a totcdly new in- 
dustry here, which are these people who will certify things. I be- 
lieve that we should very carefully examine some of the mecha- 
nisms that are in place, and attempt to use those in order to in- 
crease the efficiency of accomplishing the objective. 

We have HUD inspections. Perhaps additional — and Fm speak- 
ing of the affordable housing now, of course — ^but perhaps addition- 
al training and enforcement procedures there, in order to correct 
this problem, might be an alternative way to get it done in a more 
efficient manner. 

If you can do it more efficiently, we obviously can do it quicker 
and get it done better. 

We have the local public housing authorities. They have person- 
nel who are very helpful in these inspections. Their help can be en- 

If you create another industry of people, such as has been cre- 
ated by the environmental consulting firms who do the work on as- 
bestos, our personal experience has been, although they can be 
very helpful, they do, in a lot of instances, add an unnecessary 
layer and amount of cost to the work that needs to be done. 

There is a need for outside work in certain circumstances but I 
believe you can train your people to replace wallboard or cover 
wallboard, for example. I don't believe you need an engineer, who's 
going to charge $500 an hour, to do that type of work. 

Senator Cranston. I want to call on Gushing Dolbeare. She's 
been seeking recognition. She represents the National Low Income 
Housing Co€dition of Washington, DC. 


Ms. Dolbeare. Thank you very much. Senator. 

And I want to express my appreciation for the careful work that 
went into the drafting of this Ml and the bipartisan support which 
it's commanded. I think that's a very good st€ui;. 

Digitized by 



I think €dl of you that know the National Low Income Housing 
Co€dition know of our historic concern with the targeting of hous- 
ing assistance. 

And Fm mentioning it here primarily because it seems to me 
that this is one area where a little less targeting is probably appro- 

The reason we're so strongly in favor of targeting most housing 
assistance is because almost all the other critic^ housing problems 
are overwhelming the problems of low income people. Whereas 
here you have a problem that cuts across almost anybody who lives 
in an older housing unit. We're very strongly in favor of the ap- 
proach of the bill. 

There are a couple of things that Td like to point out that I don't 
think have been mentioned. 

One is the importance of shifting Federcd policy away from focus- 
ing primarily on the subsidized housing sector, because only about 
15 percent of the units that were built before 1978 are in subsidized 
housing stock. So the real problem's in the private sector. 

Second, and this gets to our concern with affordability and re- 
sources, the shifting away from full abatement to hazard reduction, 
which I think is veiy important. 

And third, the t3dng of this issue of lead paint to the comprehen- 
sive housing affordability strategy, so that every community, every 
participating jurisdiction, every community that receives HUD 
funds for any housing program, is going to have to submit that 
strategy and is going to have to include in that strategy an assess- 
ment of how much of a problem lead-based paint is, and how 
they're going to address that strategy. 

And finally, I think that we're responsible in part for the sugges- 
tion that an eligible use of HOME money be abatement, and we see 
in that some potential for things such as, for example, the setraside 
for community based housing organizations. 

I think it would be possible for many of these community based 
organizations to train local people in the community to go through 
their own neighborhoods and do hazard reduction S3rstematically on 
a house-by-house basis at relatively low cost. 

It seems to me that, in addition to the grants provided in this 
bill, the HOME money is an extremely useful potential source for 
that kind of thing. 

But I think the more important thing is that it's important, and 
this bill provides the framework, not to deal with this as a problem 
off somewhere separate from the other housing problems that exist 
for low-income people and others, but to tie it in together. 

Finally, if I may just quickly. The one thing that we would 
change m this bill, and that is that we think that because tenant- 
base subsidies reallv are to enable tenants under Section 8 voucher 
certificates to find housing in the private stock, that there needs to 
be a different standard for lead-based assessment, inspection and 
reduction for tenantrbased subsidies than there is for project-based 

And our suggestion there is simply that the bill recognize that 
there is that distinction and authorize HUD to establish different 
standards and different timetables for tenantrbased subsidies. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. Gushing. 

53-652 0-92-2 

Digitized by 



We've been joined by Senator Specter and Senator Bond. And I 
believe Fd yield to either or both of my colleagues if they have any 
comments they'd like to make. 


Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This problem of lead-based paint is one that we have talked 
about for some time, and it was becoming an increasing concern. 
And this hearing today, setting for the real dangers, I think is a 
very very important step forward. 

It's clear that the magnitude of the problem is different. It's 
greater than we had assvuned before. 

As some of the testimony that has been submitted points out, 
we're going to have to prioritize the available resources. We cannot 
get rid of all lead-based paint overnight. 

But we have to realize that there are a whole new area of dan- 
gers which affect all of us, but particularly younger children. 

And I commend the sponsors of this legislation, and ask to be in- 
cluded as a co-sponsor, because I think that we have learned and 
are learning a great deal about the risks. 

As the head of a family with a small child, who's lived in older 
homes, frankly, I had not realized the danger that might have been 
present there. 

It is, as Ms. Dolbeare points out, a problem that goes beyond as- 
sisted housing and can affect all of us. 

I think that the education is absolutely essential, as well as stratr 
egies for immediate risk reduction that can be taken, as quickly as 

And I am most interested to hear the views and the ideas of the 
people representing the organizations directly involved, as to how 
we can move most effectively and most efficiently while we contin- 
ue to provide funds, for example, for those who must have assist- 
ance to get into any housing, but we can use the available dollars 
to make sure that unnecessary risks are not present. 

And I will defer any further comments, and after my colleague 
speaks, look forward to hearing other views of those participating 
in the panel. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. Senator Bond. 

Senator Specter? 


Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I compliment Senator Cranston for introducing this legislation, 
and I'm pleased to join him as a co-sponsor. And I compliment the 
Chair further on arranging this kind of a hearing, which has so 
many advantages over the customary kinds of hearings which we 
have. I regret a late arrival and an early departure, but we have 
many many conflicting duties here. 

I am pleased to see that HUD will be meeting later today with 
Mr. and Mrs. Burke on their problem, of which I first became 
aware when Mrs. Burke attended an open house town meeting 
which I had in Allentown, last December 12, 1991. 

Digitized by 



My staff out of Philadelphia has been working with her. It's a 
very dramatic statement as to the tremendous dangers when you 
have children, 2 and 4 years of age, subjected to lead poisoning. 
This is a problem that I have seen a great deal of since my days in 
city government in Philadelphia, where the problem is of over- 
whelming importance. 

I think it worth noting that we have been making some real ad- 
vances on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human 
Services where the allocation to deal with this problem was raised 
from $3.95 million in fiscal year 1990, to $21.3 million in fiscal year 
1992. And we have caught the attention of the administration, be- 
cause they've come forward this year, on the President's submis- 
sion, of $40 million. 

So when Senator Bond accurately says there has to be a rise in 
priorities, we are moving in that direction. But there's a great deal 
more to be done. 

Finally, I want to thank Ms. Gushing Dolbeare, who's a long-time 
housing activist from Philadelphia, sdthough you can't tell it on 
her resume, she's a national figure now. 

I also note the presence of Gordon Gavanaugh, a Philadelphia 
lawyer, who came to the Bar at the same time I did, a year which I 
shall not mention, who's been a housing leader in Philadelphia, a 
city which has seen its share of housing problems but is producing 
some suggestions for improvement nationally on this important 

Thank you, Mr. Ghairman. 

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you. 

I wasn't clear from the comment whether being a Philadelphia 
figure is higher than or lower than being a nation^ figure. 


Senator Sarbanes. But I won't press the point. 

Senator Specter. I would say, Mr. Ghairman, that it ranks side 
by side with being a Baltimore figure, wherever that ranks as na- 


Senator Sarbanes. Now, that's a very political answer. 

Mr. Gavanaugh. Any comments on where a Philadelphia lawyer 
fits in there? 


Senator Sarbanes. I think we better cut this off. 

Now, a lot of people were seeking recognition. 

Mr. Yager. Senator, I wanted to go back to the question you had, 
about whether or not an older person's at risk. 

This is not an academic situation. There are 57 million units out 
there that have lead-based paint. 

If we were to require testing of all those units, not just when 
they're sold, but immediately, it would take 87 years at your cur- 
rent funding level of the $.25 billion a year. The fact is, we're not 
going to be able to go out and test them all. 

We also know, from HUD's own study that they gave this com- 
mittee, that 90 percent of pre-1940 homes have lead-base paint. 

The question we ought to assume here this morning is that every 
home has lead-base paint. Let's move on from there. Then what do 

Digitized by 



you do? Just to say that we're going to require mandatory testing 
doesn't solve the problem. 

I think what we need to be doing is talking about constructive 
strategies to move forward, instead of just saying, let's mandate 

Senator Cranston. I now recognize Lisa Mihaly, who's of the 
Children's Defense Fund. 


Ms. Mihaly. Thank you. Senator. 

The Children's Defense Fund is an organization, as many of you 
know, that exists to provide a voice in the public policy process for 
low income and minority children who otherwise don't have a voice 
of their own. 

These are the children in the families least able, like the Burkes, 
to fix the lead problem if they find one in their homes. 

We know that lead poisoning is completely and totally prevent- 
able. And it is unconscionable to us that we are allowing millions 
and millions and millions of children to be exposed to a substance 
which we know does them damage, and which we know is very 
hard, if not impossible, to treat. 

We commend you for taking a prevention approach and for be- 
ginning to address the housing end of this problem. 

I understand the point of view of the realtors. It is ultimately a 
health problem, but children live in homes. And if we don't remove 
the lead from the homes, we're not doing them any good. 

I think we have been distressed, as we've looked at the current 
public policy approach, it's one that I think perpetrates a cruel 
hoax on many families. 

We've put resources, as Senator Specter pointed out, into screen- 
ing and testing of children, so that we can say to a family like the 
Burkes were told, your children are in great danger, goodbye. 

That's what public policy now does for these families. Ajid we're 
very pleased to see that your bill begins to take an approach that 
would get at some of the roots of the problem. 

We're pleased that you are putting resources into abatement and 
hazard reduction. We're pleased that you're requiring notification 
and disclosure. Families, at the very least, have a right to know 
what's in their homes and to be told about the real risks. 

We do have a number of concerns that I'd like to point out, brief- 

The first that I would mention is we think that the targeting of 
the resources needs to be stronger. This is a different issue than 
Cushing's retargeting of subsidized and unsubsidized resources. 

In one of the list of the selection criteria that you would use to 
provide grants to communities is the question of whether the 
monies would go to help lower income families. 

We would like to see that raised to the very top of the list. This 
is a veiy limited amount of money. I'll get to that in a minute. We 
would like to see that go up. 

But what money is available should go first to help those fami- 
lies who otherwise would not have the resources to do the abate- 
ment themselves. 

Digitized by 



Second, as I mentioned, the dollars are just not enough. Whoever 
it was that said 87 years now, I don't know how to calculate wheth- 
er he's right. It might be 50 years or 150. 

There needs to be more money, and we would like to commend 
the approach taken by C!ongressman Cardin and others who are 
looking at some kind of a trust fund, some kind of insured source 
of income, so that there would begin to be enough funds to make 
sure that families who need abatements done in their homes can 
have access to resources to do that. 

Third, we would like to concur with the suggestions that have 
been made by the Alliance and other people, that the notification 
and disclosure provisions kick in immediately. 

There's no reason for families to have to wait two or three years, 
or dare I say, it might even be longer, before HUD issues the ap- 
propriate regulations governing the notification provisions before 
they can be told what's happening in their own homes. 

Last, I'd like to make a point that's come to my attention, look- 
ing at the examples in States like Maryland and Massachusetts, 
that this bill needs to address the fair housing implications of this 
kind of effort. 

One of the very distressing things that's happened in States with 
strong lead prevention and abatement programs is that we find 
large numbers of landlords and owners who are simply unwilling 
to rent to families with children, in direct violation of the Fair 
Housing Amendments of 1988. I'm sure that this is an issue that's 
going to require fights, litigation, all kinds of other efforts. 

But I would like to see you at least explicitly address in your bill 
that you want to clarify that having lead in your home is not a 
good reason to refuse to rent to families or to sell to them. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Jacobs, who is a scientist — ^we'U get a scientific viewpoint 
now. He's an environmental research scientist with the Georgia In- 
stitute of Technology in Atlanta. 

Thank you for being with us. 


Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. Senator. 

Mrs. Burke, I suppose I'm the one that you spoke to, when you 
called Atlanta. And it's always interesting to me to see what hap- 
pens with the advice that I give to the hundreds of families who 
contact me, asking, what shoiUd I do. 

And that's what I'd like to focus my remarks on, is what kinds of 
data, what kinds of information do homeowners, housing authori- 
ties, and building owners need to answer the question: what is my 
risk? What can I do now? 

While this bill has many strengths, and I won't take the time to 
belabor those, the thing that concerns me is that the bill tends to 
focus far too much on short-term risk reduction measures, and es- 
sentially retreats from the idea that we can finally reach abate- 

Digitized by 



I'd like to share with you some of the experiences that we've had 
in the Public Housing Program, where I have worked with a hous- 
ing authority risk retention group to develop both a short-term 
measure and long-term measure. 

The long-term measures in Public Housing Program is working 
quite well, now, I believe. That is they are fully abating their lead- 
base paint hazards during their comprehensive modernization pro- 
gram, during their gut rehabs. 

If you're going to replace your windows, for example, that's the 
time to take care of your lead paint problem most cost effectively. 
In other words, you do your abatement at opportune moments. 

It's become clear that that's not enough. We need to advise 
people what they can do in the short term, and that involves 
taking certain kinds of measurements, primarily on dust, but also 
in evaluation on the integrity of painted films, to make a determi- 
nation of what the risk is, and then to devise measures that can 
allow building owners to respond to those immediate risks. 

I wish to point out that intact paint doesn't stay that way. That's 
the unfortunate part. It continues to deteriorate, it continues to 
enter the dust. 

As Dr. Silbergeld mentioned, there's very clear evidence of a re- 
lationship between lead in the paint and lead in the dust and lead 
in children's blood. 

So I would encourage you to try and adopt, to try and encourage 
building owners, this is what I do, to encourage them to walk on 
both legs. That is, do certain things in the short term that will 
allow you to control the risk for now, but not stop there. That's not 
going to be adequate. 

In my written testimony, I've provided some data on some dust 
level measurements that we took in a public housing development. 
As a scientist, I need to tell you that the quality of research that's 
been done to determine whether or not these short-term measures 
really work, whether they control dust lead levels, is wanting. It is 
not very good quality. 

I have fifteen samples here that I've presented you. What they 
show, basically, is that the levels of lead dust reaccumulated. Now, 
they're still lower than what they started out with, but they went 
back up, even with an in- place management program. 

So there needs to be a lot more research done to determine how 
we can adopt feasible methods to control the risk in the near term, 
while also not giving up on the long-term goal. 

That process, that balanced approach I believe is working fairly 
well in public housing. 

Finally, two other points. First, on infrastructure development. I 
would like to mention to the Burkes that it is my own personal 
dedication to ensure that the five university training centers that 
have recently been named by EPA to get this infrastructure in 
place and to provide high quality testing to folks like you, I will 
work hard to ensure that that is done properly. 

But that infrastructure development is proceeding apace. The 
public housing demand has pushed that bv far. 

Finally, it's wrong to presume that all older buildings contain 
lead-paint. If we do that, we will end up squandering our scarce re- 
sources by abating non-leaded paint in many situations. 

Digitized by 



Thank you. 

Senator Sarbanes. FU call on three of you in a row. 

First, Ms. Florini, then Mr. Farr, then Mr. Ewall. 


Ms. Florini. Thank you, Senator. 

On beh£df of the Environmental Defense Fund, let me also con- 
gratulate you on the quality and thoughtfulness of this legislation, 
most provisions of which we strongly endorse. 

As several other speakers this morning have said, we think cer- 
tain provisions do require additional strengthening. And one of 
those that I would like to mention, in particular, is the notification 

There's been a lot of stress today, on behalf of virtually everyone 
who has spoken, about the need for getting information to people 
in a way that gets their attention. 

We are deeply concerned that the current provisions with respect 
to notification in the context of rented properties are not going to 
work, as they are currently drafted. 

It is appropriate and desirable to have a notification proviso in 
the le€ise. However, unlike people who are arranging for purchase 
of a house, in my experience as a tenant anyway, you don't sign a 
lease until relatively shortly before you're going to be moving into 
a property. 

At that time, you probably do not have either the time or the 
resources to arrange for a lead inspection of the premises, even if it 
occurred to you to do so. 

I think we have to recognize some fundamental differences be- 
tween the purchase of real estate and the rented of real estate, and 
in the kind of information that tenants need to have available to 
them, in order to take meaningful precautions against lead expo- 

Our concerns are further heightened by the fact that, as they're 
currently worded, the regulations requiring lead hazard inspections 
are very limited, have a lot of wiggle room that we are unfortu- 
nately confident that HUD will exploit in the wrong direction, and 
also don't kick in at all unless a number of findings are made. 

The way that's written, and given the administration's history of 
lack of enthusiasm for this sort of regulatory approach, I don't 
think those rwilations are ever likely to see the light of day. 

So we wouldf encourage you to make a number of changes, some 
of which we suggest. In particular, to make that regulatory notifi- 
cation process work much more effectively, because we agree with 
the importance of education as a critical component of this, as well 
as the ultimate abatement itself. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Farr? 



Mr. Farr. I will join in commending the committee, and particu- 
larly you, Senator, in introducing the first legislation that I ve seen 

Digitized by 



which thinks carefully about how you can prevent poisoning rather 
than deal with it after the child is poisoned. 

As I see it, for most for-sale housing, most ownership housing 
and most middle income housing, really good notice is the most im- 
portant thing. 

But for low income, very low income rental housing, it doesn't 
have any effect whatsoever. 

I don t have real statistics, but certainly on the basis of what^ 
we've learned in Baltimore, the vast majority of the children who 
are seriously affected by lead poisoning are low-income children 
who live in rental housing, privately owned rental housing. And . 
that is far and away the most difficult problem which you're trying/ 
to address in this legislation. 

It's very complicated because private owners own these houses. 
The houses have very low market values. The relationship between 
the cost of dealing certainly full abatement and the value of the 
house is such that it makes no economic sense for the landlords to 
do that, and their alternative is to abandon housing, which we're 
seeing beginning to occur in Baltimore, and I foresee it escalating 
all over the country. 

So an approach to dealing with at least what I consider to be the 
most serious health problem is a program that has to, in cities, be 
extensive, cost-effective, and enforceable. 

That probably means that, in the foreseeable future, it's not 
going to mean total abatement at the cost of $12,000, $15,000 in 
houses which are rented for $250 a month. 

It certainly does mean that cities need to be encouraged to look 
at this thing comprehensively. Education, risk assessment, and ex- 
tensive treatment of privately owned low income housing to make 
sure that the risk is substantially reduced, at least over the next 4 
or 5 years. 

I agree with Dave, although we argue about this quite a lot, that 
this kind of interim management or hazard control, in the short 
run, is a short run proposition, but it's an absolutely critical propo- 
sition if we're going to make any difference in this decade. 

The longer range effort, that is, to make the house lead-safe, 
which is a concept which I commend you for putting in the legisla- 
tion, is one which we really don't know very much about. 

I mean, as some of you know, in Maryland, there is an experi- 
ment going on which is being evaluated by the Environmental Pro- 
tection Administration, to test various approaches to substantially 
reducing the likelihood of lead poisoning in low income housing. 

Therefore, what I strongly commend is this program which en- 
courage cities, through th^ $250 million grant program, to figure 
out extensive, enforceable, cost-effective ways to deal with lead poi- 
soning in cities around the country. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. / 

Mr. Ewall? 


Mr. EwALL. Thank you. Senator, and thank you for inviting me 

Digitized by 



My name's Bill Ewall. Fm from Public Housing in Cambridge, 
and Fm sort of at the bottom of the food chain in terms of lead 

I contract to have abatement done and figure out what's the best 
way to proceed, and then I have to deal with risk assessment issues 
in the interim. 

Since Fm from Massachusetts, Fve been dealing with this for 4 
or 5 years, and done a number of units of abatement, and we're 
planning some, and some are in process, et cetera. 

I think the bill is wonderful, as far as it goes, in that when we 
first got involved here, there was no where to turn for advice for 

Erocess, for certification, for any of that stuff. And as this starts 
appening on a national level, I think it will be enormously help- 
ful. I see lots of good things in the bill. 

Where I think it doesnT go far enough is actually in a couple of 
areas, based on my experience. 

One is the risk assessment issue, I think, needs to be much more 
carefully defined. 

I think we need to sort of certify categories of levels of risk, rang- 
ing from very low values of lead, no dust, wonderfully intact sur- 
faces, that maybe we just have to evaluate over time, going all the 
way up to units that Fve been in in major cities where that 75, 100 
percent of the paint is crumbling, peeling, there's dust everywhere. 
The lead values are 12, 15, 20, 25, and it s clear that every child in 
there is ingesting massive quantities of lead everyday. 

That's a situation, and it's not that rare, specifically in some 
public housing in big urban cities. No level of risk assessment is 
going to deal with that. I mean, that's actual on-going poisoning. 
And to me, that's like the most severe response is for an immediate 
abatement. And the units Fm talking about, I think we even need 
to relocate the children immediately. 

So what Fm sa3ring is some real actual measures to really get nu- 
merical assessment of the risk, and then appropriate levels of re- 
sponse for each one of them. 

That's my major point. 

Another point I would make is that we've done a lot of abate- 
ment over the last 3 or 4 years, and we've seen methods improve 
dramatically in that period of time. We've seen brand new ideas 
come up that are cost-effective. We've seen prices go down in just 
that period of time, mostly in the Massachusetts area. 

I think in the next couple of years, you're going to see costs come 
down dramatically, and I think, assuming we continue with abate- 
ment, you're going to see methods improve. 

I personally know of 20 or 30 products that are out there being 
developed now that are very promising. I know of five or six that 
are wonderful. 

We just participated in the HUD Public Housing De-Leading 
Demonstration in Cambridge. We had 24 vacant units, and we ac- 
tually compared various methods. And some of the methods that 
came up were terrific. 

There was a new method, called needle gunning, that strips lead- 
paint very safely and cleanly off of steel and concrete surfaces, rel- 
atively inexpensive, veiy little waste. 

Senator Cranston. What is the expense involved? 

Digitized by 



Mr. EwALL. There the expense at the demonstration, where it 
was probably inflated by 30 or 40 percent, was $10,000 a unit. Fve 
done other abatements for $3,000, $4,000, $5,000. And FU admit this 
is the most expensive way to do it. Fm doing public bid in a very 
litigious state, et cetera. 

But even so, those costs are coming down. I can see in the next 3 
or 4 years, it being a much more manageable situation. 

Probably the one cost that's not being managed and is scaring 
everybody in the industry is the disposal costs. And EPA is work- 
ing on what are the regs, but they've changed so often, in just the 
last 2 years, that everyone's afraid of it. 

If that gets to be much more reasonable and manageable, I think 
that abatement can go forward and become much more routine. 

I guess the last thing I want to say is that even though this field 
is like rocket science or Russian language, as you get into it, after 
a couple of years, it's just as manageable as other standard con- 
struction procedures, like HVAC or asbestos abatement, et cetera. 
So I feel very hopeful. 

Senator Sarbanes. Ms. Brown? 


Ms. Brown. Thank you. I'm Alice Brown and I'm with the 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is probably the oldest civil 
rights law firm in the country. 

I don't want to take much time. I think many people around the 
table have already expressed some of our concerns. 

We definitely agree that this is a bill that's needed, that's long 
overdue, and we commend the various sponsors of the bill for the 
efforts thus far. 

There are several things I'd want to say in brief. 

First, it's clear that lead poisoning is a Nation wide problem, and 
that there is a need for a nationwide campaign to deal with this 

It's also clear that lead doesn't discriminate. It doesn't discrimi- 
nate based on race or class or geographic origin. But it is also clear 
that minority children, that low income children are most affected 
by exposures to lead hazards. That they are disproportionately im- 
pacted by the exposure to lead hazards. 

So with that in mind, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund would 
like to stress the need for targeting low income families, targeting 
public housing, in particular, in terms of the abatement and assess- 
ment process. 

And we would also echo and agree very strongly with the state- 
ments made by the representative from the Children's Defense 
Fund, that a good deal of money needs to be targeted to low income 
families that there needs to be more money put behind this effort. 

I didn't mention, and wanted to mention a figure that I'm sure 
most of you know, something like 66 percent of all inner city Afri- 
can American children have been lead poisoned. I mean, that's just 
outrageous, that's a crisis, in this country. 

With that in mind, we also think that the notification provisions 
need to be kicked in immediately, and that there is a need for the 

Digitized by 



potential fair housing implications to be addressed explicitly in the 

I don't want to take more time than that. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you a great deal. 

Fd like to try to zero in on a couple of specific points where we 
need some guidance and help in working on the bill. 

Since the early 1970's, the Federal Government has been re- 
quired to ''eliminate, as far as practicable, the hazardous of lead- 
based paint poisoning" in housing receiving Federal assistance or 
mortgage insurance. 

HUD regs require the inspection of all pre-1978 HUD-associated 
housing for defective paint and the treatment of immediate haz- 

Yet, as the testimony of the Burkes so dramatically illustrates, 
these r^s are not always enforced. The bill would therefore specify 
in greater deal HUD's responsibilities with respect to federally as- 
sisted and insured housing. 

HUD would be directed to revise FHA's policies and procedures 
governing mortgage insurance, to ensure that assessment and re- 
duction of lead-based paint hazards can be financed. 

PHA's would be required to assess pre-1978 section 8 housing for 
lead-based paint hazards, and to help owners reduce these hazards 
when they are found. 

And federally supported acquisition and or rehab pre-1978 hous- 
ing would need to incorporate lead assessment and reduction activi- 
ties where the Federal subsidy exceeds $5,000. 

So these are the questions that Fd like to put to you: 

Do the provisions of the bill strike an appropriate balance be- 
tween addressing the hazards of lead-based paint and expanding 
and preserving the supply of affordable housing for low- and mod- 
erate-income families? 

That's the first question. There's several on this general topic. 

Anybody have any comment on that particular point? 


Mr. Farr. When I talk to city government people or non-profits 
in cities outside of Massachusetts and Maryland, they don't want to 
hear an3rthing about it. Because what they feel is that if we raise 
the issue of lead-paint in those houses, the net effect of it will be to 
sharply reduce the number of low income housing in which they 
can do rehabilitation. 

So that either we have to put a lot more money into whether you 
call it lead-paint or whether you call it rehabilitation which in- 
cludes lead-paint, or the net effect of any of this is going to be to 
significantly reduce the amount of assistance that is available to 
low income housing. 

The other approach, which has been alluded to around here, 
which is why I pushed the demonstration program, is to figure out 
ways to reduce the hazards of lead-paint and reduce poisoning that 
are relatively less expensive. 

And this requirement that in all houses which are touched by 
the Federal Government that the houses be assessed and that lead 
haz€u*ds be reduced is terrific. 

Digitized by 



My problem is, I don't know what reduce means, and I don't 
think people in cities who enforce this kind of program, or land- 
lords or insurance companies, who are mostly redlining, or banks, 
as yet, know how much is enough. And therefore, that's the reason 
why I push very hard for as many demonstrations to take place 
around the country as possible, including outside of Maryland and 
Massachusetts, which can find out, by testing over time, now much 
reduction, what kind of treatments make enough difference so that 
it should satisfy courts and HUD and everybody else, that enough 
is being done. 

So a lot of work needs to be done along those lines. 

Senator Cranston. Did you want to comment? 

Mr. Shultz. Yes. I'd like to agree with Mr. Farr. As a city out- 
side of Massachusetts, our preliminary estimate, as of a couple of 
days ago, we have several hundred thousand units that meet the 
Federal assisted standard in the current bill. 

And if , as a matter of example, the lead hazard abatement or re- 
duction or whatever it is were to cost us $2,000 or $3,000 per apart- 
ment, as it might, we could be talking about, for New York City 
alone for this requirement, hundreds of millions of dollars. And 
that is money that, if we have it, will come out of affordable hous- 

Senator Cranston. Well, that may be. But how do you then ad- 
dress the question that you may be poisoning these people and de- 
stro3ring them for life? 

I mean, it's an interesting question, and maybe it should precipi- 
tate the crisis by closing out the housing, if it's bad enough. 

I mean, I don't know how you — ^this gets into someone earlier 
talking about different levels of risk, and how you measure them. 

But I assume, in New York City, you close out some housing if it 
gets to the point where it's absolutely life threatening, don't you? 

Mr. Shultz. Yes. And what I'd say is we, in fact, we have a very 
active lead abatement program. In fact, we're looking at it now in 
order to improve it. We spend millions of dollars a year on apart- 
ments that have lead hazards. 

One of the things that I'm criticizing here, though, is that given 
those kinds of costs, this bill does not distinguish between those at 
most risk and those at lesser risk. 

And we also do need a great deal of money to do this. We also 
earn support of Representative Cardin's bill for the lead trust fund. 
The $10 billion proposed for that bill, we think is an amoimt of 
money that it not unrealistic. 

Senator Cranston. Cushing? 

Ms. DoLBEARE. M^ prepared testimony has some information on 
the underl3ring low income housing problem, but it seems to me it's 
important to emphasize that there s really a prior question here. 

And that is that we're not spending enough money now on the 
underl3ring need to deal with low income housing. 

HUD did a report last summer that indicates there are over five 
million households, veiy low income renter households in this 
country with worst case housing problems. A substantial number of 
those households are families with children. They are more likely 
to be families with children than people without worst case prob- 

Digitized by 



Fm we€u-ing a button that says, "two cents for housing" which 
means that we recdly ought to be trebling what we're spending now 
on low income housing, if we're going to deal adequately with the 

And I think it's important to bring that out. 

But with respect to this bill and with respect to lead poisoning, it 
seems to me that this bill makes a useful distinction and one which 
should be followed. 

And that is, there are two ways that the Federal Government ad- 
dresses low income housing. One is by adding to the supply, 
through the construction or rehabilitation or provision of units. 
And it seems to me, there, that it ought to be very clear and it 
ought to be public jpolicy that the Federal Government should not 
add to the supply of housing which has in it lead hazards. 

And I think that ought to just be our basic point of departure. 
And I'd like to second what Nick Farr and others have said about 
finding ways. Bill Ewall, about finding ways of doing this less ex- 

The other is the need for tenant based assistance, where people 
are living in housing that's already reasonably adequate but are 
paying more than 30 percent, or often more than 50 percent of 
their income. 

And there where you have a tenant based subsidy, it seems to 
me that that approach ought to be keyed in with the approach 
that's used in the private sector. 

And I also think it's important to remember we're talking here 
as though this bill and the $500 million is the money that's going 
to be spent on this. 

This is going to have to be a problem which is addressed largely 
through the private sector, and it's going to increase rents for 
people who are not going to want to pay higher rents, but who 
don t yet qualify for subsidy, because it's a critical issue. 

And I think we have to look at it as this is a first step in a com- 
mitment by the Federal Government, and that's partly why I've 
emphasized the importance of the CHAS process which is an effort 
to try to bring together public and private resources. Federal, State 
and local, to address the housing problems of the community. Be- 
cause it's going to have to be not just Federal money, but State 
money, local money, and private money and consumers' money, if 
we're going to deal with this adequately. 

Senator Sarbanes. Let me just make an observation on the im- 
derlying issue you raised about increasing the supply of housing. 

We worked veiy hard to put that Affordable Housing Act togeth- 
er. We had the HOME program, which we thought had great pros- 
pects, because it was an effort to stimulate a partnership. Federal, 
State and local, and with the private sector, both profit and non- 

The Congress appropriated $1.5 bilUon for the Federal share of 
that effort in last vear's budget. The President's budget sent to us 
this year calls for $700 million for that program. 

When the administration signed off on the authorizing legisla- 
tion, we had reason to believe we were getting a real initiative into 
place that would begin to give some dynamic movement to address- 
ing this supply problem that you mentioned for affordable housing. 

Digitized by 



And of course, it's constantly being eroded. 

Ms. DoLBEARE. Well, as I recall, last year, the administration 
asked for about $700 million, and we got $1.5 billion. So Fm hope- 
ful that this year, we'll be able to repeat that kind of success. But I 
know it's not easy. 

Senator Sarbanes. Well, I hope so. But you would have thought 
they would have taken what we did last year and build on it, in- 
stead of trying to knock it back down again. 

And a lot of people wanted to get in on this other issue. 


Ms. MiLHALY. I just wanted to reemphasize, I think several 
people have said, this is why there has to be a funding source. I 
think I look around this table, almost all the people I see here have 
worked on appropriations bills. 

And we all know that if the authorization for something is $250 
million a year, the chances that we'll get that are — I don't know 
how to say it politely — ^very very low. 

And I think that it's very important that if it's at all possible for 
you to try to build a self-funding mechanism, it will make it a 
much stronger effort, and it will make it much less likely that 
what's going to happen in communities around the country is that 
we will inadvertently reduce the supply of affordable housing, 
which is something that I know neither of you want to do, and it's 
certainly not something that we would want to see. 

That's not an argument to wait to do an3rthing, to wait to test, to 
wait to notify, to wait to disclose. I would never recommend that, 
but I think that we can't ever let this debate get very far from 
where the money will come from and how much it will be. 

Senator Sarbanes. Ellen? 

Dr. SiLBERGELD. Just two points I'd like to make quickly. 

One is that as we talk about the costs and the burdens here, I'd 
just like to underline that of course lead poisoning has its own 
costs. And whereas those don't get necessarily counted on the same 
ledger sheet by the same people, they're very real. 

Both CDC and the Environmental Protection Agency have re- 
cently done very hard nosed cost benefit analyses of the burden of 
lead poisoning and it's in the billions of dollars per year. 

So there is a balance to be weighed here. An investment that we 
are not making in the future of our coimtry by destroying the in- 
telligence of our children. 

The other is, with respect to the kinds of demonstrations and the 
need to gather the sorts of real world experience that Mr. Ewall 
and Mr. Farr and others have pointed to, in my testimony, I've 
pointed to a concern I have in the bill. 

And that is, while this is a housing problem, and a great deal of 
responsibility must be borne by HUD in developing and implement- 
ing programs, it is also, as others have said, a health problem. 

And I am concerned that the health agencies and health exper- 
tise in this country, residing in EPA and in the Centers for Disease 
Control, are not being engaged with equal responsibility in the 
matter of evaluating and contributing to the establishment of what 
are risk assessments, what are lead hazards, and how will we 
evaluate programs. 

Digitized by 


I urge, very strongly, reconsideration of a number of sections of 
this bill, Senator Cranston, to engage with equal prominence, the 
health expertise of the Federal Grovemment in directing and over- 
seeing these programs. 

I know that increases the administrative complexity of this legis- 
lation, but I think we've had 20 years of HUD being in charge of 
lead-base paint poisoning prevention, and we have not had preven- 

Senator Cranston. Mr. Bamberger? 

Mr. Bamberger. May I just say that notice without more won't 
help my clients. Most of the poople that I work with are poor 
people who have no place to live. If they are told that there's lead 
in the house, their choice is that house or the street. 

And so they need notice not only that there is lead, but they 
need some abatement of some degree. 

As Nick Farr has pointed out, the market in which they rent 
housing generally will not support full abatement. But it will sup- 
port the removal of windows that are an abrading surface and con- 
stantly produce chips and dust that poison children. It will support 
something less than full abatement. 

And housing programs in the State which now fund renovations 
and rehabilitations should all be required to remove the lead that 
can be removed in the process of such abatement. 

I would suggest one other thing. You call, in the bill, for a GAO 
study of insurance. I'm not sure that insurance is the problem. In- 
surance is one step that may protect the availability of housing. 

But I think, for many, for some parts of the market, the insur- 
ance cost is not affordable. 

Nick Farr might say something about whether low cost non- 
profit housing can really support the cost of insurance. I doubt it. 

And so, in Maryland, we're beginning to look at other ways of 
compensating victims without all the money being spent for insur- 
ance premiums and lawyers and schemes to hide landlords' assets. 

And I hope that in this study that you direct GAO to do, that 
you will not limit it just to insurcuice and to the adversary system, 
but consider other methods of compensating victims and diverting 
the money that's now spent on liability defense to remedying the 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Florini? 

Ms. Florini. I want to associate myself with the remarks made 
by Clint Bamberger and Lisa Mihaly. And to clarify, lest anybody 
mistake what I was saying before about the need for stronger noti- 

Notifications are necessary. They are not sufficient, particularly 
in the lower income arena. Markets don't work effectively in the 
absence of knowledge. They also do not work effectively in the ab- 
sence of money. 

Likewise, authorizations, though necessary, are not sufficient. 
We have to find mechanisms for increasing the pie of money avail- 
able to actually deal with high priority hazards where the residents 
do not have the ability themselves to abatement the hazard. 

Senator Cranston. Mr. Mahoney? 

Digitized by 




Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Senator. 

As somebody involved with the insurance program, I am the 
President of Housing Environmental Services, which is a technical 
services arm to the Housing Authority Risk Retention Group, 
which is a non-profit insurance company, made up of housing au- 
thorities, which now provides general liability coverage to almost 
half the public housing program. 

I want to make a couple of points. 

As somebody involved over time in dealing with the lead-paint 
issue as an insurance question, we applaud very much the atten- 
tion given to the concepts of risk assessment and in place manage- 
ment in the bill. 

And those concepts have important implications, not just for the 
cost of the insurance, but for the insurability of property. 

One of the requirements made by HARRG, as the insurance com- 
pany is known, of housing authorities, to receive coverage for lead- 
based paint hazards, is that they undergo risk assessment, profes- 
sionally conducted, and that they develop and implement interim 
containment programs to control the risks of lead in public housing 

Actually, the cost of the insurance to housing authorities is 
rather minimal. Housing authorities are charged about $10.50 a 
unit per year for this coverage as an extension of their general li- 
ability coverage. 

It is affordable because the housing authorities are taking the 
initiatives to do the kinds of things that will protect the health of 
children living in these developments. 

The insurance company has done enormous actuarial work in 
tr3dng to determine what the prospect for claims coming from 
public housing developments that still have a lot of lead in them is, 
and we have determined that good interim containment programs 
derived from professionally conducted risk assessments in public 
housing developments can produce a cost-effective and hesdthful 
environment for public housing authority. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Mr. EwALL. I just wanted to make a minor point, I guess, about 
the disclosure or notification. 

I think in the Burkes' case, it wouldn't have helped, frankly. In 
my experience, even in my own home with windows in, I've been 
trying to stabilize the lead that comes off them for years. I've basi- 
cally failed. I mean, I have ten times the HUD allowable lead dust 
in my window wells, and I paint them every year. 

The disclosure that would have helped the Burkes' was, you have 
X-level of lead in all these windows and X-level of lead in the 
putty, and you need to, at a minimum, paint them once a year and 
scrub the wells every 5 days in order to minimize the risk. That 
level of warning should be required. 

Senator Cranston. Ms. Burke? 

Mrs. Burke. Can I address that? 

I think, on the one hand, I disagree with you, sir, that the disclo- 
sure wouldn't have helped us. Because had we had disclosure of the 

Digitized by 



actual hazards of lead-based paint, we would have had the home 
tested. And when it was found out that the lead-based paint was in 
the house, we would not have bought it. And so the disclosure 
would have actually kept our children from being poisoned. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 

Re the competitive needs of affordable housing on the one hand, 
and dealing with the lead paint problem on the other, do any of 
you have any thoughts on this point: 

Would private landlords be discouraged from participating in the 
section 8 program by the imposition of assessment and reduction 

How do we deal with that issue? 


Ms. DoLBEARE. Well, our whole reason for suggesting that there 
be a differential in the treatment of project based subsidies and the 
tenant based subsidies is because we are convinced that this would 
make a real difference. 

Unless an owner is receiving a subsidy from some other Federal 
program, there's no requirement now that landlords not discrimi- 
nate against certificate holders. I mean the only thing is the Feder- 
al incentive. You can't get Federal money if you're going to dis- 
criminate, but must landlords don't take Federal anjnvay. 

So that just as this bill was drafted, in part, to define target 
housing as any housing that might be occupied by children, rather 
than housing that would be occupied by children, because of the 
fear that if it said housing that would be occupied by children, then 
it's just a tremendous incentive to discriminate against families 
with kids. 

We have the same fear that in the tenant based subsidy pro- 
gram, if you add on a requirement that, before you can rent to a 
certificate or voucher holder who has kids, you have to have your 
imit tested and have the hazard abated, a lot of people are going to 
say> you know, I'm just not going to do that. 

And they won't discriminate against families with kids, per se, 
they'll do it by saying we don't take certificate or voucher holders. 

Now, I think we stUl need to find some way to address the imder- 
lying problem, and I think the way to do it is to put much more 
emphasis on dealing with the target housing, itself, whether or not 
it's going to be occupied by people with section 8 certificates. 

And I also think that it would be very reasonable, and in fact, 
desirable, to say that at the point where a family has a certificate 
or voucher and has some counseling about the kind of housing to 
look for, that they should be told about the hazards of lead paint. 

And I also think that if we can find some way of making disclo- 
sure provisions or disclosure plus testing provisions work for the 
private rental housing market, that will work. 

But I think to provide the same kind of standards for the tenant 
based subsidies as for the project based subsidies is really going to 
make it even more difficult for certificate and voucher holders, par- 
ticularly households with children, to find housing than it now is 
in many markets. 

Senator Cranston. Nick, did you have a comment on this point? 

Digitized by 



Mr. Farr. I was just going to say, you might be able to deal with 
it by providing some increase in the amount of section 8 money 
that goes, if you abate the housing. 

Of course, that also goes back to the problem we talked about 
many times before. The net effect of that is you have a certain 
amount of money avcdlable for section 8, and if the rent goes up 
because you're covering with the section 8 pajrments, in effect, am- 
ortizing the cost of abating, then you're going to have fewer people 
who can benefit from the section 8 certificate. 

But in any kind of dealing with this complicated problem, it 
seems to me what HUD and mostly State and local governments 
have got to do, is figure out at what point can you intervene where 
it makes sense to intervene. 

We haven't said it, but everybody knows that whenever you re- 
habilitate a house, there should be requirements with respect to 
lead paint and rehabilitating the house. 

Similarly, another thing you could do is whenever occupancy 
changes, because it's a lot easier to work on a house when it's 
vacant than to work on a house when it's occupied, so you can con- 
ceive of standards that cities might adopt which require certain 
levels of action whenever a house turns over, certain higher levels 
of action whenever a house is rehabilitated, so that it requires a 
permit, and much much much lower levels of action where the 
house is simply continuing to be occupied by the same low income 

And I don't think HUD or a Federal statute is going to be able to 
prescribe exactly what those levels should be. I thmk that's the 
kind of thing that local governments are going to have to do in the 
long-run, which is why I encourage the Federal Government to en- 
courage local governments to address this sort of problem. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Mr. ScHiFF. Senator, let me agree with Gushing on the tenant 
based programs. 

I think that unless you have the same requirements for every- 
one, you're going to see an awful high percentage of the current 
section 8 landlords refusing to allow their properties to participate 
in the program. 

On a project based side of the section 8 program, though, I think 
you've got to look at one other matter. And thiat is that there are a 
lot of project based section 8 certificates that only partially fill that 

And if you're going to be dealing one way with residents that are 
section 8 assisted, you're going to have to deal the exact same way 
with the residents that are not project based assisted. And you're 
going to again have resistance from the landlords unless you apply 
the same standards to all rental housing. 

Senator Granston. I'd like to pose an analogous question. 

To what extent would the requirements imposed on federally 
supported work steer State and local governments and private de- 
velopers away from the rehab of older housing, and thereby con- 
flict with the preference for rehab which existe in many Federal 
housing programs like the HOME program, as an example? 

Do you have any comments from New York on that? 

Digitized by 



Mr. Shultz. Well, we already expend a substantial amount of, 
we already expend most of our own funds in most of the rehabilita- 
tion we do in New York City, although, with our current budget 
problem, we are going to be looking more extensively toward the 
HOME program. 

In our case, I don't believe it will steer us away from the use of 
Federal funds, but it will have the effect that I said before, we will 
simply produce fewer imits. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Mr. Ryan. A general comment, Senator, and that is, most of the 
discussion this morning seems to be focused on the problems that 
this bill will create. 

I would like to point out that the problems are real. The require- 
ments to act upon them currently stand in statute, and the liability 
is real. 

In every rehabilitation of an older unit, the lion's share of which 
contain lead paint, lead paint is being encountered, and hazards 
are being created if it's not being done right. 

So it's economic sense to deal with this head on. 

If I may, with respect to the section 8 and tenant based subsidies, 
currently, in law, there is a requirement to deal with lead hazards 
in section 8. The amendments, 4 years ago, directed HUD to 
change their regulations. HUD has not yet changed the regula- 
tions. There are lawsuits, public housing authorities are losing law- 
suits over children being poisoned in section 8. 

So I see this bill as something that is cle€uing up problems, 
rather than creating problems. 

I would join in endorsing the concept that units with tenant 
based subsidies logically should have a less vigorous approach. 

But I have to say, I think an underl3ring principle, and there 
have been several that came out of the hearing, is when the Feder- 
al Government is providing subsidy funds, it seems to me, incum- 
bent — at least, it must be our go£d and it can be phased in over 
some reasonable period — ^but it is incumbent on us, in providing 
Federal fimds for housing, to attend to and address lead paint haz- 

Senator Cranston. Yes, Mr. Tasker? 


Mr. Tasker. One of the issues that we're concerned about, the 
mortgage bankers, is that in the process of the notification, that 
that actual process take effect earlier. 

We think it's too late to notify the potential buyer once the con- 
tract has already been written. We believe the buyer needs to be 
notified earlier. 

One of the other issues that's of concern is that trying to assess 
the amount of cost and to spread this cost out so that we can get 
this law to be more effective, one of the things that should be con- 
sidered is raising the FHA loan amounts to take care of this reduc- 
tion of hazard and assessment process. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Digitized by 



Mr. Vinson. With regard to reconciling the Lead Act with the 
Preservation Act of 1990, I think there's a good deal of work re- 
mains to be done there. 

A lot of the affordable housing is currently marginal, from an in- 
vestment standpoint, to the owners today. 

As we raise the cost of that, I think we will end up creating more 
foreclosures, thereby transferring more of the problem to HUD, 
which means the taxpayers end up bearing the burden, or we 
reduce the stock of affordable housing, which has been clearly rec- 

But I think some reconciliation between these two needs to be 
looked at very carefully. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Mr. Jacobs. The only way I know how to answer your question is 
to indicate to you that folks who are coming to our training courses 
are shifting. 

It used to be mostly asbestos folks. Now, in fact, we are seeing an 
influx of people who do home remodeling. 

And my own intention is to not create a new industry to do this 
work, but to instead change the way people do remodeling work. 

That's eminently feasible. People are interested in it. If the con- 
tractors are motivated, they will in fact do the work in a safe and 
effective manner. 

The other thing I'd like to support in the bill is the idea of con- 
ducting further research. And I'd like to encourage you to consider 
using some of the existing risk assessment and in place manage- 
ment programs that are already going on to take a hard look at 
using research dollars to answer some of these questions, and not 
have to reinvent the wheel. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Mr. Peek. Senator Cranston, concerning the disclosure aspect 
and the comments from the mortgage banking. As a practical 
matter, what we have as our policy is that a reasonable period of 
time recision be after the signing of the contract. In many in- 
stances, it's not practicable to be disclosed 10 days ahead of time. 
There are instances where a person walks in and signs a contract 
that same day. 

Your own State is foremost in the area of disclosure, and has de- 
veloped a pamphlet which I think is excellent in pointing out the 
various hazards and items that need to be disclosed prior to pur- 
chasing a home. 

Also, I think it's a matter of our policy to have this disclosure 
and particularly this. And I would like to see the disclosure after 
the signing of the contract, with the right of recision. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you. 

Mr. Mahoney? 

Mr. Mahoney. Senator, I'd like to say a word about item 1 in the 
purposes section of the Act. 

I have a concern that, with this language, that is to reorient the 
national approach to the presence of lead-based paint in housing, to 
implement, on a priority basis, a broad program to assess risk and 
reduce hazards in the Nation's housing stock, is to say that the 
Congress is changing the mandate given to the Executive Branch 

Digitized by 



in the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, which was 
really an emphasis on eliminating the problems of lead-base paint. 

The language seems to be saying that we're shifting what we're 
doing now, and we're going to work on ways of assessing and reduc- 
ing risk, rather than eliminating the problem of lead paint in 
public housing, or in all of housing. 

Much of the discussion we've had today has been driven, it seems 
to me, by people's concerns about cost, which are reasonable. 

And those costs, it is presumed that if vou have methods to 
assess and reduce risk, the cost will drop markedly. 

I'd like to caution against that being an assumption that should 
smack of truth. 

If you are going to have a program that does in fact control risk 
after you've done an assessment, it, by definition, is an on-going 
program. Things don't go away. 

You have to clear up whatever problems are imcovered bv an as- 
sessment. You have to clean up, you have to repaint. And then you 
have a job of continually monitoring all painted surfaces to ensure 
that the situation does not deteriorate again. 

If you have continuing assessment and some form of in place 
management for a long period of time, there will come a point 
where the cost of that is equivalent to testing and abatement. So I 
shouldn't think that by moving along to a different approach. 

And I would like to think that number 6 in the purposes section, 
which talks about a national strategy to eliminate lead-base paint 
hazards could move its way up to number 1, so that the Nation will 
not believe that the Congress is retreating from the position it 
adopted almost two decades ago. 

Senator Cranston. I'd like to get your focus on one other point 
before we presumably begin to wrap things up. 

And I would welcome, after we get over this, any final comments 
any of you want to make. 

The bill would authorize a $500 million competitive matching 
grant program over the next two fiscal years, to give State and 
local governments the tools and authority to assess and reduce 
lead-based paint hazards in private housing. 

First, on the $500 million. We of course, given the terrible budget 
constringencies that we face, have no certainty we can get that 

And on that point, we need help from all of you and others who 
are interested in generating support, once we have the bill final- 
ized, for its passage and for the fimding that is needed to really 
make headway. 

States and localities, under this proposed formula of the $500 
million would be given great flexibility. Grants could be used to 
assess housing for lead hazards, control hazards on an interim or 
permanent basis, train lead workers, relocate families displaced by 
lead reduction activities, and fund blood testing and public educa- 
tion programs. 

The question is this: What do you perceive is the primary benefit 
of the $500 million grant program? Is it to build State and local 
capacity on the lead issue? 

Or is it to have nationwide experimentation with vsuious assess- 
ment and reduction measures? 

Digitized by 



Or is it to carry out meanin^ul assessment and reduction activi- 
ties in housing that presents priority risk? 

How can we enhance the usefulness of this program? 

Any comments on that? 


Mr. Farr. Number one is to evaluate. What we hope that hap 
pens with respect to the $50 million that Art Newburg will distrib- 
ute this summer is that a lot of I hope comprehensive efforts will 
be developed in cities aroimd the country to deal with this prob- 

But to the extent that it is a demonstration which with $50 mil- 
lion, or indeed with $500 million, it really is a demonstration. It is 
not a program which is going to totally deal with the question. 

It's value will be greatly enhanced if the Federal Government 
makes sure that there are good, objective evaluations, particularly 
to deal with the kind of questions which you raised here, namely 
do some of these cost reduction approaches make sense in the long 

I mean, I hope they do. But we are not real sure that they do. 

So an evaluation is essential. 

Second, I would hope that in administering this program the 
cities will be encouraged and will be graded by how comprehensive 
their approach is. 

By that I mean not just dealing with buildings, but dealing with 
education, dealing with testing of kids and so on, so that you have 
a total approach in the cities. 

Mr. Peek. Recognizing the difficulty of stretching the $500 mil- 
lion, one of the methods that we feel would go a long way would be 
a limit of liability after the work is done. This would get people to 
take a very hard look at voluntarily doing the abatement and other 
steps to become lead safe. Give them a limit of liability after it is 

Mr. Yager. At the $500 million, assuming it is all funded, just 
abatement work alone, if you use the numbers that HUD came up 
with, would take over a thousand years. So it is fair to say we are 
not going to be able to abate eveiything. 

We thmk the most cost effective use of those dollars would be, 
number one, more information. The hotline, the clearinghouses, 
some of those programs that you have identified in the legislation. 
Disclosure forms, technical assistance, not only to public housing 
authorities but to remodelers and other people involved in the busi- 

The Government can provide a great service there. 

Additional research on abatement techniques. In house strate- 
gies. If you haven't got the funds to abate your property, how do 
you reduce at least some risk? Education. 

Those are strategies that can work. 

In the worst of our housing situations, there is going to have to 
be funds available for abatement, but to assume abatement is our 
first step for everything, I think loses sight of the real cost here 
and the need to prioritize and evaluate where we try to reduce risk 
for the most numbers of people we can help. 

Senator Sarbanes. How do you reduce the risk if there is not 
some partial or full abatement? 

Digitized by 



Mr. Yager. There are a number of ways. If we rely on the infor- 
mation the Centers for Disease Control gives, number one is you 
can do in place management. 

Dust is the most serious problem. Dust comes from two sources, I 
agree. Dust comes from lead in paint, deteriorated paint, and it 
also comes from automobile exhaust that has been burned over the 
last number of years. 

Over twice as much lead was burned in gasoline as was ever put 
in paint. That lead is still out there in our environment. 

So No. 1, 1 think, in place management. You've got to tell people 
it is not just eating paint. If youVe got deteriorated paint in your 
environment, then you've got to address that. 

Paint scientists tell us that some — a temporary fix, I've got to 
admit it is a temporary fix, is that you could put additional layers 
of latex paint to reduce the deterioration of paint on some surfaces. 

There are a number of strategies you can take. 

Now that's not to say you should avoid abating in certain circum- 

Senator Sarbanes. Well, one of the answers you gave me, I 
would view as partial abatement. I mean, it's an effort to control 
and so you are going to be expending money on that. 

I'm hard put to see how you — ^if you have the risk situation, how 
you get out of it in any other way than reducing the risk. 

Mr. Yager. Well, you are reducing risk. In my own home, I have 
a 1-year-old and I live in an older house. The first thing we did was 
repaint the entire house. And we don't have peeling, flaking, chip- 
ping paint but that doesn't matter. I know I've got lead paint in 
my home. 

I immediately painted the entire house. 

My wife and I spend more time on in place management strate- 
gies such as we vacuiun our house twice a week just because we 
know that our child is crawling in areas where lead dust can be 
tracked in from outdoors and potentisdly from deteriorated lead 

There are a number of cleaning strategies you can do. But I have 
the sources of that knowledge. I have resources available to me. 
But many people don't. 

But a good use of Federal dollars is to provide that information 
to people, to provide a hotline, to provide a clearinghouse, to pro- 
vide technical assistance. 

Homebuilders are writing publications right now for our remo- 
delers. When you remodel a home, what types of worker safety pro- 
cedures do you do? It is very difficult to get a lot of that informa- 

The Government can be a good source of that information. Your 
use of the funding under this program could help, go a long ways 
in getting that information out to people. 

Mrs. Burke. I would like to address the things you said, Mr. 

I am not an expert, I am just a housewife. But first, the one 
thing that is really the key with me is the vacuuming. Any expert 
will tell you that all you do when you vacuum lead dust is spread it 
throughout vour house through the back of the vacuum. It does ab- 
solutely nothing to remove the lead dust from your home. 

Digitized by 



Second, if you paint your windows, if you check your window 
sashes, you are continually opening your window, ^d so unless 
you paint your window sealed shut, that really does no good also. 

The in place management that we were told to do was to make 
sure that our children don't put toys, food or their hands in their 
mouth because there may be dust in the carpet. Alright now. I 
have a 2-year-old little girl and a 4-year-old little boy and that is 
basically impossible. 

So really, those things that you scdd really would do no good as 
to reducing the levels for my children. 

And I would also like to say, and like I said, I am not an expert, 
I am just a housewife, but the best thing you can do to assure that 
your children aren't getting lead poisoning is to have them tested. 

Dr. SiLBERGELD. I would like to echo that. I was alarmed that you 
purport yourself as an expert on this issue and the absolute first 
thing you must do, and every parent in this country must do, is the 
word of the surgeon general, the secretary of HSS. Get your child 
tested. Do not engage in any other activities that you think may 
reduce the risk in the absence of knowledge. 

I am sorry to conclude with some concern here but with all due 
respect to my fellow panelists, you are here representing and sort 
of protecting the housing industry. This is a disease, and I thought 
the purpose of this bill was to protect the health of children. 

And I think that what we should be looking at is how can we 
maximize disease prevention in a cost effective way, not how we 
can protect housing represented by whatever sector of the housing 
market my colleagues here represent. 

If we were seriously to consider lead poisoning as a disease, we 
would be modeling programs of prevention sdong the lines that we 
have developed disease prevention for AIDS, for polio, for all other 
diseases that we have developed strategies. 

And we would not be trjdng to protect the housing. We would be 
using education as one element. We would recognize those victims 
for whom education will not help. 

We would be looking at areas which I know New York City con- 
fronts. I know Boston does and Baltimore. Where literally the 
house is on fire and you've got to get the kid out of there in order 
to prevent your remedial damage. 

The Burkes did that themselves but there are many who cannot 
do that, and that's got to be part of disease prevention. 

There are levels of intervention here that we have got to put to- 
gether, and we've got to stop protecting housing. 

Senator Cranston. I think we are getting toward the end. 

Does anyone have any point that they want to cover that we 
have not touched upon up until now? 

Mr. Mahoney. I would like to salute Ms. Silbergeld and say the 
s€une thing. It really has been distressing to hear the extent to 
which the costs of all these things have been discussed. 

There are relatively simple inexpensive ways of assessing any 
kind of a residential dwelling, or a dwelling, and when one thinks 
of the condition of so much of the housing in our country right now 
with deteriorated painted surfaces, one would like to thmk that we 
want to look at every one of those to determine whether the risks 

Digitized by 



are enormous in a given dwelling unit, so that an immediate deci- 
sion can be made as to whether or not to get the children out. 

Having enormous exposure of lead dust in a house is not dissimi- 
lar to having very serious building and housing code violations that 
any codes official would find cause to declare property imfit for 
human habitation. 

We ought to be screening property a lot better than we are 

Mr. Ryan. Historically, lead paint poisoning has divided environ- 
mental health advocates and low income housing advocates. These 
are basically two groups that share common values and conmion 

I would like to call particular attention to another piece of legis- 
lation. It has been mentioned a couple of times, but there is a bill 
introduced in the House that will soon be introduced in the Senate, 
and it needs original co- sponsors. 

To this time, no members of the Senate Banking Committee have 
joined as co-sponsors. 

But this is the bill, instead of fighting over the pie, we'll make 
the pie bigger. We'll add $1 billion per year for low income housing 
to take care of lead hazards. 

And I would urge you members of this committee to look at the 
special opportunity that exists this year with your piece of legisla- 
tion, be it a freestanding piece as part of the housing bill. 

There is another piece of legislation moving by the Environment 
Committee, a very strong piece of legislation. The Environment 
Committees do not have your perspectives on affordable housing 
and the needs to strike the balance. 

I would hope that we can have a comprehensive piece of housing 
legislation this year. 

And if I can just add one note of urgency, I would like to wave 
around a piece of paper that I brought with me today. This is the 
current guidance, not from FHA but from the Veterans Adminis- 
tration. The FHA guidance we know came out in 1987. The VA 
guidance was updated in 1991. 

And it mentions no less than 19 times the dangers of children 
eating paint chips. The system is broken badly and we really need 
to act to fix it. 

Ms. MiHALY. I would like to echo what has been said by several 
other panelists also. The discussion of cost is not unimportant and I 
mentioned, many other people did too, the need to make sure that 
families are not pushed out of the affordable housing market by 
any attempts to keep them safe. 

But I think it is very important that we not lose sight of the cost 
of not doing something by allowing millions of children to grow up 
in situations that are causing them health problems, learning prob- 
lems, long-term disabilities that we are just barely beginning to un- 
derstand. And we are costing ourselves billions and billions of dol- 
lars and that is something that we should not do. 

Senator Sarbanes. You may have to close them down and put 
them on the streets and create a Parisian mob in order to precipi- 
tate the crisis that will result in addressing the issue the way that 
it ought to be addressed. 

Digitized by 



Ms. MiHALY. I hope we can find something short of that. I under- 
stand the spirit. 

Senator Cranston. I want to thank you all very much for shar- 
ing your thoughts with us this morning, particularly Toni and Tim. 
Your participation was — ^you have another statement? 

Mrs. Burke. I would like to thank you for inviting us here and 
trying to help our family. This was basically our last hope to get 
help, and I would like to say that we also recognize that cost is a 
problem with abatement and testing, but had the cost been in- 
curred, the cost to my children's lives may be much greater than 
any dollar amount. 

And I would just like to bring that home. Thank you. 

Senator Cranston. Yes? 

Ms. DoLBEARE. Unfortunately, we need to find a way that the 
Federal Government would fund the cost of not doing something, 
because the problem is that the Federal Government doesn't, and 
society bears the cost, and I would like to point out it would seem 
unfortunate if the cost question was interpreted as an either/or 
question, because I think that we need to make it clear that we 
need to do this. We need to have this bill, even if it does raise costs. 

On the other hand, the calculations in my testimonv show that 
49 percent of all households that live in units that the HHS reports 
as having peeling paint built before 1978, can afford no more than 
$325 a month for housing at 30 percent of their income. 16 percent 
of them can afford no more than $125 a month. 

So the cost problem for low income families is real. 

And in addition to doing this bill — and I hope it will be part of 
the National Affordable Housing Act — ^we need to expand our hous- 
ing programs and particularly rental assistance programs. 

Senator Cranston. Let me say just a few brief things before we 

This has been very informative, very provocative. Very, very 
helpful to us as we try to move forward effectively on this issue 
this year. 

In the coming weeks I will be working to refine the legislation on 
a bipartisan basis with other members of the Banking Committee. 
And the Senate, particularly Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes, 
Kerrey, Lieberman, Akaka, all of whom joined me last week as 
original co-sponsors, and Senators Bryan and Bond who are with us 

And also the participation of the Burkes, I think has brought 
Senator Wafford and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania into the fray 
with great interest. 

After we have done that work, we will undertake to incorporate 
the revised bill as part of the Housing Reauthorization legislation 
which has to pass this year. 

And we will move through the Bcmking Committee, I believe, in 
early May. 

So we have a fairly fast track in mind to move this legislation. 

I hope we can continue to draw on your expertise through this 
process. We will submit questions in writing that we didn't get to 
today to each of you, and please respond as soon as you can. 

Do you have a time? If vou could respond within ten days, that 
would be very, very helpful. 

Digitized by 



Your thoughts and comments have already identified areas of 
the bill that need to be improved and revised and overhauled and 
we will do that. 

So once again, thank you very, very much for your helpfulness, 
your interest, your advice and your presence, and we stand ad- 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements of witnesses and additional material sup- 
plied for the record follow:] 

Digitized by 



2d Session 

S. 2341 

To provide for the assessment and reduction of lead-based paint hazards 
in housing. 


March 11 (legislative day, January 30), 1992 
Mr. Craxstox (for himself, Mr. D'A>IAT0, Mr. Sarbaxes, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
LiEBERMAX, and Mr. Akaka) introduced the following bill; which was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs 


To provide for the assessment and reduction of lead-based 
paint hazards in housing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


4 (a) Short Title. — This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

6 1992". 

7 (b) Table op Contents. — The table of contents is 

8 as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Findings. 
Sec. 3. Purposes. 

Digitized by 




Sec 4. Definitions. 


Sec. 101. Grants for lead-based paint hazard redaction in target housing. 

Sec. 102. Assessment and reduetion of lead-based paint hazards in Federal 
housing programs. 

Sec. 103. Disposition of fiederaUty owned housing. 

Sec. 104. Comprehensive housing afifordability strategy. 

Sec. 105. Assessment and reduction of lead-based paint hazards under FHA in- 
surance programs. 

Sec. 106. Task force on private sector financing of lead-based paint hazard re- 

Sec. 107. National consultation on lead-based paint hazard reduction. 


Sec. 201. Contractor training and certification. 

Sec. 202. Certification of laboratories. 

Sec. 203. Guidelines for lead-based paint assessment and reduction activities. 

Sec. 204. Monitoring of lead-based paint hazard work. 

Sec. 205. National clearinghouse on chikShood lead poisoning. 


Sec. 301. Disclosure of information concerning lead upon transfer of residential 

Sec. 302. General notice requirements. 
Sec. 303. Public awareness. 
Sec. 304. Information and warning labels. 
Sec. 305. Relatk>nship to other laws. 


Sec. 401. National strategy. 


SubtiUe A— HUD Research 

Sec. 501. Research on lead eacposure trom other sources. 
Sec. 502. Testing technologies. 
Sec. 503. Authorizatk>n. 

Subtitle B— GAO Report 
Sec. 511. Insurance 8tucl>'. 

Sec. 601. Reports of the Secretaiy of Housing and Uii>an Devek>pment. 


2 The C!ongress finds that — 

Digitized by 




1 (1) low-level lead poisoning is widespread 

2 among American children, afflicting as many as 

3 3,000,000 children under age 6, with minority- and 

4 low-income communities disproportionately affected; 

5 (2) at low levels, lead poisoning in children 

6 causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and 

7 learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced at- 

8 tention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems; 

9 (3) pre-1978 American housing stock contains 

10 more than 3,000,000 tons of lead in the form of 

11 lead-based paint, with the vast majority of homes 

12 built before 1950 containing substantial amounts of 

13 lead-based paint; 

14 (4) the ingestion of household dust containing 

15 lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint 

16 is the most common cause of lead poisoning in chil- 

17 dren; 

18 (5) the health and development of children liv- 

19 ing in as many as 3,800,000 American homes is en- 

20 dangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or exces- 

21 sive amounts of lead dust in their homes; 

22 (6) the danger posed by lead-based paint haz- 

23 ards can be reduced by abating lead-based paint or 

24 by taking interim measures to prevent paint deterio- 

•8 2341 IS 

Digitized by 




1 ration and limit children's exposure to lead dust and 

2 chips; 

3 (7) despite the enactment of laws in the early 

4 1970's requiring the Federal (rovemment to elimi- 

5 nate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards 

6 in federally owned, assisted, and insured housing, 

7 the Federal response to this national crisis remains 

8 severely limited; and 

9 (8) the Federal (rovemment must take a lead- 

10 ership role in building the infrastructure — including 

11 an informed public, State and local delivery systems, 

12 certified contractors and laboratories, trained work- 

13 ers, and available financing and insurance — ^nec- 

14 essaiy to ensure that the national goal of eliminating 

15 lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved 

16 as expeditiously as possible. 


18 The purposes of this Act are — 

19 (1) to reorient the national approach to the 

20 presence of lead-based paint in housing to imple- 

21 ment, on a priority basis, a broad program to assess 

22 risk and \reduce hazards in the Nation's housing 

23 stock; 

24 (2) to encourage effective action to prevent 

25 childhood lead poisoning by establishing a workable 

•8 1M1 18 

Digitized by 




1 framework for lead-based paint hazard assessment 

2 and reduction and by ending the current confusion 

3 over reasonable standards of care; 

4 (3) to ensure that the existence of lead-based 

5 paint hazards is taken into account in the develop- 

6 ment of Government housing policies and in the sale, 

7 rental, and renovation of homes and apartments; 

8 (4) to mobilize national resources expeditiously, 

9 through a partnership among all levels of govem- 

10 ment and the private sector, to develop the most 

11 promising, cost-effective methods for assessing and 

12 reducing lead-based paint hazards; 

13 (5) to reduce the threat of childhood lead poi- 

14 soning in housing owned or assisted by the Federal 

15 Government; and 

16 (6) to develop a national strategy to build the 

17 infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based 

18 paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as pos- 

19 sible. 


21 For the purposes of this Act: 

22 (1) Abatement. — The term "abatement" 

23 means any measure designed to permanently elimi- 

24 nate lead-based paint hazards. Such term includes — 

Digitized by 




1 (A) the removal of lead-based paint and 

2 lead-contaminated dust, the permanent eontain- 

3 ment or encapsulation of lead-based paint and 

4 the replacement of lead-painted surfaces and 

5 fixtures; and 

6 (B) all preparation, cleanup, worker pro- 

7 tection, disposal, and postabatement clearance 

8 testing activities associated with such measures. 

9 (2) Accessible surface. — ^The term "acces- 

10 sible surface" means a surface painted with lead- 

11 based paint that is accessible for a young child to 

12 mouth or chew. 

13 (3) Assessment. — The term "assessment" 

14 means the evaluation of the nature and severity of 

15 lead-based paint hazards using information on the 

16 age and condition of the housing, data collected from 

17 risk assessments or inspections, and such other in- 

18 formation as may be appropriate. 

19 (4) Certified contractor. — ^The term "cer- 

20 tified contractor" means an inspector, worker, su- 

21 pervisor, contractor, or designer who has completed 

22 a training program certified by the appropriate Ped- 

23 eral agency and in the case of an inspector, con- 

24 tractor, or supervisor, who has met any other re- 

25 quirements for certification or licensure established 

53-652 0-92-3 

Digitized by 



1 * by such ageiK^ or who has been certified by any 

2 State whose certification program has been found by 

3 the appropriate Federal agency to be at least as rig- 

4 orous as the Federal certification program. 

5 (5) Contract for the purchase and sale 

6 OP RBSmENTlAL REAL PROPERTY. — The term "con- 

7 tract for the purchase and sale of residential real 

8 property" means any contract or agreement in which 

9 one party agrees to purchase an interest in real 

10 property on which there is situated 1 or more resi- 

1 1 dential dwellings used or occupied, or intended to be 

12 used or occupied, in whole or in part, as the home 

13 or residence of 1 or more persons. 

14 (6) Federally assisted housing. — The term 

15 "federally assisted housing" means housing assisted 

16 under — 

17 (A) section 221(d)(3) or 236 of the Na- 

18 tional Housing Act; 

19 (B) section 101 of the Housing and Urban 

20 Development Act of 1965; 

21 (C) section 8 of the United States Housing 

22 Act of 1937; or 

23 (D) section 515 of the Housing Act of 

24 1949. 

•SlMl IS 

Digitized by 



1 (7) Federally chartered secondary 

2 MORTGAGE INSTITUTION. — The term ^'federally 

3 chartered secondary mortgage institution" means an 

4 institution chartered by law that buys mortgage 

5 loans fi:om originating financial institutions and re- 

6 sells them to investors. Such term includes the Fed- 

7 eral National Mortgage Association, the (rovemment 

8 National Mortgage Association, and the Federal 

9 Home Loan Mortgage Association. 

10 (8) Federally owned housing. — The term 

11 "federally owned housing" means housing owned by 

12 a Federal eLgeney, including the Department of 

13 Housing and Urban Development, the Farmers 

14 Home Administration, the Greneral Services Admin- 

15 istration, the Department of Defense, the Depart- 

16 ment of Veterans Affairs, the Department of the In- 

17 terior, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Fed- 

18 eral Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Depart- 

19 ment of Transportation. 

20 (9) Federally supported work. — The term 

21 "federally supported work" means any assessment 

22 or reduct^n activities conducted in federally owned 

23 or assisted iht)perties or funded in whole or in part 

24 through an3'^ financial assistance program of the De- 

25 partment of Housing and Urban Development, the 

•SlMl 18 

Digitized by 



1 Farmers Home Administration, or the Department 

2 of Veterans Affairs. 

3 (10) Friction surface. — The term "friction 

4 surface" means a surface that is sabject to abrasion 

5 or friction, including certain window, floor, and stair 

6 surfaces. 

7 (11) Impact surface. — The term "impact sur- 

8 face" means an interior or exterior surface that is 

9 subject to damage by repeated impacts, for example, 

10 certain parts of door frames. 

11 (12) Inspection. — The term "mspection" 

12 means a surface-by-surface investigation to deter- 

13 mine the presence of lead-based paint. 

14 (13) Interim controls. — The term "interim 

15 controls" means measures designed to temporarily 

16 reduce human exposure or likely exposure to lead- 

17 based paint hazards, including specialized cleaning, 

18 structural repairs, maintenance, painting and tem- 

19 porary containment. 

20 (14) Lead-based paInt. — The term "lead- 

21 based paint" means paint or other surface coatings 

22 that contain lead in excess of limits established by 

23 the appropriate Federal agency pursuant to this Act. 

24 (15) Lead-based paint hazard. — ^The term 

25 "lead-based paint hazard" means any hazard to 

Digitized by 




1 human health caused by e3q)0sure or likely exposure 

2 to lead from lead-contaminated dust, peeling paint, 

3 accessible surfaces, firiction sur£aces, or impact sur- 

4 faces. 

5 (16) Lead-contaminated dust. — The term 

6 ^Uead-contaminated dust" means interior house sur- 

7 face dust which contaiii^ an area or mass con- 

8 centration of lead which may pose a threat of ad- 

9 verse health effects in pregnant women or young 

10 children, the concentration limits of which shall be 

11 established by the appropriate Federal agency pur- 

12 suant to this Act. 

13 (17) Lead hazard reduction. — The term 

14 "lead hazard reduction" means measures designed 

15 to reduce or eliminate human exposure to lead-based 

16 paint hazards through methods including interim 

17 controls and abatement. 

18 (18) Lead-safe residential dwelling. — 

19 The term "lead-safe residential dwelling" means a 

20 residential dwelling that contains no actual or poten- 

21 tial lead-based paint hazards or one hi which all 

22 lead-based paint hazards have been abated. 

23 (19) Mortgage loan. — The term "mortgage 

24 loan" includes any loan (other than temporary fi- 

25 nancing such as a construction loan) that — 

Digitized by 




1 (A) is secured by a first lien on any inter- 

2 est in residential real propertj^, and 

3 (B) either— 

4 (i) is insured, guaranteed, made, or 

5 assisted by the Department of Housing 

6 and Urban Development, the Department 

7 of Veterans Affairs, or the Farmers Home 

8 Administration, or by any other agency of 

9 the Federal Government; or 

10 (ii) is intended to be sold by each 

11 originating mortgage institution to any 

12 federally chartered secondaiy mortgage 

13 market institution. 

14 (20) Originating mortgage institution.— 

15 The term ''originating mortgage institution" means 

16 a lender that provides mortgage loans, as defined by 

17 this section. 

18 (21) Peeling paint. — The term "peeling 

19 paint" means any paint that is peeling, chipping, or 

20 cracking or any paint located on a surface or fixture 

21 that is damaged or deteriorated. 

22 (22) Public housing.— The term "public 

23 housing" has the same meaning given the term in 

24 section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 

25 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(l)). 


Digitized by 




1 (23) RESroBNTlAL DWELLING. — ^The term "res- 

2 idential dwelling" means — 

3 (A) a sin^e-family dwelling; or 

4 (B) a single-family dwelling unit in a 

5 structure that contains more than 1 separate 

6 residential dweOing unit, and in which each 

7 such unit is used or occupied, or intended to be 

8 used or occupied, in whole or in part, as the 

9 home oir residence of 1 or more persons. 

10 (24) Ebsidbntial real property.— The tmn 

11 ''residential real property" means real property on 

12 which there is situated 1 or more residential dwell- 

13 ings used or occupied, or intended to be used or oc- 

14 cupied, in whole or in part, as the home or residence 

15 of 1 or more persons. 

16 (25) Risk assessment. — ^The term "risk as- 

17 sessment" means an on-site investigation to deter- 

18 mine the existence of lead-based paint hazards, in- 

19 eluding sampling of lead contained in interior sur- 

20 face dust. 

21 (26) Secretary.— The term "Secretary*' 

22 means the Secretaiy of Housing and Urban Develop- 

23 ment. 

24 (27) Target housing.— The term "target 

25 housing" means any housing constructed prior to 

•8 8S41I8 

Digitized by 



1 1978, except housing for the elder^ or persons with 

2 disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years 

3 of age resides or is expected to reside in such hous- 

4 - ing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or 

5 any 0-bedroom dwelling. 





10 (a) General Authority. — ^The Secretary is author- 

11 ized to provide grants to eligible applicants to assess and 

12 reduce lead-based paint hazards in target housing that is 

13 not federally assisted housing, federally owned housing, or 

14 pubhc housing, in accordance with the provisions of this 

15 section. 

16 (b) EiiiGiBiiE Applicants.— A State or unit of local 

17 government that has an approved comprehensive housing 

18 affordabihty strategy under section 105 of the Cranston- 

19 Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 12705) is eligible to apply for a grant imder this section. 

21 (c) Form op Appligations. — To receive a grant 

22 under this section, a State or unit of local government 

23 shall submit an application in such form and in such man- 

24 ner as the Secretary shall prescribe. An application shall 

25 contain — 

Digitized by 



1 (1) a copy of that portion qf an applicant's 

2 comprehensive housing affordability strategy re- 

3 quired by section 105(b)(16) of the Cranston-Gon- 

4 zalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 12701 et seqO; 

6 (2) a description of the amount of assistance 

7 the applicant seeks under this section; 

8 (3) a description of the planned activities to be 

9 undertaken with grants made available under this 

10 section, including an estimate of the amount to be 

11 allocated to each activity; 

12 (4) a description of the forms of assistance to 

13 be employed in using grants made available under 

14 this section; and 

15 (5) such assurances as the Secretary may re- 

16 quire regarding the applicant's capacity to cany out 

17 the activities. 

18 (d) Selection Criteria. — ^The Secretary shall 

19 award grants under this section on the basis of the merit 

20 of the activities proposed to be carried out and on the 

21 basis of selection criteria, which shall include — 

22 (1) the eictent to which the proposed activities 

23 will reduce the risk of lead-based paint poisoning to 

24 children under the age of 6; 

Digitized by 




* 1 (2) the e3ct;ent to which the proposed activities 

2 will benefit families that meet the income limits pre- 

3 scribed by section 214 of the Cranston-Qonzalez Na- 

4 tional Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12744); 

5 (3) the degree of severity and esctent of lead- 

6 based paint hazards in the jurisdiction to be served; 

7 (4) the ability of the applicant to leverage 

8 State, local, and private funds to supplement the 

9 grant made available under this section; 

10 (5) the ability of the applicant to cany out the 

1 1 proposed activities; and 

12 (6) such other factors as the Secretary deter- 

13 mines appropriate to ensure that grants made avail- 

14 able under this section are used effectively and to 

15 promote the purposes of this Act. 

16 (e) Eligible AcnvrriES. — A grant under this sec- 

17 tion may be used to — 

18 (1) assess target housing units for lead-based 

19 paint hazards; 

20 (2) provide for the interim control of lead-based 

21 . paint hazards; 

22 (3) provide for the abatement of lead-based 

23 paint hazards; 

•S2341 IS 

Digitized by 



1 (4) provide for the additional cost of abating 

2 lead-based paint hazards in units undergoing ren- 

3 ovation funded by other sources; 

4 (5) ensure that assessments and other activities 

5 are carried out by trained personnel; 

6 (6) assist in the temporary relocation of fami- 

7 lies forced to vacate their housing while lead hazard 

8 reduction measures are being conducted; 

9 (7) help educate the public on lead-based paint 

10 hazards and measures to reduce exposure to such 

11 hazards; 

12 (8) perform periodic testing of children's blood- 

13 lead levels and lead dust levels to assure that expo- 

14 sure to lead-based paint hazards does not increase 

15 due to improperly conducted reduction activities; and 

16 (9) cany out such other activities that the Sec- 

17 retaiy determines appropriate to promote the pur- 

18 poses of this Act. 

19 (f) Forms op Assistance. — The appUcant may pro- 

20 vide the services described in this section throu^ a variety 

21 of programs, inchiding grants, loans, revolving loan fimds, 

22 loan funds, loan guarantees, and interest write-downs. 

23 (g) Technical Assistanc^.^ 

24 (1) In oenebal.— The Secretary shall develop 

25 the capacity of eUgible applicants to carry out the 

•8 8S41I8 

Digitized by 




1 requirements of section 105(b)(16) of the Cranston- 

2 Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and to 

3 cany out activities under this section. 

4 (2) Set-aside. — Of the total amount approved 

5 in appropriation Acts xmder subsection (m), there 

6 shall be set aside to carry out this subsection 

7 $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $2,000,000 for 

8 fiscal year 1994. 

9 (h) Matching Bequibement.— Each recipient of 

10 grants under this section shall make contributions toward 

11 the cost of activities that receive assistance imder this sec- 

12 tion in an amount not less than 10 percent of the grant 

13 imder this section. 

14 (i) Limitation on Use. — An applicant shall ensure 

15 that not more than 10 percent of a grant will be used 

16 for administrative expenses associated with the activities 

17 funded. 

18 (j) Financial Becords.— An applicant shall main- 

19 tain and provide the Secretary with financial records suffix 

20 dent, in the determination of the Secretaiy, to ensure 

21 proper accoimting and dkbursing of amounts received 

22 fi:*om a grant under this section. 

23 (k) Beport. — An apphcant under this section shall 

24 submit to the Secretary, for aiqr fiscal year in which the 

Digitized by 




1 applicant receives a grant under this section, a report 

2 thalr- 

3 (1) describes the use of the amounts received; 

4 (2) states the number of housing units assessed 

5 for lead-based paint hazards; 

6 (3) states the number of housing units in which 

7 hazards have been reduced through interim controls; 

8 (4) states the number of housing units in which 

9 hazards have been abated; and 

10 (5) provides any other information that the Sec- 

1 1 retaiy determines to be appropriate. 

12 (1) Promulgation op Regulations. — The Sec- 

13 retaiy shall promulgate regulations for the implementation 

14 of this section within 120 days after the date of enactment 

15 of this Act. In promulgating such regulations, the Sec- 

16 retaiy shall consult with the Administrator of the Environ- 

17 mental Protection Agency, the Director of the Centers for 

18 Disease Control, and national organizations that have ex- 

19 pertise in lead-based paint hazards and their reduction. 

20 (m) Authorization op Appropriations.— For the 

21 purposes of carrying out this Act, there are authorized to 

22 be appropriated $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and 

23 $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1994. 

Digitized by 







4 (a) General Requirements. — Section 302(a) of 

5 the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act is 

6 amended — 

7 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting before the 

8 period "or otherwise assisted under a federal hous- 

9 ing program"; 

10 (2) in paragraph (1) of the second sentence, by 

11 striking "to eUminate as far as practicable imme- 

12 diate hazards due to the presence of accessible in- 

13 tact, intact and nonintact interior and eicterior 

14 painted surfaces that may contain lead" and insert 

15 "to assess, reduce and eUminate as far as prac- 

16 ticable lead-based paint hazards"; and 

17 (3) by adding after the second sentence, the fol- 

18 lowing new sentence: "Not later than January 1, 

19 1995, such procedures shall require the assessment 

20 and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in all fed- 

21 erally assisted housing constructed or substantially 

22 rehabilitated prior to 1978 and in all target housing 

23 that is assisted under a Federal housing program, 

24 where the level of Federal assistance exceeds 

25 $5,000.". 

•S 2341 IS 

Digitized by 





2 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

3 Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742) is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following new paragraph: 

5 "(5) Lead-based paint hazards.— A partici- 

6 pating jurisdiction may use fimds provided under 

7 this subtitle for the assessment and reduction of 

8 lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 4 of 

9 the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

10 Act of 1992.". 

11 (c) Community Development Block Grants. — 

12 Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Develop- 

13 ment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended— 

14 (1) in paragraph (19), by striking "and" at the 

15 end; 

16 (2) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at 

17 the end and inserting "; and"; and 

18 (3) hy adding at the end the following new 

19 paragraph: 

20 ''(21) lead-based paint hazard assessment and 

21 reduction, as defined in section 4 of the Residential 

22 Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.". 

23 (d) Section 8 Rental Assistance. — Section 

24 8(c)(2)(B) of the United States Housmg Act of 1937 is 

25 amended by adding at the end the following sentence: 


Digitized by 




1 "The Secretary may (at the discretion of the Secretary 

2 and subject to the availability of appropriations for con- 

3 tract amendments for this purpose), on a project by 

4 project basis, provide acfjustments to the maximum 

5 monthly rents to cover the costs of assessing and reducing 

6 lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 4 of the 

7 Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

8 1992.". 

9 (e) HOPE FOR Public and Indian Housing 

10 HOMEOWNERSHIP. — ^The United States Housing Act of 

1 1 1937 is amended — 

12 (1) in section 302(b)— 

13 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

14 through (8) as paragraphs (5) through (9), re- 

15 spectively; and 

16 (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

17 following: 

18 ''(4) assessments of lead-based paint hazards, 

19 as defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead- 

20 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992;"; and 

21 (2) in section 303(b)— 

22 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

23 through (13) as paragraphs (5) throu^ (14), 

24 respectively; and 

Digitized by 




1 (B) by adding after paragraph (3) the fol- 

2 lowing: 

3 ''(4) Reduction of lead-based paint hazards, as 

4 defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead-Based 

5 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.". 


7 Units.— The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

8 Housing Act is amended — 

9 (1) in section 422(b)— 

10 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

11 through (8) as paragraphs (5) through (9), re- 

12 spectively; and 

13 (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

14 following: 

15 'H4) assessments of lead-based paint hazards, 

16 as defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead- 

17 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992;"; and 

18 (2) in section 423(b)— 

19 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

20 throu^ (13) as paragraphs (5) through (14), 

21 respectively; and 

22 (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

23 following: 

Digitized by 




1 . ''(4) Reduction of lead-based paint hazards, as 

2 defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead-Based 

3 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.". 


5 ILY Homes. — ^The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

6 Housing Act is amended — 

7 (1) in section 442(b)— 

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

9 through (8) as paragraphs (5) through (9), re- 

10 spectively; and 

11 (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

12 following: 

13 "(4) assessments of lead-based paint hazards, 

14 as defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead- 

15 Based Pamt Hazard Reduction Act of 1992;"; and 

16 (2) in section 443(b)— 

17 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) 

18 through (10) as paragraphs (5) through (11), 

19 respectively; and 

20 (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

21 following: 

22 '*(4) Reduction of lead-based paint hazards, as 

23 defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead-Based 

24 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.". 

•8 2341 IS 

Digitized by 




1 (h) PHA Insurance for Single Family 

2 Homes. — 

3 (1) Home improvement loans. — Section 2(a) 

4 of the National Housing Act is amended in the 

5 fourth paragraph — 

6 (A) by inserting affcer the first saitence the 

7 following: ^'Alterations, repairs, and improve- 

8 ments upon or in connection with existing 

9 structures may also include the assessment and 

10 reduction of lead-based paint hazards."; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ''(4) the terms 'assessment', 'lead hazard reduc- 

13 tion', and 'lead-based paint hazard' have the same 

14 meanings given those terms in section 4 of the Resi- 

15 dential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

16 1992.". 

17 (2) Ebhabiutation loans. — Section 

18 203(k)(2)(B) of the National Housing Act is amend- 

19 ed by adding at the end the following: "The term 

20 'rehabilitation' may also include measures to assess 

21 and reduce lead-based hazards, as such terms are 

22 defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead-Based 

23 Pafait Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.". 

24 (i) PHA Insurance for Multipamily Housing. — 

25 Section 221(d)(4)(iv) of the National Housing Act is 

•8 8S41I8 

Digitized by 




1 amended by inserting affcer the term ''rehabilitation" the 

2 first time it appears the following: ''(including the cost of 

3 assessing and reducing lead-based paint hazards, as sach 

4 terms are defined in section 4 of the Residential Lead- 

5 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992)". 


7 Section 302(a) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning 

8 Prevention Act is amended by adding at the end the fol- 

9 lowing: "Beginning on Januaiy 1, 1993, such procedures 

10 shall require the inspection and abatement of lead-based 

1 1 paint hazards in all federally owned residential properties 

12 constructed prior to 1978, as defined in section 4 of the 

13 Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

14 1992. For purposes of this subsection, the terms 'assess', 

15 'reduce', 'inspection', 'abatement', 'lead-based paint haz- 

16 ard', 'target housing', and 'federally assisted housing' 

17 shall have the same meanings provided under section 4 

18 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

19 Act of 1992.". 



22 Section 105 of the Cranston-Qonzalez National Af- 

23 fordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12705) is amended— 

24 (1) in subsection (b)(14), by striking "; and" 

25 and inserting a semicolon; 

Digitized by 




1 (2) in subsection (b)(15), by striking the period 

2 and insetting "; and"; 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) m sub- 

4 section (b) the following new paragraph: 

5 "(16) estimate the number of housing units 

6 within the jurisdiction that contain lead-based paint 

7 hazards, outline the actions proposed or being taken 

8 to assess and reduce lead-based paint hazards, and 

9 describe how lead-based paint hazard reduction will 

10 be integrated into housing policies and programs."; 

11 and 

12 (4) in subsectiion (e) — 

13 (A) by striking "CONSULTATION Wfth So- 

14 ciAL SERVICE Agencies. — " and inserting: 

15 "(e) Consultation With Social Service Agen- 

16 CIES. — 

17 "(1) In general.— "; and 

18 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

19 paragraph: 

20 "(2) Lead-based paint hazards.— When pre- 

21 paring that portion of a housing strategy required 

22 by subsection (b)(16), a jurisdiction shall consult 

23 with local health and child welfare agencies and ex- 

24 amine existing data related to lead-based paint haz- 

25 ards and poisonings, including health department 

Digitized by 




1 data on the addresses of housing units in which ehil- 

2 dren have been identified as lead poisoned.". 




6 (a) In General. — ^Not later than 1 year after the 

7 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaiy shall revise 

8 the policies and procedures (including underwriting stand- 

9 ards and appraisal guidelines) governing the provision of 

10 mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act to 

1 1 ensure that such poUcies and procedures address the need 

12 to finance the assessment and reduction of lead-based 

13 paint hazards. 

14 (b) Report. — ^Not later than 1 year after the date 

15 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

16 the Congress a report — 

17 (1) describing any action taken pursuant to 

18 subsection (a); and 

19 (2) recommending any legii^tive action (indud- 

20 ing changes to loan limits) that is needed to facili- 

21 tate the financing of assessment and reduction ac- 

22 tivities. 

•8 2841 

Digitized by 






3 (a) In Oeneral. — ^The Seeretaiy shall form a task 

4 force to make recommendations on financing the assess- 

5 ment and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in private 

6 mortgages, through the policies of Federal agencies and 

7 federaUy chartered financial institutions, primary lending 

8 institutions and private mortgage insurers. 

9 (b) Membership. — The task force shall include indi- 

10 viduals representing the Department of Housing and 

11 Urban Development, the Farmers Home Administration, 

12 the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Home 

13 Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mort- 

14 gage Association, national organizations representing pri- 

15 maiy lending institutions, private mortgage insurers, and 

16 national organizations that have expertise in lead-based 

17 paint hazards. 



20 In carrying out the purposes of this Act, the Sec- 

21 retary shall consult on an ongoing basis with the Adminis- 

22 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

23 Director of the Centers for Disease Control and other 

24 Federal agencies concerned with lead poisoning prevention 

25 and national organizations that have expertise in lead- 

26 based paint hazards assessment and reduction. 

•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 







4 All federaUy supported assessment and redaction of 

5 lead-based paint hazards shall be conducted by trained 

6 contractors certified by the appropriate Federal agency. 


8 AU federally supported assessment of lead-based 

9 paint hazards shall be conducted in laboratories certified 

10 by the appropriate Federal agency. 



13 (a) In General.— Not later than 6 months after the 

14 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaiy, after con- 

15 sultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 

16 Protection Agency, the Secretaiy of Labor, and the Sec- 

17 retary of Health and Himian Services (acting through the 

18 Director of the Centers for Disease Control), shall issue 

19 guidelines for the conduct of federally supported risk as- 

20 sessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatements 

21 of lead-based paint hazards. 

22 (b) State and Local Regulations. — Federally 

23 supported work shall be conducted in accordance with the 

24 guidelines issued under this section unless any State or 

25 local regulations impose more stringent standards or re- 

Digitized by 




1 qairements than the Federal guidelines, in which ease 

2 such work shall be condueted in accordance with the State 

3 or local regulations. 


5 WORK. 

6 (a) Monitoring by HUD. — ^Not later than 18 

7 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec- 

8 retary shall establish monitoring systems to oversee closely 

9 all federaUy supported efforts to assess and reduce lead- 

10 based paint hazards in housing. 

11 (b) Penalty for Noncompliance.— Any con- 

12 tractor who performs lead-based paint hazard work under 

13 this Act and who fails to comply with the certification re- 

14 quirements of this title, or who negligently performs such 

15 work, shall be subject to the penalty described in sub- 

16 section (c). 

17 (c) Determination by Secretary. — ^After provid- 

18 ing the contractor with notice concerning the nature of 

19 the noncompliance and an opportunity to respond, the 

20 Secretary shall determine whether the contractor should 

21 be declared ineligible to perform any or all work author- 

22 ized by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 

23 ment. The Secretary may establish procedures for agencgr 

24 review of such determinations, which shall otherwise be 

25 final and nonreviewable in any court. 

Digitized by 




1 (d) Other Remedies. — A penalty under this section 

2 does not preclude the Department of Housing and Urban 

3 Development, or any party aggrieved by a contractor, from 

4 seeking redress through other means. 



7 (a) Establishment. — ^The Secretaiy shall establish, 

8 in consultation with the Administrator of the Environ- 

9 mental Protection Agency and the Director of the Centers 

10 for Disease Control, a National Clearinghouse on Residen- 

1 1 tial Lead-Based Paint Poisoning (hereafter in this section 

12 referred to as "Clearinghouse"). 

13 (b) Mission. — The Clearinghouse shall — 

14 (1) collect, evaluate, and disseminate current 

15 information on the assessment and reduction of 

16 lead-based paint hazards in housing; 

17 (2) maintain a rapid-alert system to inform cer- 

18 tified contractors and grant recipients of significant 

19 developments in research related to lead-based paint 

20 hazards; and 

21 (3) perform any other duty that the Secretaiy 

22 determines neoessaiy to carry out the purposes of 

23 this Act. 

24 (c) Authorization. — Of the total amount approved 

25 in appropriation Acts under section lOl(m) of this Act, 

•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 




1 there shall be set aside to cany out this section 

2 $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $1,000,000 for fiscal 

3 year 1994. 







10 (a) Lead Disclosure Provisions in Contract 

11 FOR Purchase AND Sale OF Target Housing. — 

12 (1) Lead-rased paint and lead-based 

13 PAINT HAZARDS.— Within 2 years after the date of 

14 enactment of this Act, the Secretaiy shall promul- 

15 gate regulations under this subsection for the disdo- 

16 sure of lead-based paint hazards in target housing 

17 i;diich is offered for sale. The regulations shall re- 

18 quire that before the purchaser is obligated under 

19 ai^ contract to purchase the premises, the seller 

20 shaU— 

21 (A) provide a lead hazard information 

22 pamphlet, as prescribed in subsection (c), to the 

23 purchaser, C 

24 (B) disclose to the purchaser the presence 

25 of any known lead-based paint or any known 

•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 




1 lead-based hazards in such housing and provide 

2 to the purchaser aiqr lead hazard assessment 

3 report available to the seller; and 

4 (C) permit the purchaser a period of at 

5 least 10 days to have the premises assessed for 

6 the presence of lead-based pafat hazards. 

7 (2) Contract for furchasb and sale. — 

8 Regulations i»t>mulgated under this subsection shall 

9 provide that every contract for the purchase and sale 

10 of any interest in target hodising shall contain a 

1 1 Lead Warning Statement and a statement signed 1^ 

12 the purchaser that the purchaser has — 

13 (A) read the Lead Warning Statement and 

14 understands its contents, 

15 (B) received a lead hazard information 

16 pamphlet, and 

17 (C) had an opportunity of at least 10 days 

18 before becoming obUgated under the contract to 

19 purchase the premises to have the premises as- 

20 sessed for the presence of lead-based paint haz- 

21 ards. 

22 The Lead Warning Statement shall contain the fol- 

23 lowing text printed in large type on a separate sheet 

24 of paper attached to the contract: 

Digitized by 



1 "Every purchaser of any interest in resi- 

2 dential real property on which a residential 

3 dwelling was built prior to 1978 is notified that 

4 such property may present e^)Osure to lead 

5 from lead-based paint that may place young 

6 children at risk of developing lead poisoning. 

7 Lead poisoning in young children may produce 

8 permanent neurological damage, including 

9 learning disabiUties, reduced intelligence quo- 

10 tient, behavioral problems, and impaired mem- 

1 1 ory. Lead poisoning also poses a particular risk 

12 to pregnant women. The seller of any interest 

13 in residential real property is required to pro- 

14 vide the buyer with any information on lead- 

15 based paint hazards from risk assessments or 

16 inspections in the seller's possession and notify 

17 the buyer of any known lead-based paint haz- 

18 ards. An assessment for possible lead-based 

19 paint hazards is recommended prior to pur- 

20 chase.''. 

21 Whenever the seller has entered into a contract with 

22 an agent for the purpose of seUing a unit of target 

23 housing, the regulations promulgated under this sUb- 

24 section shall require the agent, on behalf of the sell- 

Digitized by 




1 er, to ensure compliance with the requirements of 

2 this subsection. 

3 (b) Lease op Target Housing. — 

4 (1) In general. — ^Not later than 2 years after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

6 shall promulgate regulations to require every lease 

7 for a residential dwelling in target housing to con- 

8 tain the following Lead Warning Statement: 

9 "Every lessee of any residential dwelling 

10 built prior to 1978 is notified that such dwell- 

11 ing may present exposure to lead from lead- 

12 based paint that may place young children at 

13 risk of developing lead poisoning. Lead poison- 

14 ing in young children may produce permanent 

15 neurological damage, including learning disabil- 

16 ities, reduced intelligence quotient, behavioral 

17 problems, and impaired memory. Lead poison- 

18 ing also poses a particular risk to pregnant 

19 women. The lessor of a residential dwelling is 

20 required to provide the lessee with any informa- 

21 tion on lead-based paint hazards fix)m risk as- 

22 sessments or ini^ections in the lessor's posses- 

23 sion and notify the lessee of any known lead- 

24 based paint hazards. An assessment for possible 

•8 284118 

Digitized by 




1 lead-based paint hazards is recommended prior 

2 to entering into a lease.". 

3 (2) Lead hazard assessment. — 

4 (A) In general. — Subject to subpara- 

5 graph (B), the Secretaiy shall promulgate regu- 

6 lations that require each owner of target hous- 

7 ing offered for rent — 

8 (i) to obtain an assessment of any 

9 lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling, 

10 and 

11 (ii) to provide a prospective lessee 

12 with a lead hazard report for the premises 

13 before executing a lease. 

14 (B) Conditions. — The Secretary shall 

15 promulgate regulations described in subpara- 

16 graph (A) only after making a determination 

17 that— 

18 (i) there are available in all regions of 

19 the Nation a sufiGcient number of individ- 

20 uals certified to carry out the assessment 

21 and reduction of lead-based paint hazards, 

22 and 

23 (ii) the requirement set forth in sub- 

24 paragraph (A) will not have a deleterious 

•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 



1 impact on the availability of affordable 

2 housing for families with children. 

3 (C) Report to congress. — Not later 

4 than 12 months after the date of enactment of 

5 this Act, the Secretary shall issae a report to 

6 the Congress outlining the schedule for imple- 

7 menting the requirement set forth in subpara- 

8 graph (A), specifying any barriers that may im- 

9 pede its implementation in a timely fashion, 

10 and recommending any legislative or adminis- 

11 trative action necessary to remove such bar- 

12 riers. 

13 (c) Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet. — Not 

14 later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 

15 after notice and opportunity for comment, the Secretary 

16 shall publish, and from time to time revise, a lead hazard 

17 information pamphlet to be used in connection with the 

1 8 sale or lease of target housing. The pamphlet shall — 

19 (1) contain information regarding the health 

20 risks associated with e^)osure to lead; 

21 (2) describe the risks of lead e^)osure for chil- 

22 dren under 6 years of age, pregnant women, women 

23 of child bearing age, and others residing in a dwell- 

24 ing with lead-based paint hazards; 

Digitized by 




1 (3) describe the risks of renovation in a dwell- 

2 ing with lead-based paint or lead-based paint haz- 

3 ards; 

4 (4) provide information on approved methods 

5 and devices for lead-based paint hazard reduction 

6 and their effectiveness in reducing, eliminating, or 

7 preventing exposure to lead-based paint hazards; 

8 (5) advise persons how to obtain a list of con- 

9 tractors certified pursuant to section 201 in lead- 

10 based paint hazard reduction in the area in which 

1 1 the pamphlet is to be used; 

12 (6) provide information on the presence of lead- 

13 based paint or lead-based paint hazards in target 

14 housing; 

15 (7) state that a lead-based paint hazard assess- 

16 ment is recommended prior to the purchase, lease, 

17 or renovation of target housing; and 

18 (8) provide information on approved methods 

19 and devices for lead-based paint hazard assessment, 

20 and advise persons how to obtain a list of con- 

21 tractors certified pursuant to section 201 in lead- 

22 based paint hazard assessment in the area in which 

23 the pamphlet is to be used. 

24 (d) Penalties for Violations. — 

53-652 n - Q9 . ^ 

Digitized by 




1 (1) Monetary penalty. — Any person who 

2 knowingly violates any provision of this section shall 

3 be fined an amount not to exceed $5,000. 

4 (2) Civil liability. — Any person who know- 

5 ingly violates the provisions of this section shall be 

6 jointly and severaUy liable to the mortgage appli- 

7 cant, purchaser or lessee in an amount equal to 3 

8 times the amount of damages incurred by such indi- 

9 vidual. 

10 (3) Action by secretary. — The Secretary is 

1 1 authorized to take such lawful action as may be nec- 

12 essary to ei\join any violation of this section. 

13 (4) Costs. — ^In any civil action brought for 

14 damages pursuant to paragraph (2) of this section, 

15 the appropriate court may award court costs to the 

16 party commencing such action, together with reason- 

17 able attorney fees, if the party prevails. 

18 (e) Validity op Contracts and Liens. — Nothing 

19 in this section shall affect the vaUdity or enforceability of 

20 any sale or contract for the purchase and sale or lease 

21 of any interest in residential real property or any loan, 

22 loan agreement, mortgage, or lien made or arising in con- 

23 nection with a mortgage loan, nor shall anything in this 

24 section create a defect in title. 

•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 




1 (f) EppEcnvE Date. — ^Regulations promulgated 

2 under this section shall take effect 3 years after the date 

3 of enactment of this Act. 


5 Section 302(a)(2) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning 

6 Prevention Act is amended — 

7 (1) after "purchasers", by inserting ", own- 

8 ers,"; and 

9 (2) by striking "and of the importance and 

10 availability of maintenance and removal techniques 

11 for eliminating such hazards." and inserting "of the 

12 importance and availabiUty of techniques designed to 

13 assess, reduce and eliminate such hazards, and of 

14 the availability of Federal assistance for imdertaking 

15 assessment and reduction activities. In the case of 

16 housing where assessment and reduction activities 

17 have been undertaken, the notification shall also 

18 contain a description of the nature and scope of 

19 such activities and available information on the loca- 

20 tion of any remaining lead-based paint on a surface- 

21 by-surface basis.". 


23 (a) In General. — The Secretary, in cooperation 

24 with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall 

25 develop and undertake a campaign to increase public 


Digitized by 




1 awareness of the dangers of childhood lead poisoning. The 

2 campaign shaU be designed — 

3 (1) to inform the public of the health con- 

4 sequences of lead exposure; 

5 (2) to describe how to assess and reduce lead- 

6 based paint hazards; and 

7 (3) to provide advice about measures to reduce 

8 the risk of lead exposure. 

9 The campaign carried out under this subsection shall tar- 

10 get parents of young children and persons involved in the 

1 1 rental, sale, and renovation of residential properties. 

12 (b) Coordination. — The Secretary shall coordinate 

13 activities carried out under this section with the Presi- 

14 dent's Committee on Environmental Quality and any other 

15 public education efforts being undertaken by Federal 

16 agencies. 

17 (c) Lead Hazard Hotline. — The Secretary, in co- 

18 operation with other Federal agencies and with State and 

19 local governments, shall establish a lead hazard hotline to 

20 provide the public with quick, easy-to-understaiid answers 

21 to basic-questions about lead-based paint poisoning. 

22 (d) Authorization. — Of the total amount approved 

23 in appropriation Acts under section lOl(m), there shall 

24 be set aside to carry out this section $2,000^00 for fiscal 

25 year 1993 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1994. 

Digitized by 





2 (a) Information. — The Secretary, in consultation 

3 with the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Com- 

4 mission, shall develop information to be distributed by re- 

5 tailors of home improvement products to provide consum- 

6 ers with practical information related to the hazards of 

7 renovation and remodeling where lead-based paint may be 

8 present. 

9 (b) Warning Labels. — Each manufacturer of hand 

10 tools, determined by the Commissioner of the Consumer 

11 Product Safety Commission to be commonly used for ren- 

12 ovation or remodeling of residential painted surfaces, shall 

13 affix an appropriate warning label, as developed by the 

14 Commissioner, to advise users to obtain information re- 

15 garding the hazards of renovation and remodeling in the 

16 presence of lead-based paint before such users engage in 

17 any activities that could cause hazardous e^qjosures. 


19 (a) State Laws. — Nothing in this title shall annul, 

20 alter, affect or exempt any person subject to the provisions 

21 of this title from complying with the laws of any State 

22 with respect to the pro\'ision of information concerning 

23 lead, except to the extent that the Secretary determines 

24 that any such law is inconsistent with this section, in 

25 which event, such law shall be affected only to the extent 

26 of remedying the inconsistency. 

Digitized by 




1 (b) Establishment op More Stringent Stand- 

2 ARDS. — Nothing in this title shall be construed as preclud- 

3 ing a State from establishing any standard of liability or 

4 other requirement concerning the disclosure of informa- 

5 tion concerning lead that is more stringent than the re- 

6 quirements of this title. 




10 (a) In General. — Not later than 3 years after the 

1 1 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall formu- 

12 late a national strategy for eliminating lead-based paint 

13 hazards in housing. 

14 (b) Objective. — The objective of the national strat- 

15 egy is to enable State and local governments to assess and 

16 reduce lead-based paint hazards within their respective ju- 

17 risdictions as soon as practicable and to encourage and 

18 assist private sector efforts. 

19 (c) Contents. — The national strategy shall — 

20 (1) identify the infrastructure needed to elimi- 

21 nate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expe- 

22 ditiously as possible, including cost-effective tech- 

23 nology, uniform regulations, trained and certified 

24 contractors, certified laboratories, liability insurance. 

•S2841 IS 

Digitized by 




1 private financing techniques, and appropriate Oov- 

2 emment subsidies; 

3 (2) assess the extent to which the infi-astructure 

4 described in paragraph (1) ah^ady exists; 

5 (3) describe any legislative or administrative ac- 

6 tions that may be necessary to develop the infi-a- 

7 structure described in paragraph (1) in order to 

8 meet the goal set forth in paragraph (1); and 

9 (4) estimate the costs of canying out actions 
10 proposed under paragraph (3). 



13 Subtitle A— HUD Research 



16 The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal 

17 agencies, shall conduct research on strategies to reduce 

18 the risk of lead exposure from other sources, including ex- 

19 terior soil lead and interior lead dust in carpets, furniture, 

20 and forced air ducts. 


22 The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal 

23 agencies, shall conduct research to— 

24 (1) develop improved methods for assessing 

25 lead-based paint hazards in housing; 

•S2841 IS 

Digitized by 




1 (2) develop improved methods for reducing 

2 lead-based paint hazards in housing; 

3 (3) develop improved methods for measuring 

4 lead in paint films, dust, and soil samples; 

5 (4) establish performance standards for various 

6 detection methods, including spot test kits; 

7 (5) establish performance standards for hazard 

8 reduction and abatement methods, including 

9 encapsulants; 

10 (6) establish appropriate cleanup standards; 

11 (7) evaluate the efficacy of interim controls in 

12 various hazard situations; 

13 (8) evaluate the relative performance of various 

14 abatement techniques; 

15 (9) evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 

16 interim control and abatement strategies; and 

17 (10) assess the effectiveness of hazard assess- 

18 ment and reduction activities funded by this Act. 


20 Of the total amount approved in appropriation Acts 

21 under section lOl(m), there shall be set aside to carry out 

22 this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and 

23 $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1994. 

Digitized by 




1 Subtitle B— GAO Report 


3 The Comptroller General of the United States shall 

4 assess the availability of liability insurance for owners of 

5 residential housing that contains lead-based paint and per- 

6 sons engaged in lead-based paint hazard assessment and 

7 reduction activities. In carrying out the assessment, the 

8 Comptroller General shall analyze any precedents in the 

9 insurance industry for the containment and abatement of 

10 environmental hazards in housing, such as asbestos, and 

1 1 shall provide an assessment of the recent insurance experi- 

12 ence in the public housing program and shall recommend 

13 measures for increasing the availability of liability insur- 

14 ance. 




18 (a) Annual Report. — The Secretary shall transmit 

19 to the Congress an annual report that — 

20 (1) sets forth the Secretary's assessment of the 

21 progress made in implementing the various pro- 

22 grams authorized by this Act; 

23 (2) summarizes the most current health and en- 

24 vironmental studies on childhood lead poisoning, in- 

25 eluding studies that analyze the relationship between 

Digitized by 




1 reduction and abatement activities and the incidence 

2 of lead poisoning in resident children; 

3 (3) recommends legislative and administrative 

4 initiatives that may improve the performance by the 

5 Department of Housing and Urban Development in 

6 combating lead hazards through the expansion of 

7 lead hazard assessment and reduction; 

8 (4) describes the results of research carried out 

9 in accordance with title V of this Act; and 

10 (5) estimates the amount of Federal assistance 

11 annually expended on assessment and reduction ac- 

12 tivities. 

13 (b) Biennial Report. — 

14 (1) In general. — ^24 months after the date of 

15 enactment of this Act, and every 24-month period 

16 thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Con- 

17 gress on the progress of the Department of Housing 

18 and Urban Development in implementing the provi- 

19 sions of section 301. 

20 (2) Contents.— The report shall— 

21 (A) include a statement as to the effective- 

22 ness of section 301 in making the public aware 

23 of the dangers of lead; 

24 (B) describe the extent to which lead-based 

25 paint hazard assessment and reduction is occur- 


Digitized by 




1 ring as a result of the administration of section 

2 301; and 

3 (C) include any additional information that 

4 the Secretary deems appropriate. 


•8 2841 IS 

Digitized by 




-i" before the 



Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr. 

Mrs. Antoinette 0. Burke 

March 19, 1992 

Digitized by 



Mr . Timothy J . Burke , Sr . 
Mrs. Antoinette D. Burke 
1328 Arch Street 
Emmausr PA 18049 
(215) 967-9087 

March 10, 1992 







On . December 2, 1991 a man from the Allentown Bureau ot 
Health came to our house and posted the above sign on our front door. 
The testimony you are about to read will explain the things that 
happened that led up to this action, along with the events that were 
to follow. 

It w:is May of 1989 when we first looked at our house, and we 
were really impressed with how well it had been maintained. All the 
walls are paneled and wall papered; the exterior was completely sided 
with aluminum; and the roof, which has aluminum shingles, has a 
lifetime guarantee. The home seemed perfect to us, especially since 
we didn't foresee having r much money for repairs. Later that evening we 
put in a bid on the house and felt lucky for having found it. 

When we first met with a representative of our mortgage 
company, we were given many papers to sign. One of those papers was a 
notice on lead paint, of which we have enclosed a copy. As you can 
see, the notice states that - since the house was built before 197 8 - 
there might be lead paint in it. The notice goes on to tell us that 
children get lead poisoning when they eat lead paint chips and that we 
should watch that our children do not do this. The reason that we 
signed this paper was because it gave us the impression that the only 
way children get lead poisoning was by eating lead paint chips; and 
our son (our daughter was not yet born) never ate things lixe paint 
chips, plaster, etc. This was the only notice that we ever received, 
either in writing or verbally, that pertained to lead paint. At no 
time were we told that we should get the house tested. Nor were we 
told the expense to get the house abated if there actually was lead 
paint. Both of those things could have saved our family the hardships 
we incurred two years later. 

V«itnin the first several weeks that we were in the house, 
out son - then twenty months old - started to refuse to eat. We 
called the doctor several times; but, since he had no other symptoms, 
it was suggested that we just do the best we could to coax him with 
foods that he iikes. We were told that it would probably pass, and - 

Digitized by 



Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr. 
Mrs. Antoinette Burke 
March 10, 1992 
Page 2 

mysteriously - it did when iummer was over. We know now thLt loss of 
appetite is a sign of low level lead poisoning and it is very possible 
that our son started to get poisoned as soon as we moved into the 

In October of 1991 we decided to have our children tested 
for lead because we had heard all children between nine months and six 
years should be tested annually. We never dreamed what hapr.>ened next 
could happen to us! Our house was in such good repair, how could our 
children be getting poisoned? When the first results were in, we were 
told that both our children had elevated lead levels. It was 
suggested to us that we have venipunctures done since the original 
tests were capillaries and there was a question as to the accuracy of 
the test results. When the results from the venipunctures were in, we 
were told tBat both our children had lead poisoning and the Allentown 
Bureau of Health said that they would set up an appointment with the 
Northeastern Pennsylvania Vecter Control to test our house for 
possible lead sources that could be poLsoning our children. On 
November .22, 1991 the Allentown Bureau of Health along with the 
Northeastern Pennsylvania Vecter Control came to our house witn a XK3 
machine and proceededio test the painted surfaces. We have enclosed a 
copy of the results of this test. As you can see from these results, 
there were many areas in our house that had lead levels higher then 
what HUD would consider safe. Yet they insured the loan! Also, as 
you can see from the results, many of these areas - particularly the 
window -'wells r- are weathered, worn and chipped. it was the Vecter 
Control's feeling that our children's lead poisoning was caused by 
lead dust created by the high concentrations of flaking lead paint in 
the window wells and on the window sashes and jambs. They also felt 
that, since we had fans blowing in these windows all summer long, lead 
dust had probably been blown throughout our house and this lead dust 
was probably ingested by our children through the normal hand to mouth 
activity that small children have. They told us to wash our 
children's hands frequently and to keep them from placing their toys, 
fingers, or anything else that touches the floor in their mouths. 
Anyone who has ever dealt with small children knows that, short of 
constantly reprimanding them for doing something which is normal for 
them to do, there is no way to keep them from putting their hands in 
their mouths. We were also told that we should wash down all painted 
surfaces in our house with Tsp and that we should keep the windows 
closed. When we asked how to get the remaining lead dust out of our 
home, we were told that - short of removing the carpet - there was 
nothing we could do to remove it. We would like to state here that 
our children did not eat paint chips. 

At this point we contacted HUD to explain our problem in 
hopes that they would help; but we were promptly told there was 
absolutely nothing they would do. We then began to investigate on our 
own what possible options there could be for us, only to find that we 

Digitized by 



Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr. 
Mrs. Antoinette D. Burke 
March 10, 1992 
Page 3 

were totally on our own. Then on December 2, 1991 the Allentown 
Bureau of Health arrived and posted the warning sign on the front of 
our house. It was at this time chat we began to realize how serious 
this problem actually was. How could we be sold a house that is unfit 
for us to live in and not be told? 

We began desperately to try to find someone who could help 
us; and after many hours on the phone - speaking to anyone who would 
listen - we were given the number of The Alliance to End Childhood 
Lead Poisoning and FINALLY someone wanted to help. It was through 
them that we were put in touch with several experts who were able to 
explain the symptoms and effects of lead poisoning more fully. We 
quickly realized both of our children had displayed these symptoms. 
The more investigation we did, the more we realized the the most 
important thing for us to do was to remove our children from the 
hazard. We do not know how long our cnildren were being exposed; but, 
since we never did anything to disturb the paint in that house, we can 
only assume they were being exposed the whole time they were there. 

On December 5, 1991 we moved from our home and, since we 
cannot afford to pay the rent on a safe place to live along with our 
mortgage, we had to stop paying for the house. Again we called HUD 
and asked for help; but we were told "You bought your house as is and 
the law says you must pay for it". Well, according to the Code of 
Federal^ Regulations 24 CFR 35, all federal agencies must conduct an 
inspection for defective paint surfaces prior to the approval of an 
application for home mortgage insurance and develop a plan for the 
correction of these defective paint surfaces. Even though this law 
has existed since 1971, there was no indication onour home inspection 
sheet of any defective paint surfaces DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE 
PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. Taking into consideration that the government 
told us that our children must eat paint chips to get poisoned, we had 
no reason to fear the defective surfaces. The FHA did not comply with 
the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations and - compounded 
with the fact that they were negligent in their misinformation on the 
ways children get lead poisoning - tl.ey in effect caused our 
children's lead poisoning. 

Throughout this whole thing, we continue to ask ourselves 
how and why. How could this be happening to our family, and why 
weren't we ever told about the true hazards of lead based paint? We 
have in our possession a copy of HUD's "Comprehensive and Workaoie 
Plan for the Abatement of Privately Owned Housing" report to Congress. 
In this report, it refers to several studies that were done in which 
it was discovered that lead dust was a major cause of lead poisoning. 
Some of these studies go as far back as 198C. Why, then, in 1989 were 
we simply told to watch that our children did not eat paint chips? 
VJhy did our two small children have to get poisoned for us to find out 

Digitized by 



Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr. 

Mrs. Antoinette D. Burke 

March 10, 1992 

Page 4 

the true ways children do get poisoned? This is a tragedy that could 

have been avoided, and now our children may have to live with it for 

the rest of their lives. 

As parents we have tried to do all we could to protect our 
children, and it hurts to know that all we could do was not good 
enough. Our children got poisoned anyway; but, almost as bad as 
knowing that our children have been poisoned, is knowing that it could 
have been avoided had the proper inspections been done. We do not 
know at this time the effects the lead poisoning will have on our 
children. We certainly pray that there won't be any, but we have read 
the research and know how serious the long term effects can be. It 
breaks our hearts when we think of the possible repercussions this may 
have on them. 

Along with all the emotional stress we have had to endure is 
the financial burdens this has imposed upon us. We have used all our 
sayings, gone further into debt, and have had to go as far as 
borrowing some of our children's money so we could move into a le<id 
free home * and continue to work on resolving our dilemma. In just a 
few short months, we have gone from financial stability to wondering 
how we are going to provide food for our family. We have always been 
a hard-working American family who wanted to provide the best for our 
children; and it seems that the very government that claims to give us 
that opportunity is taking it away. 

In oiir efforts to solve this problem, we have continued to 
contact HUD in hopes that they would help us. Unfortunately, until we 
contacted our elected officials, no one at HUO would listen. On 
February 26, 1992 we received a letter from HUD - forwarded to us by 
Congressman Kostmayer. In this letter HUD gave us two options. 
First, they said we could sell the house and, second, they said we 
could give a deed in lieu of foreclosure. It appalls us that they 
would suggest to sell the house to someone else. Should we pass it on 
so someone else's children get poisoned and, we wonder, would it pass 
another FHA inspection? If we went with their second option - a deed 
in lieu of foreclosure - we would lose everything that we have ever 
worked for. It would be years, if ever, before we could buy another 
house. What bank would give us a mortgage, anyway? 

We cannot understand why there is not better legislation to 
protect homebuyers from the hazards of lead based paint. We feel the 
Residential Lead Based Faint Hazard Reduction Act would require that. 
Our house is a prime example of how a seemingly fit house could be a 
real danger to small children. There needs to be established 
guidelines and financial assistance available to disclose and/or abate 
all hazards which could be of potential danger. With new information 
about lead poisoning being introduced all the time, we feel it should 
be mandated that all government housing agencies keep abreast of the 
most current facts and, in turn, report them to the public. It is 

Digitized by 



Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr. 
Mrs. Antoinette D. Burke 
March 10, 1992 
Page 5 

also of utmost importance to develop a program to train and certify 
workers so that more hazards are not created in trying to remove the 
lead paint. One of the biggest problems we have encountered through 
our investigation is the public's lack of awareness when it comes to 
lead poisoning. Educating the public could go a long way to insure 
that less children get poisoned. Imagine how much worse it could have 
been for our children had we not heard that all children should be 

We commend Senator Cranston for his efforts to reduce the 
risk of lead poisoning that so many young children face today. It is 
our hope that more elected officials will make the lead based paint 
problem in this country a priority so that all housing is safe for our 
young . 

In ^-closing we would like to say that the warning that hangs 
on the front door of our house should not have been given to us in 
December of 1991 but in May of 1989 - when we decided to buy the 
house. Had we been told the true hazards of lead based paint and the 
cost of abatement, we would have surely had the house tested before we 
agreed to .purchase it. Because these hazards were not disclosed to 
us, we had ho idea what the implications of having lead based paint in 
a house were, and when we found out it was too late. 

We would like to thank Senator Cranston for inviting us to 
testify at this hearing; and we would like to ask if he - or any 
member of this committee - can be of any assistance in resolving this 
situatioh for us, to please help. We feel that our backs are indeed 
against the wall, and we have no place left to turn. 

Thank you. 


Timothy J . Burke , Sr . 
Antoinette D. Burke 

Digitized by 






43S HaniUMi Stiwt 
AUentowB. Pi. 18101 


723 Chew Stieet 

AUeatown. Pi. 18102 



November 25, 1991 

Timothy & Antoinette Burke 
114 S. Carlisle Street 
Allentown, PA 18103 

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Burke: 


114 S. Carlisle Street 
Allentown, PA 18103 

An inspection by the Allento%m Bureau of Health using an XR3 Lead-In-Paint 
Analyzer has revealed that paint containing in excess of 0.7 milligrams per 
cubic centimeter is present in the above referenced property. This paint 
poaes a hazard to pregnant women and children under the age of six (6) 
years. The specific areas which have lead paint are listed on the attached 

City Ordinance No. 12384, as amended, requires the abatement of the lead 
paint hazard. Please contact my office on December 2nd to arrange for a 
meeting to discuss the means and methods by which compliance will be 
achieved. Please note that City offices are closed on November 28th and 
29th for the holiday. 

I can be reached by calling my office at 437-7759. Thank you for your 
interest and cooperation. 



Garry Rittefv^R.S. 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

6R:aek 11.21 


Certified # P 124 415 531 


Digitized by 



Novenber 25, 1991 
Page 2 

114 S. Carlisle Street 
Allentown, PA 18103 


Entrance door (Interior & Exterior) 
Right wall window sash (#2 & #4) 
I>oorway to livingroom 


Right wall windows 

Right sash 

Right well 

Right Jamb 

Left sash 
Window to foyer 

Front window 

Left sash 

Left well 

Left J^ob 

Right jaab 

Right well 


Right wall window sash 
I>oorway to pantry 

I>oor .iamb 

Door lintel 

Rear wall 
Right wall window 

Dividing board 

Right sash 

Right well 

Right .lamb 

Left sash 

Left well 

Left Jamb 


Left stairway wall 


Right wall window 



Facing wall window 










1.0 . 

10 .0/ 



10 .ov 




10.0 >/ 










10.0 J 







10 .o>/ 

10 .OV 


. *«iP 
















10 .o{ 


10 .Ov/ 

1.5 . 
10.0 v/ 


• Tan 










1.7 I 

10 .On/ 



10.0 V- 
10.0 n/ 

Digitized by 



November 25, 
Page 3 


RE: 114 S. Carlisle Street 
Allentovn, PA 18103 


Facing wall windows 
Right sash 
Right well 
Left well 
Left jamb 


Facing wall window 


Right wall window 



Door .iamb 




















1.8 , 
10 .Ov/ 
10 .0/ 
10. OV 

10.0 >( 

10 .on/ 
10.0 / 


10.0 N' 


Closet -window sash 




Digitized by 






The house you an purchasing may contain 
substantial amounts of lead t>ased paint, even 
¥¥here HUD regulations are met. HUD reg- 
ulations do not require that properties tie made 
free of lead based paint. 

Children can get lead poisoning when they eat 
t)tt8 of paint that contain lead. If a child eats 
enough lead paint, his brain win be damaged. 
He may t)ecome n)ental!y retarded or even die. 

Older houses often have layers of lead paint on 
the walls, ceilings, and woodwork. When the 
paint chips off or when the plaster t>reaks, there 
is real danger for babies and young children. 
Outdoors, lead paints and primers may have 
been used in many places such as wall, fences, 
porches, and fire escapes. 

If you see your child putting pieces of paint or 
plaster in Ipiis mouth, you should take him to a 
doctor, clink:, or hospital as soon as you can. In 
the t>eginning stages of lead poisoning, a chikJ 
may not seem really sick. Do not wait for signs 
of poisoning. 

Of course, a child might eat paint chips, or chew 
on a painted railing or window siN while parents 
areni around. If your chikj t)ecomes especially 
cranky, eats very little, throws up, or has 
stomach aches often, these couU be signs of 
lead poisoning. Take him to a doctor's office or 
to a dink:. 

Be sure to tell the rest of your family and people 
who t>abysit for you at)out the danger of lead 

Look at your walls and ceilings and woodwork. 
Are there places where the paint is peeling? 

• Get a txoom or stiff t>rush and remove an 
loose pieces of paint from walls, woodwork, and 
ceilings. Sweep up an the pieces of paint and 
plaster. Put them in a paper k>ag or wrap them in 
newspaper and put the package in the trash can. 

• Always keep the floor clear of loose t)its of 
paint and plaster. 

• ChiUren win pick loose paint off the waHs, so 
be extra careful akxHit keeping the lower parts of 
the walls free of loose paint. 

• You can cover up at least the lower parts of 
waUs t}y moving heavy furniture against them. 

If you want to know more at}out how to keep 
your chiU safe from lead poisoning, tak to your 
doctor, public health nurse, or sodai worker at 
the cUnic or health department. 

I have bMn advised by Travelers Mongage Services. 
Inc. that ttiis property vvas built before 1978 and may conlHn 

I have received a copy of tfw required notification, which 
is evidenced by my signature. 

//.r,'^^ • '' 

• '^. 

'•• ^— ^_^ 


'-• , -' 

• ■■ / 

,' . , 


' ■ '■":.: 






TMS 17042 Rev.6/t7 pre 

WHITE - Return to TMS YEUOW • Applicant 

PINK • Fie 

Digitized by 









Senate Subcommittee on Housing 
and Urban Affairs 

March 19, 1992 

Digitized by 




I an honored to be invited by Senator Cranston to particpate 
in the roundtable discussion hearing to discuss issues associated 
with reducing lead paint hazards. I am professor of pathology at 
the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore, and an 
adjunct scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund as well as a 
founding trustee of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. 
I also serve as chair of the Maryland state Advisory Council on 
Lead Poisoning, and I have been a member of several EPA expert 
committees convened to deal with various issues related to lead in 
the environment. However, I appear here not as a representative of 
these organizations, but to present my expertise on the nature and 
severity of lead poisoning in the United States, and on the need to 
take preventive steps to eliminate this disease. 

For the past 30 years I have been involved in research 
concerning the effects of lead on human health, first at Johns 
Hopkins, then at NIH, and now at the University of Maryland. I 
shall draw upon this experience in this testimony. 

Many health authorities, including the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, Dr Louis Sullivan, the Director of the National 

Digitized by 



Institutes of Health, Dr Bernadine Healy, and the Director of the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dr Kenneth 
Olden, have identified lead poisoning as one of the most serious 
and prevalent diseases of children in this country. Recent 
estimates by the Public Health Service, the US EPA and the 
Environmental Defense Fund indicate that between 10 and 15% of 
children under the age of 6 are exposed to levels of lead 
sufficient to jeopardize their intellectual development for many 
years. Our children's intelligence is our most precious resource, 
and the only hope for the continued growth and development of our 
country. While the risks of lead imperil all children, the unequal 
distribution of this toxic metal in our country places some 
children at very great risks of exposure. In my city of Baltimore, 
the state estimates that over 60% of young children are at risk for 
blood lead levels in excess of 10 mcg/dl. 

In addition, lead damages reproduction, cardiovascular 
function, and the kidney of adults. Lead exposure is also toxic to 
the fetus, and over 500,000 pregnant women are exposed to toxic 
levels of lead each year in the US, according to the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 

These figures have been presented to this subcommittee, and to 
other distinguished Congressional groups before. I do not intend 
to focus on the nature and prevalence of lead poisoning in this 
testimony, but rather to discuss two issues: the nature of the 

Digitized by 



biomedical evidence that supports the consensus concern over lead 
poisoning as a disease; and, the importance of the steps proposed 
in this legislation as the first real commitment to preventing lead 
based paint poisoning. But two points may be made at the outset: 

* First, lead poisoning is an insidious disease, whose early 
manifestations rarely alert parents, teachers, or health care 
providers as to the cause in an individual child. By the time 
lead poisoning is clearly manifest, its damage is pervasive. 

* Second, lead poisoning is poorly treatable by currently 
available clinical tools. The FDA has recently approved a new 
therapy, DMSA, and the NIEHS will be sponsoring a large 
clinical trial of its efficacy in moderately exposed 
children, but ve have long known that the toxic effects of 
lead on the brain are poorly reversible. 

Regardless of how we define lead poisoning, which I will discuss 
further, these two facts require us to recognize that only an 
integrated program of effective prevention can eliminate this 
disease, as the Secretary of HHS has challenged us to do, by the 
end of the century. 

The gviggnce fQr the tpxicity gg lead in vownq ghildr?n. at Iw 
doggi is CQnclttgive 

Attached to this testimony is a learned review of the current 
biomedical, literature presented at the recent Society of Toxicology 

Digitized by 



annual meetings in February by Michael Davis, PhD, an EPA staff 
scientist. EPA, and other government agencies, have reviewed this 
topic in depth from 1983 to the present. All these reviews, 
conducted in an open manner and involving acknowledged experts from 
industry, academia, government, and interest groups, have concluded 
similarly that 10 mcg/dl blood lead is the appropriate level of 
concern upon which to base public health policy for disease 
prevention. No comparable scientifically based review has provided 
credible support for an alternative position, with a higher level 
of exposure. 

This level of concern, embodied in CDC's new guidelines for 
the prevention of childhood lead poisoning (published in October 
1991) , is based upon many well-conducted clinical studies, which 
are referenced in the attachment. It is unfortunately the case 
that for lead we do not need to utilize experimental research to 
develop guidelines; we have managed to expose large numbers of our 
own species around the world, so that with carefully designed 
studies, we can define the qualitative and the quantitative nature 
of the risks of lead exposure for young children. No 
intermediaries of species-to-species extrapolation, or route-to- 
route conversion — the stuff of endless controversies in current 
environmental policy — obscure* these data. 

CDC's determination does not rest upon one study, or the work 
of one researcher. Pioneering research by Herbert Needleman, MD, 

Digitized by 



of the University of Pittsburgh, has been replicated by several 
other groups around the world. Moreover, the driving force for the 
new guidelines comes from recent studies, by scientists other than 
NeedXeman, reporting persistent neurodevelopmental deficits in 
young children who were exposed pre- and postnatal ly to very low 
levels of lead. 

Although we do not need experimental research to assist us in 
determining our public health objectives of defining an acceptable 
level of lead exposure for our children, experimental research is 
iiqportant for two reasons: to provide corroborative evidence in 
subjects %rhere confounders do not exist, and to increase our 
understanding of how lead affects human health. Basic research on 
lead toxicity, in rodents and primates as well as in in vitro 
preparations from invertebrates, confirm that lead is neurotoxic, 
particularly to the developing organism, at low dose. In these 
subjects, the contributing factors of undernutrition, family 
disarray, and other issues do not arise. Behaviorally, the 
consequences of lead exposure, in primate models, are strikingly 
similar to those observed in lead-exposed children. The elegant 
research of Drs Rice, Laughlin, and Cory Slechta show that early 
low level lead exposure alters attention and impairs short term 
memory. These effects are persistent and substantial. 

The experimental research also assists us to understand how 
lead can be so toxic. Lead has no essential role in physiology, 

Digitized by 



and in the brain appears to substitute for the essential cation 
calciun on an atom-for-atom basis« If lead gains access to nerve 
cells, it can affect their function at very low doses. In figure 
1, I have drawn information from a number of important basic 
research studies to demonstrate that as lead penetrates more deeply 
into the nerve cell, the sensitivity of neurochemical and 
neurophysiological process to lead increases. Ultimately, at the 
mechanistic level at which the cell may store information (and 
thereby constitute what we call learning and memory), lead can 
interfere at concentrations of one nanomolar. For comparison, a 
blood lead level of 20 mcg/dl is approximately one micromolar, or 
one thousand times higher than the concentration that affects 
intraneuronal processes. 



20 ^iM ^4T release 10 |iM 

(I Evoked: t Spontaneous) 

Another important way in which to consider the plausibility of 
CDC's new guideline for lead exposure is to place this level of 10 
mcg/dl in context. In fact, as Dr Davis of the EPA notes, the 

Digitized by 



current level of concern nay be too high. It certainly provides 
no margin of safety, based upon the clinical studies. A context 
for our consideration is bounded by two important pieces of 
information. First, lethal levels of lead in blood occur at only 
about one order of magnitude greater: as pointed out by Dr Kathryn 
Mahaffey of NIEHS, children have convulsions and die as blood lead 
levels near 100 mcg/dl. Second, the level of 10 mcg/dl represents 
an enormous contamination of our bodies by lead over very recent 
history. Using information on the relation between bone and blood 
lead, and actual data on bone lead concentrations in historical 
relics, Drs Russel Flegal and Donald Smith of the University of 
California Santa Cruz, have estimated that preindustrial humans had 
blood lead levels of less than 1 nM, or less than 0.02 mcg/dl. It 
is quite interesting that this calculated "natural background** 
level of exposure is consistent with the most sensitive 
neurochemical response to lead in mammalian brain. Thus, if we are 
to truly prevent biochemical perturbation of our nervous system, we 
should (ideally) return to levels of lead exposure that were common 
for humans only 300 to 400 years ago. 

Prevention of Lead Poisoning Requires Reductions in Exnoaure 

This information on the toxicity of lead could be considered 
overwhelming, and many have found it difficult to resist the 
temptations to do nothing. However, the good news is that we know 
how to prevent lead poisoning, and when we have acted on this 


Digitized by 



knowledge, ve have made significant impacts upon the prevalence of 
disease. In the late 1970s, the EPA began the phasedown on use of 
lead in gasoline. Within a few years, a demonstrable reduction in 
average exposures to lead — measured as reduced blood lead levesl 
— was discernible. Turning off the ongoing inputs of lead into 
the human environment is an effective way to reduce the burdens of 
disease. We have over the past two decades taken similar steps to 
reduce uses of lead in paints, can solders, and other products. 

However, because lead is an element, we cannot eliminate its 
hazards solely by source reduction or substitution of ongoing uses, 
important though these measures remain, particularly in a global 
context where uses of lead continue to increase. Thousands of tons 
of lead remain in the American environment, a legacy of past uses 
of lead in gasoline and in housepaint. The persistent presence of 
lead in paint remains the most dangerous source of high risk 
exposures, particularly for young children. As painted surfaces 
age and deteriorate, the lead in paint is more and more quickly 
released. It mingles with housedust to form a highly dangerous 
environment particularly for the young child whose normal 
exploratory behavior places him or her at great risk for ingestion 
of lead-contaminated dusts and soils from hands, toys, and other 
objects. This subcommittee should not be fooled by those who claim 
that lead in dust, not in paint, is the origin of hazard. Lead in 
dust in most cases is mostly derived from lead from painted 
surfaces, as shown in figure 2 taken from the research of 

Digitized by 



Bomschein et al in Cincinnati. The lines on this figure show 
blood lead levels in children, by age, according to type of 
housing. The highest levels were found in children living in old 
housing in poor condition; the next highest were in children in old 
housing in good condition; next, children in old, renovated 
housing; followed by children in public housing and in new housing 
with no lead paint present. 

Although we have known the dangers of this source of lead for 
young children for nearly a century, we have not developed or 
implemented policies to prevent exposure. Over 20 years ago, 
Congress first considered this issue, with the Lead Based Paint 
Poisoning Prevention Act. Unfortunately, that legislation has not 
significantly reduced the existing burden of hazardous paint in 
housing. State and local programs in lead poisoning, although they 
usually call themselves "prevention**, fall far short of providing 
real prevention. In all cases, lead programs at the local level, 
where I know them, come into action only after a child has been 
poisoned, that is, after the damage has been done. 


Digitized by 



Much of the problem in developing and implementing truly 
preventive programs has to do with the complexity of the lead paint 
problem. Lead poisoning is a medical problem, and its recognition 
and treatment is properly the responsibility of public health and 
health case delivery agencies. However, the vector of many cases 
of lead poisoning is housing, and identification and management of 
this source of lead requires the integrated involvement of housing 
and community development agencies. It is particularly important 
that lead poisoning prevention programs do not inadvertently 
aggravate the prisis in low income housing availability. 
Environmental agencies are also critical components in developing 
appropriate methods of risk assessment and management; while 
occupational safety and health agencies are necessary partners to 
prevent hazards to abatement and cleanup workers. Overcoming the 
institutional and cultural barriers among these agencies, and their 
staff, is a difficult challenge. 

This legislation is timelv and appropriate 

This legislation, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act, marks a new and important point in national response 
to the epidemic of lead poisoning in our children. It provides for 
the first time a comprehensive program of primary prevention that 
will reduce the legacy of hazard in a reasonable and integrated 
fashion, drawing upon the resources of private and public sector 
and utilizing information disclosure as a tool of hazard reduction. 
It correctly identifies and supports the components of true 


Digitized by 



prevention: early detection, through support of screening and 
testing, and source identification and control, through hazard 
reduction efforts in both private and public housing. The 
legislation also recognizes the importance of prioritizing efforts 
in prevention by targeting interventions to those most at risk. 
The legislation seeks to avoid sojiie of the pitfalls of other 
environmental legislation, by building a sound base of trained and 
certified abatement workers and laboratories along with national 
information clearinghouses and educational efforts. Very 
importantly, the bill leverages lead paint abatement by encouraging 
the market to incorporate knowledge of lead hazards through testing 
and disclosure of houses, and increased information targetted at 
do-it>yourself homeowners. With respect to this group, every lead 
clinic in the country can probably cite anecdotal evidence of 
tragic cases where young families have purchased old houses and 
undertaken renovations at the same time as they start their 
families; the coincidence has resulted too often in tragically 
avoidable intoxication of pregnant women, their fetus, and infants. 

With respect to the specific questions posed by Senator 
Cranston in his letter of invitation: 

(1) what should be the objective of a grant program to aid state 
and local governments, and what elements should be included? 

The objective of this grant program should be to prevent lead 
poisoning from lead paint in existing housing in both the private 
and public sector. Prevention should be prioritized in two ways, 
to direct interventions towards the most immediately hazardous 


53- 652 O - 92 - 5 

Digitized by 



sites, and to invest in programs that leverage local private-public 
activities in urban redevelopment. A corollary objective of this 
program should be to coordinate lead poisoning prevention 
activities with increased supply of low income housing and 
opportunities for job training and community development, whenever 
possible. The elements that should be included are: establishment 
of integrated public health and housing programs for lead poisoning 
prevention, including demonstrable capability in providing lead 
screening and public information as veil as comprehensive and 
reliable environmental risk assessment of housing sources; support 
for laboratory capabilities in biological and environmental 
monitoring; mandatory evaluation of all intervention programs, 
including analysis of cost-effectiveness; integration with EPA 
programs in working training and certification. 
(2) is the bill structured to function most effectively? 

I have the following comments to offer in this regard. First, 
although this bill is correctly targetted on housing as a major 
vector of lead exposure, and thus it mainly involves HUD in its 
implementation, it is important that the Public Health Service, 
through CDC and ATSDR, be involved in oversight, particularly in 
those areas where evaluation and assessment are required. HUD does 
not have the expertise to reach health-based judgements, nor should 
these judgements be reached in the absence of full participation — 
not merely consultation — by the PHS. I strongly recommend an 
equal role for the PHS in monitoring activites (under Sec 204) and 
a preeminent role for PHS in the certification of laboratories (Sec 


Digitized by 



203) and the developnent of informational materials (such as the 
lead hazard hotline and information pamphlet, described under Sees 
301 and 302; and the public awareness campaign described in Sec 
303). Within PHS, the ATSDR is particularly well equipped and 
experienced in developing and disseminating such materials, as veil 
as in ensuring their utilization by target audiences, including the 
health care community. I am also concerned that the National 
Strategy, described in Sec 401, is made the sole responsibility of 
the Secretary of HUD. The equal involvement of EPA and PHS is 
critical to the success of this undertaking. Similarly, with 
respect to research (Sec 501) , I would strongly urge inclusion of 
EPA and PHS in the design and oversight of such projects and 
programs. I would urge expansion of the mandate to GAO in its 
study of insurance (Sec 511) ; this should also include an analysis 
of the impact of tort litigation on the lead situation; this could 
be done in conjunction with appropriate private organizations. 
Finally, I would recommend that in addition to the annual reports 
by HUD on progress made under this legislation in abating lead 
hazards in housing, that the ATSDR be required to provide an annual 
report on the impact of such activities on lead exposures in 
children, and on workers involved in abatement (Sec 601(a)(2)). 
(3) should additional initiatives be incorporated at this time? 

Congress should give serious consideration to banning the uses 
of all lead based paints. At present, lead based paints may be 
used on exterior surfaces of housing, and for steel structures. 
Both these uses perpetuate the hazards of lead for workers and the 


Digitized by 



general public. Exterior painted surfaces contribute to the 
contamination of surface soils, %^ich may be tracked into houses 
and mix with housedust. Painted steel structures, %^en 
periodically repaired and repainted, have caused substantial 
poisoning episodes of workers and contamination of the local 
environments in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, as 
documented in many case reports over the past ten years. Moreover, 
the availability of lead based paints on the market continues to 
pose a risk of misuse, deliberate or accidental. 

(4) can we improve on the substantive provisions of the bill? 

The bill appropriately combines a mandate for immediate action 
and investment along with oversight and applied research. If these 
functions are veil integrated, experience with this legislation 
should provide guidelines for more comprehensive actions at the 
state and federal level. 

(5) does the bill respond appropriately to ciirrent needs? 

The needs for federal assistance in lead poisoning prevention 
programs are enormous, particularly after a decade of defunding 
these and other programs in health promotion. More funds are 
needed for categorical support of testing and surveillance, to meet 
CDC '8 recommendation of universal screening of all young children. 
Congress could ensure this critical element of primary prevention 
by linking lead screening with school admissions, particularly for 
federally supported preschool programs such as Head Start and 

More funds are needed for abatement activities, but the true 


Digitized by 



scope of these needs can best be estimated in the course of actual 
programs funded by this legislation. Innovative approaches, such 
as the legislation sponsored by Congressman Ben Cardln, will be 
needed to ensure a national program of abatement. 

In summary, I strongly support the Intent and specifics of the 
proposed legislation being considered by this Subcommittee. In 
drafting this legislation, you and your colleagues have done a 
major service to those who cannot speak but who have borne the 
burden of lead paint poisoning for generations. On behalf of those 
who have worked with and for these communities, and on behalf of 
the nation that depends upon their potential, I thank you. 


Digitized by 



Sebaal ^ JMVUkM 

University cx' Maryland uNivnsmrpioGiAiinfToxioou)OT 


April 2, 1992 

Honorable Alan Cranston 

Chair, Senate Housing Subcomittee 

US Senate 

Washington DC 20510 ' 

Dear Senator Cranston: 

In response to your letter of March 24, 1992, I am submitting the 
following additional comments. However, I would note that I am not 
an expert in areas of housing, economics, or community development, 
so that I do not have much to add to my testimony last month. I 
was honored to be invited to participate in the hearing, and I hope 
that my comments — limited to the issue of disease prevention ~ 
were useful and relevant. 

1. ZB general X what is your general peroeption of this bill? 
From your perspective, what is the most sigaifioaat ohaage to 
current law and praotioe that this bill will bring? Please disouss 
the provision you feel strongest about, either positively or 

In general, I strongly support this bill. For the first time, 
it will introduce incentives, and some resources, that encourage 
actual primary prevention of lead based paint poisoning. By 
requiring disclosure of existing hazards, the bill will mobilize 
the private market to acknowledge the implicit costs of these 
hazards, and will permit consumers to make informed decisions as to 
housing. I also strongly support the allocation of resources to 
local authorities for lead paint abatement, and for additional 

My negative reaction is based upon my continued concern that 
the population most at risk for high dose lead exposure from paint 
in housing are children of the poor, living in substandard rental 
housing. I am not sure how this bill will ensure preventive 
abatements for this population, or how it will materially assist 
cities in increasing their ability to respond to cases of lead 

In addition, as I noted in my testimony, I am opposed to 
giving HUD exclusive or primary responsibility in areas which 
health-based judgements and assessments are required. HUD's past 
history of nonperformance, and its lack of expertise in health 
related areas, make this unwise. I have recommended specific roles 
for EPA, NIH, and ATSDR to play in contributing to this program, 
particularly in the assessment of its effectiveness in reducing 

OOkx of the Director 
660 mot ledwood Street, loom 544 
BdUmoR, Maryknd 21201-1596 
410 328 8196 / 410 328 6203 rut 

Digitized by 



l^md poisoning. 

2. a. What are your ganaral fin—a nta on tlia disoloaura and 
aaaaaflBaat provisions oontaiasd in tlis bill? What ars ths bsnsCits 
and drawbaoks of giving prospootivs hoas buyers an opportunity to 
assess a hoao for load based paint hasards before beooiiing 
Obligated to purohase? What are the benefits and drawbaoks of 
requiring owners of rental properties to assess those properties 
for lead-based paint hasards? 

As noted above, I support the disclosure provisions of the 
bill. I have sons concerns as to how assessnent of hazard will be 
done, and I hope that through this legislation, state action, or 
actions by EPA, that we will have a trained and certified workforce 
of inspectors and abaters to assist the public in this area. 
Without this the disclosure and assessnent provisions could result 
in increased confusion and nisinfomation in the marketplace. 

2. b. What are the factors that Congress needs to take into 
aoeount — supply of trained oontraotors and laboratories 
throughout the county, existing state and local prograas and laws, 
ef foots on the property value of older housing, inpaot on the 
availability of affordable housing for faailies with saall ehildren 
— when iwposing disclosure and assessment requircnents on private 
real estate? 

As noted above, the supply of technical and Manpower resources 
to provide testing for honeoimers, buyers, sellers, and landlords 
is critical to the inplenentation of this legislation. I have no 
real consents on the rest of this question, except to note that 
there is a major crisis in the availability of affordable housing 
for low income families, and that attempting to deal with the 
problem of lead based paint in this housing without attending to 
this larger problem may be difficult. 

3. What are the benefits and drawbaoks of having a competitive 
program in which HUD decides which states and localities reeeive 
grants? Would it be more effective to target communities suffering 
relatively high levels of ehildhood lead poisoning [presumably, you 
mean high rates] to receive funds directly by formula? 

I strongly support a competitive grants program because it 
will encourage states and localities to organize themselves to use 
federal funds efficiently and effectively. Dealing with lead based 
paint poisoning requires the coordination of health, housing, and 
community development agencies, as well as a commitment of 
public/private partnerships towards improving housing 
opportunities. The competitive grants program, if NOFAs are 
appropriately %n:itten can foster coordinated investment by 
recipient states and cities in improving interagency programs, and 
in developing critical ancillary resources (such as training and 
certification; public and health professional education) • 

It is impossible to target awards according to rates of 

Digitized by 



€:hildhood lead poisoning: first, we do not presently liave accurate 
figures on city-by-city incidence; and second, this may not accord 
with maximizing opportunities for prevention. Lead poisoning is 
epidemic in the US; hence, it would be difficult to make a poor 
choice on the basis of lack of a problem. It could be possible to 
make a poor choice absent a carefully framed competitive grants 

4. a. Hov oaa Congress ensure meaniagful and expedited 
implementatioB of these requirements — given that similar 
requirsments have existed ia statute and regulation for years? 

Congress could mandate deadlines and construct "hammer" 
provisions in the legislation to ensure that action takes place. 

4. b. Hov do you respond to HUD's claim that these provisions are 
too expensive to implement and should be revised? What other issues 
should ve take into account? 

One response would be to pass the Cardin bill, to provide 
earmarked funds to support abatement of lead paint. Otherwise, I 
would suggest a reminder to HUD that the CDC and EPA cost: benefit 
analyses both demonstrate that very large investments in preventing 
lead poisoning are on balance a fiscally positive national program. 

I hope these comments are useful to you. 
Yours sincerely. 

Ellen K. Silbergeld,^Ph.D. 
Professor of Pathology 

Digitized by 



31 St Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology 
Seattle, Wtahington 
Fet>ruary 23-27. 1992 

Current Issues In Assessing the Health Risks of Lead 

J. Michael Davis 

Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-62) 

Research lYiangle Park, NC 27711 

Tha TQxieoloqist. 12(1): 246 (At>Stract No. 935) 

Digitized by 




A blood lead concentration of 1 ^g/dL was first identified as a level of 
concern for lead-induced health effects by the U.S. EPA in 1 986 and 
has since been affirmed by other governmental agencies. Despite gen- 
eral support for this position among scientists and policy-mai<ers, argu- 
ments have been offered in favor of lower as well as higher blood lead 
concentrations as a level of concern. Some analysts see no indication of 
a brealqx)int or threshold in data from epidemiological studies and argue 
that a blood lead level of 1 \ig/dL may be too high to afford adequate 
public health protection. Others aigue that the epidemiological evidence 
is flawed or offers little support for identifying 1 (xg/dL as a level of con- 
cem. These and other arguments are considered in an updated assess- 
ment of the health rislcs of lead exposure. 

Digitized by 



How Did EPA Select 10 ^g^dL 
as a Level of Concern? 

Literally thousands of studies have been devoted to examining the 
effects of lead on t)ioiogical functions and health endpoints. A major por- 
tion of Air Quality Criteria for Ljead (U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency J 986)t a 4-volunrie docunrient of moiB than 1 300 pages, focused o^ 
the biological and health effects of lead in adults and children, as briefly 
summarized in Tsbles 1 and 2. 

The 1986 Air QuaKty Criteria /brLeac/ included an Addendum, which 
provided an up-to-date assessment of two areas of health effects that 
were undergoing intensive investigation at that time: blood-pressure 
effects in adults and effects on child development and stature. Particular 
attention was devoted to a group of prospective epidemiological studies 
that revealed consistent evidence of neurobehavioral deficits in young 
children, as reflected in lower scores on the Bayiey Mental Development 
Index (MDI) (see Table 3). Based on the evidence provided i>y these 
studies, along with addittonal findings of neurotoxicological, blood- 
pressure, hematological, and other effects assessed In the Criteria 
Document, EPAs Office of Research and Development concluded that 
a blood lead concentraton of "1 to 1 5 ^g/dL, and possibly lower^ repre- 
sented the level of concern for adverse health effects of lead. Further 
explanation of the reasoning that went into the derivation of this level of 
concern may be found in papers by Davis and Svendsgaard (1987), 
Grant and Davis (1 989), and Davis (1990). 

Digitized by 



Independent Support for EPA's 
Level of Concern 

The selection of a blcx>d lead ooncentrati^ 
(X)r>cem was rxrt an arbitiBiy or unilalemi decie^ 
Clean Air Act requires that, as part d the procees of devetoping ra^^ 
ambient air quality standards, docunfients such as i4A^ 
Leac/are sutDjected to pul^lic re\4ew and, uRimalely, appn 
Clean Air Sdentific Advisory Ck>mmittee (CA^ 
dent (non-EPA) expert scientists. During the five-year pertod that went 
into preparing Air Quality Criteria for Lead, two major diafls were sub- 
mitted for public and C/^C review, along with several open vimk- 
shops involving dozens of expert scientists rBpresenting a spectnm of 
viewpoints and organizations. In its last closure report to the EPA Ad- 
ministrator on the 1 990 Supplenrient to the 1 966 Criteria Docunient, the 
CASAC (1990) stated: ^. it is the consensus of CASAC that blood lead 
levels above 10 ^g/dL dearly warrant avoidance, especially for develop- 
ment of adverse health effects in sensitive populations^. 

In addition to the EPA/CASAC review and approval process, other 
actions by EPA have specified 1 ^g^dL as a level of concern, including 
the national primary drinking water standard for lead (U.S. Envirx>nmen- 
tal Protection Agency, 1991) and EPA's Strategy for Reckjdng l^ead Ex- 
posures {US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990b). Other federal 
agencies have also independently affirmed a blood lead level of 10 ^g^ 
dL as a target for public health protection. Table 4 lists some of the vari- 
ous federal level acknowledgments of 10 ^g/dL as a point of reference. 

Digitized by 



Is the Level 
of Concern Too Low? 

The main argument suggesting that the level of oonoem should be 
higher than 10 (xg/dL focuses on the limitations of the epidefniological 
evidence. For example, Emhart has concluded that not only does her 
own prospective study (Emhart et aL, 1 987) not support such a conclu- 
sion, but other prospective studies reporting positive effects are flawed 
and therefore cannot support such a conclusion either (Emhatt 1 989). 

Although it is certainly not inappropriate for Emhart to interpret her own 
findings in the n^anner she has, a complete assessment of the develop- 
mental neurotoxicity of lead requires that all the relevant evidence be 
considered as a whole. From this broader perspective, some of Emharf s 
results appear to be quite consistent with findings from other studies that 
point to significant lead-induced deficits in Bayley MDI performance in 
young children. Specifically, Emhart et al. (1986) reported that poorer 
perfomiance on the Graham-Rosenblith Neurological Soft Signs scale 
was significantly related to higher umbilical cord blood lead levels; more- 
over, In the same cohort at 12 nnonths of age, performance on the 
Bayley MDI was significantly related to the Neurological Soft Signs mea- 
sure (Wolf et al., 1 985). Thus, it appears that a relationship between 
higher prenatal lead exposure and poorer 12-month MDI performance 
nfiay also exist in this cohort, although the available evidence is indirect 
and inferential thus far. If this inference is valid, these results are consis- 
tent with findings from other prospective studies that show indirect as 
well as direct effects of early lead exposure on MDI performance (e.g., 
Dietrichetal., 1986, 1987). 

Some would claim that the latter interpretation of Emharf s data is an 
example of "... the propensity of some reviewers to attend only to those 
studies, or portions of studies, that appear to support a particular posi- 
tion" (Emhart, 1989). The basic argument is that if enough tests or 
analyses are done, some of them are likely to produce statistically sig- 
nificant results by chance alone (e.g., if 20 separate analyses are con- 
ducted, chances are that 1 of the 20, or 5%, will be statistically signifi- 
cant at p s 0.05). This line of argument implies that such outcomes 
should be randomly distributed as to type and direction of effect. The 
fact that cognitive endpoints (as opposed to psychomotor endpoints, for 

Digitized by 



example) are consistently related to early lead exposure (see Table 5) 
suggests that the effects are not random outcomes of multiple analyses. 

The pattem of effects must also be considered in other ways. By 
measuring blood lead levels at several time points, prospective studies 
afford a multitude of possible analyses. For example, 24-tnorjlOn MDI 
perfomrtance could be regressed against perinatal, 6-month, 12-month, 
1 8-month, and 24-month blood lead levels. On developmental and toxi- 
cotogical grounds, some of these analyses may be more likely to show 
effects than others. If, for example, a temporal lag exists between lead 
exposure and the manifestation of its effects, then concun^nt blood lead 
levels are unlikely to show a significant association with MDI perfor- 
mance (U.S. Environmental Protectton Agency, 1990a). As Indicated by 
Table 6, the strongest relattonships between blood lead nieasures and 
neurobehavioral outcomes in the prospective studies generally appear 
to reflect cumulative past exposure or bkxxl lead levels obtained several 
months prior to the neurobehavioral testing. 

Other criticisms regarding the health risks of low-level lead exposure 
have focused on methodological aspects of the various prospective epi- 
demtological studies. For example, Emhart (1989) has raised several 
detailed criticisms of the manner in which cefaclors are handled by other 
investigators in this field. Most of these points involve matters of statisti- 
cal judgment about which reasonable experts may disagree. Although 
no epidemiological study is free from criticism, the prospective studies in 
question appear to be generally well designed and conducted, and have 
afforded a significant advance in the understanding of the devebpmen- 
tal neurotoxicity of tow level lead exposure. Of periiaps more concern is 
the limitation in statistical power of many of these studies to detect an 
effect of lead (Table 7). As noted in U.S. EPA (1 990), an N of more than 
400 subjects would be required to detect an effect size (AR^) of 0.01 
with a power of 0.80 at an alpha of 0.05, one-sided. By this benchmaric, 
it is remariQble that so many of the prospective studies are able to de- 
tect any effect of lead at all. 

Rnally, it is important to note that the epidemtological evklence, 
although certainly of key importance, does not stand alone. Experimen- 
tal studies of laboratory animals— studies that nullify objections about 
possible confounders/covariates such as quality of the home environ- 
ment in epidemlotogical studies— provide an even greater body of evi- 
dence on the toxicity of low-level lead exposure. In partkxjiar, several 
experimental studies have demonstrated parallels in the developrriental 

Digitized by 



neurotoxicity of lead in children, prinrates, and rodents (Davis et al., 1 990). 
As sunvnarized in Table 8, the similarities are evident in the types of 
effects (deficits in higher level neurobehavioral function) as well as in the 
bwest blood lead levels at which they occur (< 15 \igfdL In priniates and 
< 20 [xg/dL in rodents). 

Given the coherence of this constellation of evidence, It is difficult not 
to conclude that low^level lead exposure, as indicated by blood lead 
concentrations of 10 to 15 |uig/dL and possibly lower, induces neurobe- 
havioral deficits in young children. The public health significance of such 
effects, however, has not always been self-evident. Sonie have ques- 
tioned the importance of a deficit of only a few points on a measure of 
cognitive development such as the Bayley MDI or McCarthy General 
Cognitive Index. Although a decline of 2 to 8 points on a scale with a 
nomrt of 100 and standard deviation of -16 may not have great dinlcar 
significance for an individual cNId, average changes of this magnitude 
on a population basis are very noteworthy. As illustrated by the increase 
in shaded area in Figure 1 , the result of shifting a nonnal distribution of 
scores such as the Bayley MDI downward by only 4 points is to increase 
by approximately 50 percent the number of children scoring more than 
one standard deviation below the mean. 

Digitized by 



Is the Level 
of Concern Too High? 

As indicated in tlie wording of EPA's original statement identifying a 
blood lead concentration of '1 to 1 5 ^g/dL and possibly lower" as a 
level of concern, some evidence points to the possibility of neurotoxic 
effects at blood lead levels below 1 ^g/dL Bellinger et al. (1 989) re- 
ported that in their cohort of mostly upper middle dass children, Infants 
of lower socioeconomic standing showed [Bayley MDI] deficits at both 
medium (6 to 7 \iq/6L) and high (^ 1 iig/dL) levels of prenatal expo- 
sure.** Thus far, however, this finding has not been independently 

Other evidence suggesting that neurobehavioral effects occur at 
blood lead levels below 10 }xg/dL might be infened from various epide^ 
miological studies of this topic that yield regression lines extending to 
blood lead levels below 10 ^g/dL (Hgure 2). One problem with such 
inferences is that infonnation on the goodness of fit of altemative func- 
tions is seldom available. As shown in Figure 3, a tK)Ckey stick^ func- 
tion fitted to the Schroeder data in Rgure 2 suggests that, if a threshold 
did exist for these data, it might occur somewhere i>elow 15 jiig/dL (with 
a 95% confidence limit, not shown, at 23 jig/dL). 

The main difficulty in judging where the lowest effect level exists 
in these studies lies not so much in determining whether a straight line 
or some other function best fits the data, but in the fadt that the studies 
were not designed at the outset to find a threshold. Classification l>y 
level of lead exposure (e.g., Bomschein et al., 1 989; Bellinger et al., 
1 984, 1 991 ) provides a useful approach to estimating the lowest effect 
level, but this type of analysis has not been commonly employed in this 
area of investigation. 

In sum, although some limited empirical evidence suggests that 
neurobehavioral effects may occur at blood lead concentrations below 
1 (xg/dL, the amount and type of evidence available thus far does not 
allow one to identify a specific blood lead level of concern in the range 
below 10 ^g/dL 

Digitized by 



Current Status of the EPA Level 
of Concern 

As recently as 1 990, EPA reaffitmed 1 ^g/dL as a level of concern, 
and in late 1 991 the Centers for Disease Control identified the same 
blood lead concentration as a trigger level for the protectton of children. 
Both agencies recognize that this level may have to be adjusted as fur- 
ther evidence becomes available and warrants such a revision. 

It should be noted that this level of concern is not meant to imply a 
threshold for lead-induced effects. The level of concern is a scientific 
judgment that may have important public health implications, but it does 
not necessarily imply that biological effects do not occur at lower levels 
of exposure (Davis, 1 990). 

Pertiaps with continuing reductions in the general population's expo- 
sure to lead, future epidemiological studies may be able to detect effects 
at even tower exposure levels than are currently possible. Recent analy- 
ses (Regal, 1 991 ; Mushak, 1 991 ) suggest that 'ViaturaT (pre-industrlal) 
levels of lead in blood might have been on the order of 1 to 2 orders of 
magnitude lower than contemporary levels. If so, the btological threshold 
might ultimately prove to be in the nanogram per deciliter range. 

To determine whether a tower level of concern is appropriate, nfK)re 
empirical information will be needed. Data on the toxicokinetics of lead 
and sensitive measures of tow level effects are especially important As 
additional empirteal information becomes available, assessments will 
continue to focus on tiie coherence of ttie entire body of information and 
win probably rely increasingly on quantitative metfiods such as statistical 
meta-analysis to do so. 

Digitized by 



riPR-09-l992 16:35 FROM EPfi RTP NC 

83S1328&203 P. 16 

^ III 






[f II III 

8 8 8 8 



J i ? 

Digitized by 



nftP-09-1992 16:35 FROM EP« RTP NC 

63013286203 P. 17 

m CD 







li II 


II 1 

R 8 8 9 

8 IS 

Digitized by 



nPR-e9-1992 16<36 FROM EPA RTP NC 

63013266203 P. 16 

CD u ^ 


T 9 

1 i 


SB uSS £& 



Digitized by 



MPR-e9-1992 16536 FROM EPft RTP NC 

83013286203 P. 19 





I * 

I Is 

i I 


5 till iih 



5 If 


t I I 


1 '^ 


IS ^ 

I III if I II 111' 

Hi If H; i d 


Digitized by 



MPR-09-1992 16537 FROM EPfl RTP NC 

83013286203 P. 20 



lllll iiiisii Mi^^^^ III s 


r I 



«*•■»■ ¥"a 

I. 1 

ill i 

Itltl tipi4+l in4ll4>*l III 

nun 1 11 iiHiiiiiii nm 

gHSS «%l!lggg S S§»«!3 S3i 8 !( 

I 2 f 5 S f ? 

4i it«i' ^■ 

3 33 ? 



3 3 

it pi 1 





II t 











Digitized by 



rWR 09-1992 16:37 FROM EPft RTF NC 

83S13256203 P. 21 




Ill i'^B 

ill l«s 








|! I I 

Ivll -sis 










Digitized by 



nRR-e9-1992 16J37 FROM EPfi RTF NC 

63013286203 P.22 










3 iS3i§ 


§ SSSS3 

i iiiiii iifi 


iiifii mniiii ! 

I III 1111 v'S I I I I I 

iiiiii iiii 

II illll 

8999 99999 99 

s ssssss iiis 

I I I i i I 

i§ Hill 

9 Sliiii UU iSss IS 39i39 




ft mis 

S nnU S!» ^lilll ^^ »3SS 



]|{ |ii III ill ill III 





t i 

Digitized by 



rK«-09-l992 16:38 FROM EPf> RTF NC 

83013286203 P. 23 





Is I II l-l 

tt> TS w WW s<S-fi 

1-AI V VV r^Vi? 

I I ! 


* tI t- <m 84 k. 













Digitized by 



rif«H39-1992 16=36 FRCDM EPft RTP NC 

63013253203 P. 24 

1 ^ 

c B 

£ o 




UJ « 







« a s ? • 

(»4I. X) Aiiniea AiHiqvqaid 







Digitized by 



rW>-0?-1992 16:39 FROM EP« PTP NC 

83013266203 F.2S 


a S 8 8 8 g 


Digitized by 



r*«-09-1992 16S39 FROM EP« RTP NC 

63813286203 P. 26 

Digitized by 




Drs. David Svertdsgaard and John Creason of the U.S. EPA Health 
Effects Research Latx>ratory contributed valuable statistical expertise, 
including calculating effect sizes, conducting power analyses, and esti- 
mating regression lines (D.S.) and performing hockey stick analyses 
(J.C.). Many of the prospective study investigators have provided infer- 
matton, feedback, or other assistance over recent years, and other col- 
leagues have provkied critk)al comment on this or earlier versions of this 
material. Without this help and the assistance of several excellent tech- 
nteal support persons, this presentation wouM not have been possible. 

Digitized by 




Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1 988). The Nature and Extent of 
Lead Poisoning in Children in the Utiited States: A Report to Congress. Atlanta, GA, 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, U.S. De- 
partment of Health and Hunf)an Sen^ices, July 1988. 

Bellinger, D.C.; Needleman, H.L; Leviton, A.; Watemaux, C; Rabinowitz, M.B.; Nichols, 
M.L (1 984). Early sensory-niotor development and prenatal exposure to lead. 
Neurobehav. ToxicoL TeratoL 6: 387-402. 

Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Watemaux, C; Needleman, H.; Rabinowitz, M. (1985). A bn- 
gitudinai study of the developmental toxicity of low*level lead exposure in the prenatal 
and early postnatal periods. In: Lekkas, T. D., ed. International conference: heavy met- 
als in the environment; September. Athens, Greece, v. 1. Edinburigh, United Kingdom: 
CEP Consultants, Ltd.; pp. 32-34. 

Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Needleman, H.L; Watemaux, C; Rabinowitz, M. (1986a). 
Low-level lead exposure and infant development in the first year. Neurobehay. Toxfcol. 
Tefato/. 8: 161-161. 

Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Rabinowitz, IVI.; Needleman, H.; Watemaux. C. (1986b). Cor- 
relates of low-level lead exposure in urban children at 2 years of age. Pediatrics 77: 

Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Watemaux, C; Needleman, H.; Rabinowitz, M. (1987a). Lon- 
gitudinal analyses of prenatal and postnatal lead exposure and early cognitive devel- 
opment. N. Engl. J. Med. 316: 1037-1043. 

Bellinger, D.; Sloman, J.; Leviton, A.; Watemaux, C; Needleman, H.; Rabinowitz, M. 
(1 987b). Low-level lead exposure and child developrr^ent: assessment at age 5 of a 
cohort followed from birth. In: Lindberg, S.E.; Hutchinson, T.C., eds. International con- 
ference: heavy metals in the environnrient, v. 1 ; September, New Orleans, LA. 
Edinburgh, United Kingdom: CEP Consultants, Ltd.; pp. 49-63. 

Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Watemaux, C; Needleman, H.; Rabinowitz, M. (1989). Low- 
level lead exposure, social class, and infant development Neurotoxic^. Teratol, 10: 

Bellinger, D.; Sloman, J.; Leviton, A.; Rabinowitz, M.; Needleman, H.L.; Watemaux, C. 
(1991). Low-level lead exposure and children's cognitive function in the preschool 
years. Pediatrics 87: 21 ^-227. 

Bhattacharya, A.; Shukla, R.; Bomschein, R.; Dietrich, K.; Kopke, J.E. (1988). Postural 
disequilibrium quantification in children with chronic lead exposure: a pilot study. 
Neurotoxlcologydi 327-340. 

Bhattacharya. A.; Shukla, R.; Bomschein, R.; Dietrich, K.; Keith, R. (1989). Lead ef- 
fects on balance and equilibrium. Presented at: Conference on advances in lead re- 
search: implications for environmental research. Research Triangle Pari^, NC: National 
Institute of Environmental Health Services; January. 

Digitized by 



Bomscliein, RL; Grote, J.; Mitchell, T.. Succop. PA; Dietrich, K.N.; Krafft, K.M.; 
Hammond, P. B. (1989). Effects of prenatal lead exposure on infant size at birth. In: 
Smith, IVI A; Grant, LD.; Sors, Ai., eds. Lead exposure and child development: an 
International assessment London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; pp. 307-319. 

Centers for Disease Control (1 991 ). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. A 
Statement by the Centers tor Disease Control. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Con- 
trol, Public Health Sennce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Sen^ioes, October 

Clean Ab' Scientific Ad>nsory Conrirnittee (1 986). Ctosure letter ^ 

CASAC Chair, to L Thomas, EPAAdministrator, regarding 1986 Criteria Document 

and Addendum, August 29, 1966. 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (1990). Closure letter from R.O. McClellan, 
CASAC Chair, to W.K. Reilly, EPAAdministrator, regarding National Ambient Air Qual- 
ity Standards for Lead, January 3, 1 990. 

Cooney, G.H.; Bell, A; McBride, W.; Carter, C. (1 989a). Meurobehaviouial conse- 
quences of prenatal low level exposures to lead. Netmaoxicoi, TereM. 11: 9&-104. 

Cooney, G.H.; Bell, A; McBride, W.; Carter, C. (1989b). LovHevel exposures to lead: 
the Sydn^ lead study. £^. /MM CMofAl^u^^ 

Davis, J.M.; Svendsgaard, D.J. (1987). Lead and child development Nature 329: 

Davis, J.M. (1 990). Risk assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity of lead. 
NeuroToxkx>k>gy'\V, 285-292. 

Davis, J.M.; Otto, DA; Weil, D.E.; Grant, LD. (1990). The comparative developmen- 
tal neurotoxicity of lead in humans and animals. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 12: 

Dietrich, K.N.; Krafft, K.M.; Bier, M.; Suocop, P.A; Berger, O.; Bomschein, R.L (1986). 
Eariy effects of fetal lead exposure: neurobehavioral findings at 6 months. Int J. Biosoa 
/?^. 8: 151-168. 

Dietrich, K.N.; Krafft, KM.] Shukia. R.; Bomschein, R.L; Suocop, PA (1987a). The 
neurobehavioral effects of eariy lead exposure. In: Schroeder, S.R., ed. Toxic sub- 
stances and mental retardation: neurobehavioral toxicok)gy and teratology. Washing- 
ton, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency; pp. 71-95. (Begab, M.J.; ed. 
Monographs of the American As8ociatk)n on Mental Deficiency: no. 8). 

Dietrich, K.N.; Krafft, K.M.; Bomschein, R.L; Hammond, P.B.; Berger. O.; Sucoop, PA; 
Bier, M. (1 987b). LxTW-level fetal lead exposure effect on neurobehavbrat development 
in eariy infancy. PecBatrics 80: 721-730. 

Dietrich, K.N.; Krafft, K.M.; ShuWa, R.; Bomschein, R.L; Berger. O.; Suc(X)p, P.A; 
Hammond, P.B. (1988). Devek)pmental patterns of neurobehavioral deficit and recov- 
ery in infancy: Response to fetal and eariy postnatal lead exposure [unpubfished 
manuscript]. Cincinnati, OH: University of Dnctnnati, College of Medicine. Available for 
inspection at U.S. Environmental Protectk)n Agency, Central Docket Section, Wash- 
ington. DC; docket no. ECAO-CD-81-2 IAC.13. 

Digitized by 



pletrich, K.N.; Suocop. PA.; Bomschein, R.L; Krafft, ICM.; Berger, O.; Hammond, P.B.; 
Buncher, C.R. (1990). Lead exposure and neurobehavkxat development in later in- 
fancy. Environ, Health Perspectives 89:13-29. 

Emhart, C.B. (1989). Cofactors in research on the environmental toxicology of child- 
hood: issues and examples from lead effects studies. Report of the Study Group on 
Environniental Toxicology of Childhood, University of Nebraska Children and the Law 

Emhart, C.B.; Wolf AW.; Kennard, M.J.; Fillpovich, H.F.; Sokol, RJ.; Erhard, P. (1985). 
Intrauterine lead exposure and the status of the neonate. In: Lekkas, T.D., ed. Intema- 
tional conference: heavy metals in the environment; Septentben Athens, Greece, v. 1 . 
Edinburgh, United Kingdom: CEP Consultants, Ltd.; pp. 35-37. 

Emhart, C.B.; Wdf, A.W.; Kennaid, MJ.; Erhard, P.; r=ilipovich, H.F.; Sokol, RJ. (1986). 
Intrauterine exposure to low levels of lead: the status of the neonate. >4naf7. Em^^ 
Hea«^41: 287-291. 

Emhart, C.B.; Monrow-Tlucalc, M.; Marler, M.R.; Wolf, A.W. (1967). Low level lead ex- 
posure in the prenatal and early preschool periods: eisuly preschool development 
NeurotoxscoL Temtol. 9: 259-270. 

Regal, R. (1991). Natural levels of lead in adults. Presented at: Symposium on Lead 
In Adults, Durham, NC, December 9-1 1 , 1 991 . 

Fulton, M.; Raab, G.; Thomson, Q.; Laxen, D.; Hunter, R.; Hepburn, W. (1987). Influ- 
ence of blood lead on the ability and attainment of children in Edinburgh. Lancet 
(8544): 1221-1226. 

Grant, LD.; Davis, J.M. (1989). Effect of low-level lead exposure on paediatric neuro- 
behavioural development: current findbgs and future directions. In: Smith, M.; Grant, 
LD.; Sors, A., eds., Lead E}gx>sure and Child Development: An International Assess- 
ment London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 4&-115. 

Mcfy/lichael. AJ.; Vimpani, G.V.; Robertson, EF.; Baghurst, PA.; daric, P.D. (1986). The 
Port Rrle cohort stucty: maternal blood lead and pregnancy outcome. J. Epidemiol, 
Commun. Health 40: 18-25. 

McMichael, AJ.; Baghurst, PA; Wigg, N.a; Vimpani, G.V.; Robertson, EF.; Roberts, 
R J. (1 988). Port Pirie cohort Study: environmental exposure to lead and children's 
abilities at the age of four years. M aTg/. J. MM. 31 9: 468-475. 

Monow^Tlucak, M.; Emhart, CB, (1987). The relationship of low level lead exposure 
and language development in the pre-sdKX)l years. In: Undberg, S.E.; Hutchinson, T.C., 
eds. Intemational conference: heavy metals in the environment, v. 1 ; September; New 
Orleans, LA. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: CEP Consultants, Ud.; pp. 57-59. 

Mushak, P. (1 991 ). Newer directions in toxicokinetics and assessment of lead toxicity. 
Presented at Ninth Intemational Neurotoxicology Conference, New Dimensk)ns of 
Lead Neurotoxicity, Little Rock, Arkansas, October 28-31 , 1991. 

National AcM PrecipitiKtk)n Assessmem Program (1990). Indirect Health Eff^ 
dated with AckJk: Deposition; Report 23 in Volume III, Tenestrial, Materials, Health and 
Visibility Effects; Ackiic Depositbn: State of Science and Technok>gy. Washington, DC, 

Digitized by 



National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Government Printing Office, Novem- 
ber 1990. 

Schroeder, S.R.; Hawi(, B. (1987). Psycho-soda! factors, lead exposure, and IQ. in: 
Schroeder, S.R., ed. Tbxic substances and mental retardation: neurobehavioral toxi- 
cology and teratology. Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Deficiency; 
pp. 97-137. (Begab, M.J., ed. Monographs of the American Association on IVIental 
Deficiency: no. 8). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Sen^ices (1 991 ). Strategic Plan for the Ellml- 
naUon of Childhood Lead Poisoning. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control, Public 
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 1 991 . 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986). Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Research 
Triangle Park, NC, Environmental Criteria and Assessn^ent Office, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA-60Q/8-83A)28aF. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990a). Air Quality Criteria for Lead: Supple- 
ment to the 1986 Addendum. Research Triangie Park, NC, Office of Health and Envi- 
ronmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, EPA-60Q/8-89/049F. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1 990b). Strategy for Reducing Lead Expo- 
sures. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 3, 1990. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 
and National Primary Drinking Waler Regulations lor Lead and Copper, Pinal Rule. 40 
CFR Parts 141 and 142, Federal Register, vol. 56, No. 110, 26460-26564, Friday, 
June 7, 1991. 

VimpanI, G.V.; Wigg, N.R.; Robertson. E.F.; McMichael, A.J.; Baghurst, PA; Roberts. 
RJ. (1985). TTie Port Pirie cohort stu(^ blood lead concentration and chiklhood de- 
velopmental assessment In: GokJwater, LJ.; Wysocki, LM.; Voipe, R A, eds. Edted 
proceedings: Lead environmental health— the current issues; May; Duiliam, NC. 
Durham, NC: Duke University; pp. 139-146. 

Wigg. N.R.; VimpanI, G.V.; McMichael, AJ.; Baghurst, PA; Robertson, E.F.; Roberts, 
R J. (1 988). Port Pirle cohort study: childhood blood lead and neuropsychological de- 
velopment at age two years. J. EpkimM. Comrmn HeaHh 42: 213-^19. 

Wolf, A.W.; Emhart CB^ White, C.S. (1 965). Intrauterine lead exposure and early de- 
velopment In: Lekkas, T. D., ed. International conference: heavy metals in the envi- 
ronment; September Athens, Greece, v. 2. Edinbui^, United Kingdom: CEP Consult- 
ants, Ltd.; pp. 153-155. 

53-652 0-92-6 

Digitized by 













MARCH 19, 1992 

Mr. Chaizman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
the chance to provide comments on Senate Bill 2341, the 
fi^gideyitjat L^ad-^ased pajnt Hazard Reduction Act; 9t 1992 > 

Let me begin by re-stating the deep concern of President 
Bush and Secretary Kemp over the threat of lead poisoning to 
American children. The Administration agrees with the Congress 
that reduction of lead in the environment of young children is an 
important goal that justifies a sustained and coordinated effort 
on the part of all levels of Government and the private sector. 
Working with the Congress these past three years, the Secretary 
and the Department, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, 
have taken aggressive steps to diminish the dangers posed by 
lead-based paint. 

Although we may have reasonable differences as to the 
priority of steps that will effectively remove lead hazards, the 
Administration is committed to continue working with you toward 
our shared goal of reducing the occurrence of elevated blood-lead 
levels in children and, where there has been exposure, to take 

Digitized by 



the necessary steps to decrease those levels and ensure that the 
levels stay do%in. 

S. 2341 has several important positive features that the 
Department supports. Perhaps most positive is the introduction 
of the concept of hazard reduction as an important component of 
Federal statutory policy on lead-based paint. Full abatement of 
all surfaces covered with lead paint is not a realistic goal for 
the foreseeable future because of the enormous costs involved. 
By focusing on immediate hazards, such as peeling paint, 
accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, impact surfaces, and lead 
dust, the Bill offers a better chance of achieving the objective 
of substantially reducing the incidence of elevated childhood 
blood-lead levels in the near future. 

The Department also supports Section 102(a) of the Bill that 
would remove from the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act 
the cumbersome goal of eliminating "as far as practicable 
immediate hazards due to the presence of accessible intact, 
intact, and nonintact interior and exterior painted surfaces that 
may contain lead." 

HUD also supports the concepts of "assessment" and "interim 
controls," as defined in Section 4 of the Bill. We are preparing 
guidelines for the application of both concepts in public housing 
and favor extending the approach to private housing. 

Other positive aspects of the Bill, in our view, include its 
emphasis on: 

Digitized by 



o the important role of State and local governments in 

reducing lead-paint hazards, 
o the necessity of building capacity in State and local 

governments and the private sector to carry out lead 

hazard reduction programs, 
o the importance of public information to enable 

individual families to take appropriate actions to 

protect their children, and 
o the need for continuing research and development to 

determine how to test for and reduce lead-paint hazards 

safely and cost effectively. 
Mr. Chairman, the Department's misgivings about S. 2341 have 
to do primarily with the pace with which the Bill would 
accelerate the demand for inspection, assessment, abatement and 
control services, which are in limited supply. We believe the 
Bill, as it stands, could overwhelm the marketplace. As the Bill 
acknowledges, there is a need to build State and local delivery 
systems, increase the supply of trained contractors and workers, 
have properly accredited laboratories, and make sure liability 
insurance is available. Without this capacity, requiring 
notification at the time of all real estate transactions and 
rapidly increasing Federal financial aid for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction is very likely to be hazardous, wasteful, and of 
uncertain effectiveness. These measures will be hazardous 
because inexperienced and poorly supervised workers are likely to 
leave the environment more contaminated than it was before they 

Digitized by 



began work (%pe have heard of aany cases in which renovation and 
repainting without proper precautions and cleanup has caused 
childhood lead poisoning) . The neasures will be wasteful because 
demand for qualified contractors will far exceed supply, forcing 
prices up. And they will be of uncertain effectiveness because 
the methods and procedures in our guidelines, though they 
represent our best knowledge at this time, have not yet been 
empirically daroonstrated to lower blood-lead levels. 

Thus Federal stimulus of demand must stay in a reasonable 
relationship to the supply of infoonatioii and services. We 
believe the current actions at HUD, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are at the correct 
scale, and are addressing the issues in the correct order. At 
HUD %i^ are about to begin a grant program for the abatement of 
low- and joodar ate- income private housing at a level of $50 
million, as appropriated for fiscal year 1992, and %ra are 
revising lead-based paint regulations for all HUD programs. EPA, 
with interagency support, is establishing a national 
clearinghouse and hotline. HUD will soon have its o%m hotline to 
deal with HUD program-specific issues, and the President's 
Commission on Environmental Quality is developing a public 
awareness program. The Government-wide research effort is very 
substantial, and is addressing the critical issues of testing and 
abatement. The crucial training and certification programs are 
being developed by EPA with strong input from other agencies. 

Digitized by 



We %rould urge the Subcommittee to consider the success of 
the Government's interagency response to lead poisoning. Each 
agency has been taking responsibility for the issues for which it 
is best suited and has been coordinating %i^ll with the other 
agencies. It is a good vrorking arrangement that should not be 
changed by legislative fiat. 

Interagency coordination has been an important element of 
our program since Nay 1989, when HUD and EPA formed the Lead- 
Based Paint Interagency Task Force. The Task Force meets 
approximately every 6 %i^eks; twelve Federal agencies are now 
participating regularly. It has five active subcommittees that 
are providing guidance to the task force on laboratory methods 
and standards, contractor certification, the national 
clearinghouse and hotline, lead in soil and dust, and overall 
strategy implementation. This successful partnership among 
agencies not only maximizes Federal efficiency but also minimizes 
confusion at the State and local levels. 

Current Activities 

In December of 1990, Secretary Kemp transmitted to the 
Congress a Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of 
Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing, which described a 
program of Federal actions that are now being carried out. I 
would like to describe the current lead-paint activities of HUD 
and other agencies for background. 

Digitized by 



New office. Last December, the Department established the 
Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning Prevention 
within the Office of the Secretary. This Office is headed by 
Arthur S. Neii^urg, a career SES employee, and is fully staffed 
with 20 employees. It provides overall direction to the 
Department's lead-based paint activities, develops guidelines and 
regulations, administers a new grant program for hazard reduction 
in low-income housing, monitors research, coordinates with other 
agencies, is establishing a national clearinghouse and hotline in 
conjunction with other agencies, and is building communication 
links with State and local governments. 

Grant program. The new grant progreun, for which $50 million 
was appropriated in the 1992 HUD Appropriations Act, has the same 
purposes as the progreun that %rould be authorized by Section 
101 of S. 2341; but it will seek new and better methods of hazard 
reduction, will gather data on the health effects of hazard 
reduction, and will serve as a carrot to increase the number of 
states that have lead programs. The Department plans to publish 
a notice of funds availability (NOFA) for this program in late 
April and award grants in September. 

HUD regulations. The Department is in the process of 
updating the lead-based paint regulations for all of its 
programs. In the first phase, which %ra plan to publish this 
spring, several important but relatively noncontroversial changes 
will be proposed. More detailed changes for specific programs 
will be published later this year and in 1993; these changes will 

Digitized by 



require a more careful assessment because of the potential 
impacts on program viability. 

Guidelines for hazard assessment and reduction. Another 
very important element of our lead-based paint hazard reduction 
program is the preparation and issuance of guidelines on how to 
conduct risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and 
abatements. Such guidelines are intended to provide the best 
available technical advice on how to do this work. The 
Department has an ongoing program to prepare and update such 
guidelines, beginning with documents applicable to public 
housing, and then extending the material to apply to privately 
o%med single-family and multifamily housing. 

Ho%raver, the six month deadline of Section 203 is sinqply not 
achievable for the detail and volume of work involved. 

With regard to guidelines for inspection and abatement, HUD 
is supporting the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) to recommend changes to the HUD Interim Guidelines for 
Hazard Identification and Abatement in Public and Indian Housing 
and assist the Department in preparing revisions. NIST will then 
submit the revisions through the voluntary consensus process of 
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and provide 
leadership and technical support in the organization and 
operation of the ASTM subcommittee. Because of the importance of 
the subject matter, %re are hopeful the revisions will receive 
priority attention from the Society. 

Digitized by 



HUD ±8 now preparing guidelines for risk assessment and 
interim containment in public housing that are scheduled for 
issuance this spring. Under a grant jointly funded by HUD and 
EPA, the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning will begin the 
process of adapting these guidelines to privately owned housing 
and of seeking consensus acceptance of the of concept of hazard 
reduction . 

It should be recognized that risk assessors will play a 
critical role in applying the concept of risk reduction. Their 
recommendations will determine what work should be done short of 
full abatement. 

Training and certification. A good example of ongoing 
interagency activity is in the development of training and 
certification capacity to assure that personnel conducting 
inspections, assessments, and hazard reduction work are 
qualified. Under the 1992 Appropriations Act, EPA has the 
responsibility for developing training and certification 
programs. In consultation with HUD and other agencies, EPA is 
developing model curricula for the training of inspectors, 
abatement supervisors, and workers — all of which should be 
completed in 1992. A course for designers is scheduled for 1993. 
On Xarch 9, 1992, EPA announced the selection of university-based 
regional training centers to provide training in lead-based paint 
testing and abatement. 

With regard to contractor certification, EPA's current plan 
is to rely on State certification. To assist States in that 


Digitized by 



role, EPA will prepare a model State certification plan in 
consultation with a subcommittee of the HUD-EPA interagency task 
force . 

With regard to laboratory accreditation, the present 
thinking is that existing accreditation programs can be used. The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is 
developing standard reference materials for use in the analysis 
of lead in paint, dust and soil. 

Interagency hotline and clearinghouse. The Interagency Task 
Force on Lead-Based Paint is currently developing a national 
toll-free hotline and information clearinghouse in response to 
the clear need for a central focus for these activities. These 
information systems will cover the full range of lead issues and 
will provide technical and consumer materials and information to 
Federal, State, and local government agencies and the general 
public. The clearinghouse would be accessed through the hotline 
to ensure that all requests are processed with both speed and 
accuracy. While EPA has assumed the prime responsibility for 
this effort, HUD and CDC have been closely involved in its 
development and will continue to play a major role in its 
operations . 

HUD hotline. HUD plans to operate its o%m hotline with a 
toll-free number that will focus on HUD programmatic and 
regulatory issues of interest to housing professionals and the 
public. The new Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and 
Poisoning Prevention will be responsible for the system. It is 

Digitized by 



planned that the hotline will open this spring with an initial 
capability to respond to a limited range of questions pertaining 

to risk assessment in public and Indian housing. The scope of 
questions that can be ans%rered will expand during the year. 
Initially, the hotline will be staffed by the Office of Lead- 
Based Paint staff. 

Public awareness campaign. The President's Commission on 
Environmental Quality is planning a campaign — privately 
financed, designed and operated — to increase public awareness 
of lead poisoning and how to avoid it. The campaign is timed to 
begin when the national hotline and clearinghouse start 
operations . 

Research. The Federal Government is sponsoring a large body 
of research on various questions pertaining to lead poisoning. A 
recent report prepared by HUD for this subcommittee listed 
approximately 60 projects, of which 7 %i^re being sponsored by 
HUD, 17 by CDC, and 36 by EPA. Not included in that compilation 
is research by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and 
agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, 
including FDA and CDC. The current HUD research is focused on 
on-site testing methods, an investigation into the problem of 
lead dust in carpets and forced-air ducts, and guideline 
development and revision. EPA is sponsoring a broad range of 
studies pertaining to testing, soil abatement, the efficacy of 


Digitized by 



abatement, laboratory analysis methods, laboratory accreditation, 
exposure assessment, bioavailability of lead, and 
the health effects of lead exposure. CDC's projects pertain to 
the efficacy of abatement, risk assessment, the health effects of 
lead exposure, blood lead screening and analysis, laboratory and 
field analysis methods, laboratory accreditation, and other 
concerns pertaining to occupational safety and health. 

Public housing activities. HUD's public housing program has 
taken the lead in the Department in addressing lead-based paint 
issues. Some significant activities should be mentioned! 

o Working in conjunction with EPA and OSHA, a monitoring 
tool has been developed for use by HUD field staff in 
determining progress in testing and abatement by public 
housing agencies (PHAs). This document will shortly be 
placed in departmental clearance, 
o We are developing procedures for risk assessment and 
interim containment for use by PHAs who apply for 
funding out of the $25 million appropriated by Congress 
for fiscal year 1992 for this purpose. A working group 
including PHA representatives and other outside experts 
is providing advice and recommendations in the 
development of these tools, 
o The new Comprehensive Grant program, for which 

regulations were recently published in the Federal 
Register, will serve as a major resource for PHAs in 


Digitized by 



coi^plying with statutory lead-based paint requirements 
more rapidly than under the CIAP program, 
o In 1991, HUD completed a major training effort in 

conjunction with Georgia Tech to assure that PHAs are 
knowledgeable about the statutory lead-baaed paint 
requirements and the HUD Interim Guidelines. 

Coimcents on the Bill 

Mr. Chairman, while there are positive features of 
S. 2341 as previously mentioned, at the same time, there are 
several provisions of the Bill that, in our judgment, should be 
modified or deleted. 

Grant program. Section 101 of the Bill would authorize 
appropriations of $250 million annually in fiscal years 1993 and 
1994 for grants to States and localities to assess and reduce 
lead-based paint hazards. The program that would be authorized 
by Section 101 is very similar in purpose to the new program for 
which $50 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1992 and for 
which the President requested $23 million in fiscal year 1993. 
The Department opposes an increase in the funding level to $250 
million in fiscal year 1993. Not only is there a capacity gap in 
State and local governments and the private sector in most 
States, there are still many basic technical questions about how 
to test and abate safely and cost effectively. Both the capacity 
and the technical problems are being addressed. We strongly urge 
a more measured pace of Federal funding during the next three 


Digitized by 



years while capacity increases and the current research on 
testing and abatement methods is completed. 

Section 8 rent adjustments for hazard reduction (Section 
102(d)). The Department is opposed to the use of rent 
adjustments to help owners amortize lead paint hazard reduction 
in the voucher and certificate Section 8 programs. Such a policy 
%fOuld.jtend to result in above market contract rents . Since 
certificate and voucher holders tend to move relatively often, 
the property o%mer has no guarantee that the next household will 
be subsidized. If it is not subsidized, the o%mer %rould lose the 
income flow required for loan eunortization. Also, voucher and 
certificate holders often inhabit units in buildings in which a 
substantial proportion of the dwellings are occupied by 
unsubsidized households. This raises the questions of whether 
the unsubsidized units would be left contaminated and whether it 
is good policy to abate only part of a building. It would be 
difficult, if not impossible, to implement hazard reduction 
elimination activities in the homes of people assisted by Section 
8, tenant-based programs, without implementing identical 
requirements for all rental housing in the nation. 

We estimate that there are approximately 630,000 housing 
units with lead-based paint that are assisted under project-based 
Section 8, in addition to over 700,000 units that have lead-based 
paint and are occupied by households with vouchers or 
certificates. The estimated total cost of testing and abatement 
in both the project-based and tenant-based programs approaches $4 


Digitized by 



billion. This is an estimate as of one point in time; it does 
not account for the fact that the stock of housing units occupied 
by families with certificates and vouchers keeps changing as 
families move. 

Abatement of Federally o%med housing (Section 103). Section 
103 of the Bill, which requires the inspection and abatement of 
lead paint hazards in all Federally owned properties built before 
1978 prior to sale, does not treat Federally o%med properties in 
the same manner as other housing in this Bill. The treatment 
appears to be inconsistent with the concept of hazard reduction. 
Also there are no phase-in provisions. These properties are 
singled out for extremely expensive abatement, regardless of the 
presence of children or the degree of hazard. This requirement 
%70uld increase significantly the cost of lead paint regulations 
in the property disposition programs. 

We estimate that the incremental annual cost of testing and 
abatement for just the HUD-owned single-family portion %70uld be 
approximately $280 million. This estimate does not include any 
increased costs of holding the properties while testing and 
abatement is accomplished, which currently averages $25 per day 
per unit. This estimate may be imprecise because the Bill sets 
different abatement standards than the HUD Guidelines. This 
significant liability was not contemplated at the time the FHA 
Reform policies vrere enacted, and it will have major 
ramifications for FHA in meeting its capital requirements for the 
MMI Fund. 


Digitized by 



Based on infoxmation from the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs (VA) , we estimate that the annual cost impact on the VA 
property disposition program %70uld be approximately $135 million. 
VA %70uld require additional funds to cover this cost, because, 
unlike FHA, they do not have a self-sustaining fund. Other 
agencies with residential property disposition programs, such as 
the Department of Defense %7ould also have significant cost 
impacts . 

The Department recognizes the need to update lead-based 
paint regulations for Federally o%med properties. The present 
schedule calls for publication of proposed changes by the end of 
this year. Therefore, for reasons stated above, %re %i70uld ask the 
Subcommittee for additional time to develop proposed regulations. 

FHA insurance programs (Section 105). The purpose of this 
Section is not clear. Hovrever, changing the underwriting 
standards and appraisal guidelines to reflect the presence of 
lead-based paint could result in reducing the appraised value of 
many properties, lowering the mortgage amount that FHA can 
insure, without any certainty that the buyer will use the money 
saved to reduce the lead-based paint hazard. Also, there is the 
likelihood that many sellers would be unwilling to use FHA 
mortgage insurance if the appraisal is reduced. 

Priority hazards and children. The Bill does not, in the 
Department's opinion, adequately target Federally funded hazard 
reduction on housing occupied by families with young children. 
In the Comprehensive and Workable Plan, the Department showed the 


Digitized by 



potential efficiency of focusing abatement activities on housing 
units that have the »ost ioBediate hasards of peeling lead-based 
paint or excessive dust lead and are occupied by families with 
young children. Such a policy aaxiMises the reduction of 
childhood exposure for a given level of expenditure. 

Title II - AssessiQeiit and reduction infrastructure. As has 
been previously mentioned, the Department has successfully 
coordinated with BPA, CDC and other agencies on lead-based paint 
issues. The shifting of the lead responsibilities to HUD under 
this Bill %70uld disrupt activities that are working very well. 

Monitoring (Section 204). The Department is concerned about 
the requirement in Section 204 that HUD monitor "closely all 
Federally supported efforts to assess and reduce lead-based paint 
hasards . " Not only %70uld this put HUD in the position of 
overseeing other Federal agencies, it also appears to overlap a 
function that should be performed by State and local agencies. 
lie agree that the Department should monitor the work it funds, 
but %re expect to rely on existing State and local mechanisms to 
the extent possible. 

National clearinghouse (Section 205). Section 205 would 
charge the Secretary of HUD with establishing a National 
Clear inghouBe on Residential Lead-Based Paint Poisoning in 
consultation with the BPA Administrator and the CDC Director. 
BPA, in consultation with HUD and CDC, is well along in 


Digitized by 



establishing such a clearinghouse. The Bill appears to take the 
lead from EPA and give it to HUD. The Department sees no 
necessity for this action. 

Title III - disclosure statement in sales contracts. The 
disclosure provision in Title III would inject the Federal 
Government into areas that have traditionally been the domain of 
State and local governments. It also has the potential to disrupt 
the private real estate market without effectively reducing the 
hazard of lead-based paint. The administration is working 
diligently to increase the capacity of State and local 
governments and the private sector to carry out lead assessment 
hazard reduction work. Currently, hovrever, that capacity is 
concentrated in only a few states. To impose a national 
disclosure requirement before capacity to respond exists could 
increase risk through improper abatement, or could frustrate 
consumers, who cannot find qualified abatement contractors. 


Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to emphasize that 
Secretary Kemp is committed to ensuring that HUD effectively 
addresses this important public health issue. The substantial 
resources committed by the Department to research and 
demonstration activities, particularly over the last four years, 
have yielded extremely useful information. The Bush 
Administration has committed new resources to lead-based paint 
activities, and HUD is taking the collateral steps to address the 


Digitized by 



problem in its housing programs. Lead-based paint remains a 
priority concern; and %re will continue to pxirsue the agenda 
outlined in the Comprehensive and Workable Plan submitted to 
Congress in December 1990. The Department looks forward to 
%7orking with the Subcommittee on this extremely in^tortant issue 

Thank you again for the opportunity of appearing before this 


Digitized by 



Statement Of the 



ON & 2341 




MARCH If, 1992 

Digitized by 





ON S. 2341 




MARCH 1% im 


Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on S. 2341 and the issues surrounding 
the problem of lead-based paint in the nation's housing sector. My name is George Peek, and I 
am a REALTOR* from Reno, Nevada. I serve as the Vice Chairman of the NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS* (NAR) Legislative Subcommittee on Energy, Environment 
and Devek)pment And, over the past few months, I have chaired the NAR Working Group on 
Lead-Based Paint which was charged by our association's leadership with developing a 
comprehensh« lead policy. 

The NATIONAL ASSOCL\TION OF REALTORS* is comprised of more than 750,000 
members invoked in all aspectt of the real esute industry. We kmk forward to working with this 
Subcommittee, the Congress and other interested groups to fashion a workable solution to 
address the serious health problems facing our nation's children as a result of their eaqxMure to 

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS* strongly believes that eveiy 
individual should have the opportunity to live in safe and decent housing where risks to health 
from poilutXMi are minimized. We are committed to supporting efforts to identify and reduce the 

Digitized by 



potential health threat that lead may pote, whOe at the same time protecting the value and 
aalability of homes, as well as, the sUbOity of the marketplace. 

We further support increased education of all homeowners about lead so that they will 
become aware of; and motivated to test for, potential health hazards. Homeowners contemplating 
the sale of their homes should also recognize their responsibility to disclose to real estate brokers 
or agents, and to potential purchasers, lead hazards that present a significant risk to health. 

Notwithstanding, we believe lead shouM be viewed as a public health issue and that 
legislative and administrative efiforts shouM be broadly directed at the general public, rather than 
focused on the real esute transaction. 


S.2341, the "Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992," adopts many of 
the concepts embodied by H.R. 2840, which was introduced last year by Represenutive Heniy 
Waxman (D-CA). S. 2341 and H.R. 2840 require mandatory disclosure by sellers of known lead 
hazards on a property. S. 2341 would apply to pre-1978 properties, while H.R. 2840 applies to 
pre-1960 properties. Both bills require the seller or his agent to distribute lead hazard 
information pamphlets to the purchaser and give him the option of testing within 10 days prior to 
a contract for sale being executed. However, RR. 2840 requires mandatoiy lead inspection of 
leased single and multi-family residential properties as they become vacant Unlike RR. 2840, S. 
2341 would postpone the mandatoiy testing of leased properties until the Department of Housing 
and Urban I>evek>pment (HUD) certifies that there easts a sufficient number of lead inspecton 
in the U.S. to perform the mandatoiy tests. HUD wouki also have to certify that the testing 
requirement did not have a, "deleterious effect on the availability of affordable housing for 
families with children." 

Digitized by 




NAR could support the imgle family lakt sectioo [Section 301(a)] of S. 2341 if it were 
■mmdfiri in a few areas. Fiist, it ihoukl be ammdrri to allow the teller and potential purdiafer 
to nefotiate whether testing needed to Im performed. Second, we cannot agree to the 
mandatory 10-day waiting period for testing. Some fleidbility must be allowed to consider whether 
the lead testing infrastructure in a given geographic area can meet a 10-day deadline. Third, we 
question too whether the warning and signature acknowledgement need to Im on a separate sheet 
of paper, rather than just included hi the contract and initialed by the purchaser. Most 
importantly, we cannot, at this point in time, support Section 310 (b) calling for a phasing-in of 
mandatoiy lead testing for leased single and multi-family properties built before 1978, without 
further clarification of the duties and liabilities that may eventually be fanposed on our 

Currently S. 391, the "Lead Esqxjsure Reduction Act of 1991," requires that mortgage 
lenders provide a lead disclosure sutement warning of te dangers of lead; that the contract for 
the sale of a property include mandatoiy language warning of the dangers of lead to children and 
encourages concerned buyen and lessees to request that a lead test be done on the premises; and, 
finally, it requires sellers and lessors to disclose to buyers all "known lead hazards" on the 
property. We note that the summary we received last year of S. 2341 originally took this more 
reasonable approach, which is supported by NAR. 


The major concern the NATIONAL ASSOOATION OF REALTORS* has with the 
tying testing to the sales and rental process is the potentially devasuting effect it wiU have upon 
housing affiordab8ity. Cbngress should take careful ooosideratkm of the potential fanpacts of any 

Digitized by 



lead l^giilatioii on a leal estate market that hu akeady suffered a predpitous decline, with 
serious impact on the nation's hanking system. 

HUD estimates that the averafe cost per-unit lo remove lead is $7,700 with a raoge 
between $S,SOO to $12,000. This cost re6ects neither the cost of testiog, estimated at $375, nor 
the letocation capenses that may be incurred in cases where it woukl not Im safe for the femlly to 
remain hi the home during the abatement process. This time can be as much as three lo four 
weeks for a 3-bedroom home. Granted, some costs may decrease somewhat over time if the lead 
inspection and ddeading industry attains certain economies of scale. But nonetheless, the cost 
will still be steep for the average American family. 

We have broken down the costs for both testing and abating the homes and apartments in 
the U.S. built before 1960, and the costs to the economy are staggering. Assuming an average 
cost for testing of $375, the toul testing cost wouki l)e $29.7 billion. And, assuming an average 
abatement cost of $7,770, the total U.S. abatement cost woukl be $609.7 billkm. In the context of 
these numben, the $500 milUon authorized by S. 2341 over the next two yean is literally a drop 
m the bucket 

Attachments I & II of our testimony break down these numbers by geographic region and 
by metro area. This information should be of interest to the Subcommittee Chairman Mr. 
Oranston and Ranking Minority Member Mr. D'Amato. Testing for lead in metro Los Angeles 
and New York Gty wouM cost $1.1 bilUon and $1.6 bilUon respectively. And abatement hi these 
two cities woukl cost $20.8 and $33.8 bilUon respectively. 

For many American families their home is their tnggest source of savings and investment 
In feet, many Americans rely on the eventual sale of their home to provkie retirement hioome. 
We shouM also not forget that the cost of lead testing and possibly abatement, if mandated during 
the real esute transaction, woukl impact the affordability of a home, and particularly affect bwer 

Digitized by 




ioooiiie and fim-4iiiie home bi^en, wIk) «€ typical U; at often 

happens, the leller and buyer aplit the ooft of an averafe abatement ($7,700), the oott to the fint- 
tine hoflM buyer would be $3350. KAR esttmatet that a typical starter home ii priced at 
$81,100, and that the potential firM-time home buyers typically only have 83% of the income 
oeoessaiy to purchase such a home. In fact, these additional costt for testing, and possibly abating 
lead haaaids wiU no doubt price some of these first-time purchasers out of the marl[et 

While none of the legislation before Ooogress currently mandates lead abatement, the 
practical efifea will be to force many sellers and lessors to delead in order to market the home, 
especially to potential buyers with small children. The cost of deleading does not inoease the 
vahie of the property, and is therefore not recoverable and would reduce the potential sdling 
vahie by the cost of the deleading. In other words, the seller will be left with the option of 
deleading or dropping the cost by the price of the deleading, which as weVe seen can be upwards 
of $12,000. Extrapolated over the 57 million homes in the countiy with some lead problems, the 
devahiation would seriously eiaceriNite an already beleaguered real estate market and the 
economy in generaL 

Testing also raises a ftmdamental issue of fairness. Why should the current seller or lessor 
bear the brunt of alleviating a condition he or she did not cause? In the case of older homes and 
apartment buikling^ it may have been a previous owner, many times removed, who was the source 
of the problem by having the buikling painted with lead-based pamt There is also the kMig- 
standing responsibility of the numuCacturers of lead-based paint The pamt numufKturer, or the 
previous owner who caused the problem couM just as rjghtly be required to indemnify the current 
owner fbriome part of the deleading cost Such a policy is utiUnd under Superfond bw where 
the perK» responsible for contaminating a property with hazardous waste is required to finance 
the dean-up. 

Digitized by 



We ftie abo ooncemed that, over time, large numben of ownen of homei and apartment 
buikimgi with lead hazards may press for lower local tax assessments based on the lowered value 
of their home or building. While a leassesunent would proiride short term property tax relief for 
the affected property owner, in areas with a preponderance of older homes and multi-family 
buildingm such as New England and the Midwest, the result may be an eroded tax base for 
aheady hard-pressed communities. The lower tax base win ultimately affea the delivery of local 
services, such as education, police and fire protection and the like. 


The effects of mandatory testing will be dramatic on ownen of multi-family properties. 
First, ownen of lead-affected properties would be at a distinct marketing disadvantage in 
attracting families with small chiklren, venus ownen of post- 1978 properties or pre-1978 
properties without lead. If they decided to delead to increase the marketability of their 
apartments, the ownen would be forced to increase rents to recover the cost of deleading. They 
woukl also have to absorb the cost of relocation of tenants from individual units during the 
abatement process. 

Combined with the detrimental 1986 tax law reforms limiting passive k)sses on real estate 
activity, the additional lead testing and abatement expenses may simply force marginally profiuble 
landlords to sell their properties at a greatly reduced cost Or they may be forced to hold on to* 
their properties, thus delaying testing and abatement or, in extreme cases, abandon their 
investment altogether. This will be especially true in large urban areas where landknds are 
prevented from passing their deleading expenses ak>ng to renten due to rent control laws. More 
foreck)singi and marketing multi-family properties with lead hazards is certainly not something the 

Digitized by 



already-ttnpped Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) or the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) are equipped to deal with. 

Multi-family owners are now finding it difficult to obtain insurance due to the growing 
number of multi-million doUar judgements in lead-paint poisoning lawsuits. As a result, in older, 
inner-dty multi-family buildings with lead based paint problems, one should expect there will be 
some loss of units due to abandonment or demolition. Removals or conversions of rental units to 
commercial units is a prospect as well, depending on zoning and city government policies. Abo 
excessive code enforcement in the last decade has resulted in the removal of many downtown 
single-room occupancy hotels, which is one strong factor associated with homelessness. Certainly, 
lead-based paint abatement will increase the prices of rental housing in the inner cities, with the 
greatest impacts on moderate to low-income renters. It is fair to assume that the wont impacts 
win be in the most depressed areas. 


We realize that given the current federal budget deficit, it is impractical to expect the 
federal government to absorb the massive costs that lead abatement will invoh^ However, it is 
also unreasonable for the Congress to expect that this enormous financial burden can be absorbed 
solely by the private real estate sector in any reasonable period of time. In addition, we recognize 
the enormous costs the federal government already faces in abating lead in HUD, RTC and 
military housing properties. 

We are glad to see that S. 2341 recognizes the need for creative financial solutions. We 
would support the creation of the Task Force on private sector financing of lead hazard reduction 
called for in Section 106. NAR would be interested in participating with both federal and private 

Digitized by 



mortgage koding institutioitt in developiiig workable financial folutioof to the probtems poted by 
lead-baied paint 

CoQgrait should oouider the we of both financial and legal incentives to motivate 
homeownen and landlords to test for lead hazards. As a means to that end, perhaps Congress 
could alkm homeowners who itemiae deductions on their federal inoonie tax return to deduct the 
cost of lead testing and abatement with other medical deductions. Another optioo could be the 
development of lead tax credits, similar to energy tax credits, for testing and abatement of lead 
hazards. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires mandatoiy lead abatement at the point 
of sale for families with children under the age of 6 and often homeownen tax credits for some 
of the lead abatement costs they incur. 

In addition, current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practices provide a basis for treating 
the cost of lead abatement as a capital rather than an operating expense. As such the cost would 
be amortized over the life of the property, rather than charged in the year the expense occurred. 
Legislative or regulatoiy changes would obviously be needed to permit lead abatement to be 
dassified as a current operating expense, and deducted in the year the costs are incurred. 

Congress may also want to consider an excise tax on lead producers, pipe manufacturen 
and the companies that manufactured lead-based paint prior to its prohibition in the Seventies, to 
help fund abatement for properties with high-priority lead hazards and children under the age of 
seven. Such actions would follow the precedents set in recent court-imposed settlements for 
claims against asbestos manufacturen. Some of the monies generated could also go to fund an 
aggressive screening program to facilitate early detection of the children most at risk. 

Finally, property ownen who voluntarily take steps to make their property lead safe", 
through lead abatement or encapsulation, should be provided with a limitation on their legal 
liability. The "innocent owner" concept utilized in federal Superfund law couki be applied here as 

Digitized by 



ft poiitive incentive to property owners to encourage them to alleviate lead hazards on their 
premises. As fve noted above, many multi-Cnnily property owners are now fmdfaig it difficult to 
obtain insurance because of feais about muhi-millionjui^ements in lead-poisoning suits. Unless 
steps are taken to encourage abatement or encapsulation and provide a Umit on liability, there 
wiU be an faicrease in the abandonment of lower income housing in the inner-dties. We are 
pleased that Section 511 requires the General Aocounthig Office (GAO) to prepare a report 
assessing the availability of liability insurance tot owners of residential housing that contains lead- 
based paint 


In those areas of the country with a preponderance of older homes, it is becoming more 
common fior a prospective buyer to request a lead test prior to dosing. However, there is a 
significant dearth of qualified lead testing companies and deleading contractors in most of the 
United Sutes. We support those sections of S. 2341 calling for the certification of lead 
contractors and testing workers and laboratories. In many cases, an inadequate abatement job can 
actually create more risks for the residents of a home than leaving the property as it is. 

Until an adequate lead inspection infrastructure is created, delays may occur when there 
are problems in obtaining or deptoying testing equipment and ensurmg an accurate and a timely 
laboratory analysis of the samples taken. These problems can be compounded if lead based paint 
is found and retesting and abatement is negotiated by the parties prior to the signing of a 
contract In additkm, homes containing eaEcessh^ely hi^ levels of lead may have to be removed 
from the market entirely until an appropriate abatement strategy has been devdoped and 

It is for these reasons that we oppose the mandatory 10-day testing period in Section 
301(a) for tingle frunily sales. The huiguage ihouki be changed to "a mutually agreed upon period 

Digitized by 



of time." 11m wiU allow the two parties to the saki oootraa to deteimiiie, bo^ 
unique drcumstaDces, how loog a period is needed. This will avoid unneoessaiy delays in closings 
and allow fleadbDity based on the availability of testing oontractois in that particular geographic 

S. 2341 reoognins that it nuy take many years before an adequate testing and abatement 
infrastructure is created in the United States and allows HUD flenbility in imposfaig mandatory 
testing. Such flenbility should be edended to sales transactions as welL 


A public education program addressing lead hazards and the law*s requirements, will be 
sorely needed to ensure that the situations noted above do not occur. We are glad to see that 
real estate agents are one of the groups included in this public education initiative. The 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS* will do aU it can to assist the federal 
government in raising the awareness of our membership and clients concerning this vital problem. 
We ap{)reciate your assistance in these efforts. 

In this regard, S. 2341 calls for the sellers or their agents to distribute brochures to 
potential purchasers and lessees during the transaction process. However, it should be noted that, 
S. 792, which passed the Senate last week, requires lenders to distribute brochures on the dangers 
of radon. It would make sense to include radon as another major environmental hazard to which 
home buyers shoukl be alerted. Perhaps, shoukl both bills pass, the two brochures couM be 
combined and distributed as one document by the lenders to save cost and duplication. 

Digitized by 




The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS* strongly supports the concept of 
mandatory seller disclosure, and we agree that sellers, lessors and their agents should be required 
to notify potential buyers and lessees concerning all known lead hazards in the home or 
apartment At our April 1991, Mid-Year meetings we adopted policy, "encouraging State 
Associations of REALTORS* to develop and support legislation or regulation requiring 
mandatory property condition disclosure by the seller." 

While only California and Maine have enacted seller disclosure legislation to date, this 
year Virginia and Wisconsin cleared disclosure legislation that is awaiting signature by their 
governors. And, we are encouraged by the fact that several other state legislatures considered 
similar legislation during 1992. Both Maine and California speciCk^Uy include lead based paint on 
their mandatory disclosure forms. In addition, many of our state REALTOR* Associations have 
developed sample forms for REALTORS* to use in the interim. We have included some of 
these forms for your consideration (Attachment III). You will be pleased to note that they 
include lead-based paint 

You might also be interested to learn that, in the private sector, Coldwell Banker 
Residential Real Estate recently adopted a policy requiring sellers listing property with the ofiBces 
it owns to complete a property disckxure form. 

Wc woukl be veiy interested in working with this Subcommittee and Congress to devetop 
incentives for states to eipedite the process of adopting mandatory seller discloiure. The seller 
has the most intimate knowledge of his home and the disckxure requirement included in S. 2341 
shoukl appropriately place responsibility on him or her. 

Digitized by 




Several facion will make it difiBcult for real estate afents to clearly understand and 
perform tbeir functions regarding the proenoe of lead-based paint 

First, the 1^ obligation of a real estate agent to a customer relative to undiscovered or 
latent material defects of a property is usually, and more properly, established by state, not federal 

Second, the problem of lead is particularly difficult smoe testing is not yet standardized. 
Thus, even where the broker's legal duties can be specifically prescribed, satisfactory performance 
may be inhibited by the di£Eiculty of obtaining reliable test data or uncertainty in the proper use 
of such data in ascertaining the potential risks faced by a customer. 

Finally, real estate brokers and sales people are empkiyed to function as property 
marketing agents, not as experts in technical issues regarding the implications of environmental 
conditions such as lead . Thus, although licensed by the state to perform a marketing function, 
real estate agents may nevertheless be kx)ked upon by protpecthc purchasers as a source of 
environmental information and counsel, which the agent is ill-trained to provkle. 

In those instances where a broker has knowledge of lead hazards esdsting in a home, we 
recognize his obligation to disckxe that fact to any prospective buyers. In some circumstances, it 
may be prudent, or even legally or ethically necessaiy for a broker to provide a buyer and/or seller 
with information regarding the possible proence of lead in a home, and the consequences that 
may result from extended exposure to lead hazards. But, in no case does, or diouhl, the broker'^ 
legal or ethical duty go any further, since he is ordinarily not trained, nor required by law to be 
trained in technical matters such as lead discovenr* abatement strategies, or health hazards. The 
broker is not a qualified source of professional guklance for a home buyer regarding the risks 

Digitized by 



attendant to lead in a particular home, even though buyen often may not properly evaluate and 
deal with those risks. 

We must question the appropriateness of Section 301(a)(2) which appears to place burden 
of oompHanoe with the pre-sales requirements on the agent rather than the seller. The legal 
loponsibility should ultimately rest with the seller, not the agent 


In conclusion, we appreciate this opportunity to present our views on this subject While 
we have concerns atx>ut the implications mandatoiy lead testing could have on the affordability 
and availability of housing, we sincerely wish to work with the Congress, and other interested 
parties, to help lessen the risk to our nation's children from exposure to lead. 

53-652 0-92-7 

Digitized by 




Estimated Cost of Testing for Lead-Based Paint 

In the USA and Selected Metropolitan Areas 


« tff OcrqpM I. nib 

Tolal Cwt br 1 
Tatlnt 1 





«:9JBUUoD I 





KLd billion 1 




































ZJ9.A MfUldfl 





SU,1» MUUoD 










135^ MUlkib 






Fl Worth 




111 J MOllon 





131-4 MUlkiB 



























lilji MUlloD 










4794 MOUoil 





3?7.(l Minion 





313^ MUhm 




i7i ' 




375 ! 

441.1 MUlUiD 

Sources: Burau of the Ceniui. AmericM Hourint Sun>cv for the Uiiited Sutei. 1989. 
u of the Censui, AmcricMi Honrini Smvev for the United Slatei. 1967. 
U.S. Deputnent of Hcwirim wid Unm Devdopncst: 5 

Digitized by 




Estimated Cost of Abatiiig Lead-Based Paint 

In Oe USA aad Seleeltd MetrapoHtra Anas 


















1»4,4 BilUon 





1J&* BUUon 





\UA %mao. 
































-■ - ' 
























27 BUJIon 







1 vol 



JAl4 Billion 





























#.* Billion 





«.] BUUar 











Wa!bS4i«, DlC; 




*.l BUIloD 

Sourow Bumu of the Cauo, Amcfian Hommi Survey ror the Uniitri Sum. 19ftS . 
• Bttii of the CenwM. AmtfUan Houtiflt Stfryry ijai^ UjiMg^ $uici. 1^7 . 

tri. DcptTii&aiT of HcKBitit *CMJ Urtvn Dcv^tocmein Compceheaih>e md Woctible Plan for the Abat< 

Digitized by 



(Attachment III) 








MlBfMMOM in OMldinQ WflOTMf flfid on WIWI IWRW IB pwCtlOM tfW MBiMI pvopWly. 8MW IMfOby MjtfWnSH 9ltf SQ'MtS) rspfMOMHlQ 

■n > pi iw lpii | i|iw<iii tww t cM o w iBp«BM«d»«cepyof»liiliiiiiiii i iaaiiyp<wowor«i«ityin c onn^ ^ 


Btiv Oia DitnoioanipymgtfwpiepcfiyL 

A. Tlw lytili rt pwporty Hm « 



D WMMwmapw AirCowdiiioiiwQ 

¥imi Biiiinii. D Oly 








D FlwAlanw 
D Inimem 

D WdMti loinmr 

a Spa OHotlbb 

fi*i<«t Wty Q C"^ 




Ajm> iHHTfnit I 


D f w MW Mi OOtftaOi OnBora DiMMlorWfMi O 
a » ■■■■ ! ■ O lH iiiUM Owgi^F w c M O 



Chapiv 1U (eoMiiwieng wti SMtten 1MN) of Fwt 3 of OMMn 19 of M HMim and telMy Cod*^ 

■iiypr and UMm ■ cH wo i ii U dgi w ciip i of oopy of iMo pogo. wMch c ow Wum Fogo i of 2 Fagot. 

■uyor't MMali t \ i \ Sotw't MMali ( ) ( ) 

Raprlncad with poraiaaion, California Aaaociaeion of 
Ra«ltora. Cadoraoaont noc inpliod. 


Digitized by 



Ck Am you (S#Nw) Mwv of Miy of tiM Mtowififs 

I. t irtiMii ■■ mMiriili nf nmrtiirtt ■nirhmi|IHTi iniilrnnrrnni rt haTrrtiiimM hiii nm Mmii i ii ii Mtimn i 
lD wi i i id» h» o> . »idon9M.liiabiii d paw«.lto«lor e h>mi c ilgM»iQ>iwl«.andeei tt iii w oitdaoilor«^ 
MtiMprapwni Qm* Om 

& PMtufw of vw pfopcfiy flMMd M ooiiiMQii wn od|oiiiMQ iindMMciBa Mcti M vNMNi MnoMa ono OnwVM^^ 

wtiOMyMor w 8 p o n iiaili i ytorm a iniw» a n c »iii a yhowoi»t<iltcicw»>iutitqpfop»w»L Q)(ta Om 

3^ t^9ntmtftmmH,M»mmnv9lti^ammmm»9mm&/ttiteiiamirt^ Qmm Qn 

4. Woow >ddiiioH>. iB uc i utii iwodiBcMtom» of oMwf iiiwoiiow of upow Hwd> <wtho<^ iwcom^ poiwifc uiw un 

5. Woow <dditlow» iB uc i utii iwodiBcMtom» of oMwf iBwoBow Of wpoifi no! w coHipii>no ^wUh buMfcn codw. ...uiw uN 

& UndW C co w pt cwd orotf i owwioo l owftopw u moraiiypotiionimwol . Qmm On 

7. i^M l i n Ql> w iioiiyoM»oril» m a<ldhB.oroMiofooilpw>H iM . O^fta On 

& WHOdiiig. d n iwogo orgwdlwQ pwMoiiio. OMm ON 

t. Ilijor dii w oBt Id dio pw ^ m or any of fho MWM— fcom Iw. oo flfci iiolw. lood^ or lo n doidoo Qmm On 

11. MiUhboiiiood noito pwdlwiw or odior wmjhwdh. Qmm On 

IS. CCMTior ndior rtood mwcHono or oblaaHoiM. Qmm On 

tX llowwowno w ' M oo c lo d ow iKii cW UMonywidwhtyoMordiooutioqpiedOfiy . O^fta On 

M. Ai^f '^Donwioii oroo (lMHiootuctioopooliilMwiiQouni^wolnM)fi»orodioro(Mooo4iMnod 

kiiiRMdodiniMo««Miodion». Q)(ta On 

II. j^twdoooofidMiii n niorciia H Dii o dgHwdiopioooi ni Q^fta Ok 

M. i^ I— OMiii OBOin a dip nH r di iiMiHiiig lo or Kl icdnB dHo lool piepofiy . QMm Oh 

■ Mf— ^Ha«iiy^ll»«^i.y— ■ Blim^t—Hlliillllt Iiimil«.^ii..>y|. 

Sdldf coitlfldi ttidl llio Mofflullon hoioin is tnio ond oonoct to llio boot of tlio Soflof ^ knowlodgd dt of Iho wto 

lw feo codipiotdQ only if mo dOHOf io lopioooiiloo ^f on OQdni in tmo oonoociion.) 


im bo coinplotod only If tho dQdnl wlio lioo oMoindd tlio ofldr io oihof tnon ttw ogont dbovo.) 



■dMiBWQdioOiiw). ^^ 




_ lovrlntod vlcn poraissioa. CaUforala Aasociaclon of 

SS^SSmSSSmSiZTSSSFmS^ aoaltora. EndoraoMQC noc iapllad. 

omeauoiOMw . ^^ 

"""•■*••• ^ ' "■ rapK nuM i o—« 


Digitized by 





Property Address , ,_ 





D = 

















2. OwB«rt&UM i3/dUnirtStP_^^^ 
S. Act«r«(rv«BNi 



HMMvmti. UH mtmniMt, l«t Lb* ^UVVUl b«a»l7 

■ 0« y*a ^Hv* *f «Bf iruuji«« Of tttati ^trmmJ E«yliui . 

i t>tymka^idvr1mA4iM9^mmMitjmii»vMmtmm'ttxf/tMim- 

^& «.Ki*v]nudMttiA7 «*rfc vUdii«qiiu«4 MUi^. pluiaUhr.*UctrKd#«faiitp^ 

fa Vhft pvrniitft obtuMdT 


U. Ji iw ii^ H T u, fW4 ^un «r ^iwJu^T Cvptnin ^ 

iSw Fla«d HilAPd. DuclMun Dauh. Sttxion Vtt A j 

■ , C Q ,12. li pnfMrty iLi^fflct tfl nni CDnuvl. pqul^iwi «r rf^itw^ 

* lf» "■MR £»win D«<«nm]M ^oiuApptin OiI'wt,^^., 

i 19. lffmMd.lMMparM4sAMiaacy««ill 

14. ITrmud.* 

D I D 'WW uni*^, ^ imtiTM hwn pud on lut mqnLht PvnVl»*cumy 4*p«wt? 

i I D*!* 

Q[ Q ■■ Ku«n«4vuii» P*r"i4«l N«rk ik«^ Jfl 1 n«dfl.n«*n« fund? CfTH, hDiw much^ 



It. •.TyptBl'hHLuif triUrA Aft 

ami a 

kb Kh iJMWt fww b«ati ui iMultfirwDd Ml Ullkl' If JpH. iHttiOft 

(Sk HuMj^Hu lUcfmli DudHur* CUhm, 5«cupti VI] Eh 
If. HlAaiNOS\TrEkrpnM«fu*£«»Uia 

90. lypviTDHirttKHalUhur. 


; a ! a : C 9L DOMESnCHOTWATE]tpnM«»?JC<Tlw» 

I : I i 

99. BuniirijD<ttH«cH« Millar DvMd lUfitH 

, O • D a ,29. PLUMBINO SYSTEM fftM«ta/luiidlri^«t?£xpltiB_ 

D d" D 

tf mnud. TnfB '« 

94. S«Ulfinn iftAttliiKtn probLmt^ E^plbA 

99. TypT '4'' Waft tjuwrn i **wvr. wpm, mapaak. «u i 

Fvi-Wie ^ Prttni* - _ _ 

99. irprt<ni*.\M)fUBtt<)fttTYKfvmpttir 

O O C 97. SEWAGE SV$TEMfrfTttl*Ril''£it]Um 

;- L; U 

91. Au €in4iuHun| tfpM. Cmuti ^_^_ «-^ — ^ 


COFVIWCHT <■ 1990 Sritarn ln.ittli _ 

M A-Si ACH LT5 tTTS A"^?SrK.'| ATlOS OF ReALTOKP I of 9 

Ceefrttbt wud b^ MAR. AnT«A» wiahiiNi to raprodue* any part of this docuant 
m»t »Dt«cc HM tar pKrmt**io4. 

Digitized by 



DOG M. ELECTTUGU. SYSTEM ptwkiwtm^ ExplMa 

ODD 31 AJ»PUANCULA«*all«MiucM-4itditn^c<uidiid«4ui«arLinttf«^7Cj^un 

D D D M- iA<l*nnwc wcniy irrtm ui wbni <H^d4r* Itpitia 

D D D 3^ hvn4iiu^ri>lt4 pfi t l^ w i mrU mf^ Eiplaia 

D D D M i nwn i K Wfajr ff iip m Ompftwi' E«^n —nmn, ftw^w>ry»J Jsatmt 

ODD ST. •ts«ii^piiaip'*ir}H.4«t 

D D D fci tt It im. .trtUf if^if* Ii#*i> 

» Jte^tn* A«i 

D D D 9* JtoJ^lwki. pt M tiM*tMtiua 

D D D ^ liiwMrttyM:^iluif^rtM4fM'EiT4*in_ 

G D w 42 FteDf^nUtmrDpliiB 

D G G ^ Ctiiw*^rir**lHtFnbitini^EjpIun 

Dti* Itm ci*iAH ^ 

4C Hui«rT4rrifwtiMfc«iu«|*^Ej:pliin 
G G G *' H-wryifTV™m*iP««vhitP»rtk™»?EMflwnirt«»»mmi^alf 

D D D 4< l«h«UHifl«uUud''TV^ UCMMI. 

D D 4t- Huuni brni^hy^ ^«m»iUfv^liwi<UrT]Lr«w^atnpn««nt7lfyn iKVian - 

>Sm UfTl D4fJ4«un a«ui« SKitDfi V1I C < 
D D G 80 Hat 4rt iMt rv i;rrif»in«J4*h^4* tetA ^ofvt'' ir ^H, uud^ lap^ 9f rtiwi 
AllM^^ Nat AiLwiwd .«^^ 

G D D A- Ari •iib*«4*<«9ni«uiiQf lAntaibn BT buildtnc aMMrttls prntM? 

G G G tt lslMipMMpriMm?lfyM-l« 

iSm L*wl P*i&i Diteittutw CUum. Smeutb VII £ I 
GO D ftS. Hu iw rw fUd4fl btm 4«a*^ ir rm, Aiuch Hfr [Sh JUd»i> Dud«en S««ion Vll Gi 
D D D •<• OUtff awiWiiif « SHWiBtil Pf»WBM» JJ«miN ^__ 


D D D M. VthiH-iriiniftfma4«iiu''CjplAtii 

D D D M. »*iiftaifct pin^twjp pFtMi mi^ Ei&t»t 

S7. JdcKulV tAr Mhir hkitrdwi miuruii u ih« pfnpmir 

'5w Huirdwft Ututtth OiaeJlamun CIauu. $«v«ib VT! fl 
Vt )Wi t^rt Bfinr »t*wf <nfcrm*4WrR ttMvminf *Ay p«n orf' thm buiMlflfl Hi jmir ^rapmr 
«hKh intf«^L tfTbft th« 49siMtan ^ • hu*iir U bur w BirKt iltt ^vt tuTiiwr pnptrtir « iffr« iU uh by 
t ^jwr* Jffa iH«nh . 

Copyright tfwnwi bv t-Udt^ Anyvn* vlaIiiiL| to rtproduc* any pare of this docuaanc 
suat contact I-UB for paralsslon. 

Stlltr't Iniualt _^_^ ——^..^ Buyvr • InitisU . 

Digitized by 






Th« S«li«r't O«tcription of Property it irtt«nded to supplement the usual listirtg irtformttlon obtained 
by lookers and to awist the brokers in comt^unicating information concerning residential property 
from the seHer to prospective buyers. It is also intended to provide a measure of protection fbr seller 
and buyer ensuring that information concerning the condition of the property is communicated. 


It is recommended that the sellers fill in the form. If the sellers are unsure of any faeliial Morma- 
lion or about legal questions addressed by the form, the eeler shouM check the '*UNKir (unknown) 
block. If Hems do not apply (e.g. security system) the seller should I n di c a t e "HA" (not applicable)* 

Certain questions have been omitted, which apply only in limited locations (e.g. contamination of 
local water, overnight parking restrictions, proximity of nuclear power plants, etc.). If applicable, 
such information can be provided by sellers in the space provided for additional information (third 
page). The Inclusion or esduslen of Inlormatlen on this form Is not Intended to establish any eb H gallon 
of ttie broker or seller to disclose such Informatlen. However, the Coneumer Prol ec So n Act, 
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter tSA, obligates a broker to disclose property defects he/she Is 
j i^ j yg of wMch affect the property's value or may affect a buyers declilon to purchase* 

It is recommended that a copy of the form be retained by the sellers. Before a buyer signs an 
Offer to Purchase a property, it is suggested that the buyer be given a copy of the form. The parties 
may want to attach a copy of the form to the Offer or Purchase and Sale Agreement. 



A. The form has been developed to get the best and fairest price for the seller's home and 
to protect sellers from claims that the condition of the property was misrepresented. The form deals 
with matters that are most frequently misunderstood by buyers and. therefore, become the source 
of claims. Rather than obtaining the information from the sellers orally, a written form reduces the 
risk that the informatton will not be accurately reported. Generally, buyers who are advised of problems 
are not discouraged by disclosures. Rather, it is the surprises which cause problems. Sellers ere net 
being asked to make representations when they are unsure of the accuracy of their responses, since 
aH the sellers need do Is explain their uncertainty or Indteale "unknown" as the anewer. 

A. Questions, commments and feedback concerning the use of the form should be 

addressed to the Massachusetts Association of Realtors. P.O. Box 9036. Waltham. MA 02254-9036. 
Comments should be in writing so continued improvement and revision of the form will be poesiWe. 

Copyright owned by MMl. Anyone visaing cp reproduce any part of tliis docusenc 
nust contact MAR for peraission. 

This form Is Intended for voluntary use by mewbefs of the MassschuseHs Asseeiatlen of Realtors. 
Its use Is net required, but Is entirely discretionary. 

Digitized by 



Copjrrlghc otmcd by MA*. AnyoiM wishing to r«produc« any part of this documsnt 
■MC contact MAJt for parmisaion. 

iiy^HllMyi i^lHDlTlQNALINFQRMrtTI/^r''. '■ SBff 


Tin iaUowintcUuifw ptwidad fef datcripchc p ur poi ai only. Fbr datailad infcnnation. conmlt 
tha Maiwfhiiitti DtpTOnant of Public Haalth. tha Manafhiiiattt Dtpartawn of Enwroamtntai QuaUty 
EBfiMariac, or othar apprapriata afancy. or jmir actamay. 
A. fUmi Vlaamr4 la s aff —cs I M s d ss f s CI om s »QuMtion m C 1—4 Ml IW mI— w Cl aas s iQutuoa M> 

Tht km 4 u mat r tq mn Flood Hassrt lawifawct •■ • cMidi- Whoao<o r » child undor mat yoois of oto wtidoo in say 

tioaofthoaMrtcsaolooa.iftholo»dordoi«rmiiioothatdM rtoidomisl promuwo in which say paiai. ploour or ochor 

pioauooo io in flood hataid tono. oceoootMomaunsiconuiaodsBforouolowtisoflood.tho owner 

it ro^uirod by law. w mnowt aoid paint. ploMor or cowor with 
approprtau oMtonaJs lo so to aako it iBoccoowhIt to s child 
ondor ois ytsro of sfo. Conowaaiion of load is poMoooao and 

■!Z!2LS^.^^722bm^1u!!!!iS^ chanioofawno«hip.«oorooi»k.ochildiindorMiyoanofoio 

MOM McuMinf o noM 01 csncor wiiwiign ouiunf oats ooof not y ij^^n- • ratiitonf tho now motiii io nauifod bv low to 

hoakh noiis art ouch that n n pnidont puMk hoslth policy. " ** *•" 

occ o riiHi ta tho Doportaiont. to otiminow tho hirthor intfo> f. I 

' ' ' ' '^aostMns lib; 57) 

owMT of rsal ootaio haMo to poy ftr tho « 
hatsfdous or took awtonaJs from inal ootau and for dam- 
ofoo noultinc from tho ro loa oo of oach aMioriali. acoording 
to tho Maooachuiotu Oil oad Haiardouo Maional Roloaoo 
sad Rosaonoo Act. Gonoral Laws. Chapior M E-TTl o bayor 

taoaaciod ftr tho sraoonoo of. or tho oubotantial lihtlihood of 
fohaao of oil or haaaidous aMional oad Ottch proof of inoportien 
aMy ho rotairad as s pfaiaquioito for ftaaaoag tho prop er ty 
G. lUdoa Di s c ioaara Claaaa «Q«ootten 53) 

Radan is an ederisoo. colorlooo. tosMloos gso predaeod 
nstarally in tho graaad by tho noRaal docay of oranium and 
radian. Radan can Uad to tho dovolepmont of radioacuvo 
paiiidos which can bo iahalod. Stadioo indicate tho rooalt of 
osiondod oxpoovro to high lovols of radon may incrosso tho 
lisk of dovotoptng laag caacor 

Tho bayor ockn owWdgo o that ho hao boon advtood that Uroo 
RwmaMohydo FiDsm laoulatioa •UFFli hsa boon dodsfod by 
s Dopartmont of Pubkc Health iDPH) to bo 

piahibited. Whore tTFI wao previously moiallod. the 
foaanad ta advioo tho bayar < 1 1 whofv ouch L'FFI io located 

I; (2) s copy of toot roouho 
oenoomiag tho sir Inoi of fermaldehydo: end <3> copy of in. 
Ibnaauoa from tho OPH eeneermag Um sad ftrmaMohydo 
looolo. Undor oortaiB ctfcaaMaaooo the ooot of remooal moy bo 
I i p oo or e to h aiai do uo looelo of fcnaaldo h ydo awy 
indadinB headschoo, aaaoea or osBoer. 
t that ho hss boon sdvtood to ooaoak 

Tho bayir achaa 

D. Aahaa t ao Dt a c l aa ar a Claaaa (Qaeotian 51) 

Tho United Statoo ConaaaMr Pfodact Safety Coomaooiaa 
has w a int s in ed thst seboa t ee w s t oriaie are hasatdoao if thoy 
r ilese t separate flbors which can bo inhaled- Asbostoo is s 
r emmo B iaaaUtiaa aatorial an honiiag pipoa. boilers, aad 
AmMcoo. It may aloa bo preooat in eettaia typos of floor sad 

athor baildiag materials. Tho bayor may have the p rep on y 
— '-—'-'-" i a spec t ed tor tho pro son c o of asbootoo aad if 
wal of asboaiao io desired, proper satocy 



SaUaKa) hartby acfaMwIadtt that tha iafcrnutioB aat ferth abowa is tnia and Mcurau to tha ba^ 
(aw» Imowladfa. I (a«) (brthar afraa to dafcnd and iadamniiy tha brokaifa) (or ai9 ai^b-^^ 
tbr djad oatiw of aay o ftha infcr iMtkn oentainad hartia SaUaKa) ftirthar acknowdadtt raoaipt of copy of 
SaOara Daocnpcion of nopa^r. 


Bayar/Praapsctiva Bayar ackaowlodgos racaipt of Sailor's Daacription of Property and Agtncy Discioaara. 
Bayar acknawlodgts that Broker has not vonfiad the information horain and Buyer has boon ad\*isod to verify 
iafarmation indapandontly. 


Digitized by 



^••fw #r OlWCtafS 

Itobert D. BuKoid PttD. 
Mudolph L ladaon M.D. 
David O.Ma*mt 
»taip I. landrigan M.D. 
Agnes D. Lattkntr M.D. 
frank OskiM.D. 
Sttphanie Potadi esq. 
Dmnd P. KaK M.D. 
KnutUngtn Dr.RH. 
EMtft Subtfggid PfuD* 
BaHus MMker, /r. Ph.D. 


March 19, 1992 

WrittMi T«stlBony Subaittad to th* 

Subccmdtttttt on Housing and urkMui Affairs 
Comittss on Banking, Housing and Utban Affairs 
U.S. Sonata 

on tha 

Rasidantial Load-Based Paint Hazard Roduction Act 

Prasonted by Don Ryan, Bxacutiva Diractor 

Senator Cranston, I am Don Ryan, Executive Director of tha 
Alliance To £n^ Childhood Lsad Poisoning. It le sy 
pleasure, on b«half of th» Alliance 'e Board of Directors, 
to express our strong support today for 3. 2341. The 
Alliance wants to conmetid you and this COBiialttee for 
introducing this conprehensive piece of Legislation 
address ing what is now recognized to be the greatest 
•nvironnental health threat to children in the U.3*- 

Your bill is a landaiark piece of legislation which 
•stablishes a new framework for accelerating action to 
address urgent lead hazards In mi 11 lone of hoiaes. This 
bill laaXes the Federal govorTuaent a full partner with 
cities and states by providing substantial new resources 
and by harnessing all Federal housing programs to this end. 
In addition this bill clarifies issues related to hazard 
definition and reasonable response to clarify confusion 
over standards of care for private landlords, at tha same 
tins reducing the Federal govemmant^s liability. 

The Alliance is a national nonprofit public interest 
organic: at ion focusing exclusively on ending the epidemic of 
childhood lead poisoning. The Alliance is a new 
organ i^at ion — just IS months old -* formed by leaders in 
medicine and research, public health, environmental 
protection, low- income housing, education, and children's 
welfare. The Alliance was bOLn from the failures of 
Federal agencies to respond effectively to the epidemic of 
childhood lead poisoning over the past two decades. I 
would like to insert for the record biographical sJcetchea 
of our Board of Directors to demonstrate the depth and 

• 600 Perwnvtvonto *»enue. it. • iuae tOO • Woihmgton.DC 20001 • 202S4il\4f • fAK 202 U I 44M • 

Digitized by 



diversity of thm Alllanca, which spans •nvlronaental protsction, 
public hMltii, Icnr-incoss housing children ^m velfare, civil 
rights, education and labor. The All lanes has a atandlng 
Technical Advisory COBsittee of 65 experts froa aeroBs the country 
repres^mting overy field and discipline involved In developing and 
iaplementing Bolutions to childhood lead poisoning. 

Scope and Severity of tha Hagard 

Long dismissed as a nuisance- level hoiiaing problen, lead poisoning 
ifl now recognized by both HHS and EPA to be "the Ko, 1 
enviroruaental health hazard to American children," Zisad affects 
children's brain function and nervous syaten devalopment even at 
levels well below those which produce identifiable syaptoma. The 
human health effect* of lead include: mental retardation, IQ 
reductions, hyperactivity, reading and learning problems, 
attention- span deficiti hypertension, liver and kidney damage, and 
at high levels coma, convulsions and even death. The usual 
uncertainties and honest debate which surround so nany 
environ»ental health risks are not present vith lead, despite 
efforts by the lead industry to obscure the scientific evidence. 

The Centers for Disease Control's recent change in the definition 
of childhood lead poisoning from 25 micrograms per deciliter of 
blood (ug/dl) to 10 ug/dl results in a ten-fold increase in the 
number of children recognized as lead poisoned between two and 
three million preschoolers. The concomitant call for "universal 
screening" and a shift to a eore sensitive screening test will 
also result in sharp increases in the number of young children who 
will actually ba identified as lead poisoned in the future. 

The Prinarv Cause o f the Probl^i^ 

He are all exposed to lead from a multitude of sources: Isad- 

based paint and dust; emissions from gasoline, industrial sources, 
and municipal incinerators; drinking water; food (from lead solder 
in food cans and poorly glazed ceramics); soil? hobbies; and lead 
in the %mrkplaca and lead dust brought home from the workplace. 
But one source is responsible for the most intensive exposures 
which are poisoning our children and the vast majority of poison^ 
ings We now know that the overwhelming cause of the problem is 
lead-based paint and dust in homes. All Federal agencies -- EPA, 
HHS and HUD are in agreement on this fact. Some may argue 
before your committee that the problem is not lead in paint, but 
lead in soil They may argue that unless we remove all the 
topsoil in urban America it makes no sense to address lead paint 
hazards in housing. These arguments are specious -- simply an 
excuse to delay action and distract attention from the root of the 
problem, lead'based paint and dust in homes. 

HUD*s December 1990 Report to Congress concluded that almost 3/4 
of U.S housing built before 1978 contains some lead paint -r- 
57 million units altogether. Of course, like asbestos, the mere 
Pggggnc^ of leaded paint does not indicate an immediate hazard. 

Digitized by 



But HUD found hazardous conditiona (chipping and paaling laaded 
paint or high laad dust lavals) in an astiaatad 20 Billion units. 
According td this sasa Raport to Congrass, 3.8 sillion of thosa 
hosaa now hava fanllias with young childran living in thaa, 
prospting HDD to coin tha tars "priority hazard." 

HlfftQricfll BflcKdj:i?B 

In 1971^ through the laadarahip of thia CosBittee, the Congraaa 
established the national nandata to wipe out childhood lead 
poisoning caused by lead -based paint. Prinary raeponsibility vas 
given to the Departmant of Housing and Urban Development ** under 
the auspices of our couBitaent to '■decent, aafa and affordabla 
housing » In Adainietration after Adninistration at mjD, load- 
based paint hazards have been down-played or diemiased. over tha 
years HOD hae baan broadly and sharply criticized for its iapla- 
mentation of statutory requireaents related to lead paint. 

The de facto policy evolved in sost cities across tha country that 

lead paint hazards in hoaes would be aj>ated after and only after a 
lead -poisoned child vas found* In 1987, Congress anended the law 
and directed that a fundajoental change be nade to identify and 
correct lead hazards in housing befon ^a a child is poisoned. 
Unfortunately, this legislation has two fundasental shortcomings; 
1} action is callad for to address l«ad paint and dust hazards 
only in public housing, while the aost serious hazards clearly 
exist in other categoriee of our housing stocJc; and 2} tha 
concentration of la ad in paint fila (as seasured by XRF) is the 
only criteria specified for Measuring and defining hazard. The 
current ■*all or nothing" systea makes it impossible to target 
resources to priority hazards and usually results In no action 
being taken to identify or address lead hazards* 

ftUian<?? SUPPOiTt fttC JS . ZUl 

The Alliance strongly supports 5. 2341 and comands Senator 
Cranston and this conuDittae for your leadership Tha hard work of 
the coaaittee staff is clear in this bill that offers a fresh, 
enlightened approach to an old problaiB, The Alliance urges the 
Coaaittao's early consideration and enactaent of the '^Residential 
Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act" for the following reasons: 

o S. 2341 coaplements lead poisoning prevention legislation now 
moving in tha environaent coanittaes, assuring that Federal 
prevention efforts will be coaprahenslve and coordinated » 

o The current statute concentrates on lead paint hazards in 

nublic housing, although the evidence clearly suggests that 
the worst probleas are elsewhere. Thiu bill assures 
consideration of lead hazards in all Federal housing program, 
as well as warning and disclosure in private sales and 

Digitized by 



'O ^l» bill dlotlnguiahflfl batw«ui th« prodence of lead paint 
and th« •xiBtftncft of laad paint hazarda . mo that reaourcoa 
ean b« targeted to priority problama. This riak-faaaad r«gine 
for "laad hazard reduction" ackjiowledgwa th» need for and 
legitimate role of risk asseesments and interim controls in 
units ponding permanent obateeont. Thm resulting frattework 
provides reasonable, vorJcahle and protective standards of 
. care, signalling landlords that good- faith efforts are needed 
to identify and correct lead health hazards > 

o The $250 Billion authorized for the HtJD competitive grants 
prograa finally maXee the Federal government a full partner 
vith cities and states. Some may argue that this is too much 
to divert from low- income housing for load hazard reduction. 
The Alliance points cut that every dollar of these grants Is 
qoing into low-incone housing. Every rohabilltation program 
Involving older housing encounters lead paint; these grants 
siBply assure that the problem is dealt with responsibly. 

o It is extreoely important to have lead-based paint hazards 

considered in the CHAS process. Lead paint is the proverbial 
"elephant In the room* being ignored as cities survey their 
housing atocJt and needs. Some 3,000,000 U.S. children are 
now load poisoned because they are living in older honies with 
lead hazards It is a folly and a waste not to even consider 
lead-based paint hazards in maXing housing decisions 

o The Alliance strongly supports the requirement that Federal 
funds only be used en projects conducted by certified 
contractors and trained workers. Federal housing funds must 
be used to "prime the pump" of demand for lead hazard asses s- 
Bsnt and reduction and to enforce minlttua national standards 
for quality control. Currently, most hOBeotmars are at the 
Bsrcy of untrained or unscrupulous operators- 

o The Alliance supports the bill's directive for Federal 

agencies to provide public education, technical assistance, 
an 800 number telephone hotline and warning labels on tools 
used in hoae renovation and paint reaoval. 

o The Alliance supports the bill's initiatives to encourage 
market forces by reflecting lead hazards in appraisals, 
assure the availability of liability insurance, expand 
private financing^ conduct necessary research and develop- 
■ent, and direct the development of a national strategy. 

Provisions of !5. 1141 Which H. ^ed Strencrthenififl 

Although the Alliance strongly supports S. 2341, there are a 
niiober of extremely important provisions which Bust be 
strengthened to make the bill comprehensive and workable. 

Digitized by 



ZBt«riM controls mxm not a ivbatitnto for AbatMMat 

Tho Alliance believes that tho bill's amphasiB on lead- based paint 
hazards (versus the nere presence at leaded paint) is apprapriate. 
He also support the provisions which institutionaliie and validate 
interim control a aa a aeans of accelerating action and targeting 
resources. At the sane time, however, the bill rieka sending the 
wrong sessage to landlords that "a band -a id may be the cure,* The 
bill aust make clear that interim controls are just that— Inter in 
controls, pending permanent abatement of lead hazards. At a 
minimuiB, the bill must establish the principle that comprehensive 
modernization of a unit ie an opportunity which must be seized to 
do abateaent at incremental cost. Abatement requirements should 
be triggered by a threshold of Federal funding of rehabilitation 
projects, such as $25,000. In addition, requirements should be 
addsd for inspections to be conducted prior to Federally-funded 
renovation work to avoid aggravating hazards if Isad-basad paint 
ie being disturbsd. 

Property Diapositioa 

Thia bill Bust clearly establish the principle that all housing 
units sold by Federal agencies (in the broadest asnss of ths word) 
must be inspected and abated prior to disposition. Ths 
disposition of Federally-Downed properties •* the sxtrsas case in 
which the Federal government is relinqruiahing its direct control 
and responsibility — must be subject to full inspsction and 
permanent abatement prior to sale. 

It is absolutely essential that these requirements be imposed on 
the nation's largest landlord, the Resolution Trust Corporation. 
RTC has a policy of targeting sales to low and moderate Income 
families, who simply cannot bear the burden of unexpected lead 
paint cleanup costs. This bill must resolve the current confusion 
and disagreement as to the status of PTC properties Requirsasnts 
for inspection and abatement prior to sale must also be applied to 
units purchased by low- income families from public housing 
authorities, through the HOPE program^ and similar situations 
Technical changes are needed to make clear that these properties 
which are sold to families and non-profit providers are subject to 
the saas protection. 

The need for urgsnt action to protect unsuspecting buyers of 
foreclosed homes is made clsar by ths Alliance ^s March 17, 1992, 
letter to HUD, a copy of %rhich is provided for the record. As 
detailed in this letter, the information now being provided to 
buyers of these properties is sadly out of date and dangerously 

SeetioB • aad Other Federally-Assisted Umits 

The three-year delay in imposing requirements for lead hazard 
assessment and reduction in other Federally-assisted units is 
unnecessarily long. Changing the deadline from 1995 to 1994 

Digitized by 



should provide uqpl* tJbM for contractors to bs trained and 

In addition, the excessively vague language in section 102 wuat be 
expanded and refined to provide the specificity needad to provide 
clear direction to HUD, To be workable, the expanded language 
must prescribe specific triggers and tira ds ad lines for risk 
aseesoaents, inter la controls, inspections end ebatenent* These 
requirements should take advantage of various opportunity points 
(such as nsv subsidy contracts, contract renewals, changes in 
tenancy, major rehabilitation, and changes in ovnerahip) , As 
detailed above. Inspections should be required prior to Federally- 
funded renovation and abatejoent should be required in the course 
of substantial rehabilitation projects. 

The principle must be established that the acceptance of Federal 
subsidy funds carries with it a responsibility to exaaine and 
attend to lead paint hazards. At the same tine, the stringency of 
requirements established should recognize differonces in the 
nature and level of Federal subsidy* These requirements should be 
established In law -* not left to HUD's regulatory process. 
Finally, these requirements should be expanded to cover other 
categories of Federal ly-asslsted units, such as unite subsidized 
under sections 235, S02, S14, 516, and 533 ♦ 

sot if lost ioa and Discloaiire 

The deadlines for action related to disclosure and notification 
are unreasonably long — two years to promulgate regulations and 
three years before regulations take effect. The requirement for 
sellers to disclose Xnovn hazards should take effect imaodiately , 
Slailarly, there is no reason why the Lead Hazard Information 
Pamphlet cannot be developed and made available within six months. 
The requirement that the Lead Warning Statement be included in 
contracts and leases should be effective not later than 18 months 
after enactment, as well as the buyer's right to do an inspection. 

In addition, the bill language should make clear the requirement 
for the Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet to be given to prospec- 
tive tenants as well as property buyers. The assurance by the 
Secretary related to "a sufficient number of individuals certified 
to carry out lead hazard assesssient and reduction" should be 
handled on a state or regional basis rather than a slngls national 
certification. Otherwise, a capacity shortfall in one state could 
indefinitely delay progress in the rest of the country. 

Public leusiag 

This bill establishes the framework for doing risk assessments and 
implementing interim controls pending inspections and abatement, 
but falls short of requiring these measures in public housing. 
This bill would leave standing the current statutory requirement 
that the first step for most public housing authorities is a full 

Digitized by 



XRF insp«ctlon, which Is of qusstlonable utility sine* abataamit 
projects say not occur until ysars lat«r. 

Consideration should be glvan to raguiifing that risk as««ssitentB 
and intarln controls be ooi3duct«d In public housing as soon as 
possible — not latsr than two years after enactment. With these 
rcquirattents, the Alliance would support a relaxation of the five- 
year deadline for inspectiono, recognizing that inspections are 
needed either before a unit undergoes pemanent abatement to 
correct hazards found during a risk assessment or before 
comprehensive modernization » In addition, the bill ahould place 
priority on the correction of lead hazards (and other health and 
safety probleas) in the use of the new "coapreheneive grants >" 

FHE ZBmiraiie« 

The requirements for Isad hazard assessment and reduction under 
FHA ineurance are so vague ae to be meaningless. Every property 
subject to aucb a Federal loan guarantee is potentially a future 
Federally- owned property. In fact, in many cases the discovery of 
lead hazards can result directly in foracloeure. The bill should 
be strengthened to require that a property be inspected before a 
new Federal loan guarantee is made. This requirement should be 
applied to VA and other loan guarantees, as well as FKA insurance. 

Pre-lfto Target HoualBg Instead of Pre-lf7t 

Lead was banned in residential paint by regulatlone promulgated in 
197B. In fact, residential house paint continued to be sold in 
>ost areas of the country throughout 1978 and 1979 To provide a 
reasonable margin of safety, the threshold for target housing in 
the bill should be changed to "pre-isao** units It is an easy 
process to confirm that lead paint is not present in particular 
units built during 1978 and 1979. 


The Alliance strongly supports S. 2341 and urges the Banking 
Committee to move this legislation forward. Amendments to 
strengthen the bill must be made in several areas to provide for a 
comprehensive and workable framework and the cost-effective 
allocation of resources to attend to this "Ho. 1 environmental 
health hazard to A&erican children " 

Finally, the Alliance urges Bembers of this comittee to support 
the Senate counterpart to H.R. 2922, which would provide an 
additional $l Billion per year in a trust fund dedicated to lead 
paint hazard abatement in low- income housing financed through an 
excise fee on lead. The need to address lead -based paint hazards 
argues for a bigger low- income housing pie — not a bigger slice 
of the current pie. 

Digitized by 



Testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs 

On S 2341. A Bill to Provide for the 

Assessment and Reduction of Lead Based Paint 

Hazards in Housing 

March 19. 1992 

My name is Harold Shultz and I am the Assistant Commissioner for Legal Affairs for 
the City of New York's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. 

I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the proposed Lead-Based Paint 
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. We are all in agreement on the goals but the City 
strongly urges a much greater federal revenue commitment to this worthy cause. 

In New York City, lead-based paint is a serious and vexing problem. New York City 
has over 2.500.000 units of housing, most of it built before 1960 (the year New York 
City outiawed the use of lead paint in residential dwellings). Much of this housing still 
has lead paint. 

Currentiy we screen about 385.000 children each year through our Department of 
Health and find approximately 650 cases a year of children with an elevated blood lead 
level. That number will increase substantially, when in accordance with CDC 
recommendations, we lower our guideline for determining whether a child has an 
elevated blood lead level. If the increase is in accordance with estimates based on the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.projections. then it will cost in New 
York City in excess of $50 million to provide the case managerhdnt services that are 
ciurently provided. 

Under our local law we also place preventative lead violations in all apartments where 
an inspector finds that there is a diild under 7 residing in an apartment constructed 
before 1960 and there is peeling paint. We place about 7,000 such violations a year in 
privately owned buildings and identify and correct about 2.000 such conditions a year 
in buildings owned by the City of New York as a result of real estate tax foreclosures. 

Where owners fail to correct these violations, New York City takes a very aggressive 
stance. Currently we spend about $3 million per year to correct such conditions. 

Our concern with lead paint is using our resources effectively. There is no doubt that 
the cost of lead paint abatement is massive. That is why this proposed bill, correcdy. 
focuses its primary attention on lead hazard reduction. Depending on the amount of 
lead in an apartment, lead paint abatement can cost up to $15,000 for interior 
abatement alone and more if there are exterior problems. In New York City, if we 
have 1.000.000 apartments with lead paint, we could be looking at a cost of $15 billion 
before we have made all of our housing units lead-safe. 

Even assuming that such money is made available, it will be years before we have 
abated all these apartments. Therefore in the meantime it is important that we identify 
those children at greatest hazard and concentrate what resources we do have on them. 
We should expend these limited resources where they will do the most good. 

We must also be concerned about the affordability of the apartments that result from 
this process. If the result of lead paint abatement is displacement by making the 
apartment unaffordable to the people living there, they will not thank us. Lead paint 
abatement has the potential for this serious effect. 

Digitized by 



It is likely that even a moderate hazard reduction program could cost several thousand 
dollars per housing unit. In the private sector, without governmental assistance, this 
could easily drive up rental costs by $100 per month or more. A full scale abatement 
would cost the tenant even more. 

Therefore lead hazard reduction should be carefully targeted to those in greatest need. 
Under §301 (b)(2) eveiy apartment built before 1978 (with the exception of housing for 
the elderly) will have a lead hazard report done prior to rental. This includes 
apartments in which there are no children under 7, the age group most at risk. We 
believe that these hazard reports will trigger the expenditure of limited public funds and 
raise rents in situations where there is no hazard to a child. It will divert resources 
from those most at risk and extend the time that they will be exposed. 

We should put that money to hazard reduction and abatement in situations where there 
are children present rather than scattering it throughout the housing stock. 

This bill adds few resources to the fight against lead paint. The $250 million proposed 
annually for the entire country will barely begin the campaign. In New York City 
alone that amount will be inadequate for the expected public and private costs that will 
be associated with any substantial program of lead paint hazard reduction and 

There must be a substantial expansion of resources devoted to lead paint. While this 
bill authorizes the use of funds from the HOME program, CDBG, and other programs, 
all it really does is take resources from those programs. The moiiey expended for lead 
paint hazaixl reduction will mean fewer units produced under those programs. We must 
recognize that, as in this bill, at all levels of government costs for lead paint hazard 
reduction and abatement will inevitably compete with funds intended to be used for the 
upgrading and production of affordable housing. Lead paint hazard reduction has the 
unfortunate effect of both reducing the funds available to preserve and protect 
affordable housing, while reducing the amount of affordable housing available in the 
private stock. 

Therefore, if we are to pass this bill it should be funded at a level which shows that we 
are serious about the lead paint problem. We should tap a new revenue source for lead 
paint abatement. The City has proposed that there be a trust fund set up for lead paint 
hazard reduction and abatement funded by a tax on the producers of lead and lead 
products to pay for the tremendous cost of lead cleanup. 

This trust fund is projected to provide $10 billion. Representative Benjamin Cardin has 
introduced a bill in the House to set up siK;h a trust fund. Along with the 
$250,000,000 proposed in this bill there is a chance that we might be able to both fight 
lead paint and preserve affordable housing, rather than sacrifice one objective to the 

Digitized by 








MARCH 19, 1992 

Digitized by 




Good morning, my nsune is Milan Yager, I cun Legislative 
Director for Environment and Energy for the National Association of 
Home Builders. I sun pleased to be here this morning representing 
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) . NAHB is an 
association of more than 151,000 member firms engaged in all 
aspects of residential construction. Most of NAHB members are 
small businesses that build fewer than 25 homes per year. Our 
members also include commercial builders, remodelers, owners and 
operators of multi- family housing units and thousands of 
manufacturers and suppliers of products that help provide shelter 
for feunilies from Maine to California. 

NAHB and its 800 state and local affiliate builder 
associations have been vigorously involved for many years in 
providing better quality housing for America. Whether providing 
greater energy efficiency, radon mitigation techniques or consumer 
education, our members and our national research center have been 
leaders in providing Americans the safest euid highest quality 
housing in the world. 


From the outset, let it be very clear that NAHB recognizes the 
health hazard of exposure to lead. Whether it is lead dust, the 
peeling of lead-based paint or the leaching of lead into our 
nation's water or food system, we acknowledge this serious hazard 
and commit to you this morning our full cooperation for an 
aggressive, comprehensive and cost-effective strategy to address 
this problem. 

However, we were very disappointed with the limited focus of 
.the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, S. 2341. 
The sources of environmental lead poisoning are many and the means 
through which humans absorb lead are diverse. To approach the 
problems of lead exposure as if the only concern is lead-based 
paint is misleading, inefficient and lacking the necessary 
comprehensive approach that is needed. This country needs a 
comprehensive lead exposure policy and needs to target resources 
within that policy. 

Furthermore, within the limited exposure to the hazard of 
lead-based paint, the legislation fails to identify achievable 
goals, target limited public and private funds and implement 
immediate cost-effective programs to reduce lead exposure. 

Digitized by 



We hope the committee will give serious consideration to: 

1) Developing a ccn^rehenslve lead exposure policy that 
recognizes the mainy sources of residential lead hazards; 

2) Secondly, we hope the committee will prioritize and target 
the government's policies toward lead dust exposure, the 
greatest residential lead hazard. 

3) And, finally, we urge this committee to adopt policies 
that are responsible, flnauiclally achievable, and cost- 


Our nation needs a sound national policy directed toward 
reducing the adverse health effects of lead euid lead exposure. 
This policy should particularly focus on lead exposure to children 
amd other persons at risk, but should have a goal of reducing lead 
e^qposure to all humains. To achieve these policy objectives we must 
have a comprehensive program that addresses lead exposure from 
food, water, air and dust. However, S. 2341 limits the 
government's response to only one source of exposure -- that of 
lead-based paint. 

In the residential environment there are many such potential 
sources of exposure to lead. We are aware however, that the 
attention this morning Is only on lead-based paint. Congress must 
not lose sight of the Inportamt fact that lead also can be found In 
drinking water, from contamination of the water source or the use 
of lead water mains, lead pipes In older homes, plumbing fixtures, 
or from lead solder joints. 

Lead dust found throughout apartments and single family 
residences Is amother major source of hazardous lead exposure. 
Until Its elimination from gasoline, automobile exhaust deposited 
millions of tons of lead along streets throughout the neighborhoods 
of this nation amd has contaminated the soil around most homes In 
urban areas amd along highways across America. Over the years, 
twice as much lead was used in the production of gasoline as was 
used in residential paint production. 

Lead exposure also cam be found in Inproperly glazed cereunlcs 
amd lead crystal decanters amd in the food we eat. There is also 
the potential for airborne lead exposure for people with homes near 
lead smelters amd traish incinerators. Lead is clearly all around 

Digitized by 




Clearly, lead-based paint is not the only residential lead 
health threat. Furthermore, it may not even be the most serious 
residential lead health hazard according to a study the Senate 
Banking Committee authorized. In a report to Congress, HUD's 
comprehensive and workable plan to inspect and abate housing of 
lead -based paint reported that "recent studies indicate that dust 
and soil, inside and outside of the dwelling, may be the most 
significant pathway for low- level lead exposure." The report 
acknowledge the role of deteriorated lead-based paint in lead dust. 

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that "4-5 million 
metric tons of lead used in gasoline remain in dust and soil, and 
children continue to be exposed to it." HUD estimates that 14 
percent (10.7 million) of U.S. homes have interior dust lead in 
excess of Federal guidelines. This exposure comes primarily from 
airborne dust or is tracked in from outdoors (the result of lead 
gasoline exhaust), or from deteriorated lead -based paint. 

NAHB believes the greatest residential lead hazard is lead 
dust and strongly urges the committee target their greatest 
attention toward this serious health hazard. As part of this 
targeted strategy, deteriorated lead -based paint must be addressed. 


It could be a reasonable goal for this nation to eliminate all 
exposures to lead hazards. It could also be a reason8U3le goal for 
our country to eliminate the homelessness and hunger that millions 
of American children and families live with each euid every day of 
there lives. While these are reasonaOsle goals there is little 
hope that either homelessness and hunger, or all exposures to lead 
can be eliminated. Instead, Congress needs to set achievaible and 
cost-effective prograuns that will bring the best results for the 
most number of individuals in need. 

HUD estimates the cost of removing lead-based paint from the 
nation's 57 million housing units, containing such a hazard, at 
$499 BILLION. And this cost does not even include relocation costs 
during the deleading process. Even testing (or assessing) the 57 
million housing units could cost as much as $21.3 BILLION. 

NAHB recommends Congress adopt achievable and cost effective 
strategies for reducing lead exposure in our nation's housing 
stock. These strategies should include increased public education, 
more effective in-place management programs, reductions in the 
manufacturing and sale of residential products that result in 
hazardous levels of lead exposure, additional child lead blood 
level screening, and increased government research. 

Digitized by 




As we discuss residential lead hazards, we can all be 
encouraged by the recent gains made in addressing exposure to lead. 
Clinical lead poisoning fell dramatically during the late 1960 's 
and early 1970' s. And, according to the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) , just in the last 15 years high blood lead levels and 
average blood lead levels have declined sharply. 

Estimated Percentage of U.S. Children under 6 with EBL 
£l2fi 1976-90 1990 

>25 ug/dl 10.7% 1.0% 

>10 ug/dl 91.0% 15.0% 

However, regardless of the good news, far too many children 
are still exposed to lead. So the challenge remains how can we 
reduce or mamage the risk of lead exposure? 


NAHB opposes S. 2341, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act as drafted. NAHB believes the legislation fails to 
provide a comprehensive strategy for lead exposure, does not target 
limited resources to the greatest health problem and does not 
encourage achievable goals. 


First, S. 2341 shifts away from abatement strategies just for 
peeling, flaking and deteriorated lead-based paint and mandates 
policies for the testing (assessing) and removal of deteriorated or 
intact lead paint, regardless of the health risk. 

HUD reports there are more than 57 million homes in America 
with the presence of lead-based paint. However, few child or other 
occupants of these homes are exposed to a health risk from the mere 
presence of lead-based paint. We all recognize that peeling, 
flaking and deteriorated lead-based paint are immediate hazards to 
children. Government research supports these facts. However, NAHB 
is not aware of scientific evidence to suggest that the mere 
presence of lead-based paint is a significant health hazard. 

Digitized by 



Instead, scientific evidence indicates that deteriorated lead- 
based paint is a hazard in the form of lead dust. This is why NAHB 
recommends the committee focus on cost effective in-place 
management strategies to help prevent lead-based paint from 
deteriorating and causing a health hazard in the form of lead dust. 
Cost effective in-place management strategies include pron^t repair 
of defective painted surfaces, thorough cleaning of residential 
dust, and activities that address lead dust from automobile exhaust 
such as the sodding or paving of bare play areas around housing 

NAHB recognizes that in-place management strategies does not 
eliminate the possibility of future deterioration of lead -based 
painted surfaces and lead exposure. While these strategies are not 
long-term solutions, they are cost effective actions that will 
bring immediate reductions in the risk of lead exposure to 


NAHB supports federal finauicial assistance for the abatement 
of peeling, flaUcing and deteriorated lead-based paint. However, as 
drafted, NAHB opposes S. 2341 Section 101 grants for testing 
(assessing) euid abatement because of the lack of priority given to 
the grant funds and our opposition to abatement of intact paint, 
our concerns over the cost -effectiveness of testing, and the lack 
of authority for other residential lead hazards. We believe any 
grant progrsun should be part of a ccn^rehensive strategy that 
identifies, targets and cost -effectively inplements a ccn^lete lead 
esqposure prograun. 

S. 2341 authorizes $250,000,000 for FY 1993 and $250,000,000 
for FY 1994 to carry out the purposes of Section 101. These 
purposes include testing (assessing) housing units, interim 
controls, abatement and additional costs associated with relocation 
of families during abatement, training personnel, educating the 
public, testing children's blood lead levels, technical assistance 
to state and local governments, state euid local administrative 
costs, establishment of a national hot line, federal research and 
such other activities as the Secretary may determine appropriate. 

NAHB strongly supports the authorization euid appropriations of 
federal assistance for lead hazard education programs, a national 
hot line, additional federal research, increased testing of 
children's blood lead levels, and training personnel. And, if 
appropriately targeted to children at risk we support the abatement 
if it is limited to peeling, flaJcing and deteriorated lead-based 
paint and dust hazards. These are all components of NAHB's 
national lead exposure strategy. 

Digitized by 



However, without better targeting of these grant funds it is 
clear to see far too few children will be assisted. If the funding 
is used only for abating any home with lead-based paint it will 
take more than 1,756 years to abate the 57 million residential 
units with lead-based paint. 

$250,000,000 S. 2341 authorization level 
+ $7,704 Average cost of eibating unit 

32,450 number of abated homes per year 

57,000,000 number of homes with lead-based paint 
32,450 number of homes adsated per year 

1,756 number of years to aibate all homes 

The picture looks worse if other eligible activities are also 
funded. Under Section 101 up to 10 percent of a grant can be used 
for administrative expenses. S. 2341 also authorizes $1 million 
for a national clearinghouse, $2 million for a national hotline and 
education program, and $3 million for additional federal research. 
It also authorizes, without spending levels, additional programs as 
listed above. However, just the national clearinghouse, hotline 
and research assume $6 million. 

$250,000,000 S. 2341 authorized level 
- 6,000,000 above listed eligible programs 

$244,000,000 remaining funding for abatement and other 

If $244 million was available only for abating homes with 
lead-based paint it would taUce 1,951 years to abate all homes. 
. Furthermore, this estimate does not include the cost of testing 
(assessing) or relocation costs during deleadlng. HUD estimates 
the average cost of testing (assessing) lead-based paint at $374 
per unit. If we only tested the 57 million units assumed to have 
lead-based paint the cost could be $21.3 billion. If the total 
grant progrsun were to be used only for testing it would take 85 
years before all the homes assumed to have lead- based paint could 
be tested. 

57,000,000 number of homes assumed to have lead-based paint 
X 374 average cost of testing (assessing) 

$21,318,000,000 cost to test homes with lead-based paint 

Digitized by 



$250,000,000 S. 2341 authorized level 
*- 374 average cost of testing (assessing) 

668,449 number of homes tested per year at funding level 

57,000,000 number of homes assumed to have lead-based paint 
668,449 number of homes tested per year at funding level 

85 number of years to test all homes 

The important point we urge the committee to consider is the 
need to target limited grant funds to cost-effective strategies 
that will bring immediate results in reducing lead exposure to 
children. The highest priority should be peeling, flaking and 
deteriorated lead-based paint followed by in-place management of 
lead dust. 

We oppose funding for abatement of intact lead-based paint. 
Let us not repeat mistaUces of the past by requiring abatement of 
intact lead-based paint eOssent scientific evidence that suggests 
there is a health risk associated with the mere presence of lead- 
based paint. Research has shown that many abatement activities 
result in a higher health risk because of the increase in lead 
dust. However, if research determines such a risk for intact 
lead-based paint, it should be weighted to assign the highest 
priority to the greatest risk -- peeling, flaking and deteriorated 
lead-based paint --or other cost effective risk strategies. 

Finally, as discussed earlier, NAHB supports grants funds for 
additional public education on the health risks of lead exposure, 
we support a national clearinghouse and hot line, and additional 
federal research. And, as mentioned, we support in-place 
management strategies for lead- dust that include repairing peeling, 
flaking and deteriorated lead -based paint, better cleaning efforts 
and sodding bare ground around housing units. All of these actions 
bring immediate results that reduce the risk of childhood lead 
exposure . 


In the area of testing (assessing) we strongly urge the 
committee to eunend S. 2341 to target funding for testing 
(assessing) housing units 

In some cases, NAHB supports targeted testing (assessing) of 
residential units. In these cases testing (assessing) may be 
warranted for potential lead-based paint or for lead dust. 

Digitized by 



However, without a targeted objective, testing (assessing) provides 
limited new knowledge. Furthermore, funds spent on testing 
(assessing) does not reduce the risk of a lead hazard to a single 

Before wasting limited funds on testing (assessing) NAHB 
believes residents of older housing units should assume their home 
has lead-based paint. HUD has found that 57.4 million homes 
(roughly 74 percent of all pre- 1979 housing units) contain some 
lead-based paint. They found the strongest indicator of the 
presence of lead-based paint was the age of the housing unit. For 
homes built before 1940 there is a 90 percent probability of the 
presence of lead -based paint. For these homes, NAHB believes 
testing (assessing) is not a cost-effective use of limited grant 
funds. For homes built between 1960 and 1979, HUD found the units 
had a 62 percent probability of having the presence of lead- based 
paint. Again, NAHB believes residents of these homes should assume 
the presence of lead-based paint and spend any limited testing 
(assessing) funds on in-place management efforts or aUaating any 
peeling, flaUcing or deteriorated paint. 

The inportamt message is that residents of older homes need to 
assume the presence of lead -based paint and taUce cost-effective 
steps to reduce the risks of lead exposure from peeling, flaUclng 
and deteriorated paint, and lead dust. Furthermore, they also 
should take steps to learn more eOsout the risks of all lead hazards 
and if they have children under the age of 7 they should begin a 
regular blood lead screening for their children. 


NAHB supports additional public education on the risk of lead 
exposure. However, S. 2341 falls to provide a comprehensive 
national strategy by limiting the programs authorized under this 
legislation to information only on lead-based paint hazards. NAHB 
supports the collection, evaluation and dissemination of 
information on all hazards of lead exposure in housing. This 
includes lead- based paint, lead in drinking water, lead water 
mains, pipes and solder, lead dust, lead- crystal and cereunics, and 
other sources outside the dwelling including lead in soil. 


In addition, NAHB supports lead hazard disclosure at the point 
of real estate lease and sale. However, NAHB believes Section 301 
should be eunended to require disclosure of all known lead hazards 
not just information on lead-based paint. 

Digitized by 




NAHB recognizes the health hazard of exposure to lead. We 
fully support an aggressive, con^rehensive and cost-effective 
strategy to address this problem. While lead exposure and high 
blood lead levels in children have declined in recent years, the 
seriousness of the problems requires still greater efforts. 

NAHB opposes the limited focus of S. 2341. Instead, NAHB 
urges the Committee to approve a comprehensive lead exposure 
strategy for our nation's housing. This strategy should recognize 
that lead hazards come from may sources and not just lead-based 

Furthermore, NAHB believes the focus of lead testing and 
sdDatement strategies should be on lead dust and peeling, flaking 
and deteriorated lead-based paint. S. 2341 should be amended to 
target resources on responsible, financially achievsUDle and cost 
effective strategies. These include increased public education, 
more effective in-place management programs, reductions in the 
manufacturing and sale of residential products that result in 
hazardous levels of lead exposure, additional child lead blood 
level screening and increased government research. 

NAHB supports S. 2341' s expanded public education program, 
estsdDlishment of a national lead hotline and disclosure of Icnown 
lead hazards during real estate transactions. However, the focus 
of all these efforts should not be limited to lead-based paint 
hazard but to all lead hazards in housing. Providing the public 
with accurate information cQsout the nature and risks of lead will 
result in more effective decisions regarding housing and the 
sdDatement or management of lead hazards in housing. Furthermore, 
NAHB supports expanded research into lead hazards in housing. 
Additional knowledge is needed on the types and risks of lead 
exposure and management and cQsatement procedures. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share with you the views of 
the National Association of Home Builders. 


Digitized by 








on behalf of 
National Multi Housing Council 

National Apartment Association 

before the 





S. 2341 


MARCH 19, 1992 

Digitized by 



I • Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is 
Carroll D. Vinson, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
Insignia Capital Corporation, the capital arm of the Insignia 
Financial Group, Inc. Based in Greenville, South Carolina, 
Insignia is one of the country's largest apartment ownership 
and management companies. Our firm owns about 40,023 units and 
manages approximately 87,000 units across the country with 
combined total assets of over $3 billion. Of these units, 
approximately 27,000 were built and/or are operated with some 
form of federal assistance through one of several federal 
housing subsidy programs administered by the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . 

I am here today on behalf of the National Apartment 
Association and the National Multi Housing Council, of which I 
am the Chairman of the NMHC Environmental Committee and a 
member of the Executive Committee of the NMHC Board of 
Directors. The National Multi Housing Council represents the 
country's larger and most respected multifamily rental housing 
firms. Its members are engaged in all aspects of the 
development and operation of rental housing including the 
ownership, building, financing, management, and conversion to 
condominium of such properties. 

The National Apartment Association is an organization of 
local and state associations representing owners, builders, 
investors, developers and managers of multifamily properties. 
It represents the interests of more than 200,000 multifamily 
professionals who own and manage over 3.5 million apartments 
and condominiums nationwide. The members of the NMHC and NAA 
together own and manage about one third of the nation's 
approximately 24 million rental housing units. 

II. A Sound Framework for National Action 

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 
1992 (S. 2341) (the "Act**) provides an excellent base for 

Digitized by 



legislative action. I applaud the goals of the proposed bill, 
as they are set forth in the preamble and described to our 
organizations by your staff. I agree with your intent to keep 
the focus on practical cost-effective steps to remove the most 
dangerous causes of lead paint poisoning — particularly where 
it may harm young children. 

The bill, of course, addresses only one of several known 
sources of lead-contamineted dust in residential properties, 
and there are many significant sources other than paint. But 
the bill vrould make an effective start in reducing lead paint 
contamination in this country. 

One excellent provision is Section 101 of the Act, which 
would fund state and local lead hazard assessment and reduction 
programs in non-assisted housing That provision would prompt 
local communities to launch practical early actions to 
safeguard against childhood lead- poisoning Requiring the 
contribution of matching funds will also assure that federal 
concributions create the greatest possible impact. 

Title III would create public education and training 
programs and cause wide-spread dissemination of information 
about lead paint hazards Such measures are badly needed since 
the public is generally unaware of the extent or nature of the 
problem. And even those who are aware, often respond in ways 
that make the problem worse. That is a senseless tragedy when 
much of the problem can be avoided with relatively simple, low- 
cost measures. 

Provisions in Title I would allow apartment owners and 
managers who receive federal housing finance assistance to use 
those funds for lead testing, reduction and abatement 
activities. It would allow increases in rental assistance 
allowances to pay for such activities. That would be a very 
efficient way to alleviate some of the worst lead -based paint 
problems that currently exist in federally-assisted housing. 

Digitized by 



III. Heed to EmphamLzB Housing Affordablllty 

The private multifamily industry — which includes tens of 
thousands of owners and managers across the United States — - is 
the country's premier source of quality, accessible and 
affordable housing. Our members devote their careers to 
providing safe and environmentally clean housing for residents, 
who include retired persons, working persons, young faad.lies 
and others. 

I know you share our commitment to make housing more 
affordable. We look forward to vrorking with you and your staff 
to ensure that this legislation adequately takes account of the 
impact that lead assessment, abatement and reduction activities 
will have on housing costs. 

It will be a needless tragedy if Congress, out of a desire 
to make housing safe, passes legislation that unnecessarily 
takes quality housing further out of the reach of low-income 
and moderate- income families. If that occurs, millions of 
Americans will be forced into marginal residential properties 
that are able to escape the reach of this legislation. 

I recognize that this Subcommittee has taken the lead in 
reducing this country's alarming shortage of affordable 
housing. You should be as concerned as we are that statistics 
gathered by the Federal National Mortgage Association and 
others indicate that: 

4 During the 14 years from 1974 to 1988, the number of units 
nationwide renting for less than $300 per month shrank by 
24 percent 

4 During the same period, the number of families living in 
poverty who rent apartments rose by 56 percent and the 
number of low- income renters increased by 36 percent. 

4 The daily average of homeless people in this country in 
1990 was 700,000, including 100,000 children, and as many 
as 2 million Americans had experienced homelessness at 
some point during the year. 

4 The number of affordable units continues to drop by 
200,000 units per year. 

Digitized by 



V9e should design federal legislation carefully so that the 
primary benefits flow to families with young children, not some 
lucrative new lead abatement industry. Legislation direct 
scarce capital to activities that will do the most to reduce 
the risk of lead poisoning. 

IV. Recammendations for in^rovenentt 

I appreciate your invitation to suggest ways in which this 
bill can be strengthened. 

a . Testing/ "Assessment " 

I understand your intent was not to require testing of 
non-assisted apartments, as called for by legislation currently 
under consideration in the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2840). However, the bill now before us clearly requires 
testing of every privatelv-owned apartment unit (units built 
for the elderly or disabled are excluded) built before 1978 
(Section 301(b)(2)(A)). It 'also requires "assessment" and 
reduction of all federally-assisted housing built before 1978 
as well as "inspection* and abatement of all federal Iv-owned 
housing built before that year. Furthermore, the Act requires 
that such testing and assessment, as well as all laboratory 
analysis, be carried out by workers who are certified pursuant 
to a federally-approved program. 

Although well-intentioned, inspections and assessments 
will become tantamount to full-scale testing, especially if 
they are to be carried out by certified vrorkers. The Act 
defines "inspections" as surface by surface investigations to 
identify lead-based paint. "Assessments" include inspections 
or "risk assessments" which include "sampling" (i.e. testing). 
It will not be possible for a certified worker, whose 
reputation and ability to avoid liability depends on 100 
percent accuracy, to engage in such activities without 
conducting scientific tests and analyses of paint samples from 
each painted surface in a residential unit. 

These requirements would greatly increase the cost of both 
federally-assisted and privately-owned affordable housing. 
HUD, for example, estimates the average cost to test for lead 

53-652 0-92-8 

Digitized by 



paint in apartments is $320 per unit and the average cost to 
test for lead paint in homes is $374. It has also found that 
the average cost to test for lead dust ranged from an 
additional $340 to an additional $1,028. Assuming these are 
accurate figures, it would cost in excess of $6 billion simply 
to test the 19 million rental apartment units HUD estimates 
contain lead paint, and at least another $6 billion to simply 
test for lead dust in apartments. 

This is not money well spent. Testing will not provide 
added protection against lead poisoning and does not help 
eradicate known lead hazards. The expenditure of $12 billion 
to "discover" what is already known — i.e. that there is lead 
paint in many apartments built before 1978 — would be a 
travesty when funds are so scarce and needs are so great. Even 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that 
comprehensive testing requirements adversely affect housing 
affordability and recommends against mandatory requirements 
such as those proposed in H.R. 2840. 

Authors of this legislation apparently are aware of the 
problem. The Act contains a prohibition against requiring 
testing in privately-owned housing until the Secretary of HUD 
determines it would not have a "deleterious" impact on the 
availability of affordable housing. This is a laudable notion, 
but is not realistic in practice. It turns the implementation 
of lead hazard reduction strategies into a political football 
whose fate will be determined behind closed doors at the HUD 
Secretary's office. 

Testing in privately-owned units should be encouraged on a 
voluntary basis, and only where it will contribute to cost 
effective removal of the danger. 

b. Protections against deleterious impact on affordable 

NMHC and NAA believe that mandatory testing and disclosure 
of lead-based paint vrould be ineffective or even harmful public 
policy. Such requirements should not be included as the 

Digitized by 



legislation moves through Congress. Authors of the bill seem 
to be aware of the problem with this matter and have therefore 
included Section 301 b 2 B)(ii)^ which prohibits the 
Secretary of HUD from imposing testing and disclosure 
requirements if they would have a "deleterious impact on the 
availability of affordable housing for families with children**. 

Similar protections should be applied to other 
requirements in the leg! elation. 

For example, this protection should be included, under 
Section 102(a)(3), as a prerequisite before testing and lead- 
based paint hazard "reduction" requirements are applied to all 
federally-assisted housing constructed or substantially 
rehabilitated prior to 1978. 

Also, among the selection criteria under the state and 
local grant programs described in Section 101 of the proposed 
bill, should be a finding by the Secretary that the proposed 
assessment and reduction activities vrould be cost-effective and 
would not have an undue negative impact on housing 

c. Abateaent/ "Reduction** 

Our members are quite aware of how the cost of providing 
assisted housing will be increased by requirements for abating 
lead-based paint hazards in public ly'-owned units and reducing 
the hazards iji all assisted units Abating lead-based paint, 
either through encapsulation or removal, is very costly. HUD 
estimates it costs between $1,800 and $11,720 to clean up the 
average home and/or apartment, depending on several factors: 
the amount of lead-based paint found within the unit, whether 
lead paint was found both inside and out, and the type of 
remediation technique used. 

HUD'S statistics indicate that the mean abatement cost for 
units with priority hazards is $8,870 for encapsulation, and 
$11,870 for removal. Although a large percentage of hones with 
lead paint siirveyed could be abated for a cost that would fall 

Digitized by 



on the lowBT end of the scale, a disproportionately large 
number of units containing priority hazards fall in the highest 
end of the scale. Taking the mean cost for encapsulation of 
$8,870 per unit, the cost to abate lead-based paint in a 
150 unit apartment complex would be $1,330,500. To amortize 
these costs over a three-year period wpuld increase the rent qb 
each unit by a Btaooerino S24 6 per month . 

HUD estimates that the cost to abate lead-based paint in 
the country's 57 million homes would be approximately 
$363 billion to encapsulate it and approximately $499 billion 
to remove it. These figures do not include the cost to test 
for lead in paint and dust testing of blood-lead levels, 
testing for lead in drinking water or the cost for public 
education programs. 

The Act defines abatement as requiring permanent 
elimination of lead paint hazards through removal and 
encapsulation of lead-based paint and dust and replacaEent of 
lead-painted surfaces and fixtures. Mandatory abatement of 
lead-based paint hazards in public housing by certified workers 
and "reduction of such hazards in assisted housing (where 
abatement activities are a listed methodology should not be 
requ ired where less costly measures are available that can be 
equally as effective at preventing lead poisoning. Permanent 
abatement should be strongly encouraged , but on a voluntary 
basis Incentives such as tax credits for abatement and 
"reduction" activities would provide a catalyst to eradicate 
lead paint hazards without adversely affecting housing 

Following are several definitional changes that should 
assure that sound legislative intent is not misconstrued. 

"(3) Assessment. — The term 'assessment' means the 
evaluation of the nature and severity of lead -based paint 
hazards using information on the age and condition of the 
housing, observations from visual inspections, and such 
other information as the assessor may deem appropriate. A 
satisfactory assessment does not require sampling or 
scientific testing." 

Digitized by 



"(12) Inspection. — The term 'inspection' means a visual 
inspection of a residential unit. It does not require 
sampling or scientific testing." 

"Interim Controls" should be redefined as follows: 

"(13) In-Place Management. — The term 'in-place 
management means nieaeuree designed to reduce h\2man 
exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards, including specialized cleaning, maintenance, 
painting and sealing. " 

"(15) Lead-Based Paint Hazard. — The term 'lead-based 
paint hazard' means any hazard to h\2man health above the 
action levels established by the S. Centers for Disease 
Control [or other appropriate federal agency] caused by 
exposure to lead from lead-contaaiinated dust, chipping 
lead-based paint or peeling lead-based paint." 

"(17) Lead Hazard Reduction. — The term 'lead hazard 
reduction' means measures designed to reduce h\2man 
exposure to lead-based paint hazards through in-place 
management activities . " 

"(25) Risk Assessment. — The term 'risk assessment' means 
an on-site inspection to determine the existence of lead- 
based paint hazards. It does not require sampling or 
scientific testing." 

d. Bncourageaent of In-Place Manageaent 

Congress should encourage the most cost-effective methods 
that adeouatelv protect target populations. The Act is 
designed to encourage "reduction" of lead hazards. However, 
referring to 6uch activities as only a temporary cure suggests 
that these methods inadequately protect building residents. In 
fact, that is not true. 

When asbestos was discovered to be harmful to building . 
occupants, for exaa^le, public health advocates created panic 


Digitized by 



among lenders and the public with assertions that the only way 
to adequately protect the public from i'Ls harmful effects was 
to have it completely removed from buildings. This, they 
claimed, was the only permanent solution to the problem. 

After a great amount of asbestos was removed from within 
the walls of many properties, it was determined that so-called 
"temporary cures" coupled with effective maintenance operations 
better protected the public's health at a far more reasonable 
cost. Now, in-place management has become the preferred method 
for protecting building occupants from exposure to the 
substance and is now officially recommended by EPA. Federal 
regulators, however, arrived at this decision only after many 
individuals were unnecessarily exposed from abatement 
activities that proved to be unwarranted. 

The same mistake can be avoided with respect to lead-based 
paint exposure by encouraging in-place management of known lead 
hazards and discouraging abatement activities in most 

e. Requirements Causing Devaluation In Property Values 

The goal of the legislation should be to make the nation's 
housing stock free of lead hazards. That goal can not be 
achieved if the bill leads to wholesale devaluation of 
properties, which will destroy the economic ability of owners 
to finance lead paint hazard reduction activities. 

Requiring the listing of buildings with considerable lead- 
based paint hazards in state or federal directories would do 
nothing to remove the lead-based paint hazards in such 
properties. It would lead to property abandonment and 
significant increases in mortgage defaults. 

We note that the authors of the bill explicitly state 
their intention that disclosure of known hazards shpuld not 
create a defect in title. However, we are unable to see how 
that intent can be achieved if the legislation requires a 
public listing that brands properties as lead hazards. 

Digitized by 



Provisions to change FHA underwriting and appraisal 
standards to require lead abatement may force some potential 
borro%#ers to assess and reduce lead-based paint hazards. But, 
in many cases, such requirements will significantly limit the 
ability of many property owners to finance investment that is 
needed to rid valuable property of lead hazards. 

f . Appropriate Use of Certified V9orkers 

Section 201 requires that federally-certified workers be 
used for all assessment and reduction activities. Training of 
workers is an important prerequisite to effective abatement of 
lead paint hazards. However, such certification requirements 
are not necessary for many of the most common ** reduction" 
activities that do not generate lead-contaminated dust. For 
example, application of dry-wall or heavy-duty wallpaper over 
lead painted surfaces does not require special training. 
Requiring certification for such activities will enable workers 
with certification excessively to increase the costs associated 
with such activities. 

Training classes and distribution of information 
describing the proper procedures for reducing lead paint 
hazards should be encouraged. Training should be made as 
widely available as possible, where appropriate with at-home 
training courses. This is the only way that reduction 
activities on the needed scale can be carried out at an 
acceptable cost. An alternative would be to encourage training 
and certification, but allowing the use of non-certified 
workers for approved lead paint hazard reduction activities. 

V. Conclusion 

I applaud you and your colleagues who have co-sponsored 
this important legislation. As indicated, it contains many 
provisions that are extremely creative and provide a workable 
approach to a seemingly intractable problem. 


Digitized by 



I strongly encourage you, ho%#ever, to consider refining 
the proposed bill in the manner I have recommended. During 
this era when the available supply of affordable housing 
increasingly falls far below demand, it vrould be a tragic 
mistake to impose requirements that have the unintended effect 
of further damaging housing affordability without yielding a 
commensurate benefit. 


Digitized by 




Low Income Housing Coalition 

1012 FdurtMfith StrMt, N.W^ Suite 1500, Washington, D.C. 20005 • (202) 602-1530 

Hon. Edward W. Brook* Hononty Chakp^non Barry Zlgat. Pr99idwit 


Stat«BMit of Cuahino H. Dolbaara, Chairperson, national Low 
Zncoai Housing Coalition, baf ora Subooanittaa on Housing and 
urban Affairs, Coanittaa on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
Ukiitad States Senate, March 19, 1992 

I am pleased at the opportunity to testify at this important 
hearing. I have been involved with the issue of lead- based paint 
hazards and low income housing in several ways over the forty 
years I have been engaged in low income houj^ing issues as an 
analyst, consultant, and advocate. My first involvement was 
during the I960' s in Philadelphia when I staffed a couimittee of 
the Philadelphia Housing Association ( rvow the Bousing Association 
of Delaware Valley^ which, at the request of the City^ prepared 
an extensive revision of the Philadelphia Housing Code- We 
recognized the importance of dealing with the hazards po^ed by 
lead paint, and the code prohibited loose or peeling paint. We 
considered requiring abatement because of the health hazards 
posed by lead paint poisoning to young children, particularly 
mental retardation posed by low^ level poisoning — on which there 
were already troubling research findings. But ve did not do so, 
because of the expense and our fear that such a requirement, in 
the absence of additional resources so that owners could complyf 
would, if enforced, lead to massive displacement of Philadel- 
phia' s poorest households. 

Because I was uneasy about that decision and since then have 
knoim that this was an issue which should be addressed in a 
comprehensive way^ I was delighted vrt^en Don Ryan asked me to 
serve on the board of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poison- 
ing, which he was then organizing* The Alliance fills an impor- 
tant niche, on an urgent issue and, as a board member, I have 
been impressed both with the dedication and skill of the Al- 
liance' s staff and with the commitment and knowledge of my fellow 
board members. 

Finally, I am testifying today as the founder and current chair- 
person of the National Low Income Housing Coalition ( NLIHC) . The 
Coalition conmnnds Senators Cranston, D' Amato, and the other co- 
sponsors for introducing S. 2341 and generally and enthusiasti- 
cally endorses the thrust of the bill. I should note, however, 
that our Board and staff have not had the opportunity to review 
its specific provisions, so that my testimony today on specific 
points is based on my o%ni knowledge of the issue and of low 

Digitized by 



income housing needs, rather than expressing the formal views of 
the Coalition. 

My tfttttlmony falls into two major sections ( 1) the urgent nature 
of low income housing n^eds overall, and the importance of 
finding adequate iresources to deal with lead paint hazards 
without exacerbating the already critical gap between the cost of 
housing and the amount low income people can afford to pay and 
(2) the approach and specific provisions of S. 2341. 

Low incons needs and lead-beeed paint hazards 

The most critical housing problem facing low income people today 
is the affordability gap: the difference between what it costs 
to provide housing and what people can afford to pay. This gap 
is particularly wide for low income renter households. A sim- 
plistic comparison of the poorest quarter of renter households 
and the total number of units at costs in the range they can 
afford at 30% of income shows the problem. In 1989 — according 
to the latest American Housing Survey data — there were 7. 8 
million bottom quart! le renter households, with incomes below 
$9,120, but only 2.8 million units with costs below $228 monthly 
( 30% of the upper limit). In other words there was a gap of 5 
million units. Put more simply, there were more than two house- 
holds for each "affordable" unit in the inventory. Dramatic as 
it is, this coB^arlson seriously understates the ptoblenc it 
ignores quality, location, availability, and even affordability 
problems for households with incomes substantially below the 
quartile ceiling. 

The bottom quartile of renter households have incomes well below 
the 50%-of -median definition of "very low income" used for most 
federal low income housing assistance programs. Indeed, an 
cgtimated 37% of all renter households have incocies below the 
50%-of-median threshold, and another 20% have incomes between 50% 
and 80% of median. HUD defines living in seriously inadequate 
housing or paying more than 50% of income for housing costs as 
"priority" housing problems, because households with these 
problems have preference for housing assistance under the public 
housing and Section 8 certificate and voucher programs A HUD 
study of 1989 American Housing Survey data found 5. ? million 
renter households and another 3. 1 million owner households with 
priority problems. Of these 9.0 million households with priority 
problems, 5 1 million were renters with incomea below 50% of 
median who were not receiving housing assistance. These worst 
case households comprise 5% of all households. Significantly, 
high rent burden was the only problem of 72% of the worst case 
households, although the incidence of multiple problems was 
higher among worst case households than other very low income 

These points are relevant to lead paint hazard reduction for one 
simple reason: full abatement of lead paint hazards will add 
substantially to housing costs at the bottom of the unsubsidized 
market — further widening the housing gap. It will also add 

Digitized by 



substantially to the already high rent burdens of very low income 
renter households. At the same time, we cannot afford not to 
address the consequences of lead paint poisoning. S. 2341 has 
been carefully framed to address this dilemma in a number of 
ways: by providing direct assistance in hazard reduction, by 
making haiard reduction a component of the Comprehensive Housing 
Affordafaility Strategy required of state and local jurisdictions 
receiving HUD housing funds, by tightening federal responsibility 
for housing it owna or controls, Atid by establishing the frame- 
w^irk for developing a national strategy of hazard reduction and 

Before turning to the specifics of the bill, some comments on the 
number and characteristics of renter households occupying units 
built before 1979, when lead paint was prohibited. Raw data from 
the 1989 American Housing Survey ( AHS) show that there were 23. 2 
million such households, or 69% of all renter households About 
11.8 million of these households had one or more children, 
constituting 70% of all renter households with children. Renter 
households in pre-1979 housing were more likely than those living 
in newer housing to be poor, to be Black or Hispanic, to live in 
central cities, to have high cost-income ratios, to be overcrowd- 
ed, and to live in subsidized housing. ( See Table. ) 

The AHS also reports on a number of physical characteristics of 
housing units, including presence of peeling paint or broken 
plaster covering an area of at least 8 inches by 11 inches a 
variable identified in the raw data as '*BIGP. '* Unfortunately, 
there is no data on the number or proportion of ftuch units which 
have only broken plaster, but it seems likely that it is rela- 
tively low. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the 
characteristics of households in the^e unita are similar to the 
characteristics of a large proportion of renters living in units 
with serious lead paint hazards. 

There were, in 1989, some 1.6 million occupied rental units built 
before 1979 which had broken plaster or peeling paint^p About 
675,000 of these units were occupied by households with children. 
But 63% of Hispanic households and 50% of Slack households in 
these units had children. Indeed, 39% of the BIGP households 
with children were Black and 17% were Hispanic* In contrast, 18% 
of all renter households were Blacky and 11% Hispanic. Putting 
it another way, 4% of Black renter households and 3% of Hispanic 
renter households contained children and were living in units 
with broken plaster or peeling paint, compared to only 1% of 
white households. Not surprisingly, BIG? households were twice 
as likely to be poor as other renter households. 

Thus, although lead paint hazards threaten households of all 
income levels and all races, the hazards are most serious among 
poor, minority households. These are the households least likely 
to be able to afford rent increases to pay for lead paint hazard 
abatement and also most likely to suffer the serious consequences 
of lead paint poisoning. 

- 3 - 

Digitized by 



Provlaioiui of S. 2341 

S. 2341 marks a significant step forward in addressing lead paint 

o It shifts the focus of federal policy in addressing lead 

paint hazards to the private, unsubsidized stock, instead of 
almost exclusive concern with public housing. Almost four 
fifths (78%) of the BIGP households with children live in 
unsubsidized housing, and 85% of the rental housing built 
'^ before 1979 is unsubsidized. 

o It calls for assessing the most critical hazards and dealing 
with then first. 

o It moves away from a costly all-or-none approach to an 

emphasis on quickly reducing the most severe hazards while 
developing a longer range approach to hazard abatement. 

o It provides grants to help defray the cost of hazard abate- 
ment and integrates hazard abatement into other federal 
programs through expanding the scope of the Comprehensive 
Housing AE for debility strategy. 

o It requires the federal government to put its own house in 

order, and abate lead paint hazards before selling or other- 
wise disposing of its property. 

There is one provision of the bill which we believe should be 
examined carefully: the treatment of tenant-based federal 
housing assistance. As defined in Section ( 4) ( 6) of S. 2341, 
"federally assisted housing" incrludes aII housing assisted under 
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 Section 
102(a)(1) of the bill extends the coverage of the Lead-Based 
Paint Poison Prevention Act any housing otherwise as 3 ia ted under 
a federal housing progranf' in addition to housing covered by 
mortgage insur^ince or housing assistance applications. Section 
102(a)(3) requires aUD, by 1995, to require assegsment and 
reduction of lead- based paint hazards in all target housing 
assisted under a Federal housing program where the level of 
assistance exceeds $5,D00. This would appear to include housing 
occupied by holders of Section 8 certificates and vouchers. 

Unless this provision is modified, it could well lead to or 
exacerbate discrimination in the private housing market against 
voucher or certificate holders with children in their households^. 
Moreover, while S. 2341 provides for increasing subsidies for 
Section 8 certificates, subject to appropriation, to cover the 
cost of hazard reduction or abatement, there is no comparable 
provision Section 8 vouchers. Nor, given recent experience with 
the income adjustment provisions of the National Affordable 
Housing Act, for which no appropriations have been made, is there 
much reason to believe that the needed funds will be provided. 

Digitized by 



A preferable approach would be to clearly authorize HUD to 
differentiate between project-based and tenant-based subsidies in 
complying with Section 103. 


The National Low Incoine Housing Coalition believes that reducing 
lead paint hazards is an issue which needs to be addressed. We 
commend the sponsors of S. 2341 and the subcommittee for holding 
this hearing. We hope that you will act favorably on it. 

Digitized by 



«• in » « f» • 

9 o -5«*^SS 


<• <i « «M .rt W 


i ^ 




• ■jo 

2-1 " 

3 5 

vOO«r>iAO «v<Nr«<«o 

"» «N r» in »> »> «< 

pm«in «>«« fH If) a 

dniN* ©•« inin- 

»» « ««> « 1/ 

« — O rx o X 

OD o -< M 

-« ♦ •> — 

O « «M 

oBvoT inxtin 

OB « O «IN« 

«« «k 01 «i 
«« «k «« «« «k H 

o»«»<*<*«»l ■ in o 
O** u S""^* 

e o o o o 

u c • 

£ * i 

• ■ eoeooe wino r>o owu «i)w G 

> u 

b O > 

. U >• &«I<M 

u u • k > I 

«i 3 i M 0«« 

Digitized by 



I p 



I I I I I 

V OD f^ r> r» <• 4 

B«>4>ainirt VVVOD lOAOV 

"•irtin • io<imr<>r>iOio p.*,*- 

! N ;; 

a a " - - 



i4>««k in in»<«o<« 



> e 





3 • 
U > 

-4 U 

« 3 

Digitized by 



Children's Defense Fund 

122 C Street, N.W. 
Washington, O.C. 20001 

Telephone (202) 628-8787 











S. 2341 

MARCH 19, 1992 

Digitized by 



Mr* Chairmarji the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) appreciates 
the opportunity to testify on this important legislatiaT). X am 
Lisa KLbaly, senior housing specialist for the Children's Defense 
Fund* CDF is a national acivocacy organization that exists to 
provide a strong voice for children ~ particularly low-income 
and minority children — in the public policy process. We work 
on a range of issues including poverty, housing, health care, 
child welfare, adolescent pregnancy prevention and child care> 
We are very concerned about lead poisoning because of the 
tremendous health risks it poses to infants and and children, 

CDF strongly supports the Residential Lead- Based Psint 
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and its efforts to prevent childhood 
lead poisoning by removing lead fron children's hones. 

Lead poisoninq is a pervasive, devastating and totally 
preventable disease that now affects millions of American 
children. It is the most prevalent environmental hazard for U.S. 
children and the most pervasive public health hazard* He can and 
must work aggressively to remove lead from the environments in 
which young children live and play — including their hones. 

Lead is a neurotoxin that can permanently harm the 
developing nervous systems of infants and young children. Even 
low levels of lead can cause developmental delays, hearing 
problems, grovth deficits, poor motor coordination and learning 
disabilities. Severe lead poisoning can cause serious mental 
retardation, convulsions, coaas and death* Lead poisoning is not 
curable and it often causes irreversible damage 

Lead poisoning is a very serious disease but it is 
preventable* Children are most comaonly poisoned by the lead- 
bearing dust and paint in their own homes. As the Environmental 
Defense Fund (£DF) has pointed out, children are poisoned just by 
being children — they crawl, they put things and their hands in 
their raouthSf they explore. Children should be able to do all 
those things without risk of lifelong danage. 

In recent years, the number of children identified as lead 

?oisoned — or at risk of lead poisoning — has steadily 
ncr eased. Research has identified danage to children at very 
low levels of lead exposure; in response, the Centers for Disease 
Control have continuously lowered the blood lead levels at which 
children are considered poisoned, increasing the numbers 
identified as poisoned. Some public health officials now believe 
that no level of lead in a child's blood is safe. In addition, 
as the nation's housing ages and deteriorates, the risk frott 
lead-based paint and dust increases. Estimates now are that 
three million preschool age children — one in every six -- have 
dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. 

Digitized by 



Lead poisoning affects all children, cutting across race and 
socioeconomic lines. Until 1980 lead^baeedt paint was comnonly 
used in housing. Although it vae banned by regulation in 1978, 
it was available and in use for several years after that Today, 
an estimated 57 million housing units contain lead paint. An 
estimated 12 million children — nearly one in five — live in 
hones that contain lead paint and dust Families with young 
children live in an estimated 3 6 million homes vith chipping and 
peeling leaded paint or high levels of lead dust, where the 
risks of exposure are the aost severe. 

Low-income children are disproportionately affected for 
several reasons. Firsts poor children are more likely to live in 
old or dilapidated housing, where lead-abased paint is peeling or 
chipping, and dust levels are dangerously high* second, low- 
income children are more likely to be poorly nourished — 
children who lack adeguate iron and calcium, particularly, are 
more likely to absorb lead from the environiaent. Because 
minority children are disproportionately likely to be poor, they 
are most severely affected* According the the EDF^ nationwide, 
17* Of young children have elevated blood levels, while among 
low-income Black children in cities, 70% have high lead levels, 
as do 35% of poor white children. 

Lead poisoning is preventable* Removing the lead froa 
children's homes (and from drinking water, cans and other 
sources) can protect them from this toxic substance. We know a 
tremendous amount, though more remains to be learned, about how 
to remove lead paint from homes. Federal leadership and 
resources are critical to ensure that all t ami lies with children 
have access to hazard reduction and abateaents so that their 
children can be safe. 

Si ,2341 rgpresents significflnt ifflprpveiaenta in federftl policy 

The Children's Defense Fund supports the Residential Lead- 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act (S. 2341). This legislation 
marks the first significant federal investment in preventing 
childhood lead poisoning. S. 2341 would provide critical 
resources to remove lead fron children's home before they are 

He commend you for a nuaber of significant changes 
envisioned by this legislation 

** S. 2341 provides critically needed funding that will 
prevent lead poisoning through abateiaent and reduction of lead 
hazards in children's hoioes- The Adjuinistration claims that lead 
poisoning is one its public health priorities, but current 
federal programs and coKmitment are inadequate. Although some 
public housing funds can be used for lead abatement, HUD has done 
little to facilitate or encourage such work. And, the President 
in his FY 1993 budget proposes a deep cut in new funds for 
abatements in private and assisted hoiising. 

Digitized by 



** S. 2341 will help communities develop prior it i<is, so that 
the homes with the Bost serious problems can be dealt with first. 
There are now 57 million homes containing lead paint. Ideal Ijr^ 
full abatements should be conducted on all of them^ But limited 
resources dictate initial steps be taken to abate the homes that 
pose the greatest danger to children Current policies generally 
focue merely on the presence of lead S 2341 asks communities to 
look at the severity and extent of lead-'based paint hazards and 
viil establish federal guidelines for risk assessment, hazard 
reduction and abatement. This will help communities develop 
strategies to determine which homeo pose the greatest danger, and 
commit resources to those homes first, 

** S. 2341 establishes critical disclosure provisions to ensure 
that faailies know about lead risks before they rent or buy a 
hone. Many families are not provided with any information about 
lead hazards before they rent or buy> And, as the Burkes' very 
■oving testimony before this committee reveals, those families 
who do receive information are sometimes misled — like the 
federal materials that told the Burkes to beware only of peeling 
or chipping paint. At a minimum, families must be given accurate 
information about lead risks and provided an opportunity to have 
their homes inspected- This is particularly important for low- 
and moderate-income families, who may not be able to afford 
abatement, and risk losing their home often their only asset 
— if they are informed of a lead hazard only after they have 

** 5. 2341 eittends federal attention and resources beyond 
public housing to other assisted housing and private housing, 
where iiost children live. The vast majority of American children 
do not live in public housing, now the primary focus of federal 
lead abatement efforts. Only about one in four poor households 
now receives housing assistance and only some of those live in 
public housing. We support lead abatement in public housing ^ and 
commend the Committee for extending federal support to familxes 
in other kinds of housing as well. 

Hgftdcd reviaiiana 

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act takes 
important steps to prevent lead poisoning aBong young children. 
However we believe that the bill can be strengthen even further 
to ensure that those aost in need benefit from the legislative 

** Additional funds sust be provided. $250 Billion a year is 
woefully inadequate* With abatement costs ranging between $2,000 
and $12,000 per unit, that amount will just begin to clean up the 
units in need of abatement. We urge you to combine this 
legislation with a significant and reliable funding source — 
such as the trust fund ciurrently pending in the House of 
Representatives. The trust fund, created by a tax on lead, would 
provide $1 billion a year for lead paint hazard reduction in low- 

Digitized by 



incone housing. A dedicated funding source will help ensure that 
this inportant work will not be subject to the vagaries of annual 
appropriations and the severe restrictions of the current Budget 

** RasDurces should be targetted to low-incosie families with 
children. Lead poisoning affects children at all income levels, 
but low-lncoae children are more often affected^ and their 
families will be unable to protect their children unless they 
receive assistance. Although the legislation currently lists the 
provision of services to low-income families as one of six 
selection criteria for awarding grants , we believe its f ocuG on 
low-income families must be strengthened. Until significantly 
increased resources are available, all federal assistance should 
be targetted to low-income families with children. 

** Existing housing programs should be provided with additional 
resources to carry out hazard reduction and abatement activities - 
5« ?34l currently adds lead assessments^ hazard reduction and 
abatement to the lists of eligible activities in numerous housing 
progress. Although we believe that lead hazards should be 
addressed whenever possible, unless funds for housing programs 
are increased, lead related work may well occur at the expense of 
affordable housing. This will only worsen the affordable 
housing crisis that this Committee has worked hard to address — 
more than six in ten poor renters now spend more than half of 
their incomes for housing, almost 5 million children live 
doubled-up and over lOO^QOO children are homeless every night. 

** The notification and disclosure provisions for homeownership 
should be implemented as soon as possible. The bill's proposed 
delay of two years before regulations are issued and three before 
they take effect is unnecessary. Effective immediately, owners 
and agents should be required to disclose known risks. The lead 
warning materials should be in ready ' and in use within 18 months, 
more than adequate time to prepare such materials — the text of 
which appears in the statute. Similarly, eighteen months is also 
adequate time to education realtors and homeowners and to 
implejuent the inspection provisions^ Families like the Burkes 
should be given accurate information about the risks posed by 
lead, and should be afforded an opportunity to have a house 
inspected before they buy it and are faced with crushing 
abatement costs. 

** The notification provisions for rental housing should also 
be implemented as soon possible* The provisions should not be 
held until there are adequate contractors in ^^11 regions of the 
country* Instead, these notification requirements should take 
effect nationwide within three years. The burden should shift to 
ccfflmunitles to prove that an adequate hazard reduction and 
abatement infrastructure does not exist in their community^ in 
such cases HUD should be allowed to grant them a time- limited 
exemption. In addition, landlords and apartment owners should be 
required to notify fastilies of known risks immediately- The Lead 

Digitized by 



Naming Statesent should be part of leases effective 18 aonths 
after enactaent. There is slaply no reason to delay providing 
faailies with all the information they need to protect their 
children froa this devastating hazard. 

In addition, we urge you to define nore clearly the 
requirement that the Secretary of HUD determine that disclosure 
will not have a "deleterious impact on the availability of 
affordable hoiising for families with children." The current 
language is so broad that — if past history is a guide — HUD 
will take advantage of it to indefinitely delay the 
iiQ>lementation of these important provisions. Families need 
affordable hoiising, but they also need safe housing. We will be 
happy to work with you to refine that requirement so that both 
needs can be met as quickly as possible. 

** Interim controls alone cannot protect children from lead 
poisoning when paint and dust are present. Althouah such 
controls can help reduce hazards, and are cheaper In the short 
run, they are not a permanent solution. The legislation should 
be refined to clarify that interim controls are not a substitute 
for abatement, and that abatement should be conducted whenever 
possible. In addition, comprehensive modernization or renovation 
should always trigger abatement if lead is present in the unit. 

** Families must be protected from housing discrimination 
related to lead assessments, reduction and abatement. Ne urge 
you to clarify (either in the statute or in legislative history) 
that the Fair Housina Amendments Act of 1988 extends to 
discriminatory practices against families with children which 
occur because a home contains or may contain lead paint. The 
experience of families in communities that require landlords to 
address lead problems indicates that landlords often attempt to 
avoid correcting the problem by refusing to rent to families with 
young children, or evlctina them once lead is detected. Congress 
must clearly protect families from that kind of discrimination 
and retaliation. 

In conclusion, CDF strongly supports S. 2341 and its 
preventive approach to childhood lead poisoning. We look forward 
to working with you as this legislation moves towards enactment. 

Digitized by 



Testimony of David E. Jacobs, CIH 

Environmeiitai Researdi Sdentist 

Georgia Institute of Tedinoiogy 

Before tlie 

Subcommittee on Housing and Uriian Affairs 
United States Senate Committee on Banldng, Housing and Uriian Affairs 

Marcb 19, 1992 

I am an environmental research scientist in the Environmental Science and Technology 
Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where I have been dedicated to the effort of 
solving 1^-based paint problems in both public and private housing for the past five years. I 
have woriced with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a 
meaningful risk assessment protocol and in-place management program, using materials I hdped 
to develop for Housing Environmental Services, the technical services arm of the Housing 
Authority Risk Retention Group. During this past summer under a cooperative training 
agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and HUD, I have been fortunate to help 
over 2,000 Public and Indian Housing Authorities come to grips with the tpideaac of lead 
poisoning, and what they can do to help eradicate it. Together with my colleagues at Georgia 
Tech, I have also helped to guide a number of housing authorities in their testing and abatement 
activities. I conducted environmental surveillance of one of the first large public housing 
abatement projects to be completed under the protocol established under the HUD Guidelines. 

First, let me state that this bill would allow needed expansion of the scope of lead reqxmse 
activities in both the public and private sectors, and should help to motivate various building 
owners, managers, residents, and other housing professionals to develop programs and policies 
that will sharply reduce the incidence of lead poisoning in this country. As I stated before this 
committee last October, there was substantial confusion among housing authorities and others 
who have attended our training programs regarding what should be done in other housing 
programs, such as Section 8, housing controlled by the Resolution Trust Corporation, private 
housing, and so on. There was also significant concern regarding the availability of funding 
resources. This bill goes a long way towards resolving that confusion. 

However, the bill could be improved greatly by including a more balanced sq>proach to long- 
term response measures. We have argued for some time that building owners and managers 
need to walk on two legs to advance the fight against lead poisoning: the short-term response 
and the long-term response. Both must prwwd at oncc if wc are te make significant progress. 

This bill appears to compromise the long-term response, and focuses nearly all efforts on the 
short-term response. In the long run, failure to incorporate long term responses now will result 
in a significant unnecessary increase in funds expended on lead-based paint. 

Too much is expected from in-place management and hazard assessments. The limitations of 
the risk assessment protocol and in-place management systems we have been recommending to 

Digitized by 



housing authorities for more than a year now need to be folly grasped. Risk assessments and 
resulting in-place management programs are basically sm^nhots of conditions as tfiey exist at 
the time of ij tf y«ffffA^tm>nt The environmental sampling of dust and soil that is typically done 
for a risk assessment is designed only to measure those sources of lead that are immediately 
available to children. These samples will not be able to conclusively identify sources of lead, 
and will not pinpoint exactly where lead-based paint is located inside a spoafic dwelling. 
\l^thout this kind of information, residents and owners will be foced with the prospect of 
continuously monitoring and recleaning (and perhaps rqwdnting) and re-monitoring certain 
surftces. This means that wipe and soil samples will need to be collected at frequent intervals, 
pethi^ every 3 months, which may cost anywhere from $200 - $1,000 per year. All of these 
costs could be avoided if the abatement option is chosen. 

In foct, during the questions following my lectures on risk assessment and in-place management, 
it was dear that many housing authorities considered in-place management to be a one-time 
exercise, i.e., dean up lead dust and repair suspect paint once and you're done. Unfortunatdy, 
lead dust is likdy to re-accumulate at widdy varying rates, depending on a number of variables. 
That is why our in-place management program recommendations focus on changes in existing 
management activities at a housing authority, from modification of work order systems to warn 
wofkers which jobs may involve significant rdease of dust and paint chips to assignment of 
routine cleaning duties of certain common spaces. Furthermore, intact lead-based paint does not 
slay that way. A water leak, abrasion from furniture or moving building parts (windows), and 
uninfonned remodeling and rq)ainting activities can all result in lead poisoning very quicldy. 
In addition, in-plaoe management activities are in their infoncy at this point. There has been 
haidly any research to date showing that such activities are indeed successful, either in the short 
term or the long term. 

To illustrate the temporary nature of in-place management and the need for continuous repeated 
assessments, consider the following data (see Table 1) that were collected from a small public 
housing devdopment in the northeast. The first round of wipe samples was collected in June, 
1991 and the second batch was collected in January, 1992. After the first round of samples 
showed extremdy high lead dust levds in the wiiulow wdls, the housing authority engaged in 
a deanup campaign kivolving HEPA vacuuming of all window wells and sills and certain floor 
areas, and repainting of all window wdls and sills. However, the lead paint was left in place. 
Maintenance workers were trained on how to do routine Tcpaiis that would involve disturbance 
of the lead paint, and other management systems were installed to minimize the possibility of 
pdsoning. Thc8c measures were implemented only to wntroi risks until the dcrvdopmcnt cpyM 

underyo modernization and foil abatement, which is scheduled to begin this spring. 

The second round of samples taken six months later shows that although the levds were wdl 
bdow what they were at the outset, lead dust levds were still wdl above the HUD standards. 
Oeariy, another deanup campaign is required. Of course, this is a small number of samjto, 
and the rate oi re-accumulation needs to be quantified through more substantive research. The 
central point here is that risk assessment and in-place management cannot be considered to be 
a substitute for comprehensive testing and abatement. Both must proceed at the same time. 

Digitized by 



Table 1. 

Lead Dust Levels in a Small Northeastern Public Housing Devdopment 

Before and After One Round of Cleaning ft Rqpainting 


June 1991 




June 1991 

Range Pb 

Dust Levels 

Jan. 1992 


Dust Levels 

Jan., 1992 

Range Pb 

Dust Levels 






623 - 17,378 








Number of 



The committee should note that in some ways we have been down this road of over-relianoe on 
stop-gi^ measures during the seventies and the early eighties. Much €i the so-called 
"abatement" activity that went on during this period involved treatment of only "chewable" 
sur&oes 4 or 5 feet above the floor. We now know that this activity was largdy a Mure, since 
it ignored the dust route of exposure, and since it failed to permanently address the source of 
most of that dust-lead-based paint. I know of several housing devdopments where abatement 
had to be rq)eated because the comprehensive sqjproach was not taken at the outset. The cost 
was many times higher than what a single abatement effort would have been. 

Is it unrealistic or cost-prohibitive to ask building owners and managers to walk on both legs? 
Can we reasonably expect them to take immediate (and recurring) actions to reduce lead hazards 
to an accq>table levd until full abatement can be implemented at opportune moments? Again, 
the public housing experience is instructive in answering this question. Abatement activities are 
now being integrated into comprehensive modernization activities in literally hundreds of public 
housing developments. Comprehensive testing is proceeding n^idly. The abatement and testing 
infrastructure is poised for a new levd of growth and professionalism through a program of 
coordinated training. EPA has recently named 5 universities to further this training effort, 
induding Georgia Tech. 

In all likelihood, we will be able to look back in twenty years (maybe less) and state that all lead 
hazards in public housing have been permanently abated. In short, the best way to address lead 
hazards is to encourage both short and long term responses. The short term responses involve 
lead-based paint hazard assessment and in-place management programs, and the long-term 

Digitized by 



lespoose involves comprehensive testing and full abatement. Neither can woric without the 
other. We took the lead out of gasoline. With the proper leadership and will, there is no reason 
why we can*t do the same in our housing stock. 

Roally, the difficult issue of soil contamination requires attention. In the current risk 
aaessments we perform, soil samples are collected to determine if this presents a significant risk 
to chikben, since several studies have clearly identified this as a mayor dose source. So£ur, soil 
in most public housing developments iqypears to be wdl below 500 ppm, probably because most 
public housing is composed of unpainted brick exteriors. However, the importance of examining 
soil lead concentrations can be seen in the recent HUD Denronstration (FHA) project results, 
which showed a statistically significant increase in soil lead levels following abatement. This 
was most likely due to inadequate exterior containment practices that are simple enough to 
oofiect The point is that it makes little sense to ignore soil and respond only to interior dust, 
since contaminated soil can be either tracked or blown into the home. Whether the action level 
is SOO ppm or 1,000 ppm is an important issue that deserves further study. But soil 
contaminated from exterior paint sources is often wdl above 1,000 ppm and clearly demands 
attention. Again, this can often be done during a comprehensive modernization project, where 
some site grading and excavation is likely to be performed anyway. Simple interim measures, 
such as maintaining good sod covering are also likely to be effective in the interim, although this 
also demands further study. 

I qiplaud Senator Alan Cranston and the co-qwnsors in introducing the Residential Lead-Based 
Faint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. I hope my remarks win result in a nuxlification to the 
bill's title to read: The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Elimination Act of 
1222^ The Dqnrtment of Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Louis Sullivan, has stated 
that lead poisoning is an entirely preventable disease . We fact both long-term and a short-term 
urgent tasks if we are to be successful in eradicating lead poisoning. 

It will probably take decades to abate all old lead-based paint in our residential structures, but 
one day, no lead-based paint will be in our homes. If we provide the resources, the skills, the 
insights, and the detennination, we can relegate the q)idemic of lead-based paint poisoning to 
the history books, where it belongs. 

Digitized by 




Ct^riuU Office 

1875 Connecticiu Ave.. N.W. 

Washingum. OC 20009 







before the 


of the 








March 19, 1992 


2S7Piik Avenue Sooib 96S5 CoUefB Ave. I4QS Arapriiae Ave 128 Bait Itefen St laoOOwdyupe 

New Yoifc. NY 10010 OeklwLCA 94618 Boolder. GO 80302 Raleifli. NC 27601 AiMii.TX7B701 

ai2)SOS-2100 (510)638-8008 (303)440-4901 r9I9> 821-7793 (512)478^161 

Digitized by 



Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am 
Karen Florini, Senior Attorney and Chair of the Environmental 
Defense Fund's Toxics Program in Washington, DC. For over two 
decades, EDF has worked to minimize human exposures to toxic 
substances, with special attention to lead. 

As I testified before this Committee last £all, we enter the last 
decade of Hie 20th century knowing rather a lot about lead. We 
know that it is toxic; we know that its toxicity does not diminish 
with time; and we know that lead will be a hazard of one sort or 
another in the nation's housing stock for the rest of the life of 
everyone participating in today's hearing. The question now before 
Congress is what to do with this knowledge. 

While we strongly support S. 2341, the Urgent Lead Paint 
Hazard Prevention Act, we believe that certain changes could make 
the bill even more effective as a lead-poisoning prevention measiure. 
My testimony today first presents a general perspective, and then 
turns to our recommendations on the bilL 

Lead Polanninir «« an TCnvimtini^ntal Problem 

We must recognize that lead has a unique and tragic 
constellation of characteristics — namely, its perwisiveness in the 
American environment combined with its Uxddiy^ and particularly 
the potency of its neurotoxic effects on cmHrftTi These two factors 
taken together mean that no other substance poses a greater 
environmental hazard for the nation's cm^fftw An estimated two 
to three million U.S. presdioolera — ten to fifteen percent of all 
children under six — have lead levels hi|^ enoui^ to cause 
measurable impairment of their neurologic abilities, including IQ 
and attention deficits even before they begin sdDol. Now moro 
than ever, as we move into tiie information age of the 21st century, 
the nation simply cannot afford to ignore this problem as we seek 
to ensure that children enter school ready and able to leam. And 
lead paint is the most firequent source of moderate to hi^ lead 
exposures -- the kind that do Ihe greatest degree of damage. 

Digitized by 



Lead poisonixig is an environmental health problenL As with 
almost all environxnental problems* the most 008t-e£Eective approach 
is to prevent damage in the first place. A lead-poisoned child 
cannot be "cured** of the ii\juries caused by lead, but the disease is 
fully preventable by preventing exposure to lead. Unfortunately, 
given that millions of tons of lead are already present in the lead 
paint in people's homes, we are left wi^ no choice but to dean up 
the environment - and do so before any further harm occurs. 
Thus, while I am not a housing expert, as an environmentalist I 
know that any legislation which properly treats lead poisoning as 
an environmental problem must address housing as a key Vector** 
of the disease of lead poisoning. 

Environmental regulation must be designed to reduce 
environmental hazards. All lead paint in housing is a potential 
hazard because children and other occupants can become exposed if 
the paint is transformed into chips or dust, \idiich can be inhaled or 
ingested. In a perfect world, wi^ unlimited resources, our society 
would therefore remove all lead paint firom all housing. But we do 
not live in such a world. We must therefore attempt to target our 
efforts to cost-efifoctively address the most immediate hazards. 

Recognizing this truth, S. 2341 would shift the federal 
legislative focus finm finding lead paint - the current mandate to 
public housing authorities under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning 
Prevention A^ - to finding and reducing lead hazards. We must 
be careful, however, to define such *liazards** accurately. When 
federal environmental regulators act under the various pollution 
laws, they do not have to demonstrate that people are actually 
dying of cancer or suffering fircmi respiratory diseases. These 
agencies can act once they estiddish that people — especially 
vulnerable people like children - are exposed to an environmental 

Lead paint should be treated no differently from other 
environmental toxins. We act to dean up Superfund sites whenever 
we find that the surrounding populace is e^^ed to toxic hazards, 
and we must act to dean up housing whenever we found that 
occupants are exposed to lead-based paint hazards. The issue is not 
whether a child has absorbed enou^ of an internal dose of lead to 


Digitized by 



become poi80iied» but rather whether the environment in which she 
lives eiqxiBeB her to unsafe levels of lead. Moreover, because 
children can develop lead poisoning remarkably quickly, relying on 
periodic screening in lieu of eiqposure reduction is ineffective and 
unacceptable as a public health policy. Tins legislation would 
greatly advance lead poisoning prevention efforts by moving away 
firom the medical model - in which we seek to treat children once 
they become poisoned - and toward an environmental/ public health 
model that stresses prevention. 

We must also keep in mind that all paint remains, to one 
degree or another, a potential hazard until it is finally abated. 
Sooner or later, almost every home is renovated; if it isn't, it 
becomes deteriorated. Eith^ way, the potential hazard becomes an 
actual one. "Interim controls'* are just that - interim. They are 
not a way of obviating the eventual need for abating lead during 
renovation. And we must not repeat the mistake of the late 1970s, 
when our society focused for a time on lead paint hazards but then 
lost sight of the ongoing nature of the hazard. Rather, we must 
recognize that lead already present in the nation's homes will be 
toxic forever. The provisions of this biU help create mechanisms 
responsive to that fact 

The Role of the Federal Government 

Until recently, the federal government has largely left the task 
of dealing with lead poisoning to cities and states and, to some 
extent, the private sector. This strategy has met with at best 
limited success; as indicated by the fitiHing a in S. 2341, some 3 
million U.S. preschoolers are now lead-poisoned. During the last 
few years, federal agencies have finally begun to acknowledge the 
need for a slro n g er federal role, and have started taking steps 
(albeit inadequate ones) to assume sudi a role. 

We believe that a comprehensive fiaderal program must include 
three prongs: 

Digitized by 



regulating continuing uses of lead and activities 
connected with lead-based paint identification and 

providing financial assistance to cities, states and 
property owners for lead poisoning prevention activities; 

acting as a model property owner. 

Regulatory l88uea 

On the regulatory front, this legislation would complement 
other bills now before the Congress. For example, EDF strongly 
supports S. 391, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Joseph 
lieberman, which primarily addresses the federal governments role 
as a regulator. The ReidiTdeberman bill would impose restrictions 
on new and ongoing uses of lead as well as directing federal 
agencies to overcome various technical obstacles to lead-based paint 

S. 2341 complements this proposed legislation by ensuring - in 
Sections 201 and 202 - that all federally-supported lead paint 
assessment and hazard-reduction efiforts will be conducted by 
certified contractors using certified laboratories. Section 203 of this 
legislation would similarly complement standard-setting 
requirements included in the Reid/Iieberman biQ by requiring HUD 
to develop guidelines for tiie conduct of federally-supported risk 
assessments, inspections, interim controls and idbatement activities.^ 

S. 2341 would also address the critical role of the federal 
government in regulating disclosure of lead hazards in the private 
housing market. EDF is a strong proponent of market-based 
solutions to environmental problems, but we recognize that markets 

^ Similar provisioiis are found in bills spoosoied in the House by Chainnan Henry 
Waxman of the Health and Environment Subconmiittee as RR. 2840, and by Chainnan Al 
Swift of the Tianspoftation and Hazaidous Materials SubcommittBe as RR. 3554. 

Digitized by 



cannot function efifectively unless participants in market 
transactions have adequate information. Currently, few prospective 
tenants or home buyers know about lead hazards. They cannot act 
on their concerns about lead hazards by negotiating over rents or 
sale prices, or by choosing to walk away from a lease or purchase 
agreement. On the flip side of the same coin, tenants and bu3^rs 
cannot afiSrmatively select homes free of lead hazards. The 
mandatory disclosure provisions contained in Section 301 are a first 
step in ensuring that real estate markets properly value lead 
poisoning prevention. 

Indeed, these important provisions should be strengthened.' 
At the least, the efifective date should be moved up so i^at tenants 
and home buyers need not wait two or three years before obtaining 
this important information. Further, witih regard to section 301(bys 
requirement that leases contain a Lead Warning Statement, this 
provision should take effect by direct operation of law rather than 
through HUD regulations. Given that the text of the warning is 
provided by the statute, there is no need to await the issuance of 

We are also concerned about the efifoctiveness of the lead 
hazard assessment provisions for rental properties as written. 
Among other problrais, the term "lead hazard assessment" leaves 
far too much "wiggle room" of the kind that HUD has shown a 
propensity to exploit in a nonprotective direction. Similarly, the 
provisions of section 301(bX2XB) - stating that HUD shall not issue 
regulations requiring assessments al^ent a determination that (i) 
enough certified workers are available in all regions and (ii) there 
will be no deleterious impact on the availability of affordable 
housing -- are faic^y likely to keep such regulations ever firom 
seeing the li^t of day. 

While we acknowledge that some time will be needed for 
assessment infirastructures to develop, we see no reason at all that 
the infirastructure must be available e v erywhere before the 

' In additioD, lubwctiin 301(b) £dU to miniie that tlie Le^ 
Pamphkc actniUy be provided to tenaott at die dme of leaae of taifet houiiiis. TUt 
appareQt ovcni^it dioukl be coiiecied. 

Digitized by 



regulations take effect anywhera Instead, we recommend the 
foUowing approach: set an effective date of pcoiiaps 3 years after 
enactment, but empower the Secretary to grant limited extensions 
(totalling no more than a few years) for a state or area upon 
determining that the infirastructure is not yet adequate in that state 
or area. In the meantime, the very existence of a deadline will 
provide an incentive for members of the private sector to begin 
creating the needed infirastructure. 

Our concerns about the "no deleterious impact" finding are 
even more severe. History teaches that HUD'S own inclination will 
be toward inertia, and this provision will only reinforce that 
tendency. Indeed, it hands the Agency a convenient excuse to keep 
from having to issue the regulations at all, regardless of whether 
the regulations would actually have any effect on housing. We 
strongly recommend that this provision be dropped. 

Rather than allowing HUD (or the Office of Management and 
Budget) to hold the assessment regulations hostage inddSnitely, the 
legi^tion could require HUD to submit a report to Congress 
describing HUD's conclusions on this issue. (To ensure that the fiill 
range of views is covered, HUD sliould be required to make a draft 
of tibe report available fi>r public conunent azul to summarize such 
comments in the final report) Congress would then be in a 
position to determine what (if any) efifoct the assessment 
requirement would have, and to make any necessary changes to this 
provision. Subsection 301(bX2XC), wbkh already requires 
submission of a report, could be modified to include these topics as 

Federal Funding leenee 

Another critical role for the federal government is that of 
funder. Kxisting financial assistance, avidlable under a hodge- 
podge of HUD programs, does not b^in to provide the resources 
necessary to assist either financially strai^)^ cities and states or 
low and moderate income property owners in pay the costs of lead 
poisoning prevention efforts. BHUons of dollars will eventually be 
needed; that is why EDF supports Rep. Bepjamin Cardin's trust 


Digitized by 



fund legislation, HJL 2922, wbkh would impose an excise fee on 
lead in order to support a $1 billion per year entitlement grants 
program to help cities and states cleiui up lead paint poisoning 
hazards in low-income housing. Tlie grant program established by 
Title I of S. 2341 would lay the groundwork for - and later 
complement - the Cardin trust &nd's grant program by authoriadng 
a $250 million competitive grants program in each of the next two 
fiscal years. 

The Federal Government ae Model Property Oumer 

The core of this bill, however, lies in its commitment to 
making the federal government a model property owner with respect 
to housing containing lead-based paint hazards. S. 2341 represents 
the first attempt to comprehensively survey all federal housing 
programs and impose appropriate requirements to ensure that lead 
hazards are addressed whenever the government owns, sells, or 
finances the sale or rehabilitation of residential property. 

S. 2341 should, and in many cases does, establish basic 
principles to govern lead-based paint hazard reduction efforts in 
which the federal government is directly involved. The first such 
principle, embodied in paragraphs (b) throuc^ (i) of Section 102, is 
that assessment and hazard-reduction activities should always be 
eligible for funding under federal financial assistance programs 
concerned with the purchase or rehabilitation of residential 
property. This is not a mandate, but rather presents an 
opportunity for recipients of finaTicial assistance to choose to invest 
in lead poisoning prevention if they so desire. Such provisions are 
simply conmion sense. 

Second, federal mandates for lead hazard assessment and 
reduction activities should be proportionate to the degree of federal 
assistance and involvement. For example, when the federal 
government provides tens of thmnmn^g of dollars per unit for 
substantial rehabilitation under any of a variety of programs, it is 
legitimate and costpoffective to mandate full inspection and 
abatement (indeed, it would be sharply at odds with federal health 
objectives not to do so). Adherence to this principle also supports 

53-652 0-92-9 

Digitized by 



continuing the requirement that full inspection and abatements be 
required for public housing units undergoing comprehensive 

More limited assistance might trigger more limited 
requirements, such as for risk assessment and interim controls. 
Section 102(aX3) generally provides that the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development must develop procedures for ensuring that 
all assisted housing is subject to some type of mandate with respect 
to lead poisoning prevention. Given HlIDs track record, however, 
this important ta^ cannot be defined so broadly. EDF urges the 
Committee to prescribe specific triggers and firm deadlines for risk 
assessments, interim controls, inspections and abatements for the 
various assistance programs. In the absence of such provisions, the 
ability of this legislation to achieve its critically important purposes 
will be left in considerable doubt. 

The third governing principle is that the federal government 
should serve as a model for the private sector, whether it is acting 
as a landlord, property seller, or lender. In its public housing 
programs, the federal government is basically acting as a landlord 
(although it does not technically own the public housing units). It 
should therefore act as a responsible landlord and provide safe 
housing by conducting risk assessments «ti^ undertaking any 
needed interim control measures in public housing units awaiting 
abatement under the compreheoisive modernization program. EDF 
urges the Committee to impose such a requirement 

Moreover, many agencies of the federal government act as 
property owners and are selling homes (in la^ part because of the 
savings and loan bailout and distress in the lending industry). In 
many cases, Congress has mandated that sudi sales be targeted to 
low and moderate income homeowners. At the moment, the federal 
government is far finm a "model" home seller, neither disclosing nor 
correcting lead paint hazards. Section 103 of this legislation should 
be amended to clearly establish that all housing units sold by the 
federal government are to be inspected, and lead hazards abated, 
prior to property disposition. 

Digitized by 



Nor is the federal government currently providing a model for 
lenders in its various insurance guarantee programs. Especially 
given the economic downturn, responsible lenders must treat every 
property they finance as one whidi they may come to own in the 
future as the result of foreclosure. Surely the federal government 
should treat property subject to loan guarantees in the same 
manner. Section 105 should be amended to ensure that, at a 
minimum, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) obtains lead 
inspection reports before guaranteeing mortgage loans on target 

Once these modifications are made, S. 2341 will start the 
federal government well along the road to acting as a model for the 
private real estate and lending sectors in dealing responsibly with 
lead paint hazards. Mr. Chairman, you and your Conunittee have 
done an excellent job of improving the process of identifying and 
reducing lead-based paint hazards in f^eral housing programs. 
The Environmental Defense Fund is pleased and proud to endorse 

2341, and we look forward to working with you toward 
Airthering strengthening and rapid enactment of this important 

Digitized by 



Remarks of 
Walter G. Farr 

The Enterprise Foundation 

before the 

Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs 
United States Senate 

March 19, 1992 

Digitized by 



I am Vice President of The Enterprise Foundation. Enterprise was 
launched in 1 983 by Jim Rouse. Its mission is to help make all 
housing fit, livable and affordable within a generation. We work with 
cities, lenders, and nonprofit corporations all over the country. Our 
focus is almost entirely on housing for very low- and low-income 

Lead poisoning is now recognized as a major health crisis. But so 
is affordable housing. Half a million persons are homeless, millions 
more are living in housing that is indecent and unsafe; and millions are 
paying 50 percent or more of their income for shelter. Federal funds 
for low-income housing have been cut by 70 percent in the last 1 

Low-income housing is provided by a wide assortment of 
organizations. Local government provides public housing. Non-profit 
corporations develop rental and homeownership housing - usually with 
substantial public subsidy. But the vast of the majority of low-income 
housing is still provided by private property owners. A few do not 
maintain their properties and bleed them until they become unsafe and 
uninhabitable. Many are "Mom and Pop** owners with only a few 
units. Most are responsible business persons. They do the best they 
can and operate very close to the margin. 

Before imposing requirements on private landlords, one should 
understand the economics of providing decent housing for very low- 
income families in poor neighborhoods. For example, in Baltimore, 
poor families can afford rents of no more than $250 to $300 a month. 
Adding the cost of utilities to those rents, a family with an income of 
$10,000 would be paying 40 percent to 45 percent of its income for 

Even in Baltimore, where inner city market prices for houses are 
as low as $15,000, operating expenses and debt service can easily 

Digitized by 



exceed what families are able to pay for rent. Operating expenses, 
which include taxes, insurance, management and minimal 
maintenance, are at least $170 a month. If the landlord borrowed 
$10,000 to buy the housing unit and was able to get a 20-year 
mortgage at 10 percent interest, his debt service is $96 a month. If 
everything goes right, gross rents are $250 to $300 a month and 
expenses are $266 a month. As a practical matter most responsible 
landlords hope to clear $250 to $300 a year per rental unit. A one 
month vacancy takes away the whole profit. And the landlord can't 
raise rents because the market won't permit it. 

Landlords have been slow to admit the extent of the health 
hazard of lead paint, but the challenge now is how to respond 
effectively to this health hazard without substantially lessening the 
quality and quantity of affordable housing. 

While Enterprise is working in cities all over the country, 
Baltimore is, in a sense, our laboratory city, where we try out new 
ideas. It is also becoming a laboratory city for facing up to lead paint 

Enterprise came to understand the lead paint problem from the 
experience of a Baltimore nonprofit organization called City Homes 
which Enterprise helped create. 

City Homes owns over 200 row houses in the Baltimore inner 
city. With substantial financial assistance from the state. City Homes 
was able to acquire and rehabilitate these houses for under $25,000 
and rent them to very low-income families for about $265 a month. 

Most if not all of these houses have lead paint buried below three 
or four layers of other paint. City Homes rehabilitation specifications 
were approved by the city and the state, and its houses are inspected 
regularly. City Homes cleaned up with a hepa vac after completing 

Digitized by 



rehab, it did relativeiy little demolition and scraped carefully. It 
repaints periodically and whenever there is a turnover, and it maintains 
the homes relatively diligently. But in these old houses some paint will 
peel and some paint dust will be generated from opening and closing 
windows and doors. And some dust containing lead will be blown or 
tracked in from outside. 

Baltimore has a relatively active program to test young children 
for elevated lead blood levels. When a child tests positive, the city 
cites the landlord, tests the house and has been requiring full 
abatement of all lead paint. Two years ago a child in one of City 
Homes' houses tested positive, the city cited the home and the child 
sued City Homes claiming very substantial damages. 

When City Homes learned that one of its tenants had tested 
positive for lead poisoning, it decided it needed to do more - to 
reevaluate its approach to lead paint. 

Before developing new policies. City Homes checked the city and 
state rules and policies on lead paint, how the owners of the 75,000 
other Baltimore rental row houses are reacting, whether lawsuits are 
common and how are they resolved, and how insurers are reacting. 
City Homes determined the following: 

► City and state lead paint legislation and regulations are very strict 
on paper. The mere existence of lead paint is theoretically a 
violation. As a practical matter, the city acts only after a child 
tests positive. Then it has been requiring removal or 
encapsulation of all lead paint. There is no program to prevent 
lead hazards from occurring or persisting in the 75,000 other 
houses in which no child has yet tested positive. 

► City Homes also found that the plaintiffs' bar is very active. 
Television ads put lead paint claims on a par with automobile 

Digitized by 



accident claims. Any landlord who gets a city citation can expect 
to be sued. The lawyer representing the plaintiff suing City 
Homes is said to represent over 1 ,000 other plaintiffs. Insured 
landlords tend to settle for as little as $20,000 or as much as 
several hundred thousand dollars. But in many cases, the 
landlord abandons the house and the child receives nothing. 

► Insurance companies now exclude claims for damage from lead 
paint poisoning on all new policies in Baltimore. Defense lawyers 
counsel large landlords to break up their holdings into many small 
corporations and to avoid recognition of the problem because 
admitting there may be lead paint could increase liability. Once 
cited, the landlord frequently abandons the cited house. 

► Private landlords owning low-income housing cannot afford to 
abate the lead paint in their units following Baltimore guidelines, 
which track HUD's comprehensive guidelines for public housing 
almost exactly. The cost of full abatement in row houses like the 
ones owned by City Homes runs from $12,000 to $27,000. 
Insurance for the abatement contractor alone costs $2,000 a 
unit. City Homes has verified these costs because the state is 
funding full abatement in 20 row houses which City Homes 
purchased to provide safe houses for families whose children 
have been treated for lead poisoning. 

► The market value of these houses is not increased at all because 
of abatement. They are still worth only $15,000 in the market, 
because market rents in these very low-income neighborhoods 
are still $200 to $300 a month regardless of lead abatement. 

Despite this bleak picture, City Homes decided it must act to 
prevent lead paint poisoning in its houses. City Homes can afford to 
do this because it has access to state funds to demonstrate a relatively 
cost effective approach to lead paint poisoning prevention. After 

Digitized by 



consultation with city and state health and environment agencies. City 
Homes immediately began a program of wet scraping any peeling 
paint, repainting scraped surfaces and intensive cleaning of all houses 
occupied by young children, at an average cost of $1,500 a house. 
When a house becomes vacant. City Homes spends about $6,000 to 
make the house lead safe before re-renting it. 

City Homes can afford to carry out this policy because the state 
is providing further financial support. The Environmental Protection 
Agency is evaluating these efforts to find cost effective methods of 
controlling lead hazards and making houses lead safe. But no for-profit 
landlord in Baltimore or anywhere else can afford such a program 
without comparable public sector support. 

Since embarking on this lead hazard prevention program in 
Baltimore, Enterprise has become very involved in the national effort to 
deal with this number one environmental health problem. We find that 
in most of the country the problem is simply being ignored. Cities and 
private landlords fear that recognition of the problem will result in the 
same plague of lawsuits, insurance red-lining and housing 
abandonment that threatens Baltimore. And no cost effective 
approach to dealing with the problem has been demonstrated or 
accepted by legislators or courts. 

So it is critical that the federal government step in now to 
establish a rational approach to preventing childhood lead poisoning 
while preserving affordable housing for low-income families. 

Such a rational approach must include the following elements: 

1 . The emphasis must be on primary prevention programs to 
eliminate lead hazards, before children are poisoned. 

53-652 0-92-10 

Digitized by 



2. Since most at risk children live in privately owned housing, the 
program should focus on that housing. 

3. It is now generally accepted that most lead poisoning comes from 
children ingesting lead dust. Intact lead paint is not a major 
problem. The program must focus on controlling the hazards of 
accessible lead containing dust. Houses must be lead safe. They 
need not be lead free. Only when this is accepted will the 
solutions become economically feasible. 

4. A new standard of care must be established for rental housing-a 
standard which the courts, insurance companies and lending 
institutions will accept. 

5. Federal lead prevention regulations must be based on the principal 
of hazard control with an ultimate objective of all federally 
assisted housing being lead safe. 

6. Since most cities now ignore the problem and most city officials 
have no experience in dealing with it, the federal government 
must ensure that effective technical assistance is available. 

7. Over the next several years, the federal government should 
sharply accelerate funding of demonstrations of cost effective 
approaches to lead poisoning prevention and cost effective 
approaches to making housing lead safe. These demonstrations 
must be carefully evaluated to ensure the successful ones can 
effectively be replicated. 


Digitized by 






of the 







March 19, 1992 

Digitized by 





Tho CmhriAffi IdtiMne AnthoHly Ium a mlqiie pexspeotlTc on th« lead-tesed 
palat hasard. ls«a« for ••mzal xvssoass 

'• Is a MaB«&<!tLtiaatta lOiL, «t havv teen daallac «!'&' lu«. l««d recolatiana 
for 6 or »c 7vusi t^i*«« rf#LlatLaafl T9 q)Btt« rl^reua* 

• (JEL1>*M «it«aslT* «i;ptrl«Qf^ under oitrroat SUB I«ad fuldaliJievV ^TtBff 
tostfld «T*r fiOd naltfi in 6 d«7«IopiLaata , ab«tad: otwt 200 m3±tm In. 7 
de^lo^ants, and di« Ia the jrocsan of Mddlag iiw AbAtnont of aaethar 
500 ntltb In 4r dvnI«pBi«Lta. 3b« otjoritr of oi3^ abatttSMt has "baaa dOBS 
Is oozijimB'tloiL v±^ cjompn^QslT* nDdersdzatiaii, 

• cEi Sas also c6sAwata& fozsEal i^k 4^«AAaBnts a^ all of our faallj 
dtnlQi^ajita, nndsr 1^ atiaploflH of Ifba EiBSa rlafc ajtaesmneat gr o graa , 

• finMXlj, CM ^B ixkst £Offl.|ilAt«d fiOl a^tesaafe of 21 Trxeaat units at 
leirtcrr^A Coiu-t (Mi >^)r »■ part of til* MTD BponBorad 9«tlQQAl SBi 
PelMdi^ DeaoQstnLtloii* CEi Flajod a oaJot rol* in tha t«fltiDC« d s sl fn 
MTiA odtfLialfltTatlon of tkU deHOomtratioii, Jji coiijiuutlo& vl^ HDD's 
eq(Q^tiltaii±, Dov1?«z?^ ft laTls* 

!• 3i«ij» aux ana of A^^rlaxuse and ea^rtisa is Halted to faderallj 
aasisted housiBg, tte 'boUe of our coaaasifl adirna tbat area of the 
proj^aad IsfLslatloiu Bis aajor i^irast of tbe propG«ed I«fUl«tioii Is 
'scaeMhat probleBatiOa froa onr poiat of Tlev« I&e proposal votud 
gonef&llj eMtt ^ha lOMttanBl foooa av^r feom tsdti^ «s£ abattaan.^, sad 
tovard rlik Msaaaaent ami rlaJc rvdoBrtiab. 1M1« m ogras tatat that rliJc 
asseaaiuat «sd rAdua-bloii «r« tsix naoaasajy ap^^acl»S| ▼* feil that the 
bill laaTe* saTszal areas osd«flJied o? usdaird«niisd, suok ae i^ afl dianlc e 
of tlak aaaesBiuizit^ siid the approprikt« use of fall abatvnast^ ¥e flralr 
^Uv^n that testis^ aad abatiiaexii «lu»uld not bo camplateX^ 
de-enphaaijed^. Sher« ere aaToral oircunstaacas In. vhleh te^t/sbate la the 
beat or otilr option, «tieel clvva. tiis soarcl^ of ftrado and braadth and 
aatarllT of -Ula problea. Ta offer tli* foUowlnff aucCMtloBa en this toplot 

a. ianaa & IBAfBOBRt CEk feala 'tiiat It vould be a raal alstslrs to 
fraatlj ds aapTiaslfa fall testl^jj and abateiaect, aspsoiallT in 
' fadazallj' aasisted liaualiigr and speelTlcallr ss part of bsj BChmm 
lATolviac reSiabilitatlon^ Ye offi»r the felloiilac oovpeUlsff . 

Digitized by 



* In. l«ad^b««xlag imlta or d«vttlopai«ttfes, ooii«traottoa or rofaab 
of Mv Idad roprosoats tikt aost soTtre and iaaadiato dABCor to 
ro8id«a*s» voxters cod s^loyvos. Coastrootloa prodooos l*rgo 
•a»nnfc« of aijfboiizBio dast, axid lo«d~'h— ring dust is tho aoioal 

* AtetMMDt is rapidly bsooBia« mors oost sffscilTi, 
partlenlArly iImii dons A-b sfKrt ot tvhm'bllltAtlfizi* Biailsr to 
ihs asbsstos field i, «rE«TlBiicA «dd, tbe mar^t fgrova art 
MDE^:!^ td Ijover costs. I tAliaTfi t3iAt ths point liaa Al-nadj- 
bawL rsac^sd »t idzicfa t^atlug And atM-ttDaat urs «^iuil In qoi± 
to tlu sltafaatln oosta of iosiumnca^ lAg&l hAlp, &&d 
porpatnal risk nAS«c»Bent tor i^ typioal lazss iirbaa finilj 
P4>i1q juittsiag dsmlopBeiLt. 

* i^ t]|« fsv alioTt 7«ax« tbat -tiis BUD load ragulatlons havs bssa 
in sxlAtBao*!, hiuii|T«ds at eauLtrsetors EiiKimfkctiLr«rSf aad 
■stall ftntraprffiiean ^T9 osd? siibfftaatleil jiroexftaa ixL tha 
dsTBlopuBat of ^ABtlnf &sA B!be.tea.As.t prodofta a^ teciudqiLOfl. 
3ATen.lj audi as t]i« asadl^* eeul rvaQTsl ^T-Qtefi, tba S5-GIiF 
ssfiloson ^yvtsa, aad i^£loiu vLstA rsduciloa t«Qihii4quASt wrs 
dssozutratsd Ywy saoeftasfcLLl^ at &a Hsutoiratt Ceiirt EOlD 
dsaonstrmtidiip &fid DiaTS csimlnalj odTOneed i^ ^Bld> I would 
upect itils proffrssd ta oostlntv ^pidlr, tmlsaa tlu tsitlofl 
oM abatsKsat Kppfcaah Id abandoofld. Hhs EFl could greatlj 
laproTs tkLs ploturs \)j dOTSloplag ooaslstsnt aM rvasomabla 
liasardons vasts disposal tests aM z^bh fior laad msts 
¥sate dispqaaX Dosta are t^ osj^ir rsMnirlng StOAbliSS blodc 
to prograaa iA ihs load abataosnt fiald. 

Slak: Ksaessaflat dioold iziolnds sobs tasting of dost and paiatsd 
■urfaosa In addition, to rteual inspaotioii. Laad dust is basloally 
l!LViAiMjtt, bi2t tha bifl^r the l#tial of laad ia dnst, ISm graator 
tha dsJissr*- Ve vcmld piropoa* th« establlg^e^t of ssTaral Isfvls 
Of risk, sii3i oorraspoadiag IstsIs of raspoase. Oaa poaaibla 

* Law risk ^ dttst tmiar 200 n/sf » paint undar 1.0 m^tmli lov 
raaponsa - oomot m^ peeliofi paiBt» aasial dnst vipo taata. 

* Vodasata rld^ diist asdar 200 » ^aist aadar 2.0: aodasata 
raspoBsa aerraot anj pssliog paint* s— l-anmal dnst vipa 
tasts and Tlaual inspectloiu. 

* Hi^ '^^^ •* dut betavsa 200 aad 500» paalisg paint batvaaa 
1.0 aad 2*0s bl^ rvapoBaa tboroia^ BOD rsgolatioa. ol aa imp , 
stabiliaa all pesHoc palitt, foartazly vlpa tasts and 
iaspsotLott, coBsidsr partial or fall abataaoat. 


Digitized by 



* Brrar* risk - dust ormv 500, TpmmUag paist emv 2.0s 
— ig tn a y r — p o m e - TKcsts iraii 1— fffitlwy, eurj out fall 

OT«r i!li« peat 4- or 5 j**^^, ta21.-<mcm.lm oOBFnbuiKLTV I«id tntlAfl OOSts 
^n «n« do*fi froa #500 pwr imlt to uafiar ^125 P^P tmltj tlL«»a ca*t» «t« 
vtlLl folUiLi* lot l3mli3d±D« dlapos^ oo«t«, faai-4B4Xe vorat c*s« ftbateaesit 
ooatM ti4T» droppad OTar t4i« en* piiiod from about ^5,000 to ^,000 per imlt 
to ^|000 to ^dOfOOO par T^^t^ These costs aiiould tkleo cio^lnijie to ploamrt as 
■ore contraotarB Kit«? the fialdi K9d D?*ii.tlw flms msd eatreprinatirl&l 
isdlTldtiAlA eoAtlsiifl to Ispro^e t^e prod^oti and aethoda available > Issvaloc 
tlut dlspoe^I eoete are «-r«i]tii«XLr oontroIlAd, «DfttMi«BLt «cMiLa. ii«ll \f^ 
ao»MSJas9.hlj Bortt a>tt vff retire tli,ui oufdlne aasaavBaut sjmjLgvaant 
*tfflnyT ^^ i at I«e«t tn^ thA a.t««- of conTszLtlDsJLl pu'bllc bousfJig, an^ possiULy 
la all luiwlsff. It v&tOd be moat laafgrtanate to alialoat* i;kLa pi^o^VMi ^ 
allMia&tliif aoat opportoaltlaa fcir ftill««(^kla taatli^ aod a!bat«B«nt. 

2. Xa OCT rrrler of Hhm pxopMod IsflslKtioiii vt m« Mmzal axmrn of stanlae 
MTlt In iUs Ulls 

* Bm propoaad ftmiizif for AsaosflBAnt and rodnotion of laad paiat 
haaardA far I0¥*f#da¥&ll7 npportvd hooalsff is mr mooouttglLa^, 
afid ahoold be tha atartinK paint for attariklTig ilia aairara problOK 
of laad liMMinA* In p:rl^rate boaalu^. 

* fha propodAd. ela&i!l£i«^«e for laad haaarda and liasizd radnotlon 
1« e %oQd«!rfta Idea.. It voold co a loof mj toward pcortdljic an 
aaavatlal reaonma to tbm ^anmfl pabUo, aa «ail aa halp to elaar 
w^ tha taivlad vab of oonfllotliiff ragolatloiiia In ite laad haaard 

* Aa propoaad *aiidata itaat all lioaaa aold Iv ^Otm fedasal govaxnmaat 
ba laad aafa Till aerv« aa im esovUetit anttpla to tb* lioQdln« 
■aj^at, aa vail aa addrvaaijic a baale laaoa of falmaaa.. 

* Zba fiOl diaelQfltm of laAd has&rdfi at tlA» of aala or laaaa la 
alao « Tei^ falr-Bladed pnpov&lr and irlU afford lasaoapeetliif 
paraata a ^eater opportuaiiy to pfotaot -t^ialr ohlldraii. 

ni olo«ia«» I*d lUn to ralata thA ji¥Dlt«attixt of CEi*a attitadaa toaarda 
tbie laad pn'bl«a. In the lata 60*** CSI. eabarkad oa Ita fliAt taatin^ «3d 
abatesdt pt^Taa "Jdelcla^ and acfa«Bl3«" fb« lazg* g^itl^y* of staff tlaa 
and «apltoI ftmda natfl iiBalaa» fflTaa an iavialbla probLam and praaaliic 
■ffdazDlaation nseda. 

Bat nOVt aena 4 yaasa latar» va liava rararaad our opinion about laad 
alutonant. ¥o b&Ta fxadnally laaxsad haw to do taatias and abataftaat in an 
•ffaotlva and aafa ■aaaar* and ooata ara fast approaebisg raaaonabla larala. 


Digitized by 



EoweTBr* -&• rMl benefit to CE& mad lie teaAJots lies ta the fact that, «t 
least at aeTezal defelo^eata, ve lia-ve periHcieatlj' removed the daager. Xheae 
defelQpaaBta vUl not require lon< tern. ontlajB of staff tlse and ftinda to do 
assenAent, oostaiaaesta and specialised aaiateaaaioe. Ve flzmlj belie-ve tSiat 
this approach should be the nltlaate foal of' all honsln^ aanagers, and 
oertainlT- all public hoTislng aeaasezs. 

Digitized by 



Testimony of 

Allc« L. Brown 

Assistant Counssl 

MAACP Lsgal Dsfsnss & Educational Fund, Inc. 

Bsfora ths 

Subcommlttss on Housing and Urban Affairs 

of ths 

Ssnats Commlttss on BanXing, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

Thursday, March 19, 1992 

My name is Alice Brown and I am an Assistant Counsel with the 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) , the nation's oldest 
and largest civil rights law firm. Thank you Chairman Cranston for 
inviting LDF to participate in this roundtable hearing on the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. We are 
pleased to join distinguished colleagues from the environmental, 
low-income housing, and public health communities in support of 
this proposed legislation. 

Since its inception 51 years ago, LDF has been dedicated to 
litigation and civil rights advocacy on behalf of African- 
Americans. Towards this end, lawyers with LDF have brought cases 
to desegregate the public schools, to obtain voting rights for 
African Americans, to promote and obtain equal employment 
opportunity, and to protect and promote a host of other civil and 
political rights for all Americans. 

With regard to housing, LDF has brought cases challenging 
residential segregation and racially discriminatory policies and 
practices through both its Fair Housing Program and a relatively 

Digitized by 



new project called the Poverty and Justice Program. Among other 
things, the latter program is especially concerned with protecting 
and expanding the stock of low- income housing nation-wide and 
guaranteeing that every American - regardless of economic status or 
race - has the legal right to a decent, affordable home. 

Moreover, LDF is also concerned about the health and well- 
being of the occupants of that housing. Along these lines, we are 
increasingly being called upon to (1) investigate environmental 
matters as they impact upon African Americans and their communities 
and (2) advocate for environmental equality. One example of this 
type of demand is the recently concluded litigation of a landmark 
case entitled Matthews v . Cove , in which LDF and several other 
organizations represented two poor African American children from 
Long Beach, California who had been denied screening tests for lead 
poisoning under the Medicaid program. Now, under the settlement 
decree obtained in Matthews . the State of California is required to 
screen half a million of its poorest children, including poor 
minority children, for lead poisoning. 

Lead poisoning is a civil rights issue. The malady impacts 
the African-American and other minority communities especially 
hard. More than 66 percent of African American children residing 
in poor, center cities are estimated to suffer from lead poisoning. 
It is imperative that the federal government take action to attack 
the root cause of lead poisoning — lead-based paint — in its own 
house, that is, federally-subsidized housing, and in private low- 
income housing. LDF, therefore, supports the passage of the 

Digitized by 



Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. 

Lead Poiaonina; Tft^ y»fd t<?V I|»qigl»tiQ^ 

According to Secretary Sullivan of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, lead poisoning is the number one 

environmental health problem plaguing children in the United States 

today. In October 1991, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

issued a statement, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. 

which lowered the acceptable level of blood lead level from 25 

micrograms per deciliter to 10. The CDC statement declares that: 

Childhood lead poisoning is one of the most common 
pediatric health problems in the United States today, and 
it is entirely preventable. Enough is now known about 
the sources and pathways of lead exposure and about ways 
of preventing this exposure to begin the efforts to 
eradicate permanently this disease. The persistence of 
lead poisoning in the United States, in light of all that 
is known, presents a singular and direct challenge to 
public health authorities, clinicians, regulatory 
agencies, and society. 

Lead is ubiquitous in the human environment as a result 
of industrialization. It has no known physiologic value. 
Children are particularly susceptible to lead's toxic 
effects. Lead poisoning, for the most part, is silent: 
most poisoned children have no symptoms. The vast 
majority of cases, therefore, go undiagnosed and 
untreated. Lead poisoning is widespread. It is not 
solely a problem of inner city or minority children. No 
socioeconomic group, geographic area, or racial or ethnic 
population is spared. 

The effects of lead poisoning include decreased intelligence, 
loss of short-term memory, under-achievement in reading and 
spelling, impairment of visual-motor functioning, impotence, 
sterility, spontaneous abortion, anemia, convulsions, hypertension, 
kidney disease, and cancer. 

While lead is a poison that affects virtually every system in 

Digitized by 



the body, it is particularly harmful to the developing brain and 

nervous system of fetuses and young children, particularly those up 

to age five. Children have more hand-to-mouth activity than 

adults, resulting in greater exposure to lead contamination, and 

children's bodies absorb more lead than adults. ' Low-level lead 

contamination has been correlated with lower IQ scores, failure to 

graduate from high school, reading disability, deficits in 

vocabulary, problems with attention and fine motor coordination, 

greater absenteeism and lower class ranking. 

An estimated 17 percent of all American preschool children had 

blood lead levels that exceed 14 micrograms per deciliter. 

According to the CDC, over 17 million children nationwide — more 

than one in six — are estimated to suffer from lead poisoning. 

And, although it is true that lead does not discriminate based on 

race, class or geographic area, minority and poor children are 

disproportionately impacted by harmful lead exposure: indeed, over 

two-thirds of African American inner city children are estimated to 

be contaminated by levels of lead excessive enough to require 

medical intervention. Again, according to the CDC 

Although all children are at risk from lead toxicity, 
poor and minority children are disproportionately 
affected. Lead exposure is at once a by-product of 
poverty and a contributor to the cycle that perpetuates 
and deepens the state of being poor. 

Some progress has been achieved in preventing the risk of lead 

exposure, but large numbers of children, and particularly poor, 

minority children, continue to have blood levels high enough to 

cause adverse effects. While government regulations have reduced 

Digitized by 



the prevalence of leaded products, lead in products manufactured 
decades ago, notably lead-based paint, continue to expose many 
children to risk. Despite the limit on the lead content of new 
residential paint that was implemented in 1978 by the Consumer 
Products Safety Commission, millions of homes still contain old 
leaded paint. Old leaded paint, in fact, is the major source of 
high dose lead poisoning in the United States. According to data 
from a recent Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
report to Congress on lead in private housing, approximately 3.8 
million homes have priority hazards, and about half of those homes 
are occupied by lower- income families.^ 

Th^ Pyopoged Leqislatjon 

LDF supports enactment of S. 2341, the "Residential Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992", which would, among other 
things, (1) enact requirements for lead-based paint hazard 
reduction throughout all Federal housing programs; (2) authorize 
$500 million over two years to assist state and local governments 
in assessing and reducing lead-based paint hazards in private 
housing and; (3) require broad assessment and identification of 
lead-paint hazards and take a priority-based approach to reducing 
those hazards. 

Given the lead poisoning crisis that threatens the health and 
development of millions of American children, particularly poor and 
minority children, LDF believes that this bill is of great 

'HUD, Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of 
Lead-Based Paint in Privatelv Owned Housing! Report to Congress , 
p. 3-19. 

Digitized by 



importance. There are, however, several critical areas in which 
the bill should be strengthened. For instance, although the bill 
establishes a framework for doing risk assessments and implementing 
interim controls pending inspections and abatement, it does not 
require these measures in public housing. The- bill should be 
strengthened by requiring that public housing authorities conduct 
risk assessments and interim controls as soon as possible. 

Moreover, the bill should clearly establish the principle that 
all housing units sold by federal agencies — including the 
country's largest landlord, the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) 
— must be inspected and abated prior to disposition. And, along 
these same lines, requirements for inspection and abatement prior 
to sale must also be applied to units purchased by low-income 
families from public housing authorities through the HOPE Program 
and similar mechanisms. Low and moderate income families, those 
families who would be the primary benefactors of property sales 
through RTC or the HOPE Program, cannot bear the burden of 
unexpected lead paint cleanup costs. Therefore, it is imperative 
that the bill specifies that such properties must be inspected and 
abated prior to disposition. 

LDF believes that the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 should be an essential part of a greater 
federal effort dedicated to eradicating the hazard of lead-based 
paint. We commend Chairman Cranston for his efforts towards this 

Digitized by 






Sendees, Inc. 

wncieii iflwimcMiy oi 

KQei MihoDBj 

Pimideiiti liouiing £iiviroiioi|BiiUd Scrviooii aic 

UaSeoMB . . 

SuboQaunltteo on ifauriog ft Uibfn Affidn • 
'On The Pn^xMcd 
RfltkleDtia] Lead-Bbsed Paint jHnud Red^^ 

March 19, 1992 


Housing Enviranmental Seivioei, Inc. (HBS) fmvidet technical Mfvioet and aniitance to 
puldicboutii^sauthoritiei to oontrd and abate le^^ HESita 

cofpoiation aCBUated whfa the HouiiQg AuthoriQf 1^ Retention Gioqi^ Inc. (HARR(^ 
a non-profit mutual inurance company which piovidef liabfliQr iniu^^ 
half the naticm*! public bousiDg. liARRO ii niade-iq> iold|y of homfaig anthdritiei and ii 
owned and operated by its members. For the past three years HARRO has offered a 
unique program of coverage to its members for lead4)ased paim KaUttiy. 

We are pleased and hnpressed l>y the attentkxi gh«n fai the bill to IBf risk assessment and 
risk management for aU pre-197S housing. Such niMsures are kxQg overdue in the natkm's 
oklerhoush^ HARRG requires risk aSkissmenls and in-place managemem pipgrams to 
each and every pubfic bousiiig development it hmoes. 

I hasten to add, however, diat we caution pid)lic housing mtbotitieii that: 

1. such efforts are nmsohitiou to the hazards of UP, but merely stop-gap measures to 
control risks until buildings and grounds can be properly tested and ftdly abeted, and; 

2. risk assessment and risk reduction activities are not « one-time proposition, but are, of 
necessity, on-going programs which require trainfav of persons do^ mahttenanoe and 
repafr work and regular monitoriog and maintensince of pafatted surfiMCS. 

Digitized by 



19 March 1992 

Riik ■iMiiiiirnt and liik managftmerit ilipuldiKit be wen at tubititiiles fiar oompfehnnive 
Iff*^*^ ***^ f^^ ah^iMnftfit. tbit cufTOOt wonBog of tfw Tntpoiei^ lecckni of tlie biD injglit 
lead tone to bdieve tiiat tha Ctoqgiim fe caBtai te a le^^ 
forth in the Lead-Bated Pamt Fk)hM»btg Fpe^^ Act (LBPPPA) and tettHqg for an 
approach whidb %voiild caH for lOHienih^g leu' tfian tfie eailiett pcacticable eMmination of 
LBPhaiafds. PerfaapiIteaiiii(Qofthe*tiirpQiei^ieetionihoiildbeiDO¥ediiptoItein 
one(l). Moroimportant^ttiepropoiedaniendniem to the LBPPPA in Seetk»lQ2whk^ 
deietet laafiiqe caOhig £w the ahateinett of '^acf at weO at ^10^^ 
ertefiof painted lufftcei^ eoidd he ftad at. eJUniiMitlm the corrent le^niienient for 
abatcaMBt In Ak poihiic hniirim prognon (and pioip e ctl vri^ for aH odier federaUjp-aiilited 
hooting) and permitting^ initeadipeipMaliQ^rfaoeiiianageQient Snch a diangetf effected, 
would laite t|gnificaiit i|uettioni to lotomt irtio cover ddt riik (to our knowledge^ HARRG 
ii ttkt SK^ pietent intoier for ttandlt^g etpOMwet fton criMing LBP haiaidt)* Tlie tlieoiy 
and methodology JnvoivedirfthLBPrttaMMtiiKinr and ritkmanagem^ 
conti d e r edgoettworL Atjpetitheieitlitdeinthe^ofcooiiolledieteaRhvaliMQgthe 
felationriiip jbetaieen blood lead leveit and mete'practiDet. HARRO offtit tiie coverage at 
a teivloe to iti mendwrt becaoie dity need iti'bvt it topeiyitet lidc attettattut and hi-plaoB 
; (through HES) and it Ufget PHAt lo do coatprohefHh« tetdog and fuD 
t at toon at pot tMe i .b legiidt die coverage at a temporaiy progranii Jutt at it 
lanageoienL lAilBe -in-pttce inaMigtment programt for atbettoii in 
addietting LBP hattidti you are dealing with numy moro building componentt whidb are 
utaally immediately av^lable and tubject tb damage and near. At loQg at thqr remain 
contaminated di^ remain a. potentjal and veiy reid haaard. If in-place management 
rephiced abatement at die mediod for addranhig LBP hattrdtk HARRO might well re- 

ta■ ■■■_■_■- -^ ^Mt^^ jL^ i 

hi earlier teelimoHy beforo ddi commitiee certain gpoupt' advocated in-place \ 
of lend haiardt at elective and cott-benellcieL Ai a ttqphfqi for controiUog rid:, that view 
iiprdbeb^ accurate, b inutt be lecpgnind, hopiwer, that while befaig managed hi-place, 
die haatfd it itin pretem and dimdiniet a itat^ to chfldran who can be poitoned I7 
nundier of uneiqMCted and unforieen evienli.. Such hiteihn meaturet are undoubtedly lett 
e iye n t i ve (in mott catet) dian compiehentive tettiiy and ftdl abalement for the thort run. 
We thould be dear, dioei^'diat property cpndueted atteetmemt and interim oootrei 
prog r a m t aro not without cott - particular^ iRdiere environmental tampUi^ reveab 
unacceptable leveb of lend hi duttandAvtofl and remediation worlL mutt be done. Snoe 
dieie efteii nmtt be oi^gohiig, diero comee a tfanty hi teoie eatce.not n for down die 10^ 
when thote cottt equal dmte of .letting and 1 

Digitized by 




Section 203 of the bill dicecti the; HUD SecreMiy to develop and itfue guideKnes Cor 

•neiiment and interim oontnd activity. Baifier l^^ilativc directivet have called on HUD 

to consider the meriti of an interim contaliuneQt picigrBro fior LBP lu^ 

riik asseitmentt and interim cootainment actfvftiet In piii^ hou^ Prpgresi on thete 

initietives hat been dow and poorly coordinated within the Departewnt Atthough risk 

anennient and in-plaoe management are qfitemicaqy one procen, one ii being worlwd-on 

to the OfiBoe.of Putdic and Indian Hoai|i|g and thbotfatf 

tiie Office of PoU^ Devetopmem and EleiMarGh now worldng to the new O^^ 

Bated Paint Abatement and Poiidning Ptevention. Such retpontiUlitiet have not been. 

centraUiad in the OflBce of the Secretaiy at enviiioQed in the 1992 Appiopriationt Act 

Over the patt few montht I have been woridng wiUi a tmall group atiembled by the 
Department to atsitt hi drafting the "guidance" dncumentt for both ritk attettmeat and in- 
pboe management Interim containment ttandardt and materiab developed by HES over 
tiie btt two yeari for HARRp*t inturanoe pmramhiive been made available to the group. 
I would hope that the documentt developed m thit proceit win lerve tiie porpote of the 
Xhiidelines" caOed-fbr in thebilL Another word of caution in thit regard however, there are 
iNddely dififeriQg viewt on how extenthpe atf^Mmem and ritk managemem meatus 
be. In the iwinimaBtt viewi curtoiy in ipeciion,. ditdciture and paint maintenance are 
tufiSdent Our eiperienoe ihowi that tu^ an appi^adi could be worte than notUng at all 

HES ExpgrigPfifi 

Over the patt eij^teen montht HES liat been condudii^ LBP ritk attettmentt and attittittg 
PHAt in devek^xing hi*place managemem programt for forty-iome authoritiet rangfaig in. 
iize from Bahfanore and San Antonfo to Dover NH and Hamttamck, ML The work it done 
in the mahi by det<gn and environmental teivloet firmt formally tramed by HES and 
certified by HARRG. A good portion of tiie woric it performed directly by HES. Thit 
oq;)erience, I believe, can offer tevend ins|g)itt ttid a fie^ letiont tha^ 
oonnecdon with the attettment and taierim control aetiyitiet caDed-for in tiie MIL 

With regard to ritk atteitment: 

• It mutt hwoKe more than mere intpectku of painted turfooet and limited dutt 

• It should faKhide tod tampU^g. ' We liave encountered tevcral catet where LDP 
expoauiet In toil e«e e ded thqte in the bniMingt. 

• Exterior turfacet and ttruaurtt tuch at porchet, garaget, fencet and play equipment 
thouki be included. 

Digitized by 




• \Mm{n tmnta%eg> pg rfn mm iieft and g^MgJty rf iSnA ptopaff^ ownar ihould he gwaluatad. If 

there ii demonitnrted iiQgHgenofi or IneapAcb^ 

iii^ i^f im COiltSillQieilt eooiM 

• Hdwiipeiiitii^aiidfe-piiiitiiigperfo^^ If^eiidentt<lofbelrowniMintJiig»ititthey 
\ be treined in wofker and letideot pracecitloDi deen-up and dJipotaL 

Whh regard to in-plaoe ] 

• It mutt be leen at a eosxdm/iicii mm^^^ mabtebance effbrt imtfl full 
abatement Is completed. We have leen lead dpt level» riw to unacceptable leveb in 
window wells and on floori near doofi witbta three mooflit of eadentive and iocoessful 

• Owners and residents dKHikl be trained io tiiat tb^ undeista^ 

We have been surprised to fhid that; hi PMAs wia otbeiwiM eaooellem manage 
mahitenanoe programs, there was woefQl misinformatkui about LBP haiards. 

• Management and mahitenande persoonel shoutd modify repafr and fanprovement 
actMties to protect residents and workers. W^ have seen, for instance, unite prepared 
for re-occupanqr usiqg thtwi-hoiiared niethdds where dust lead levels were greatly 
increased usiog traditiooal mediods of scKipiiig and sandiqg before re-painting* 

• Every in-plaoe management program riiould have a residekit education component 
tailored to the conditions unoowned hi the risk assessment Resklentt need to know 
where to do housekeeping by !wet deanhig methods and what areas to keep children 
away fruoL 

Digitized by 



112S PMIeeMh Slicct. N.W. 




All Pacific Mortgage Company 


Mortgage Baaken AnodatioB of Aaierica 


Sabcommlttee on Housing and Urtan Affidrs 

of the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Uiimn Afbiri 

United SUtes Senate 

Hearing on Lead-Based Paint 



\%r-u) 5 fee 

Digitized by 



The Mortgage Bankers Association* recognizes the tremendous task the Senate Housing and Urban 
Affairs Subcommittee has undertaken in addressing the unfortunate public health hazard of lead- 
baaed fiaint MBA shares the Subcommittee's belief that lead-based paint is a serious public health 
oonoem. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that over 3 million children suffer from the 
deleterious affects of lead-based paint Unfortunate!/, despite the 1978 ban, lead-based paint 
promises to continue to be a public heahh concern for many more years. The problem is 
exacerbated by the number of houses that are potential^ affected by lead-based paint-experts 
contend that 57 million or 3/4 of the 77 million homes built before 1980 contain some lead-based 
paint Therefore, this is a national problem requiring Federal remedial action. 

MBA believes the primary obstacle to remedying the lead-based paint problem is Federal 
assistance. Removal of lead-based paint will cost between $7,700 and $11,900 per unit of housing. 
This additional cost without Federal assistance to offset the expense would price many young 
families of very tow, low, moderate and middle incomes out of the rental and homeownership 

We believe the Subcommittee bill is generally a good faith attempt to balance the pubUc health 
concerns with the potentially astronomkal costs of lead-based paint removal MBA would wekx>me 
the opportunity to participate in the HUD Task Force that wiU recommend methods to finance the 
assessmenU and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie 
Mac products. 

Notice and disclosure requirements represent a more reasoned approach to begin addressing this 
pubUc health issue. MBA supports the thrust of the bill that wouki require that buyers and renters 
be provided notkx of the potential hazards of lead-based paint and provided information on the 
potential consequences of exposure to lead-based paint. Due to the gravity of the situation, all 
buyers and renters should be able to make an informed decision factoring the potential exposure 
to lead-based paint into their decision to purchase or rent a home. 

While MBA is generally supportive of the bill, three areas are of particular concern: 1) 
notificatkHi/disdosure requirements should occur at the earliest possible time; and 2) federally 
mandated remedial action on lead-based paint should be applied uniformly. 

Early Warning 

'The Mortgage Bankers As80ciatk>n of America is a nationwide organization devoted exclusively 
to the fiekJ of residential and commercial real estate fmance. MBA's membership comprises more 
than 2,200 mortgage originators and servkxrs, as well as investors, and a wide variety of mortgage 
industry-related firms. Mortpge banking firms, whkh make up the largest portion of the total 
memborship, engage directly in originating, selling, and servkang real estate investment portfolios. 

Members of MBA include: 

• Mortgage Banking Companies • Mortgage Brokers 

• Conunercial Banks - Title Comp|anies 

• Mutual Savings Banks - State Housing Agencies 

• Savings and Loan Associations - Investment Bankers 

• Mortgage Insurance Companies - Real EsUte Investment Trusts 
- Life Insurance Companies 

Digitized by 



To aooompUsh notice and disclosure more effectively to potential buyers, MBA supports the 
Suboonunittee's requirement that the lead hazard information pamphlet be provided before the 
potential buyer enters into a contract on the property. MBA strongly believes that the most 
effective way to ensure that lead-based paint hazards are taken into account in the sale, rental, or 
renovation of homes and apartments is to ensure early disclosure. Potential buyers should be given 
the information pamphlet when they begin examining homes for purchase. This wfll ensure that 
buyers are notified of the potential hazard; are able to question the sellers as to testing conducted 
or efforts made to mitigate potential egqxMure to the hazard; and if they so desire, are able to factor 
the potential cost of abatement into the offering price. 

Uniform Treatment - ''' 

MBA is concerned that the bill does not engage in uniform treatment of all properties. MBA 
believes that the FHA single and multifamily inventory should not be subjected to a more onerous 
standard than non-FHA products. In its present form, the bill would require: an assessment and 
reduction in lead-based paint in 221(dX3) and 236 properties; a revision in policies and procedures 
including underwriting and appraisal guidelines govemmg the FHA single family insurance program 
to finance the assessment and reduction of lead-based paint hazards. MBA is concerned that these 
additional requirements will cause rents and mortgage amounts to increase on FHA insured 
properties which disproportionately serve lower income families. 

We welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns with the bill in greater detail at your 

Digitized by 







s«rv4ng American 
rsnial housing needs 

I r- 

2300 M STREET. N.W. / SUITE 260 / WASHINGTCX. D.C. 20037 / (202) 765-M«a 









MARCH 19, 1992 

Digitized by 







serving America's 
rer)lal housing needs 


2300 M STREET. N.W. / SUrTE 260 / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 / (202) 785-8888 

Hy name is Denlse Muha, executive director of the National 
Leased Housing Association (UlUh) . NZlIA*s aeabershlp consists of 
private owners, managers and developers of federally assisted 
housing as well as public housing authorities, non-profits and 
state agencies. 

First, Mr. Chaiman, let Be connend you for addressing the 
serious issue of lead-based paint by introducing the Residential 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. This legislation 
represents the first practical approach to reducing these hazards 
in federal and non- federal housing. 

We appear before this subconnittee today to lend support to 
your efforts and to offer brief comments relating to those 
provisions impacting government assisted housing. 

rmAing C9aqf niff 

NLHA supports the goals of this legislation as well as the 
mechanics of the bill which would provide federal assistance to 
states, localities, PHAs and owners of assisted housing to address 
the health hazards posed by lead-based paint. However, we are 
extremely concerned about the sources of funding for this effort. 
As you are well aware, federal housing programs have been subject 
to drastic funding cuts over the last ten years, yet the need for 
affordable housing continues to Increase. 

Indeed, the legislation you are proposing would go a long way 
in protecting families from the health hazards associated with 
lead-based paint, but at the same time it may have the 
unintentional effect of denying other families a decent place to 
live by allocating scarce federal dollars, which would otherwise be 
spent on providing low-income housing, to lead-hazard reduction 

To prevent further cuts in funding for housing, NLHA 
recommends that this subcommittee work closely with the HUD 
Appropriations subcommittees to ensure that funding for the Lead- 
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 will not be at the expense 
of other housing programs. 

Digitized by 



NLHA Testimony 
Page 2 

MiTlBliiiiq rtfltrti Rtiffuwti 

NLHA believes that in order to saximize scarce resources, 
abateaent of intact lead-based paint should be an approach of last 
resort. Lead hazard reduction efforts should be based on a 
priority system irtiich addresses <w»ftH4at-A health hazards due to 
chipping or peeling paint and/or the presence of lead dust instead 
of the potential threat of intact lead-based paint. 

We applaud this subcoaaittee for fomulating legislation which 
recognizes the need for a priority systea by shifting federal 
policy away from costly abateaent to a nore efficient interim 
containment approach. However, we recommend that the bill's 
language be more specific about limiting the use of federal funds 
for abatement purposes. 

NLHA is also concerned with the bill's provision (Section 102) 
which would require the assessment of lead-based paint hazards in 
all federally assisted housing constructed or substantially 
rehabilitated prior to 1978. In view of the bill's definition of 
assessment irtiich includes "data collected from risk assessments or 
inspections" this provision may also prove extremely costly. HUD 
estimates that the cost of testing for lead is approximately $374 
per unit. 

NLHA would suggest that inspections be based not only on the 
age of the housing, but also the condition of the housing and other 
relevant factors including the geographical concentration of lead 
poiscming cases. 

gwMJg Awirtntti ciroiiga 

We strongly support the bill's provisions to expand public 
awareness of lead hazards. Educating the public about lead 
exposure and providing advice on preventative and protective 
measures will go a long way toward eliminating the health risks 
posed by lead. We recommend, however, that such information detail 
not only lead-based paint hazards, but hazards posed by lead in 
soil and water as well. 

IfTiTO TnPTlt 

NI£A appreciates being given the opportunity to provide input 
on this iiqportant piece of legislation. We will continue to work 
with the subcommittee as the bill moves closer to passage. 

Digitized by 



Executive Offices • 525 South Virgil Avenue • Los Angeles. California 90020 • (21?; 739-8200 ' Fax (213) 480-7724 

March 19, 1992 

The Honorable Alan Cranston 


Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

535 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Cranston: 

Please find attached the written testimony of the California Association of REALTORS* on 
the Housing Subcommittee's March 19 hearing on S. 2341, the Residential Lead-Based Paint 
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. We have included five copies of the testimony for 
subcommittee members and staff. We hope our testimony will be made part of the 
subconunittee*s written record of these hearings. 

Thank you for considering the views of California REALTORS* on pending lead-based paint 


Chuck Lamb 

cc: Senator John Seymour 
Donald Campbell 
Garth Rieman 
Kris Warren 

H REALTOR* »jf<sitl*f«dinjrk»l«KliidtMrfmjpni<(MioMlM |SST 
real maw who wiMrnbn lo « unci Codr »< EihKt « » mcmbrr erf ^^bJ 
Ik. NATIONAL ASSOriATmM (V BFAI Tna«> iu«.«uM. 


Digitized by 



Written Testimony 

to the 

Subcommittee on Housing and Urban AfiEairs 

of the 

United States Senate 

on the Subcommittee's Consideration of 

S. 2341 (Cranston) 

the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 

Submitted by: 

Chuck Lamb 


California Association of REALTORS^ 

Los Angeles, California 

March 18, 2992 

L Introduction 

As President of the California Association of REALTORS*, the statewide trade association 
representing the interests of over 130,000 real estate licensees, I am grateful to have the 
opportunity to present CA.R.'s perspectives on S. 2341 (Cranston), the Residential Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. This testimony is submitted m conjunction with that 
presented by the National Association of REALTORS*. 

The primary business of C.A.R.'s members is the brokerage of real property, which includes 
representing sellers in the sale of their homes and owners/managers of apartment buildmgs in the 
lease of their units. It is this business focus and CA.R.*s recognition of the health threat posed 
to children by lead-based paint hazards that motivates CA.R.'s mterest in pending lead paint 

n. FHA Provisions 

CA^. favors the provisions of Section 102 of S. 2341 which allow borrowers of FHA-insured 
home improvement loans and rehabilitation loans to finance in their mortgages the cost of lead- 
based paint hazard assessments and hazard reductions. We also endorse Section 105 of S. 2341 
which requires the HUD Secretary to revise FHA underwriting guidelines and appraisal practices 
to allow FHA borrowers to finance the cost of lead-based paint hazard assessments and hazard 
reduction efforts in their insured mortgages. 

Digitized by 



page 2 

The Honorable Alan Cranston 

March 19, 1992 

We recommend that FHA mortgages originated to borrowers who are financing lead hazard 
assessments and/or hazard reductions be permitted to exceed the statutory loan limits on FHA 
loans. By doing so, the purchasing power of borrowers wishing to eliminate potential lead hazards 
in their homes is not unduly reduced and mitigation efforts will be encouraged. 

These provisions would be especially important to Califomians because of the state's extremely 
high home prices. The current maximum FHA loan of $124,875 does not come close to 
approximating the price of homes in most regions of California. Homebuyers who wish to reduce 
or eliminate their children's exposure to lead-based paint hazards should not have the already 
limited supply of homes which can be financed with FHA mortgages further diminished by their 
need to finance lead hazard mitigation and abatement measures. 

DL Task Force on Financing of Lead Hazard Reductioitt 

CA.R. supports the formation of a task force to provide recommendations on the financing of 
lead-based paint hazard assessments and reductions in private mortgages. Given the expertise 
of REALTORS* in assisting homebuyers to secure mortgage financing for their purchases, we 
would urge the Housing Subcommittee to include a REALTOR* as a member of the proposed 
task force. 

IV. Disclosure of Lead Information Upon Sale of Residential Property 

California has been in the forefront of the consumer disclosure effort m residential property sales. 
Consequently, C.A.R. is supportive of the provisions of Section 301 of S. 2341 which would 
require home sellers to disclose to purchasers the presence of lead paint hazards of which the 
seller is aware. Section 301 would also be consistent with current California law because it would 
require home sellers to provide lead hazard information pamphlets to purchasers. 

CA.R. has long believed that full disclosure of the condition of a property for sale is essential to 
the successful consummation of a real estate sale. As such, C.A.R. sponsored California's 
property condition disclosure statement statute. Simply put, under California law, sellers must 
disclose to buyers on a separate, statutorily mandated form the condition of the property, 
includmg the presence of any known environmental hazards such as lead-based paint The 
disclosure statement, which is signed by the seller and buyer, becomes part of the transaction's 
contract. Through full disclosure of a property's condition, much litigation has been avoided. 

California has also been among the forefront of states in attempting to educate home1>uyers about 
environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint Indeed in 1969, the California Lpgislature 

Digitized by 



page 3 

The Honorable Alan Cranston 

March 19, 1992 

mandated the development of a consumer booklet on environmental hazards which can affect 
residential property. California's "Environmental Hazards" booklet is intended to inform 
homebuyers about the most common environmental hazards, where they may be found and how 
they mi^t be mitigated. Specific hazards addressed in California's booklet include lead, asbestos, 
formaldehyde, radon, and hazardous wastes, mcluding household wastes, and lead. Under 
California law, if the environmental hazards booklet is made available to potential homebuyers, 
then home sellers and real estate licensees are not required to provide additional information on 
such hazards. Delivery of California's "Environmental Hazards" handbook, however, does not 
relieve California home sellers and real estate licensees of the responsibility to disck)se the 
existence of environmental hazards when such hazards are known to them. 

In that California has already developed an environmental hazards booklet which addresses lead- 
based paint hazards, we would suggest to the Housing Subconmiittee that provisions be 
incorporated into any final lead paint bill allowing for the certification of state-mandated 
pamphlets as being "substantially eqmvalent" with what HUD might require in a federally 
mandated lead hazard information pamphlet. Ultimately, CA.R. urges Congress to provide a 
mechanism that will avoid the creation of situations where two environmental hazard booklets 
would need to be distributed to homebuyers, one mandated by the State and the other by federal 
government. This, we believe, would duplicate efforts and only serve to confuse consumers. 

C.A.R. is also concerned with the provisions of Section SOI of S. 2341 which states that purchasers 
of "target" housing would have a "period of at least 10 days to have the premises assessed for the 
presence of lead-based paint hazards." CA.R. believes the time period for deciding whether or 
not to obtain a lead assessment should be left to the discretion of homebuyers and sellers. 
Indeed, some "target housing" will not be occupied by children; subsequently, the need for a lead- 
based paint hazard assessment may be minimal. In such cases, the buyer may not need "at least 
10 days" to have the premises assessed for the presence of lead-based paint hazards. Rather than 
the minimum time frame proposed in S. 2341, CA.R. believes the specific time period for 
deciding whether to obtain such an assessment should be left to discretion of the buyer and seller. 
Again as an example, California's Real Estate Purchase Contract and Receipt for Deposit allows 
homebuyers to specify the number of days in which they will have the option of obtaining items 
such as a physical property inspection or geological inspection. 

California REALTORS* are also troubled by the language of S. 2341 which states that contracts 
for the purchase and sale of target housing shall contain a statement signed by the buyer stating 
that the purchaser had "read the Lead Warning Statement (required to be included in real estate 
contracts) and understood its contents, (italics added)" Many states have a significant population 
of citizens for whom English is a second language. As such, it is not ahways possible for those 
involved m a real estate transaction to determine with certainty whether every aspect of a legal 
document has been in fact "read and understood." Smce it is real estate licensees who will be 

Digitized by 



page 4 

The Honorable Alan Cranston 

March 19, 1992 

explaining the required Lead Warning Statement to consumers, we are concerned that consumers 
who attested that they did "read and understand" the warning statement but who, in fact, had not 
understand the contract's warning statement, will take future legal action against the real estate 
practitioner should a problem related to lead-based paint hazards later develop. 

As opposed to the "read and understood" language of S. 2341, CA.R. believes it would be 
preferable to have consumers sign and date a statement stating that they have received a copy 
of the required lead hazard information pamphlet. This is the approach taken in California where 
consumers acknowledge by signing and dating a document that they have received a copy of the 
state's "Environmental Hazards" booklet, but where they do not acknowledge that they have "read 
and understood" the booklet. 

As the result of our concerns over increasing the legal liability of homesellers and real estate 
licensees as it pertains to lead-based paint hazards, C.A.R. believes strongly that S. 2341 should 
be very specific as to exactly what steps the homeowner and agent must imdertake in order to 
fulfill his/her disclosure responsibilities. Little legal protection is provided to sellers and licensees 
by a signed statement indicating a buyer had "read and understood" the legally required 
information. C.A.R. believes any final lead-based paint bill should shield sellers and licensees 
from liability if they meet their legislatively specified duties. 

Such a liability shield for home sellers and agents was created under California law with the 
addition of the following language to the state's "Environmental Hazards" booklet: 

If the environmental hazards booklet is made available to homeowners or prospective 
homeowners, real estate licensees and homes sellers are not required to provide additional 
information on such hazards. 

In reflection of California's transfer disclosure statement statute, however, this section of the 
"Environmental Hazards" booklet goes on to state that: 

Delivery of this publication to homeowners or prospective homeowners docs not relieve 
home sellers and real estate licensees of the responsibility to disclose the existence of 
environmental hazards when such hazards are known to them. 

CA.R. would strongly support similar liability provisions within S. 2341. 

Digitized by 




The Honorable Alan Cranston 

March 19, 1992 

IV. Lease of Target Housing 

CA.R. opposes the provisions of Section 301 of S. 2341 which would require lead-based paint 
hazard assessments of target housing offered for rent (i.e., pre- 1978 apartment units). As was 
indicated earlier, C.A.R. has always supported the right of the parties engaged in any real estate 
transaction to freely negotiate all aspects of a transaction. We believe that parties in a rental 
arrangement should also have the right to determine whether or not a lead assessment is 

CA^ is Jippreciative of the language of S. 2341 which would make this mandatory assessment 
proviiicMi effective only if the HUD Secretary determines that (1) there are a sufficient number 
of individuals to perform the required lead-based paint hazard assessments; and (2) the 
mandatory assessment provisions will not have a deleterious effect on the availability of affordable 
housing for families with children. We do question whether or not is possible to avoid impacting 
the availability of affordable rental housing, especially in those markets where the supply of such 
housing is already limited. 

CA.R. believes that mandatory testing of apartment units for lead-based paint hazards will have 
the precise effect of raising the rents on these units to levels that may be unaffordable for working 
families with children. It is estimated that the cost of lead-based paint hazard assessments will 
average $400 per unit. Abatement of lead-based paint hazards could average $8,000 per unit 
Most if not all of these costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rents. 

In the aggregate, the National Association of Realtors has estimated that lead testing will costs 
will total approximately $1 billion in IjOS Angeles, $479 million in San Francisco and $256 million 
in San Diego. Lead abatement efforts, meanwhile, will total approximately $20.9 billion in Los 
Angeles, $9.9 billion in San Francisco and $5.2 billion in San Diego. 

V. Conclusion 

The California Association of REALTORS* appreciates the opportunity to conmient on S. 2341 
(Cranston), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. For illustrative 
purposes, we have enclosed a copy of the California Enviroimiental Hazards booklet and the 
mandated California property disclosure form. Thank you for considering our views. If you have 
any questions concerning our testimony, please do not hesitate to contact Leslie Appleton-Yoong, 
Vice-President of Research and Economics, at (213) 739-8325. 

Digitized by 



Mmrdi 17. 1992 
Senate Housing Subcommittee 
United States Senate 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Uifoan Affain 
535 Diiksen Building 
Washington. DC 20510 

Members oi the Committee: 

I am writing for the record with regard to Senator Crmston's proposed Senate Bill S. 2341. 

I specifically refer to the section addressing federally subsidized homes and federally guaran- 
teed loans for housing. 

I would like to address the HUD, VA and FHA requirements with regard to the sale, financ- 
ing, and underwriting of pre- 1978 housing. 

My family purchased a **pre-1978** home (it was built in the late 1800*s) and oblainBd an 
FHA 203(k) r^abilitation loan. Although we signed a lead-paint notification fonn (Standard 
with any type of mortgage in New Yoik State) our home was never inspected for lead paint 
The notification simfdy uiformed us that there nught be a possibility of the presence of lead 
paint in houses built prior to 1978 and that peeling paint should be * 'sanded*' or "scraped** 
and "swept up.** 

Our loan came with a specific series of phases iji woik to be comfdeted and a deadline by 
which all woik must be finished. These phases and the deadline were a result of a onsite inspec- 
tion. At no time did FHA test for lead paint In earnest we set out to comply with FHA*s re- 

In the process our two-year-old daughter was poisoned by the rehabilitation woik. It was only 
by chance that we discovered her poisoning and it has only been through our perseverance and 
research that our daughter has received chelation therapy and that the lead-paint hazard in our 
house is being dealt with. 

Our sute and county health departments have little knowledge of how to deal with a lead- 
paint problem or a lead poisoned child. Our solution was to Uke our daughter out-of-state to 
Massachusetts for treatment My husband traveled to New Jersey and paid for a lead-paint 
abatement certification course to educate himself. As the executive editor iji two newspapers, 
I was able to enlist my staff to do research which resulted in a foor-pait series on the subject 
A series which we have reprinted in a handout fona and which has been distributed at a number 
of New Yoric Sute locations and, at the request of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poison- 
ing, in Washington, DC at last October*s conference. 

Between my husband and myself, we now have more knowledge about the problem and iu 
solutions than the officials in our sute. Something is very wrong with that . . . 

We currently pay our $900 a month mortgage payment as well as the cost of alternative 
housing since we cannot live in our home until the lead hazard has been removed. Not only 
must we eliminate the lead paint and dust inside the house, but we have yet to detemiine what 
to do with 16,000 square feet of toxic waste others call a yard. The soil in our yard measures 
3,000 ppm lead. (The federal government defines 500 ppm lead as toxic and eligible for 
Superfund cleaniu) funds. . . .) 

We consider HUD/FHA to be not only responsible but criminally negligent Of all the 
sources of infomnation on lead paint hazards in this nation, HUD*s Lead Based Paint: Interim 
Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Abatement in Public and Indian Housing is the most 

The HUD guidelines have been dted as the **bible** by which all should be guided. In addi- 
tion, HUD has a number of other texu on the subject — including the Comprehensive and Work- 
able Plan for the Abatement of Lead Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing ... A Report 
to (Egress (1990) — and HUD is the leading source of information for municipalities on lead 
hazards and residential abatement procedures. 

Further, according to the Federal Register, HUD/FHA is bound to "inspect the dwelling 
for defective paint surfaces . . . if . . . found the commitment or other appro^ document . . . 
will contain the requirement that the surface is to be treated . . . treatment of the surface shall 
be accomplished before the mortgage is endorsed for insurance . . . woric financed under 
203(k), an escrow procedure is permiaed provided that the defective paint condition will be 
abated in conjunction with the rehabiliution work and . . . completed as expeditiously as pos- 

HUD/FHA did not comedy with iu own guidelines when guaranteeing our loan. If it had 
our child would not have been lead poisoned. Its notification fomn instrocted **sanding*' of 
loose paint — one of the most dangerous methods of removal. HUD/FHA has all the expertise 
necessaiy to guide homeowners saicly through a lead -paint hazard. We have been infomied by 
a HUD inspector that **if you think we inspect eveiy house for lead we don*t.** 

This is gross and criminal negligence. 

Digitized by 



And we ire not akne ... we know of three other homeownen who have fuffered lead 
poisoned children because of the fedenl government*! negligence. These three come from three 
different states — ^New Hampshire, Connecticut and Pennsylvania — which gives strong indication 
that this practice of ignoring the guidelines is common and widespread. 

I call on you not only to go forward with S. 2341 but to include some sort of penalty for 
federal negligence and some sort of method by which homeowners can recover any financial 
losses caused bv federal negligence. 

The losses of intelligence suffered by the children cannot be recovered. 


Anne M. Sheehan 
Chatham, New Yoik 


aMdMiii,New Yofk 12037 


53-652 (296) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

ISBN 0-16-038655-1 



Digitized by 


Digitized by 



ISBN 0-16-038655-1 





Digitized by VjUO'^IC 

Digitized by 


3 blDS D15 137 S3D