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
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED F f HAZARD
REDUCTION ACT OF 1992
— X-
HEARING
BEFORE THE
. SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING, AND UBBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
^^ ON
S. 2341
TO PROVIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF LEAD-BASED
PAINT HAZARDS IN HOUSING
MARCH 1^992
Printed for the use of the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
U.8. GOVERNMENT PRINnNG OFFICE
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
Google
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
DONALD W. RIEGLE, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
ALAN CRANSTON, California JAKE GARN, Utah
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut PHIL GRAMM, Texas
ALAN J. DIXON, DlinoiB CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
JIM SASSER, Tennessee CONNIE MACK, Florida
TERRY SANFORD, North CaroUna WILUAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama PETE V. DOMENIQ, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, Kansas
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
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
JIM SASSER, Tennessee ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York
TERRY SANFORD, North Carolina PHIL GRAMM, Texas
BOB GRAHAM, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CONNIE MACK, Florida
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada WILUAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland PETE V. DOMENIQ, New Mexico
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, Kansas
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
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
(II)
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992
Page
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
WITNESSES
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
(ni)
00 (*
v^oogle
^^^^^ 53-005-00 (*
Digitized by ^
IV
Page
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
Google
V
Page
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
Google
DigitizecrB7
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT
HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992
U.S. Senate,
C!OMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND UrBAN AfFAIRS,
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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALAN CRANSTON
Senator Cranston. This hearing roundtable will please come to
order.
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
(1)
Digitized by
Google
throughout this country — ^is a major conduit for ingesting lead
dust.
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
taken.
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-
gies.
Only in public housing is HUD — ^under persistent prodding from
Congress — ^implementing a full scale testing and abatement pro-
gram.
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
Google
3
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
them.
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
questions.
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
Google
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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALFONSE M. D'AMATO
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-
tirety.
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.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALFONSE M. D'AMATO
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
Google
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
today.
Senator Cranston. Thank you all very much. Senator Bryan?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD H. 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.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD H. BRYAN
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-
ment.
Digitized by
Google
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
housing.
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.
PREPARED STATEMENT FROM SENATOR DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.
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
prevented.
Digitized by
Google
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.
TIMOTHY & ANTOINETTE BURKE, EMMAUS, PA
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
Google
8
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
have.
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
time.
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
Google
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
children?
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
Google
10
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-
sponsibilities.
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
people.
Senator Cranston. What made you aware that there might be a
problem?
Digitized by
Google
11
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 ELLEN SILBERGELD, PROFESSOR OF PATHOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SCHOOL, BALTIMORE, MD
Dr. SiLBERGELD. I am Ellen Silbergeld from the University of
Maryland.
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
source.
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?
JOSEPH SCHIFF, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND
INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE-
VELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
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
made.
Digitized by
Google
12
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
Google
13
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-
cient?
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
Google
14
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
America
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
chips.
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
negotiate.
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
Google
15
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
had?
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
Google
16
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
that?
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.
ARTHUR NEWBURG, OFFICE OF LEAD-BASED PAINT ABATEMENT
& POISONING PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
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
that.
Digitized by
Google
17
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
hepa-vacuuming.
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-
moved.
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
Google
18
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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
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
paint.
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
Google
19
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.
GEORGE PEEK, CHAIRMAN, NAR WORKING GROUP ON LEAD-
BASED PAINT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, WASH-
INGTON, DC
Mr. Peek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to
be here and to present the comments from the Nationial Associa-
tion.
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
us.
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
Google
20
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-
lems.
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-
gory.
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
question.
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
Google
21
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-
quirement.
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-
points.
DON RYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ALLUNCE TO END
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING, WASHINGTON, DC
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-
tive.
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
Google
22
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
bUl?
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
Google
23
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.
HAROLD SHULTZ, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGAL AF-
FAIRS, CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
DEVELOPMENT, NEW YORK, NY
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
limited.
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
more.
And that is going to restrict the availability of those apartments
to people who need affordable apartments.
Digitized by
Google
24
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-
ognition.
MILAN YAGER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENT
AND ENERGY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS,
WASHINGTON, DC
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
Google
25
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
exposed.
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
Google
26
CARROLL VINSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSIGNIA FINAN-
CIAL GROUP, NATIONAL MULTI-HOUSING COUNCIL, WASHING-
TON, DC
Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
And our primary focus being in the multifamily business is on
apartments.
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-
lem.
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-
listed.
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.
CUSHING DOLBEARE, CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL LOW INCOME
HOUSING COALITION, 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
Google
27
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-
priate.
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
subsidies.
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
Google
28
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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
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
possible.
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?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN 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
Google
29
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
subject.
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.
[Laughter.]
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-
tional.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sarbanes. Now, that's a very political answer.
Mr. Gavanaugh. Any comments on where a Philadelphia lawyer
fits in there?
[Laughter.]
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
Google
30
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
testing.
Senator Cranston. I now recognize Lisa Mihaly, who's of the
Children's Defense Fund.
LISA MIHALY, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC
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-
ly.
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
Google
31
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.
DAVID JACOBS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST,
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ATLANTA, GA
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-
ment.
Digitized by
Google
32
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
Google
33
Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes. FU call on three of you in a row.
First, Ms. Florini, then Mr. Farr, then Mr. Ewall.
KAREN FLORINI, SENIOR ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC
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
provisions.
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-
sure.
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?
NICK FARR, VICE-PRESIDENT, THE ENTERPRISE FOUNDATION,
COLUMBU, MD
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
Google
34
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?
WILLIAM EWALL, SENIOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR,
CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA
Mr. EwALL. Thank you. Senator, and thank you for inviting me
here.
Digitized by
Google
35
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
here.
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
Google
36
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?
ALICE BROWN, STAFF COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
FUND, NEW YORK, NY
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
problem.
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
Google
37
potential fair housing implications to be addressed explicitly in the
bill.
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-
ards.
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?
Yes?
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
Google
38
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-
ing.
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-
lems.
Digitized by
Google
39
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
problem.
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-
pensively.
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-
profit.
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
Google
40
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.
Yes?
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
Google
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-
tion.
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
problem.
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-
fications.
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
Google
42
MILES MAHONEY, PRESIDENT, HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., CAMBRIDGE, MA
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
developments.
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
Google
43
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
requirement?
How do we deal with that issue?
Yes?
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
Google
44
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
person.
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
building.
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
Google
45
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-
ards.
Senator Cranston. Yes, Mr. Tasker?
HERBERT TASKER, PRESIDENT, ALL PACIFIC MORTGAGE
COMPANY/MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION, CONCORD, CA
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
Google
46
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-
ognized.
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
Google
47
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
much.
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
Google
48
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?
Yes?
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-
lem.
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
run.
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
done.
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-
ness.
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
Google
49
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-
stances.
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
paint.
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-
tion.
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.
Yager.
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
Google
50
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
Google
51
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
today.
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
objectives.
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
Google
52
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
adjourn.
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
today.
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
Google
58
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-
journed.
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
Google
54
102D CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2341
To provide for the assessment and reduction of lead-based paint hazards
in housing.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
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
A BILL
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,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
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
Google
55
2
Sec 4. Definitions.
TITLE I— RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION
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-
duction.
Sec. 107. National consultation on lead-based paint hazard reduction.
TITLE n— ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE
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.
TITLE ni— PUBLIC INFORBiATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Sec. 301. Disclosure of information concerning lead upon transfer of residential
property.
Sec. 302. General notice requirements.
Sec. 303. Public awareness.
Sec. 304. Information and warning labels.
Sec. 305. Relatk>nship to other laws.
TITLE IV— FORMULATION OF A NATIONAL STRATEGY
Sec. 401. National strategy.
TITLE V— RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
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>'.
TITLE VI— REPORTS
Sec. 601. Reports of the Secretaiy of Housing and Uii>an Devek>pment.
1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
2 The C!ongress finds that —
Digitized by
Google
56
3
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
Google
57
4
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.
17 SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
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
Google
58
5
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.
20 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
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
Google
59
6
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
Google
7
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
Google
8
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
Google
9
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
Google
6S
10
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
Google
64
11
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)).
•S8S41I8
Digitized by
Google
65
12
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
Google
13
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.
6 TITLE I— LEAD-BASED PAINT
7 HAZARD REDUCTION
8 SEC. 101. GRANTS IX>RI£AD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUC-
9 TION IN TARCaST HOUSINO.
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
Google
14
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
Google
68
15
* 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
Google
16
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
Google
70
17
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
Google
71
18
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
Google
72
19
1 SEC. 102. ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF LEAD-BASED
2 PAINT HAZARDS IN FEDERAL HOUSING PRO-
3 GRAMS.
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
Google
73
20
1 (b) HOMB INVESTBIENT PARTNERSHIPS. — Section
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:
•sssaia
Digitized by
Google
74
21
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
Google
75
22
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.".
6 (f) HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OP MULTIPAMILY
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
Google
76
23
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.".
4 (g) HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OP SINGLE PaM-
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
Google
77
24
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
Google
78
25
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)".
6 SEC. 103. DISPOSmON OF FEDERALLY OWNED HOUSING.
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.".
20 SEC. 104. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABIUEIY
21 STRATEGY.
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
Google
79
26
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
Google
80
27
1 data on the addresses of housing units in which ehil-
2 dren have been identified as lead poisoned.".
3 SEC. lOS. ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF LEAD-BASED
4 PAINT HAZARDS UNDER FHA INSURANCE
5 PROG«AMS.
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
Google
81
28
1 STC.10a TASK I^ffiC^ ON PnVATE SECTOR FINANCING OF
2 LBAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION.
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.
18 SEC. 107. NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON LEAD-BASED
19 PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION.
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
Google
82
29
1 TITLE II— ASSESSMENT AND
2 REDUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE
3 SEC. a01.CX>NTIUCTOR TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION.
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.
7 SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION OF LABORATORIES.
8 AU federally supported assessment of lead-based
9 paint hazards shall be conducted in laboratories certified
10 by the appropriate Federal agency.
11 SEC. 203. GUIDELINES FOR LEAD-BASED PAINT ASSESS-
12 MENT AND REDUCTION ACTIVITIES.
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
Google
88
30
1 qairements than the Federal guidelines, in which ease
2 such work shall be condueted in accordance with the State
3 or local regulations.
4 SEC. 204. MONITORING OF LBAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD
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
Google
84
31
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.
5 SEC. 205. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE ON RESIDENTIAL
6 LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING.
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
Google
85
32
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.
4 TITLE III— PUBLIC INFORMA-
5 TION AND TECHNICAL AS-
6 SISTANCE
7 SEC. aOl. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING
8 LEAD UPTOf TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL
9 FROFERT7.
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
Google
86
33
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
Google
34
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
Google
05
35
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
Google
IS^
36
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
Google
37
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
Google
91
38
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
Google
92
39
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
Google
93
40
1 (f) EppEcnvE Date. — ^Regulations promulgated
2 under this section shall take effect 3 years after the date
3 of enactment of this Act.
4 SEC. 902. GENERAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
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.".
22 SEC. 303. PUBUC AWARENESS.
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
•S2841IS
Digitized by
Google
94
41
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
Google
95
42
1 SEC. 304. INFORMATION AND WARNING LABELS.
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.
18 SEC. a06. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.
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
Google
96
43
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.
7 TITLE IV— FORMULATION OF A
8 NATIONAL STRATEGY
9 SEC. 401. NATIONAL STRATEGY.
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
Google
97
44
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).
11 TITLE V— RESEARCH AND
12 DEVELOPMENT
13 Subtitle A— HUD Research
14 SEC. 601. RESEARCH ON LEAD EXPOSURE FROM OTHER
15 SOURCES.
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.
21 SEC. 602. TESTING TECHNOLOGIES.
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
Google
98
45
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.
19 SEC. 503. AUTHOMZATION.
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
Google
99
46
1 Subtitle B— GAO Report
2 SEC. 511. INSURANCE STUDY.
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.
15 TITLE VI— REPORTS
16 SEC. 601. REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND
17 URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
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
Google
100
47
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-
•S2841IS
Digitized by
Google
101
48
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.
O
•8 2841 IS
Digitized by
Google
102
TESTIMONY
-i" before the
SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
by
Mr. Timothy J. Burke, Sr.
and
Mrs. Antoinette 0. Burke
March 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
103
Mr . Timothy J . Burke , Sr .
Mrs. Antoinette D. Burke
1328 Arch Street
Emmausr PA 18049
(215) 967-9087
March 10, 1992
W*A*R*N*I*N*G
THIS DWELLING UNIT
CONTAINS DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF LEAD PAINT
AND IS UNFIT FOR HABITATION BX
PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN UNDER
SIX YEARS OF AGE
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
Google
104
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
house.
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
Google
105
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
SURFACES ON THE WINDOWS WERE INDEED DEFECTIVE AT THE TIME THAT WE
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
Google
106
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
Google
107
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
tested.
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.
Sincerely,
Timothy J . Burke , Sr .
Antoinette D. Burke
Digitized by
Google
108
CITY OF
ALLENTOWN
PENNSYLVANIA
18101
BUREAU OF HEALTH
MAI LINO AOORCSS
43S HaniUMi Stiwt
AUentowB. Pi. 18101
OFriccs
723 Chew Stieet
AUeatown. Pi. 18102
PHONES
437-7759-437-7760
November 25, 1991
Timothy & Antoinette Burke
114 S. Carlisle Street
Allentown, PA 18103
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Burke:
RE:
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
list.
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.
Sincerely,
(5-^
Garry Rittefv^R.S.
Environmental Protection Specialist
6R:aek 11.21
Attachment
Certified # P 124 415 531
-AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M/F/H-
Digitized by
Google
109
Novenber 25, 1991
Page 2
114 S. Carlisle Street
Allentown, PA 18103
F07ER
Entrance door (Interior & Exterior)
Right wall window sash (#2 & #4)
I>oorway to livingroom
LIVINGROOM
Right wall windows
Right sash
Right well
Right Jamb
Left sash
Window to foyer
Well
Front window
Left sash
Left well
Left J^ob
Right jaab
Right well
KITCHEN
Right wall window sash
I>oorway to pantry
I>oor .iamb
Door lintel
PANTRT
Rear wall
Right wall window
Dividing board
Right sash
Right well
Right .lamb
Left sash
Left well
Left Jamb
CELLAR
Left stairway wall
CAlLA'S ROOM
Right wall window
Sash
Well
Jamb
Facing wall window
Sash
Well
Jamb
COLOR
CONDITION
VALUE
White
White
White
Tight
Tight
Tight
10.0^
1.0 .
10 .0/
White
White
White
White
Tight
Worn
Tight
Tight
10 .ov
3.8
1.9
White
Worn
10.0 >/
White
White
White
White
White
Worn
Flaking
Tight
Tight
Flaking
1.9
10.0^
8.9
10.0 J
Beige
Chipped
1.7
Beige
Beige
Gouged
Tight
10 .o>/
10 .OV
Beige
. *«iP
3.9
Beige
Beige
Grey
Grey
Beige
Grey
Grey
Tight
Tight
Chipped
Chipped
Tight
Chipped
Chipped
10 .o{
lO.OV
4.9
10 .Ov/
1.5 .
10.0 v/
10.0.^
Beige
Tan
Grey
• Tan
Tan
White
White
Tight
Chipped
Worn
Worn
Worn
Worn
Chipped
1.3
1.7 I
10 .On/
7.5
u.
10.0 V-
10.0 n/
Digitized by
Google
no
November 25,
Page 3
1991
RE: 114 S. Carlisle Street
Allentovn, PA 18103
T.J.'S ROOM
Facing wall windows
Right sash
Right well
Left well
Left jamb
STORAGE ROOM
Facing wall window
Uell
Jamb
Right wall window
Well
Jamb
BATHROOM
Door .iamb
Window
Sash
Uell
Jamb
COLOR
Tan
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
White
CONDITION VALUE
Tight
Chipped
Worn
Worn
Worn
Worn
Peeling
Peeling
Tight
White
Cracked
White
Worn
White
Worn
1.8 ,
10 .Ov/
10 .0/
10. OV
10.0 >(
10.0/
10 .on/
10.0 /
1.8
10.0^/
10.0 N'
3RD FLOOR
Closet -window sash
Pink
Tight
4.0
Digitized by
Google
Ill
\
LOAN NUMBER:
APPLICANT(S):
ADDRESS:
FHA/VA#:
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
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,'^^ • ''
• '^.
'•• ^— ^_^
SIGNATURE
'-• , -'
• ■■ /
,' . ,
SIGNATURE
' ■ '■":.:
DATE
tt
.V
*
WATCH OUT FOR
LEAD PAINT POISONING
NOTICE OF LEAD PAINT POISONINO
TMS 17042 Rev.6/t7 pre
WHITE - Return to TMS YEUOW • Applicant
PINK • Fie
Digitized by
Google
112
TESTIMONY
OF DR. ELLEN K. SILBER6ELD
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
PROGRAM IN TOXICOLOGY
ON
RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT
Senate Subcommittee on Housing
and Urban Affairs
March 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
113
TESTIMONY OF DR ELLEN K. SILBERGELD
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
Google
114
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
Google
115
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
Google
116
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
Google
117
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
Google
118
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.
/
Ca
Ion
Channel
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
Google
119
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
8
Digitized by
Google
120
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
Google
121
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.
10
Digitized by
Google
122
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
11
Digitized by
Google
123
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
12
53- 652 O - 92 - 5
Digitized by
Google
124
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
13
Digitized by
Google
125
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
14
Digitized by
Google
126
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
daycare.
More funds are needed for abatement activities, but the true
15
Digitized by
Google
127
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.
16
Digitized by
Google
1Z6
Sebaal ^ JMVUkM
University cx' Maryland uNivnsmrpioGiAiinfToxioou)OT
AT BALTIMORE
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
negatively.
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
screening.
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
poisoning.
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
Google
129
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
Google
130
€: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
program.
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
Google
131
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
Google
132
Abstract
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
Google
133
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
Google
134
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
Google
135
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
Google
136
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
Google
137
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
Google
138
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
substantiated.
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
Google
139
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
Google
140
riPR-09-l992 16:35 FROM EPfi RTP NC
83S1328&203 P. 16
^ III
I
qfl
|3|l
1!
I
I
[f II III
8 8 8 8
lltl
nil
J i ?
Digitized by
Google
141
nftP-09-1992 16:35 FROM EP« RTP NC
63013286203 P. 17
m CD
iili
ini
ill-
\i
f
ii
li II
!
I
II 1
R 8 8 9
8 IS
Digitized by
Google
142
nPR-e9-1992 16<36 FROM EPA RTP NC
63013266203 P. 16
CD u ^
III
T 9
1 i
I
SB uSS £&
Sill
iHil
Digitized by
Google
143
MPR-e9-1992 16536 FROM EPft RTP NC
83013286203 P. 19
^'8
I
I
■s
I *
I Is
i I
I
5 till iih
§
I
5 If
i
t I I
i
1 '^
t^
IS ^
I III if I II 111'
Hi If H; i d
^s
Digitized by
Google
144
MPR-09-1992 16537 FROM EPfl RTP NC
83013286203 P. 20
.■s
h
lllll iiiisii Mi^^^^ III s
1
r I
III
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 ?
^1
|t
3 3
it pi 1
^1
Lif
111]
HI
'2-
II t
iif
I
si
ll
IP
li
ill
li
it
8ll
Digitized by
Google
145
rWR 09-1992 16:37 FROM EPft RTF NC
83S13256203 P. 21
CO
I
^1
Ill i'^B
ill l«s
1^
II
lle&«
II;
9
S
I'
|! I I
Ivll -sis
III
!
I
CO
gi
ts
If
ill
i
Digitized by
Google
146
nRR-e9-1992 16J37 FROM EPfi RTF NC
63013286203 P.22
B
h
|l
n
11^
I
I
a
SSSI3S SSSs
3 iS3i§
9S3SSS SiSS
§ SSSS3
i iiiiii iifi
!l!!!
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
I I I I IIII
ilSEEIS m$ 8ESS X8 tSSBS
I IIIIIS IIS!
ft mis
S nnU S!» ^lilll ^^ »3SS
iiiiiii
111
]|{ |ii III ill ill III
I
I
t
u
t i
Digitized by
Google
147
rK«-09-l992 16:38 FROM EPf> RTF NC
83013286203 P. 23
n
§
1
1'
Is I II l-l
tt> TS w WW s<S-fi
1-AI V VV r^Vi?
I I !
I
* tI t- <m 84 k.
i
?
S3
n
I
f
I
I
II
g
I
I"
Digitized by
Google
148
rif«H39-1992 16=36 FRCDM EPft RTP NC
63013253203 P. 24
1 ^
c B
IS
£ o
OS
§1
■So
UJ «
I
I
■o
c
ca
s
3
(0
« a s ? •
(»4I. X) Aiiniea AiHiqvqaid
I
i
I
J!
!
t
til
Digitized by
Google
149
rW>-0?-1992 16:39 FROM EP« PTP NC
83013266203 F.2S
CB<
a S 8 8 8 g
MI008 MUMIUOfMd MRIUBOO
Digitized by
Google
150
r*«-09-1992 16S39 FROM EP« RTP NC
63813286203 P. 26
Digitized by
Google
151
Acknowledgments
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
Google
152
References
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:
826-833.
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:
497-503.
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
Google
153
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
1991.
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:
297-300.
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:
21S-229.
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
Google
154
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
Series.
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
Google
155
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
Google
156
FINAL
TESTIMONY OF
JOSEPH 6. SCHIFF
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
OF
THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
OF
THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
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
Google
157
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
Google
158
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
Google
169
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
Google
160
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
Google
161
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
Google
162
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
Google
163
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
8
Digitized by
Google
164
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
Google
165
planned that the hotline will open this spring with an initial
capability to respond to a limited range of questions pertaining
primarily
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
10
Digitized by
Google
166
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
11
Digitized by
Google
167
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
12
Digitized by
Google
168
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
13
Digitized by
Google
169
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.
14
Digitized by
Google
170
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
15
Digitized by
Google
171
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
16
Digitized by
Google
172
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.
Conclusion
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
17
Digitized by
Google
173
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
Subcommittee.
18
Digitized by
Google
174
Statement Of the
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS'
THE WORLiyS LARGEST TRADE ASSOOAnON
STATEMENT OF GEORGE PEEK
ON & 2341
BEFORE THE
SimCO MMlT IEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
MARCH If, 1992
Digitized by
Google
175
STATEMENT OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOOATION OF REALTORS*
ON S. 2341
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMriTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SENATE €X>MMnTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
MARCH 1% im
INTRODUCTION
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
Google
176
2
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.
LEAP HAZAJW INSPECTION TOP TO THE roI^^^ 9
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
Google
177
3
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
membership.
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.
ECONOMIC IMPACT ON HOUSING VALUES AND AFTORDABILITY
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
Google
178
4
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
Google
179
5
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
Google
180
6
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.
MVLTI-rAMlWY PROPERTIED
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
Google
181
7
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.
FINANCIAL AND LEGAL INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY ACTIQN ON LEAD
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
Google
182
8
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
Google
183
9
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
CREATION or A LEAP TESTINQ AND AgATEMENT INrRASTRVCTVRE
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
completed.
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
Google
184
10
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
location.
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
rWMCEPVCATIQN
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
Google
185
11
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
Google
186
12
POTIES Qf REAL ESTATC AGBafTS
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
law.
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
Google
187
13
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
wwayaow
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
Google
188
ATTACHMENT I
Estimated Cost of Testing for Lead-Based Paint
In the USA and Selected Metropolitan Areas
a^tkfanllM
« tff OcrqpM I. nib
Tolal Cwt br 1
Tatlnt 1
UM
7i,65J
ix»
«75
«:9JBUUoD I
CHlnJCMlH
M,TM
11.4
flj
KLd billion 1
Satarta
MJ»
TtJ
nj
UJIdlhia
N.f«l)»i
I7,«l*
PU
37*
MBfllkn
Mitmmi
»uu
MLT
37*
T^BUUm
SMrtb
*s,*«
nj
ST*
fJBUlKH.
Wmt
19^1
•OJ
373
ITBUlloD II
METRO AREA
AawM*
7S4
7SuS
31S
UZMMmea
RaiUmofw*
74J
■1,1
37i
ZJ9.A MfUldfl
■Mtetl
1^
*aL4
3Ti
SU,1» MUUoD
rijuiiiiiM"
iSi
■*.D
37i
lAJMllltalD
PallM
«»
«&»
37S
135^ MUlkib
PCUDIL
1,47<
nj
37S
MLIMltlloi}
Fl Worth
334
C7.0
ns
111 J MOllon
Harlfcrd*
JSJ
W.f
375
131-4 MUlkiB
HflUSlOB*
Jf77
71^
3T5
3M^4MUUdB
tWJl
HlT
S7S
IjDBUUdd
750
ll.l
375
m.iMinu>n
NnrYork*
4.3*1
»tf
yjs
l.fiSOlklD
IJOA
ii.7
17S
iO»4Millkm
PlKHDlm
in
<4J
17S
lilji MUlloD
StJaWtr**
4M3t
■IJ
37S
IS&IMUUm
SufrandKv
l^i
*L|
37S
4794 MOUoil
ShIIIi"
Ttl
Mis
179
3?7.(l Minion
Sl,U«itk*
09
»JJ
575
313^ MUhm
TUMM
<2*
TO
i7i '
JUJMlUlDD
1.17*
*t.f
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
Google
189
ATTACHMENT II
Estimated Cost of Abatiiig Lead-Based Paint
In Oe USA aad Seleeltd MetrapoHtra Anas
S«n>ttotlM9
iiAifci^tiit
Afe-ctpc
1]«A
mtM
■3Li
IT.7W
•40&4BU11OA
Untwrnitmrn
mnt
nj
T,T»
SOLlSUUftq
S^n«t
*MN
wu
T*W
1»4,4 BilUon
f4«rtbwt
1T,*(*
TCJ
T.™
1J&* BUUon
mtmm
»3«
iLt
-^.-JDO
\UA %mao.
iHlfc
Ifl^MJ
Tat
7>7D»
lM.OBIlU<m
mm
tMU
tOJ
7.70i
LITJ BUUm
MEntOAHEA
JOiMmim*
Tfi
7SJ
7.700
SJBUUm
■,TllM.n'
74!
mi
7,7(10
9>7BlUtoo
»OdH
lj»i
MM
7.700
ia7BlllkHi
aik«c>^
3^«
*j^
7,»70
|t.7BIUkui
-■ - '
491
no
7.700
14U11I«.
Dik
kit
U.f
7,T70
4JlU)l«n
DvtmV
i^U
9vJk
7,770
IL4Bmiui
riWMik
314
€IM
7.770
3JIBlDk»
HuUM-
3S3
*>,*
7.T70
27 BUJIon
Uomtod*
m
TU
xtn
73ilUton
LmAdtM
1 vol
MT
T,T7a
JAl4 Billion
Mi|H«ipUli^r»«
?»
•1.1
T.770
J^BUItod
T«f*Y«ffc*
4.3«
•*,•
T,no
JClBliUon
W^
»1.7
T.770
13l#B4iy0a
PbHBb
Ul
#4.)
T,77fl
JJBilUoD
s«.n^
tfIS
IIJ
T*TOO
UBfUtoD
■uh»cta»
l,Itl
VILl
T,T7tt
#.* Billion
»Mi^
7SJ
•£]
Th7»0
«.] BUUar
SLLapkl*
«313
flJ
7,770
MBUlkm
T»ip.
«1»
H3
7,770
44BUJIOD
Wa!bS4i«, DlC;
l,lTi
il.i
T.T70
*.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
Google
190
(Attachment III)
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
THM mSCLOtUm STATIMENT CONCERNS THE REiU. mOPCIinr SrriMJEO IN THE Cr^
At-
. COUNTY OP .tWnOPCAUFOIMU,
THMSnJIMfiNTIS A OltOASUfIB OFTHi CONOmONOPTNE AMVE OBSCmatO raOMRTY M COIVUiU^
WITNtSCnON 1102 OF TNB CIVIL COOS At OP ,1t IT IS NOT A WMVIANTY .
OF ANY KMD BY THE SSLLBIHS) OR ANY AaBNT(S) RBPflSSSNTINQ ANY FRINCtFAMS) m THIS TRANSACTION.
Al» tt NOT A SUSSrrrUTE FOR ANY INSFtCnONS OR WMRRANTISS THE FRINCIMMS) aiAT WISH TO OSniN.
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^ ^
THE FOUOWmO ARE REFRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AND ARE NOT THE REFRtSENTATIONS OF
THE AO»fT(SK V ANY. TMS MFORMAnON IS A OMCtOSURE AND IS NOT INTBNOEO TO BE MRT OF ANY
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND S8LLER.
Btiv Oia DitnoioanipymgtfwpiepcfiyL
A. Tlw lytili rt pwporty Hm «
DRjnj*
OlMAlMMM
D WMMwmapw AirCowdiiioiiwQ
OM«r.dMMd
¥imi Biiiinii. D Oly
MUM
JlMhCowpacior
GlwdwDinaoW
iDteMNMOith
iDCmMAirCandMoning
3lprii*lm
DtMnpFiiiiip
DlulMnBMtooqM
ONoiMMeiwd
DSoltr
DSoltr
DBoMad
ORtfnOuOm
D FlwAlanw
D Inimem
aFuMeSMwSiMm
D WdMti loinmr
DOUMO
a Spa OHotlbb
Dcmn
aHMrie
aHMM
fi*i<«t Wty Q C"^
OMSMpptrOuiiMy
Wwnlinniiiii
noM^atm^
Ajm> iHHTfnit I
n«*-.
D f w MW Mi OOtftaOi OnBora DiMMlorWfMi O
a » ■■■■ ! ■ O lH iiiUM Owgi^F w c M O
VanycliwM
"TNsflMoodoorapMMriMynoitoinconipMwietwMitfWMtMytWMwdifL^^
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.
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER OttCLOSURB STATEIIENT (TDS-14 FAOS 1 OF 2)
Digitized by
Google
191
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
dienddbyttwMtor.
■
AQOrrt MSMCnON OtSCLOSUfll
lw feo codipiotdQ only if mo dOHOf io lopioooiiloo ^f on OQdni in tmo oonoociion.)
TMi UNOfRSIONEO, SASIO ON THE AtOVt IMQUMV OP THf SBXEIKS) AS TO THI CONOiTION OP TME
MOMRTY AND tASID ON A fllASONABLY COMMTINT AND DILIOCNT VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE
ACCtttllLEAWEAS OF THE PItOPtHTY IN CONJUNCTION wrmTNATINQUIWY, STATES TNI FOLLOWINO:
im bo coinplotod only If tho dQdnl wlio lioo oMoindd tlio ofldr io oihof tnon ttw ogont dbovo.)
TNB UNDENSIONEO. BASSO ON A RBASONABUT COMPETENT AND OOJQENT VISUAL INSPECHON OF 1
ACCSSSISLE AREAS OP THE PNOPEimr. sons THE POLUMfMOt
■dMiBWQdioOiiw). ^^
V
MIVEIHS) AND SELLEIHS) MAT WISH TO OiTAIN PNOPESSIONAL ADVICE ANMON INSPECTIONS OP THE
PMPEflTY AND TO PflOVnE POfI APPftOPfOATE PflOVISIONS M A CONTRACT BETWEEN BU YEN AND SELLEiyS)
WITH RESPECT TO ANY AOVICEmiSPSCnONS/OSPECTS.
VWB ACXNOWLEDQE RECSVT OP A COPY OP THIS SMIMBNT.
BfBASMdlOIIII
_ lovrlntod vlcn poraissioa. CaUforala Aasociaclon of
SS^SSmSSSmSiZTSSSFmS^ aoaltora. EndoraoMQC noc iapllad.
omeauoiOMw . ^^
"""•■*••• ^ ' "■ rapK nuM i o—«
RPAL. BSnn TRANSFER DtSCLPSURB STVEMENT (TOS-M MOE 2 OP 2)
Digitized by
Google
192
m.
SELLER'S DESCRIPnON OF PROPERTY
Property Address , ,_
THE SELLER AimiOFU2£S THE BROKERS OR SALESPERSONS TO PROVIDE
THE rOLLOWiNO tNFOftMATlON TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS
m
D
D
i
D =
D
D
Q
a
D
a
D
O
D
a
a
a
B
D
B
a
2. OwB«rt&UM i3/dUnirtStP_^^^
S. Act«r«(rv«BNi
3ip«d-
Humktf^fwtcitpm
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
CcplKk*.
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^
m m> VT^y^raiTT SYSTFMSXTILITIES fPfFORMATlONi
i j . DO MOM KNOW OF ATfY CURRENT FRCfltEMS WftH TH E tTEMS USTtHf*
ALSO tXFLUht ANY RZnUR WQAK WHICH VOU KAVE KAB DOME
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.
,Aft.
; 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 ^_^_ «-^ — ^
-Oihff
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
Google
198
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
m m !Wf^l':i rV mn!mNG/STRUCT URAlJIMPRQV T:MEI^rrStNTORMATlQ^^
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 ^__
m W lVK^■gymVMTS^FT,fANEOUSI^f^OaMATiQN1
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 ItM.tt 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
Google
194
Uj SELLER'S DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
REALTOR* FOR DISTRIBUTION TO SELLERS AND LISTING BROKERS Sftil^.TSir;
INSTRUCTION SHEET
A. PURPOSE
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.
B. RCCOMMENDCO USE
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.
C. PBEQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. 0. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE FORM? WHY IS IT HELPFUL TO THE SELLER AND
BROKER?
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.
2. 0. IF THE BROKERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WHOM SHOULD THEY CONTACT?
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
Google
195
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
LmjgLAWATQUY MATERIAL I
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)
Ino
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
thoOPHorhMo
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
ALir%OKER8/SALESPCII80N8 REPRESENT
THE SKLLKR. NOT THE BUYER. IN THE
MARKETING. NEGOTUTING AND SALE OF THE
PROPERTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE DISCLOSED.
HOWEVER. THE BROKER/SALESPERSON HAS
AN ETHICAL AND LEGAL OBUGATION TO SHOW
HONESTY AND FAIRNESS TO THE BUYER IN ALL
TRANSACTIONS.
I Vin. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8
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.
Data.
Data.
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.
Data.
Dau.
Digitized by
Google
ALLIANCE TO END CHILDHOOD LEAD FOISONINC
^••fw #r OlWCtafS
Itobert D. BuKoid PttD.
QahingDoKttan
famKdt.fvtPtt.D.
OtartaAHurtty
TentaHtiiu
IUchaKdl.lodaonM.D.
Mudolph L ladaon M.D.
David O.Ma*mt
»taip I. landrigan M.D.
Agnes D. Lattkntr M.D.
AudnyMcMahon
frank OskiM.D.
ChartesLPeck
Sttphanie Potadi esq.
Dmnd P. KaK M.D.
KnutUngtn Dr.RH.
CealC.ShepsM.D.
EMtft Subtfggid PfuD*
BaHus MMker, /r. Ph.D.
Donkyan
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
Google
197
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
Google
198
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
rentals.
Digitized by
Google
199
'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
Google
200
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
misleading
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
Google
201
should provide uqpl* tJbM for contractors to bs trained and
cartlflad.
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
Google
202
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.
ff^mifiry
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
Google
20S
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
Google
204
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
abatement.
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
other.
Digitized by
Google
205
STATEMENT
OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING
AND URBAN AFFAIRS
RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT
HAZARD REDUCTION ACT
MARCH 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
206
ZiBAD BXP0SX7RB AMD THE NATION'S BOUSINO STOCK
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.
RESIDENTIAL Z«EAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT, S. 2341
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
Google
207
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-
effective.
HBBD FOR A COMPRBHBVSZVB LBAD BXP0SX7RB POLICY
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
us.
Digitized by
Google
208
TAROBTINO A COMPRBHSNSZVB LBAD BXP0SX7RB POLICY
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.
ACHIEVABLE AMD COST-EFFECTIVE LEAD EXPOSURE POLICY
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
Google
209
BNCOURAOINO NSIfS
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.
TABLE 1
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?
ANALYSIS OF S. 2341, THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT
HAZARD REDUCTION ACT
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.
mNDATED ABATEMENT OF INTACT LEAD-BASED PAINT
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
Google
210
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
units.
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
children.
GRANTS FOR ABATBMBNT OF ZMTACT Z«BAD-BASBD PAINT
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
Google
211
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
activities
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
Google
212
$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 .
TBSTZNO (ASSESSZNO) BOUSINO UNITS
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
Google
213
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
child.
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.
PUBLIC BDUCATIQH AMD NATIONAL CLBARINaBOaSE
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.
DISCL0SX7RB OF LEAD HAZARD
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
Google
10
COHCLUSIQNS
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
paint.
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
Google
215
TESTIMONY
of
CARROLL D. VINSON
PRESIDENT
INSIGNIA CAPITAL CORPORATION
on behalf of
National Multi Housing Council
and
National Apartment Association
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
REGARDING
S. 2341
"THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992 «
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
216
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
Google
217
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
Google
218
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
Google
219
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
Google
220
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
housing
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
Google
221
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
affordability.
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
Google
222
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
affordability.
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
Google
223
"(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
8
Digitized by
Google
224
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
situations.
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
Google
225
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.
10
Digitized by
Google
226
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.
11
Digitized by
Google
227
National
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
LBAD-BA8BD PMHT HAZARDS AHD LOW ZNCOMB HOOSZHG
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
Google
228
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
households.
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
Google
229
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
abatement.
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
Google
230
Provlaioiui of S. 2341
S. 2341 marks a significant step forward in addressing lead paint
hazards:
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
Google
231
A preferable approach would be to clearly authorize HUD to
differentiate between project-based and tenant-based subsidies in
complying with Section 103.
Conclusion
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
Google
232
«• in » « f» •
9 o -5«*^SS
2S'
<• <i « «M .rt W
i
i ^
a
i
8
U
• ■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
Google
^
I p
Vi
233
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 " - -
^S;
2;:^
s
i4>««k in in»<«o<«
II
rl
> e
3-3
i5
II
3S
^.
3 •
U >
-4 U
« 3
Digitized by
Google
234
Children's Defense Fund
122 C Street, N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20001
Telephone (202) 628-8787
TESTIMONY OF
LISA NIHALY
SENIOR HOUSING SPECIALIST
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
U.S. SENATE
ON
THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992
S. 2341
MARCH 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
235
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
Google
236
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
poisoned.
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
Google
237
** 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
purchased.
** 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
changes.
** 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
Google
238
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
Act.
** 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
Google
239
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
Google
240
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
Google
241
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
Google
242
Table 1.
Lead Dust Levels in a Small Northeastern Public Housing Devdopment
Before and After One Round of Cleaning ft Rqpainting
Surftoe
June 1991
MeanPb
DustLevds
Qigffe)
June 1991
Range Pb
Dust Levels
Jan. 1992
MeanPb
Dust Levels
Jan., 1992
Range Pb
Dust Levels
HUD
Cleaiance
Standards
Window
Wells
47,512
16,782-
150,646
3,441
623 - 17,378
800
Floors
35
32-42
64
<25.241
200
Number of
Samples
15
15
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
Google
248
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
Google
244
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Ct^riuU Office
1875 Connecticiu Ave.. N.W.
Washingum. OC 20009
(202)387-3500
Fax:202-2S4-<i049
TESnMONT OF
KAREN FLOBINI
SENIOR ATT ORNE Y
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
of the
SENATE COMMnTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
on
S.2S41,
THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT
HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1902
March 19, 1992
NaUamalHeadquarun
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
Google
245
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
Google
246
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
hazard.
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
2
Digitized by
Google
247
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
Google
248
regulating continuing uses of lead and activities
connected with lead-based paint identification and
abatement;
providing financial assistance to cities, states and
property owners for lead poisoning prevention activities;
and
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
abatement
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
Google
249
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
regulations.
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
Google
260
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
well.
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
6
Digitized by
Google
251
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
Google
252
continuing the requirement that full inspection and abatements be
required for public housing units undergoing comprehensive
modernization.
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
Google
253
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
housing.
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
measure.
Digitized by
Google
254
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
Google
255
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
families.
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
years.
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
shelter.
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
Google
256
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
hazards.
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
Google
257
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
Google
258
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
Google
259
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
Google
260
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.
f«\nf\cityhomtt.sp«
Digitized by
Google
261
TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM EWALL
SENIOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
of the
CAMBRIDGE HOUSIHO AUTHORITY
HEARING BEFORE
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992
March 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
262
270 GHEEN ST. CAMBRIDQE, MA. 02139
(B17)864-X20
.CBL COKKBRB OH - UBAD-SASSD PAIVS HA2AB2> BEDUCKQI JyOT 01 1992
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 .
reaao&st
Digitized by
Google
263
* 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
•trata87t
* 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.
-2-
Digitized by
Google
264
* 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.
-3-
Digitized by
Google
265
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
Google
266
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
Introduction
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
Google
267
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
Google
268
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
Google
269
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
Google
270
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
Google
271
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
end.
Digitized by
Google
272
H
Housinq
Environmental
Sendees, Inc.
wncieii iflwimcMiy oi
KQei MihoDBj
Pimideiiti liouiing £iiviroiioi|BiiUd Scrviooii aic
ToThe
UaSeoMB . .
SuboQaunltteo on ifauriog ft Uibfn Affidn •
'On The Pn^xMcd
RfltkleDtia] Lead-Bbsed Paint jHnud Red^^
March 19, 1992
HBSMdHARRQ
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
Google
273
19 March 1992
PatB2
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
OBGhKID sD OQBs UD '
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
Google
274
19Mardil992
Pages
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
tampling.
• 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
Google
275
19MaiGbl992
• \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
Google
276
112S PMIeeMh Slicct. N.W.
i,DX120005
STATEMENT OF
HERBERT TASKER
Presidait
All Pacific Mortgage Company
oatwhairoftlie
Mortgage Baaken AnodatioB of Aaierica
beflbrethe
Sabcommlttee on Housing and Urtan Affidrs
of the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Uiimn Afbiri
United SUtes Senate
Hearing on Lead-Based Paint
C202)t
.^-<&??.
\%r-u) 5 fee
Digitized by
Google
277
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
markets.
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
Google
278
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
convenience.
Digitized by
Google
279
National
Leased
Housin9
Association
s«rv4ng American
rsnial housing needs
I r-
2300 M STREET. N.W. / SUITE 260 / WASHINGTCX. D.C. 20037 / (202) 765-M«a
TESTIMONY ON
THE LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992
PRESENTED BEFORE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SUBC(»INITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
BY
D ENISE B. MUHA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATION
MARCH 19, 1992
Digitized by
Google
280
National
Leased
Housing
Association
serving America's
rer)lal housing needs
LU
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
efforts.
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
Google
281
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
Google
282
Executive Offices • 525 South Virgil Avenue • Los Angeles. California 90020 • (21?; 739-8200 ' Fax (213) 480-7724
CHUC K LAMB
March 19, 1992
The Honorable Alan Cranston
Chairman
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
legislation.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lamb
President
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.
iW NATIONAL ASSOCUTION OF REALTORS*
Digitized by
Google
283
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
President
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
legislation.
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
Google
284
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
Google
285
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
Google
286
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
Google
287
pages
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
necessary.
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
Google
288
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-
quirements.
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
comprehensive.
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-
sible.**
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
Google
289
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.
Sincerely,
Anne M. Sheehan
Chatham, New Yoik
P.O.B0&66
aMdMiii,New Yofk 12037
51^392-5151
51^392-5304
o
53-652 (296)
Digitized by VjOOQIC
ISBN 0-16-038655-1
9'780160"3S6558
90000
Digitized by
GooSle
Digitized by
Google
X
ISBN 0-16-038655-1
78Q160"386558
90000
c
"^8
Digitized by VjUO'^IC
Digitized by
Google
3 blDS D15 137 S3D
j.
1
DATE DUE 1
J
STANFORD UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6004
y'uOQf
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11