[DOCID: f:sr515.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 1097
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-515
======================================================================
PROTECT PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM DANGEROUS LEAD EXPOSURES ACT
_______
September 26 (legislative day, September 17), 2008.--Ordered to be
printed
_______
Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous
Lead Exposures Act of 2008]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works considered an
original bill to protect pregnant women and children from
dangerous lead exposures.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from
Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008 is to protect pregnant
women and children from lead exposures during or after lead-
based paint cleanups in housing.
The Act would require that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the best available
science to revise the lead-based paint standard, clearance
methodology, workplace practices, and training program that the
Agency created in a recent rulemaking (73 Fed. Reg. 21692
(April 22, 2008)).
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Lead is a highly toxic substance that can harm the nervous
system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, immune
system, and physical development. Lead is particularly harmful
to pregnant women, infants and children. The federal Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administrator have
determined that children in general, and children in low
socioeconomic conditions in particular, are at increased risk
of lead exposure and adverse health impacts from that exposure.
The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006 more than 12,800,000
children under the age of 18 lived in poverty.
In 1992, the federal Centers for Disease Control recognized
that 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood should prompt
public health actions, but that harmful impacts may occur at
blood lead levels below this threshold.
In 2001, the Administrator created lead-based paint hazard
regulations required under section 403 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2683), which identified dangerous levels
of lead dust on floors at 40 micrograms per square foot or
greater. For window sills, the EPA set the standard at 250
micrograms per square foot or greater. In promulgating the
standards, the EPA stated that the:
Standards [were] based on the best science available
to the Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency
recognizes, however, that the science is constantly
developing . . . If new data become available (e.g.,
empirical data showing that very small amounts of
deteriorated paint pose a serious health risk or data
showing that hazard control activities are more
effective at reducing long-term dust-lead level than
assumed by the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Agency will consider changing the standards to reflect
these data.
In January, 2006, the Administrator proposed its lead-based
paint repair and renovation rule (71 Fed. Reg. 1588). That same
month the Agency issued a study on the threats of lead dust
during renovation and remodeling activities, which the agency
used as a basis for judging the protectiveness of its rule. The
EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) criticized
certain key aspects of the study, including the agency's use
the 2001 standards and inadequate cleaning procedures. In
particular, the Committee recommended that the ``[s]tandards
need to be strengthened in view of recent epidemiological data
indicating that children are more susceptible to effects from
lead than was previously thought.'' However, the Administrator
issued a final rule without incorporating many of the CASAC
recommendations.
The Committee believes that lead poisoning is a very
serious public health threat, especially for children's health.
Lead-based paint dust is one of the most serious routes of lead
exposure, including for children. It is also a very preventable
route of exposure.
The Committee believes that EPA should use the best
available science to establish a lead-based paint standard, as
well as related regulatory programs. Specifically, the bill
finds that ``the revised lead-based paint renovation, repair,
and painting rule of the Environmental Protection Agency fails
. . . to use the best available science on the adverse impacts
of lead on children's health; . . . [fails] to adequately
protect the health of pregnant women and children from lead
poisoning; and . . . [fails] to contain enforceable methods of
verifying that lead levels in homes and other facilities are
safe following lead-based paint renovation, repair, and
painting activities.''
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
The purpose of the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from
Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008, is to protect pregnant
women and children from dangerous lead exposures.
The legislation require that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the best available
science to revise the lead-based paint standard, clearance
methodology, workplace practices, and training program that the
Agency created in a recent rulemaking (73 Fed. Reg. 21692
(April 22, 2008)).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous Lead
Exposures Act of 2008''.
Section 2. Findings
Section (a) contains detailed findings regarding lead
toxicity, exposure, and EPA's activities with respect to lead
renovation rules.
Section 3. Definitions
Section 3(1) defines the ``Administrator''.
Section 3(2) defines the ``Best Available Science'' to
include scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals
since the Administrator last updated the lead-based paint
hazard standard. In particular, the Committee directs the
Administrator to consider scientific studies indicating that
blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter pose a
threat to children's health.
Section 4. Protection of pregnant women and children
Section 4(a) directs the Administrator to use the best
available science to create a more protective lead-based point
hazard standard to safeguard the health of pregnant women and
children and to require a clearance methodology that ensure
lead dust levels meet that standard. It also requires the Clean
Air Science Advisory Committee to review the Agency's work.
Section 4(b) establishes a deadline for integrating these
requirements into the lead-based paint repair and renovation
rule.
Section 4(c) requires a periodic reevaluation of the
standard and clearance methodology using the best available
science.
Section 5. Regulations relating to lead-based paint hazards, lead-
contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil
Section 5(a) contains definitions for the terms ``Final
Rule'' and ``Independent Clearance''.
Section 5(b) establishes deadlines for the Administrator to
update the final rule to include requirements concerning
independent clearance work by a certified risk assessor or
certified sampling technician to ensure compliance with lead
hazard standards. This section also describes the methodology
to be used in this assessment; the reporting requirements for
the work; applicable workplace practices; and a requirement for
trained personnel to be on-site at all times that on-site work
is undertaken.
Section 5(c) creates a grant program to expand training
opportunities related to lead-based paint repair and renovation
work, establishes criteria for this program, authorizes funds,
and creates a reporting requirement to assess the program and
make recommendations for expanding and better coordinating
opportunities.
Section 6. No effect on other effective dates
Section 6 clarifies that nothing in this Act modifies or
otherwise affects any effective date described in the final
rule. The Committee expects the Agency to meet all existing
deadlines that it has already announced.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES
Votes
On September 17, 2008, the Committee on Environment and
Public Works held a business meeting to consider S. 3495, among
other pieces of legislation. The Committee on Environment and
Public Works approved an amendment from Senator Clinton to
include the requirements for independence clearance and a
training program, which the Committee accepted by voice vote.
The Committee then favorably adopted the amended bill by a
voice vote.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that the
Congressional Budget Office found that ``The bill would impose
private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on firms certified by EPA
to renovate certain properties containing lead-based paint. CBO
estimates that the cost of the private-sector mandates would
likely exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($136
million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).''
MANDATES ASSESSMENT
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee noted that the Congressional
Budget Office has found that ``The bill would impose private-
sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on firms certified by EPA
to renovate certain properties containing lead-based paint. CBO
estimates that the cost of the private-sector mandates would
likely exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($136
million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). Because of
the small number of public entities that would be directly
affected by the bill's requirements, CBO estimates that the
cost of the mandates to state, local, and tribal governments
would fall below the annual threshold for intergovernmental
mandates ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually for
inflation).''
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
September 26, 2008.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Protect Pregnant
Women and Children from Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous Lead Exposures Act
of 2008
Summary: This legislation would require the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to revise regulations relating to the
hazards of lead-based paint, and lead-contaminated dust and
soil. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost
about $20 million over the 2009-2013 period assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting this
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
The bill would impose private-sector and intergovernmental
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
on firms certified by EPA to renovate certain properties
containing lead-based paint. CBO estimates that the cost of the
private-sector mandates would likely exceed the annual
threshold established in UMRA ($136 million in 2008, adjusted
annually for inflation). Because of the small number of public
entities that would be directly affected by the bill's
requirements, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates to
state, local, and tribal governments would fall below the
annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates ($68 million in
2008, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of this legislation is shown in the following
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 300 (natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Grant Program to Expand Training Opportunities:
Authorization Level...................................... 2 2 2 1 0 7
Estimated Outlays........................................ 1 1 2 2 1 7
EPA Administrative Support:
Estimated Authorization Level............................ 3 3 3 2 2 13
Estimated Outlays........................................ 3 3 3 2 2 13
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 5 5 5 3 2 20
Estimated Outlays.................................... 4 4 5 4 3 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that this
legislation will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009
and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated each year.
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for
similar programs.
This legislation would authorize the appropriation of $7
million over the 2009-2012 period for EPA to provide grants to
entities to support training concerning the hazards of lead-
based paint. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts,
CBO estimates that implementing that provision would cost $7
million over the 2009-2013 period. Based on information from
EPA, CBO also estimates that enacting this legislation would
cost about $13 million over the 2009-2013 period to support
EPA's efforts to revise existing lead regulations.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The bill
contains private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would require firms that are
certified through EPA to renovate properties containing lead-
based paint to:
<bullet> Comply with a more restrictive standard for
the presence of lead in buildings;
<bullet> Conduct a final test (referred to in the
bill as a clearance) after completing renovations to
ensure compliance with existing lead standards;
<bullet> Abide by new standards for workplace
practices related to lead;
<bullet> Provide a report to the owners and occupants
of the renovated property, detailing the measures taken
to reduce lead hazards during the renovation work and
disclosing any test results for lead contamination at
the work site; and
<bullet> Ensure that an individual who has completed
a training and certification program for handling
surfaces with lead-based paint is present at the work
site at all times during the renovation work.
CBO expects that the most significant costs of the mandates
in the bill would be related to requirements for clearances.
Based on estimates of the number of renovations expected per
year and the cost of conducting a clearance, CBO estimates that
the aggregate cost of the mandates would likely exceed the
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for
inflation). Because of the small number of public entities that
would be directly affected by the bill's requirements, CBO
estimates that the cost of the mandates to state, local, and
tribal governments would fall below the annual threshold
established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($68 million
in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Burke Doherty.
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE
After much public and scientific debate, EPA this year
released regulations aimed at further reducing lead-based paint
hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities
that disturb paint in many structures occupied by children. In
issuing the rule, EPA also factored in private-sector concerns
relating to practicality, feasibility and cost of compliance.
I believe that EPA exercised proper discretion in issuing
the recent lead-based paint standards, especially given the
scope of activities affected. EPA estimates that this rule
impacts 11.4 million repairs and renovations every year--almost
one million separate construction activities a month. Under the
new regulations, the average cost of cleanup is estimated to be
$35 per job--if there are 11.4 million jobs, that represents a
substantial cleanup cost burden of nearly $38 million a year.
I believe that EPA properly balanced the need for
protective standards with the need to issue a rule that would
be practical and understandable for contractors and their
clients. The work practices required by the EPA rule have been
shown to be effective at protecting children from lead-based
paint hazards generated by renovation activities. Further, the
rule's ``safe work'' practice standards are understandable and
can be effectively implemented.
This bill's requirement for ``dust clearance'' sampling
would add significant cost and delay to private-sector
renovation projects with no significant increase in health
protection. The bill's ``clearance'' requirement would mean
contractors would have to delay by several days most projects'
completion while waiting for a certified sampler to collect a
dust sample, then await the return of sample's laboratory
results. I believe this is an unreasonable, unjustified burden
to place on contractors and renovation professionals. Moreover,
the cost is prohibitive--some have suggested that ``clearance
sampling'' costs could be a high as $200 per project, which
would mean this requirement would cost contractors and their
clients nearly $2.2 billion per year.
This bill also would mandate that EPA issue a revised final
lead standard and regulations by April 2009--about 6 months
from now. Restructuring the rule based on this legislation's
new requirements, then taking that proposal through scientific
review and public process is simply not feasible in that short
time frame.
As Ranking Member, I reiterate my concern that this
Committee is again improperly attempting to impose its
political judgment to undermine EPA's regulatory expertise and
process. I oppose passage of this bill because I believe that
EPA properly balanced human health concerns with private-sector
burden, and, most importantly, the rule's requirements have
been shown to be effective at protecting children from lead-
based paint hazards generated by renovation activities.
James M. Inhofe.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no
changes to existing law.
<all>