• Studies continue to demonstrate that elevated lead exposures result in disease and that some construction jobs involve high airborne lead exposures.
• The standard has resulted in reduced blood lead levels for construction employees.
• The Lead in Construction standard is also consistent with the Presidential priority "to eliminate childhood lead poisoning in the United States as a major public health problem by the year 2010," because the standard "also benefits the children of those workers who may have been placed at risk via take-home exposures (such as lead dust on work clothing).

• OSHA will review its compliance assistance materials to determine the need for updates. OSHA also will review the adequacy of how these materials are disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations.
• OSHA will consult with EPA and HUD to determine the value of a unified training curriculum and whether a course can be developed to meet the requirements of all three agencies. OSHA also will attempt to develop interpretations for its initial assessment requirements [29 CFR 1926.62(d)], in order to integrate them better with HUD and EPA requirements, reduce duplication, and make better use of historical data; these interpretations should help reduce costs and simplify the standard's requirements for small businesses.

The purpose of a review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

"(S)hall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant impact of the rules on a substantial number of small entities."

* * *

"(T)he Agency shall consider the following factors:

1. The continued need for the rule;
2. The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
3. The complexity of the rule;
4. The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and
5. The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule."

"To reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, their families, their communities, their State, local, and tribal governments, and their industries; to determine whether regulations promulgated by the [Agency] have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances; to confirm that regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate; to ensure that all regulations are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive Order, within applicable law; and to otherwise improve the effectiveness of existing regulations."

• Original construction
• Repainting of bridges, industrial structures, or residences, originally painted with lead based paints
• Alterations and repairs
• Demolition and salvage
• Installation of products containing lead
• Lead abatement activities
• Transportation, storage, disposal, or containment of lead materials at the construction site
• Maintenance operations associated with construction activities

• A description of each activity in which lead is emitted (such as equipment used, material involved, controls in place, crew size, employee job responsibilities, operating procedures, and maintenance practices).
• The means to be used to achieve compliance and engineering plans and studies used to determine the engineering controls selected where they are required.
• Information on the technology considered to meet the PEL.
• Air monitoring data that document the source of lead emissions.
• A detailed schedule for implementing the program, including copies of documentation (such as purchase orders for equipment, construction contracts).
• A work practice program.
• An administrative control schedule, if applicable (administrative controls may include job rotation).
• Arrangements made among contractors on multi-contractor sites to inform employees of potential lead exposure.[13]

• Chapter 2 discusses the health effects of lead exposure, based on a toxicological profile of lead developed by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry, and presents data on the levels of lead to which construction employees may be exposed from various activities.
• Chapter 3 describes the industry sectors most likely to conduct activities that would trigger compliance with the standard and estimates the number of employees who may be exposed.
• Chapter 4 discusses other regulations that apply to lead in construction and a voluntary industry standard that covers lead removal projects.
• Chapter 5 reviews the data on lead exposures and elevated BLLs in industrial construction and renovation and remodeling activities and assesses the likelihood of exposure.
• Chapter 6 reviews OSHA compliance data on the standard.
• Chapter 7 discusses the cost of compliance with the standard for the major sectors affected.
• Chapter 8 presents the Section 610 and EO 12866 findings and the public comments.
• Chapter 9 presents conclusions.

... PbB [BLL] can change relatively rapidly (e.g., weeks) in response to changes in exposure; thus, PbB can be influenced by short-term variability in exposure that may have only minor effects on lead body burden. A single blood lead determination cannot distinguish between lower-level intermediate or chronic exposure and higher-level acute exposure. Similarly, a single measurement may fail to detect a higher exposure that occurred (or ended) several months earlier. Time-integrated measurements of PbB may provide a means for accounting for some of these factors and thereby provide a better measure of long-term exposure....[36]

• Lead itself is used on some electrical and elevator cables and on cast-iron soil pipe installation.
• Removing old lead paint and rust from bridges and other industrial structures.
• Renovating, remodeling, or repainting pre 1978 houses and buildings.
• Lead remediation.
• Lead solder is used in some industrial construction.
• Lead-containing mortar is used in some tanks.
• Pure lead and lead products, including lead panels (drywall/plywood), lead bricks, and lead shot, are used for shielding numerous military, industrial, research, and medical radiation sources.
• Stained-glass windows may contain lead.
• Lead use as a component in paint.[37]

• Lead caulk is used in industrial construction, such as joining and sealing cast iron soil pipes.
• Lead is used for electrical cable splicing and elevator rope recabling.[69]
• Lead solder continues to be used to join metal, but OSHA's technical manual on the standard states that the 8-hour exposures are generally low because of the limited duration of exposures.[70]
• Lead-containing mortar is used in acid storage and process tanks. The tank linings must be repaired or replaced every three to five years.
• Lead is used as a shield from radiation; projects include construction of linear accelerators sites, radiology suites, and industrial processing tanks.[71]
• Some industrial piping may contain lead; older lead pipes are repaired or replaced.
• While substitutes are widely available and used throughout the United States, some municipalities use lead paint for yellow traffic lines. Exposures are generally low due to the type of equipment used to apply the paint.

Using a variety of hand and power tools, such as vacuums and scrapers, these employees remove the lead from surfaces. A typical residential lead abatement project involves the use of a chemical to strip the lead-based paint from the walls of the home. Lead abatement employees apply the compound with a putty knife and allow it to dry. Then they scrape the hazardous material into an impervious container for transport and storage.[72]

• Contractor notification of occupants of target housing prior to renovation that the unit may contain LBP.
• Disclosure of known LBP or LBP hazards upon sale or lease of residential property.
• Training programs and certification of lead abatement firms and employees.
• Required activities for lead abatement in target housing and child-occupied facilities.

• Minor repair and maintenance activities (including minor electrical work and plumbing) that disrupt 2 square feet or less of painted surface per component.
• Emergency renovation operations.
• Renovations in target housing in which a written determination has been made by an inspector (certified under either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or a State or Tribal certification program authorized under § 745.324) that the components affected by the renovation are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight, where the renovator has obtained a copy of the determination.

• Lead abatement professionals - Provides standards that risk assessors would use to identify hazards and evaluate clearance tests; helps determine when certified professionals would need to be employed to perform lead cleanup.
• Training providers - Provides standards that training providers would have to teach in their courses.
• Federal agencies that own residential property - standards identify hazards that Federal agencies or purchasers of Federal property would have to abate in pre 1960 housing prior to sale, under Title X, section 1013.
• Property owners that receive assistance through Federal housing programs - standards identify hazards that property owners would have to abate or reduce as specified by regulations issued by HUD under authority of Title X, section 1012.
• Property owners - standards identify lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards that, when known, would have to be disclosed under EPA/HUD joint regulations.

• Renovations would be performed by certified firms.
• Certified firms would use certified renovators to perform certain activities and would provide on-the-job-training for uncertified employees.  Training programs would have to be at least eight hours long.
• Firms would post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area.
• Before beginning the renovation, the firm would isolate the work area so that no visible dust or debris leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed.
• Waste from renovation activities would be contained to prevent releases of dust and debris.
• After the renovation is complete, the firm would clean the work area. A certified renovator may verify the cleanliness of the work area using a procedure involving disposable cleaning cloths.

• Large quantity generators that generate 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month;
• Small quantity generators who generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month and accumulate less than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste at any one time; and
• Conditionally exempt small quantity generators who produce less than 100 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month and accumulate less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste at any one time.

• Sellers and lessors must provide purchasers and lessees with a lead hazard information pamphlet, as developed under section 406(a) of TSCA;
• Sellers and lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in such housing and provide purchasers and lessees with any lead hazard evaluation report available to the seller or lessor;
• Sellers must permit purchasers a 10-day opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint hazards; and
• Sales contracts must include an attached Lead Warning Statement and acknowledgment, signed by the purchaser.

• Open flame burning or torching;
• Machine sanding or grinding without a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) local exhaust control;
• Abrasive blasting or sandblasting without HEPA local exhaust control;
• Heat guns operating above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit or charring the paint;
• Dry sanding or dry scraping, except dry scraping in conjunction with heat guns or within 1.0 ft. (0.30 m.) of electrical outlets, or when treating defective paint spots totaling no more than 2 sq. ft. (0.2 sq. m.) in any one interior room or space, or totaling no more than 20 sq. ft. (2.0 sq. m.) on exterior surfaces; and
• Paint stripping in a poorly ventilated space using a volatile stripper that is a hazardous substance in accordance with definition of hazardous substance by the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 16 CFR 1500.3, and/or a hazardous chemical in accordance with the OSHA regulations regarding hazard communication at 29 CFR 1910.1200 or 1926.59, as applicable to the work.

• Bridges
• Food and beverage facilities
• Off-shore drilling
• Power generation facilities
• Petro/chemical plants
• Storage tanks
• Ships maintenance

• Management procedures
• Quality control
• Safety and environmental compliance
• Technical capabilities

• Management of Hazardous Paint Removal Projects
• Technical Capabilities Related to Hazardous Paint Removal
• Personnel Qualifications and Training
• Safety and Environmental Compliance Programs.

• Compliance with the OSHA standard is generally believed to vary considerably within the construction industry.[123] Larger firms and those holding government or industrial contracts are more likely to test employees than residential contractors.  At least one State, Massachusetts, requires testing of employees as a condition of licensing lead abatement firms and of contracts for bridge repairs.  Independent contractors, who represent a majority of painters, are not subject to the standard; it is unlikely that they are tested unless they develop symptoms of lead poisoning.

• When employees are tested, States must rely on testing labs to notify the State. The data, therefore, are likely to be incomplete even in States with a substantial number of reports and in States where self-employed employees are expected to comply (the MA lead law covers all residential painters).
  
  
• In terms of industrial classification, the Census Bureau requires that firms list themselves in a single sector; other listing services, such as Dun and Bradstreet, allow reporting in multiple sectors. It is not possible to determine whether ABLES reports reflect the primary SIC code for the firm or the activity the person tested reported. This issue is particularly likely to arise between general contractors and painters and bridge employees and painters. Firms classified as general contractors or bridge construction may do painting. In addition, the Maryland blood lead registry indicated that some of the painters listed were non-occupational (homeowners).
  
  
• The aggregation of all painters into a single category in the old SIC code system makes it difficult to determine how many industrial versus residential painters are being exposed to high levels of lead.
  
  
• The ABLES data provide no information on the number of employees exposed to lead, the number tested, and the percentage of exposed employees tested.

• New units continue to be added to the housing stock, none of which contain LBP.
• Older units that may contain LBP are being demolished and replaced.[147] [148]
• Lead abatement activities continue to remove or encapsulate LBP to eliminate the hazard in existing units.
• Even without specific lead abatement efforts, renovation and remodeling of older units may be removing or covering LBP to reduce the hazard.

• A painting firm could complete 50 interior or 50 exterior jobs per year.
• The age of the housing units painted would be distributed proportionately to the number of units in the entire housing stock.
• No new construction would be included.
• LBP would be present in the percentage of each age group based on the highest percentage for a building component in that age group (usually windows).
• Deteriorated LBP would be present in 29 percent of interiors with LBP and 43 percent of exteriors.[152]

• An employee could do 50 jobs a year (either interior or exterior).
• Interior painting jobs average five days, exterior 3 days.
• Preparation work for an interior job averages 2 days, with sanding and scraping taking one day.
• Preparation work for an exterior job averages 1 day.
• The age of the housing units painted would be distributed proportionately to the number of units in the entire housing stock.
• No new construction would be done.
• LBP would be present in the percentage of each age group based on the highest percentage for a building component in that age group (usually windows).
• Deteriorated LBP would be present in 29 percent of interiors with LBP and 43 percent of exteriors.

Based on these assumptions, painters would encounter work sites with interior LBP on 6 percent of their working days, deteriorated interior LBP on 2 percent of the days. High exposure activity (scraping and sanding) with LBP would represent 1 percent of their working days; high exposure activity with deteriorated LBP would represent 0.3 percent of their working days. For exterior jobs, painters would encounter work sites with exterior LBP on 16 percent of their working days, deteriorated interior LBP on 7 percent of the days. High exposure activity (scraping and sanding) with LBP would represent 5 percent of their working days; high exposure activity with deteriorated LBP would represent 2 percent of their working days. If employees fail to remove the dust, the hazard would continue beyond the high exposure activity.

Firms that specialize in older or historic housing would encounter LBP more frequently than these estimates as would firms that work in areas with more older houses. If a firm works only on pre-1941 houses, painters are estimated to spend about 6 percent of their time in high exposure activity with deteriorated interior LBP and about 12 percent of their time in high exposure activity with deteriorated exterior LBP. These estimates may represent an upper bound. If the AHS figures on peeling paint were used instead of the HUD figures, all of the estimates would be substantially lower.

Another factor to be considered on pre-1940 houses is the concentration of lead in LBP. A HUD National Survey conducted in 1989 and 1990 found that the average loading of lead in LBP was two to three times higher in pre-1940 houses than it was in houses built between 1960 and 1978. Other studies found pre-1920 units had average lead concentrations 10 times higher than post-1945 units.[153] Consequently, employees working on pre-1940 houses are both more likely to encounter LBP and to be exposed to higher lead concentrations if they engage in activities that create lead dust.

The estimates in Table 5-13 are based on the national distribution of housing units by age, but the actual distribution in particular areas varies widely.  According to the American Housing Survey, the median year that housing units in the U.S. were built is 1969; in the Boston metropolitan area, the median year built is 1948; in Phoenix it is 1983. In 1998, 43 percent of the housing units in Boston had been built prior to 1940. In 2002, only two percent of the units in Phoenix had been built prior to 1940.[154] Nationally, 11 percent of suburban houses predate 1940, but 27 percent of housing units in central cities do.[155] Consequently, employee exposures will vary by region and, within regions, by the areas in which firms operate. Exhibit 5-1 shows the variation in ages of housing in five metropolitan areas with housing data reported in 2002.

As noted above, the analysis is based on housing units, not all buildings, because data are not available on the presence of LBP in other types of buildings. The basic characteristics of the jobs, however, are similar because painting on existing buildings is usually done quickly; commercial and office maintenance repainting is usually done between tenants or when the building is unoccupied (weekends, evenings). The exception to this is when major renovation and remodeling occurs (when demolition may create lead dust) or when exteriors are cleaned.

Exhibit 5-1


5.3.3 Blood Lead Levels in Residential Construction Employees

This section discusses the studies that have been done that address exposure levels and blood lead levels in residential construction employees.

5.3.3.1 NIOSH Report to Congress

As discussed in Section 5.3, in January 1997, NIOSH submitted a report to Congress on protecting employees from LBP hazards.[156] The report included a review of data from state and other studies of residential construction, which are summarized here.

A Washington State study conducted site visits and measurements at five sites where pre-1950 homes were being painted; exposures for nine employees were measured. Table 5-14 shows the 8-hour TWA lead exposure by activity and the lead concentration in the paint.

Table 5-14: Washington State Lead Exposure During Surface Preparation for Residential Painting

The results of this study indicated that although R&R employees may be exposed to high levels of lead during the conduct of their work, there was little evidence of elevated blood-lead concentrations among the employees. It is possible that there exist specialized groups of R&R employees who may have higher lead exposures,

This chapter discusses OSHA's records on compliance with § 1926.62. It first discusses the general history of compliance and inspections from 1993, when the standard was adopted, to 2003, reviewing the number of violations over time and the industries involved. The second section discusses these data specifically for the painting sector. The third section compares compliance with the lead standard to compliance with other construction standards. The last section describes the leading causes of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the construction industry as a way of comparing the risk of lead exposure to other workplace hazards.

6.1 General History

From 1993 to 2003, OSHA found 12,556 violations of § 1926.62.[164] For the period 1994 to 2002 (the years for which complete data are available), there were an average of 1,205 violations per year. The number of violations in any one of those years ranged from 981 citations in 1999 to 1,594 violations in 1994 (see chart below). The average number of violations per inspection with at least one violation of the standard ranged from 6.1 in 1993 to 1.7 in 1999. For the whole period, there were on average 2.6 violations per inspection that found any violations of the standard.


* The standard was not in effect for all of 1993; data for 2003 had not been completed.

6.1.1  Violations by Industry

The painting and paper hanging industry (SIC 1721) was the industry most often found in violation of § 1926.62. From 1993 to 2003, OSHA documented 4,623 violations of the rule by painting and paper hanging firms. Classified within this category are a wide range of firms including those specializing in painting bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, and residences. It should be noted that most residential painting firms are never inspected.

Table 6-1: Violations by Industry Sector 1993-2003

These requirements apply to employees doing the following tasks where lead-based coatings or paints are present: manual demolition, manual scraping or sanding, using a heat gun, or cleaning power tools with dust collection systems. (The requirements also apply to spray-painting with LBP, but industry indicates that LBP is no longer used).

Subsection (i) of the standard, which concerns hygiene facilities and practices, was the second most commonly violated subsection of the standard. This subsection includes requirements for change areas, showers, and facilities for handwashing and eating. There were 1,361 violations of subsection (i), nearly 11 percent of the total.

6.2 Compliance in the Painting Industry

As noted above, the painting industry (SIC 1721) was the industry most often found in violation of the construction in lead standard. This section analyzes in greater detail the violations by painting and paper hanging firms.

6.2.1  Violations Over Time

From 1993 to 2003, OSHA found 4,623 violations of § 1926.62 by painting and paper hanging firms. As shown below, the number of violations in any one year ranged from a low of 286 in 2002 to a high of 773 in 1993 (even though the interim final standard was issued in May of that year).[165] On average, there were 411 violations annually over the period 1994 to 2002 (the years for which full-year data are available).


* the standard was not in effect for all of 1993; data for 2003 had not been completed.

6.2.2  Violations by Subsection of the Rule

The subsections of § 1926.62 most often violated by painting firms roughly paralleled those of industry as a whole. About one-third (34 percent) of the violations concerned subsection (d), which requires an initial exposure assessment and interim protection of employees during the initial assessment. As with industry in general, subsection (i) was the next most commonly violated subsection of the standard for the painting and paper hanging industry; 518 violations (11 percent) were for subsection (i), which governs hygiene facilities and practices.

The third most commonly violated subsection of the standard was subsection (j), which requires employers to institute a medical surveillance program for employees exposed to lead at or above the action level. This subsection was violated 481 times over the period. Table 6-3 presents the data.

Table 6-3: Subsections Most Often Violated by Painting Firms 1993- 2003

• Use of lift trucks for bridges of 50,000 square feet and less and a Safe-Span Platform for the larger bridges.
• A full removal of paint with recyclable steel grit.
• Use of arc spray metallizing with an airless applied seal coat.

• The continued need for the rule;
• The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
• The complexity of the rule;
• The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and
• The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

• If the rule has become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances;
• If the regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate;
• That all regulations are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in the E.O. within applicable law.

• 6,362 laboratory BLLs were reported on 3,284 employees.
• 1,215 employees had a peak BLL of 25 µg/µL or greater, based on the Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010 objective BLL from workplace exposures.
• 266 employees had a peak BLL of 40 µg/dL or greater, the BLL at which a medically removed employee is returned to former job status.
• 92 employees had a peak BLL of 50 µg/dL or greater (three tests of 50 µg/dL warrant OSHA medical removal).
• 37 employees had a peak BLL of 60 µg/dL or greater (one test of 60 µg/dL warrants OSHA medical removal).

• Structure built after 1977.
• Only LSWP are used and negative exposure assessment for airborne lead is documented at least every 12 months.
• An acceptable LBP inspection report indicates that no LBP is present (0.5 percent or 1 mg/cm²) in occupied areas.

• 3,191 laboratory blood lead level tests were reported from 28 of the 37 ABLES states on 1,556 painters and paperhangers.
• 1,343 of painters and paperhangers were residents of the states that reported them.
• 678 had a peak blood lead level of 25 µg/dL or greater.
• 157 had a peak BLL of 40 µg/dL or greater.
• 38 had a peak BLL of 50 µg/dL or greater.
• 20 had a peak BLL of 60 µg/dL or greater.

• Over coating
• Chemical stripping
• Use of long-handle torches for distancing the employee from the source of exposure
• Mechanical removal with shrouded vacuum power tools (vs. abrasive blasting)
• Encapsulation
• Vacuum blasting
• Wet blasting
• Using remotely operated automated devices

• Improved biological monitoring requirements.
• A reduced PEL and action level.
• Greater enforcement of engineering controls requirements to prevent employers from using respiratory protection as an exclusive remedy for compliance.
• Universal hand-washing facilities for employees exposed to lead, regardless of airborne concentrations.
• Greater specificity in the duration and quality assurance associated with employee training.
• Removal of the 30-day trigger for medical surveillance requirements.

• Review the protective clothing change out schedule regarding the airborne lead levels required to initiate the use of showers and protective clothing.
• Review the potential economic benefits resulting from decreased blood pressure, projected by the Rothenbergs.

• Air monitoring was not conducted even though the process had been altered (e.g., the introduction of the grinder, confined space and overhead work);
• Engineering controls were not employed;
• Proper housekeeping and hygiene practices were not practiced; and
• Training was inadequate.

• NIOSH 7700, Lead in Air by Chemical Spot Test Kit (Qualitative)
• NIOSH 7701, Lead in Air by Portable Anodic Stripping Voltammetry (Quantitative)
• NIOSH 7702, Lead in Air by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (Quantitative)
• NIOSH 9100, Lead in Surface Wipe Samples (Quantitative)
• NIOSH 9105, Lead in Dust Wipes by Colorimetric Spot Test (Qualitative)

• Information included in compliance directives should be made readily available to assist the field level health and safety professional.  Currently, under compliance directive CPL 2-2.58-29 CFR 1926.62, OSHA uses the old HUD clearance level of 200 µg/ft² for clean areas such as changing rooms, eating/drinking and break areas.  Has this been changed to comply with the new HUD clearance level of 40 µg/ft² for floors?
• Information included under OSHA interpretations, such as fit factors for different types of respirators, should be made more accessible to the contractor and health and safety professional.  Certain models of powered air purifying respirators and helmets as a result of an OSHA letter of interpretation factor have been assigned a fit factor different than the current designation in Table 1 (Respiratory Protection for Lead Aerosols).
• It has been our experience that employees may not be aware of the medical removal protection provision of the standard, as illustrated by the disastrous outcome for the affected employees in case report 2 (none of them have received medical removal protection benefits).  OSHA may want to consider including a BLL results form that includes information regarding benefits of MRP.

• Significant lead exposures continue to occur in the construction industry.
• There have been substantial gains in knowledge of the health issues associated with lead exposure, causing increased concern for those with acute as well as chronic, lower-level exposures.
• Construction contractors can generally comply with the LIC standard and still run asuccessful business (with the possible exception of small contractors complying with the air monitoring requirement).
• There are areas where additional employee protections are needed.

1. The permissible exposure limit, action level, and medical removal protection BLLs should be lowered to achieve reduction in occupational blood lead levels to equal or below 25 µg/dL.
2. Medical Removal Protection should be required when an employee's BLL exceeds 30 µg/dL.  Medical surveillance requirements should be amended to require:
   • Initial baseline monitoring upon hire or start of job;
   • Monthly, thereafter;
   • Exit testing when the job is completed or when an employee is terminated.
   In addition, an increase of 10 µg/dL or greater from one test to another should trigger a worksite evaluation by the employer to identify problem areas and implement appropriate control measures that effectively reduce BLLs to less than 25 µg/dL.
3. Hygiene facilities, including hand-washing stations with soap and fresh water, and clean eating areas, should be provided when lead is present regardless of airborne lead concentrations.  Use of HEPA vacuums for removal of lead dust from work clothing should be required before leaving the worksite.
4. If exposures exceed the PEL, paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) should be fully enforced.
5. Wipe sampling, in accordance with NIOSH method 0700, should be required to assess potential contamination in areas that should be free of contamination. Clean areas, such as change rooms and eating areas must not exceed 200 micrograms of lead per square feet of surface area.  Surfaces with lead contamination in excess of these criteria must be cleaned by HEPA vacuuming followed by wet wiping.
6. While interim respiratory protection should be required as currently mandated for high exposure tasks, OSHA should emphasize in its regulations and enforcement policy that respiratory protection is an interim and secondary means of controlling lead and that engineering controls must be used as the primary method of control.  Exposure assessment requirements should emphasize the importance ofair monitoring to verify the effectiveness of engineering controls andrequire remedial action in the event exposures are not adequately controlled to below the PEL.  At a minimum, OSHA should require:
   
   32 hours, including hands-on training; instruction on topics currently required aswell as on "take-home" lead hazards, and other hazards such as silica, cadmium, i.e., metals common to lead; and training on the explicit requirements of 29 CFR1926.33. Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records.
7. OSHA should clearly specify duration, content and quality assurance for training requirements.  OSHAshould consult with EPA in formulating training requirements that are complementary and adequately protective.
8. OSHA should use CPWR's Model Specifications for the Protection of Employees from Lead on Steel Structures as guidance when considering modifications to the lead in construction standard. While there are currently no Federal standards for lead in surface dust, HUD sets a clearance level of 200 µg/ft2 for floors.  OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-2.58 - 29 CFR1926.62, Lead Exposure in Construction (1993) uses this criterion for determining whether an employer has maintained surfaces free of contamination.
9. OSHAshould consult with NIOSH and, specifically, request that NIOSH do an assessment of BLLs from 37ABLES states to determine trends:
   • Over time
   • By geographical distribution
   • By trade and specialty areas within construction

• Tiered compliance levels, aimed at differing levels of construction activities and their potential to generate lead exposures. This would simplify requirements and reinforce the value of work practice controls established for occupant protection.
• Coordinated training with HUD and EPA programs.

• OSHA should lower the PEL to 30 µg/m³ and eliminate the action level.
• If exposures are above the PEL, exposure assessments should be monthly.
• The written program should be revised and updated after each job or every month, whichever comes first. Lead work should be supervised by a competent person.
• Employers should do face fit test at the initial fitting and at least once a year.
• Employers should provide protective clothing daily to employees exposed above the PEL.
• Handwashing facilities should be next to the work area.
• Medical exams should occur annually if BLL is at or above 25 µg/dL; as soon as possible if lead poisoning symptoms occur; and as medically appropriate for employees under medical removal or limitation.
• Medical removal should occur for BLLs at or above 30 µg/dL.
• The training requirements should be revised to ensure that all employees are trained annually using a curriculum similar to EPA's training for lead abatement employees. Training shall include hands-on training in work practices and take at least 24 hours.
• Competent person's duties should be described better and include on-site supervision of work practices and controls, enforcement of hygiene requirements. Training should be consistent with EPA's certified supervisor course.

• Create de minimis levels tied to the trigger tasks (e.g., Level one, 1926.62(d)(2)(i), tasks need to be done for one hour or more before the standard applies).  He stated that he had done lots of air monitoring of these tasks and never found Action Level (AL) amounts let alone reaching the PEL.  Yet, the commenter contends that school maintenance employees and others are unnecessarily covered for a single window replacement or small paint job. He argued that this mandate serves to trivialize the standard; so, it is ignored by many. The commenter recommended that Level two, 1926.62(d)(2)(ii), tasks would have to be done for two hours and Level one tasks for more than one hour for the standard's requirements to apply. (Note: this commenter is referring to work places where lead is present which require certain protective actions to be taken until exposure monitoring demonstrates that exposures are below the AL.)
  
  
• The ability to cite an employer who has elected to comply with the Trigger Task requirements does not make sense and needs to be removed. This is a real disincentive for compliance to residential firms as these contractors will rarely if ever be able to afford to do air monitoring.  However, they can provide Trigger Tasks protections. Industrial contractors can, and often do, conduct the air monitoring. Yet many of them play games with the data, biasing the results to enhance their production goals.  By simply enforcing the Trigger Task requirements and extending the shower requirements to Trigger Tasks Two and Three, this element is removed.  Making compliance goals much simpler for the user and OSHA as it is hard to cite someone for a serious lack when you have to gather air data to do it.
  
  
• Simplify the training requirements to require training in the full standard for performance of any of the Trigger Task levels.

• Discontinue the requirement to test for airborne lead levels for small-scale and residential projects.
• Require worksite lead dust testing, including clearance testing, as a check on employee exposure.
• Require employers to pay employees to attend one-day training in lead-safe work practices (numerous courses exist and are available free of charge, e.g., NPCA training).
• Ensure that contractor and employee training includes participatory techniques and hands-on exercises and promote the use of peer trainers and tailgate training materials.
• Calibrate the respirator requirement to activity, so that more heavy and less comfortable protective equipment is required when using high dust-generating methods, while lighter protective equipment is required when using low dust-generating methods.
• Consistent with EPA and HUD, prohibit unsafe practices of paint removal, such as sandblasting, uncontrolled power sanding, and extensive manual dry sanding, in residential settings (24 CFR 35.140 and 40 CFR 745.226(e)).

• EPA and HUD limit applicability to work where more than a de minimis area will be disturbed; OSHA does not.
• HUD prohibits some work practices; OSHA does not.
• The training requirements and content are different, which results in employers and employees needing to attend separate training courses to cover EPA/HUD and OSHA rules.

• Studies continue to demonstrate that elevated lead exposures result in disease and that some construction jobs involve high airborne lead exposures.
• The standard has resulted in reduced blood lead levels for construction employees.
• The Lead in Construction standard is also consistent with the Presidential priority "to eliminate childhood lead poisoning in the United States as a major public health problem by the year 2010," because the standard "also benefits the children of those workers who may have been placed at risk via take-home exposures (such as lead dust on work clothing).

• OSHA will review its compliance assistance materials to determine the need for updates. OSHA also will review the adequacy of how these materials are disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations.
• OSHA will consult with EPA and HUD to determine the value of a unified training curriculum and whether a course can be developed to meet the requirements of all three agencies. OSHA also will attempt to develop interpretations for its initial assessment requirements [29 CFR 1926.62(d)], in order to integrate them better with HUD and EPA requirements, reduce duplication, and make better use of historical data; these interpretations should help reduce costs and simplify the standard's requirements for small businesses.