s/r home  | issues  | authors  | 41 contents

Synthesis/Regeneration 41   (Fall 2006)

EPA Fails to Lead on Lead

by Don Fitz

Do you think that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helps protect the environment? Do you believe that it takes the lead in policies on toxins that endanger human health? If you are skeptical, don’t feel alone. Lead activists from across the country charge that the federal agency is missing the chance to reduce exposure to lead in paint and is actually undermining existing standards of safety.

At issue is the EPA’s proposed “Lead Safe Work Requirements to Protect Children during Renovation, Repair and Painting.”[1] Blood lead levels of many children have increased after remodeling homes built before 1978 (when lead was banned from paint). Disturbing lead-based paint usually releases lead in dust or fumes.

Blood lead levels of many children have increased after remodeling homes …

When Congress passed the Toxic Substance Control Act in 1992, Section 402 required the EPA to draft standards that would minimize exposure to lead during home repairs.[2] Though Congress instructed the EPA to compile rules for lead safe practices by 1996, the agency failed to act for nearly 10 years. After being threatened with a lawsuit and receiving a warning from Senator Barack Obama, the EPA finally published a proposed rule on lead hazards on January 10, 2006. The EPA claims that it will finalize the rule in early 2007.[3, 4]

The 10-years tardy proposal provoked many outraged responses. Instead of protecting public health, the EPA proposal avoids areas it was directed to address, tries to replace good testing procedures with bad ones, and attempts to roll back some of the most important safeguards on lead in existence.

Its first responsibility was to speak out on issues that affect childhood lead poisoning. According to the Sierra Club’s Ed Hopkins, “EPA’s rule ignores 14,200 child care centers that have significant lead-based paint hazards.” These centers care for 470,000 children.[5]

Additionally, the proposed rule says nothing concerning dangerous work practices on building exteriors. This is important for children’s health because practices such as sandblasting on building exteriors can spread lead dust in streets, schoolyards and playgrounds.[6]

It remains unclear whether lack of attention to these areas is a blessing in disguise, since so much of the EPA proposal could prove harmful. A storm of controversy is brewing over how to determine if home renovation has created a lead hazard.

For years, the accepted method for measuring the degree of lead danger in buildings has been “dust wipe samples.” A cloth is used to wipe dust from key areas of a house and it is then sent for laboratory analysis. Multiple studies have confirmed that the amount of lead in dust wipes correlates with blood lead levels of children living in the homes. The more lead dust there is on the cloth, the more lead-poisoned the children are.[7]

… the amount of lead in dust wipes correlates with blood lead levels of children …

EPA’s proposed rule would toss out this tried and scientifically accepted method. And what would replace it? The EPA hopes to initiate its own “white glove methodology,” which Rebecca Morley of the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) calls “baby wipes on a mop.”[8] The white glove method involves wiping windowsills and floors with white disposable cleaning cloths and then looking to see if dust is visible on the cloth.[9]

Both the dust wipe and white glove tests gather dust on cloth. The major difference is that dust wipes are sent to a lab for analysis while the EPA proposes training inspectors to make a visual determination of the presence of lead from a white glove test.

It’s not hard to figure out that a chemical analysis from a lab is more accurate than a person eyeballing a cloth. In fact, lead research demonstrates conclusively that visual examinations are insufficient to determine the quantity of invisible lead dust present. A 2002 NCHH study found that 54% of housing units passed a visual lead test but failed to meet clearance levels for lead.[10]

When the EPA developed the white glove test, it only collected data on bare floors. Consequently, the EPA specifies that the white glove test would only be used on bare floors and that carpeted rooms would only require a visual inspection for the presence of lead.[11]

Visual inspections for lead are notoriously unreliable, with a two-thirds rate of failure to adequately identify lead dangers. About 54 million houses built before 1978 contain some wall-to-wall carpeting, with 47 million having living room carpeting and 46 million having bedroom carpeting.[12] In all of these, the EPA’s rule would expose children to lead poisoning by not requiring dust wipes following home repair. The EPA proposes to save $10 on a lab test when the lifetime cost of lead poisoning a child is estimated to be $723,000.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the white glove test is that it could undermine laws mandating property owners to disclose records of lead contamination to buyers or renters. Since the EPA rule would not require renovation firms to provide owners with written documentation of white glove tests, there would be no records to give to buyers or renters. This loophole could result in people moving into homes with no information on the degree of lead contamination.[13]

The EPA proposes to save $10 on a lab test when the lifetime cost of lead poisoning a child is estimated to be $723,000.

Even worse than not drafting rules that would require adequate testing for lead, the EPA proposes to relax rules concerning “dangerous work practices.” This goes to the heart of the difference between corporate and environmental approaches to dangerous materials. Whatever the toxin in question, industry spokespersons suggest ways to control and contain it. Environmentalists argue that it makes more sense to not make toxic messes than it does to assume the mess will be made and ponder how to clean it up.

For years, the EPA, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and several other federal agencies have agreed that the best way to stop the release of lead during home repair is to ban dangerous methods of paint removal. Prohibited methods of paint removal include (a) open flame burning or torching; (b) machine sanding or grinding or abrasive blasting or sandblasting without a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) local exhaust control; (c) heat guns operating above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit; or, (d) dry sanding or dry scraping (with some exceptions).[14]

Using heat to remove lead paint is a good example of why a work practice can be particularly dangerous to children who live in homes being remodeled. Lead volatilizes into a fume at temperatures typical of flame torches. A fume is not a gas. It is composed of tiny particles that are more easily absorbed into the human body than are larger particles. This is why techniques such as heat that were frequently used to remove lead paint between 1970 and 1990 often resulted in an increase (rather than a decrease) of blood lead levels of children living in the home.[15, 16]

EPA argues that prohibiting dangerous practices could make many jobs, such as preparing a surface for repainting, very hard or impossible. This contention is astounding, given that prohibition of dangerous practices has been increasing as people discover more and better alternatives.

The proposed rule would go backwards and legitimize practices that are known to generate large amounts of lead dust and fumes. Rebecca Morley is the Executive Director of the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH). Reviewing the potential long term effect of the proposed changes, she emphatically concluded that “The failure to prohibit dangerous work practices means that many more homes will be unnecessarily contaminated, posing risks for future generations who will occupy these homes.”[17]

The proposed rule would go backwards and legitimize practices that are known to generate large amounts of lead dust and fumes.

On its web site, the EPA points out that there are over 310,000 children with elevated blood lead levels and over 38 million homes with lead-based paint in the US.[18] Then why would it overlook the massive scientific data indicating that it is trying to move in the wrong direction? Ever since it was founded during the reign of Richard Nixon, the EPA has been criticized for being far too receptive to spokespersons of the industries it is supposed to be regulating.

In proposing its rules on lead, the EPA lent a long ear to recommendations of the Small Business Review Advocacy Panel Report. The Panel urged the EPA to emphasize training, containment and cleanup instead of promoting a continuation of bans on dangerous work practices.[19] In other words, assume the toxic mess and propose rules to control it.

The after-the-fact thinking of the small business panel was incorporated into the EPA proposed rule on lead. So much so that portions of the EPA proposed rule are no more than paraphrases of the business panel’s recommendations. Dr. Jack Leonard of the Environmental Management Institute noted that “No scientists who conducted the research that is the basis for much of the rule were permitted to comment on the recommendations of the Panel.”[20]

The EPA missed a great chance to offer a new definition of what “lead poisoning” means. The standard measurement is the number of micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, or mcg/dL. As decades have gone by, new research has repeatedly demonstrated that the level of lead which damages children is lower than previously thought. Before 1971, a child had to have 60 mcg/dL to be considered lead poisoned. That year it dropped to 40 mcg/dL. The level of concern went to 30 mcg/dL and then to 25 mcg/dL.[21]

The definition of lead poisoning adopted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 1991 was 10 mcg/dL. Since this standard was published, multiple studies have documented damage to children’s reading and math ability at levels below 10 mcg/dL. In fact, there is more incremental damage for children’s intelligence scores for the range 0 – 10 mcg/dL than for any other 10-point range.[22] It is clearly time to redefine childhood lead poisoning to mean finding any lead in a child’s blood.

Throughout US schools, children frustrated by poor academic skills show behavioral problems. High levels of lead are associated with more attention problems and aggressive behavior.[23] Antisocial behavior is linked to both prenatal and postnatal lead levels.[24] Barbara Chicherio, who is on the National Committee of the Green Party USA, is also a social worker in the public schools. She believes that “There is no question that many of the difficulties we see in children are directly or indirectly caused by their exposure to lead at an early age.”[25]

It is clearly time to redefine childhood lead poisoning to mean finding any lead in a child’s blood.

The approach of industry is always to try to convince the public that there is some “acceptable” level of toxins. Lead is one of many poisons now known to have no safe level in the human body. Proposing new rules on lead-safe work requirements during renovation, repair and painting gave EPA heads a golden opportunity to redefine lead poisoning and to draft rules based on the goal of eliminating lead from our environment. They did neither.

Don Fitz is editor of Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought and producer of Green Time TV in St. Louis. He can be reached at fitzdon@aol.com


1.   US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Proposed Renovation, Repair and Paint Rule, January 10, 2006, Federal Register, vol. 71, p. 1592.

2.   Residential Lead-Based Paint Reduction Act of 1992, § 1021(a) amending Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, § 402, 15 USC. § 2682(c) (2005).

3.   Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Press release, December 20, 2005, EPA sued for ignoring lead poisoning hazards, http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=620

4.   Senator Barack Obama. Press release, June 29, 2005, Obama amendment would help prevent lead poisoning in children, http://obama.senat.gov/press/050629-obama_amendment_would_help_prevent_lead_poisoning_in_children/

5.   Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club Environmental Quality Program, Comments on EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repairs, and Paint Proposed Rule, March 23, 2006. http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/downloads/2006-03-23_rrpcomment.pdf

6.   Ibid.

7.   Lanphear, B., Weitzman, M., Winter, N., Tanner, M., Yakir, B., Eberley, S., Matte, T., 1998. Lead-contaminated house dust and urban children’s blood lead levels. Am J Public Health 86:1416–1421.

8.   Personal communication from Rebecca Morley, May 24, 2006.

9.   EPA, op cit, p 1614 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2006/January/Day-10/t071.htm

10.   National Center for Healthy Housing. 2002. An Evaluation of the Efficacy of the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments Prescribed in Maryland Environmental Article 6-8. April 30, 2002. Cited in http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/NCHH_Comments_Clearance_3-16-06.pdf

11.   Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing, Clearance for Carpeting, April 3, 2006. http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/NCHH_Comment_Carpeting_4-3-06.pdf

12.   EPA, op cit, p 1615.

13.   Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049, March 16, 2006. http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/NCHH_Comments_Clearance_3-16-06.pdf

14.   Guidelines for the evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in housing, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1995. 24 CFR 35.140.

15.   Swindell, S., Charney, E., Brown, M.J., Delaney, J. Home abatement and blood lead changes in children with class III lead poisoning, Clinical Pediatrics. 1994; 33: 536–541.

16.   Feldman, R. Urban lead mining: Lead intoxication among deleaders. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978; 298: 1143–1145.

17.   Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing, Comments Regarding Dangerous Work Practices, March 24, 2006. http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/NCHH_Comment_Dangerous_Work_Practices_Final_3_24_06.pdf

18.   visited May 23, 2006.

19.   Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, Final report of the Small Business Review Advocacy Panel on EPA’s planned proposed rule: “Lead-based Paint; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements,” March 3, 2006, Docket #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0163

20.   Dr. Jack Leonard, Environmental Management Institute, Inc., Comments regarding Regulatory Flexibility Act, April 10, 2006. http://www.envtlmgmt.org/EPA%20R&R%20Rule%20Comments/RegFlex.pdf

21.   Rachel’s Environment and Health News, No. 792, August 5, 2004.

22.   Lanphear, B.P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P., Bellinger, D.C., et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual function: An international pooled analysis. Envir Health Perspect. 2005, 113, 894–899.

23.   Needleman, Herbert I., et al. Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 1996, 275 (57), 363.

24.   Lead exposure linked to antisocial behavior. Environmental News Service. March 1, 2002. http://ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2002/2002-03-01-06.asp, Cited in St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition. Lead canaries: The tragic tradition of lead poisoning in St. Louis, 2003. p. 26. http://www.leadprevention.org

25.   Personal communication from Barbara Chicherio, May 24, 2006.

[20 sep 06]

Synthesis/Regeneration home page | s/r 41 Contents