Policy Guides

Potential resources that may have data or expert opinion that you can cite include:

• Your city or county’s most recent Climate Action Plan

• Recent reports or studies from your local municipality or university

• Advocacy material from local environmental, waste, preservation, conservation, environmental justice, and/or air quality organizations

A list of recent studies and articles with references have been compiled below for your reference. If you choose to reference a report or study in your comments, please ensure it is directly relevant to and supportive of your statements, as well as clearly cited in your comments. Example: “Demolition activities generate lead-containing dust, and this dust can travel 400 feet from the source (Jacobs et al., 2013).”

• Sustainable Management of Construction & Demolition Materials (EPA)

• Lead-Based Paint and Demolition (EPA)

• Best Practices for the Demolition of Residences with Lead-Based Paint (Study, Oregon Health Authority, 2018)

• Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Mitigation in Residential Demolitions (Oregon Senate Bill 871 Implementation Ordinance - great guide for federal policymaking)

• Lead dustfall from demolition of scattered site family housing: developing a sampling methodology (Study, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2009)

• Understanding the Effects Vacant Lots Have on Neighborhood Health (Literature Review prepared by Grounded Strategies for the Heinz Endowment, 2021)

  “Many vacant lots have high levels of lead in the soil. The lots were typically sites for houses that used lead-based paint, which can weather or flake off and contaminate the soil as homes were abandoned and deteriorated. Also, in many cases, debris from housing demolition was simply buried on site. These lots with high lead levels pose a threat to residents’ health and safety. Contaminated soil can be tracked into homes on shoes and clothing or can be blown as dust and ingested.” (page 9)

  “The environmental hazards of blight and vacancy are disproportionately concentrated in areas with large minority populations and low median incomes, requiring both grassroots action and systematic changes to public policy to ensure environmental injustices are truly addressed.” (page 10)

Do you have a source to add to this list? Email Build Reuse and Preservation Action Board Member Stephanie Phillips with a link.

The draft strategy is 31 pages long. We recommend reading through the entire strategy to see what stands out to you, but we have pulled relevant sections below with page numbers. We have also indicated comments from our organizational leadership in bold italic to connect portions of the draft language to our collective work.

—

The EPA’s new Lead Strategy will help achieve that objective by addressing elevated blood lead levels in children from families living below the federal poverty level and other groups with higher lead exposures. To accomplish this objective the Lead Strategy sets out four key goals:

• Reduce community exposures to lead sources

• Identify communities with high lead exposures and improve their health outcomes

• Communicate more effectively with stakeholders

• Support and conduct critical research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposures and related health risks. (page 3)

—

The EPA has identified three new approaches that will guide EPA’s actions and facilitate greater collaboration within the Agency and with federal partners:

APPROACH 1: Reduce lead exposures locally with a focus on communities with disparities and promote environmental justice

• The EPA will work with our partners to identify communities where lead exposure and blood lead levels are known or reasonably suspected to be highest and then determine the dominant sources and cumulative exposure pathways. The EPA will subsequently use this knowledge and evidence-based best practices to focus the Agency’s actions under all applicable authorities to reduce risk.

APPROACH 2: Reduce lead exposures nationally through protective standards, analytical tools, and outreach

• The EPA will prevent and reduce lead exposures by developing and implementing national standards, policy, and guidance; enforcing regulations and statutory requirements; using analytical tools, conducting research, and applying evidence to improve the scientific foundations for methods to reduce and mitigate lead exposure; and soliciting stakeholder input to inform Agency decisions.

APPROACH 3: Reduce lead exposures with a “whole of EPA” and “whole of government” approach

• The EPA will target opportunities to collaborate across EPA programs and with federal partners and other governmental stakeholders, including states, tribes, cities, and counties, as well as non-governmental organizations and industry stakeholders, to focus the full range of resources to reduce lead exposures from all sources in the most impacted communities across the country. The Agency will use evidence-based strategies for communication and outreach designed to reduce these exposures. (pages 3-4)

—

Numerous and disparate sources of lead, coupled with many federal, local, and state agencies having separate legal authorities to address those sources, create a challenging landscape for tackling the problem. The EPA and its other federal partners need to find new approaches to protect communities still experiencing the highest childhood blood lead levels by reducing children’s exposures to lead sources. The EPA’s Lead Strategy focuses our efforts to reduce elevated blood lead in communities by addressing multi-media exposure pathways with all our applicable statutory authorities, across all our relevant programs, and in coordination with our federal partners and stakeholders. (page 5)

—

Lead Strategy Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Reduce Community Exposures to Lead Sources

Problem: Lead exposure results from multiple sources. For example, longstanding sources of lead exposure remain in homes, schools, childcare facilities, and other buildings with lead-based paint, old water distribution systems, and household plumbing. Soils of residential yards, parks, and schoolgrounds across the United States also can be contaminated with lead. The EPA will leverage all of its regulatory and risk management tools to provide greater protection to communities from the effects of lead. (page 7)

Build Reuse note: this section should include the harmful effects of mechanical demolition on vulnerable communities and note the lack of federal unified guidance on demolition, which results in some states regulating abatement before demolition and others implementing little regulation at all. Per the EPA, approximately 90% of construction and demolition waste is landfilled in the United States, creating a lead exposure issue even after a building is removed, including leeching in ground soils and groundwater. Better federal guidance is needed to address this total lifecycle issue, including encouraging deconstruction over demolition, especially in pre-1978 housing stock.

—

Objective A: Reduce Exposure in Homes and Child-Occupied Facilities with Lead-Based Paint Hazards

Problem: Millions of people, especially those living in communities with environmental justice concerns, continue to be exposed to lead at home and in other buildings where lead-based paints are found in deteriorating condition (peeling, chipping, cracking, or damaged). 7 Communities that have a high percentage of housing or buildings built before 1978 —and especially those built before 1940 — are at risk from historical use of lead-based paint.

APPROACH 2: Reduce lead exposures nationally through protective standards, analytical tools, and outreach

Revisit the dust-lead hazard standards and dust-lead clearance levels: The OCSPP has initiated a rule to reconsider the dust-lead hazard standards (DLHS) and dust-lead clearance levels (DLCL) in accordance with the Executive Order 13990 and consistent with a May 2021 court decision in the Ninth Circuit. Lead inspectors, risk assessors, and abatement professionals use the DLHS to determine if dust-lead hazards are present and the DLCL to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning following an abatement in target housing (i.e., built before 1978) and child-occupied facilities. Abatements are designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, including dust-lead hazards. As part of this rule, EPA plans to amend its regulatory definition of target housing to conform with a 2017 statutory change to clear up regulatory ambiguity and extend the regulatory coverage to zero bedroom dwellings (e.g., studio apartments) where children live. The EPA may revisit its lead in renovation protocol, in collaboration with HUD, to determine if its cleaning verification procedure is effective with respect to a revised dust-lead hazard standard and/or clearance level. (page 7-8)

Preservation Action note: Many of you may have experienced the potential unintended effects of federal guidance that results in the total loss of historic or older materials - and sometimes the full demolition of existing buildings - in the name of ‘eliminating’ lead exposure. Sometimes, the vagueness in federal policy or guidance leaves communities to interpret the language and implement their own policy directives that may support the landfilling of otherwise usable materials and buildings. If this resonates with you, we strongly recommend submitting comments that reference the local policies that may have inflicted unnecessary material loss or building demolition, and how that has adversely affected your communities. The presence of a hazardous material should not be the reason a unit of affordable housing is demolished or usable, repairable building materials are landfilled.

—

Objective D: Reduce Exposure to Lead Associated with Emissions to Ambient Air

Problem: Lead emitted into the air can contribute to multiple pathways of exposure that can pose risks to human health and the environment. For example, lead from ambient air can contribute to lead in soil and related pathways, as well as indoor air and dust. The extent of air related pathway contributions to exposures and risk depends largely on source and community characteristics. The EPA will assess and reach conclusions on hazards, potential exposures, and risks; set and implement standards to limit emissions and air concentrations; and work with state and local agencies to monitor air quality near sources and ensure compliance with the standards.

Approach 1: …the EPA will work with state and local air agencies in communities on actions to reduce ambient air emissions to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and protect local health. (page 16)

Build Reuse note: There is no mention of demolition as a lead emitter (in fact, the word ‘demolition’ is not included in the draft strategy at all). Thus, a building demolition’s impact on surrounding properties and residents are not considered. Air emissions of lead have the greatest impact near the pollution source. There should be specific direction in the final lead strategy for the EPA to coordinate with state and local agencies on the reduction of building removal lead emissions beyond the existing resource-intensive methods of spraying down sites with water and, in some areas, wrapping buildings in plastic as they are demolished. Clear federal guidance should be established that makes deconstruction the first building removal pathway with demolition as a last resort. The final strategy should be explicit in directing states and local governments to establish deconstruction policies and incentives, as well as material recovery and reuse sites.

Below is the transcript from comments provided by Build Reuse member Shawn Wood (City of Portland, Oregon) at the EPA Region 10 Listening Session on February 8, 2022. Watch Shawn’s full testimony on YouTube.

“The purpose my testimony is to encourage EPA to consider two things for the draft lead strategy. Number one: consider adding demolition of pre-1978 buildings as a lead-emitting source that generates harmful dust and impacts air and soil. And number two: consider what the City of Portland has done to address lead associated with house demolitions as a potential model for other jurisdictions.

Building demolitions often occur in neighborhoods with low incomes and higher concentrations of people of color. Across the country, the predominant method of removal is mechanical demolition, which involves smashing a structure with a heavy piece of machinery like an excavator. Lead dust from the mechanical demolition can travel several blocks before settling and yards, parks, window sills, or within structures. I encourage EPA to consider demolitions and the impacts to nearby families in the same light that renovations and impacts to occupants is considered with current EPA regulations, standards, and education efforts. The term demolition is not mentioned in the current draft strategy document.

Over the past six years, Portland has adopted two unique strategies to reduce lead impacts related to house demolitions, 98% of which were constructed before 1978. First, in 2016, we passed a deconstruction ordinance which requires the hand disassembly of a house built in 1940 or earlier, in order to salvage building materials for reuse. Deconstruction is performed by certified deconstruction contractors that have their lead RRP certification. Deconstruction has the added benefits of generating very little dust compared to mechanical demolition and increase opportunity to identify and safely remove hazardous materials. Our deconstruction ordinance currently covers about two thirds of house demolition permit annually.

Second, in 2018, Portland implemented Oregon Senate Bill 871, which allows local jurisdictions to adopt regulations for reducing hazardous dust during mechanical demolition. Portland's adopted site control measures include enhanced neighborhood and adjacent property notification; removal of all exterior painted siding, windows, and doors on pre-1978 structures; plastic sheeting around the house to capture paint dust or chips during hand removal; sufficient watering prior to demo, during demo, and during debris loading; no work is allowed on windy days; and multiple inspections are conducted throughout the demo process to confirm compliance.

And in conclusion, through our deconstruction ordinance and site control measures for mechanical demolition, Portland is likely the most comprehensive regulations in the country to mitigate lead, and we are more than happy to share those outcomes and successes with EPA and other jurisdictions. Thank you.”

Tips for Submitting Effective Comments*

Overview

A comment can express simple support or dissent for a regulatory action. However, a constructive, information-rich comment that clearly communicates and supports its claims is more likely to have an impact on regulatory decision making.

These tips are meant to help the public submit comments that have an impact and help agency policy makers improve federal regulations.

Summary

• Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on

• Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions

• Be concise but support your claims

• Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted

• Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment

• There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment

• The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters

Detailed Recommendations

Comment periods close at 11:59 eastern time on the date comments are due - begin work well before the deadline.

Attempt to fully understand each issue; if you have questions or do not understand a part of the regulatory document, you may ask for help from the agency contact listed in the document.

Note: Although the agency contact can answer your questions about the document's meaning, official comments must be submitted through the comment form.

Clearly identify the issues within the regulatory action on which you are commenting. If you are commenting on a particular word, phrase or sentence, provide the page number, column, and paragraph citation from the federal register document.

If a rule raises many issues, do not feel obligated to comment on every one – select those issues that concern and affect you the most and/or you understand the best.

Agencies often ask specific questions or raise issues in rulemaking proposals on subjects where they are actively looking for more information. While the agency will still accept comments on any part of the proposed regulation, please keep these questions and issues in mind while formulating your comment.

Although agencies receive and appreciate all comments, constructive comments (either positive or negative) are the most likely to have an influence.

If you disagree with a proposed action, suggest an alternative (including not regulating at all) and include an explanation and/or analysis of how the alternative might meet the same objective or be more effective.

The comment process is not a vote. The government is attempting to formulate the best policy, so when crafting a comment it is important that you adequately explain the reasoning behind your position.

Identify credentials and experience that may distinguish your comments from others. If you are commenting in an area in which you have relevant personal or professional experience (i.e., scientist, attorney, fisherman, businessman, etc.) say so.

Agency reviewers look for sound science and reasoning in the comments they receive. When possible, support your comment with substantive data, facts, and/or expert opinions. You may also provide personal experience in your comment, as may be appropriate. By supporting your arguments well you are more likely to influence the agency decision making.

Consider including examples of how the proposed rule would impact you negatively or positively.

Comments on the economic effects of rules that include quantitative and qualitative data are especially helpful.

Include the pros and cons and trade-offs of your position and explain them. Your position could consider other points of view, and respond to them with facts and sound reasoning.

If you are uploading more than one attachment to the comment web form, it is recommend that you use the following file titles:

Attachment1_<insert title of document>

Attachment2_<insert title of document>

Attachment3_<insert title of document>

This standardized file naming convention will help agency reviewers distinguish your submitted attachments and aid in the comment review process.

Keep a copy of your comment in a separate file – this practice helps ensure that you will not lose your comment if you have a problem submitting it using the Regulations.gov web form.

Posted Comments

After submission, your comment will be processed by the agency and posted to Regulations.gov. At times, an agency may choose not to post a submitted comment. Reasons for not posting the comment can include:

• The comment is part of a mass submission campaign or is a duplicate.

• The comment is incomplete.

• The comment is not related to the regulation.

• The comment has been identified as spam.

• The comment contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) data.

• The comment contains profanity or other inappropriate language.

• The submitter requested the comment not be posted.

Form Letters

Organizations often encourage their members to submit form letters designed to address issues common to their membership. Organizations including industry associations, labor unions, and conservation groups sometimes use form letters to voice their opposition or support of a proposed rulemaking. Many in the public mistakenly believe that their submitted form letter constitutes a "vote" regarding the issues concerning them. Although public support or opposition may help guide important public policies, agencies make determinations for a proposed action based on sound reasoning and scientific evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.

* Throughout this page, the term "Comment" is used in place of the more technically accurate term "Public Submission" in order to make the recommendations easier to read and understand.

Disclaimer: This page is intended to serve as a guide; it is not intended and should not be considered as legal advice. Please seek counsel from a lawyer if you have legal questions or concerns.