Memorandum of Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning; Correspondence to Rules Docket Clerk

    Board of Directors 

Herbert L. Needleman M.D. 
Chairman 

Cushing N. Dolbeare 

Edward B. Fort Ph. D. 

Teresa Heinz 

Richard |. Jackson M.D. 

Seymour Kety M.D. 

Philip |. Landrigan M.D. 

Audrey R. McMahon 

Frank Oski M.D. 

Charles E. Peck 

Stephanie Pollack Esq. 

David P. Rall M.D. 

Cecil Sheps M.D. 

Ellen Silbergeld Ph.D. 

Bailus Walker, Jr. Ph. D. 

Executive Director 

Don Ryan 

The problem 

is so well defined, 

so neatly packaged, 

with both causes 

and cures known, 

that if we don't 

eliminate this social 

crime, our society 

deserves all the 

disasters that have 

been forecast for it. 

— Rene Dubos 

  

ae   

  

    
  

ALLIANCE TO END CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING 

® Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning: The First Comprehensive National Conference # October 7 - 8, 1991 ® Washington, D.C. # 

April 22, 1991 

The pace of developments on childhood lead poisoning prevention seems 

to be accelerating steadily. In the past few months the United 
States seems to be waking up to this persistent problem and how 
childhood lead poisoning impacts their lives. Major articles on lead 
poisoning have appeared in The New York Times, Time Magazine, and 

Parenting Magazine. Key Federal agencies (HHS, EPA, HUD) have issued 

major reports and policy changes, and numerous legislative efforts 
have been initiated. 

  

  

We want to call to your attention a critically important regulatory 
issue and an opportunity where we--with a broad base of support-- 
could have a major impact. HUD is currently soliciting comments on 
its Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies (CHAS) regula- 
tions. CHAS would establish procedures and requirements for every 
state and local government receiving Federal housing or community 

development funds to assess local housing needs and define criteria 
and priorities for the use of funds. The CHAS regulations represent 
the ideal opportunity to implement HUD's supposed commitment to 

address lead-based paint hazards and to integrate health consider- 

ations in future housing plans. However, HUD is stonewalling again 
by refusing to include any consideration of lead hazards in these 

housing needs assessments. 

We believe that assessing lead-based paint hazards is essential in 
any comprehensive housing affordability strategy designed to meet the 
community's need for safe and affordable housing. Lead paint haz- 
ards, with their direct effects on the health of so many of our 
children, require immediate attention. The Alliance believes that it 
is vitally important for HUD to include an assessment of lead paint 
hazards in the CHAS regulations. 

We are asking for your help on this time critical HUD regulatory 
issue. Enclosed is a sample letter to HUD which is similar to one we 

have sent. We hope you will join in pressuring HUD by signing this 

letter or constructing and sending your own. We believe that by 
showing a broad base of support we can make clear to HUD the irre- 
sponsibility of ignoring lead hazards in housing. 

If you have any questions regarding the CHAS regulations please give 

the Alliance a call. If you do send a letter to HUD--and we urge you 

to do so--please send a copy to us so we can keep a record. The dead- 
line for comment is May 6th. 

Thanks for all your help. Please let us know if the Alliance can 
assist in you in future legislative initiatives or any other of your 
endeavors. 

Sincerely, 

Don Ryan 

Executive Director 

® 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. ® Suite 100 ® Washington, D.C. 20003 $ 202-543-1147 ® FAX 202-543-4466 

 



  

April 23, 1991 

Rules Docket Clerk 

Office of General Counsel -- Room 10276 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 

451 Seventh Street, SW 
Washington, DC 20410 

RE: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies Regulations 
Docket # R-91-1507; FR-2932-I-01 

Dear Docket Clerk: 

This letter responds to the Department's February 4 Federal Register notice 
inviting comments on the interim regulations governing the development of local 
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies (CHAS). The comments provided 
herein and the specific regulatory changes recommended by Attachment A are 
submitted by the individuals and organizations listed below. 

  

In promulgating the interim CHAS regulations, HUD has failed to take into 
account a factor which directly affects the safety, utility, habitability and 
future renovation needs of millions of low-income housing units: the hazard 
posed by lead-based paint and dust. This omission (indeed, the purposeful 
avoidance of any mention of lead-based paint in these regulations) will render 

local housing affordability strategies developed under these guidelines incom- 
plete and fatally flawed. By once again ignoring the serious hazards of lead 
paint poisoning, these regulations perpetuate two decades of stonewalling by 
HUD. 

The hazards of lead-based paint should not come as a surprise to HUD, since less 
than five months ago the Department submitted to the Congress detailed estimates 

of lead paint and dust hazards in private U.S. housing. A brief review of the 

facts may be helpful. Based on its national survey, HUD estimated that over 

half of U.S. housing units built before 1980 have some lead-based paint. The 
Department further concluded that more than 20 million homes have chipping and 
peeling leaded paint or high dust levels, which means that lead poisoning 
hazards are present today in 20 percent of the entire U.S. housing stock. 

Because of the age and condition of low-income housing, the prevalence of lead 
hazards is likely to be substantially higher than 20 percent in these units. 
HUD's national survey data further indicate that young children are now living 
in 3.8 million of these problem homes, leading HUD to coin the phrase "priority 
hazards." 

  

These data are fully consistent with the estimates by the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that 
three to four million U.S. children under the age of seven have toxic levels of 
lead in their bodies. Both HHS and EPA have declared lead poisoning "the No. 1 
environmental hazard facing American children." The effects include mental 
retardation, IQ reductions, reading and learning disabilities, attention span 

deficit, and hyperactivity. Attempts by HUD to continue to dismiss lead paint 
poisoning as a nuisance-level problem are simply no longer credible. The 

consensus is now universal among scientific experts and across Federal agencies 
that the primary cause of childhood lead poisoning is lead-based paint and dust 
in homes. 
In addition to ignoring the compelling data on the risks of lead paint, HUD's 
refusal to incorporate lead paint hazards into the CHAS regulations directly 
contradicts Administration policy. The national Strategic Plan for the Elimina- 
tion of Childhood Lead Poisoning calls for the U.S. to make a fundamental shift 
to true prevention -- in sharp contrast to simply cleaning up lead paint hazards 
after a child has already been poisoned. Nationwide efforts to identify and 
correct lead paint hazards in housing are the central element of this national 
strategic plan. 

  

 



Under HUD's CHAS regulations, every city and state must evaluate the supply and 

condition of their low-income housing stock against their population's housing 
needs. These assessments are critical because they will identify special needs, 
establish criteria for setting priorities, and guide planning for new programs. 
The CHAS regulations are therefore the key to integrating consideration of lead 

hazards into local housing decisions nationwide. Clearly, lead-based paint 
hazards are only one of many factors which must be considered in developing 
local comprehensive housing affordability strategies. But just as clearly, 
ignoring the hazards of lead paint and dust in low-income housing leaves 
millions of children imperiled and forsakes our national commitment to "decent, 
safe and affordable housing." 

The assertion by HUD officials that lead-based paint hazards were not included 
in the CHAS regulations because explicit mention was not made in the statute is 
disingenuous. The statute explicitly calls for assessments of the "condition" 
and "habitability" of low-income housing units and their "suitability for 
occupancy . . . by families with children." Since HUD's own Report to Congress 

identifies 3.8 million housing units which pose "priority hazards" for poisoning 
children, it is preposterous to maintain that lead paint hazards do not directly 
affect the habitability and safety of millions of low-income units for families 
with children. The fact that HUD's data (as well as other estimates by HHS and 

EPA) on the full scope and severity of lead paint poisoning were not provided to 
the Congress until after the statute was drafted further justifies specific 
provisions on lead paint hazards in the CHAS regulations. 

In light of the definitive scientific data and official policy pronouncements by 
the Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's refusal to 

incorporate lead hazards into the CHAS regulations is indefensible and irrespon- 

sible. As currently drafted, HUD's regulations forfeit the opportunity for 

engaging market forces to clean up lead hazards, leave millions of low-income 
children at serious risk, and make a mockery of the national strategic plan. 

We urge the Secretary to revise the CHAS regulations as soon as possible by 
incorporating the specific changes recommended in Attachment A. 

Sincerely, 

 



  

Attachment A 

SPECIFIC CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO SUBPART B OF HUD's 

INTERIM CHAS REGULATIONS (Contents of Strategy) 

1) In section 91.15 (c) (Market characteristics), amend the 
third sentence by inserting the underlined words to read as 
follows: 

"Data on the housing inventory must include the ownership or 
rental status of the units, whether they are occupied or 
vacant, their structural condition, the presence of lead- 
based paint hazards, habitabilityv or suitability for renova- 
tion, their cost and size, and should indicate whether units 
are suitable for occupancy for elderly families, disabled 
families, families with children, and any other applicable 
categories of need identified elsewhere in the housing 
strategy statement, including any identified special housing 
needs." 

  

    

2) In section 91.15 (i) (Public housing stock), amend the first 
by adding before the period the underlined words to read as 
follows: 

"A description of the number of public housing units in the 
jurisdiction, their physical condition and their restoration 
and revitalization needs of public housing projects within 
the jurisdiction including information on the existence of 
lead-based paint hazards." 
  

  

3) In section 91.35 (Consultation with social service agencies), 
amend the first sentence by inserting the underlined words and 
add a second sentence to read as follows: 

In the preparation of its housing strategy, a jurisdiction 
must make reasonable efforts to confer with appropriate 
social service and public health agencies regarding the 
housing needs of children, elderly persons, persons with 
disabilities, homeless persons, and other persons served by 
these agencies. Information on the numbers children already 
identified as lead-poisoned and their home addresses should 
be obtained where such is available.