Alliance
Survey Documents Significant Difficulties with FY05 HUD SuperNOFA Application
Process
The Alliance for Healthy Homes conducted a survey of HUD
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control grant applicants in July, asking them
to comment on the ease or difficulty of the electronic grant application process
and other factors that impacted applicants. The Alliance completed analysis
of the survey results in early September.
Three major findings emerged from the statistical analysis
of the responses and the comments that respondents made on the electronic submission
process. First, it is evident that, by the spring of 2005, the grants.gov infrastructure
and the systems surrounding it had not yet worked out quality control mechanisms
for ensuring competent operations and effective communication. Second, applicant
agencies’ and organizations’ time was diverted from planning the
proposed projects in the applications (and other work) to master the requirements
of the new system, overcome inconsistencies in instructions, and wait online
or on hold for their questions and applications to progress. Third, grassroots
organizations and local agencies on the frontlines in the nation’s highest
risk communities face potentially diminished access to lead hazard control and
healthy homes grants due to continued flaws in the grant application system.
To improve the electronic application process for HUD lead
hazard control and healthy homes grants, the Alliance’s report recommends
several steps, including: Grants.gov should test the operation of and instructions
for the electronic submission package for each NOFA and resolve any problems
before the NOFA is announced; electronic submission of HUD’s OHHLHC grant
applications should not be required again until grants.gov software, instructions,
and submission processes have been adjusted; SuperNOFA and grants.gov requirements
should be consistent, fully explained, and written in plain English; and there
should be no complicated prerequisites to meet in order to submit an application.
New Jersey
Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Lead Pigment Manufacturers
On August 17, the New Jersey Court of Appeals reinstated
a lawsuit filed by 22 municipalities and four counties who are seeking to recover
costs of lead hazard control and abatement from a number of lead pigment manufacturers.
The appeals court ruled that a case tried on the basis of public nuisance is
allowable, but the local governments’ claims of fraud and civil conspiracy
were insupportable and will not be part of any future trial. The court reversed
the trial court judge’s dismissal of late 2002.
The trial court had ruled that local governments didn’t
have the authority to bring lawsuits against lead pigment manufacturers, and
said that allowing such suits would be a violation of the New Jersey Constitution’s
separation of powers requirements and a violation of the Commerce Clause of
the U.S. Constitution.
The appeals court, in a 51-page opinion, rejected those
lines of reasoning, holding that New Jersey municipalities have inherent police
powers that allow them to bring lawsuits to address public nuisances, such as
those caused by deteriorated lead-based paint. Whether the lead pigment manufacturers
being sued in this case contributed to the public nuisance in question is a
decision best left to a jury, according to the appeals court’s ruling.
Pigment industry spokesperson Bonnie Campbell downplayed
the importance of the court’s ruling, calling it merely a “procedural
decision” and reiterating that the pigment industry will “vigorously
defend against plaintiffs’ claim.”
Chris Perrucci, an attorney representing several of the
municipalities, praised the decision and said that at trial, he will argue that
“the paint industry was aware their product was harmful to small children
but did not reveal this known danger to consumers.”
The New Jersey opinion adds to growing momentum in several
states toward allowing juries to decide whether lead pigment manufacturers are
to be held accountable for producing and marketing lead-based paint. A Wisconsin
Supreme Court decision in July upheld the right of a teenager to sue lead pigment
manufacturers for damages resulting from his lead poisoning; two companies sued
by the City of Milwaukee have dropped their appeals and will go to trial within
several months; and the State of Rhode Island will retry its case against lead
pigment manufacturers in October, following a $12 million settlement with DuPont,
which has since been dropped as a defendant in the case.
Congress Sets
EPA’s FY 2006 Budget
In early August, Congress passed its FY 2006 Interior and
Environment appropriations bill, which includes the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) budget. The bill is now Public Law 109-54.
The bill includes $2.38 billion dollars for Environmental
Programs and Management at EPA, $86.8 million more than in FY 2005. The Environmental
Programs and Management budget funds EPA’s asthma, lead poisoning prevention,
and indoor air programs. Congress made a specific line-item appropriation to
EPA’s radon program, reducing funding by $400,000 to $4.6 million.
The bill also includes a $742 million appropriation to
the Agency’s Science and Technology Budget, a decrease of $2.3 million
from last year.
Alliance
Releases Report Detailing Lack of Progress on Lead Testing of Medicaid-Eligible
Children
New data confirm that states are still failing to test
children served by Medicaid for lead poisoning as required by federal law. Efforts
to improve lead screening rates for these high-risk children are yielding barely
detectable progress in most states.
The Alliance for Healthy Homes has completed a new analysis
of state data on lead screening services provided to children eligible for Medicaid,
who are legally entitled to lead tests and who are considered at high risk for
lead poisoning as a group. The analysis is contained in a report, “Stuck
in Neutral: States Neglect Lead Testing Duty to Children Served by Medicaid.”
The report examines data gathered from forms submitted annually by state Medicaid
agencies to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Key findings include:
Most one- and two-year-old children served by Medicaid
are not receiving required lead screening tests. Only about 24 percent of
Medicaid-enrolled children in the one- to two-year-old age group received
a lead blood test in FY 2003.
The problem is not that children in Medicaid do not
receive regular preventive care. Instead, Medicaid-enrolled children who go
to the doctor are still not receiving the required lead test. Only 34 percent
of children aged one to two years who received preventive medical care also
received a lead test.
To improve lead screening for children at highest risk
and address lead hazards before they poison additional children, the Alliance
recommends the following three steps:
1. Put CDC in charge of Medicaid lead screening—The
Secretary of Health and Human Services should charge the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) with reviewing current Medicaid policy and practice
for lead poisoning and developing a set of remedial action steps to be taken
by CMS and state Medicaid agencies.
2. States should adopt lead screening strategies proven
effective in other states—State Medicaid agencies should review the screening
performance of health care providers and provide specific feedback on lead screening
rates, and states should consider using monetary incentives or disincentives
to reinforce lead screening performance.
3. Provide CDC with needed resources for lead poisoning
prevention—Funding for CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch should
be increased from $36 million to $60 million to reflect expanded leadership
responsibility for lead elimination, primary prevention, and the proposed Medicaid
screening supervision.
Proposed
Revised Rules for Testing Pesticides on Humans Spark Immediate Criticism
Immediate controversy erupted in August when several newspapers
obtained a draft of EPA’s new human testing and experimentation rules.
The draft rules promise stricter controls on human studies, the creation of
an independent study review board mandated by Congress, and protections that
the Agency says will prevent children and pregnant woman from being exposed
to dangerous pesticides in human studies.
A number of EPA toxicologists, attorneys, and health experts
disputed the Agency’s contentions, saying that the draft rules, though
better than a previously leaked proposal that was scuttled in July, still fall
short of protecting subjects, especially vulnerable populations, with one EPA
toxicologist calling the rules “a magician’s trick” in attempt
to fool Congress and the American public into believing that the rules will
actually be protective of human subjects’ health and safety.
Advocates also raised concerns about the rules, saying
that they give the pesticide industry too much power in deciding the scope and
design of human pesticide studies. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
said that the rules would also fail to protect pregnant women and children.
The rules would ban toxicity tests on children and pregnant women, but they
do not contain an explicit ban on these groups’ participation in other
types of studies that would expose them to pesticides, according to NRDC.
The concerns surrounding human testing of pesticides increased
dramatically in early 2005 when the EPA’s Children’s Health and
Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) came to light. The study would
have enrolled 60 low-income families in Florida who agreed to continue exposing
their children to indoor applications of pesticides in exchange for $970, children’s
clothing, and a camcorder. CHEERS was partially bankrolled by the American Chemistry
Council, an association of chemical and pesticide manufacturers. EPA was forced
to cancel the study because of an outcry among the public and Members of Congress
over ethical concerns. In July, Congress reinforced its objections to studies
like CHEERS, passing a clear ban on human pesticide exposure studies involving
children and pregnant women.
The draft rules were released for public comment on September
7. The public comment period will be open for 90 days. To view the draft rules
and instructions on how to comment on the rules, see www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm.
HUD Announces
Lead Disclosure Settlement with Virginia Landlord to Make Apartments in Four
States Lead-Safe
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and the EPA reached a settlement in early August with a Virginia-based property
management company, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., which will result in an extensive
testing and lead hazard control program throughout the company’s properties.
AvalonBay voluntarily revealed to HUD that a self-audit
of its properties showed that some of its apartment complex management staff
were not revealing the presence of lead hazards to their tenants. These actions
were a violation of the federal lead-hazard disclosure rule.
As a result of the settlement, the company will spend roughly
$350,000 to ensure that all of its properties, located in California, Connecticut,
Illinois, and Massachusetts, are lead-safe. The company will also pay a civil
penalty of $7,500 to the federal government.
For more information on the settlement, visit the HUD Newsroom
at www.hud.gov/news/index.cfm.
The settlement news release is dated August 3, 2005.
EPA Assailed
by Federal Judge for Removing Rat Poison Safeguards
The EPA’s 2001 decision to remove important protections
for children from rat poisons sold and used throughout the United States drew
the ire of a federal judge in early August. The judge ruled that EPA failed
to protect children from rat poison exposure as a result of its agreement with
the pesticide industry.
The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by West
Harlem Environmental Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The judge agreed with the plaintiffs’ claims that the Agency removed important
protections for children through its agreement with pesticide makers. District
Court Judge Jed Rakoff said that the Agency not only endangered children, it
also failed to justify its agreement with pesticide companies. The agreement
reversed two parts of a Clinton-era rule that required rat poison manufacturers
to include a bittering agent and a dye that would warn children that the pellets
were poisonous. The Agency and the pesticide industry claimed that the safeguards
would make the pellets less attractive to rats and could damage household property
should the dye leach from the pellets.
According to the Agency’s own data, however, accidental
rat poisonings in children are on the rise, and African Americans and Latinos
are disproportionately impacted. In New York State, for example, 57 percent
of rat poisoning hospitalizations involve African American children, even though
only 16 percent of the state’s children are African American. Twenty-six
percent of all New York State poisonings involve Latino children, who make up
just 12 percent of the state’s population.
The judge ordered EPA to reconsider the rule. The Agency
responded by saying that it is “looking at the court’s decision
and determining what steps need to be taken to address the issue.” The
pesticide industry dismissed the judge’s concerns, stating that if EPA
reinstates its prior protections for children, “Consumers will be losers.
They’re going to have products that are less effective.”
Problems with rat poisons and other pesticides illustrate
the need for more protective options for combating pests and for EPA to focus
more heavily on promoting alternatives to pesticide use. Instead of relying
on high-toxicity pesticides that can poison children and cause a variety of
other health problems, homeowners, landlords, and public housing agencies can
instead adopt integrated pest management (IPM) practices. IPM greatly reduces
or eliminates the need to use high-toxicity pesticides by utilizing prevention
and low-toxicity interventions to address pests. IPM includes physical measures
such as blocking entryways, trimming brush surrounding homes and apartment buildings,
and removing sources of food, water, and shelter for pests, including rats.
Should infestations already be present, IPM uses traps, childproof bait boxes,
and gel baits with readily available antidotes in case of accidental ingestion
by children or pets.
Rhode Island
Legislator to Sue in Attempt to Block State’s Lead Law
A Rhode Island legislator who has long been opposed to
the state’s landmark lead poisoning prevention law has indicated that
he will sue the state in an attempt to get the law overturned.
Rep. Joseph Trillo (R-Warwick) insists that the law, which
requires property inspections aimed at identifying and repairing lead hazards
and mandates lead-safe work practices training courses for property owners,
unfairly discriminates between landlords and property management corporations
that own a small amount of property and those who operate a large number of
units. According to Trillo, the alleged discrimination is unconstitutional.
Trillo bases his conclusion about the law on an exemption
it contains. The law exempts owner-occupied buildings with three or fewer units
from mandatory inspections. In fact, during legislative debate over the bill
this summer, Trillo proposed that the exemption expanded to include all buildings
with nine or fewer units.
The law’s supporters accused Trillo of doing the
heavy lifting against the law for large property management companies. State
Senator Rhoda Perry (D-Providence) called the law a “reasoned and reasonable
piece of legislation” and called Trillo’s lawsuit “frivolous.”
The Childhood Lead Action Project, a childhood lead poisoning prevention organization
in Rhode Island, agreed, saying the suit is politically motivated and is not
about protecting small property investors or vulnerable children.
For more information on lead poisoning prevention in Rhode
Island, visit www.leadsafekids.org.
Michigan
City Sets New Lead Ordinance
Mayor George Heartwell and the Grand Rapids City Commission
unanimously approved amendments to the City's Housing Code to include provisions
for addressing lead-based paint and lead dust hazards. The new ordinance continues
to prohibit peeling paint and expands the prohibition on paint chips to include
all paint particles, including dust and residue, lying on all exterior and interior
surfaces. In addition, the revised code includes two new ordinances; bare soil
within thirty inches of any structure is prohibited, and "any remodeling,
repair, or painting of residential structures constructed prior to 1978 is to
be conducted in compliance with the Lead Safe Work Practices" as established
by HUD and EPA.
The City Commission approved the new ordinance July 26,
and it goes into effect immediately. To obtain a copy of the new lead paint
rules, contact Paul Haan, Coordinator of Get the Lead Out!, at 616-241-3300
or gtlo@sbcglobal.net.
American
High School Students Report High Rate of Asthma and Asthma Attacks
The CDC reported in mid-August that a relatively high proportion
of American high school students self-reported having asthma, and large number
of those who identified as currently asthmatic said that they had experienced
an asthma attack within the past year.
In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
CDC said that 18.9 percent of high school students were diagnosed with asthma
by a medical professional, 16.1 percent said that they were currently asthmatic,
and of those currently asthmatic, 37.9 percent reported an asthma “episode”
or attack in the past 12 months. CDC stated that the finding underscore the
need for health care providers, parents, and schools to actively assist children
in managing their asthma.
The report also highlights the need to provide all children
with healthy home environments. Many things within the home, such as dust and
dust mites, cockroaches, mice, mold, excessive moisture, extremes of cold or
heat, and some pesticides, can exacerbate asthma or even trigger acute attacks.
Homeowners and rental property owners (landlords and property management companies)
should do what it takes to limit children’s exposures to these common
asthma triggers in single-family homes, apartments, and other dwelling units.
Indoor
Allergens Plague More Than Half of Americans, Pose Healthy Homes Challenges
and Opportunities
More than 50 percent of Americans tested positive to one
or more indoor allergens in a large national study based on data from the third
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). The study showed
that 54.3 percent of Americans tested showed a reaction to skin tests for at
least one of ten allergens. Dust mites and cockroach antigen, two potent allergens
that can often be found in high concentrations in the home, had some of the
highest prevalence rates, with around 25 percent of the study population exhibiting
a reaction to each.
In August, the study’s authors at the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases said a reaction to a skin test may translate into an
increased vulnerability to asthma, hay fever, and an allergic skin disease known
as eczema. In fact, cockroach antigen and dust mites are two widely recognized
asthma triggers in the home.
Officials at NIEHS believe that the high prevalence of
allergy to dust mites, cockroaches, and other common allergens could help explain
the rise of asthma rates in the United States. Data show that asthma increased
73.9 percent between 1980 and 1996, and skin test reactions to allergens increased
between the last national health survey, NHANES II, conducted from 1976 to 1980,
and NHANES III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. However, NIEHS cautions that
skin test procedures changed between the two survey periods.
To better understand the interactions between allergic
reaction and asthma rates, researchers added a new allergy component to NHANES
2005-2006 surveys. Dust samples from the homes of 10,000 individuals are being
analyzed as part of the survey, and blood samples are also being collected and
examined. Researchers believe that the new allergy component will allow them
to gain a greater understanding of asthma and the roles that indoor allergens
play in asthma and other allergic diseases.
Chemical
Common in House Dust May Disrupt Male Reproductive Development
According to a paper published in the August 2005 issue
of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, a flame retardant commonly
found in house dust and in the blood of human beings throughout the United States
may disrupt male reproductive development.
The chemical mixture, known as DE-71, or penta, is a type
of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), a class of flame retardants used widely
in electronics, foam-cushioned furniture, and other household products. The
mixture’s potential toxicity led to its ban in Europe, and U.S. chemical
companies have voluntarily phased-out its production and use in this country.
The EPA examined exposure to penta in male rats. They found
that penta could suppress the production of important male hormones and could
also lead to significantly delayed male puberty. The EPA researchers, after
examining the results, concluded that penta could pose “real concerns
for adverse effects on human reproductive function and sexual development.”
Penta, and two other PBDE mixtures, octa and deca, are
often found in household dust. Older household items that contain penta likely
“shed” the chemical mixture, because PBDEs are usually not chemically
bound to the surfaces to which they are applied. Once detached, the PBDEs contaminate
dust and can then be easily ingested and inhaled, especially by children who
spend a large amount of time playing on the floor and engaging in normal hand-to-mouth
activity.
EPA
Seeking Comments on Proposed Pesticide Review Program
To ensure that pesticide registrations continue to meet
current health and safety standards, EPA is seeking public comment on a proposed
approach to review each existing pesticide registration every 15 years. This
new registration review program, mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act,
will begin in 2006 to ensure that "older" pesticides will still meet
the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects.
Under the proposed process, the agency would assess any
changes that have occurred since the agency's last registration decision on
the pesticide. EPA would determine the significance of such changes and whether
additional restrictions are needed to ensure that the pesticide meets current
requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Registration review will replace the reregistration and
tolerance reassessment programs that are nearing completion. As in those programs,
the registration review process would allow for substantial public participation,
but unlike those "one-time reassessment" programs, registration review
will reoccur for each pesticide every 15 years.
On September 17, California Chapter 1 of the American Academy
of Pediatrics is hosting its annual winter postgraduate course entitled "Children's
Health and the Environment, 2005" at the UCSF-Laurel Heights Conference
Center in San Francisco. The conference will include discussions of environmental
influences on asthma, helping children avoid environmental health hazards, and
identifying environmental health hazards in children’s homes. Physicians
and nurses attending this course may earn CME credit. For more information,
see www.aapca1.org.
The Philadelphia area will host the Mid-Atlantic Conference
on Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning and Combating Indoor Environmental Hazards,
September 28-29. The conference will consist of two tracks, one focused on prevention
of childhood lead poisoning, the other on addressing other indoor environmental
health hazards including mold. For more information on the program tracks and
other conference details, visit www.leadmoldconferences.com.
The Conference on Children’s Health and the Environment
will be held in Baltimore on October 1. The conference is sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic
Center for Children’s Health and the Environment, the Maryland Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene, and EPA Region 3. It will cover emerging issues
in children’s environmental health, asthma, mold issues, outcomes of environmental
exposures, and risk communication strategies. Periodically check www.gwu.edu/~macche/events.html
for more details, or contact Aurora Amoah at 202-994-1166, toll-free at 1-866-622-2431,
or E-mail at eohaoa@gwumc.edu.
The Environmental Health and Child Development Conference
will be held in Ann Arbor, MI, November 3, at the University of Michigan—Ann
Arbor (Rackham Graduate School). The conference will focus on preventing toxic
threats to child neurological development in Michigan. Special emphasis will
be placed on heavy metals and their effects and persistent organic compounds
such as pesticides. It is co-sponsored by the American Association of Mental
Retardation, Michigan Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, Ecology Center
of Ann Arbor, Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, Michigan
State Medical Society, and the Center for Children's Health and Environment.
For more information, contact Lauren Zajac, MPH, at the Ecology Center of Ann
Arbor, lauren@ecocenter.org.
CONFERENCE LOCATION AND DATE CHANGE: The
American Public Health Association’s National Conference has been relocated
to Philadelphia and will run December 10-14. The changes were necessary in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. For more information about the location and
date changes, see www.apha.org.
The Ohio Department of Health is sponsoring their 13th
Ohio Lead Poisoning Prevention Conference June 20-22, 2006, in Columbus. The
featured speakers and exhibitors will be from local, state, and national levels.
The conference goal is to educate healthcare and environmental professionals,
parents, and community leaders about the current medical, environmental, and
programmatic issues of childhood lead poisoning prevention in Ohio. Continuing
education units may be offered for nurses, sanitarians, and social workers.
For more information, E-mail bcfhs@odh.ohio.gov
or call Barbara Kochli Nixon at 937-285-6261.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an
e-mail (afhh@afhh.org)
or fax (202-543-4466) with "Subscribe" or "Unsubscribe"
in the subject line. If you received this issue of the Alliance Alert
via fax, please send us your e-mail address for faster delivery and to conserve
resources. Thank you!
