Transcript: Podcast Overview of OIG Report Evaluation of the EPA’s Oversight of Authorized State Lead-Based Paint Programs

Kim:  Hello and welcome to EPA Uncovered—the podcast where we pull back the curtain on the important work of the EPA’s Office of Inspector General. I’m Kim Wheeler, the OIG’s Director of External Outreach and Communications and your host for the day. Today, we’re taking a closer look at a new OIG report on the EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Program. And with me today to talk us through that report is Paul Bergstrand, the Assistant Inspector General for our Office of Special Review and Evaluation. Paul, welcome—glad you could join us. 

Paul: Thanks, Kim. Happy to be here. 

Kim: So, before we dive into the report, let’s talk a little bit about lead-based paint. Many people think of lead-based paint as a problem of the past. So, why is the EPA still regulating it—and why are we still reporting on it—in 2025?

Paul: It’s a common misconception that lead-based paint is no longer a concern. But it is still the most common source of childhood lead exposure. 

Although lead-based paint was banned for consumer use in 1978, millions of homes and buildings across the country were built before that ban, and many of them still have lead-based paint. Lead-based paint can pose serious risks, especially when it starts peeling, chipping, cracking, or otherwise deteriorating. 

Kim: Wow. What happens then?

Paul: When lead-based paint deteriorates or it is disturbed, it can release lead-contaminated paint dust, which can then become a health hazard for people in the building—especially for children, who can breathe in dust or touch and ingest dust when they put their hands in their mouths.

Kim: The EPA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that there is no known safe level of lead, right? 

Paul: That’s  correct. And lead is particularly dangerous for young children because their bodies more easily absorb it and are more sensitive to its effects. Even low levels of lead in a child’s blood can cause adverse health effects like behavioral and learning problems, slowed growth, or anemia.   

Kim: So, where does the EPA come in?

Paul: The EPA has multiple lead-based programs aimed at reducing or eliminating lead-based paint hazards. 

Kim: And your new report looks at those programs?

Paul: Yes. Our new report looks at three programs that states can administer on behalf of the EPA and with the EPA’s oversight. 

Kim: Interesting. Can you tell us a little bit about those?

Paul: Sure. First, there’s the Lead-Based Paint Activities Program, which regulates inspections, risk assessments, and abatement activities in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, like schools or childcare centers. As of May 2025, the EPA is overseeing Lead-Based Paint Activities programs authorized for 39 states, four tribes, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C.

Then, there’s the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, which ensures that firms and contractors involved in renovating pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities are properly trained, have required certifications, and follow lead-safe work practices during renovation, repair, and painting activities. There are 15 states and one tribe implementing this program.

And finally, there’s the Pre-Renovation Education Program, which requires contractors to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to homeowners and occupants before starting renovation work in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. Seventeen states and one tribe are administering this program. 

Kim: Earlier you mentioned that states can run these programs “with EPA oversight”—how does that work?

Paul: While states are responsible for the day-to-day implementation and enforcement of an authorized lead-based paint program, it’s the EPA’s job to verify that the programs are at least as protective of human health and the environment as the corresponding EPA-run program at the federal level and that states are providing adequate enforcement. In addition, the EPA is regulatorily required to periodically evaluate the adequacy of each state-level program. 

On top of that, the EPA can provide State and Tribal Assistance Grants to help fund state-run lead-based paint programs. So, the Agency is responsible for overseeing the use of that funding as well. 

Kim: Wow, that sounds like a lot to oversee. 

Paul:  It is, and there are several EPA offices involved in making it all work. The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention develops national policies and procedures for implementing authorized state lead-based paint programs. The Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Divisions in each EPA region oversee the day-to-day implementation of authorized state programs. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance develops national policies and procedures for enforcement and compliance. And the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Divisions in each EPA region oversee the day-to-day enforcement and compliance components of authorized state programs.

Kim: So, why did the OIG decide to evaluate the EPA’s oversight of these three programs?

Paul: Well, in February 2024, we received an anonymous OIG Hotline complaint alleging that one state’s authorized lead-based paint programs didn’t have the administrative or infrastructure capacity to successfully implement and enforce its program. So, we designed an evaluation to identify whether there is a systemic root cause of the issues alleged in the complaint.

Kim: And what did you find?

Paul: We found that the EPA isn’t verifying that state lead-based paint programs remain adequately protective and provide adequate enforcement after initial program authorization. 

Kim: What does that mean?

Paul: Specifically, the Agency isn’t collecting enough information to satisfy its regulatory requirement to periodically evaluate each authorized program’s implementation and enforcement adequacy. And the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance have not met their respective responsibilities to develop national program guidance—which would include developing policies and procedures for conducting periodic adequacy evaluations as well as required authorization withdrawals when a state-run program is not complying with standards or regulations. 

Kim: Tell us a little bit more about the EPA’s periodic adequacy evaluations. Why are those important? 

Paul: Those periodic evaluations are crucial. Without them, the EPA doesn’t have the information it needs to verify that state lead-based paint programs remain protective of human health and the environment or to verify that the programs continue to provide adequate enforcement after they are initially authorized. 

Kim: Because a state program meeting requirements when it’s first authorized doesn’t guarantee that it will remain in compliance, right?

Paul: Exactly. And the only way to know for sure is through periodic evaluations. Moreover, without a process in place for those evaluations, the EPA may not have enough evidence to determine when withdrawal of a program is warranted.

It’s also important to note that several of these state lead-based paint programs have been authorized for decades. And since the EPA has not conducted periodic adequacy evaluations, there is a risk that states can’t demonstrate that their programs and enforcement are still adequate. 

Kim: And the consequence of an inadequate lead-based program could be increased risk of exposure for children?

Paul: Yes. Without changes to the EPA’s oversight procedures, the authorized state lead-based paint programs may not adequately protect public health. And children could suffer adverse and irreversible health effects.

Kim: So, what’s being done? 

Paul: We made four recommendations to strengthen the EPA’s oversight of state lead-based paint programs—including developing guidance that directs regional offices to conduct periodic adequacy evaluations and clarifying the headquarters and regional offices’ oversight roles and responsibilities regarding state implementation of two authorized lead-based paint programs. The EPA agreed with our recommendations and is moving forward with corrective actions to address all four.

Kim: And is that the end of the story? Your work here is done here?

Paul: Not quite. An important part of the OIG’s audits and evaluations is our follow-up process. When we identify an issue, we work with the Agency to agree on corrective actions that will address that issue. And when we make a recommendation, we don’t close it until the Agency provides documentation showing that the corrective action has been implemented. 

Kim: Okay. So, the four recommendations for this report are still open?

Paul: Yes, and we will continue to track and report on them to the Agency and to Congress until the corrective actions are completed and the recommendations are closed. 

Kim: Well, folks, we’ve reached the end of our time today. But I want to thank Paul for stopping by to talk with us. 

Paul: Any time. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight this report and the important work our team is doing. 

Kim: And to our listeners, you can find this report—and other OIG reports—on our website at www.epaoig.gov. And if you have information about suspected fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement involving an EPA program, please report it to our OIG Hotline by completing a complaint form on our website or emailing OIG.Hotline@epa.gov.