House and Senate Introduce Legislation to Delay EPA Lead Rule

May 6th, 2010 by Editor

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stood firm on its decision not to delay the April 22 implementation date of the Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, legislation has now been introduced in the House and Senate that could delay the rule for at least one year until more contractors are trained.

H.R.5177, introduced on April 29 by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R – Mont.), has four co-sponsors, and would “delay the implementation of certain final rules of the Environmental Protection Agency in States until accreditation classes are held in the States for a period of at least one year.”

According to the legislation, the EPA Administrator shall– –

(1) monitor each State to determine when classes described in subsection (a) are offered in the State; and

(2) provide to each Member of Congress representing the State a notification describing–

(A) the location and time of each such class held in the State; and

(B) the date on which the classes have been held for the 1-year period described in subsection (a).

The House bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The Senate version of the bill, S.3296, was introduced on May 4 by Sen. James Inhofe (R – Okla.) and has 26 co-sponsors. It was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Industry associations, including the Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) and the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) supports delaying the rule.

“AAMA continues to support a delay to the LRRP, allowing the EPA to adequately prepare for full implementation, to provide sufficient training to certify remodeling companies, and to fully inform U.S. homeowners and small business renovators of the impending requirements,” says Richard Walker, AAMA president. “Furthermore, we urge the EPA to revisit their cost of implementation analysis and the potential to negatively impact the intended economic and environmental benefits of programs like HOMESTAR.”

 In related news, the EPA final rule was filed with the Federal Register on May 6, thus is scheduled to go into effect on July 6.

11 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. After April 22, 2010, property owners who perform these projects in pre-1978 rental housing or space rented by child-care facilities must be certified and follow the lead-safe work practices required by EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Remodeling rule. To become certified, property owners must submit an application for firm certification (PDF) (9 pp, 642K) and fee payment to EPA. EPA will begin processing applications on October 22, 2009.

  2. I think this should have been done before the Lead Safe Rule went into effect April 22, 2010. If this does pass who is going to refund all the money spend on cerfication and new equipment since it won’t be required for a year? EPA is fining contractors as we speak. This is turning into a nightmare for most window dealers that do installation. Makes you want to get out of the business entirely.

  3. These regulations are, in my opinion, disingenuous in motive because it is no longer for child safety since in Oct. 2009 the EPA made definite plans to include all homes regardless of children.

    Even though this affects the wallets of millions here are Q I found they cannot or will not answer:
    What percentage of children is affected by Lead?
    What percentage of these came from simply living in the home?
    What percentage of these came from a remodel?

    With only minimal benefit these regs are simply anti business, and anti freedom tyranny,

  4. The RRP rule was introduced on April 22, 2008, with a final rule implementation date set for April 22, 2010.

    This was to give everyone involved 2 YEARS to get certified and trained. If you go to the RRP section of the EPA web site you’ll find a letter (PDF) that details the massive efforts that the EPA has made to publicize the rule.

    Unfortunately everyone waits until the very last moment, and then dumps zillions of applications on the EPA and gets upset when the EPA can’t process them overnight. If the rule is delayed for another year, why would anyone believe this whole process wouldn’t just be repeated ? Nobody wants to spend $ 300 to get certified, and $ 300 to get trained, but sometimes you just have to do what you have to do.

    The reality is that hundreds of thousands of children in the US are getting sick (and in some cases suffering permanently brain damaged) by lead every year from installers of windows. Without realizing it when they work in a lead dust environment, they bring microscopic lead dust home on them that gets on their kids, spouses and pets. To get an idea of the extent of the problem, just do a Google or You Tube search on the subject. I think you’ll be amazed at just how big a problem this is.

    By delaying the implementation of the rule, more people will get sick that shouldn’t.

    As a shareholder and employee of a company that teaches the RRP 8 hour Training Course I am without doubt biased in favor of both the RRP rule, and the EPA not delaying it.

    However so far our experience is showing that the problem is currently that the contractors do not understand the background and necessity for the program, and just see it as another excuse for the government to to tax them in some way. Consequently they’re just not getting certified or taking the classes, and either looking the other way , or putting their heads in the sand.

    In the circumstances the problem mainly lies not with the contractors, but with the governments poor and inadequate job of publicizing the real underlying health need for the RRP rule.

    Once you weigh the cost of the certification and training, plus the extra installation costs (that are going to get passed on to the consumer) against health of your family, you’re more likely to “buy” into the RRP rule.

    If anyone wants or needs any extra information on the subject, we’d be happy to answer your emails. My business partner Dr. Lynn Tait is acknowledged as one of the top 5 lead based paint experts in the country, a field which she has been in for almost 30 years.

  5. Visit http://www.LeadSafeVideoSolutions.com for insight into implementing EPA RRP law.

  6. “The reality is that hundreds of thousands of children in the US are getting sick (and in some cases suffering permanently brain damaged) by lead every year from installers of windows.”

    BALONEY (To be mild). Where did you come up with this statistic? What does your expert do? Expert witness for trial attorneys?

    Hundreds of thousands…really, where are your studies that it is linked to window installers?

  7. Data on number of children affected is found at
    http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm
    The data shows that very few children actually have high lead levels. And if you did a geographic concentration they would be in very poor areas. Children who have poor nutrition are at far greater risk from lead as normally the body cannot absorb lead. And, follow up studies to the ones done back in the 1960’s (if the EPA would fund research instead of create taxes that would be a great thing) show that there is not a strong correlation between the children who had elevated lead levels and long term cognitive development. Socio economic factors are far greater. Also, there is no breakdown on high lead levels and causality because the automatic assumption is renovation is the cause, forgetting that it could be the cheap Chinese toys the kid is playing with. The EPA RRP law is attacking the wrong people for a dubious goal. If each contractor sent their $300 fee to a poor family we’d have far better reduction in childhood lead exposure.

  8. Rob,

    You are incorrect about Contractors having 2 years to get trained. Training wasn’t even available to us until Oct. of 2009. Before that they were still training the trainers! Get you facts straight before firing off B-S statistics and making assumptions you obviously know little about!

    Personally, my Company is trained and ready for this work. I do believe it is a good thing although, it still has some bugs to work out and I won’t get into that here. Their are plenty of good contractors out there who still need time to get the training done. In many cases it’s because classes are full and the waiting line is long, not because they slept in late and tried to go without it. I say give it at least a year for training before they shove this down our throats! If people want to do this work then they do have a short list of trained Contractors they can choose from on the EPA web site.

  9. holland outlawed lead in 1938…the u.s. was aware of the inherent health risks with lead but chose not to discontinue its use in residential settings until 1978…because lead based paint lasts for many decades, bridges and other outdoor infrastructure continue to be coated with lead paint…airplanes continue to use jetfuel that contains lead…lead is a heavy metal and, as mr. newton will attest, will fall to earth and contaminate the area on which it lands…lead flashing is used extensively on buildings across the country–when it rains, lead runs off into the soil and very possibly, your child’s play area…lead and cadmium are the stabilizing metals in polyvinyl chloride windows and miniblinds (that may have changed by now but homeowners who wash their old vinyl windows are putting themselves at RISK, oh my….)…so why the ‘over the top’ regulations now? what prompted the new regs? could it be swiffer or petroleum based plastic sheet companies? how about tyvek manufacturers?

    i think protecting one’s clients and/or family requires basic common sense and good housecleaning habits…the epa suggests we clean the area where we have worked then compare our swiffer to the laminated photo of a dirty swiffer…do we require our clients to make their homes/buildings spotless prior to undertaking window/paint/plumbing/electric work? if not, we must do that cleaning after our work to come up with a clean swiffer….

    a better way to protect children and their parental units is to close mcdonald’s, burger queen, wendy’s, dunkin donuts, taco bell and outlaw coke and pepsi and tobacco products…take a look under your kitchen sink and read the ingredients contained in your cleaning products…

    let’s see the facts, the studies that show an increase in child lead poisoning…from what i have read, there has been a decrease…generations of children have grown up in old homes…noone wants to see a child get sick or suffer from any illness but let’s use reason based on real information…

  10. An estimated 200 lead poisoning-related deaths occurred from 1979 to 1998. Most were among males (74%), Blacks (67%), adults of age >/=45 years (76%), and Southerners (70%). The death rate was significantly lower in more recent years. An alcohol-related code was a contributing cause for 28% of adults. Only three of nine ICD-9 codes for lead poisoning were highly predictive of lead poisoning-related deaths. In conclusion, lead poisoning-related death rates have dropped dramatically since earlier decades and are continuing to decline. However, the findings imply that moonshine ingestion remains a source of high-dose lead exposure in adults.

    Maybe instead of penalizing renovaters they should focus on the moonshiners…

  11. training course didn’t begin until- what, 8 months ago? I think many waited to see if the rule would be, indeed, implemented since the EPA has backed off before.
    Truth be told, if the EPA was so concerned about lead poisoning in kids why does the rule not include homeowners doing work in their own homes- HO’s who would be less aware of lead safe practices to begin with.
    Of course, contractors are easy targets for revenue enhancement. Why should it cost $300 to promise the EPA that you’ll use a certified renovator?? Why couldn’t you just fill out the form and say cross my heart, I promise?
    As some others have said , it’s all bureaucratic baloney!!

Leave Comment

X
This site uses cookies which allow us to give you the best browsing experience possible. Cookies are files stored in your browser and are used by most websites to help personalize your web experience. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy.