What Will We Fight for Next?
Window and door dealers are probably throwing parties as a result of EPA’s decision last week not to add lead clearance testing to LRRP rules. I don’t blame them—it’s been well documented that adding post-project clearance testing for lead dust would have added significant cost and burden to remodeling projects in pre-1978 homes.
No doubt, the decision announced this week is a significant victory for the industry associations and individual companies that banded together to communicate to our elected leaders and government officials.
The question now—as we ride the wave of excitement and success—is whether the remodeling and construction industry can have additional victories in the government and legislative realm. Will we be able to bring the “opt-out provision” back on the table and fight for homeowners who don’t have children or pregnant women in the home and are content to opt-out of lead-safe work procedures? Can LRRP requirements be kept out of the commercial side of our businesses? Should we look at other arenas?
Now that we have a voice, what should we use it for next? Please send me an email or post a comment below to share.
Survey Results as of 07/26/2011:
Can LRRP rules be trimmed back?
Yes |
| 90% | ||
No |
| 10% |
We see an overwhelming indication of momentum in this week's poll. More than 90 percent of participants think we should capitalize on our recent victory with the EPA to pursue additional adjustments to LRRP rules. Some folks weighed in with comments below so I'll leave my commentary brief, but I will sign off by congratulating the industry associations, business owners and experts for figuring out a way to speak with one voice on this issue of lead-safe work practices. There have been a slew of issues that have come and gone through the years and I don't think many of us have witnessed this type of joint effort in recent history. Regardless of what we tackle next as an industry, I'm more confident than ever that we can find common ground WITHIN the industry, allowing us to cover more ground OUTSIDE the industry. Well done.
Contact Christina Lewellen, senior editor, at clewellen@glass.org.
Comments
No one is saying to through the baby out with the bath water...Where there are children living in a home under the age of six, by all means the LRRP makes sense. Where there are pregnant woman living it makes sense, no one is arguing that point. The point the majority of contractors are arguing is the fact the opt-out was removed. In todays economy, the older generation of homeowners are the people who have money to have any work done on their home. Their children are grown and no longer live with them, they are lucky to see them once a month with the schedules todays working families have. They are also the generation who cleaned and dusted their homes regularly they also did not look for an excuse to blame other people for everything including a "hangnail". So what is the reason the opt-out clause can not be brought back? It Makes Sense!!!
I suggest the involved regulated industries work to make the rule work and make sense. Show the consumers we have their interests in mind and together I know we can offer a much better plan than EPA. Let’s move to get the rule rethought and rewritten. A rule that assumed enforcement in its design when it was obvious there would be no finds for enforcement should be proof that we need to fire the architects and work together to "Design/Build" a solution that actually works and is accomplished within the budget.
As Christina shared we have the momentum, let’s keep it going.
Shawn McCadden
Most of the contractors I talk to around the Luzerne County area of Pennsylvania say that the city and the state officials don’t enforce the RRP rules so who cares what the EPA wants. They tell me they’re not going to shell out thousands of dollars to get certified just to be compliant with this nonsense. Most agree that it’s just a waste of time and hard earned money with todays economy the way it is for both them and the home owner. I have even been told by one contractor that even a local city inspector told him it’s a waste money! So my question to you is; should I even be worried about getting certified if the local and state officials don’t even enforce the RRP rule? And, can the EPA really fine a small business that much money?
Anyone who thinks LRRP is going away or was created without forethought ought to read the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA); and Title X from 1996, etc. And then they should read HUD, OSHA, and DOE Lead Safe Requirements. Lead Safe has been a requirement for over 10 years in a number of states. This is an example of the risks with being asleep at the wheel.
I'm glad the EPA is not taking this any further than they already have. In our market we follow lead safe prarices to the tee.
http://www.renewalbyandersenlouisville.com/
Let's pursue the opt out
Richard, you can't blame contractors for all the contaminations. The DIYers represent a much larger group that, imo.are just as responsible for contamiantions but they don't have to follow the rules.
If much of the lead poisoning can actually be attributed to renovations, then let's put the burden of costs on ALL renovators. You bet, the regulations are flawed and a small minority is getting the burden of costs and fines.
LRRP was launched wihout forethought by qualified people
Maybe we can invite all the parents with children who have gotten sick and brain damage from lead poisoning to the parties that are being thrown.
Sure the regulations were flawed but correct them. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Once again we see organizations such as AAMA ignore the public good.
Post new comment