Groups/Companies Lobby Congress to Delay RRP Rule

[ChrWright]

http://www.dealer.org/files/Bingaman%20Murkowski%20Boxer%20Inhofe%20Letter%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Dear Chairman Bingaman, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Ranking Member Inhofe:

We are writing to urge you to request a delay in the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) “Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule” (LRRP). As manufacturers, distributors, retailers and installers of new construction materials, we support efforts to ensure that home renovations in pre-1978 homes are conducted in accordance with EPA’s LRRP requirements. Unfortunately, based on EPA compliance-needs estimates, we do not believe EPA is prepared to adequately implement the LRRP. Further, if implemented now, the LRRP will negatively affect economic stimulus funding designated for housing weatherization and planned efforts for a national residential retrofit program.

Starting on April 22, 2010, renovation work that disturbs more than six square feet on the interior of a home built before 1978 must follow new Lead Safe Work Practices (LSWP) supervised by an EPA certified renovator and performed by an EPA certified renovation firm, as outlined in 40 CFR § 745.85. Your respective Committees have passed legislation to incentivize energy efficiency upgrades in older homes and buildings – the same housing stock subject to the LRRP. We agree this is an effective approach towards improving building energy efficiency. However, we also see that new proposals, such as the multi-billion dollar HOME STAR for residential retrofits, designed to quickly create jobs through efficiency upgrades to older homes, is at risk of derailing compliance with the LRRP, or vice versa, that compliance with the LRRP will subvert the ability to deliver jobs and save energy in the oldest, least-efficient housing stock.

Currently, EPA has only 135 accredited trainers and 13,669 certified renovators nationwide, although its own compliance-needs estimates indicate that it needs at least 200,000 or more certified renovators. Obviously, these numbers are far too insufficient for the millions of renovations carried out annually, even without a substantial retrofit incentive program like HOME STAR. With the April 22, 2010 deadline nearing, it is clear that EPA cannot ensure enough certified renovators will be available for compliance with the LRRP. Meanwhile, there is going to be an additional influx of new contractors and renovators generated by the HOME STAR proposal in the same industry (i.e., residential retrofitting). This will create a major problem between LRRP compliance and the exponential increase in the numbers of retrofit contractors under a HOME STAR program. We believe renovation incentives and HOME STAR, if passed as proposed, which is deliberately intended to significantly increase renovation work in older homes, will only magnify LRRP compliance issues.

There is a precedent for a solution which we believe could temporarily ameliorate some of these concerns. An example from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on this exact same issue is particularly relevant. In September 2000, HUD published a “Notice of Transition” in the Federal Register (65 Federal Register 54858) which delayed HUD’s implementation of the “Lead Safe Housing Regulation.” HUD program participants who sought to take advantage of the transition period were required to file a “Statement of Inadequate Capacity”, which stated that “trained, licensed (certified) or accredited personnel or firms are either not available in sufficient numbers or are not available at a reasonable cost to make it practicable to comply with the Lead Safe Housing Regulation.”

In a recent proposal to amend the LRRP, EPA stated that it was considering delaying the effective date of the LRRP. We support this and urge you to contact the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and request a delay of the LRRP. In light of the high priority given by both Congress and the Administration to improving energy efficiency in older homes and creating a robust residential retrofit industry, e.g., through a HOME STAR proposal, contractors and industry professionals must have a resolution to the LRRP compliance issue before April 22, 2010.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
Window and Door Manufacturers Association
National Association of Home Builders
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association
Window and Door Dealers Alliance
National Glass Association
Manufactured Housing Institute
National Association of the Remodeling Industry
The Home Depot
Vinyl Siding Institute
Independent Electrical Contractors
Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

[Eieio]

No delays we have known about this long enough and we should already be certified..

[Decoman]

I hope it gets delayed.. Why because its just another thing that the gov't can't afford to police and they have more pressing issues to deal with then cramming this down the publics throat w/o most of the public even being aware of it happening... JMO

[Silvertree]

I noticed NARI is on board, that's a switch from a few months ago.

[ChrWright]

Quite the discussion going on presently on Twitter.

[Eieio]

You guys had 2 years to prepare now you want to whine because you waited until the last minute to try and comply hoping the rule would go away..

Well it did not and now its time to face the music..

[Blue]

You guys had 2 years to prepare now you want to whine because you waited until the last minute to try and comply hoping the rule would go away..

Well it did not and now its time to face the music..

You may be right about that EIO, but I'm not going to put up with that tone. Calm down or get reported........your choice

[ChrWright]

You guys had 2 years to prepare now you want to whine because you waited until the last minute to try and comply hoping the rule would go away..

Well it did not and now its time to face the music..

...says the EPA's top snitch. :rolleyes3:

[Eieio]

The biggest arguments against the rule are..

1. not enough time?

2 years seems long enough to me

2. We did not know about it??

Did you know in Texas its illegal to sell your eye?

They are plenty of them we don't know about. ignorance is no excuse

3. The cost of implementing it??

Pass it on to the customer just like any other overhead cost you have.

[SLS-Construction]

You guys had 2 years to prepare now you want to whine because you waited until the last minute to try and comply hoping the rule would go away..

Well it did not and now its time to face the music..

:rolleyes3: Nice try Michael :laugh3:

[Dean CRCNA]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!! I can't sell my eye?

[Bodger]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!! I can't sell my eye?


Just not in Texas.

I have my left eye on E-Bay right now, but not accepting bids from the Lone Star State. That eye had been bothering me anyway.

Next month it will be a kidney. I hope the winning bidder likes Bourbon. :grin:

The best question is, how the hell does Rory know about an obscure Texas no eyeball sellin' law?

[Eieio]

Just not in Texas.

I have my left eye on E-Bay right now, but not accepting bids from the Lone Star State. That eye had been bothering me anyway.

Next month it will be a kidney. I hope the winning bidder likes Bourbon. :grin:

The best question is, how the hell does Rory know about an obscure Texas no eyeball sellin' law?


The same way I found out about the EPA Lead Rule 2 years ago!!! :laugh3: :mad2:

[Bender]

It should be delayed do to ignorance of the law, not about the law.

[afkama]

It should be delayed do to ignorance of the law, not about the law.

There is a reason why ignorance of a law can not be used in court as a defense.

We are supposed to make ourselves aware of the changes in law not the other way around. The federal govt publishes rule changes in the Federal Register.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

The tax laws change every year. The IRS isn't required to tell me about it. I depend on my accountant to stay current on these things.

I pay my construction attorney to keep me current on changes in the federal rules and contract law and state labor regulations.

I research changes in OSHA regulations and the building code.

If I waited for these agencies to contact me about changes in law, I'd be leaving myself at risk, with very little defense.

[Bender]

Sorry. I didn't word that clearly. I mean the law is ignorant, not ignorance of the law.

This is a double barreled shotgun pointed at the contractor. There is no release of liability. The first kid that pukes in that house, weather it be 1 day after construction or 3 years, you're going to be in court trying to prove you didn't intentionally poison that kid.

[SLS-Construction]

afkama - very good points, but one expects the IRS to change the rules yearly, one clearly knows that the building codes apply to us, etc...

These current regulations were basically dropped in our laps without any warning, just like many other feel good "mandates" out there. While that is a nice site - if you do not know what to look for, your chance of finding it & knowing it applies to you are nil.

A lot of the bad info being put out at this moment is due to lawyers - and as a quick side note, I don't know about you but I couldn't afford to have a lawyer do nothing but look for new regulations or other items that may effect me or my business.

On to the EPA & this new reg - they originally proposed something completely different than what we are saddled with and they listed that they knew that THEY had a lot of education to do - not just on the contractor part, but for the HO's as well

[Bender]

One of the guys in class made a comment about those late night lawyer commercials.

"Do you suffer from mesothelioma??!!"

"Does anyone you know have asbestos poisoning??!!"

Food for thought.

[Decoman]

You guys had 2 years to prepare now you want to whine because you waited until the last minute to try and comply hoping the rule would go away..

Well it did not and now its time to face the music..

I don't ave an issue with the time, i have issue that the public is not aware of it and its not MY job to inform them... The Gov't and EPA has way more shit to worry about than something where there are some laws all ready on the books.

BTW I have not work on a house built before 1978 in over 10 yrs...

[afkama]

A lot of the bad info being put out at this moment is due to lawyers - and as a quick side note, I don't know about you but I couldn't afford to have a lawyer do nothing but look for new regulations or other items that may effect me or my business.

On to the EPA & this new reg - they originally proposed something completely different than what we are saddled with and they listed that they knew that THEY had a lot of education to do - not just on the contractor part, but for the HO's as well

I guess I have a different take on it. I don't expect the government to educate my clients on this any more than I expect the building department to educate them on the building codes. That's my job.

I try to stay out of these lead discussions because as I have said before, we have had to deal with this for over a decade already. The main difference for us is the certification requirement and the fines. Personally for me the stricter EPA approach will level the playing field some.

Of all the issues we face as a company, this has not been a back breaker. We've had bigger fish to fry.

My lawyer has a blog where he posts these things to keep us informed, so it doesn't cost me anything to be made aware of the law. When it comes time to discuss what that means liability-wise it's a different story. My lawyer specializes in construction law. If he didn't spend his time boning up on things like this, then I would get a different lawyer. His job is to know this stuff.

[Silvertree]

Since October maybe.
Not enough teachers, classes, enforcers and so on.

[Eieio]

I agree Afkama but these guys will continue to make excuses for not being prepared for this rule..

[ChrWright]

No delays we have known about this long enough and we should already be certified..

"'cuz I've gotta golden ticket... I've got a golden chance to make my way..."

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/05/goldenticket.gif

[SLS-Construction]

I guess I have a different take on it. I don't expect the government to educate my clients on this any more than I expect the building department to educate them on the building codes. That's my job.

I try to stay out of these lead discussions because as I have said before, we have had to deal with this for over a decade already. The main difference for us is the certification requirement and the fines. Personally for me the stricter EPA approach will level the playing field some.

Of all the issues we face as a company, this has not been a back breaker. We've had bigger fish to fry.

My lawyer has a blog where he posts these things to keep us informed, so it doesn't cost me anything to be made aware of the law. When it comes time to discuss what that means liability-wise it's a different story. My lawyer specializes in construction law. If he didn't spend his time boning up on things like this, then I would get a different lawyer. His job is to know this stuff.

First - got a link to this lawyers blog? :2thumbsup: Maybe there is a good one out there (oh, ok there are a few others out there - VA, CL, etc...) - A good construction lawyer will do as you say, but with all the diffrent federal regs, etc... even they can miss some occasionally - and most can't get it right when they go through them anyways (especially when the EPA changes stuff - what was there one minute is gone the next)

The CSLB doesn't educate Homeowners? Man I could have sworn I saw a huge website, heard of numerous PSA's, creating news by using stings & a whole host of other things.

Building Departments don't educate - nice try, they at least try to educate them that permits need be done, correct?

Leveling the playing field? Sorry but how? All this does is the same ol same ol - those that care will comply, those that don't get more work (If you read through the EPA's docs, they even mention that this could be a big issue & they need to educate to help prevent it - there words, not my interpretation)

[Eieio]

The rule is coming.

Be prepared.

Follow the guidelines and market your company as being in compliance.. If your not in compliance suffer the consequences..

Its that easy..

[Bodger]

The same way I found out about the EPA Lead Rule 2 years ago!!! :laugh3: :mad2:


You were in the eyeball selling racket and checked up on the regulatory laws that might affect how you do business? :grin:

Are there a bunch of elderly folks living near you that happen to be missing an eye?

I understand that this has been coming for a long time. Apart from the fact that I despise government intervention, I don't think the EPA has done a good enough job in the way they've rolled this out. Seems like a lot of confusion and red tape, considering that it is not only a health concern, but a problem for contractors that could potentially break them.

I will say this: They are going to have a field day if they decide to aggressively enforce this because most contractors I have spoken with haven't done a damn thing on this yet. Including one who is remodeling a bungalow in Hollywood built in 1937.

And I share the same concerns that Bender has. Our liability is going to be way high, with probably no statute of limitations. And as soon as the lawyers start circling overhead, and smell something dead, they'll find a way to root out lawsuits, be it by TV advertising or whatever.

"Do you have a child who has a learning disability?"

"If your house was built prior to 1978, and you have done any remodeling, your child's dumbassedness may be due to lead poisoning"

[Bodger]

The CSLB doesn't educate Homeowners? Man I could have sworn I saw a huge website, heard of numerous PSA's, creating news by using stings & a whole host of other things.

Building Departments don't educate - nice try, they at least try to educate them that permits need be done, correct?



It's definitely on the CSLB site, wording directed to the HOs, didn't see anything that addressed what it meant to contractors.

As far as I know LADBS has nothing on this yet. But I haven't pulled a permit in a while.

[Bender]

Complying doesn't bother me.

I got my lead certs back in '95 or '96. I've always worked reasonably safe around (suspected) lead paint. Definitely not to the new standards but I've always made sure the chips were vacuumed up and the 'contaminated' areas were clean.

Nothings changed but the liability.

[bconley]

Leveling the playing field? Sorry but how? All this does is the same ol same ol - those that care will comply, those that don't get more work (If you read through the EPA's docs, they even mention that this could be a big issue & they need to educate to help prevent it - there words, not my interpretation)
Thats right the playing field wont be level, and when you meet with clients they will know you're a professional and the other guys are hacks.
Rory said it best...The rule is coming.
Deal with it.

[afkama]

First - got a link to this lawyers blog? :2thumbsup: Maybe there is a good one out there

I went back and checked and it was actually his newsletter that contained the info. His blog does have a lot of good info in it though.

http://www.lhfconstructlaw.com/CM/Custom/TOCArticles.asp

A good construction lawyer will do as you say, but with all the diffrent federal regs, etc... even they can miss some occasionally - and most can't get it right when they go through them anyways (especially when the EPA changes stuff - what was there one minute is gone the next)

This is a personal preference, I guess, but I pay my lawyer not to miss things. I wouldn't be as forgiving as you are - not with the hourly rate I have to pay.

The CSLB doesn't educate Homeowners? Man I could have sworn I saw a huge website, heard of numerous PSA's, creating news by using stings & a whole host of other things.

I don't know any home owner who has ever looked at the CSLB web site, even though we are required to include their contact info in our contracts.
I wish they would.


Building Departments don't educate - nice try, they at least try to educate them that permits need be done, correct?
The building dept here is very good actually. They do a good job of educating home owners and enforcing the law.

Leveling the playing field? Sorry but how? All this does is the same ol same ol - those that care will comply, those that don't get more work (If you read through the EPA's docs, they even mention that this could be a big issue & they need to educate to help prevent it - there words, not my interpretation)

Like I said, the building dept here is good at what they do. If they drive by a site and see a violation they are not shy about stopping. SFPD also has several officers detailed to concentrate on construction violations exclusively.
People don't get away with much here.

The problem with our existing lead ordinance is that the penalties were so weak. It was a city ordinance so CSLB didn't get involved with violations and if you got nailed they made you attend a class on lead safe work practices.
The primary incentive was in not ticking off the building inspectors, which admittedly was strong incentive. That and the threat of civil suits by clients and neighbors.

I think the important thing that a lot of you don't realize is that it isn't the EPA that you are up against. Hell, the EPA agrees with you.

You're up against outfits like The Alliance for Healthy Homes,

http://www.afhh.org/index.htm

among others. Most of the parts of this rule that you find so objectionable were lobbied and litigated for by these folks.

From the AHH website:

"In a decidedly negative move, EPA also requested comments on whether or not it should delay the implementation date of the rule for six months or a year. Although the notice strongly implies EPA is leaning against such an extension, noting that they are only asking for comment, not proposing it and that they believe they will be ready to enforce the rule under the current implementation timeline, the notice opens the door for industry groups and others to pressure the EPA to delay the rule. Further delay will only prolong the implementation process and result in more children and families exposed to unsafe renovation practices."

That was back in November and the EPA got hammered for even wanting to discuss a delay.

As it stands, these well heeled groups have lined up strong bi-partisan political support and judicial precedent for this thing, so I don't think it can be anything but a done deal.

Resistance is futile.
Become one with the Borg.

[Bender]

Good points afkama.

[neolitic]

Thats right the playing field wont be level, and when you meet with clients they will know you're a professional and the other guys are hacks.
Rory said it best...The rule is coming.
Deal with it.

...or they will think you are blowing
smoke
to inflate your price by $3-4K.
I haven't talked to a single prospect
who has heard one word about this
before I brought it up.
Hard enough to sell a job on merit,
without having to sell an entire program
for which the HO wasn't even aware
they had a need.
My last two jobs were sold on the basis
of energy tax credits which would have
more than disappeared into the added
costs of compliance.
(Neither home had children, nor
the prospect of grandchildren.)
When asked one said it would absolutely
have killed the deal, the other said
probably, at least for this year.

[Bodger]

...or they will think you are blowing
smoke
to inflate your price by $3-4K.
I haven't talked to a single prospect
who has heard one word about this
before I brought it up.
Hard enough to sell a job on merit,
without having to sell an entire program
for which the HO wasn't even aware
they had a need.
My last two jobs were sold on the basis
of energy tax credits which would have
more than disappeared into the added
costs of compliance.
(Neither home had children, nor
the prospect of grandchildren.)
When asked one said it would absolutely
have killed the deal, the other said
probably, at least for this year.

I haven't encountered this yet because I haven't been bidding anything that it would apply to.
But I agree, this will be a cost stumbling block for certain. Especially in this economy. I've been thinking back on a dozen or so remodels where this RRP reg would have had to be applied. With some of those clients, I'm convinced this would have been a huge problem.
And the EPA isn't doing us any good by lowballing the estimated added cost to a project for compliance. Did I see $35 somewhere?
That won't buy much visqueen.
Not to mention the fact that I'm hardly getting any work as it is and don't feel much like laying out hundreds of dollars for this right now.

I might just be one of the hacks everyone will have to compete against.

[afkama]

Hard enough to sell a job on merit,
without having to sell an entire program
for which the HO wasn't even aware
they had a need.


I don't see why you guys would want to do that anyway, although I keep hearing that you approach it this way.
The benefit for me in this new rule, as opposed to the ordinance we currently operate under is that we don't have to assume that every house built before 1977 has lead- now we can test and act accordingly.

Pre 1978 pretty much sums up all the housing stock in SF.

We were testing anyway because we were concerned about OSHA. A surprisingly small number showed lead. However on almost every project we discover asbestos.

With the new rule I can now move lead contamination into the 'undiscovered conditions' category, instead of my bid.

I can treat this the same way I do dry rot, asbestos, non code compliant electrical and plumbing, discovered structural issues, etc.
I warn my clients up front that they should maintain a contingency cushion in their budget to cover these things.

They are change orders. It is not my problem if these problems exist - it is the home owners.

Do you guys plan on testing prior to submitting a bid?

[nEighter]

that is the smartest take I have heard on the issue. Awesome!

[bconley]

...or they will think you are blowing
smoke
to inflate your price by $3-4K.
I haven't talked to a single prospect
who has heard one word about this
before I brought it up.
Hard enough to sell a job on merit,
without having to sell an entire program
for which the HO wasn't even aware
they had a need.
My last two jobs were sold on the basis
of energy tax credits which would have
more than disappeared into the added
costs of compliance.
(Neither home had children, nor
the prospect of grandchildren.)
When asked one said it would absolutely
have killed the deal, the other said
probably, at least for this year.

Easy enough to prove that it is a good idea and the law, show them this (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f07a90b05d8e4481e1f462a217a2b789&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:30.0.1.1.13&idno=40#40:30.0.1.1.13.3)
Anyone with half a brain will want you to work safely and will be smart enough to know it may cost a little more than in the past. (what doesn't)
Yeah, its a pain and it will cost more but we will have to do it this way.
The sooner you accept this fact and move on, the easier your life will be.
Resistance is futile.

[neolitic]

We have a different customer.
Mine don't live with SF budgets
nor SF incomes.
Besides, right or wrong, it does seem
to be a very human inclination to
just shoot the messenger....

[afkama]

With some of those clients, I'm convinced this would have been a huge problem.
And the EPA isn't doing us any good by lowballing the estimated added cost to a project for compliance. Did I see $35 somewhere?
That won't buy much visqueen.

What do you tell them when uncle Fred says the whole project should cost less than half what your bid is?


I might just be one of the hacks everyone will have to compete against.

I'll even tie one hand behind my back and stand on one leg...blindfolded.

[orson]

I don't see why you guys would want to do that anyway, although I keep hearing that you approach it this way.
The benefit for me in this new rule, as opposed to the ordinance we currently operate under is that we don't have to assume that every house built before 1977 has lead- now we can test and act accordingly.

Pre 1978 pretty much sums up all the housing stock in SF.

We were testing anyway because we were concerned about OSHA. A surprisingly small number showed lead. However on almost every project we discover asbestos.

With the new rule I can now move lead contamination into the 'undiscovered conditions' category, instead of my bid.

I can treat this the same way I do dry rot, asbestos, non code compliant electrical and plumbing, discovered structural issues, etc.
I warn my clients up front that they should maintain a contingency cushion in their budget to cover these things.

They are change orders. It is not my problem if these problems exist - it is the home owners.

Do you guys plan on testing prior to submitting a bid?

So if they test for lead and discover it is present are you then writing a change order for a remediation company to come in? How does that differ from what you have to do currently?

So you're going to write up a scope of work and sign a job and then say, oh, by the way you need to test for lead before we start work. Then after a positive test you say, oh, by the way you need to sign this change order for $xxk to remediate the lead before we really get rolling?

Please elaborate.

When I do a job and I know there is asbestos present removal is included in my initial proposal.

If I think there is a good chance that asbestos is present I explain what may need to be done and tell the customer we should get it tested right away so my bid is accurate.

If we find asbestos that was concealed we write a change order.

Is this a bad way to go about things?

[afkama]

So if they test for lead and discover it is present are you then writing a change order for a remediation company to come in? How does that differ from what you have to do currently?

Under the current ordnance we have to assume that any building built before 1977 has lead paint. It doesn't matter what the testing shows. Nor is testing required.

So you're going to write up a scope of work and sign a job and then say, oh, by the way you need to test for lead before we start work. Then after a positive test you say, oh, by the way you need to sign this change order for $xxk to remediate the lead before we really get rolling?
Exactly. I warn the client before hand that we might run into all kinds of undiscovered conditions- mold, asbestos, substandard work that was done previously. If they want us to do exploratory work ahead of time, (and sometimes they do) then that is something we charge for, and if an unexpected condition is found, it will affect the price. If they want us to price on the conditions we are aware of and deal with these things as they come up- then we do that.



When I do a job and I know there is asbestos present removal is included in my initial proposal.

If I think there is a good chance that asbestos is present I explain what may need to be done and tell the customer we should get it tested right away so my bid is accurate.

If we find asbestos that was concealed we write a change order.

Is this a bad way to go about things?

No. That is exactly the right thing to do. I tell my clients that if they want to make sure there are no surprises that they should pay up front to have the forensics done.

I assume that if they do that, they will want all the competing bids to include the costs of remediation.

[afkama]

We have a different customer.
Mine don't live with SF budgets
nor SF incomes.
Besides, right or wrong, it does seem
to be a very human inclination to
just shoot the messenger....

Heh..heh. I know you guys think we are rolling in money out here, but the truth is, even with our higher incomes, San Francisco consistently ranks in the top three cities when it comes to the unaffordability of housing. We pay a much higher proportion of our income for housing than most of you do. Construction, especially because of the seismic requirements - is an expensive proposition in our location.

You would be stunned if you saw how much steel we have to put in here.

Our market is very competitive. When SF passed the Lead Paint Ordnance some smart guys decided to set themselves up exclusively as Demo subs.
They have trained crews and all the equipment and do a better job than my crew can do. It is cheaper and faster for me to use these guys than it is for me to do it in house - RRP or not. They have it down pat.

When my crew shows up to start - the Demo is done, the site protection is down, and the site is clean.

I'm a big proponent of doing most of our work in house, but I sub out Demo, concrete, drywall, and roofing. It just doesn't make dollar sense for us to do these things with our crew.

[ChrWright]

http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=10445


March 11, 2010 - A highly anticipated program that would make homes more energy efficient and provide a significant boost to the nation’s struggling economy could get derailed before it even starts because of a new regulation affecting contractors working on older homes, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

In testimony Thursday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Connecticut remodeler Bob Hanbury said that rules effective April 22 governing contractors in homes where lead paint may be present will prevent meaningful retrofit work from being done because there won’t be enough certified renovation contractors trained in the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new Lead Safe Work Practices.

The Senate is considering legislation that includes the proposed Home Star program, designed to provide home owner incentives for insulation and other weatherization projects. NAHB economists estimate that every $1 billion in remodeling and home improvement activity generates 11,000 jobs, $527 million in wages and salaries, and $300 million in business income, making these incentives a big boost for the economy as well as energy efficiency.

“NAHB strongly supports incentives to retrofit older homes and buildings to improve energy efficiency and performance,” Hanbury said. “But to make such a program work, the April 22 deadline for compliance with the EPA lead rule must be extended.”

Roughly 79 million homes constructed before 1978 are subject to the Lead Renovation, Repair and Repainting Rule, Hanbury said. Renovations on these homes, including energy-efficiency upgrades, must be done by contractors who have been certified by EPA in lead-safe work practices.

However, EPA has not approved enough instructors for the required training programs and has not certified enough firms to do the renovation work that the proposed energy efficiency program would generate.

“Consumer awareness of this regulation is negligible at best, and with the intensive media coverage that will undoubtedly accompany Home Star, home owners will rush to call contractors to perform efficiency upgrades in older housing, not realizing that many of those contractors could be doing the work illegally if they are not EPA certified,” Hanbury pointed out.

EPA has estimated that more than 236,000 remodelers, window installers, painters, heating and air-conditioning specialists and other trade contractors must be trained to ensure compliance with the rule. These contractors must complete eight hours of training, pay a certification fee, and employ lead-safe work practices in homes built before 1978 where children or pregnant women are present.

However, EPA has been slow to approve trainers to offer the courses, and in some states there are still no approved trainers. As a result, only about 14,000 people have been certified to date.

With only 135 firms throughout the country approved to offer the training courses, it will be impossible for the remaining contractors to complete the required training before the April 22 deadline, Hanbury said. And an influx of new retrofit jobs under a Home Star-style program would only increase the demand for trained and certified contractors.

“NAHB looks forward to working with you to create a successful retrofit program that provides equal access for all qualified and properly-trained contractors and a true incentive to renovate the oldest, least-efficient housing stock,” Hanbury told the committee.

“We also support the lead paint rule and fully agree with the importance of the safe work practices the rule describes,” Hanbury said. “But at present, it looks like the only way that many of our members will be able to comply is to avoid working in these older homes so we don’t break the law. In an environment where improving energy efficiency and creating jobs are national priorities, that makes no sense at all.”

[SLS-Construction]

afkama --- No wonder why you have a different take - you have been dealing with a regulation put into affect back in 98 & it is a known entity for you and your lawyer (no wonder why he would magically know that this wierd obscure title might affect my clients).

If you ever wonder why your prices, DC's etc... are so high, it is because of all the regulations in place which in turn leads to higher wages to pay for it (Cost of Living ring a bell?). Most of the rest of the country has escaped those regs & it will take time for the customers & contractor's to build to those levels. You guys are listed at 30% above base price as I recall - That is not something the rest of the country is willing to just jump up for & say sign me up, I am sure our wages will soon follow.

By the way - yes I do know how much metal is used as that is one area of interest for me, even though I don't have to deal with it.

[Bodger]

What do you tell them when uncle Fred says the whole project should cost less than half what your bid is?




I'll even tie one hand behind my back and stand on one leg...blindfolded.


I don't entirely disagree with you.
A lot of my frustration comes from this market down here in LA. Hell, at this point, lead abatement isn't the issue for me anyway. I've had three sets of plans come my way this year for remodels. All three crashed and burned due to underfunding. Not my price being too high, but HOs not able to get financing or having an unrealistic vision of what they can get for the $85K they have in the bank.

So yeah, what the hell, bring on the lead.

[afkama]

I don't entirely disagree with you.
A lot of my frustration comes from this market down here in LA. Hell, at this point, lead abatement isn't the issue for me anyway. I've had three sets of plans come my way this year for remodels. All three crashed and burned due to underfunding. Not my price being too high, but HOs not able to get financing or having an unrealistic vision of what they can get for the $85K they have in the bank.

So yeah, what the hell, bring on the lead.

Yes. Exactly. My problem isn't the RRP, it's the damn banks.

[bconley]

When my crew shows up to start - the Demo is done, the site protection is down, and the site is clean.
Afkama,
I know you work up this way occasionally, do you know of any good demo contractors in the Seattle area?
For me subbing out demo would be ideal.

[bconley]

Around here the only remaining waterfront lots, are properties with old cabins on them.
Usually we demo most of the place with an excavator, and haul it off.
We have always had to get asbestos surveys done, but does anyone know how a job like that could be done under RRP?
Talking about what happens with larger scale demo, will lead have to be removed first, with the asbestos?

[afkama]

afkama --- No wonder why you have a different take - you have been dealing with a regulation put into affect back in 98 & it is a known entity for you and your lawyer (no wonder why he would magically know that this wierd obscure title might affect my clients).

Yeah. That's what I have been saying. We have had to deal with this since '98. It's just part of the job and we don't think about it much. In some ways the EPA rule is less stringent than what we operate under now.

If you ever wonder why your prices, DC's etc... are so high, it is because of all the regulations in place which in turn leads to higher wages to pay for it (Cost of Living ring a bell?). Most of the rest of the country has escaped those regs & it will take time for the customers & contractor's to build to those levels. You guys are listed at 30% above base price as I recall - That is not something the rest of the country is willing to just jump up for & say sign me up, I am sure our wages will soon follow.

I live here. I am very familiar with the local economics. There are a lot of misconceptions about the Bay Area. The conditions you cite are almost 180 degrees reversed. What drives prices here is the same as what drives prices everywhere else. SF is one of the most desirable areas in the world to live. Even with the price of housing the vacancy rate is usually below 1%.
What determines the price is the same as everywhere else and regulation has little to do with it - it is the cost of the dirt. For a decent lot you will pay anywhere from $800,000 to several Million.

http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/San_Francisco,CA/LOT|LAND_type/

San Francisco was built out long ago, and there isn't enough room to accommodate all the people who want to live here.
The reason wages are higher here isn't because of regulation - they are a result of the cost of living as determined by the free market forces on housing.

By the way - yes I do know how much metal is used as that is one area of interest for me, even though I don't have to deal with it.

That steel and the concrete it needs to be attached to has a huge bearing on the costs of construction here.

We don't worry about Lead nearly as much as we do about Steel.

[orson]

Ok, I'm going to ask a question here that I know has been discussed in other threads but there are so many I don't even know where any more and I haven't quite wrapped my head around this:

What are the pros and cons of getting your house tested for lead if you're interested in having remodeling work done on it?

If it tests positive can you still have a CR work on it following the RRP rule or do you have to have an abatement contractor work on it?

[Tommy]

Ok, I'm going to ask a question here that I know has been discussed in other threads but there are so many I don't even know where any more and I haven't quite wrapped my head around this:

What are the pros and cons of getting your house tested for lead if you're interested in having remodeling work done on it?

If it tests positive can you still have a CR work on it following the RRP rule or do you have to have an abatement contractor work on it?

For most of the country, a CR can still do the work. I think I heard that in IL, You have to get an abatement contractor. I don't know if there are any other states with that rule or not.

[SLS-Construction]

Pro's - none unless you know lead is not present, you must disclose those results at sale & other times
If lead is not present - you can point that out at sale which may give you a leg up on other properties that a prospective buyer is looking at
If lead is not present - no RRP regs apply
If lead is present but below the de minimus level - you still have to disclose, but RRP regs do not apply - however OSHA regs do apply

Tommy nailed the CLR work part & to my knowledge that only applies to IL. One catch though, lets say one removes those portions during the renovations & then the area's are retested, one may possibly run into an issue about a CLR doing abatement work.

I think that covers the bulk of it

[Bender]

We were testing anyway because we were concerned about OSHA.

So why would you need a law to tell you to do what you already do?



Do you guys plan on testing prior to submitting a bid?
I will. It will drastically change my #'s


I intend to paint this exterior before "Earth" day.

[Bodger]

Yeah. That's what I have been saying. We have had to deal with this since '98. It's just part of the job and we don't think about it much. In some ways the EPA rule is less stringent than what we operate under now.


San Francisco has these same type of abatement and containment requirements already in place? I thought all the contractor had to do up there was give the HO a pamphlet or something. You need tunnels and moon suits and HEPA vacs before this thing even took effect?

I hear you on the steel. Last big one I built down here we had almost $50K in the moment frames.

[ChrWright]

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=202188fb-fd6b-43ef-9782-fbebc3fe5d1b

Click forward to about 124:30.

Also make sure to listen at 131:50

[bconley]

Interesting angle.
But by not extending the rule it will reward the contractors who became certified, (by legally being able to do the work) and penalize the people who didn't bother getting certified.
I say keep it 4/22 and pass HomeStar, this will limit the the jobs to the highly skilled job pool.
Make the HomeStar credits contingent on the contractors doing the work certified by both EPA and DOE.