New report from EPA's Inspector General on RRP

[Dancing Dan]

Interesting stuff - haven't read it all yet but they fault the crafters for (surprise, surprise) their estimates of the added cost of work practices.

Download pdf here.

[SteveC]

First, I'm not one for deciphering technical data.
I gave this a quick scan and the thing that jumped out was that the OIG found that the EPA used data from 9 firms, yes 9 firms out of 300,000, to calculate the cost benefit and job costs for RRP. Based on that, I'm guessing the whole RRP thing was done with very little contractor input.
The report was generated by a complaint on the Consumer Hotline.

[Bill Robinson]

IMO it is obvious the input used to determine the added cost to do RRP was gathered from either firms who were already practicing and managing dust control or were unwilling to admit they were not practicing dust control.
Who would admit to anyone they do not manage dust, whether it be lead based or not?

This and many other things flawed in the rule do not diminish the real threat and damage caused by exposing children and adults to lead dust.

[DonMirabito]

I saw this in one of the trade emails I get. The whole thing does not surprise me at all. The inspector generals job is to review the numbers in the data. His issues are that the data suggest that the cost/benefit to the public from the ruling is not justified. i.e. having only sampled 9 contractors out of their stated pool of 300K is dubious at best from a numbers point of view. Then there is the question of who said it was ONLY 300K contractors? I seem to remember reading that the EPA hired a company from MA to conduct the survey and write the report. Where did that company get the data? Did they ask YOU? Bottom line is ANYONE including the government can "make up or use" whatever data they choose to justify their agenda. I believe I commented this would happen quite some time ago in these fora. The cost/benefit data used to justify the implementation was simply insufficient at best and/or an outright lie at worst. Cost/Benefit to the public is not to say that lead poisoning isn't a serious issue. Its more about the money. Has anyone really noticed any improvements in compliance? Has the EPA and/or the CDC shown any marked improvements in the EBL cases that can be attributed to the RRP ruling? The last time I heard anything about the numbers was that it appears that the EPA has only been able to get about 20% of the supposed 800K(their updated number of contractors) contractors to actually register. I don't believe they will ever get people to comply for all the reasons I had stated a long time ago.

Don

[dgbldr]

This and many other things flawed in the rule do not diminish the real threat and damage caused by exposing children and adults to lead dust.

This is a true, but misguided statement. As Don pointed out, the EPA was required to do a cost/benefit analysis in order to justify the rule, and the analysis is seriously flawed in many ways.

I liked the part about "transfer" money. They didn't include additional insurance in the analysis because it's a "transfer between parties, not a cost to society'. That would be true in an ideal world. Everybody would pay insurance, then the insurance would pay for any victims' treatment, etc. But in the real world, we buy lead insurance because we fear frivolous and malicious litigation, not lead poisoning. The poisoning comes from the hacks who don't even certify, let alone buy lead insurance.

The bottom line is the money doesn't add up.

Bill, here is a simple example. If something you do can cause bubonic plague, that's serious. But if only 3 people in the world come down with the plague every year, you can't require 6 billion people to spend $100k each in order to reduce that risk. Capisce?

The RRP rule proves yet again that it's easier, and more profitable politically, to pass new laws than to enforce existing laws. I will argue that putting every unlicensed "contractor" out of business would do more to reduce lead poisoning than the RRP rule.

[kfc510]

I will argue that putting every unlicensed "contractor" out of business would do more to reduce lead poisoning than the RRP rule.

I'd agree with that, and I am a whole-hearted endorser of RRP.

How would you suggest we put unlicensed contractors out of business? More money for building departments to do enforcement? More OSHA inspectors? Seriously, what would work?

kevin

[dgbldr]

Money.

Make the penalty the same as it is for RRP, 37k per. Fund the building department partially from those fines. Pay $500 per good lead for snitching. You can clear a good size metro area in one year.

Edit: Also fine the HO the same 37k for hiring an unlicensed hack.

[davenorthup]

And they call me anti-capitalist or whatever they call me.

[Dancing Dan]

The interesting thing about the 9 firms is apparently it's standard practice in govt. research.

An EPA manager said that under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA could only survey nine businesses unless it submitted an application for an exemption, also known as an Information Collection Request, to OMB. Another EPA manager added that based on past experience, obtaining OMB approval for an Information Collection Request and then conducting the survey could take up to 2 years to complete, which would have greatly exceeded the time frame for issuing the rule EPA agreed to in its settlement agreement. Consequently, EPA elected to perform a limited survey of nine firms.

I too am a supporter, generally, of the RRP but wonder if is too broad a brush. In my (very limited) experience, the kids I know who've been found with elevated lead levels have been in rental housing that probably could have been ID'd or in houses where their parents were doing drawn out renovation projects (i.e. coming home from work and banging on the walls for an hour after dinner).

Anyway, we can re-hash this if we want but I thought the report was worth reading.

[tjbnwi]

I'd agree with that, and I am a whole-hearted endorser of RRP.

How would you suggest we put unlicensed contractors out of business? More money for building departments to do enforcement? More OSHA inspectors? Seriously, what would work?

kevin

Fine the homeowner for hiring an unlicensed contractor along with the contractor.

Investigate every report of non-permited work in the AHJ.

Tom

[Bill Robinson]

This is a true, but misguided statement.

Bill, here is a simple example. If something you do can cause bubonic plague, that's serious. But if only 3 people in the world come down with the plague every year, you can't require 6 billion people to spend $100k each in order to reduce that risk. Capisce?

And the bubonic plague eradication program you are suggesting comes in quite high and may not be an accurate comparison, just saying.

What I am also saying is there is a real problem with elevated blood lead levels in children and something should be done.

Let's make another comparison, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are serious and the loss of life is not acceptable.

That said, the impact is greater if you have friends or family who were directly impacted or have personal experience.
The same goes for children with elevated BLL

Or are you saying the cost to whomever to implement RRP is 100K?
is that per job, per year or over time.

EPA has not done it very well, are you proposing we do nothing?

I see the problem as homeowners who are not willing to pay the extra cost of reducing exposure to lead dust.

If homeowners were willing to pay would you do the additional measures?

If not there is no more reason to discuss, if you are then we can begin to educate homeowners along with the EPA and other agencies in some way connected.

[SteveC]

I think the EPA should have made blood lead level test on the children a prerequisite before the RRP job begins. They have lived in the house and if a PI lawyer comes in after the job, what's our proof for defense.
And why was there an opt out clause in the original regs that was removed ?
"Someone" thought is was applicable.

[Dancing Dan]

Steve - I think RRP actually protects us in these circumstances. If there's lead in the house, it's getting disturbed whether or not you followed RRP, so it seems easier to make the case you poisoned their kid if you didn't follow procedures.

One of the points of the program is to say "here are some wokr practices the govt. says will do a reasonably good job of protecting occupants and workers during construction." If you don't follow RRP, what do you have?

And opt out was always a political football btw. environmental groups and the NAHB. NAHB won the battle, lost the war. I think we're better off without it - struck me as a source of confusion and cheating.

[SteveC]

I agree that an accepted, established practice is the right way.
However even doing it "right" how much is it going to cost us to present our side in a lawsuit.
I have already seen PI lawyer ads about "lead in your home", more so than EPA ads about same.

[LIHR50]

RRP is not a panacea, but as mentioned above it's a good base to work off of to protect those that need protection most.

Let's face it, before RRP I didn't take this Lead stuff seriously and that was because of my ignorance, and I'm sure many were in the same boat. Now that I'm somewhat educated on this subject It makes the world just a tad safer, at least in my clients home with children.

I'm sure if there are children in the mix you will take every precaution necessary, but if you're working on a home with occupants with one foot on a banana peel and the other foot in the grave I'm sure you will let your guard down and not be as detailed. It's not right, but it's the real world.

But let's not pass all the responsibility on us contractors. Those kids have parents and those parents need to be in the know about their kids health and environmental concerns.