Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner
461 - 480 of 646 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #461 · (Edited)
Can you show me proof of that?

Everything I find shows this train had left the station before he was even elected let alone in office.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge Obama's part in all this.

I don't want to drag this to political, even though the entire thing is nothing BUT a politcal issue in the first place, so discussion of anything about the RRP is tough to not be politcal in some nature.

I highlighted the important points ---

Patrick MacRoy, Director of Community-Based Initiatives, National Center for Healthy Housing.


As part of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Congress mandated EPA to study the lead hazards created by renovation activities to determine appropriate regulations.

EPA studied the issue exhaustively, missing the congressional deadline of October 1996 to promulgate regulations in the process. EPA’s studies, however, clearly demonstrated that renovation activity results in high levels of lead dust, and EPA continued to promise health and housing advocates that regulations were in the works.

Despite the public assurances, the Bush administration EPA was quietly working to undermine the rule.

In March 2005, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibilityreleased interal EPA documents showing the agency had abandoned the regulations the previous year, deciding instead to push for a “voluntary” approach of encouraging awareness and training for contractors.

Recognizing the futility of a “voluntary” program to reach the large and competitive home renovation market (which, by all accounts was almost completely non-compliant with mandatory OSHA regulations already in place requiring protection of workers from lead exposure), advocates called for action to force EPA to issue a rule. While PEER and others eventually filed a lawsuit to try to force EPA’s hand, what may have had the greatest impact was the political response.

Illinois’s Junior Senator, Barack Obama, pressured EPA to commit to issuing the long awaited renovation rules by threatening to put a hold on the confirmation of EPA Deputy Director Marcus Peacock in July 2005 until he was promised the rule would be written by the end of the year.

When EPA again dragged its feet Senator Obama called EPA to task that November, placing a hold on the confirmation of an assistant administrator and threatening to hold all future confirmations to the agency unless the renovation rule was issued by the end of the year. The pressure worked, and EPA issued a proposed rule on December 29, 2005.

After two more years of debate, including a delay to allow an industry group to conduct its own study of lead hazards (the result: renovation creates leaded dust), EPA published a final rule on April 22, 2008 to go into effect two years later.

While a significant step forward, the rule has several glaring shortcomings. Scientific studies, as well as decades of experience in the lead abatement industry, have shown that the only sure way to ensure a home is free of invisible lead dust is to collect a dust sample and send it to a lab for a quantitative measurement of lead. Bowing to industry concerns over the cost, EPA jettisoned this proven and validated “clearance” test in favor of a newly imagined and poorly studied “cleaning verification” test, which requires the contractor to wipe the work area with a wet wipe and compare it to an EPA provided reference card (the appearance of which lead many of us to refer to it as the “dirty diaper test”).

Additionally, EPA changed the congressionally mandated scope of the rule, giving an exclusion to owner-occupied homes with no children under the age of 6, and failing to regulate public and commercial buildings altogether. A coalition of public interest petitioners sued the EPA over these and other shortcomings to the rule, winning a settlement agreement in August 2009 forcing EPA to propose number of changes to the rule over the next six or more years (I served as a technical advisor to the petitioners). The first set of resulting revisions are due to be announced by the end of today, with EPA anticipated to remove the owner-occupied exemption and require contractors to share with home owners and occupants additional information on the protections taken during the construction.

Despite then-Senator Obama’s enthusiasm for the rule, President Obama’s administration has devoted few new resources to support the implementation of the rule. In the face of a need to certify and oversee at least a quarter million firms and individual renovators, ensure the rule is complied at 4 million job sites nationally, and support state enforcement efforts, the President’s FY10 budget provided a mere extra $1 million. In reviewing its enforcement priorities list for the next three years, EPA soundly rejected adding RRP, claiming it did not meet criteria for inclusion despite its large scale impact on children’s health. And a long awaited public outreach campaign around lead jointly sponsored by the EPA and announced Tuesday barely mentions the RRP requirements.
To ensure a successful implementation of the rule, health, environment, and housing advocates are going to continue to have to push EPA for tougher standards and better enforcement. As a result of the 2009 settlement, EPA will also today be proposing requirements to require clearance testing following some jobs under the RRP rule. Retaining strong requirements in the final revision will not be easy. EPA will continue to face opposition from industry groups and will likely face an OMB hostile to arguments that clearance testing will provide monetizable benefits. While EPA has made substantial progress in getting contractors through the certification process in the last few months (with an estimated 150,000 trained to date), many questions remain about enforcement. Without a vigorous presence to ensure compliance with the rules, it’s likely that many will ignore the lead safe work practices required, especially if shaving off the compliance costs prevents contractors from being undercut by other non-compliant contractors. Getting to the smallest contractors, especially those working in our highest-risk low-income neighborhoods, is going to remain a challenge. While the best solution may ultimately involve state and local-level enforcement supported by increased Federal assistance, in the meantime, EPA will need to develop local partnerships and work with code inspection and permitting offices already working with contractors.

If the regulation's omissions are indeed corrected and EPA steps up with serious enforcement, the RRP rule will truly move us toward the goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in the next decade.
Above where they talk about political preasures and lawsuits to force the EPA, that's the Sierra Club. :mad:

Here is a link to the press release about Obama when he was a senator and was involved in the politcal wranglings outline above


http://kachinaleadpaintsolutions.com/inthenews/050725obama.pdf


Here is a washington post artical that describes the events of November 5th 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401560.html

when Obama put a hold on Bush's nomination to the EPA and said he intends to put a hold on all future nominees because he's sick of the EPA delaying new regulations on remodeling and renovating in houses that contain lead paint. "Despite being ordered by Congress in 1992 to release such regulations by 1996, the agency has delayed again and again. Last year the Bush administration even looked into asking industry to adopt voluntary practices, to avoid regulation."

Let's not turn this into a Obama bashing post or anything like that. The point is we should all be aware of the history of the RRP, the politics behind it and the history to better understand the mess that we now have on our hands, hopefully only temporarily. :thumbsup:
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
465 Posts
Any opposition to RRP will almost surely fail unless it includes solid plans to dramatically cut the number of lead poisonings. There is plenty of information to show that lead poisonings are indeed happening. For example, I have handy a City of LA document I found yesterday which shows that 6% of the children (ages zero to five) tested in 2002 had an elevated blood lead level (>=10 ?g/dL).

Any good ideas on how to reduce lead poisonings?

________
California dispensaries
 

·
Dan
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
Mike, i have written letters to my local representatives about this issue. There honestly is only so much the working man CAN do without actually quitting his job and going full time into stopping the government, and so many have tried and failed and gotten nowhere. not saying it's not a noble effort but you know what I mean.
it's not about a handful of voices it's about 10s of thousands of voices. but when it comes to contractors complaining and the media and epa pushing kids being hurt from lead paint, the kids and epa win every time, you know it, and I know it.

i'm not here to argue but people have a right to rant if they want to. it does help get your anger out.
 

·
KemoSabe
Joined
·
14,233 Posts
Any opposition to RRP will almost surely fail unless it includes solid plans to dramatically cut the number of lead poisonings. There is plenty of information to show that lead poisonings are indeed happening. For example, I have handy a City of LA document I found yesterday which shows that 6% of the children (ages zero to five) tested in 2002 had an elevated blood lead level (>=10 μg/dL).

Any good ideas on how to reduce lead poisonings?
Boycott goods from China until the lead levels in their products are compliant. As tradesmen, we should be careful about putting Chinese manufactured carpenters pencils in our mouths too. I catch myself doing it from time to time. It's convenient short term storage.

Many garden hoses have labels warning of lead content as well as jackets on extension cords.

How many products that aren't designed for consumption have unacceptable lead levels? It ain't just pre 78 paint.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #469 ·
I wasn't looking to make this political, I was really looking for info.

Thanks Mike for taking the time to post that.
No problem. I'm hoping that we can get this thing delayed, put off, put on hold or something. Drag it out. By 2012 Obama is gone and a pro business republican is back in the white house and the whole RRP thing is buried again like a bad dream.
 

·
Dan
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
We can all hope that will happen
the biggest problem is, 2/3 of the stimulus money is yet to be spent. He'll setup to spend it to boost things up to make it appear his plan is working and hope to get himself re-elected. I don't think this will be the case. Most people know he's not qualified to lead.

in the mean time, i plan on blocking of an entire main street of a small city so i can roll out my 6 mil plastic 18' from the house for the third floor windows. do you think they will find it funny? I can just put up a warning sign and under it, put, all questions, ask obama.






j/k. i'm blocking the sidewalk only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,079 Posts
I thought it was pretty common knowledge Obama's part in all this.

I don't want to drag this to political, even though the entire thing is nothing BUT a politcal issue in the first place, so discussion of anything about the RRP is tough to not be politcal in some nature.

I highlighted the important points ---



Above where they talk about political preasures and lawsuits to force the EPA, that's the Sierra Club. :mad:

Here is a link to the press release about Obama when he was a senator and was involved in the politcal wranglings outline above


http://kachinaleadpaintsolutions.com/inthenews/050725obama.pdf


Here is a washington post artical that describes the events of November 5th 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401560.html

when Obama put a hold on Bush's nomination to the EPA and said he intends to put a hold on all future nominees because he's sick of the EPA delaying new regulations on remodeling and renovating in houses that contain lead paint. "Despite being ordered by Congress in 1992 to release such regulations by 1996, the agency has delayed again and again. Last year the Bush administration even looked into asking industry to adopt voluntary practices, to avoid regulation."

Let's not turn this into a Obama bashing post or anything like that. The point is we should all be aware of the history of the RRP, the politics behind it and the history to better understand the mess that we now have on our hands, hopefully only temporarily. :thumbsup:
Seems to me that by Obama failing to put the push or the money behind RRP you could hardly blame him now for its implementation. Your cut and paste puts the blame based on him when he was a senator. As president it points out that he put this on the back burner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
I wasn't looking to make this political, I was really looking for info.

Thanks Mike for taking the time to post that.
Whoa Electricmanscot,

Hate for you to get just a slice of the truth, presented in a lopsided way. I would hate to see you back from you earlier statement, Everything I find shows this train had left the station before he was even elected let alone in office.

The piece that Mike showed you, is found here http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=25BD809A-D94F-5081-847E1638618172CE. This is a liberal site, which is trying to take credit. But the reality is both Republicans and Democrats have been involved with this over the years.

The RRP shouldn't be a political debate or discussion.

The RRP falls under the Toxic Substance Control Act which was voted in under a Republican President (Ford). It was added to, with the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 as Title X. Under another Republican President.

Even Republicans in the House/Senate who are trying to delay RRP are not trying to "repeal or stop" the law.

This is because both Republicans and Democrats in congress know that lead based paint construction dust has ... and continues hurting kids.

We should stay away from the political.

My advice is to research the history of TSCA yourself and then you will find that your statement was most likely correct. I would also advise folks to do their own research on lead paint dust studies and come to your own conclusions.
 

·
Champion Thread Derailer
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
I would also advise folks to do their own research on lead paint dust studies and come to your own conclusions.
You do realize that we can no longer eat, drink, or even breathe the air without running a risk of some harmful effect. My problem with this whole affair is the government has no right to dictate to me how to live my life, run my affairs, and particularly my business as it concerns something I shouldn't be liable for, nor absorb the costs of someone else's mistake or oversight. It has gotten to the point that many folks believe the "government" knows what's best for them and they follow along like little lost sheep every single step of the way without question, possessing little to no ability to think independently, or logically. What ever in the world happened to good ole "COMMON SENSE" in regards to most everything we as human beings should or shouldn't be doing? Furthermore, whatever happened to our "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
Jeff G

First, I am anything but a pure pro RRP type of guy.
Secondly, I agree with much of what you say.
Thirdly, I support anyone who wants to fight and change/repeal the law.
Fourthly, I am a less government = a good thing.

However, I've done my own studies of the lead based paint construction dust studies. Before my studying, I thought it was a bunch of nonsense. After I study both sides of the issues ... I believe that lead based paint construction dust have hurt folks ... especially kids.

While I may have the right to suck up lead dust in my lungs when I do a demo ... I do not have the right to cause others to breathe in the lead dust. Cause no harm type of approach.

I can not understand a contractor having a problem with giving a homeowner the choice. Yet, most contractors won't give the homeowner the simple chance to decide for themselves if or if not they want lead safe practices (by giving them the Renovate Right).

My personal opinion ... I should have the right to choose (to poison myself with lead or not) and the homeowner also should have the right to choose. As contractors, we were given this option (just to notify) for many years, but we refused to do it.

My personal line on the RRP is that contractors should inform the homeowner of the risk and then let the homeowner decide. If the contractor doesn't inform of the risk ... ok to fine them.

However, the EPA didn't take my advice when I gave comments to them :)
 

·
Champion Thread Derailer
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
I don't oppose this law because I am unsympathetic about the health and well being of an innocent child (or anyone else for that matter). I do so because I think forcing someone to comply with this is immoral. The force is where I have a problem. It's the monopoly on the use of force that the government wields that causes my problem.

Voluntary association and cooperation of individual sovereigns for mutual goals with no power or attempt to coerce or use force against those who do not join them... this is true government by mutual consent. This is the form of government that most of us recognize as being necessary and useful.

The only thing we have commonly called "government" is the coercive and non-voluntary system we grew up with - by, for and of the elite and self appointed "rulers." But that is not truly what "government" means, but very few understand that.

And we have all lived with various kinds of real, voluntary type government and never called it that. We take for granted our own self-government and voluntary interactions with others, our peaceful efforts to hold each other honestly accountable for promises, contracts and relationships.

We must stop allowing the first, and stop taking the second for granted. And we must clearly understand the difference.


I’m left to wonder - Is it possible the evolution in human reasoning leads to the idea that no one of us human beings is different in kind from the rest of us and therefore no one of us is exempted from the premise that the initiation of force is immoral no matter the loftiness of the reason?
 

·
Capra Aegagrus
Remodeler
Joined
·
25,230 Posts
I’m left to wonder - Is it possible the evolution in human reasoning leads to the idea that no one of us human beings is different in kind from the rest of us and therefore no one of us is exempted from the premise that the initiation of force is immoral no matter the loftiness of the reason?
Kinda went off the deep end there, Jeff. I think maybe you wound up saying the opposite of what you meant. :laughing:

This is unavoidably a political subject, and we shouldn't take it much farther without descending to the basement forum (where I don't tread), but I'm curious about your solution for the bad apples.

What you appear to be espousing is the perfect communism or anarchistic system, where each individual is an honorable contributor to the society according to his means and is never lacking in moral fiber. That's a wonderful dream.

But given that there will always be some who are mushy in the fiber department, how would you ensure their compliance with Good Procedures without the type of coercion our government has historically found to be necessary?
 

·
Administrator
Maker of Fine Sawdust
Joined
·
55,751 Posts
Automatic electroshock enlightenment.
 

·
Champion Thread Derailer
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Oh Lordy, you sure are correct Mr. No Free Lunch because There Is No Such Thing!. See, I did it again. Got in all backwards again.:jester:

In all seriousness, I really should better proof read the stuff I post. I did intend the exact opposite of what I said. I meant to type "excepted" not "exempted". I apparently can't walk and chew gum at the same time:rolleyes:, as I was on the phone (mostly on hold though) whilst typing that reply. Oh well, too late to change it now.

My question is why do we have to have bad apples to begin with? As hiteams put it, if the homeowners were given a choice to either elect to adhere to the lead procedures (which obviously would incur additional costs) or opt out of it. It should be a choice we (with the God given inalienable rights as free human beings) make, instead of what we have now, which is implemented through force. Very simple solution, but unfortunately for the government, one that doesn't generate extorted monies from the masses. So obviously that isn't a viable option for any of the government entities.

I must point out that what I espouse has absolutely nothing to do with communism/socialism. It's actually the total antithesis of it. Perhaps a touch of anarchy, but certainly not communism!

And yes, I also agree with the premise that it would probably behoove us to watch our step as we try and skate around this otherwise testy subject. I don't want to dishonor the homeowner's (Nathan?) wishes by continually piping up here concerning such issues with our government.

And if I might ask, what in the world are you referring to in the "basement"?
 
461 - 480 of 646 Posts
Top