The following information is from the NARI Government Affairs Committee’s newsletter of June 23, 2011 titled “NARI on the Hill”.
NARI Work Group Findings on LRRP
From March through June 2011, a dedicated work group of NARI members regularly convened for the purpose of documenting challenges in the application of EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP Rule). NARI's purpose is to convey to the EPA what is working and what is not working in implementation and to make recommendations. The work group identified the following prioritized concerns with recommendations:
The rule application is presented as a "one size fits all" and fails to provide guidance on the varying conditions often found on job sites.
The EPA should revise the rule to define the desired outcomes and provide a tool box of options to address varying conditions.
The cost of compliance is driving homeowners to either DIY or hire an uncertified renovator thus defeating the purpose and intent of the rule. Also, the rule does not address the contractor's responsibility when the work of disturbing lead paint has been undertaken and completed by the homeowner or an uncertified contractor.
The EPA needs to educate the general public about the rule, clarify the contractor's responsibility under this scenario, and assess the impact of homeowner-initiated projects on childhood lead poisoning.
The EPA lacks an effective method of providing updates and information on the rule. The website housing over 600 FAQs is not a feasible communications tool.
EPA and states with oversight should provide a regular newsletter with necessary updates. The website should be overhauled addressing the topical information needs of the user.
The rule is not clear on the training and certification requirements for subcontractors used by the certified renovator.
The EPA should clarify the responsibilities of subcontractors and define a "certified renovator of record" as a single point of contact throughout the project.
The model training program is not consistent with the current rule. Curriculum and materials do not reflect amendments.
The EPA must exercise responsibility in properly maintaining training curriculum and material content.
Why we convened a Work Group: to inform various entities in Washington about the issues with regard to this regulation. Since regulatory reform is a hot topic in Washington right now, the time is right to share these findings and garner more support. When trying to bring an issue to light in Washington, officials want current data to review, so the Work Group convened for a current, detailed analysis and NARI is sharing recommendations of the Work Group in Washington.
A copy of the complete report is available by request by e-mailing: firstname.lastname@example.org.