91ÊÓƵ

Fifteen building trade groups have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to gather more input from the building industry before pushing forward a proposed rule for handling lead paint during commercial and public building projects.

The rule would extend the coverage of the recently passed Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rule, which applies only to pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, to all pre-1978 commercial and public structures. The rule requires workers to obtain new certifications and training, as well as use specific equipment and other work practices on the job. If contractors fail to comply, they face fines up to $37,500.

Although the rule has only been proposed, it is already drawing criticism from the building industry. The Associated General Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors and Painting and Decorating Contractors of America sent comments to the EPA earlier this month asking for a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to be created so that industry concerns about the rule can be expressed.

Portland-area builders and remodelers say the EPA nowadays is focusing its new rules more on enforcement than on working with the industry to make practices safer, and cost effective, for all involved. Dave Siegner, member of the Portland chapter of PDCA and president of Siegner and Co., said commercial project costs could rise by 20 to 50 percent if the EPA’s proposed rule were put into effect.

The Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program went into effect for residential structures in April and raised costs for home builders and remodelers, Siegner said. The EPA recently decided to delay enforcement of that program until September 2010, after some industry professionals complained that more time was needed to obtain the required training and certifications.

“Let’s not have what occurred in the residential sector happen in commercial,” Siegner said. “We’re all about training for our people and having them be responsible in handling hazardous materials. But this stuff costs money. It would feel better to see more collaboration.”

Some contractors don’t feel that lead paint abatement is necessary in commercial structures, unless demolition at a site releases lead particles in the air, said Art DeMuro of Venerable Development. His company works entirely with pre-1978 structures. When lead paint is present at a project, DeMuro said his contractors will paint over it, or cover it in another manner.

“I’ve never had anyone have hazardous exposure on our projects,” DeMuro said. “If this rule goes into effect, it could have a serious cost impact on rehabilitation projects. The fact is that many of these older buildings bear lead paint.”

The building industry is still seeing low numbers of new construction, with much of the available work coming from renovation projects, said John Killin, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors Northwest Chapter. Adding a rule with significant cost implications is not advisable right now, Killin said.

“This is another of a litany of federal efforts placing uncertainty into business decisions and delaying job creation,” Killin said.

The EPA is performing studies and seeking public comment on the proposed rule for commercial and public buildings. It is also consulting with its Science Advisory Board to evaluate the level of risk posed by renovations in these buildings. If the board finds that renovation activities do create lead-based paint hazards, the EPA must issue a rule specifying work practices within 18 months. Final action on the rule is required before July 15, 2013.

In the meantime, Siegner said the EPA has an opportunity to reach out to industry groups about the best practices needed to keep everyone safe.

“This is not a done deal,” Siegner said. “The public benefits when industry and government work together. We don’t need an enforcement mentality in this economy.”