{"id":122,"date":"2014-04-07T12:39:18","date_gmt":"2014-04-07T17:39:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/rccp\/?page_id=122"},"modified":"2017-05-03T23:45:20","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T03:45:20","slug":"lead-project","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/rccp\/lead-project\/","title":{"rendered":"RCCP Lead Project and 2013 Responses"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Regulated Community Compliance Project<\/h1>\n

The Regulated Community Compliance Project (RCCP) focuses on the\u00a0relationship between government and the regulated community.\u00a0 It was created by Richard Reibstein and Cutler Cleveland in\u00a02004 and has produced work\u00a0on\u00a0lead paint regulations and their reception. \u00a0With funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the RCCP has provided\u00a0training for over 3,000 real estate professionals on the disclosure rule and related regulations.<\/p>\n

The RCCP was established to enhance understanding of protective regulations such as the lead Renovation Rule. \u00a0It is hoped that this information will provide a picture of whether agencies responsible for health and schools (and\/or governors) view the rule as an opportunity: to protect contractors from liability, and to protect children and others from exposure to poisonous lead dusts.\u00a0 The RCCP invites comments on the information provided, including corrections or pertinent additions, but especially relating to the quality of awareness and implementation. \u00a0The RCCP asks readers to provide suggestions concerning the elements of a high-quality program.\u00a0 The RCCP also asks:<\/p>\n

1. is it reasonable to expect that agencies with responsibilities for children\u2019s safety take steps to utilize the opportunities presented by the Renovation Rule, even when they have not received delegation, and even when another agency is more directly responsible?<\/i><\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u00a02.\u00a0 what steps should agencies be taking, or ensuring that others are taking, to maximize protections \u2013 for contractors, for those who hire contractors, and for those who may experience exposures that could have been prevented?<\/i><\/o:p><\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The RCCP\u00a0found that people don’t always recognize what a\u00a0serious problem lead can be, nor that it is relatively easily preventable.\u00a0 Its work has demonstrated that\u00a0when they receive information about how lead is harmful, how harm can be avoided through right to know disclosure, and how reducing lead exposure and complying with the law benefits all parties, not just those directly affected by lead, they frequently\u00a0change their perspective concerning lead and lead\u00a0paint rules, and say they are more likely to take disclosure requirements seriously.\u00a0\u00a0Read the reports of the RCCP.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0Use of New Lead Poisoning Prevention Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2010 a new regulation went into effect requiring that when paint is disturbed in pre-1978 housing or \u201cchild-occupied facilities\u201d, that it be done in manner termed \u201clead-safe\u201d.\u00a0 This regulation [1]<\/a>, many years in the making, can help prevent incidents of lead poisoning, many of which are caused by the generation and dispersion of lead-contaminated dusts while preparing or removing painted surfaces containing lead paint.\u00a0 Because it is hard to know without testing if a surface contains lead, once commonly used in paint, the regulation employs a presumption that lead is present, unless testing proves that it is not.<\/p>\n

In 2013, students at Boston University, mindful of the potentially tragic consequences of lead poisoning, sent questions concerning the rule to governors and agencies responsible for health and schools in each state.\u00a0 The mechanism created by Congress gave each state the option of adopting the rule, but even if a state does not choose to administer the rule on its own, it may choose to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or take actions to educate the public about its existence.\u00a0 It is expected that simply telling people about the rule would have a preventive effect.\u00a0 Those covered by the rule might adopt lead-safe practices because they become educated, or to avoid liabilities.\u00a0 Informing potentially affected residents of their rights to live in lead-safe environments would increase demand for contractors who do not leave poisonous residue behind. \u00a0Do-it-yourselfers would be less likely to repaint or renovate their homes in an unsafe manner.\u00a0 An important consideration relating to the law, pertinent to current concerns about regulatory burden, is that the costs of compliance are consistent with good practice.\u00a0 The rule requires that dusts be contained and workplaces be left clean, conditions that customers might expect of any responsible contractor.<\/p>\n

What the students found was that there is tremendous variability among the states.\u00a0 Some have \u201dtaken delegation\u201d of the law (enabling them to enforce it) and have engaged in significant educational and inspectional activities.\u00a0 Some responses indicated concern for regulatory burden on businesses, rather than the prevention of lead poisoning.\u00a0 Some failed to respond, even though letters were sent to governors as well as health and schools agencies, and repeated attempts were made to ensure that states knew a compilation of responses would be made public.<\/p>\n

To view the responses to the 2013 survey, click here:<\/p>\n