Updates on MA RRP Rule From The MA Department of Labor Standards

As EPA amends the RRP rule, renovators working in states that have taken over the rule from EPA need to know if and how these states incorporate the changes into their own rule.   Yesterday I inquired with the State of Massachusetts to find out about a few recent amendments and changes.

One of the good things about the state of Massachusetts taking over the RRP rule is that communications with the Department of Labor Standards (DLS) is much easier and much quicker than trying to get answers from EPA.  I also find their staff is much more informed and always helpful.  The Q&A below was conducted completely via email (I sent the questions out of the blue) and I got a complete and what I would call an intuitive response in less than 4 hours!  Credit to the DLS!

Here is the Q&A

Question: Can you tell me if MA allows the lead safe renovation supervisor to take paint chip samples same as EPA does?

DLS Answer: Massachusetts incorporates the federal protocol by reference in our regulation. LSR Supervisors are authorized to sample painted surfaces in accordance with their training.  Of course, they must do adequate sampling for different painting histories of surfaces, document their findings, maintain records of testing and provide documentation to the property owner as required.

Question: Does MA require that the firm provide the renovation checklist to owners and tenants within 30 days of completion of final billing, whichever comes first (just like EPA)?

DLS Answer: Yes. DLS has the same documentation requirements as the federal rule.

Question:  EPA requires towns and municipalities to become certified firms and have Certified Renovators before doing their own RRP work on town properties that are target housing and or Child Occupied Facilities.   They can however hire out the work to a Certified Firm and therefore would not need to be a Certified Firm if the work is hired out to one.  Does the Massachusetts law follow the same requirements?

DLS Answer:  Yes. Massachusetts mirrors the requirement but offers the opportunity for the fee to be waived for property owners with trained employees working on their own properties.

You can find them listed on our LSRC list published on the DLS web pages.

Question: Also, does MA now recognize LeadCheck for Drywall and Plaster?

DLS Answer: Yes.  But as usual, there is a caveat which is also applicable at the federal level.  When the trained individual takes a sample – s/he must follow the prescribed protocols.  In order to take advantage of the new approval; they must follow the new testing methods and adequately test surfaces.  In some cases, many samples must be taken in order to effectively disclude the work under the rule.

Training Providers will likely being teaching the new methods, however, those who were previously trained will need to justify that they know how to sample in order to validate their findings.  Of course, the safest path is to presume the presence of lead.

Question: Any other updates or clarifications I should know about?

DLS Answer: I know you are aware that DLS has been doing enforcement and civil penalties.  We are still interested to have the regulated community provide us feedback to provide better regulations.  I don’t have a specific date but we will certainly let you know when we are going back to public hearings to update our regulation.

Its spring and we are in the field doing compliance checks.

EM NARI Members Attend Hearing To Encourage Assistance with RRP Rule in Massachusetts.

12/17/10

Yesterday Mark Paskell and I attended a hearing held by the Commonwealth of MA Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development.  Interested parties were invited to attend to provide suggestions to Joanne F. Goldstein, the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, regarding how the money appropriated to the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Division of Occupational Safety (DOS) should be spent in Fiscal Year 2012.   Mark and I were there representing the Government Affairs Committee of the Eastern MA Chapter of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (EMNARI) and also to share our own personal views. At the meeting we met Mark Casale of Painting and Decorating Specialist, a past National President of the Painting & Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA), who was also there representing his industry’s RRP concerns and encouraging budgetary support related to RRP enforcement.

Although attending the hearing took time away from my busy work and holiday schedules, I was definitely glad I went.   In addition to attending and submitting testimony at the hearing, before the hearing Mark and I also attended a meeting with the MA Division of Occupational Safely to discuss items related to the MA RRP rule, rule administration and rule enforcement.

As I have stated in past blogs and at the RRP Workshops Mark and I present to renovators and their staff, so far I have been very pleased with the efforts of the DOS regarding the RRP Rule.   Under the leadership of Heather E. Rowe, the Department’s Acting Commissioner, we have seen significant progress and improvements here in Massachusetts as compared to EPA’s efforts and the EPA RRP rule.  I have been fortunate to work with several DOS employees regarding the rule; including Patricia Sutliff, Ernest Kelly and Brian Wong.  At our meeting with DOS yesterday, Heather Rowe was also in attendance.  She expressed her support of our ideas, recognized our concerns and thanked us for assisting the DOS in dealing with this complex and often times confusing rule.   DOS, as part of their takeover of the RRP rule from EPA, inherited many of the same challenges renovators face trying to work with the EPA RRP rule.

In my opinion, the ability to work with and interact with the same people who not only enforce the rule in MA, but also have the ability to help shape the MA RRP rule, has been a major plus for those Massachusetts contractors affected by the rule.  At the budget hearing I shared this opinion and stressed that I hoped DOS would get adequate budgeting to keep such communication opportunities available in the future.   Here are a few of the items I suggested at the hearing:

• DOS should have adequate funding to accomplish public and regulated community awareness about the rule so home owners would know to only hire MA Licensed Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors and to assist in getting those who need to be licensed the information they need to do so.   Right now in MA, there are approximately 29,000 registered Home Improvement Contractor (HIC) businesses but only about 4000 EPA Certified Firms.  Of the 4000 EPA Certified Firms, only approximately 1000 have obtained the required MA Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors License.
• The EPA claims their rule includes lead-safe work practices, but in reality it does not.  The EPA rule and the required certified renovator training include lead-safe containment practices.  These containment practices actually put workers at greater risk because airborne lead dust becomes concentrated due to the containment, triggering major concerns with worker safety and related OSHA compliance.  The EPA does not included lead-safe work practices or training that help renovators eliminate and or dramatically reduce the creation of lead dust to begin with.  I stressed that the creation of real lead-safe work practices and training programs to share them with workers would have several benefits.  These include a better skilled work force, a higher paid workforce, more taxes collected for the state through payroll taxes on increased wages, compliance with the OSHA Lead In Construction Standards would be easier and less expensive, and the risk of lead poisoning for occupants and those doing the work could be dramatically reduced. 
• I also stressed the need for and opportunity to educate our children and young workers to prepare them to meet the needs of the residential construction industry.  Teaching lead-safe work practices to students in our state’s vocational and trade schools would help contractors, the students and our state improve worker health and safety in addition to many possible economic benefits for each of the parties.
• I suggested that one of the big opportunities DOS and the regulated community would have if adequate funding was available would be increased awareness of the RRP rule as well as the serious dangers and health effects of lead.  Increased awareness could help get more businesses properly licensed.  Consumers would be better informed before doing renovations where lead was present and before choosing a contractor to do the work.  If more local building inspectors and health departments across the state knew about the rule they could help with awareness and enforcement.  And, if we educate young school children about the dangers of lead and how to avoid them, in essence we would be creating a next generation of consumers, workers, business owners and parents who could help carry on a legacy of awareness and respect for the dangers and risks of lead poisoning.
• Both Mark and I stressed the importance of finding and implementing strategies to help level the playing field for honest and hardworking renovators and to help eliminate illegally operating contractors and moonlighters who participate in the underground economy.  We encouraged putting RRP related requirements on building permit applications, putting some skin in the game for home owners who hire illegally operating workers and businesses, and providing timely and accurate information and or answers for those businesses and individuals who are trying to do the right thing and are seeking to comply with the RRP Rule.

EM NARI, Mark Paskell, Mark Casale and I are all committed to both protecting and advancing the professionalism of RRP renovators in MA.  The RRP rule is a challenge but also an opportunity for our industry.  If we all work together, as individuals and as members of trade associations to help guide, assist and hold accountable those who regulate us; our industry and consumers will all be much better off.  I hope you will join us in our efforts and or support us in our efforts.  We need all the help and encouragement we can get to help effect change and protect the interests of honest and hardworking professionals affected by the RRP rule.

An Opportunity to Make Sure Massachusetts Enforces the RRP Rule

The Commonwealth of MA Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development will be holding public hearings where interested parties can attend to provide suggestions to Joanne F. Goldstein, the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, regarding how the money appropriated to the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Division of Occupational Safety (DOS) should be spent in Fiscal Year 2012.

So far I have been very pleased with the efforts of the DOS regarding the RRP Rule.   Under the leadership of Heather E. Rowe, the Department’s Acting Commissioner, we have seen significant progress and improvements here in Massachusetts as compared to EPA’s efforts and the EPA RRP rule.  I have been fortunate to work with several DOS employees regarding the rule.  In my opinion, the ability to work with and interact with the same people who not only enforce the rule, but also have the ability to help shape the rule, has been a major plus for those Massachusetts contractors affected by the rule.  We have discussed many ideas I feel will help level the playing field for legitimate and honest contractors who are challenged by being in competition with those contractors who are operating illegally.  I find the DOS to be open to many of these ideas and they have great ideas to offer as well.

Proper and effective administration and enforcement of the RRP rule will take money.   Because the amount of money the DOS and DOL will get in 2012 is already decided, contractors must voice their opinion as to how they think the money should be spent.   It is my opinion that the money could actually be invested in the health and safety of Massachusetts citizens to protect them from the dangers associated with contractors who ignore lead-safe work practices.  And, if properly and adequately enforced, the RRP rule would not only help to eliminate the underground construction economy here in Massachusetts, it would also help bring in additional revenue for the state in fees to those who get licensed to do the work, in fines to those who operate illegally and in taxes collected if all construction businesses doing RRP work have to pay their equal share of payroll and income taxes.  

I will being going to the hearing on Thursday December 16th.  I hope you will join me in my efforts and attend one of the hearings to express your opinion.  Remember, the purpose of the hearing is to discuss the budget.  Please keep your comments pointed towards constructive solutions, protecting the health of MA children and other citizens, and stress support for protecting the interests of legitimate contractors who already contribute their fair share of taxes to support our government.

Here is the Notice:

The Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development will hold two public hearings to allow interested parties to provide their comments to Secretary Joanne F. Goldstein as part of our fiscal year 2012 budget recommendation. These hearings are scheduled as follows: 

Hearing 1 – Boston, MA

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Charles F. Hurley Building, Minihan Hall

19 Staniford Street, 6th floor

Boston, MA

11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.

Hearing 2 – Taunton, MA

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

Taunton Career Center

72 School Street

Taunton, MA

4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M.

Written comment is encouraged prior to the hearing.  Parties may also submit written comments at the hearing or through December 22, 2010.  Please address comments to:

Secretary Joanne F. Goldstein

Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development

One Ashburton Place, Suite 2112

Boston, MA 02108

MA RRP Assessment Form Introduced By CLPPP

Recently Massachusetts, one of the states delegated by EPA to administer and enforce the RRP rule, released a new form and protocol to be used by Massachusetts licensed lead inspectors when doing testing for lead prior to a RRP project.   Although under the Massachusetts and EPA RRP rules a certified renovator can use EPA approved test kits to do this testing, as an alternative some home owners and renovators may elect to have the testing done by a lead testing professional.  The following article was written by John MacIsaac of ASAP Environmental.  John is a leader in the lead inspection industry and currently serves as President of the New England Chapter of (LEHA), The Lead and Environmental Hazards Association.

John’s Article:

As of September 2010, CLPPP (Childhood Lead Poison Prevention Program) has produced a new report for RRP inspections.  It is called the Renovation Repair and Painting Assessment Report.  This new MA RRP inspection form will be used when licensed MA lead inspectors are testing surfaces that will be impacted during renovation of properties built prior to 1978.  The information on this report will definitively say which surfaces are positive or negative for lead based paint based on findings from an XRF analyzer or sodium sulfide solution purchased by the inspector from the state of MA.  If the surfaces tested negative for lead paint then the contractor is not required to follow the RRP protocol.  If the surfaces are positive for lead based paint the contractors are required to follow the RRP protocol for set up, containment, and clean up.

There has been a MA Lead Determination report in place since before the current lead law was enacted.  This report has been primarily used for testing for lead based paint as part of home sales.  It was also used for RRP inspections prior to the release of the RRP Assessment report.  The RRP Assessment report as well as the Lead Determination report cannot be used for deleading purposes.  In order to perform deleading activities for compliance with the MA lead law you will need a Full Comprehensive Initial Inspection and/or Risk Assessment.  Certified firms and the Lead Safe Renovators who work for them are not licensed to do deleading activities for compliance in MA unless they take an additional 4 hour deleading training course.  Since April 22, 2010 we have seen a number of deleading jobs for compliance that have had unauthorized contractors perform the deleading activities.  As a result of this the owners of these properties are getting letters of Unauthorized Deleading which does not remove them from liability from the lead law and they are also not eligible for  available tax credits of up to $1,500 from the state.

It is important that property owners make the decision on whether or not they will or will not have testing done either by a licensed lead inspector or a lead safe renovator.  The property owners are required to disclose all findings, from a licensed lead inspector’s RRP Assessment report or from a Lead Safe Renovator who has used an EPA approved lead based paint test kit to test surfaces for lead, to all tenants or potential buyers.

Note:  This information was provided by John MacIsaac of ASAP Environmental, Inc.

If you are looking for forms and signage to help you with comply with the EPA RRP rule, I recommend you check out what The Lead Paint Forms Store has to offer.

OSHA Left Out Of RRP Rule Development, Just Getting Up To Speed. 

On Friday Mark Paskell and I attended a half day LEAD Hazard Awareness workshop sponsored by the MA Division of Occupational Safety and OSHA.  (Download the Power Point Presentations)  Mark and I agreed we learned quite a bit of new information related to OSHA requirements that apply to RRP related work at the workshop.  We have been working on developing training programs and workshops to help renovators become aware of and address OSHA rules.  Attending the workshop will definitely help us enhance our future offerings.

At the workshop it became obvious that OSHA and EPA didn’t collaborate on the RRP rule or the content of the required certified renovator training curriculum.  It also became obvious at the workshop on Friday that the OSHA reps in attendance were only just recently getting up to speed on the new RRP rule. When answering several attendee questions about OSHA requirements related to RRP work, I could tell the OSHA employees in the room lacked a true understanding of the required RRP work practices.  Although the RRP rule went into effect on April 22, 2010 these employees said they had only recently attended any training related to the rule.

If RRP instructors follow the EPA created instructor training manual when training renovators, they will be teaching students to do things that violate OSHA rules.  (Read more here) Will it be an adequate defense if fined by OSHA to defend what you did by referring to the content of the training manual?   It appears that the EPA attempted to cover its lack of clarity and understanding of OSHA rules in the training manual by adding this disclaimer where the manual covers the training of non-certified workers by certified renovators; “Note: OSHA rules may require employers to take further steps to protect the health of workers on the job” 

It’s always easy to find fault, but what we need is solutions.  So here are only but a few of my suggestions to EPA and OSHA:

• Rather than use fines and penalties to promote awareness and compliance, use education to help employers and employees identify and understand the health and safety risks of their professions and what laws and regulations they must comply with.  Knowing the why often makes the how easier to embrace.
• Rather than promote compliance with just mandatory reporting, paperwork and or fines, offer and require attendance at strategic training classes that not only explain what is required, but also why.  The classes could also include training on how to fill out the required reporting forms correctly.  Doing so would serve to help complying businesses who do the right things for their workers and customers, only to then get fined due to paperwork errors.
• Allow OSHA and EPA to keep the money collect in fines provided that use of this money is clearly targeted towards developing and supporting education that results in a better educated workforce, improved awareness of related health risks and reducing worker injuries and or illnesses. 
• Perhaps our industry could establish standard designations for workers who satisfactorily complete a predetermined curriculum of classes relevant to specific job duties and work environments.  This would increase the value employees bring to employers and give employers a simple and standard way to assess the knowledge and or experience of job candidates.
• Current OSHA and RRP related rules and training seems to concentrate on what not to do, without enough time and attention on the right way to do things.   With OSHA for example, fall protection rules require a business to put fall protection equipment in place and train workers when and how to use.  Great, but why not also complement it with training on methods for working safely and how to avoid putting yourself in a position to fall?    
• For RRP, the required training teaches how to contain dust and debris so it won’t spread outside the contained work area. Might renovators who follow these instructions only be increasing the health risks to workers by containing and concentrating the dust and debris in the confined work area? Wouldn’t it make sense to also train workers on lead-safe work practices that actually limit or prevent the creation of dust to begin with?  

If you have suggestions to add to this list please share them here.  If some day we have the opportunity to revise these rules and or the strategies used by our government to administer them, we will already have a collection of solutions to consider and offer.

Comparison of EPA and DOS RRP Rule Requirements

NOTE: DOS (Department of Occupational Safety) is now called DLS (Department of Labor Standards)

The MA Division of Occupational Safety has released a very helpful comparison of the new MA RRP rule with the existing EPA RRP Rule.   This comparison should help those doing RRP renovations under the recently enacted MA RRP Rule understand any difference between the two rules.

The following information is directly from the DOS web Site:

I.  Applicability of Requirements

EPA: The EPA RRP Rule applies to renovation, repair and painting (RRP) work conducted for a fee in pre-1978 target housing and child-occupied facilities where the work involves the disturbance of more than 6 ft² of painted surfaces per room or more than 20 ft² of paint on exteriors (total), except that the quantity exemptions do not apply to any projects involving window replacement or demolition of structures.

DOS:  Same as EPA.

II.  Firms or Entities Requiring Licensure

EPA:  All firms or other entities performing work subject to the Rule require certification as “Certified Firms.”

DOS: Firms or other entities performing work require licensure as “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors,” except that the following entities may apply to DOS for a “Contractor License Waiver”:

1.  Entities that perform regulated work in facilities that they own, using their own employees.

2.  Entities that were certified by EPA (or a state delegated by EPA to administer EPA RRP Rule) prior to July 9, 2010.

DOS also allows Deleading Contractors licensed by 454 CMR 22.00 to perform regulated renovation work without being separately licensed as “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors.”  Entities applying for a “Contractor License Waiver” do not have to pay a fee for the waiver but must subsequently comply with all other provisions of 454 CMR 22.00, including the requirement to have the work supervised by a “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor”, compliance with work practices (including cleanup), notifications, cleaning verification and recordkeeping.

III.  Contractor Licensing Fee and Required Documentation

EPA:  $300 for five years.  Applicants must submit identifying information, list of professional certifications related to lead-based paint activity and list of previous violations related to lead-based paint activity.

DOS:  $375 for five years.  In addition to filling out identifying information on application form, applicant must:

1.  Document that a person in a supervisory or management capacity has received the one-day Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor (“Certified Renovator”) training.

2.  Document that a medical monitoring/respirator protection program is in place (entities with employees only). Program templates are on DOS’s website.

3.  Submit information related to organization of the business or entity – corporate articles of organization, business certificate, etc., as applicable.

4.  Submit lists of current and previous employees.

5.  Document workers compensation coverage (entities with employees).

6.  Affirm compliance with Massachusetts tax laws, including DOR, DUA, FSC.

7.  Submit lists of occupational health and safety-related violations, notices of noncompliance, enforcement actions, etc. 

IV.  On-site Supervisor Requirement

EPA:  EPA requires the supervisor (“Certified Renovator”) to be on site only during certain phases of the work (posting of Warning Signs, establishment of work area containments, during final cleanup and cleaning verification) and available by phone the rest of the time.

DOS:  DOS requires the supervisor (“Lead-Safe Renovator Supervisor”) to be on site at all times when RRP work is in progress.

V.  Training and Certification Requirement for Supervisor

EPA: EPA requires a one-day “Certified Renovator” course given by an EPA-certified training provider.  Possession of the training certificate, which includes a digital image of the trainee, constitutes the certification – persons who possess this certificate do not have to apply to EPA directly.  The one-day training course does not include respirator/personal protection training elements.  The training/certification is good for five years, after which time the “Certified Renovator must take a one-half day refresher course.  EPA allows persons who have taken the deleader-supervisor and deleader-worker courses to take a one-half day upgrade/refresher course to upgrade to “Certified Renovator” status.

DOS: DOS requires essentially the same one-day training course for certified “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisors” that EPA requires for “Certified Renovators” except that the DOS-required course includes respirator/personal protection training elements. Where the training is given in Massachusetts, the course must be given by a Massachusetts-licensed training provider.  As is the case with EPA, possession of the training certificate, which includes a digital image of the trainee constitutes the certification – persons who possess this certificate do not have to apply to DOS directly.  The training/certification is valid for five years, after which time the “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor” must take a one-half day refresher course.  DOS also allows persons who have taken the deleader-supervisor and deleader-worker courses to take a one-half day upgrade/refresher course to upgrade to “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor” status.  DOS also requires training providers to include “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor” training elements in four-day training courses required for “Deleader-Supervisors” given after July 9, 2010, and DOS will therefore allow “Deleader-Supervisors” to function as “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisors” on renovation worksites after they have completed this training.

VI.  Certification and Licensing Reciprocity between EPA and DOS

EPA:   Firms or entities that have been licensed as “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors” by DOS in Massachusetts must become certified with EPA as “Certified Firms” in order to carry out RRP work in states where EPA is running the RRP program.  EPA allows individuals who have been trained/certified as “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisors” in Massachusetts to act as supervisors and perform the functions of “Certified Renovators” on RRP projects in other states where EPA is running the program without needing to obtain separate EPA certification as “Certified Renovators.”

DOS:   DOS allows firms that were certified with EPA as “Certified Firms” prior to July 9, 2010 to perform RRP work in Massachusetts without becoming licensed by DOS as a “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractor,” provided that they have received a “Contractor Licensing Waiver” from DOS – there is no fee for this waiver.  The “Contractor Licensing Waiver” application is on the DOS website.  Contractors that apply for EPA certification after July 9, 2010 are required to pay the licensing fee and become licensed as “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors” with DOS.  DOS will allow “Certified Renovators” that have received training from EPA-approved training providers to perform the functions of “Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisors in Massachusetts without further training or licensure.

VII.  License/Certification Fees for Providers of RRP Training

EPA:  EPA issues a four-year certification to lead training providers.  Certification fees, which are assessed on a per-course basis, range between $400 and $870 per course.  The charge for certification to give to the initial “Certified Renovator” training course is $560, and the charge to give the refresher course is $400.  The charge for renewing the certification in either discipline is $340.  The training provider certification fee is waived for providers who are state and local governments, federally recognized Indian Tribes and non-profit organizations.

DOS:  DOS issues a one-year license to lead training providers and charges a flat licensing fee of $1775, regardless of the number of lead training course disciplines in which the trainer is seeking approval to provide training.  DOS has the same licensing fee waiver as EPA for training providers who offer only RRP training and are state and local governments, federally recognized Indian Tribes and non-profit organizations.

VIII.  Work Practice Requirements

EPA: The set of work practice requirements specified by EPA’s RRP Rule is a somewhat relaxed version of the work practices currently required for deleading projects.  As opposed to what is required for deleading projects, units undergoing renovation are not required to be unoccupied while the work is in progress; it is only required that persons be excluded from the work area, which must be isolated from the rest of the dwelling or child-occupied facility by appropriate means.  Plastic sheeting, which must be disposed after each use, must be used to cover floors and other surfaces on building interiors and plants and ground on exteriors.  EPA specifies the use of a “cleaning verification” procedure, which is carried out by the on-site ”Certified Renovator” to determine if interior work areas have been adequately decontaminated.  Under this procedure, the color of a wiping cloth, that is used to wipe down the work area following the final cleaning, is compared to the color of a standard “cleaning verification card” issued by EPA.  If the color of the wiping cloth is the same shade as (or lighter than) the cleaning verification card, the area “passes.” Dust-wipe clearance, as is used to clear deleading projects, may also be used to “clear” RRP projects.

DOS:  DOS’ work practice requirements for RRP work are almost identical to those required by EPA, except that DOS allows the use of tarpaulins to cover plants and ground on exterior projects, provided that the tarpaulins are thoroughly decontaminated after each use and not subsequently used for any interior work in target housing and child-occupied facilities.

Click here to find this information at the DLS web site

Delegated States Likely Better Prepared To Enforce EPA RRP Rule

Several states around the country have assumed administration and enforcement of the EPA RRP rule and others are also thinking of doing the same.  EPA actually offers money for the states to use to investigate the practicality of doing so.  As this happens each state must create its own rule which is at least as strict as the EPA rule in order to get approval to do so from the EPA.  This will lead to confusion for many renovators. 

Variances in the rule requirements, from the EPA RRP rule and also from state to state, will make it difficult for renovators to understand the differences and keep up with amendments made by each entity.  Renovators working in more than one state many have to become certified firms in each state they operate in and or also with the EPA.  Are renovators better off if their states write a better thought out rule?  Would renovators be better served if there was just one well written rule for everyone to follow?   I predict that confusion may likely contribute to violations and fines for these renovators. 

In July of this year Massachusetts took over administration and enforcement of the RRP rule.  The Massachusetts Regulations, written by the Massachusetts Department of Occupational Safety (DOS), include many of the OSHA related considerations left out of the EPA RRP rule and the EPA required certified renovator training.   As a result, Massachusetts contractors are quickly becoming aware of the already existing OSHA considerations related to working with lead.  For example, the Massachusetts firm licensing application includes a requirement that a written respiratory protection and worker health and safety program evidencing compliance with the Massachusetts RRP rule and OSHA medical monitoring requirements be submitted with the application.  This will force businesses to have such a program in place before they can be licensed to do RRP work.   The requirement will also serve to dictate what the business must have in place should they be inspected by either the DOS or OSHA.   I predict the need for OSHA related training will increase dramatically as contractors become aware of violations and fines levied against their peers.

The MA DOS has also started conducting on-site inspections.  Though most inspections are triggered by citizens reporting suspected violations, the DOS is also out in the field and is stopping by renovation projects as they come across them.   In one of his recent blogs, RRP certification training provider and business coach, Mark Paskell of The Contractor Coaching Partnership, shares a real life story of a painter who was visited by DOS after a neighbor next door to one of his projects called the DOS with concerns about soil contamination.  The contractor was in compliance and made out fine, but the DOS left him with a message and asked that he would share it with others.  "Tell every contractor you know we're out there enforcing. Tell your friends, your neighbors, other contractors you know, suppliers and trades. We are here and we will enforce the new law"

NOTE: EPA has authorized nine states to administer their own RRP programs: Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Wisconsin.

The following information is from a flyer released by the MA DOS.  The Regulations became effective on July 9, 2010:

Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Regulations in Massachusetts:

Information for Contractors.

The Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety (“DOS”) has recently adopted new requirements under its lead standard, 454 CMR 22.00, that apply to renovation, repair or painting (“RRP”) work conducted for a fee in target housing or any child-occupied facility, where more than threshold amounts of lead paint are disturbed.
• With certain exceptions, contractors and other entities who carry out work covered by these requirements must be licensed as “Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors” by DOS. Affected occupations include, but are not limited to: painters, plumbers, electricians, window installers, general contractors, property maintenance workers, and remodelers.
• A person who has take a one-day “Lead-Safe Renovator Supervisor” or “Certified Renovator” course and is in possession of a current certificate of training issued by an approved training provider must be on site and in control of the work at all times when the work is in progress. Workers on such projects must be trained by the certified supervisor or a training provider licensed by DOS.
• The work must be carried out in accordance with work practice requirements specified in 454 CMR 22.00, including, but not limited to: testing of suspect materials, work area isolation or delineation, exclusion of personnel, covering of objects, acceptable work methods, cleanup and cleaning verification.
• Certain record keeping and notification requirements are also specified. It is essential that you determine whether or not the renovation work you perform falls under the regulation; if it does, then your business must become licensed, your supervisors trained and certified, and your workers trained. Failure to comply with DOS regulations governing these matters may result in the imposition of civil administrative penalties.

--------------------------

View and download the regulations describing these procedures.

You can also reach DOS for more information at 617-969-7177.

Breaking News!

Friday June 25th, 2010, 4:47 PM

I just received this announcement from The Massachusetts Department of Occupational Safety.  To avoid confusion, I want to clarify that contractors working on pre-1978 homes must still follow the current EPA RRP Rule until Massachusetts confirms its authority to administer and enforce the new MA RRP Regulations from the EPA.   

Please read the announcement below from Barbara Shultze for details and dates.

Dear Interested Person:

On June 25, 2010, the Division of Occupational Safety filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth,  amendments to 454 CMR 22.00 (Deleading and Lead-Safe Renovation) and, in conjunction with the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, amendments to 801 CMR 4.02 454 (16) and (18) (Licensing Fees for Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors and Lead-Safe Renovator Training Providers).  These amendments, which will be published in the Massachusetts Register and become effective on July 9, 2010, can be viewed on DOS' website at www.mass.gov/DOS, or by clicking here.  These regulations were filed as emergency regulations on April 2, 2010.  The edits made in red line indicate changes made after public comment to the emergency regulations.

These amendments, which establish safety standards for renovation, repair and painting work that disturbs lead paint in target housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978, parallel similar federal EPA requirements that became effective on April 22, 2010 under the "Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule" (RRP Rule), 40 CFR 745.80 - 745.92.  The amendments to 454 CMR 22.00 are designed to be as protective of human health and the environment as the federal standard.  At this time, EPA has the exclusive authority to administer and enforce the RRP Rule.  DOS will be filing an application shortly with EPA, seeking authorization to administer and enforce the lead safety standards for renovation, repair and painting work set forth in 454 CMR 22.00, in lieu of the federal standard being enforced by EPA in Massachusetts.  DOS will request that this authorization be approved as close as possible to July 9, 2010, to coincide with the effective date of the amendments to 454 CMR 22.00.

Further information on the current federal administration of the RRP Rule, including application forms for contractors, applicable fees and lists of approved training providers may be obtained through the following link:  http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#contractors.  Further information on Massachusetts' administration of RRP requirements, including application forms for contractors, applicable fees and FAQs, is being developed and will be posted on this website as it becomes available.  In the interim, questions can be directed to DOS Environmental Engineers Patty Sutliff, Rick Rabin or Frank Kramarz at (617) 969-7177.

Here are a few key considerations regarding the MA RRP rule that would effect those who are already EPA Certified Firms and or EPA Certified Renovators:

-Persons, firms, corporations or other entities who are in possession of current, valid certification as a Certified Firm issued by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 745.89 prior to July 9, 2010 need not be licensed as Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors or Deleading Contractors, provided that: said person, firm, corporation or other entity is in possession of a duly executed Contractor Licensing Waiver as specified at 454 CMR 22.04(3); that the requirements of 454 CMR 22.11(3) and (4) are met; and the work is otherwise conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of 454 CMR 22.00. (Click here to find and read the related sections in the regulations. Basically, obtaining a waiver requires filing a form with the DOS that verifies that the firm is certified with the EPA and requires that the firm will follow the requirements of the MA rule. It is my understanding that if the Firm was already certified with EPA before July 9, 2010 they would not be subject to MA Firm Certification fees until they needed to recertify under their original EPA Certification.  Otherwise, MA Firm Certification fees will total $375.00

-Persons who have received  lead-safe renovation training shall be considered to have fulfilled the applicable training requirements provided that said training was provided by a state or EPA-sponsored or approved training provider

The Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety will hold a Public Hearing on May 24, 2010 to take comments on new regulations related to their intent to seek authority in administering and enforcement of the EPA RRP program from the EPA.  The hearing will be held on Monday May 24, 2010, from 10:00 a.m to 1:00 p.m. in the South Street Amphitheater of the UMass Medical School at 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA

In general, remodelers are not happy with the new EPA requirements and certainly have the right to express their opinions.  The new MA regulations are very similar to the EPA Rule, but also include language related to already existing OSHA and DOS requirements that have become applicable to certain remodeling work as a result of the RRP requirements.  If you plan to attend the hearing, I suggest you first read the EPA Rule and preamble, the accepted and proposed amendments, and the MA rule before assuming anything or commenting at the hearing. 

Please make sure you are informed regarding any of the opinions you share or accusations you might make at the hearing.  If you express concerns or ask questions that are already addressed in the rule and or amendments, you will certainly lose credibility.  If this were to happen, you might also compromise the efforts of others, particularly industry trade groups like EM NARI and or BAGB, if you identify yourself as a member of one of these associations at the hearing. That said I hope you will join those of us who want to help our industry make the best of this new reality by being a passionate and at the same time a professional voice at the hearing.

The following information is from the DOS web site:

"The Division of Occupational Safety will hold a Public Hearing on May 24, 2010 on Proposed Amendments to 454 CMR 22.00 (Deleading) and 801 CMR 4.02 454 (16) and (18) (Licensing Fees for Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors and Lead-Safe Renovator Training Providers): 

In accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, § 2, the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety will hold a Public Hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments to its deleading regulation, 454 CMR 22.00, which include new provisions for renovation, repair and painting work conducted in target housing and child-occupied facilities, and to 801 CMR 4.02 with regard to licensing fees charged to Lead-Safe Renovation Contractors and providers of Lead-Safe Renovator-Supervisor training.  The proposed regulations are authorized by M.G.L. c. 111, §§ 189A through 199B and M.G.L. c. 149, § 6 for 454 CMR 22.00; and M.G.L. c. 7, § 3B and M.G.L. c. 111, § 197B(e) for 801 CMR 4.02 454 (16) and (18).  A hearing will be held on Monday May 24, 2010, from 10:00 a.m to 1:00 p.m. in the South Street Amphitheater of the UMass Medical School at 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA (for directions click HERE). 

Copies of the proposed regulations may be downloaded by clicking on the respective link: 454 CMR 22.00 and 801 CMR 4.02 454 (16) and (18).

Comments on the proposed regulation may be sent to Laura Marlin, Commissioner, Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety, 19 Staniford Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA  02114 until the close of business on Friday, May 28, 2010.     

The Division of Occupational Safety filed emergency regulations on April 2, 2010, at 454 CMR 22.00, replacing its Deleading regulations with new regulations entitled Deleading and Lead-Safe Renovation.  These regulations were published in the Massachusetts Register on April 16, 2010, and are effective April 2, 2010.  However, at the present time, the Division of Occupational Safety will not enforce the new regulations, unless and until it receives delegated authority from the Environmental Protection Agency to administer and enforce EPA's Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule.  Entities newly covered by the new regulations should continue to obtain their licenses from EPA at this time."

Further information on the RRP Rule, application forms for contractors, applicable fees and lists of approved training providers may be obtained through the following link: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

EPA Region I contacts:
Rob Carr - 617-918-1607        James Bryson - 617-918-1524

Click here to go to the MA DOS web site