LeadCheck Lead Test Kits Now Recognized For Use On Drywall and Plaster

According to the EPA web site 3M's LeadCheck test kit is now recognized for use on drywall and plaster.  This will definitely be helpful for those renovators doing RRP work who prefer using the LeadCheck swabs.  Before EPA recognized the use of the LeadCheck test kits for drywall and plaster, renovators could only use the D-Lead Test Kits, the only other recognized test kit available to RRP renovators.  As a result of this change by EPA, now renovators have their choice of two test kits that are recognized by EPA for use on wood, ferrous metal (alloys that contain iron), or drywall and plaster surfaces under the RRP Rule.

Here is what is now posted on the EPA web site:

• 3M™ LeadCheck™. EPA recognizes that when used by a certified renovator, the 3M™ LeadCheck™ lead test kit can reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is not present on wood, ferrous metal (alloys that contain iron), or drywall and plaster surfaces. Obtain the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) test kit laboratory evaluation report. Also obtain the 3M™ LeadCheck™ laboratory evaluation report (70 pp, 1.2MB, about PDF). Certified renovators seeking to use the 3M™ LeadCheck™ test kit for purposes of meeting requirements in the RRP rule can purchase the 3M™ LeadCheck™ test kits from either 3M™ LeadCheck™ directly or from certain retail outlets. To order a 3M™ LeadCheck™ test kit call 800-494-3552 or contact 3M™ at leadcheck.com/contactus.

NOTE: The EPA web site also includes a link to a fact sheet on the EPA-recognized test kits (PDF), however EPA has not updated that fact sheet yet to reflect the change.

RRP Training Refresher: Defining Work Area Containment

It’s probably been a while since you took your RRP Certified Renovator Training Class.  This blog post is offered as a refresher topic to help you keep important details about the RRP rule top of mind when selling, estimating or performing RRP renovations.

Refresher: Defining Work Area Containment

What is Containment?

“Containment” is what is required under the RRP Rule to prevent dust and debris from spreading beyond the work area to non-work areas.  In general, there are many degrees of containment, ranging from simple plastic sheeting on the floor surrounding a small work area to a fully enclosed space. Some types of containment are more effective than other types.

Why is Containment Required?

Containment is required by the RRP Rule because it reduces the risk to you and residents. Following the work area setup requirements will protect you, your co-workers and residents by confining lead-contained dust and debris to a defined and demarcated area. Confining the lead is an important consideration in avoiding exposure. Reducing the risk to you and co-workers is also dependent upon use of personal protective equipment.  Requirements for the personal protection of workers are established by OSHA and can be found in the OSHA document titled “Lead in Construction”

Proper containment also facilitates efficient cleaning of the work area. The pre-work setup process is essential to keeping lead-contaminated dust confined to the work area where it can be easily cleaned. Proper containment of the work area helps to limit the area you need to clean after the job is complete. Knowing exactly where to clean is an important factor in saving time (and money) spent on cleanup. 

Controlling dust and debris may require more extensive containment than is specified in the rule if the job is particularly dusty. For example, small areas of ceiling work can spread dust over the entire room and are very difficult to control. 

Containing the Work Area Includes:

• Removing objects and furniture from the work area, or covering them with plastic sheeting.
• Covering floors (or the ground) with plastic sheeting a minimum distance beyond the surfaces being renovated (6 feet for interior jobs and 10 feet for exterior jobs).
• Vertical containment is required for any exterior renovation within 10 feet of the property line. 
• Larger areas of disposable plastic sheeting may also be necessary to prevent the spread of dust. 
• Smaller areas of containment may be used if additional precautions such as vertical containment are used to stop the spread of dust and minimize the area of cleanup. 
• Closing windows and doors, and using plastic sheeting to seal doors and air ducts in the work area. 
• Covering doors used to enter the work area with plastic sheeting in a manner that allows workers to pass through but contains dust and debris within the work area.

Making RRP Easier - New Understandings About RRP Work Practices

Guest Blogger:  Dean Lovvorn is a residential remodeler who has done numerous RRP projects.  He is also a Lead Inspector, Lead Risk Assessor and EPA RRP Renovator Instructor. 

This blog post is a follow-up to a previous RRPedia Guest Blog where Dean listed several differences between the work practices taught in the required Certified Renovator class and what he found is actually required in the RRP rule.

Making RRP Easier - New Understandings About RRP Work Practices

Back in April 2010, I had an exterior remodeling job that was put on hold for a day because of heavy rains.  In my boredom, I decided to read the actual RRP law from start to finish.  I soon discovered that what I was taught in my 8 hour class and what was in the student manual wasn’t necessarily in the actual law itself.     

I was probably dozing off in the 8 hour renovator class, but after these discoveries, I began to clarify some new understandings.

• On exterior containment set-ups, all I really needed to do was put plastic on the ground, be sure windows & doors were closed, cover any doors within 20 feet with plastic and put out a warning sign.  If there are no doors and/or windows within 20 feet, simply put plastic on the ground and a warning sign up.  Nothing else needed.
• On interior containment set-ups, I just needed to do the same as the exterior (except 6 feet out from where I was working).  If there were no furniture/objects or ducts within the 6 foot area … I didn’t have to go any further.  Be sure to tape down the plastic on the floor.

Of course, if I was doing some really dusty work, I made the containment (work area) larger, but other than that, it was pretty quick, easy and simple if you were to ask me.

Following are some examples of how reading the actual law has helped me.

Siding Replacement

In this example, I would place 3.5 mil plastic (from Home Depot), instead of the 6 mil plastic 10 feet out on the ground.  Then, I would make sure doors/windows were closed, put plastic over any doors and then put up the warning sign.  I would also run a plastic runner out to the dumpster and surround the ground around the dumpster with plastic.  Doing the containment this way, saves me from having to wrap, bag or HEPA vac the siding (or myself).  This is because I can dump the siding without ever going outside the containment area.

If exterior vertical containment is needed a simple solution (pictured to right) can be done.

Replacing Door Slabs

If my job is to replace 15 door slabs, I simply do this without following RRP.  This is because the only area I am disturbing on each door is the hinge area and since it falls under the Minor Repair and Maintenance Activities, RRP is not required.  This insight came from the FAQ section of the EPA web site.

Bathroom Remodel (Total Gut)

I can demo the tile, tub, shower, toilet and remove the demolition debris without doing any RRP.  After that has been done, I cover up ducts with plastic,  make sure windows are closed, close doors and cover with plastic, put up a warning sign and then cover the subfloor with plastic (6 feet out from where I will be working). 

I put the demoed walls, cabinets and trim into trash cans (with lids on top) and HEPA vac the outside of the trash cans (along with myself) before taking them out of the containment area.

Note:  If I’m lucky and there is an exit door (to the outside) close by … I could run plastic to the door, then outside to the dumpster.  This way, I wouldn’t need to worry about containing the demolition debris.

Normally, I do the final clean-up, visual inspection and cleaning verification after demolition; so that I can officially end RRP and let non-certified electricians/plumbers/sub-contractors into the work area.

Conclusion

It very well could be that if you did a little homework by reading the actual law, you could reduce the cost of compliance on many jobs to less than 5%.  Few contractors will lose a job because they are higher by less than 5%.  Plus, with the cost less than 5%, I don’t even mention RRP to my clients during the estimation process anymore, which has helped to improve sales. 

Guest Blog: RRP Opt-Out, Don’t Hold Your Breath...

BIO:  Dean Lovvorn is a residential remodeler who has done numerous RRP projects.  He is also a Lead Inspector, Lead Risk Assessor and EPA RRP Renovator Instructor.

RRP Opt-Out, Don’t Hold Your Breath...

There has been a lot of chatter about the recent Lead Reduction Amendments Act of 2012, where the Senate bill proposes to return the Opt-Out to the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.  You can find this topic on most every contractor message board.  The bill was introduced by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) and is co-sponsored by several other republicans.  NARI, NAHB, and many other contractor organizations have praised the efforts of Senator Inhofe.

The big question, is should contractors get their hopes up?

The Probabilities

The first thing you should consider is that all bills introduced must first go to committee.  The second thing you should realize is that the vast majority of bills introduced … will never get out of committee review and thus, will never get a chance to be voted on.  Thirdly, even if the bill gets voted on, it must be approved by the majority of Senators (in this bill’s case).  Lastly, even if passed by the Senate; the House & President must approve.

It is a long uphill battle.  You also need to realize that most bills introduced are simply grand standing.  A way to get attention and show those who give money to your campaign or vote you into office … that you are doing something. 

Where RRP Came From

The grandparent of RRP is Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X).  The grandparents gave birth to the parent of RRP, Title IV—Lead Exposure Reduction, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

What is not often talked about is where “Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities in target housing (most pre-1978 housing), pre-1978 public buildings, and commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards“.  The RRP falls under the TSCA, Section 402 (c)(3).

Conclusion

To put it simply, we need to come to grips that the RRP is most likely going to be required on public and commercial buildings.  Public and commercial buildings have adults in them.  Would it make sense to Opt-Out adults in target homes, but not Opt-Out adults in public and commercial buildings?  Unfortunately, the answer is most likely not.

So for those who are hoping for the Opt-Out to return, prayers may be in order.  It may be the only thing that has a chance.

Guest Blog: Making RRP Easier – The RRP Training Suggests Doing Way More Than The Rule Requires

Guest Blogger: Dean Lovvorn is a residential remodeler who has done numerous RRP projects.  He is also a Lead Inspector, Lead Risk Assessor and EPA RRP Renovator Instructor.

Making RRP Easier – The RRP Training Suggests Doing Way More Than The Rule Requires

Back in April 2010, I had an exterior remodeling job that was put on hold for a day because of heavy rains.  In my boredom, I decided to read the actual RRP law from start to finish.  Honestly, it was like watching paint dry (incredibly boring). 

However, as I continued reading, I soon discovered that what I was taught in my 8 hour class and what was in the student manual wasn’t necessarily in the actual law itself.

My Discoveries - In the actual law I found:

1. There was no mention of having to wear disposable suits, dust mask, booties or headwear. (Still might need to comply with OSHA)
2. That I didn’t have to put construction debris in a heavy duty plastic bag.  I had to at final clean-up, but not when taking out demolition debris.
3. There was no requirement to put plastic over windows.
4. That there was no mention of putting yellow warning tape at 20 feet out on exterior jobs.
5. That on many jobs, the only paperwork required was a signed receipt of the Renovate Right booklet and completing the record keeping checklist.  This takes me about 5 minutes to do.
6. It didn’t say I had to use 6 mil plastic, which made me happy since the 3.5 mil plastic sold at Home Depot cost less.
7. I didn’t have to mention (if I didn’t want to) anything about RRP during my sales presentations or while giving estimates.  This was especially helpful, because clients don’t want to hear about being lead poisoned … they want to hear about their beautiful renovation.

Watch for Dean's next guest blog where he describes the work practices he now uses to make RRP easier at the job site

Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Lobby Congress on RRP Lead Paint Rule

ProSales Magazine reports that building material dealers from across the nation visited Capitol Hill on March 6^th, 2012 to urge Congress to reconsider RRP regulations. The visits were organized by the National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association (NLBMDA). (Read full story here)  The visits followed a morning gathering at the group's annual Legislative Conference in which Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., both criticized the EPA, the arm of government responsible for the lead-paint rule, for hurting business. 

"I wish we had an EPA that was helpful ... as opposed to the 'gotcha' approach, writing tough regulations…  The best thing you could do for the environment is to have a strong economy. ... It seems the EPA has a disconnect on that."

Greg Walden, R-Ore.

Craig Webb, editor at ProSales reported that NLBMDA's criticism of RRP centers on three issues:

1. An opt-out provision that had been slated to be part of the  regulation but was removed on the day it became final,

2. the trustworthiness of lead-paint dust detection kits,

3. and what NLBMDA regards as "misdirected enforcement" of the rule.

Those same three issues are addressed in the recent legislation introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla in his bill titled “the ‘‘Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012’’.  (See this previous RRPedia post for more) Webb said NLBMDA's first priority during the Hill visits was to support the bill, encourage other Senators to co-sign it, and help to get companion legislation introduced in the House of Representatives.

According to Webb the dealers focused on the fact that, with the opt-in provision, the RRP would have affected 38 million homes, but taking that op-out option means 79 million homes were subject to the rule.  In July 2010, NLBMDA and several other trade groups sued EPA for removing the opt-out rule, arguing that the agency had acted without any new scientific data and before the rule had even taken effect.

Contractors affected by the RRP rule have definitely benefited from the efforts of trade groups like NLBMDA.   Lumber and building materials dealers who join such associations and become involved and proactive on important issues like the RRP rule stand out as true partners for the entire remodeling industry.   Credit also to Craig Webb and ProSales Magazine for staying on top of these efforts and reporting them so all will know.

92% of NARI Membership Supports Return of RRP Opt Out

A recent survey by the National Association of the Remodeling Industry shows that a full majority of members responding to the survey agreed with the proposed return of the Opt Out provision of the RRP rule.

According to a March 2, 2012 press release NARI members overwhelmingly agreed (92%) that restoring the opt-out to the rule made the most sense for both the remodeling professional and the homeowner.  “I truly believe that as professional remodelers, we must be cognizant of our customer’s health and safety. However, once they are educated concerning lead hazards, ultimately, they should be able to make their own decisions regarding this issue,” advised a member who responded to the survey.  

In another NARI survey of homeowners, deployed in June 2011, 51% of homeowners agreed with the statement, “I want the option to opt-out of the EPA’s RRP regulations.”

Here is the survey question the NARI Government Affairs committee sent out:

"In 2008, EPA finalized its EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rules with an 'opt-out' provision that would have allowed homeowners to waive special work practices if there were no pregnant women or children under 6 living in the home. Two years later, EPA decided to remove the opt-out provision. Should NARI support legislation that restores the "opt-out" provision?"

The NARI press release also clarified that NARI continues to work actively with the EPA on ways the agency can educate the public on the importance of hiring EPA-certified remodelers to do work on homes built before 1978. NARI has been and continues to push the agency for tougher enforcement of the rules to crack down on firms lacking the required EPA certification that are violating the rule and failing to protect homeowners.

Christopher Wright, CR, NARI’s Government Affairs Committee vice chair, added: “EPA’s current rules add costs to remodeling jobs regardless of whether people are at risk.  Higher costs, without an obvious link to protecting children and pregnant women, has prompted most home owners to do work themselves or to hire non-licensed contractors."

NARI also referred to President Obama’s Regulatory Reform Initiative requiring a top-to-bottom review of federal regulations to get rid of rules that are outdated and harmful to the economy.  The association takes the position that LRRP should be reformed to better accomplish its stated goal: to eliminate lead hazards in the home as a result of renovation activities.

Will Reinstating the RRP Opt Out Provision Really Help Your Business?

Recently Legislation introduced by Senator Inhofe (R) in Bill 2148, the ‘‘Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012’’, among other amendments within the bill, included reinstating the RRP opt out provision that was previously removed when the Sierra Club sued the EPA back in 2009. There is certainly some difference of opinion within the industry regarding whether reinstating the RRP opt out provision makes sense and or will actually be beneficial.   A recent guest blog on RRPedia by Peter Lawton triggered comments from many in favor and against the opt out.  One commenter admitted he was originally in favor of the opt out but was rethinking his position after reading Peter’s blog post.

So, will the opt out actually help businesses?  Maybe.  Maybe not...

I suggest the real problem is that the original rule was poorly conceived and poorly written. Because we are now stuck with it, the proposed amendments are really just band-aid approaches to try to make it better for or more palatable to those affected by the rule. What we really need is a new well thought out rule to replace the existing rule, with the input and leadership of the industry this time.  And, the industry needs to be proactive this time in its writing, its content and its enforcement.

That said it is not likely that the rule will be abandoned and replaced by EPA.   Doing so would be an embarrassment to EPA because it would essentially be admitting it had screwed up.    So, we have to deal with trying to improve upon the existing rule.

Here are several considerations that need to be recognized if the Opt-Out becomes available again:

• Not using lead safe practices on a pre 1978 property is a big risk.  Unless the house is pretested before renovations there is no point of reference regarding existing contamination. If lead safe work practices are not used, how will the business prove it did not cause the contamination?
• If not following the RRP protocols and documenting work practices, the contractor will not be able to provide a preponderance of evidence in his/her favor if accused by the client and or their children of lead related problems after a renovation.
• If the contractor allows a client’s use of the opt out the business and the business owner will still be responsible and liable for damages if the work done by employee well as sub contractors contaminates the house during the work.
• If the home is pre 1978 and is not tested for lead, the contractor must still assume it has lead and must follow OSHA requirements to protect workers and sub contractors. 
• Are your employees aware of the above point?   What would they do and how will your business be affected if they do become aware and contact OSHA and/or have their blood checked for lead?

Not having to follow the RRP rule might just create more problems and risks than following it.   The home owner can choose the opt out to avoid the extra cost.  A contractor can also choose to opt out on the opt out.  If you’re a renovator what will you do regarding the opt out and why?

A Few Steps in the Right Direction Regarding the RRP Rule

Legislation introduced by Senator Inhofe (R) will soon be before the US Senate for consideration.  Inhofe introduced Bill 2148, the ‘‘Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012’’.  As well as several other amendments, the bill seeks to reinstate the RRP Opt Out provision that was previously removed when the Sierra Club sued the EPA back in 2009. Inhofe’s bill is also being supported by Senator Vittor (R-LA), Senator Coburn (R-OK), Senator Grassley (R-IA), Senator Blunt (R-MO), and Senator Enzi (R-WY).

The RRP Rule is a mess.  What we really need is a new well thought out rule to replace the existing rule.   We need a new rule that actually makes sense to follow, addresses the real sources of lead poisoning due to RRP activities, and one that takes into account the financial realities of supporting and enforcing such regulation.  And, the remodeling industry needs to be proactive this time in the rule’s writing, its content and its enforcement. 

Unfortunately we are stuck with the RRP Rule. Maybe the best we can do is try to improve upon it.

It is obvious that someone helped Inhofe understand some of the challenges the rule has created for remodelers. That said there are some positive components found in Inhofe’s bill worth recognizing. 

Check out this one in regards to reinstating the opt out provision.  It adds language to protect the contractor if the homeowner provides false information:

LIMITATION OF CONTRACTOR LIABILITY.—A contractor that receives written certification described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be exempt from liability resulting from any misrepresentation of the owner of the target housing.

This one prevents EPA from fining a certified firm that has created the proper documentation required, but made clerical errors filling it out, something several firms claim they have already been taken to task for by EPA:

APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PENALTIES.—Any regulation promulgated by the Administrator under this section requiring the submission of documentation to the Administrator shall provide— ‘‘(A) an exemption from penalty for a person who—‘‘(i) is submitting the required documentation for the first time; and‘‘(ii) submits documentation that contains de minimus or typographical errors, as determined by the Administrator; and‘‘(B) a process by which a person described in subparagraph (A) may resubmit the required documentation.

This one requires EPA to actually use science to justify its position regarding any future RRP related regulations related to residential as well as commercial properties:

STUDY OF CERTIFICATION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Prior to proposing any new regulation applicable to target housing or public or commercial buildings constructed before 1978, the Administrator shall conduct a study of the extent to which persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling activities in the target housing or public or commercial buildings constructed before 1978— ‘‘(i) are exposed to lead in the conduct of those activities; or ‘‘(ii) disturb lead and create a lead based paint hazard on a regular or occasional basis.

Guest Blog: Weighing In On The RRP Opt Out

Guest Blogger: Peter Lawton had his first lead safe training in 1997 while operating his design/build remodeling firm designPLUS in the greater Boston area. Today he is the founder and senior principle trainer for LeadSMART Training Solutions which trains contractors in areas of lead remodeling and OSHA safety standards. His classes are held throughout New England as well as occasionally on the west coast as well.  Peter can be reached at peter@leadsmarttraining.com or visit his training schedule at www.leadsmarttraining.com .

Opt Out..... Weighing In

Both sides of this issue have valid points to consider. Before we make rash decisions have we looked at the entire picture? We can do better than our politicians, but we must think before we act.

Isn't it a bit odd that months before an election some politician comes out of the woodwork and puts forth this bill? Where was this senator a year ago? How much research and thought went into addressing the bigger picture? Are we being used again as pawns by tapping our emotions and not our intelligence for votes? Do you really feel this is all that stands between you and having enough work?

Here are a few questions/comments I believe this bill ignores:

• Whether the Opt Out comes back or not, what about the employees of the firms who intend on using this option? Did anyone ask those who are actually doing the work how they feel about their health risks? Will they have a voice without retaliation?
• Is OSHA going to come up with a "you must protect your workers’ health UNLESS the customer gave you permission to work unprotected" clause? My bet is OSHA will stand firm on 1926.62 (Lead in Construction). In fact, if you have employees, EPA is irrelevant with whatever they decide to do.
• How about extending the OPT OUT to state that the homeowner releases his or her civil right to sue the contractor should anything go wrong?
• For those of you who think this is all BS, how about signing a waiver that says my tax dollars won’t be used to pay for related health care for you, your family, your workers or your clients who might get sick due to the work you perform?
• If any of you perform HUD work, do you really feel they will buckle from their standards?

Anything that can improve our economy is worth looking at. I am not sure this is the answer everyone has been looking for – can’t we come up with a better solution than Bill #S 2148?

I believe this law can create marketing and positioning opportunities to those who see it this way and in the process, keeps everyone safe  – and for those who see it differently, it’s obviously a never ending source of complaints which has divided our industry at a time when we need each others’ back more than ever.

Stay Healthy,

Peter Lawton, President, LeadSMART Training Solutions