NARI Member Testifies Before Small Business Committee About Frustrations With EPA

Yesterday, David Merrick, chairman of the NARI Government Affairs Committee and owner of Merrick Design and Build, testified before the House Small Business Committee about many of the concerns remodelers' have about the RRP Rule and the difficulties trying to effectively work with EPA.  I think David’s testimony spoke for the opinions of most NARI Members as well as for most remodelers.  Let me know what you think.

Click here to view the entire video which was just over one hour long.  David’s introduction and his testimony begin at about 19:50.

Here are some highlights I pulled from watching the video myself.

In response to questions posed by a representative overseeing the SBA (Ms. Peters?), David stands up for and points out the realities and challenges for smaller one or two man remodeling businesses starting at about 30:28. David stressed the burden record keeping has on such smaller businesses just trying to earn enough money within the time they have to produce their product, pointing out that even if they are doing the right things regarding the work they perform, they can be punished by EPA for paperwork challenges.

Many might miss this watching the video, but I think it exposes the lack of understanding many of those in our government have about the nature of the remodeling industry and the businesses that participate in the industry.  The same representative overseeing the SBA (Ms. Peters?) made the following comment at about 33:10 in what I observed to be an obvious effort to be sarcastic;

“And when I get my bid from a contractor on remodeling should I triple the time and double the money?  (She laughs) Just Kidding…”

Perhaps, like many contractors, EPA has a problem under estimating and under bidding?

At 58:56 Mr. Tipton asks: “So, effectively what you are saying is if the EPA is asking for input maybe it would be a good idea if they listened?   To that question Merrick replied that the EPA is always gracious about meeting with NARI and taking their input, but he further clarifies his response by commenting “They take our comments and disappear behind doors and we never hear from them again.”

I think it is worth listening to the balance of the video after Merrick’s comment to hear Mr. Tipton’s comments and opinions in support of more sensible oversight of EPA’s tactics, behavior, attitudes and performance.

Give EPA more money?

During the hearing there was much banter regarding whether EPA needs more money to effectively regulate or alternately should get less money because of their poor performance.  I think they are missing the point.   We don’t have more money to give EPA unless we take it from somewhere else or borrow it from China and put the burden of paying for the borrowed money on our children’s future.  Maybe many of the the same children the rule is intended to protect.

Here is one example.  During the hearing Merrick points out That currently only 122,476 firms in the remodeling sector are considered EPA Lead-Certified Firms, out of the estimated 652,206 remodeling businesses in the United States.  Has EPA done a good job in the past 26 months since the rule took effect if 80% of remodeling contractors are still operating uncertified?  Are they really keeping our children safe from lead poisoning with the plan they assembled knowing the reality of available funding?

I think it goes back to original planning.  Try this analogy. 

The simple way to put it is it’s great to figure out and plan for a nice seafood lobster dinner, but if you get to the store and you don’t have enough money then all that planning on a great seafood dinner is kind of wasted.  My suggestion is that the way EPA went about creating this rule is rather silly especially because they just don’t have the funding or the budget to administer and enforce the rule the way the rule was written.

Perhaps if EPA really understood our industry and how contractors operate, they would have considered a Design/Build approach!

Thanks David.

Click here for a NARI Press Release about the hearing

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.

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.

5 Things Your RRP Trainer Probably Forgot To Tell You

One Person’s Opinion: This is a guest blog submitted by Janet M. Kerley to express her opinion.  Janet M. Kerley, CHMM is the Lead Pb Trainer for the Santa Fe Community College Lead Training Program. In her spare time, she developed the smartphone app, RRP Comply,  to assist contractors in stepping through the RRP requirements. If you would like to express your opinion or offer something of value for RRPedia visitors let me know.  

5 Things Your RRP Trainer Probably Forgot To Tell You

The EPA (with HUD) developed the standardized Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule courses to train contractors on how to comply with the RRP Rule.  As an experienced environmental professional, I believe the training materials leave out some critical information that contractors should know about how the EPA actually enforces its regulations.  Here are some additional recommendations that I provide in my classes to assist contractors in preparing to meet the EPA:

• Keep RRP documents and records separate from your project notes and financial records.   
• Keep RRP documents and records readily available.
• Document (take a photo, write a memo-to-file, get a signature, get copies of certificates, etc.) on all RRP requirements.
• Pay attention to and stick to the established deadlines within the RRP.
• Work closely with other contractors on the job to maintain consistency in all RRP recordkeeping.
• Establish a clear pattern of compliance within your company and your subcontractors.

While EPA inspectors might actually show up at your job site, the most probable scenario is they will show up at your office and ask to review your records for the previous three years.  Let me explain why I make the above recommendations.

The EPA typically uses a variety of economic models (ABEL, BEN, INDIPAY, MUNIPAY, PROJECT) to calculate fines and penalties for violators. Handing the EPA inspector your costs and profit information in your project file just makes their job easier.  If they find a violation, there is an established procedure for requesting company financial information during the enforcement process.  

Since we are in the implementation phase of RRP, there are still many gray areas in the rule that will get resolved over the next three to five years.  Until then, keeping your project notes separate from the required recordkeeping prevents an inexperienced regulator from jumping on a misplaced word in your documents.

The definition of ‘readily available’ varies widely. For example, OSHA allows up to 24 hours for businesses to produce some types of required records.  When the EPA inspector walks in and asks for your RRP documents, you should be able to open a file drawer, pull out a box, or hand them a CD with all of your records within a 15 to 30 minute time frame.  Otherwise, they pull out their ticket book and start writing violations.

EPA does not allow hearsay compliance. If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen.  You can stand there and tell them that you used containment on every job.  But, a picture of your jobsites with you pointing to the warning sign outside your containment demonstrates compliance beyond any doubt. Pictures are worth a thousand words…and don’t forget to set your date and time stamp on your photo.

EPA loves to catch us on the dates.  For example, contractors are required to provide the Lead Test Documents to the client within 30 days of completion of the project.  We have a training slide that says that but the provided form does not have a location to document receipt of the test results. I recommend you insert a line that says ‘Received By’ with a place for your client’s signature and date in the Client Information box on the Lead Test Documentation form.  Perform the test, hand it to your client to sign, and then make copies.  

Arrange to meet with all other renovators, subcontractors, specialty craftsmen on the project to determine who is going to be the Assigned Renovator.  Coordinate with all companies on a LBP project before, during and after to make sure everyone’s documentation is correct and complete.  It only takes one bad apple for the EPA to dig into everybody’s apple crate.

By keeping timely, correct, and proper documentation on your projects that fall under the RRP Rule requirements, you can establish a pattern of compliance.  If your recordkeeping is available, comprehensive to the rule’s requirements, and somewhat orderly, the EPA inspector will not be inclined to dig too deep to find minor non-conformances.  

Remember: The LBP job is not done until the paperwork is complete.  It can be a very costly mistake. 

Six Ways Non-Compliance with The RRP Rule Could Affect Your Business

Renovators should be aware that in addition to EPA or administering states, other individuals or entities may likely take advantage of the documentation requirements to hold renovators accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Here is a partial list of possible time bombs for renovators who are not in compliance with the new RRP lead laws:

• Lawyers could use non-compliance with the RRP rule to demonstrate negligence by the renovator.   Even if allegations of negligence have nothing to do with lead or the RRP rule, non-compliance with RRP documentation requirements will be easy to prove and will be an easy way for suing clients and their lawyers to argue that if negligent with RRP requirements, a contractor could also be negligent in other areas.
• Insurance companies could use a lack of compliance to deny coverage.  Several insurance agents have told me that insurance companies will soon be requiring proof of RRP compliance, both for the GC as well as subs the GC uses, before renewing general liability and workers compensation policies.  Insurance and the cost of a policy are all about risk.  Renovators not in compliance with the RRP rule increase the risk insurers take when they write insurance policies
• Home owners could use lack of RRP compliance to avoid paying their renovator.  Think of it as blackmail.   If the renovator did not follow RRP requirements, their customers could avoid paying for services by threatening to report non-compliance.  Think this is farfetched?  One contractor told me he knows of another contractor who already had this happen to him.
• Employees could use non-compliance against employers. Whether an employee really is affected by lead or not, it will be very easy for employees to prove their employers put them at risk and or were negligent in protecting them on the job by simply referring to the worker protection training and methods taught to them during the required eight hour certified renovator training class. 
• OSHA could use RRP paperwork to prove non-compliance with its Lead in Construction Standards.   OSHA’s worker protection requirements related to lead are very specific.   Information contained in the required RRP documentation, particularly the renovation checklist and non-certified worker training documentation, could easily be used to show workers were not adequately trained and or protected when working in contained work areas.  A lack of the required documentation could also be used by OSHA to demonstrate negligence by the business. 
• A renovator may want to store RRP documentation for a lot longer than the three years required by the RRP rule.  In regards to lead poisoning, the statute of limitations for children doesn’t start until they are 18 years old.  If a child, rather than their parents, decides to sue a renovator for lead poisoning, having the documentation to prove lead safe work practices will be an importance defense for the renovator.  If the documentation is no longer in existence, or never existed to begin with, proving compliance will be difficult or impossible.

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.  They offer a complete assortment of multi-part carbon forms, signage and checklists to assist you and your employees with RRP compliance

Landlords Need To Be Aware Of The Recent EPA RRP Rules

Being a landlord brings with it many legal responsibilities related to lead paint that, if not followed, can certainly eat away at any potential profits.  There are many rules to consider and be aware of, the most common being the lead disclosure rules.  Federal rules are one thing, but different rules in different states and different cities can make it quite difficult for landlords to be confident they are complying.  Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. 

Lead disclosure related rules effecting landlords have been around for some time now.  Still, many landlords are not aware of them and even many who are aware have been getting away with ignoring them.  The EPA typically only proactively audits “bigger fish”, like large apartment complex owners, rather than landlords with fewer properties.  However, when tenants complain about or sue a landlord, their lawyers will often also use lead disclosure compliance as an additional weapon in their arsenal.  Now there is a new weapon tenants and their lawyers can use as well.

Many landlords are not aware of the new RRP Lead rule which must be followed when repairs, renovations, painting and or maintenance is done on their rental properties.   In addition to certain required lead-safe work practices, the RRP rule also includes building occupant notification requirements.  These requirements must be met when working in a tenant’s unit and or if work is to be done in common areas on or in the rental property.  The rule requires that tenants be made aware of the work to be done and where it will be done in advance of starting the work.   Click here to access a list of short videos explaining the RRP Rule.

When work is done inside their units, tenants must be given an EPA published pamphlet titled “Renovate Right”.  The pamphlet explains the dangers of lead and what is required to protect their and their family’s health and safety when work is being done at the property where they live.  If work is to be done in common areas, the pamphlet can either be given to tenants, or, notices can be posted telling tenants how they can receive the pamphlet at no cost to them.   Tenants must also be given or made aware how they can request a document titled the “Renovation Checklist”.  The checklist documents the work done and the lead safe work practices used to do the work.  Under the rule the landlord must maintain documentation proving these and other requirements were met.

If the landlord does his own work on the rental property and or uses his/her own employees to do so, the landlord must also become an EPA Certified RRP firm and only use trained and certified workers to do the work.  If you are a landlord doing your own work, click here to see the list of documentation you are required to create and store.  If the landlord hires a contractor to do the work, the landlord does not need to be certified, but the contractor doing the work does.  If a contractor does the work, the landlord is responsible to obtain from the contractor and store all documentation required under the rule. For violations of the RRP rules landlords can be fined up to $37,500 per day, per violation. 

***Keep in mind that the RRP fines will be in addition to any fines related to disclosure rules.

Some states have taken over administration and enforcement of the rule from EPA.  Make sure you know what specific rules apply to your situation depending on where the property is located.  Click here to see a list of states that have taken over the rule.  If you are a landlord seeking more information about the RRP rule use the tags on the right side of this page to help you find specific information and topics.   Be sure to subscribe to this page if you would like to receive e-mail notification of new posting related to the RRP rule as they happen.  Feel free to share this information with others.

NOTE: If you are a landlord, realtor or member of a group representing landlords or realtors seeking help and information about the RRP rules, feel free to contact Shawn McCadden for assistance.  Shawn offers consulting services and informational seminars related to the RRP rule for landlords, realtors and other affected parties.

RRP Rule Could Be A Ticking Time Bomb For Many Contractors:

The New Renovation Repair and Painting Rule could likely be a ticking time bomb for many renovators who are ignorant of, intentionally ignoring and or not following all of the many requirements of the rule.   The reason I say this is because of the documentation and record keeping requirements of the RRP Rule.  Renovators should keep in mind that under the rule the required documentation for each RRP project must be stored and made available for inspection for up to 3 years after the completion of the project. The EPA and or states that have taken over administration and enforcement of the rule won’t be limited to finding active violations of the rule on jobsites.  They will also be able to use the required documentation to determine whether renovators were complying with the rule on all projects completed in the three years preceding an inspection.   Check out this list of six ways non-compliance and a lack of documentation could affect your business

I had a conversation with one remodeler about the serious risks non-compliance can have for a renovator’s business.  His opinion was that the risk of being caught was dependent on “how legal” the remodeler is in the way he/she operates the business.  My opinion is that being legal is not measured on any kind of graduated scale.   You are either operating the business legally or you are not.   I think both EPA and OSHA agree with this logic. 

In regards to RRP and OSHA compliance, either organization has the absolute ability to decide that you are in compliance or not.   If you are not in compliance you are guilty and subject to fines for all violations.   One saving grace, for those who are trying to be legal but may not be all the way there yet, is the fact that EPA has provided its enforcement officers with guidelines to determine fine amounts.  The Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy (ERPP) sets forth guidance for EPA officials to use in determining the appropriate enforcement response and penalty amounts for violations resulting from failure or refusal to comply.  OSHA has similar guidelines for their field inspectors.

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.   They offer a complete assortment of multi-part carbon forms, signage and checklists to assist you and your employees with RRP compliance

Massachusetts RRP Regulations Require Use of a Sign-in/out Log At Containment Areas

One of the differences between the EPA RRP Rule and the Massachusetts RRP Rule is that Massachusetts requires the Licensed Lead-Safe Renovation Contractor (firm) to maintain a sign in/out log, just like the one required for deleading contractors,  for workers who enter and exit the contained work area during RRP renovations. 

According to section 22.13 (2) (e) of the MA RRP Regulations, titled “Record Keeping Requirements”, contractors must maintain a sign in/out log as required by 454 CMR 22.12(1)(a)10

Here is what the MA RRP regulations 454 CMR 22.12(1) (a) 10 state about this containment sign in log, sign out log:

“The Deleading Contractor or other entity carrying out a Class I Deleading Project shall ensure that each person entering or leaving the work area individually completes the appropriate entries in a sign in/out log.  The sign in/out log shall include: the location of the project; current date; printed name; signed name; Massachusetts License number, where applicable; and the time of entry or exiting.”

To help renovators with this requirement I have created a sign in/out log sheet that I am making available as a free download.  Use of the free sign in and out log is at your own risk.  If you have any suggestions to improve the form please feel free to let me know.   I hope this helps.

If you haven’t done so already, you can subscribe to RRPedia in the blue box at the top right of this page.  By doing so, you will receive instant e-mail notification when new articles like this one when they are posted to RRPedia.

Click here to request the free RRP sign in/out log sheet.

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.

RRP Work Can Be Risky if You Are Picking Up The Pieces After a Home Owner Does Their Own Work

In a recent RRPedia article titled “Most Children Poisoned by Lead during Renovations Poisoned by Their Parents”, One commenter posted the following the following comment and question:

“Shawn, this is actually something that I've been thinking about for some months now. As a handyman, I'm called upon to come in after a 'DIYer' has attempted and failed to complete a project. How are contractors supposed to protect themselves with the knowledge that anyone (especially kids) in the house could already have lead poisoning? It's kind of extreme, but do we need to have everyone in the home get tested before we sign a contract to begin repairing their repair work? It's troubling to say the least. There's no doubt that if homeowners were held to the same rules regarding the RRP, there would be more contractor work as they (the homeowners) would not want to go through all the protective measures. Thoughts?”

Scott Remsen

This is an excellent observation and question. The liability in such a situation is huge. I just recently had a conversation about this topic with an attorney well familiar with the RRP rule. Her suggestion was to consider asking the home owner to do testing of the occupants and perhaps even dust wipe testing at the home before beginning any work to establish a point of reference. Discussing this with and asking the home owner to do so would obviously be a sensitive conversation and could likely be a tough sell for many contractors.

In the video below Attorney Andrea Goldman discusses options renovators can consider if they are asked to do RRP work following behind a DIY Home Owner.  This video was filmed at a site where very large lead paint chips were left all around a recently repainted deck.  The video shows paint scraping debris all over the ground and on a picnic table.  The house was right near the ocean.  As you can probably tell from the audio the wind was blowing, causing the paint chips and dust to be spread all around the yard and walkways.  Obviously there was total disregard for any containment or clean up at all, as evidenced by the size of the paint chips.

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.