Does Economy Buster RRP Have Any Factual Basis?  

One Person’s Opinion: This is a guest blog submitted by Ray Douglas to express his opinion.  Ray is a remodeling contractor in Brodhead, Wisconsin and has been in business for 34 years. He comments and contributes to RRPedia quite often.  If you would like to express your opinion or offer something of value for RRPedia visitors let me know.

Does Economy Buster RRP Have Any Factual Basis

If lead dust from remodeling is the main reason for elevated blood lead levels (EBBL’s) in children, then why did EBBL’s in children drop dramatically during the same ten year period (1997-2007) that remodeling activities doubled?  The CDC and Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies charts below show this.

In a recent blog, the question was asked of the Director of Massachusetts’ Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program; “How many children in Massachusetts were poisoned by lead due to renovation?”  The answer:  “He had no idea and said the Commonwealth doesn’t track the source of the poisoning.”

A Mercatus Reports article written by Alastair Walling in 2006 states:  “Even though the details of their own studies show little in the way of a link between R&R work and elevated blood lead, the EPA is persisting with its planned certification of R&R workers.  The proposed rules may not produce lower blood-lead levels, but they will raise the cost of renovation and remodeling.”

In a letter dated 11-27-2009, written by SBA Office of Advocacy that was sent to EPA administrator Jackson, makes the following statement:  “Advocacy believes that the evidence in fact shows that private contractors (i.e., professional renovators) subject to reasonable cleanup standards, including the “no visible dust or debris” standard, do not create additional health hazards.”

When you remove all the smoke and mirrors from this rule, the EPA can prove two thoughts; 1 Some remodeling activities create dust   2 Lead paint dust can create or raise EBLL’s    Independent of each other those two statements can be proven, but the combination (which is a major foundational reason for RRP) is not so clear.  Why?

The EPA admits there are several other sources of lead exposure.  These include lead in soil, water, toys, glassware etc. The following links provide some examples:

• All Lead Recalls Posted By the CDC
• Congressional Report Prompts Fear and Anger Over Lead In D.C. Water

If it was suspected that a child got EBBL’s from a remodeling activity, were all the other possibilities of lead exposure ruled out?  Was everything that the child touched or ingested also tested?  That would almost be impossible to do. However, by not doing so, how can it be proven that any lead dust generated by responsible remodelers is a leading cause of EBBL’s in children?  

If the EPA had confidence in the RRP rule, why didn’t they add the following statement inside the RRP Renovate Right pamphlet:

“The contractor, by following these rules, will contain all the lead dust he/she created doing your project, and cannot be held liable for any other past, present or future lead contamination or exposure.”

Because of the extra costs, and the lack of consumer awareness about the dangers of lead, this rule is a tough sell to the customer. It becomes an even tougher sell when the customer asks for evidence to justify the rule.  As discussed above, there is a lot of information that questions the need for it. So, unfortunately, the best answer a contractor may be able to offer is “because it’s the law”.  

Since I can’t explain to the customer the need for this rule, I encourage my customers and prospects to contact their state and federal representatives and ask them to provide facts and figures to explain the need for the RRP rule.  To assist them with this, I supply them with a letter to send to their representatives along with a stamped and addressed envelope.  I encourage all other contractors to consider doing the same.  

To make sending the letters easier, Shawn and I have created sample letter templates that can be shared with and used by remodeling customers and concerned homeowners.  There is a sample contractor letter available as well.  Click here to view or download the letter templates.   Special thanks to Melanie Hodgdon of Business Systems Management for helping edit the letters and for suggesting some of the content of the letters.  

Is The RRP Rule “Outdated And Harmful To The Economy”?

A New York Times story today reported that President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom review of federal regulations to get rid of rules that are outdated and harmful to the economy.  Is the current RRP Rule based on outdated research and is it harmful to the economy?   Many in the remodeling industry think so and have been beating that drum for some time now.  Perhaps this is just what the remodeling industry needs to help get rid of the current RRP Rule in favor of one that is up to date and protects legally operating businesses.

According to the story Obama signed an executive order today that would step up oversight of the regulations issued by government agencies such as U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.

Here are a few promising excerpts from the executive order, let’s hope the president really means what he signed:

 “Section 1.  General Principles of Regulation.  (a)  Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.  It must be based on the best available science.  It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas.  It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty.  It must identify and use the best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.  It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.  It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.  It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.”

“To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt”

“Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.”

“Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation.  To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, on the open exchange of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.”

“Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.”

“Sec. 6.  Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules.  (a)  To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”

Perhaps industry trade associations can take advantage of this executive order to get EPA to rethink the current RRP rule.  To protect the interests of renovators, at a minimum, the RRP Rule or any proposed amendments should reflect real scientific facts about EBLL’s caused by RRP activities and address the economic challenges currently being experienced by compliant businesses that have been complaining about illegal and unfair completion due to the lack of enforcement of the RRP Rule by EPA. 

Based on the executive order, perhaps the EPA will also be forced to track, measure and report on the actual effectiveness of the rule in accomplishing specific performance outcomes.  If performance outcomes are specific and clear, I suggest a revised rule could not only better address the lead poisoning of children due to RRP, it could also assist in fostering innovative methods and tools that would help our industry reduce the cost to do so; for businesses and the consumer.

Recognizing Trade Associations Trying To Affect the RRP Rule

There have been a number of trade associations that have been working to affect the RRP Rule since it came into effect on April 22, 2010.   NARI and the Remodelers Council of the NAHB represent remodeling contractors and both associations have been working, although mostly independently, to address the challenges the RRP Rule is causing for their members.   However there are many other trade associations representing businesses other than remodelers, as well as those representing product manufacturers and the industry supply chain, which have also invested significant and often substantial efforts to address the negative impacts the RRP Rule has had on their own members.  

Although their primary purpose is to represent and protect their members, the efforts of these trade associations also benefit remodelers and therefore should be recognized.   I thought this would be a good opportunity to recognize some of these associations.   The list below is by no means complete as I am sure there are many other associations contributing as well.   If I have missed any that you know of please name them by posting a comment below.  I will add them to the list in the body of this article as I am made aware of them.

List of Trade Associations Fighting the RRP Rule:

• National Association of the Remodeling Industry
• Air Conditioning Contractors of America
• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Painting and Decorating Contractors of America
• Associated General Contractors of America
• Electronic Security Association
• Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association
• Insulation Contractors Association of America
• Manufactured Housing Institute
• Window & Door Dealers Alliance
• National Glass Association
• National Apartment Association
• NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association
• National Association of Home Builders
• National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
• National Multi Housing Council
• Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors—National Association
• The Real Estate Roundtable
• Vinyl Siding Institute
• Window & Door Manufacturers Association
• Lead and Environmental Hazards Association

Click here for some recent examples of what trade associations have done to address RRP challenges.

Visit the EPA RRP Rule Updates Page to see a chronological history of efforts related to the rule even before it was put into effect on April 22, 2010

Trade Associations Trying To Affect the RRP Rule and Protect Small Businesses

Trade associations have been working to affect the RRP rule and the challenges the rule creates for their members.   Renovators visiting RRPedia frequently ask me what is being done by trade associations to affect the RRP Rule, change the RRP Rule and even repeal the RRP Rule.  I have made an effort to watch for these activities for two reasons.  The first is to see who is doing what and what their strategies are.  Some I agree with and support; others I don’t.  The second reason is so I can provide links to these activities on the EPA RRP Rule Updates page of my web site.   The page shows somewhat of a chronological history of activities related to the RRP Rule even before it was put into effect on April 22, 2010.  If you know of any updates worth posting, old or new, please let me know.

Two recent efforts by trade associations recently came across my attention.   One was by the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI).  In a letter addressed to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, NARI Executive Vice President Mary Busey Harris, CAE
requested stricter enforcement of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) Rule. 

In the letter Harris offered the following:

“…non-certified contractors are working on pre-1978 homes in violation of LRRP, and we are concerned that such illegal activity will continue unless EPA launches a tough enforcement campaign.  Non-certified contractors who do work on pre-1978 homes heighten the risk of lead exposure and threaten the economic viability of remodelers who made the investment to become EPA-certified.  In our view, the only way for EPA to address the problem of non-certified contractors is to aggressively and publicly enforce the LRRP rule and to push authorized states to do the same.”

The second effort is by The National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association (NLBMDA).  NLBMDA is urging the new chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to review and fight the RRP Rule as well as three OSHA programs that the dealer group is opposed to.  In a letter to Darrell Issa, Chairman of the committee, NLBMDA points out that poor development and implementation of the LRRP Rule resulted in:

• Not enough training opportunities for renovators to become certified and therefore not enough certified renovators at the time of implementation;

• Inadequate lead test kits producing over 60 percent false positives and an EPA estimated $200 million in unnecessary additional compliance costs;

• Ineffective and insufficient consumer awareness programs; and

• Woefully underestimated costs for compliance with the LRRP Rule, particularly for small businesses.

The NLBMDA letter also points out that:

“EPA’s inability to produce any meaningful consumer education on the LRRP Rule has also resulted in consumers hiring uncertified contractors due to the increased costs of hiring certified renovators. This means that legitimate businesses that are complying with the LRRP Rule cannot compete for much-needed work against non-compliant contractors that, ironically, lack the training to actually perform lead-safe renovations and prevent lead hazard exposures.”

I suggest that the two letters contain some very good points and are well written.  Renovators with similar concerns could, using the content of these two letters as a reference, write to their own local politicians and or to EPA to express their concerns and demand that EPA recognize the challenges small businesses are having as a result of the rule as well as EPA’s lack of adequate administration and enforcement of the rule.

Note:  After writing this blog and seeing the comments, I was inspired to write this blog for my weekly blog on the REMODELING magazine web site.   I hope you will check it out.

Costs Of RRP Compliance Challenging Many Businesses and Likely To Go Higher!

Renovators have justified their concerns about the additional costs of complying with the EPA RRP Rule based on two different but interdependent reasons.  First is the cost to the business.  Businesses that do comply have to pay to become a certified firm, pay training fees for the required certified renovator training, pay the wages of the certified renovator while he/she trains non-certified workers, pay the wages of employees while they attend training, and must purchase all of the tools, related equipment and personal protection equipment needed by workers to do the work.   Second, they cite the additional labor and material costs to perform the work.  

These additional costs might not be all that burdensome if all contractors doing RRP work shared the same burdens and where able to recover these costs through the selling prices of their jobs.  But, the additional costs become an extreme burden for many businesses if and when they are in competition with illegally operating businesses that avoid the additional costs and therefore are offering lower prices to consumers.  Many contractors are reporting that the additional costs are putting them out of business.

Ready for some more bad news?   The costs of compliance are likely to go up even higher, for complying businesses as well as for consumers. 

• First, the proposed dust wipe amendment, if approved, will definitely increase projects costs and will result in delaying when the consumer can get back into the renovated space. 
• Second, in addition to the costs related to the dust wipe testing, because contained areas cannot be re-inhabited until the tests show no lead dust, consumers may need to seek alternate living arrangements while waiting for test results to come back from laboratories. 
• Third, because of the lack of a cost effective lead test kit that will recognize lead based on the legal definition of lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm\2\ or 0.5% by weight, many projects that would not require lead safe practices must still be performed using lead-safe practices. 

Here is excerpt from the final rule preamble:

“Number of events and individuals affected: In the first year that all of the rule requirements will be in effect, there will be an estimated 8.4 million renovation, repair, and painting events where lead-safe work practices will be used due to the rule. As a result, there will be approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 6 who will be affected by having their exposure to lead dust minimized due to the rule. There will also be about 5.4 million adults who will be affected. After improved test kits for determining whether a painted surface contains lead-based paint become available (which is assumed in the analysis to occur by the second year of the rule), the number of renovation, repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices is expected to drop to 4.4 million events per year. No change in the number of exposures avoided due to the rule is expected because the improved test kit will more accurately identify paint without lead, thus reducing the number of events unnecessarily using the required work practices.”

So, because the EPA falsely assumed that the improved test kits would be available by September 2010, 4.4 million RRP projects will bear the additional cost of lead-safe practices that would not be required if the improved test kits were available.  That one bad assumption by EPA, based on the bogus and underestimated average additional cost of $35 per project, will result in $140 million in additional costs for projects “unnecessarily using the required work practices”.   What do you think about that?   What would consumers think about that?

Is EPA Not Listening Or In Denial About The Effects of  RRP Rule?

Remodelers across the country have been complaining about the additional costs related to the EPA RRP rule. As predicted by many trade groups and individual commenters during the comment period before the rule was promulgated, the additional costs to comply with the rule have created a significant pricing divide between those businesses complying with the rule and those that are not. As a result, and again as predicted by many commenters, this has lead to an increase in illegally performed renovations, as consumers, motivated by price, are ignoring the dangers of lead paint and opt to hire contractors who are not abiding by the rule. Under the rule, a renovator can be fined up to $37,500 for willful and knowing violations of the rule, and can even face jail time. Unfortunately, there is no legal consequence to a homeowner for hiring an illegally operating firm, even if the consumer is aware of the rule and its requirements.

Facts show that the EPA has, for the most part, ignored predictions, insight and feedback from the regulated community; both during the comment period before the rule was promulgated and since the rule took effect on April 22, 2010.

Here is an excerpt from the preamble of the final rule that demonstrates EPA’s disregard for the concerns of the businesses regulated by the RRP Rule:

“It is difficult to determine with any amount of certainty whether this final rule will have unintended consequences. However, EPA agrees that it is important to minimize disincentives for using certified renovation firms who follow the work practices required by this rule. EPA also agrees that practicality is an important consideration. Given the relatively low estimated overall average per-job cost of this final rule, which is $35, and the relatively easy-to-use work practices required by this final rule, EPA does not expect the incremental costs associated with this rule to be a determinative factor for consumers. However, that relatively low cost has resulted in part from EPA's efforts to contain the costs of this rule in order to avoid creating disincentives to using certified renovation firms, and EPA has viewed the comments received with those considerations in mind.”

It would seem from reading the above text that EPA did not listen to the many commenters who sited additional costs well beyond EPA’s estimated average additional cost of $35.00. The text also shows that the EPA rationalized that consumers would not be inclined to avoid working with a certified firm based on such a small price difference. Was their math wrong? Are they oblivious to the real costs reported by those doing the work now that the rule is in place? Have they done any research to determine if the rule has had any unintended consequences? Or, are they willfully ignoring the true realities and effects of the additional costs to comply?

In a recent article from NWTN Today, published on December 31, 2010, Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the EPA offered the following. It certainly proves that despite evidence to the contrary, EPA is still not listening to the regulated community or is still in denial:

“Getting lead-safe certified is it the right thing to do for contractors, their customers, and their employees, and especially for the children who spend time near spaces that are being renovated,” said Owens. Owens says that the EPA is mindful of the small added costs that may result from complying with this important rule. To that end, he said the EPA is launching a consumer campaign designed to raise awareness of the dangers of lead paint poisoning, and encourage consumers to choose only contractors who are Lead-Safe Certified"

Don’t get me going about the “Small added costs” and that the EPA plans to “encourage” consumers to choose only contractors who are Lead-Safe Certified. Wouldn’t it have made sense and have helped those businesses complying with the rule to have done the outreach and education before and as the rule went into effect? Wouldn’t have made sense to “require” consumers choose only contractors who are Lead-Safe Certified?

Is Money Spent On RRP A Cost Effective Approach To Lead Poisoning?

How bad is the child lead poisoning problem?  And, how many of the poisoned children were poisoned by lead due to renovation work?  The answer to these two simple questions might surprise you.  Had the EPA and Congress done adequate research, might they have found better and more cost effective ways to further reduce the number of lead poisoned children? 

First in the chart below from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevent (CDC) are the national numbers for lead poisoned children over the ten year period from 1997 to 2007.   Notice that the number of children tested went up two fold, while at the same time the number with elevated blood levels dramatically dropped from about 7.5% of those tested down to about 1%, representing about an 87% drop.     Keep in mind that all this happened before the RRP rule took effect in April of 2010 and while then Senator Obama was pushing EPA to enforce the RRP Rule.  The chart proves that a recently released confusing and shortsighted regulation is now in place to address a problem that was already being dramatically reduced by other means.  Might this prove that the government is going about solving the problem using tactics with limited effect while at the same time they are unaware of or even ignoring tactics they could expand upon that are already working?

No child should be poisoned by lead.  However, our government and politicians are concentrating in the wrong area if they really want to substantially address the lead poisoning problem.   As I had discussed in a previous blog, more children are poisoned by their own parents doing renovations than by contractors doing renovations.  One study in NY showed that only 14% of those children found to have lead poisoning got it as a result of RRP related activities.  The same study also reported that almost twice as many children were poisoned by their parents doing their own RRP work than by all others doing RRP work.  It is likely that most would be renovation companies, but a good number could also have been homeowners who did the work before selling to a new owner, amateur “flippers”, landlords and or property developers doing their own work.

If our government has limited resources and money for something as important as lead poisoning, why has it chosen to address the problem by spending so much money and resources on regulating contractors when that same money could be better invested if it were used to educate and regulate the homeowners (parents) who cause the majority of RRP related poisonings in children, unfortunately and often unknowingly, their own children? 

RRP Enforcement Has Started, But You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet!

Legitimate and professional contractors seeking to level the playing field of doing business have been expressing their desire for enforcement of the new EPA RRP rule.  Their biggest gripe has been that those not following the rule maintain a pricing advantage because those who do comply must include the additional related overhead, material and labor costs.  This concern is further validated because the EPA so far has done little in the way of enforcement. 

It will take time, but enforcement is on the way.  Momentum in this area will likely be caused by the residual effects of the RRP rule, not because the EPA chooses to ramp up its enforcement efforts.  Contractors and the EPA better get ready though.  Catalysts like the ones listed below are coming and will force contractors to comply. At the same time these catalysts will increase the number of violations reported to and requiring action by the EPA and or by those states that have assumed administration and enforcement of the rule.

The list below includes titles for several other articles previously posted to RRPedia.  Clicking on the titles will bring you to that article.  Rather than make this article extremely long, readers can pick and choose which articles they would like to read.  If you choose to read all or most of the articles, I suggest reading them in the order listed below.

Delegated States Likely Better Prepared To Enforce EPA RRP Rule

Doing EPA RRP Work?  OSHA Will Be Watching For You.

Uninformed and Nervous Neighbors Will Keep RRP Renovators on Their Toes

Insurance companies Rethinking Coverage and Premiums Due to EPA RRP Rule

Contractors and Subs Doing EPA RRP Work Will Need to Work Things Out

Property Values and Equity Will Drop as a Result of the EPA RRP Rule

Home Inspectors Will Help Spread The News About The EPA RRP Rule

Banks And Other Lenders Are Starting to Find Out About the EPA RRP Rule Too.

Be Heard: How Has The RRP Rule Affected Your Business?

Your help is requested

I am writing to you today asking for help.  And, at the same time, I am hoping to help you.

The recent RRP rule requires contractors to follow certain lead-safe work practices to protect homeowners, their families and the workers who perform work where lead paint is or might be present.  The rule also requires training of workers to be sure they know how to do the work, protect themselves and stay in compliance with the rule.   Lead poisoning is a real issue.  Protecting people from the dangers of lead is the right thing to do. Although we may all have our own opinions about the actual rule itself, as an industry and as professionals, we must do what is right.

In my efforts to help our industry work with this rule and the EPA, I have been a strong voice calling for compliance with the current rule as it stands.  I have also been a strong voice in regards to questioning the practicality of the rule as well as the EPA’s apparent lack of interest in enforcement.

Many businesses, ranging from remodelers, subcontractors, manufacturers, distributors, vendors, trainers and even trade associations have contacted me to express their disappointment with EPA’s handling of this rule since it took effect on April 22, 2010.   Although EPA claims to have done extensive outreach to consumers and the regulated community, the results of their efforts have proven to be ineffective.   Enforcement of the rule so far has been almost non-existent, particularly in light of the number of non-compliant businesses still doing the work in ways that are definitely poisoning our children, their families and those workers who perform renovations where lead is present.  The EPA’s June announcement regarding their decision to delay enforcement of the training and firm certification requirements was interpreted by many renovators as a delay of the whole rule, not just the fines for such violations.  As a result, many businesses trying to support renovators in complying with the rule have reported that sales have dropped to the point where they must consider shutting down.   I could go on with my list but I am probably preaching to the choir.

I want to help you and others who are trying to comply with this rule. Here’s how you can help me. First, send me your thoughts regarding how this rule is affecting you, your business, your employees, the economy, our industry and any other areas of importance.   My plan is to assemble the information I receive and then share it. Because of the failure of the EPA to raise public awareness regarding the dangers of lead, policy makers and influencers simply aren’t “getting it.” Therefore, I intend to do my best to publicize the data in a way that attracts the attention of those who have the ability to force our government to stand behind their commitment to protect our citizens from the dangers of lead.

Second, if you have suggestions, contacts and or the means to assist me in distributing this information to those who can help us with this important issue, please let me know.  Anyone is welcome to leave comments here at the end of this blog.  However, I would prefer that you e-mail me your thoughts in letter-like form and that you include your complete contact information as well as your permission to use and distribute what you send me.  I will not redistribute information from anonymous parties.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and your help.  Please feel free to forward this information to others who might be able to help and or need help regarding this serious concern.

Shawn McCadden

Remodeling Industry Specialist

shawnm@charter.net

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