Don’t Be Mislead By the Vote to Cut Off RRP Enforcement Funding

On July 13, 2011 the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut off funding for enforcement of the RRP Rule until a reliable test kit is recognized by EPA.  The amendment was included in the House Appropriations Bill by Representative Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.).   

Note: For clarification, a “reliable test kit” means a test kit that would be able to determine if a painted or coated surface contains lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight.   The current test kits will reliably indicate whether the surface contains any lead or not, but do not measure the amount of lead. 

Unfortunately, as a result of the vote many renovators are now assuming that they no longer need to comply with the RRP rule and do not have to use lead-safe work practices on pre-1978 target housing and child occupied facilities.  If you are a renovator making that assumption it would be a big mistake that could cost you big time.  Let me explain.

First, any cut or stoppage of enforcement would only apply to states where EPA administers and enforces the rule.  It would not have any effect at all in those states that have assumed administration and enforcement of the rule from EPA. 

Regarding the vote, it is an amendment added to a proposed bill which must go before the full House and Senate for approval.  Even if approved in the House and Senate it must then be sent to the president for his signature before passing.  The president signing it, at least in my opinion, is not very likely.  Obama had a lot to do with why the rule exists to begin with.

Even if the amendment to the rule were to go into effect, all it would do is take away the money EPA has to fund enforcement.  It would not eliminate the rule.   If and when a reliable test kit were to be eventually recognized by EPA, and finally made it to the marketplace, enforcement funding would then become available again.

EPA can eventually get you anyway:
Keep in mind that the rule requires that renovators keep all required documentation and that it be available for EPA audit for 3 years.   That means EPA can retroactively enforce the rule 3 years back.  If and when enforcement happens, all EPA needs to do is ask to see a renovators documentation to determine whether all the regulated work performed during that 3 year period was properly documented, met the rule’s requirements and that property owners and/or tenants received the required Renovate Right pamphlet, any lead testing results documentation as well as a copy of the required renovation checklist. Remember, the fine is up to $37,500 per violation per day!

Property Owners, Tenants and Parents can get you anytime:
Also, keep in mind that even if EPA can’t or doesn’t enforce the rule, your customers, their neighbors and the parents of children attending a child occupied facility can still sue you for not following the law.  And, as a business, if accused, you are considered guilty until you prove you and your business is innocent at your own expense, money you cannot recoup in court. 

Plus, one fact that many business owners may not be aware of is that, under the rule, the business owner can be held civilly liable for violating the rule.    Don’t assume you are personally protected just because of the legal status of your business.

Undercover News Investigation Calls Out EPA on Lack of RRP Enforcement

The video below from newsnet5.com offers a good summary of the challenges renovators are up against due to illegal competition and a government that has mandated a law that is meant to protect children without the resources and commitment to follow through. Without enforcement, in addition to causing challenges for complying businesses, the law offers a false sense of security for children and their parents who believe the government is protecting them from lead poisoning.  In fact, as the video points out, the law is in effect actually causing more lead poisoning because of the lower priced illegal contractors who ignore lead-safe work practices.

The RRP rule has definitely contributed to expanding the underground economy in the remodeling industry.   Illegally operating businesses and moonlighters ignoring the rule as well as the required work practices have been stealing work away from legally operating businesses, mostly due to the fact that they can offer much lower prices than those who comply.    This has made it very challenging for many renovators.  It has also put many children at risk of lead poisoning.

At a RRP workshop I attended last week, sponsored by the Lead and Environmental Hazards Association (LEHA), several renovators complained to Mike Wilson of EPA about EPA’s handling so far of the RRP rule.   One after the other renovators cited examples of projects they had lost to other businesses that are ignoring the rule.   Several even reported home owners had laughed at them when they tried discussing the rule and its requirements.    One attendee reported that a homeowner actually told him that he would find another contractor who would ignore the rule as a way of saving money.  It all seemed to be new news to Mike Wilson who told us he oversees RRP Policy, so could not comment specifically about enforcement.  When asked what message he would bring back to the EPA in Washington after the meeting, Mike said he would let them know that regulated contractors wanted a level playing field.   Attendees let Mike know that they have been already giving that same message to EPA, perhaps if Mike delivers the message the leadership at EPA will listen and take action.

EPA Publishes First RRP Enforcement of Lead Safe Work Practices

Today the EPA announced it's first enforcement actions against a renovator for violations of the lead-safe work practices required under the RRP Rule.  

The press release below explains how the violator was investigated after a YouTube video of the the renovator's workers in action was posted showing the total lack of lead-safe work practices in place as the workers used power equipment to remove paint on a rental property on Rockland ME.  

EPA’s investigation found that Mr. Wentworth failed to: obtain required certification as a renovation firm from EPA; post warning signs in the work area; cover the ground in the work area with plastic sheeting to collect falling lead paint debris; contain waste from the renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris before the waste is removed from the work area for storage or disposal; prohibit use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation without HEPA exhaust controls; and establish and maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Renovation Rule.  

Click here to watch the video which provided all the evidence the EPA needed.

Will this be the first of many press releases by EPA regarding enforcement?   Many contractors who have complied with the RRP rule hope so.  According to Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office: "Enforcement of these rules is important to protecting children and the business interests of those contractors who are following the rules.” 

Time will tell if anyone else at EPA other Curt Spalding recognizes the importance of enforcement. 

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
May 16, 2011

Contact: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017

Maine Renovator Faces Penalty for Violations of Lead Renovation Rule

(Boston, Mass. – May 16, 2011) – A Rockland, Maine renovator is facing penalties for allegedly violating requirements designed to protect children from exposure to lead-based paint during painting and other renovation activities.

According to information gathered by inspectors from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA, two workers employed by Colin Wentworth of Rockland failed to contain dust and debris generated by lead paint removal activities during a repainting project in October 2010.  Although Mr. Wentworth had completed the eight-hour course required by the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, he did not provide the required training or supervision to his employees to ensure that they followed the required work practices prior to their use of high-speed dust-generating power tools to remove lead paint from the building.  Mr. Wentworth also failed to take steps to obtain the mandatory lead-safe certification for his firm. 

The violations were brought to EPA’s attention via an anonymous tip linking to a video of the violations, posted on YouTube and taken in October 2010.  The video documented workers using power equipment to remove lead paint from an exterior wall of a residential building without using any containment for lead-containing dust and debris. 

At least six children, one of whom was under six years old, lived in the four-unit building at the time of the project.  Infants and young children are especially vulnerable to lead paint exposure, which can cause developmental impairment, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity and behavioral problems.  Adults with high lead levels can suffer difficulties during pregnancy, high blood pressure, nerve disorders, memory problems and muscle and joint pain.

EPA’s investigation found that Mr. Wentworth failed to: obtain required certification as a renovation firm from EPA; post warning signs in the work area; cover the ground in the work area with plastic sheeting to collect falling lead paint debris; contain waste from the renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris before the waste is removed from the work area for storage or disposal; prohibit use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation without HEPA exhaust controls; and establish and maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Renovation Rule. 

“In New England we have a high proportion of older houses where lead paint can still be present.  It is critically important that all tradespeople understand and follow the RRP requirements so that during renovations, children are not exposed to lead and face serious, life-long health consequences,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “Many renovation firms have done the right thing by becoming certified, sending their employees to training and following the appropriate, health-protective work practices.  Enforcement of these rules is important to protecting children and the business interests of those contractors who are following the rules.”

EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule is designed to prevent exposure to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards.  The rule requires individuals performing renovations for compensation at most pre-1978 housing to be properly trained.  There are certification and training requirements for individual renovators and firms performing renovations to ensure that safe work practices are followed during renovations.

This is the first action EPA has brought against a company or individual for lead safe work-practice violations, under the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule which became effective on April 22, 2010. The maximum penalty for the alleged violations is $37,500 per violation per day.

This case highlights the importance of high-quality tips that include the name, address, and phone number of the person who allegedly violated the rule, and contain details about the violations observed.  While every such tip doesn’t always result in a formal enforcement action, EPA follows through on tips to identify if violations have occurred and if public or environmental health has been jeopardized. 

- Report environmental violation tips anywhere in the USA (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html)

- Report lead hazard tips in New England: (http://www.epa.gov/region1/enforcement/leadpaint/RenovationRepairPaintComplaintForm.html)

More information:

- Lead paint RRP rule (http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm)

- Why lead is a health hazard (http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm#health)

#  #  #

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

Opportunity to Discuss RRP Rule with MA and EPA Officials

The RRP Rule has certainly changed the game for remodelers and remodeling consumers.   I have met with EPA officials in the past to discuss challenges within the rule itself and the challenges created by EPA for those business that are abiding by the rule due to the lack of any serious enforcement to date against violators.  So far, trying to work with EPA has been very frustrating.   Little has been accomplished.  As a result, the underground economy in remodeling has grown, making it difficult for legitimate businesses to compete against it.  This is also in effect poisoning more children as home owners choose to hire non-certified workers who are not using lead-safe practices and or are doing the work themselves without the use of lead-safe practices

On the other hand, since taking over the RRP Rule in MA, working with MA state officials has been much more productive. The Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards (DLS), formally called the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety, under the leadership of the department's Director Heather Rowe, has been very receptive to meeting with concerned stakeholders, hearing and recognizing stakeholder's concerns, and working with stakeholders to address their concerns.  Currently, in addition to working on amendments to the RRP regulations in MA to address concerns, the DLS is also finalizing their plans to step up enforcement and compliance actions this spring as the home improvement season begins.  Is it happening as fast as we all might like, no.   However, based on budget and resource realities, I think DLS is doing a good job listening and prioritizing their efforts.

As one way to continue their efforts and interact with stakeholders, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards is looking for additional input from contractors and lead industry practitioners in anticipation of making amendments to the MA RRP regulations. An official from this agency will be participating in a May 18 workshop on the RRP Rule being held in Marlborough, MA sponsored by the Lead and Environmental Hazards Association (LEHA) and will be discussing the Department’s plans for revising the RRP regulations as well as the Department's enforcement efforts.

Also participating in the workshop will be a representative from the MA Department of Health's CLPPP office who will discuss the differences between deleading authorization/licensing and RRP certification, as well as a representative from the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics - the agency responsible for EPA’s implementation of the RRP Rule. 

Joining the MA and EPA officials will be industry specialists, including myself and public agency representatives from CT, MA, RI and VT who will address:

 -  How the Prescribed Work Practices are stifling innovation, lead by Shawn McCadden  (Read this for more on this topic)
 -  Variations between RRP, Federal/State Work Practices, OSHA Worker Safety Rules
 -  Promotion and Enforcement Strategies, Including the Use of Building Permits 
 -  Delegation of the RRP Rule by New England States

If you are interested in attending the one-day workshop, go to www.rrprule.com for complete agenda, location and registration details.  I hope I will see you there.

Now, RRP Renovators Can Keep An Eye On Big Brother!

Many renovators have expressed concerns about what the EPA is and/or will be doing regarding enforcement of the RRP Rule.  Those who are operating illegally are concerned that EPA may find them and inspect, those who are abiding by the rule are wondering when EPA will do inspections and catch their illegal completion.  Now, thanks to the folks at Check4Lead, renovators have an on-line tool to report and view EPA RRP Inspections across the country. Essentially, the tool allows renovators to keep an eye on “Big Brother”.

The new tool, called EPA Audit Tracker, allows visitors to view the locations of EPA and OSHA inspections related to RRP on a Google Map.  Pin drops appear on the map to mark the location of audits and a variety of different pin drops are used to distinguish between the government agencies doing the audits.  The tool has just been released, so there are not a lot of pin drops yet.   I suspect that will change quickly as renovators become aware of the tool and contribute.

The tool is very easy to use. To report an audit, users can click on the report icon to open a reporting screen.  When the reporting screen opens there is a text box call “your Story” where visitors can report the audit, share details of the audit and express their opinions.   A zip code field is used to locate the pin drops on the map and a valid e-mail address for the person posting the report is required. 

Scott Turman, an owner and product manager at Check for Lead LLC tells me that reports will be manually reviewed for validity and appropriate langauge before being posted to the map.  He also told me, using the required e-mail address; his staff may actually contact the person reporting the audit to verify the report.  After the pin drop is added, visitors can click on the pin drop to view the report.

In my opinion this tool will be helpful for those renovators following RRP requirements for a variety of reasons.  For example, it will help level the playing field for legally operating businesses if the awareness of audits persuades illegal businesses to change their ways. Because the tool allows those reporting audits to include details about the audit, renovators will learn what to expect and how to better handle an audit if one happens to them. Also, for those who like to help their peers, being able to submit a report that is informative and shares constructive advice becomes a win-win for both the reporter and those who read the reports.

On the other hand, the tool will not likely be helpful to those who knowingly and willfully violate the rule. Knowing where EPA, OSHA and/or states agencies are doing inspections or audits won’t be much help in hiding from an inspector.   As we have seen, job site inspections are not likely.  Removing magnetic signs or parking their trucks out of view won’t protect violators from an audit.  The required documentation gives the authorities the ability to retroactively inspect work practices as well as compliance with owner and occupant pre-notification requirements.  Because the EPA rule dictates that all required documentation be kept for three years, one visit to a renovator’s office by EPA can uncover enough violations and justify enough fines to put an illegal business out of business.  The Massachusetts requirement for storing documents is 10 years, giving illegal businesses in that state much more to be worried about.

I commend the folks at Check4Lead for providing this tool.   In addition to the tools, supplies and compliance colateral they offer at their web site, the EPA Audit Tracker Tool will definitely ultimately help renovators comply with the rule, improve their ability to prove compliance and give them insight on handling an audit.

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. 

Former Detroit Lead Inspector Sentenced for Fraud

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press, Donald Patterson, a former lead inspector for the City of Detroit, was indicted last year on charges of soliciting bribes, wire fraud and making false statements about lead inspections. Among the allegations were that he allowed a 2-year-old child with high blood-lead levels to return to a home with lead-based paint hazards, falsely declaring it safe and making the child sicker.

The following is News Release from EPA, published on February 8, 2011.  Though not specific to the RRP Rule, this action by both EPA and the FBI shows that willfull violators of lead related regulations are currently a major focus for EPA and they are serious about prosecuting violators. 

EPA uses news releases and press releases like the one below to make the public aware of LBP related violations.   The use and purposes of the releases as tools is clearly explained in footnote #10 included inside the Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy for the RRP Rule:

"EPA may, at its discretion, issue a press release or advisory to notify the public of the filing of an enforcement action, settlement, or adjudication concerning a person’s violation of TSCA. A press release can be a useful tool to notify the public of Agency actions for TSCA noncompliance and specifically, to educate the public on the requirements of LBP Program. The issuance of a press release or advisory as well as the nature of their contents are within the sole discretion of the Agency and shall not be subject to negotiation with the violator."

News Release as Follows:

CONTACT:
Stacy Kika
kika.stacy@epa.gov
202-564-0906
202-564-4355

WASHINGTON — Former city of Detroit Health Department lead inspector Donald Patterson was sentenced today to three years and 10 months in prison and 24 months of supervised release on wire fraud charges stemming from an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation. In July 2010, Patterson pleaded guilty and admitted he accepted cash to provide a clean bill of health to homes in which he had either done no inspection or provided fraudulent lead removal training. Lead is a serious public health issue causing a range of health effects from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children six years old and under are most at risk.

“The actions of this public official put the health and lives of children at risk,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “In this case, the local government inspector failed to do his job by submitting false reports for personal gain. Today’s sentencing shows that those who knowingly put the public at risk, particularly our most vulnerable citizens, our children, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Patterson, 50, was employed by the city of Detroit as a lead paint inspector. His job was to ensure that all paint-based lead hazards were safely removed from the homes he inspected. Instead, Patterson used his position to obtain cash from the owners or renters of these homes in exchange for falsely certifying that the homes were free of lead or for providing fraudulent lead removal training. Patterson admitted that between October 2008 and August 2009 he had accepted cash totaling $1,350 in connection with fraudulent abatement of lead hazards to which children were being exposed at four separate properties.

The Patterson case was investigated by EPA and the FBI, with assistance from the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan.

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.

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.