Deleading vs. Renovation, Repair and Painting Work: What's the Difference? 

Note:  The following information is from the MA Labor and Workforce Development Web site.

While deleading activities conducted in residences and child-occupied facilities often involve work methods similar to those typically used in renovation, repair or painting (RRP) activities, such as replacing windows, painting and installing vinyl siding, the two types of activities are distinct from each other in terms of purpose and effect.

Deleading work is work conducted to achieve compliance with the Massachusetts Lead Law through the abatement of lead paint hazards.  Carried through to completion, deleading work leads to the issuance of a document called a Letter of Compliance, which indicates that the property has met deleading requirements administered by the Childhood Lead Poisoning Program of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (CLPPP) under the Massachusetts Lead Law and 105 CMR 460.000. In some instances, deleading work takes place after the owner has received an order to bring the property into compliance with the Massachusetts Lead Law.  In other instances, the owner voluntarily decides to delead the property and seek a Letter of Compliance.

Renovation work (RRP work) is work conducted for a fee that disturbs more than threshold amounts of painted surfaces in pre-1978 residences (target housing) and child-occupied facilities (kindergartens, daycares, etc.), where the purpose of the work is other than the abatement of lead paint hazards or the achievement of a Letter of Compliance.  Renovation work is often carried out to repair, upgrade or beautify the property.

Once you have made the initial determination regarding whether your project is a renovation project or a deleading project, the next question is how to choose a contractor who is licensed and qualified to perform the work.   Click on the following link to view a helpful guide on choosing a deleading contractor, “Deleader Contractor Information Bulletin.”  Click on the following link to view a helpful guide on choosing a “lead safe” renovation contractor, “Lead Safe Renovation Contractor Information Bulletin.” 

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

12/17/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Opportunity to Make Sure Massachusetts Enforces the RRP Rule

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

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

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

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

Here is the Notice:

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

Hearing 1 – Boston, MA

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Charles F. Hurley Building, Minihan Hall

19 Staniford Street, 6th floor

Boston, MA

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

Hearing 2 – Taunton, MA

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

Taunton Career Center

72 School Street

Taunton, MA

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

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

Secretary Joanne F. Goldstein

Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development

One Ashburton Place, Suite 2112

Boston, MA 02108

MA RRP Assessment Form Introduced By CLPPP

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

John’s Article:

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance With and Enforcement of the RRP Rule Will Be Assisted By OSHA Inspectors

In addition to the OSHA rules contractors should already have been aware of related to worker safety, the EPA RRP rule has added yet additional OSHA concerns for renovators.  One for example is working on a surface covered with plastic. OSHA considerations related to working on plastic are not part of the curriculum delivered during the required EPA certified renovator training. Due to the absence of this information, the EPA is essentially leaving it up to renovators to become aware of such considerations on their own.  Once aware, renovators must seek out the information they need and adjust their work practices accordingly to avoid fines from OSHA should they get randomly inspected.   Or worse, have a worker accident. 

This begs a few questions.  First, were the authors ignorant of such considerations?  Asked another way, does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?  Is this another example of a breakdown in communication between very significant departments of our government charged to look out for our best interests?  A second question might be; did the authors of the EPA RRP rule leave this information out of the rule for a strategic purpose?  Perhaps this is just one more way to force small independent businesses out of the construction industry in favor or labor unions. 

In one of his recent blogs, RRP certification training provider and business coach, Mark Paskell of The Contractor Coaching Partnership, shares a real life story about a contractor who was visited, at the same time, by both an OSHA inspector as well as an inspector from the Massachusetts Department of Occupational Safety (DOS).  (Massachusetts has assumed administration and enforcement of the RRP rule from EOPA)  In the blog Mark describes the battle that took place between the OSHA inspector and the DOS inspector about the use of plastic on the jobsite. Check out the blog to see which inspector retreated. 

Of bigger concern should be the distribution of misinformation at the certified renovator training.  For example, using the sample signage included in the EPA approved training manual (required to be posted outside contained work areas), might just get you in trouble with OSHA.  First off the RRP rule requires the use of a “warning” sign, but the sample sign is a “caution” sign.  OSHA considers a warning sign to be a stronger message than a caution sign, and has rules dictating when and how to choose one versus the other. 

Also, if you have employees, the sample sign in the manual will not meet OSHA requirements either.  Employees must be told what they are being warned about on such signs, in this case lead, and the signs must also instruct the employees not to smoke, eat, or drink in a work area assumed to contain lead.  Check out this article by Dick Hughes of Excellence in Safety for a list of other OSHA requirements left out of the RRP rule. 

The RRP is challenging enough to comply with.  Contractors putting their heads in the sand about OSHA requirements and compliance are taking a huge risk.  I am planning on taking some OSHA training classes to learn more about what contractors must need to be aware of and what they will need to do to avoid risking violations and fines.  I will post information about this subject to RRPedia in the future.   If you have not done so already, you can subscribe to RRPedia at the top of this page.   Subscribers will be notified by e-mail as soon as new articles are posted.

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.

Delegated States Likely Better Prepared To Enforce EPA RRP Rule

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking News!

Friday June 25th, 2010, 4:47 PM

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

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

Dear Interested Person:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Does the RRP rule require people working on a renovation to wear respirators, Tyvek(R) suits or other personal protective equipment (PPE)? 

Most renovation contractors have little knowledge or experience with OSHA requirements.  OSHA requirements concentrate on the occupational safety of the worker.  There are many OSHA requirements that contractors should already be following if they use employees or sub contractors on their job sites.  Because lead can create serious health risks for employees and workers, employers would be wise to become familiar with the OSHA requirements related to the work they perform under the EPA RRP rule. 

The required containment methods and work practices have changed the way work gets done in the field.  Even if working within OSHA requirements in the past, new activities and methods used on RRP related projects most likely trigger personal protection considerations under OSHA regulations.

Unfortunately, while creating the EPA RRP rule, the EPA did not include reference to any specific OSHA requirements.  Therefore, renovators need to know and understand both the RRP rule as well as any related OSHA requirements in order to protect workers and avoid potential penalties from OSHA and or EPA.  To learn more about the related OSHA requirements, renovators can refer to the OSHA Lead in Construction Standards.

In the new MA RRP rules, still yet to be enforced as of this posting, many of the OSHA requirements related to RRP work have been included in the regulations.  When I met with employees from the MA Department of Occupational Safety to discuss the proposed rule, they were very helpful in clarifying the reasons for adding these consideration.  So, although the EPA and OSHA may not have collaborated when the EPA RRP rule was created, MA renovation contractors will have the advantage of knowing what OSHA requirements they will need to consider depending on the work they do as well as the methods they use to do the work.  Reading the MA RRP rule would help renovators working under the EPA RRP rule identify many of the related OSHA considerations.

Here is EPA's response to the question at the beginning of this post:

"EPA would like to clarify the requirements for personal protective equipment.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has requirements for personal protective equipment, EPA does not.  For many years, EPA has recommended the use of personal protective equipment as a way to protect workers and to help ensure that leaded dust and debris does not leave renovation or abatement work sites.  EPA recommends that renovators make use of the minimum respiratory protection recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for environments where lead is present, but respiratory protection is not required by the EPA regulations.  In addition, disposable clothing, if removed and disposed of before the workers leave the work site, can provide additional protection for workers' families by ensuring that no leaded dust or debris is carried home on worker clothing.  However, EPA does not require this and allows renovators to use other methods to ensure that dust and debris does not leave the work area, including the HEPA vacuuming of clothing, tools, and other items before they leave the work area."  

Recognized test kit means a commercially available kit recognized by EPA under Sec.  745.88 as being capable of allowing a user to determine the presence of lead at levels equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter, or more than 0.5% lead by weight, in a paint chip, paint powder, or painted surface.  

According to the RRP Rule, a certified renovator must, when requested by the party contracting for renovation services, use an acceptable test kit to determine whether components to be affected by the renovation contain lead-based paint. 

When test kits are used, the renovation firm must, within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, provide identifying information as to the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, a description of the components that were tested including their locations, and the test kit results to the person who contracted for the renovation.  I suggest that renovators do not do any testing without first obtaining written permission from the property owner, due to disclosure considerations for the owner when they sell or lease the property.  

The certified renovator is responsible to provide narrative information  about any testing preformed on the required renovation record keeping  checklist , such as an identification of the brand of test kits used, the locations where they were used, and the results.

The following information is from the EPA Website:

"Under the EPA Lead Renovation Repair and Painting (RRP) rule, EPA will evaluate and recognize test kits that can be used to determine the presence of regulated levels of lead in lead-based paint surfaces. After initial evaluation, EPA is recognizing two currently available lead test kits, with limitations. They are the LeadCheck® kit and the State of Massachusetts kit. Read more about how EPA evaluates lead test kits.

• EPA recognizes that, when used by a certified renovator, the LeadCheck® lead test kit can reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is not present on all surfaces, except plaster and drywall. Certified inspectors, renovators, risk assessors seeking to use the LeadCheck® kit for purposes of meeting requirements in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule can purchase the LeadCheck® kits from either LeadCheck® directly or from certain retail outlets. Kits sold in retail stores do not currently include the necessary Test Confirmation Card and so are not approved for use by certified inspectors, renovators, and risk assessors. LeadCheck® is manufactured by Hybrivet Systems. To order a Hybrivet System LeadCheck®test kit call (              508-651-7881         508-651-7881) or e-mail Hybrivet at info@leadcheck.com.

• EPA recognizes that, when used by trained professionals, the State of Massachusetts lead test kit can reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is not present on all surfaces except ferrous metal. (Note: The State of Massachusetts kit was developed by the state and is only used in public housing by State of Mass employees.  It is not a commercially available kit.)

EPA will continue to update information on recognized spot-test kits as it becomes available. For any questions pertaining to the recognition of these kits, contact Sam Brown at 202-566-0490 or by email at brown.sam@epa.gov."

View this information on the EPA Website

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.