RRP And The EPA Must Be Stopped

FStephenMasek

Sad, but true. Besides the people here, the contracting and building maintenance company owners I speak with are very worried about losing work to non-compliant operators. I told that to a woman in the EPA compliance office the other day. My company is writing articles for trade magazines and presenting seminars on RRP. It seems that government thinks that the general public actually reads the Federal Register (as if we have nothing better to do).
________
property for sale Pattaya

hiteams

Agree that if furniture is in the work area that it should be removed or covered.

Agree cover ducts in the work area

Agree close/cover doors and windows in the work area. If a entrance door is in the work area make sure workers can get out easily (in other words ... don't seal it up)

Warning signs, yes. Tools clean, yes. Cover floors 6' out, yes

The question is ... "what is the work area".

It is 6' out from where you are disturbing paint.

If replacing an interior door, you don't need to seal off 2 rooms (each side of door), put plastic on all the floor area of those 2 rooms, wear disposable suits & respirators ...

Most of the time, it will be putting plastic down 6' out.

Nothing wrong with closing off two rooms, covering all the flooring of both rooms and putting on a respirator ... etc. But nothing wrong with just doing as little as possible, while still following the rule.

Long story short ... I think we are talking the same thing

__________________
Dean

FremontREO

OK I got a simple solution (maybe) on bidding jobs..why can't we just ask while looking the potential job over and take out a swab and ask if we can do a little simple test to determine how to bid this..
If it comes back "Red for Lead" than say "well now we will have to adjust our bid a little since now you and I both now know you have lead paint and according to the new laws..."
Make potential clients a little squirmy to know they have lead since NOW they would know eh?

oldfrt

Follow the rules but be aware that walking off the 6" of plastic onto non protected areas will spread contamination.

As much as I like the idea of covering this small an area,I don't see where it is sufficient.

I got brought into a rehab,where the previous contractor was fired.All the demo was done weeks before I arrived.
When I finished,and a third party was brought in to inspect for lead,it didn't pass.Lead in the carpet.
I did the hepa-vac,retest,flunked again.
This was brand new carpet,what's going on?
Long story short,the original welcome mat was the culprit.Everyone that walked in that door carried a trace amount in.

When third party testing becomes the new ruling,and retesting can run into extra costs,you'll want to make sure you've covered enough area to actually accomplish 100% protection.

The only way 6'of plastic will work is if the windows are installed from the exterior.

__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/John-...94183374011504

mike stanislaw

All this EPA regulation being thrown at me sounds very confusing if your concerned about containing lead, and if you believe it is a danger that needs such extreme attention.
this all came from bill that was passed by the US Government in the early 90's giving the EPA the right to execute a reg as they seem fit to combat lead in the workplace.
Why all of a sudden is this becoming law when it sat dormant
for so long.
This may end up like Prohibition did.
1. No one complied
2. Hard to enforce
3. raised taxes to help under fonded enforcement agencies
4. black market was created
5. Government denial of the fact they made a big mistake.

ApgarNJ

that is what I plan to do on 70s homes prior to 1970, I will assume the area of paint i'm disturbing has lead paint somewhere on the first layers of paint.
homeowners don't want to hear that they have lead paint. later on if they sell the house and areas you didn't disturb still have lead paint, they have to disclose that on the seller's disclosure form. if they don't, then that can come back to bite them. they can play dumb like most people do.
people sell old homes all the time from the 40s and 50s and they put no lead down on the disclosure when they know in their heart that there is lead there somewhere.

What I'm doing if the work area is going to be a larger space, and there is furniture there, have the H.O move it out, or If they wish me to move it/cover it, it's going to be extra.

we all know that the only paint that is disturbed when replacing a window whether it's a whole window or just a replacement is little chips of paint, not really DUST. if there is dust on the ground then it's from the dirt around the window jamb/ insulation if there is any. we were told that since lead is so heavy that lead particles fall to the ground rather fast and so the 6' out is what they recommend to catch this.

just focus on what is in the actual work area you are in, not the rest of the room. if the work area is the whole room, IE, kitchen remodel or bathroom gut then the doorways leading do those room should be sealed off, leaving one with a zipper, which is easier to put on then that stupid Z fold thing they try to tell us to do.
make sure the H.O knows that this is your work zone and until things are cleaned up and disposed of, they aren't allowed in that area. by doing that you won't have to cover up or seal any furniture.

painters are the ones that get screwed the most because many times they have to work around furniture when repainting a whole room. so instead of a drop cloth to cover. they will have to seal with plastic/tape.

BCConstruction

Yes it would have been a simple job if it was an unfinished basement. It flooded and was already a finished basement.

__________________

BCConstruction

Like you say there's more than likley zero in there. It's a gamble and many customers at this time dont want to gamble what they currently have.

__________________

ApgarNJ

If anything, Homeowner's should be happy that a certified renovator is going to be handling the job and keeping them safe during the renovation.
that is what we need to do.

BC, sorry to hear it was a finished basement already. what year was it finished? is there a way to find that out?
if it was finished in the 80s then you are safe. I asked the instructor if we are working in an area of an older home that has already been remodeled or added on to after 78, then we don't have to follow the rule, and she said yes. so find out when it was finished off. not many basements were finished in the 40s,50s, 60s, or 70s.

Tom R

Here's a few pictures of the first 3 homeowner's I tried explaining this to . . .


. . . . . . . . . . . .



(Strange that resemblance, they're not even related to each other)

Tom R

Here's another shot of the same 3 immediately after that initial reaction


. . . . . . . . . . . .


(no wonder such pre-planned 'hush', imagine if everyone heard about this at the same time)

Mike Finley

The last 2 pages demonstrate one of the main issues of all this - with certified trainers the training can't even be taught in a consistant manner. Garbage in = gabage out. If the trainers can't even produce a consistant certified remodeler, how can there be any guarantee of compliance when the certified remodeler is now responsible to train a company employee, like the game of telephone the faulty information becomes even worse with every level it is passed down to.

Let's start from the beginning and make it easy >>

#1 Were you told protective suits, gloves, resperators and booties were required to work in containment area?

If not why was this infomation passed along and where does it clearly state that it isn't required but recommened?

ApgarNJ

our class/instructor clearly stated to us that Suits and Respirators/masks were recommended. I agree mike. seems as though each trainer is slightly throwing their own opinion on this rule and some things are being taken the wrong way and then you have people spreading rumors of what is recommended and what is required.

Mike Finley

I personall get 2 things out of this --

#1 The door setup they demonstrate in the classes is their version, not the epa version, not a required version. As long as you are containing the dust in the containment area with your version it's acceptable.

#2 The 6 foot rule is going to be up for interpretation like nothing else becauase of the word 'minimum' being used in it.

All an epa inspector is going to have to say is containment means preventing dust and debris from moving beyond the work area and your 6 feet of plastic on the floor is not doing it. Here is your fine.

In the real world this means you can follow the 6 foot rule and role the dice. In reality all it is going to take is an inspector to run his finger across a customers already dirty/dusty kitchen counter top 9 feet away from where you are working and declare your 6 foot of plastic on the floor is not containing the dust. Here is your fine. Would you like to make that in one large payment or a series of payments?

ChrWright

A lot of trainers are injecting their own opinions into the training, and indeed it IS a Charlie Foxtrot to sort through and find the facts. It doesn't help that many states are now adopting their own version of the rule with minor variations.

The rule itself makes the distinction that it is meant to address hazards to occupants, and that worker safety falls under the purview of OSHA regs. OSHA rules are another reason to be very wary of any kind of testing.

It's a PITA sorting through opinion from fact, and I've had the best luck with using a browser "FIND" search of the Federal Register holding the full text of the rule.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/...y-22/t8141.htm

__________________

Christopher Wright, CR: President @ WrightWorks, LLC/President @ Central Indiana NARI, Named to the 2010 REMODELING Big50
www.WrightWorks.net - Facebook - Twitter - Carmel Remodeling
Indianapolis Kitchen Remodeling Contractor - You Can Get There From Here

Mike Finley

Page 4-6

My personal interpretation - shoe covers are not required.

I've got a lot of reading to do.

Considering we didn't even get books during our class until after the lunch break. (F**kers)

ChrWright

First draft...

Good afternoon,

I write to you today on a matter of great importance to the American people. While the nation works to recover from this "great recession", EPA regulations taking effect this year are poised to deliver a significant blow to the construction and real estate markets. Both of these segments are important to an economic recovery, and both will be significantly impacted by the EPA's Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) taking effect April 22, 2010. Political pressures over the last several years have forced the EPA to press a very flawed regulation into effect, which in it's current form will have far reaching consequences with very little added benefit toward its stated goals. Even as you read this, pressures from special interest groups are forcing the EPA's hand to make these regulations even more restrictive and damaging to the economy. As professionals within the residential real estate and construction industries, we are urging our representatives to address these issues before they do lasting harm to the recovery.


Rule History

The RRP Rule was issued in 2008 to address lead hazards created from renovation activities in homes and child care facilities. It establishes certification and work practice standards that must be followed by firms performing work on homes and child-care facilities built before 1978. The most damaging aspects of the rule to our economy are due to take effect April 22, 2010. The EPA derives its authority to do this from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In 1992, the TSCA was amended with the Residential Lead Based Paint Reduction Act. In it, congress mandated that the EPA conduct a study of lead hazards due to renovation and remodeling activities that may incidentally disturb lead-based paint in homes.


Rule Costs: Significant and Underestimated by the EPA

The construction industry has been one of the hardest hit by the recession. Over the past two years, unemployment and business failure rates in this segment have been higher than nearly any other. The EPA estimates the costs of the rule to be minimal:

From the Rule:
"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." -Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78), page 21702

This statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the renovation industry on the part of EPA, and the lack of any meaningful cost/benefit analysis of the impact of its rule.

The paperwork and reporting requirements of the rule alone will add several hours in administrative labor costs. More significant are the work practice requirements of the rule--which will add significantly to the labor cost of renovations to older homes. Estimates have pegged the increase in project costs anywhere from 1% to as much as 30%, depending on the size and scope. In addition to the increase in project costs, firms are faced with significant up front costs as well. Startup costs for firms who must comply with the rule are estimated to be from $1,500 to $2,000 for training, certification fees, equipment and administrative expenses.


Rule Benefits: EPA's Research and Assumptions Flawed

While we cannot argue with the intentions of the EPA's rule--to completely erradicate lead hazards to children from renovation, repair, and painting activities--we have serious reservations about whether or not this rule does that, and about what the true costs will be. After studying the research and background that went into the new requirements, it is more and more clear that the rule will have far reaching consequences to our environment and to our already depressed real estate market--with little to no added health benefit over what we as professionals have already been doing. The costs of implementation have been grossly underestimated, and the resulting reduction of lead hazards from the added practices over-stated.

During the period of study since 1992, the concerns of our industry regarding the implications of this rule have been largely ignored. There is much evidence which contradicts the EPA's claims in establishing the rule.. The RRP Rule uses flawed research and analysis as the basis for its stringent guidelines--as noted in a comment letter from the SBA, and in a Mercatus Report:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa09_1127.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...mercreport.pdf


The information and analysis in those sources clearly shows the EPA has failed to prove a correlation between elevated blood levels of lead and renovations by professional firms. While their motives are no doubt pure, the added expense to firms and consumers is unjustified.


Strict Requirements of the Rule Unnecessary: Lead Levels in the US Already Falling Steadily

While the use of lead based paint has been outlawed for decades, lead still reaches the hands of our children via toys and other products imported from outside the country. Even so, in the years since the EPA was tasked to study lead hazards from renovation, the incidence of lead poisoning in children has plummeted according to this report published by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/St..._2006Total.pdf

While dust control during a renovation to an older home is important to the health and safety of occupant and worker alike, the RRP Rule's work practice requirements go far beyond what is reasonable to achieve that--without any supporting research to support such costly measures.

From the Mercatus Report above:

"...Another interesting aspect of the Wisconsin study is its “finding” that the link between renovations and elevated lead levels in blood proved just as persistent in homes built after 1980 as in those built before. This is indeed strange, as homes built after 1980 are unlikely to contain any lead paint...The manufacture of lead paint may have been banned in 1978, but it had essentially disappeared from the market years before."



RRP Rule Targets Those Least Likely to Create Hazards

From the SBA's Comment Letter Above:
"...while EPA states that the phase III study shows that children subject to remodeling were 30 percent more likely to have EBLs than other children, there is not a significant correlation when the sample was limited to the persons regulated by this rule - namely apartment building owners, apartment building staff, and professional contractors. On the other hand, renovations involving relatives and friends not residing in the household (i.e., those not subject to this rule) showed the highest correlation with EBL. Based on the foregoing, Advocacy is still concerned that the final LRRP rule could unnecessarily raise costs and drive homeowners from using professional contractors (renovators), who work more carefully, to inexperienced and untrained individuals. The current LRRP rule would also encourage do-it-yourself work by untrained individuals, which could actually endanger children's health, not improve them. Now, EPA proposes to vastly increase the cost of this rule, with only the hope that some benefits might accrue."



EPA's Timeline Grossly Unrealistic

In addition to the issues stated above, the EPA has made it impossible for the majority of firms affected by this rule to become compliant by its effective date. Many have only recently become aware of the new requirements, and the majority of firms who must comply have yet to begin the process. There has been little effort to inform the estimated 200,000 firms who will be tasked with implementing the new regulations. The EPA's poor handling of public awareness and its slow approval of training providers has meant only a few thousand firms will be able to complete the training and certification process by the time the rule takes effect. In addition to the certification classes required by the rule, firms must apply and be certified--a process the EPA reports will take as long as 90 days. With less than 90 days before the effective date, it will be impossible for the majority of firms to fulfill the requirements of the rule in time.


The RRP Rule Will Be Devastating To Property Values and Urban Redevelopment

As professionals who will comply with the rule, we need good enforcement and public awareness to protect our market share from firms who do not. The flip side of good enforcement, however, will be devastating to property values and inner city re-development. We already have far too many old homes sitting vacant in our inner cities. Once the rule takes effect, the cost to renovate and make them useful again will in many cases be too costly and it will only make sense to knock them down. While the EPA has pledged to educate consumers and the construction industry about the RRP Rule in advance of its effective date, there has been no effort to do so and the American public is largely unaware of these new regulations. Most are unaware they will soon face added expenses when renovating their older homes.

The timing couldn't be worse for a real estate market already reeling. It's not hard to imagine the decline in value of older homes as the increased renovation costs and psychological fear of lead stigmatizes them. Not to mention the many more tons of plastic we'll be introducing to our landfills and the far fewer materials that will be recycled from old home renovations. Much of this rule amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.


STILL NEEDS A CLOSE. NEEDS A REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC ACTION. NEEDS TO INCLUDE IMPACT BROUGHT UP BY NAHB IN LAST WEEK'S SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING.

__________________

Christopher Wright, CR: President @ WrightWorks, LLC/President @ Central Indiana NARI, Named to the 2010 REMODELING Big50
www.WrightWorks.net - Facebook - Twitter - Carmel Remodeling
Indianapolis Kitchen Remodeling Contractor - You Can Get There From Here

Mike Finley

Chris what I was thinking we might be able to do is put up a sticky post on this website where members could go to send a letter like this to their congressional representative.

In another post there was a link to an online resouce that lets you type in your address and it gives you a send page to your congressman, all a member here would have to do is cut and paste the letter into that box on that page and send it to their appopriate congressman.

We have a large body of contractors here and I think we could at least get our voices heard and possibly add to the general concern of these issues and possibly help create enough noise to get something done.

Be cool if we could have a page counter or something to show how many have been sent and maybe members could put a note in their signature to show they have sent the letter.

I've always believe that contractortalk.com could have a bigger purpose because it represents such a cross section of our industry all in one place. This could be the issue that ignites it and really turns the corner for this place.

ChrWright

I'm all ears if someone wants to help craft a close for that letter, if you feel it would serve that purpose.

Unfortunately, life and work have gotten in the way since I started working on it.

__________________

Christopher Wright, CR: President @ WrightWorks, LLC/President @ Central Indiana NARI, Named to the 2010 REMODELING Big50
www.WrightWorks.net - Facebook - Twitter - Carmel Remodeling
Indianapolis Kitchen Remodeling Contractor - You Can Get There From Here

ApgarNJ

IF we could make that letter into a PDF file, it somehow make it available for download, We could make this a sticky and really get out the word that everyone on this site who is active, downloads it, prints it and sends it to the EPA, local representatives, state senators etc. It wouldn't take much time for us to fine tune this letter, which is well stated already. I am all for being able to print this out and send it. If they receive thousands of letters from contractors all around the country, maybe they will delay/change the deadline or some of the rules. i know it's a big maybe but it's worth a shot.
I will even be incline to get a local petition signed by friends of mine who are contractors and pass copies of it to them, as we know most contractors aren't on this site.
the more we reach, the further out it goes.