Subscribe by Email

Your email:

RRP Documentation Forms

Posts by Month

The Contractor Coaching Partnership Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Contractor News; EPA Decides NOT To Change Cleaning Verification

Posted by Mark Paskell on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 @ 01:58 PM
  
  
  
  
  

The residential construction industry has been eagerly awaiting an announcement from the EPA regarding the clearance rule. The wait is over and the news is good.

I am happy to send this message out to let contractors know that the EPA has backed of and will not change the cleaning verification process. (See below how 30 commenters made a difference, many from NARI) This will save millions of dollars in unneccessary costs to contractors and consumers.

Here is an excerpt from the EPA site;

Final Regulations and Policy                     certified firm

"New!Clearance Rule (PDF) (113 pp, 390K). On July 15, 2011, EPA finalized its Clearance Rule amending the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. The Agency is not imposing additional "clearance" requirements because existing RRP work practices and cleaning protocols effectively reduce lead hazards. The rule also makes minor amendments to the 2008 RRP Rule. For more information, see a new insert page from EPA, to be added to its 2010 Renovate Right Brochure."

 

I wonder did the efforts of trade associations like The National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) make a difference in the EPA choosing not to demand third party vefification?       National Association Of the Remodeling Industry

I know our efforts n Massachusetts are making a difference with the Department of Labor and Standards. Shawn McCadden and myself have been persistently urging the state to do more on enforcement and awareness. Now we are getting 8 bill boards in Massachusetts and enforcement is happening all over the greater Boston area. On the national level I suspect NARI's new lobbyist in Washington DC is starting to make some difference.

Contractors Voice Makes A Difference

EPA received over 300 comments on its 2010 proposal. (Many commenters were from NARI). Members of the regulated community and other industry commenters were generally concerned that EPA had upset the balance it had struck in the 2008 RRP rule, arguing that a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement would have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, whether directly by regulation, in the case of the proposed clearance requirements, or indirectly by requiring firms to provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property owner and occupant. While there was little support for dust wipe testing alone, commenters that supported the 2010 proposal generally thought that a clearance requirement should be imposed and expanded to most, if not all, renovations. After carefully weighing the issues at stake and considering the concerns raised by commenters, and as explained in greater detail below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the information before the Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the work practices established in the 2008 RRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. Almost all of the commenters were opposed to the proposed provisions requiring only dust wipe testing after certain renovations. Members of the regulated community and other industry commenters argued that a dust wipe testing requirement would have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, albeit indirectly, by requiring firms to provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property owner andoccupant. This requirement would also have the effect of adding an element that is not generally considered a renovation activity, i.e., taking samples for laboratory analysis, and indeed, would have to be performed by a third party or only after a renovator received training in a separate and distinct discipline—either as a dust wipe sample technician or a lead-based paint inspector. In addition, many argued that the Dust Study generally shows that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations, so additional dust wipe testing or clearance requirements are unnecessary. These commenters noted that this is particularly true for the renovations for which EPA proposed to require only dust wipe testing, because those renovations were specifically tested in the Dust Study. In addition, commenters suggested that the categories of jobs for which dust wipe testing or clearance would be required were arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence."

Have a great weekend guys and gals.

mark the coach

"one voice for the residential construction industry"

 

mark the coach

Contractor Business Coaching    Design/Build Training

Fall Protection Training  RRP Training  Safety Manual Workshops  

Tags: 

Comments

I for one applaud NARI members. For stepping up, writing to their elected officials about how this affects business, and how homeowners are looking for loopholes, and how adding another layer of regulation would just make things worse. Also, many kudos to those who replied to the business story in the Wall Street Journal. Those comments were seen and distributed widely on Capitol Hill. NARI Members, Congratulations. YOU, united are the Voice of the Remodeling Industry.
Posted @ Friday, July 15, 2011 3:44 PM by Gwen Biasi
The news Friday afternoon was a fantastic welcomed surprise and has renewed my faith in our system of government. EPA made the correct decision by listening to the many people and organizations that commented on the proposed amendment. 
 
 
 
While I'd like to take credit for NARI's hard work this was a group effort. NARI certainly was one of the leaders in this battle but it was the overwhelming outcry from our industry that made a difference and got the EPA to pay attention to us. 
 
 
 
I poured over the 112 pages of the final rule this weekend and can see references to the points that NARI raised and I myself commented on. I don’t think any of them were unique. EPA heard the same common sense over and over from different people and it had to sink in. They sure did torture us along the way! 
 
 
 
There are some other parts of the rule that were further defined in this final rule everyone should be aware of: 
 
To make testing a little easier or precise in the absence of the new test kits EPA will allow RRP contractors to collect their own paint chips and send them to a lab in lieu of hiring a special person to perform this task. 
 
Vertical containment within 10 feet of the property line was added to the work practices. (there is some latitude granted in how to accomplish this) 
 
There are some other changes that pertain to the trainers and online training programs that are fairly minor and don’t affect us remodelers. 
 
Several places in the text EPA commented that they were open to learning about how the rule was being implemented and would make adjustments in the rule as we RRP contractors put it into practice. I see this as very encouraging and NARI will continue its efforts to build a solid relationship with EPA and maintain a dialogue with them to help make this rule successful for contractors and homeowners equally. 
 
 
 
I'd like to thank everyone who commented on the amendment for your help, your voice was heard. I went home Friday dancing on a cloud and had a great weekend. A year and half of hard work paid off! 
 
 
 
David Merrick 
 
Merrick Design and Build Inc 
 
Kensington MD 
 
Chairman, NARI Government Affairs 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 18, 2011 7:50 AM by David Merrick
There are two key changes many renovators positively. First the EPA has decided not to require clearances following renovation work. The thought process is that a competent certified renovator should be able to conduct their work without increasing the lead risk if they follow the prescribed work practices.  
 
The other key change is that the EPA will now allow certified renovators to collect their own paint chip samples for laboratory analysis from surfaces scheduled for impact by renovation activities.  
 
All things being equal, I am in favor of allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples to make the process less burdensome for the homeowner, both financially and at the project level. Collecting paint chip samples is not rocket science. In fact, most contractors will probably be better at collecting a paint chip sample than a Certified Lead Based Paint Inspector as they are usually highly skilled in use of hand tools.  
 
Unfortunately, things are not always equal. One key benefit from having a Certified Lead Paint Inspector (sampler, monitor, etc.) is third party independence. The Inspector should be unaffiliated with the contractor and should report their findings directly to the homeowner.  
 
In California, one must be State certified as a lead paint inspector to collect paint chip samples. Contractors cannot collect paint chip except during the bidding process. 
 
The simple truth is Bad Contractors will continue to do Bad Work. No regulation can prevent that. Good contractors will do well with these changes, except in California of course!
Posted @ Monday, July 18, 2011 4:48 PM by Steven LaMon
Hi there, 
 
 
Seeking help from HUD and reading the EPA rules can aid a lot for knowing more about lead paint rules 
 
Thanks, 
Adam 
Posted @ Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:27 AM by lead paint inspector
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics