While many are applauding the delayed implementation of the training rule as a win, it is not.  In fact it exposes those who are not trained to greater risks.  You still must comply with all other portions of the rule, but without benefit of learning what is required of you.

I have this vision of drunk football fans high fiving each as their team scores. Yet, their team is still down by 21 with two minutes and ten seconds remaining in the fourth.  Likewise, as some are claiming a victory with the delayed training, they may not want to face the cold hard fact that instead of better, the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule may just become a whole lot worse due to the pending dust clearance rule.

Also note that the delayed enforcement of the training rules does not affect WI as our program is not run by the EPA.  Same applies to IA, KS, MS, NC, OR, RI, UT.

So instead of celebrating – go get trained.

Share/Save

Thanks for these comments. You devote a lot of energy to criticizing the rule. Given the health problems caused by lead-based paint, what kind of rule should the EPA write? Let me know, and thanks.

My reply (edited to remove at least a few of my many typos):

The very short version

Everyone who works on older housing should receive lead safe training.  Such training could be accomplished in four hours and should be provided at no or low cost to anyone desiring it.

Our association provided this type of training to our members until our state health department required that only lead training course certified by them could be provided in WI.

A more detail explanation with support documents:

The long version – with an explanation of my position

Let’s start with a point of clarification. My comments are directed to the most recent proposed revision that requires laboratory dust clearance testing and changes the definition of HEPA vac.  This is the game changer, adding cost and confusion to an already difficult rule.  How would your tenants feel if you had to tell them that they could not reoccupy their unit after simply fixing a window frame until a certified lead sampling tech had time to test it.

We did not file comments on the original EPA RRP rule as it was originally presented it did not appear that it would be overly burdensome. Obviously its implementation turned out to be a bit more onerous than I expected. Rather, we worked hard to insure our members and our own companies could comply with the least amount of hassles.  This included offering reduced price training to members of the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI as well as strategic planning on how to comply.

My background on the lead issue

Almost all of my adult life (since 1977)  I have been a residential landlord.  Our industry has been severely impacted by lead paint remediation costs and litigation.  This hardly seems equitable as none of the current crop of owners had applied the paint and the prior owners were using a product that was not only legal, but mandated for some federally insured housing.

Due to the impact and potential impact on my business I have spent literally thousands of hours trying to understand the issue and working towards resolutions that solve the problem while not running me and every other landlord out of business.  Our company has replaced thousands of window units at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars as a step to mitigating the issue.

In the late 1980′s I was a member of the  Milwaukee Lead Poisoning Task Force, which I remained a participant for the following decade. In 1995 I was appointed to the Wisconsin Legislative Council on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention by then Governor Tommy Thompson.  Thompson went on to be the Secretary of Health under George W Bush.

The committee’s work  became the groundwork for 1999 Wisconsin Act 113. Read a summary of the committee report here.  I coauthored the minority opinion starting on page 26, in which we argued that the final proposal was lacking remediation funding as well as training and education of those who work on and live in pre 1978 housing.

Are all elevated blood lead levels due to lead paint?

No.  Studies such as those in Washington, Cincinnati, Seattle and Baltimore and others point to industrial / automotive emissions as being a major source of lead dust.  Just last week a scientific report was released indicating again that automobile emissions were a leading cause of EBLs in Cleveland during  latter part of the 20th century. (Updated 5/29 to remove bad link)

What are some solutions to the lead paint issue?

The solution to lead based paint hazards created during remodeling and other maintenance activities is, or should be, pretty simple.  The thing that gets in the way is there is so much money available to those who profit by making this larger and more unworkable than it should be.

Simply put: At the beginning of the job make it so you can easily clean it up at the end and then clean it up when you are done.

This means use drop cloths, don’t  sand or use water blasting, use wet scrapping when possible and then clean up after yourself using a HEPA vac and damp mopping. This could easily be taught in well less than half a day.

Note I said drop cloths instead of the now required 6 mil plastic.   If you have ever tried to use plastic for exterior work you know how poorly it contains debris as the slightest breeze sends everything everywhere.  Plastic also is a poor choice for wet scrapping as it becomes dangerously slippery. However the law currently is 6 mil plastic so you MUST use plastic and do not use drop cloths

Barriers to receiving the training need to be eliminated.  Currently training is only available in English, hard to obtain due to a lack of trainers and is prohibitively expensive to many.   Let’s face it, there are a lot of workers in housing who speak Spanish and a lot of small owners and contractors who can’t really afford a day off work plus $280.  The government, paint companies and perhaps home improvement suppliers should all pitch in and make the training free or very cheap.

Why the proposed EPA changes to the RRP are wrong

EPA, HUD and the National Builders Association have all conducted test that show proper work methods eliminate most risks.  Therefore the expensive dust sampling is unnecessary.  But what about the contractors who don’t follow proper methods you ask.  Well let’s be honest.  If they are unwilling to follow the rules to keep the job safe, what makes anyone think they will follow the dust clearance rule?

Additionally, most HEPAs that were purchased for this purpose in the past couple of months do not qualify under the proposed rule.  And the ones that do qualify suck (as in they are junk) because they do not suck (as in suction)

The 60 day comment period ends July 6th, 2010

Let the EPA know your opinion:

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID)number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Mail:

Document Control Office (7407M)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460– 0001.

Share/Save

The real game changer is the proposal to require laboratory testing for dust clearance at a cost of at least $160 per job, but more realistically $480 for most jobs.  This includes jobs as small as fixing a single window frame or broken door jamb.

Comment period to the EPA ends July 6th, 2010.

You can get a copy of the proposed rule, where to submit comments and read the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI, Inc.’s comments to the EPA at:

www.RenovatorRules.com

Share/Save

Here is Tristan’s letter describing the event.

Share/Save

You may have heard the recent Window World ads for their $185 installed vinyl replacement windows. In the ad they warn you to replace your windows now because their price goes up by $100 in April 2010.  Why is this?

It’s the new EPA Renovator rule

The rule affects most people who perform maintenance on residential properties, daycares and schools.  Contractors performing work on owner occupied homes are also required to comply.

And no, this is not just a painter rule. Property owners, landlords, plumbers,electricians, HVAC, maintenance and handymen all will be affected by the new certification disclosure, documentation and training requirements, too.  EPA documentation is at English (PDF)

Training & Certification Required by April 2010 under EPA Renovator Rule

If you do not get the required training and certifications, you cannot legally do your own maintenance that disturbs more than 6 square feet of painted surface on the interior or 20 square feet of painted surface for exterior.  Replacing doors and windows fall under this no matter what size. The square footage is accumulative over a 30 day period.  Any item removed is counted as the entire footage.  So for example you remove a painted shelf that is 12″ by 36″ it would exceed the footage (two faces at 3 sq feet each plus the edges. )

Go back and reread this as it is probably one of the most significant changes to landlording and remodeling.  But you say ‘It won’t affect me, I only own the duplex I live in’  Wrong.  These is no exemption for rental units in owner occupied properties.

There is a $300 or $550 fee for a five year EPA firm certification, depending if you also are certified as an abatement worker or employ someone who is.  See the EPA Renovator firm application form and instructions (PDF) This only covers the EPA license. You also need the $75 Wisconsin lead safe company certification.

EPA allows itself 90 days to grant the certification, so you to be ready for April you will need to have completed the process by the end of January.

Also there is the certification and training of yourself and/or your workers, which is separate.

Milwaukee Lead Information Center charges $260 per person for the eight hour course. Yes, this is more than $32 per person per hour for the training. They are currently the only one in Wisconsin offering the EPA Renovator training.  You and your employees are required to have the Wisconsin Lead Safe Renovator certification from the state for $50 per person biannually.

So the owner who wants to do his own maintenance will have to shell out $685 and a day for training within the next five months; $300 to the EPA, $260 to Milwaukee Lead Information Center and $125 to the state of WI.

Changes Required in How You Do Repairs

You must provide the Renovate Right booklet and maintain records of having given out the booklet.

There are new containment rules that require abatement type containment and clean up on every job.

How Much is This Going To Cost?

Various smart people say 10-20% more depending on the size of the job.  Small jobs will see a greater increase.  However the Window World ad pegs it at nearly 55% and I am sure they have done extensive research too.

But ignoring the law will be even more costly as it provides for career ending $32,500 per occurrence per day fines.

5 things can you do today to prepare for the EPA Renovator Rule:

• Lobby to get the training into tech schools like MATC so that affordable training is available.
• Apply for the EPA firm certification
• Get what work you done that can be now.  The reason that this is important is there WILL be a shortage of certified contractors and workers come April.  I believe there will be liability to owners that use uncertified people.
• Stay abreast of the most recent developments by bookmarking RenovatorRules.com and join the forum there so we can all work out the details on how to comply together.
• Or sell out… Oh, but wait no one is buying.

Share/Save