Renovation, repair and painting activities may disturb painted surfaces and produce a lead-exposure hazard, so before undertaking this work in your home it is important to accurately identify the presence of lead-based paint. According to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) survey of the prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in the nation’s housing, approximately 38 million pre-1978 U.S. dwellings contain lead-based paint. The federal standards for lead-based paint in target housing and child-occupied facilities is a lead content in paint that equals or exceeds a level of 1.0 milligram per centimeter squared (mg/cm2) or 0.5 percent by weight.

In the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program (RRP) rule, the Agency described criteria for lead test kits that detect lead in paint.

EPA-Recognized Test Kits

Currently, a lead test kit can be EPA-recognized if it meets the negative response criterion of no more than 5 percent false negatives, with 95 percent confidence for paint containing lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight. The recognition of such kits will last until EPA publicizes its recognition of the first test kit that meets both the negative response and positive response criteria outlined in the 2008 Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule.

To date, EPA has recognized three lead test kits for use in complying with the false negative response criterion of the RRP rule. They are the 3M LeadCheck™, the State of Massachusetts kit, and D-Lead®.

• 3M LeadCheck™. EPA recognizes that when used by a certified renovator, the 3M LeadCheck™ lead test kit can reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is not present on wood or ferrous metal (alloys that contain iron). This kit is not recognized for use on plaster and drywall. Certified renovators seeking to use the 3M LeadCheck™ kit for purposes of meeting requirements in the RRP rule can purchase the 3M LeadCheck™ kits from either 3M LeadCheck™ directly or from certain retail outlets. 3M LeadCheck™ is manufactured by 3M™. To order a 3M LeadCheck™ test kit call 800-494-3552 or contact 3M at leadcheck.com/contactus.
• State of Massachusetts. 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 drywall and plaster; it is not recognized for use on ferrous metal (alloys that contain iron).
• D-Lead®. Based on the results of the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) study of vendor-submitted lead test kits, EPA recognizes that when used by a certified renovator the D-Lead® Paint Test Kit manufactured by ESCA Tech, Inc., can reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is not present on wood, ferrous metal (alloys that contain iron), drywall and plaster surfaces. Certified renovators seeking to use the D-Lead® Paint Test Kit for purposes of meeting requirements in the RRP rule can purchase it from certain distributors and retail outlets. To locate a distributor or retailer visit www.esca-tech.com, e-mail rrp@esca-tech.com or call (414) 962-3006.

Read a fact sheet on the EPA-recognized test kits (PDF) (1 pg, 26K, about PDF).

For any questions pertaining to the recognition of these kits, contact Sam Brown of EPA at 202-566-0490 or by email at brown.sam@epa.gov.

Lead Test Kit Environmental Technology Verification

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has completed its verification of the performance of four vendor-submitted lead test kits developed to meet the false negative and false positive performance criteria set forth under the 2008 RRP Rule for improved test kits.

The 2008 RRP rule requires that after September 1, 2010, any newly recognized test kit must meet both the negative and positive response criteria of no more than 5 percent false negatives and no more than 10 percent false positives, each with 95 percent confidence, as related to the regulated level of lead in paint of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight.

Based on the ETV results, there are no kits that have met both the false negative and false positive response criteria requirements; however, there is one kit that met only the false negative response criterion (D-Lead®), and it was recognized for use as a false negative-only kit on August 31, 2010. The following table presents the summary results of each test kit evaluated through the ETV program.

To obtain the individual test kit verification reports and a description of the ETV lead test kit verification program, visit www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/este.html#pcqstklp.

Overall ETV Results

Information source: www.epa.gov August 22, 2011

Renovation, repair and painting activities may disturb painted surfaces and produce a lead-exposure hazard, so before undertaking this work in your home it is important to accurately identify lead-based paint. According to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) survey of the prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in the nation’s housing, approximately 38 million pre-1978 U.S. dwellings contain lead-based paint. The federal standards for lead-based paint in target housing and child-occupied facilities is a lead content in paint that equals or exceeds a level of 1.0 milligram per centimeter squared (mg/cm²) or 0.5 percent by weight.

In the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program (RRP) rule, the Agency described criteria for lead test kits that detect lead in paint.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Process and Preliminary Results

Pursuant to the 2008 Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule, EPA initiated testing of new lead test kits by using its Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV). The purpose of the Lead ETV program was to evaluate whether manufacturer-submitted lead test kits could meet both a false negative and a false positive response criterion. In September 2009, EPA accepted applications from four vendors for the evaluation of their lead test kits through EPA’s ETV program. The evaluations of these kits have been completed and the preliminary results are provided below.

The RRP rule requires that after September 1, 2010, any newly recognized test kit must meet both the negative and positive response criteria of no more than 5 percent false negatives and no more than 10 percent false positives, each with 95 percent confidence, as related to the regulated level of lead in paint of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight.

Preliminary Results (07/22/2010). Based on the preliminary ETV results, there are no kits that have met both the false negative and the false positive response criteria requirements; however, there is one kit that has met the false negative response criterion. The following three tables present the preliminary results of each test kit evaluated through the ETV program. These results are undergoing final quality assurance review and a stakeholder peer review process. These two reviews are expected to be completed by September 2010. EPA does not believe that these reviews will change the overall pass/fail results of these kits. EPA will make available on its website the final ETV results and reports in September 2010.

Because no new kits meet both the false negative and false positive criteria, EPA will continue to recognize the LeadCheck® test kit and the State of Massachusetts lead test kit. After EPA reviews the final report on Test Kit A, the Agency anticipates that this test kit will also be recognized as meeting the false negative criterion.

Table 1
Preliminary Overall ETV Results

Table 2
Preliminary ETV Negative Response Criterion¹ Results

¹(≤5 percent false negative responses with 95 percent confidence for paint containing lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm² or 0.5 percent by weight)

Table 3
Preliminary ETV Positive Response Criterion² Results

² (≤10 percent false negative responses with 95 percent confidence for paint containing lead below the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm² or 0.5 percent by weight)

As of June 21, 2010, eight states — Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Utah, and Oregon – administer and enforce their own RRP programs. Renovators working in these states must comply with all applicable state laws, notwithstanding this guidance.

Below you will find quick links to each of these states programs:

This information can be found on the National Center for Healthy Housing Website

A. No. This announcement does not change the requirement that all contractors take steps to protect children and families from the dangers of lead poisoning by becoming certified and following the work practice standards and the associated recordkeeping requirements. As of April 22, all contractors have been required to be certified and follow the work practice standards described on EPA’s website. The effect of the June 18 memorandum only provides firms more time to apply for and obtain certification as a lead-based paint renovation firm before active enforcement of the firm certification requirements begins. EPA is also providing individual workers additional time to enroll in and take the required training course to become certified lead-based paint renovators before active enforcement of the individual renovator training requirements begins. EPA will use its enforcement authority to ensure compliance by enforcing work practice standards and their associated recordkeeping requirements against all renovators and firms. Therefore, renovators who have not been able to complete the training requirements are advised to review EPA’s model training materials available at www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm. Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).

All renovation firms, even those not yet certified under the RRP rule, are also reminded of their continuing obligations to comply with Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule’s pre-renovation information distribution requirements, which require that before firms begin each renovation on pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities and to comply with the associated recordkeeping requirements. These requirements are explained in EPA’s Small Entity Compliance Guide to Renovate Right.

Q. Does the June 18, 2010, announcement mean that EPA will not enforce certification and training requirements until after October 1, 2010, for firms and December 31, 2010, for renovators?

A. EPA is not stopping its enforcement against any renovation firms and individual renovators who do not comply with requirements of work practice standards and associated recordkeeping requirements. However, EPA is providing additional time for renovation firms and workers to obtain the necessary training and certifications before enforcement of the firm certification and individual renovator requirements begins.

• Renovation Firms. Until October 1, 2010, EPA will not take enforcement action for violations of the RRP rule’s firm certification requirement.

• Individual Renovators. EPA will not enforce against individual renovation workers for failure to be trained if the person has applied to enroll in, or has enrolled in, by not later than September 30, 2010, a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the final rules. Individual renovators must complete the training by December 31, 2010. Renovators who have not been able to complete the training requirements are advised to review EPA’s model training materials available at www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm. Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).

Q.   Thousands of renovators are already trained and their firms are EPA certified.  Will EPA enforce against renovators who did not receive their training certification before December 31, 2010?

A.  It is most important that all contractors follow the RRP work practice standards.  However, EPA is providing additional time for renovation firms and workers to obtain the necessary training and certifications before the enforcement of the firm certification and individual renovator requirements begins.  Therefore, renovators who have not been able to complete the training requirements are advised to review EPA’s model training materials available at www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm. Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-
424-LEAD (5323).

Q.  Doesn’t the June 18 memorandum extend an unfair advantage to members of the regulated community who have delayed compliance with the certification and training requirements and punish those who have complied with the rule?

A. EPA does not believe that allowing more time for firms to become certified and renovators to become trained extends an unfair advantage.  To the contrary, firms that are already certified can benefit by continuing to advertise that they are certified and may continue to use EPA’s program logo during this interim period.  The Agency also recognizes the challenges some are facing in obtaining training in a timely fashion and is providing additional time to individual renovators to
enroll in and take the required training courses before the Agency actively enforces the individual renovator requirements.  EPA is committed to encouraging additional training opportunities in every state to meet this demand for classes.

Q.  How does the June 18 announcement impact renovators in states that have adopted their own RRP programs?

A.  As of June 21, 2010, eight states — Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Utah, and Oregon – administer and enforce their own RRP programs. Renovators working in these states must comply with all applicable state laws, notwithstanding
this guidance.

Q.  What happens if an individual applied or was accepted for training before October 1, 2010, but the course is cancelled or delayed by the training provider during that 90-day period (October 1 – December 31, 2010)?  What recourse does the individual renovation worker have after 12/31/10?

A.  The renovator must complete training by December 31, 2010.  EPA encourages renovators and firms to take advantage of this opportunity and not delay in becoming trained and certified.

Q.  How soon should renovation firms send their applications to EPA?

A.  Firms should send their applications to EPA as soon as possible.  All firms that are not certified by October 1, 2010, will be subject to penalties for failing to comply with the renovation firm requirements of the RRP rule.  EPA has been working to expedite processing of applications but, under the regulations, may take up to 90 days.

Full PDF Available Here

Lead Safe Certified Firms need to be aware of the many changes that will take place in the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule on July 6, 2010.

Comments Due

The EPA would like to hear your comments on 2 proposed future changes in the RRP. July 6, 2010 is the deadline for sending in your comments. A “comment” is EPA’s way of saying they would like to hear your opinion and reasoning of why a regulation should or should not be changed or implemented.

The first proposed change they would like your comment on, is the addition of clearance testing. As the rule stands now, Lead Safe Certified Firms have the option of letting their Certified Renovator perform the cleaning verification (commonly referred to as the white glove test) or of having a clearance test.

In the proposed change, a clearance test will be a requirement in certain situations.
A Clearance Test is where a third party person, usually a lead inspector or lead assessor, comes in and wipes an area with a moist wipe. That wipe is sent to an EPA approved laboratory to verify the amount (if any) of lead dust. You can learn more about this at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-10102.pdf

The second proposed change is where they are considering including public and commercial buildings in the RRP. To learn more, go to http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-10097.pdf

You can make your comment by going to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home. For a comment on the clearance test, direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. For the public and commercial, direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173.

Rule Changes

Also on July 6, 2010, changes to the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule go into effect.

The Opt-Out provision finally disappears. It is the general consensus that you need to be through with disturbing painted surfaces in the project before July 6. A safer threshold would be if you are not going to be completed with the entire project before July 6, you should plan on following the RRP.

There will be 2 record requirement changes. The first is, that a copy of the sample checklist should be given to the homeowner/tenant along with the final invoice or 30 days after the end of the project, whichever comes first. You can use your own forms, but it must include all items listed in the sample checklist. A copy of the sample checklist can be found at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/samplechecklist.pdf.

The second record requirement change is if you decide to use clearance test, instead of verification. If you do, a copy of the lab report should be given to the homeowner/tenant within the same time frame as mentioned above.

Once a rule is implemented, it is difficult to change it. So now is the time to express your opinion by offering a comment.

- Dean Lovvorn
www.certifiedrenovatorcouncil.org

Originally Published May 14, 2010 on SLS-Construction.com
Quoted from a guest post by: Dean Lovvorn

While more and more people are hearing about EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, little attention is being given to HUD’s LSHR (Lead Safe Housing Rule).  This could be a painful mistake for the contractor.

Homeowners don’t really need to understand the difference between RRP and LSHR.  Their primary concern of being lead safe is met whether RRP or LSHR are being done.  However, contractors need to be very well informed on the differences.  You would hate to take all of the EPA lead safe precautions, only to find HUD enforcement knocking on your door.

In HUD’s mind, certified renovators have been trained in knowing the differences.  This was done during the lead renovator course.  So, certified renovators are now “in the know” and can be held accountable for the differences between RRP and LSHR.

The Differences

On HUD’s website, it says; “The Lead Safe Housing Rule applies to all target housing that is federally owned and target housing receiving Federal assistance”. Homes with FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, banks receiving TARP funds, VA, HUD and many more government agencies’ assistance … fall under LSHR … not RRP. It could very well be that the majority of projects a contractor works on … actually fall under the LSHR, instead of RRP. FHA mentions that over 30% of homes are under its help alone and in certain markets that number grows to 50% of homes.

Certified Renovators got a small taste of the differences when they took their 8-hour lead renovator course. Unfortunately, it was only a few moments of discussion. Some of those differences can be found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/enforcement/lshr_rrp_changes.cfm.

However, knowing these differences won’t help you achieve full compliance. A contractor needs to understand the whole Lead Safe Housing Rule, before they can fully understand all the differences.

Read the full article RRP Updates: Home Insurance, LSHR, HR 5177, & the Brochures

ADDISON COUNTY — The annual spring building boom in Addison County and beyond is being at least slightly tempered by the financial impact of new federal regulations requiring contractors to take more precautions in performing renovation projects in older buildings containing lead paint.

While most acknowledge the new rules will make houses and other buildings safer, others say the whole picture was not taken into consideration before the rules took effect.

At issue is the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, which took effect on April 22. The EPA issued the new rule as a means of protecting people from potential health problems that could arise from ingesting lead dust and/or paint chips created by construction work on homes, child care facilities and schools built before 1978.

Read full article here: New lead paint removal rules come with cost | Addison County Independent.

Washington, D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said today the overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of the Collins-Inhofe amendment, S. 4253, to the supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4899), highlights growing concern with the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Lead-Based Paint Rule (Lead RRP).

The amendment, which was passed by a vote of 60 to 37, and cosponsored by several senators, will block funds in the supplemental from being used to “levy against any person any fine, or to hold any person liable for construction or renovation work performed by the person.”

Following the vote, Senator Inhofe called for the EPW Committee to conduct an oversight hearing to help the public understand the requirements of the rule, as well as problems associated with the rule’s implementation.

“The passage of our amendment clearly shows there is bipartisan concern about the disastrous implementation of EPA’s lead-based paint rule,” Senator Inhofe said. “To help alleviate the widespread confusion over the rule’s implementation, I am calling on Chairman Boxer to conduct an EPW oversight hearing. I believe we should do everything possible to ensure there are enough classes available in every state and help get as many trainers certified as needed.”

Background

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead RRP went into effect on April 22, 2010. The rule is designed to help reduce lead exposure to pregnant women and children from dust caused by renovations. Unfortunately, the implementation of the rule has been confusing and unclear to constituents–including homeowners, landlords, renovators, and contractors–throughout Oklahoma and nation.

The new rule applies to renovations in homes built before 1978 and that disturb more than six square feet of paint. These renovations must be supervised by a certified renovator and conducted by a certified renovation firm. In order to become certified, contractors must submit an application – with a fee – to EPA, and complete a training course for instruction on lead-safe work practices.

Link to Press Release

Information on Lead-Based Paint Rule

Collins-Inhofe Introduce Amendment to Allow Small Contractors Time to Comply with New EPA Lead Paint Rule

Link to Collins-Inhofe Amendment

Learn more about Senator Inhofe’s attempt to bring more attention the Rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that its new Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting rule will apply to all homes built before 1978. The agency is eliminating an “opt-out” provision that largely limited the regulation’s applicability to older homes that were the residences of pregnant women or children under six years old.

Expected to be enforced starting after July 6, the new mandate will increase the number of homes covered by the lead rules from an estimated 9.4 million to about 79 million, even though the EPA itself estimates that a significantly smaller number of homes — about 38 million — still contain lead paint.

The agency also gave notice that it is writing an additional rule to require more complex dust-wipe or clearance testing, effectively requiring remodelers to fill the role of lead-paint abatement workers. If approved, this rule would become effective in July 2011.

The announcement was made on Earth Day, April 22, the day before the new lead-based paint training and certification requirements for remodelers went into effect.

The rule requires remodelers and all other contractors disturbing more than six square feet of painted surfaces in pre-1978 homes to attend the required training and submit firm certification. It also dictates lead-safe work practices, pre-renovation consumer education and record keeping practices.

NAHB fought hard to delay the certification rule, citing a lack of trainers, ineffective lead-based paint test kits, long delays in the firm certification process and other issues related to a general lack of preparedness for the rule’s implementation.

Now that the rule is law, NAHB is recommending that its members avoid all work in pre-1978 homes unless they have completed their training and certification requirements. Members can click here to find a list of EPA-accredited trainers.

At an April 22 meeting of NAHB Remodeler trustees, Steve Owens, the EPA’s assistant administrator, and Maria Doa, director of the agency’s National Program Chemicals Division, were told by association members that removing the opt-out provision will only magnify the shortage of certified remodelers by increasing  the number of homes subject to the new work requirements.

The EPA said that the opt-out provision could result in insufficient protection for children under age six and pregnant women who might move into a targeted pre-1978 home that had been renovated without following the new work procedures. Eliminating the ability to opt out, it said, will result in “fewer homes being purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities.”

In addition, removing the opt-out provision provides “protection for family pets, as lead poisonings resulting from renovations have been documented in both cats and dogs,” the EPA said.

Owens told a standing-room-only audience that the EPA would “work with NAHB to make the transition as smooth as it could be,” promising that those remodelers who had submitted the paperwork and fees for firm certification and completed their training by April 22 — but had not yet received that certification in the mail — would not be prosecuted. “You’re good to go,” Owens said.

He also agreed with concerns that the agency has been slow to get the word out to consumers and contractors about the rule’s requirements. “Certainly we could have had more awareness,” Owens said.

The agency has partnered with the non-profit Ad Council and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on a public relations campaign to increase home-owner awareness of the rule, he said, and EPA officials had spent the week conducting “a boatload of radio interviews.”

However, Owens said the EPA is not concerned that a shortage of certified remodelers will impede plans of the Obama Administration and Congress to offer incentives for weatherizing the nation’s older housing stock. “The Department of Energy does not think there will be any impact,” he said.

Citing the economic impact of the rule, a remodeler from Colorado said that he has already lost bids because of the additional expense and an Alaskan remodeler said the rule is likely to add between $7,000 and $10,000 to his company’s cost of a major home addition project. Doa shook her head and Owens affirmed the EPA’s estimate that the rule will add between $8 and $187 per project. “We stand by our analysis,” he said.

The agency said it was working on providing NAHB members with clarification on how the rule applies to homes under construction before 1978 but not completed until after that time, when lead paint was no longer allowed.

In addition to removing the opt-out provision, the rules set to take effect in July will require remodelers to give any records to their customers within 30 days of completing the job, including a checklist confirming that they followed the required lead-safe work practice steps.

The EPA also announced it will soon propose expanding the rule to public and commercial buildings.

For more information, visit www.nahb.org/leadpaint; or e-mail Therese Crahan at NAHB, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8211.