Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

Industry Groups Cheer Budget Proposal to Freeze RRP Enforcement Funds

Friday, July 15, 2011

More items for Good Technical Practice

A key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives last week approved a fiscal 2012 budget amendment that would limit funding for enforcement of the EPA’s controversial lead-paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule until the agency develops a more accurate paint test kit.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), which must get approval by the House and then the Senate before it goes to the President for his signature, is being praised as a “great step forward” by the National Association of Home Builders’ Remodelers division, which has sharply criticized the RRP rule.

“I’m very pleased that the committee understood how important it is to rein in these EPA excesses,” said NAHB Remodelers Chairman Bob Peterson, a remodeler in Fort Collins, Colo. “NAHB members strongly support the intention of the lead-paint regulations, but without a reliable test kit, the required lead-safe work practices add only expense, and not additional protection.”

A news announcement from Rep. Rehberg’s office says the amendment would “prevent” funding for the enforcement or of the RRP rule “until the EPA recognizes a lead testing kit that meets the false-positive and false-negative criteria that meets their own standards.”

The statement said the EPA established criteria for the test kits that could be used, and required that after September 1, 2010, contractors could only use EPA-approved test kits.

“It’s July 2011, and there is still not an EPA-approved test kit,” the statement from Rehberg’s office said. “In addition, they haven’t taken any steps to amend their self-designated deadline, or give any assurances as to when the kits may be issued.”

EPA representatives did not immediately reply to a Durability + Design request for comment on the Rehberg amendment.

‘Mishandling’ of Rule Cited

NAHB Remodelers emphasized that the House committee’s action represents only a “first step in limiting the EPA's enforcement of the lead rule.”

“While passage through the House and Senate will be an uphill battle, the message to the EPA is that the agency should heed the concerns of professional remodelers about the lead rule,” the organization said. At the same time, the RRP rule remains in effect, and “professional remodelers must continue to follow the lead rule and prepare for enforcement actions,” the group said.

NAHB said the amendment is “testament to the power of NAHB Remodelers, who immediately called and emailed members of Congress who serve on the Appropriations Committee to ask for their support after NAHB alerted them Monday night to the vote.”

Also vocal in its support of the Rehberg amendment was the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA). The association said it is continuing to urge legislative leaders to review the $1.5 billion RRP rules and “contemplate the impact of these rules on the nation’s employment rate, energy conservation, economic recovery, as well as the safety and health of the most vulnerable residents—pregnant women and children.”

Richard Walker

AAMA president and CEO

“We remain determined to require a Congressional review of the mishandling of this rule,” said Richard Walker, AAMA president and CEO. “The inability of the EPA to properly monitor compliance with the LRRP final rule and ‘opt-out’ amendment is now jeopardizing the very segment of the U.S. population deemed most ‘at risk’ by EPA’s own assessment, in addition to impeding a recovery of construction jobs and energy-efficient home retrofitting across the country,” he said.

“By the EPA's own account, the mandatory use of lead testing kits register false-positive readings in approximately 40% of homes tested, forcing the use of costly lead-safe practices where none are warranted,” Walker said in a statement issued by AAMA. “The EPA and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that the continued use of these inaccurate test kits results in $200 million being spent annually by U.S. homeowners to erroneously apply the rule to home renovations where no lead, or lead amounts not rising to the levels deemed critical to EPA, is present.”

AAMA also repeated its opposition to further expansion of the RRP rule, including a provision requiring lead “clearance” testing for renovation projects and the adoption of an RRP program for public and commercial buildings.

“The combined cost of these two proposed rules will likely exceed $1 billion, which AAMA argues will have devastating results for an already struggling construction/renovation industry revival,” the association said.

"Home renovators who have paid for the required EPA training and certification credentials and who comply with the costly LRRP procedures continue to compete with non-compliant renovators who do not carry the same cost burdens,” Walker said. “To avoid the additional costs of utilizing compliant contractors, homeowners are increasingly turning toward their non-compliant counterparts or conducting home renovations themselves, leading to an increased use of unsafe work practices.

“A lack of any substantive outreach campaign to homeowners, coupled with the EPA's inability to properly monitor an estimated 7 million workers participating in the construction industry, continues to impede any modification on home repairs to ensure the safety of children and pregnant women,” Walker said.

The full AAMA announcement can be read at AAMA Reiterates Call for Review of RRP Rules.

Comment from Kevin Frost, (7/18/2011, 9:22 AM)

So I just spent two years in a bad economy losing tens of thousands of dollars being compliant for nothing? But there will continue to be an indistry standard that just won't be enforced? And a savay customer, or thier down wind neighbors can sue us for not doing the work to indistry standards.....right? I guess I should be happy with this development but the biggest contractors in town have been blatently ignoring the whole thing all along, what did they know that I didn't know?

Comment from Terry Singleton, (7/18/2011, 12:06 PM)

I want to thank the AAMA for their efforts. But, I'm also asking that they not settle for something less than we deserve. The RRP rules need to be tossed out. They aren't working and appear to be un-enforceable. I'm also concerned that their current effort to find a better lead test kit may actually backfire. If it does backfire, then everyone will have to do it "California" style and hire certified lead risk assessors. Telling your client that they need a test is not any fun because many of them will decide they don't want to know if they have lead paint and then, they decide to call a non-compliant company. I really do wish we could test paint ourselves, in California. I would throw in a free test with every bid!

Comment from Stephen Masek, (7/18/2011, 7:45 PM)

There is no need for a better “test kit,” as highly reliable and affordable X-Ray Fluorescence technology has been in use for decades, there are many consultants who have XRF machines, and lead inspections are inexpensive. XRF testing produces no damage, while “test kits” and chip sampling involves producing widely scattered damage (12 to 15 sample locations for a typical room in a house). The reality is that lead-based paint is rare in residential buildings constructed 1960-1978, and is not everywhere in older buildings. EPA’s big mistake was not requiring that the buildings be inspected, so that procedures for dealing with lead-based paint are only used where it is actually present.

Comment from Burt Olhiser, (7/20/2011, 1:31 PM)

While Stephen makes good points he does not touch o the fact that OSHA will not accept XRF readings to demonstrate compliance with their rule. The only acceptable results are bulk paint chip samples that show no lead is present. Any lead in the analysis and its a lead job per their regulations. It has always been irritating to me that states like mine forbid Contractors to take them, it is in my view ridiculous. We should be instead encouraging paint chip sampling and then compliance with the RRP lead safe work practices as well as worker protections if lead's found instead of fighting turf wars over who can and can't collect a damn paint chip.

Comment from Stephen Masek, (9/13/2011, 11:43 AM)

Burt is simply incorrect, although he makes a somewhat common error. OSHA is concerned about actual exposure, so contractors simply need to keep up with collecting exposure assessment data. It is all but impossible for paint which is not lead-based paint to produce exposures which exceed the OSHA permissible exposure limits. Paint chip sampling is rarely done properly (all paint and some substrrate, or only all paint), and the analysis is expensive. I isnepcted a 28 unit apartment building yesterday and collected 1,049 reading with an XRF, with time left to go back tot he office to work on reports. Using an unreliable chemical "test kit" or chip sampling would have required at least one week on site, and produced over 1,000 damaged spots! Contractors just need to find a good consultant and work with them to fit testing jobs, especially small ones, into their schedule.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (9/14/2011, 8:35 AM)

Stephen has a good point with the portable XRF - it is the only quick, reliable field method for measuring lead that I am aware of. Several manufacturers offer units. The little color-change "lead" testers or kits are often wildly inaccurate.

Comment from Stephen Masek, (10/14/2011, 8:57 PM)

I have new information. I spoke with someone in Representative Rehberg's office this week, and was told that contractors in Montana and other states which are mostly rural complained that consultants were few and far between, so they want an accurate chemical "test kit.". I pointed out that consultants have long been needed to test for asbestos, so the far out projects should already have been more costly due to the travel time required for the consultant. In many cases the same consulting company provides both services. EPA's web site show 14 lead inspection companies located in Montana, and companies located elsewhere could also provide services there. Of course, it seems obvious that they contractors were and are ignoring asbestos, and want to keep ignoring lead. Thus, they (and many building owners) need mirrors to see why there was demand to create a regulation such as RRP. I encouraged her to also understand that the regulation is putting good contractors between the rock of heavy penalties for non-complaince and the hard place of losing business to those who ignore lead (many are illegals), so EPA may have shot themselves in the foot by not requiring owners to have buildings inspected. I suggest giving apartment owners three years to have all of their buildings inspected, and requiring that owner-occupied houses be inspected when sold, or before renovation work is done. If someone chooses to have a property far out, everything will be more expensive, not just lead testing. Of course, this applies to renovations, not simple projects involving only wood.