Lead Rules For Contractors
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum - DIY & Professional:
WASHINGTONWhile a portion of the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) has been in effect since December 2008, as of April 22, the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) final Rule, referred to as the RRP Rule, has taken effect.
One of the chief requirements of this new federal regulation is that anyone, including flooring installers, involved in construction related activity that impacts six square feet or more in total (Editors note: some states are using two square feet) of any and all surface coatings (paint, stain, varnish, etc.) or lead-contaminating materials in a pre-1978 structureas well as all commercial daycare centers and kindergarten facilitiesmust receive the mandated Lead-Safe Work Practices (LSWP) training from an approved professional training provider. The law applies to interior renovations.
According to the rule, a state or EPA certification/license will be required for construction-related activity. The training must be received from an approved professional, meaning that person has been accredited by the EPA or by the specific state in which the person wants to provide services.
Contractors are now required to give property owners/occupants the EPA pamphlet, Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools before starting work on pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities.
Also part of the new rule, contractors must document their compliance with the requirement and keep a record of it for three years; a pre-renovation disclosure form is available at epa.gov.
With this deadline, said Christopher Davis, president and CEO of the World Floor Covering Association (WFCA), it is more important than ever that any WFCA members involved in renovations, including dealers, contractors, installers, inspectors, cleaners and restoration companies, be aware of, and be in compliance with the new rules.
Essentially, RPP mandates if anyone is going to be disturbing the surfaces, such as refinished flooring surfaces in pre-1978 constructed structures, as noted in the rule there are certain procedures that must be followed, including being certified to work on such a project or they could be subject to substantial federal penalties under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
While the flooring industry was not the primary target of this new Lead Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting regulation and certification program, Davis noted, We have managed to be swept into the tide. We sent a bulletin on this subject to WFCA members on March 9, written by our general counsel, Jeff King, which spells out the program in great detail.
He explained WFCA sent out the bulletin because as with most federal regulations, this is a mandatory program requiring compliance. Anyone who chooses not to go through the EPA-specified certification program and performs this type of work does so at his own risk and peril.
Industry reaction to RPP has been mixed. While all believe the lead issue needs to be addressed, many dont agree with the way the ruling goes about it.
According to industry veteran Dave Stafford of Dave Stafford Associates, This reminds me of the move in the late 1980s, early 1990s to completely regulate the removal of asbestos containing flooring materials. This caused hysterical reactions among certain flooring segments, added another layer of cost for the dealer/installer, and spawned a great niche business for others.
While Stafford agrees lead is bad, he questions if this regulatory effort is really going to accomplish that much. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps this is just another new mission focus for the EPA.
There has been little or no publicity on the RRP Rules, he added, so I doubt most flooring dealers, installers and contractors can be effectively in compliance anytime soon. I predict some larger dealers will just sub this type of work out to a company that specializes in it. The main reason will be the potential liability. During the asbestos removal era, Stafford continued, more than one large dealer took a look at the skyrocketing insurance rates and lack of meaningful coverage and said, We just have too much to lose to do this business, so well just pass this along to a small company willing to take the risk.
Jim Walker, CEO of the International Certified Floorcovering Installers Association (CFI), agreed with Staffords comparison about RPP and asbestos, as well as the fact not much information has been made available concerning the rule and flooring. We do agree that each company should have someone certified and available to train others. We are advising our members through our association with WFCA to obtain certification for their protection and that of others. However, from every course we have received comments on so far, none even minimally address flooring issues. They are expensive for the average installer and they receive the certification, but not the knowledge that is critical for the trade. It is important to investigate the topics that are offered prior to attending the course.
Stafford feels the EPA will almost certainly make examples of some unlucky dealers/contractors/installers for training, paperwork and notice violations, and be a boon for the legal profession and the trainers who charge for teaching the course work. I hope this limiting of lead exposure will be worth the financial agony that accompanies such a new government regulation.
Two pamphlets designed to help contractors comply with the new rules, Small Entity Compliance Guide to Renovate Right and Lead Safety During Renovation, are available for free at the EPAs website. The agency recommends anyone disturbing lead paint follow lead-safe work practices, such as containing the work area, minimizing dust, and cleaning up thoroughly.
One of the chief requirements of this new federal regulation is that anyone, including flooring installers, involved in construction related activity that impacts six square feet or more in total (Editors note: some states are using two square feet) of any and all surface coatings (paint, stain, varnish, etc.) or lead-contaminating materials in a pre-1978 structureas well as all commercial daycare centers and kindergarten facilitiesmust receive the mandated Lead-Safe Work Practices (LSWP) training from an approved professional training provider. The law applies to interior renovations.
According to the rule, a state or EPA certification/license will be required for construction-related activity. The training must be received from an approved professional, meaning that person has been accredited by the EPA or by the specific state in which the person wants to provide services.
Contractors are now required to give property owners/occupants the EPA pamphlet, Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools before starting work on pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities.
Also part of the new rule, contractors must document their compliance with the requirement and keep a record of it for three years; a pre-renovation disclosure form is available at epa.gov.
With this deadline, said Christopher Davis, president and CEO of the World Floor Covering Association (WFCA), it is more important than ever that any WFCA members involved in renovations, including dealers, contractors, installers, inspectors, cleaners and restoration companies, be aware of, and be in compliance with the new rules.
Essentially, RPP mandates if anyone is going to be disturbing the surfaces, such as refinished flooring surfaces in pre-1978 constructed structures, as noted in the rule there are certain procedures that must be followed, including being certified to work on such a project or they could be subject to substantial federal penalties under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
While the flooring industry was not the primary target of this new Lead Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting regulation and certification program, Davis noted, We have managed to be swept into the tide. We sent a bulletin on this subject to WFCA members on March 9, written by our general counsel, Jeff King, which spells out the program in great detail.
He explained WFCA sent out the bulletin because as with most federal regulations, this is a mandatory program requiring compliance. Anyone who chooses not to go through the EPA-specified certification program and performs this type of work does so at his own risk and peril.
Industry reaction to RPP has been mixed. While all believe the lead issue needs to be addressed, many dont agree with the way the ruling goes about it.
According to industry veteran Dave Stafford of Dave Stafford Associates, This reminds me of the move in the late 1980s, early 1990s to completely regulate the removal of asbestos containing flooring materials. This caused hysterical reactions among certain flooring segments, added another layer of cost for the dealer/installer, and spawned a great niche business for others.
While Stafford agrees lead is bad, he questions if this regulatory effort is really going to accomplish that much. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps this is just another new mission focus for the EPA.
There has been little or no publicity on the RRP Rules, he added, so I doubt most flooring dealers, installers and contractors can be effectively in compliance anytime soon. I predict some larger dealers will just sub this type of work out to a company that specializes in it. The main reason will be the potential liability. During the asbestos removal era, Stafford continued, more than one large dealer took a look at the skyrocketing insurance rates and lack of meaningful coverage and said, We just have too much to lose to do this business, so well just pass this along to a small company willing to take the risk.
Jim Walker, CEO of the International Certified Floorcovering Installers Association (CFI), agreed with Staffords comparison about RPP and asbestos, as well as the fact not much information has been made available concerning the rule and flooring. We do agree that each company should have someone certified and available to train others. We are advising our members through our association with WFCA to obtain certification for their protection and that of others. However, from every course we have received comments on so far, none even minimally address flooring issues. They are expensive for the average installer and they receive the certification, but not the knowledge that is critical for the trade. It is important to investigate the topics that are offered prior to attending the course.
Stafford feels the EPA will almost certainly make examples of some unlucky dealers/contractors/installers for training, paperwork and notice violations, and be a boon for the legal profession and the trainers who charge for teaching the course work. I hope this limiting of lead exposure will be worth the financial agony that accompanies such a new government regulation.
Two pamphlets designed to help contractors comply with the new rules, Small Entity Compliance Guide to Renovate Right and Lead Safety During Renovation, are available for free at the EPAs website. The agency recommends anyone disturbing lead paint follow lead-safe work practices, such as containing the work area, minimizing dust, and cleaning up thoroughly.
Nick
In Remembrance
If I remove 4 pieces of quarter round without paying $400 for a certification badge, 9 children somewhere in the surrounding neighborhood will start grow a third eye.
That never used to happen, but fines are always a good thing, right?
That never used to happen, but fines are always a good thing, right?
I don't think 4 pieces of 1/4 round will add up to the required amount High. I took the class but haven't done anything with it or even read the books since.
I think the installers that the lead may be an issue with are the ones that work for the box stores mostly. I know Lowes installers in my area were required to take the class. Sand and finish people may also be targeted even though according to my instructor they only found lead in one finish product and color of stain.
Even though my granddaughter had a lead based issue I think most of the hype on that is more for the lawyers to make a bundle off the worker.
I live in a house that was built in 1957. Think there is some lead here? or how about asbestos as it had asbestos side under the vinyl II had put on. I'm doomed for sure.
Daris
I forgot that you had mentioned that a long time back Daris.
I guess that my 'pissy' attitude is from a common sense standpoint. Lead in paint of course isn't a good thing.
In a recession, while contractors are having a rough time and many have gone out of business, or barely hanging on, the EPA requires all contractor be certified or face stiff fines.
Instead of certification, there are a million ways that contractors can be informed in the art of dealing with the paint.
States require bonding, insurance, state licenses, apprenticeship programs etc etc. They could simply sent out a small pamphlet, or e-mail the information informing contractors of what to look out for and how to deal with it safely.
Paint stores, carpet and decorating stores and box stores could hand them out to their customers and contractors.
I guess there's too many cheap solutions. Being certified doesn't mean a contractor will make any effort to follow the lead paint safety rules once he attends the class and pays his fees... that's what bothers me. How do they know that you are working along the guidelines that you were taught? They don't, but that's OK...... you now have a badge and they have their money.
If there is a need for certification and training, painting contractors and possibly demolition contracting firms are a more reasonable 'target'
Myself tho, I once in a while need to remove some base or base shoe, and scoring the wall at the top of the base before removing it is the procedure. That occasionally produces a few tiny chips or slivers of paint that I later vacuum up. Other than that, where's the danger to either me or the home owner? I don't sand or refinish base, but I nail it back on and re-caulk.
Daris, you are doomed...
...you probably ain't gonna last another 40 years because of the lead and asbestos in that home. If I was you, I'd move.
In my peronal opinion, because of politics, the lead danger is like the asbestos danger, widely overblown. It make politicos seem to be helping their constituents. It also makes some people, the ones giving classes, a lot of money.
"Daris, you are doomed...
...you probably ain't gonna last another 40 years because of the lead and asbestos in that home. If I was you, I'd move. " Says High
40 more years, OMG!! I'd be 107. Don't think I' ll make it. Did some kind of test on line and even being diabetic it says I will live to be 82. Don't know about that either. I take it one day at a time and try to make the most of it lead paint and all.
I threw in the lead paint just to keep this on topic.
Daris
...you probably ain't gonna last another 40 years because of the lead and asbestos in that home. If I was you, I'd move. " Says High
40 more years, OMG!! I'd be 107. Don't think I' ll make it. Did some kind of test on line and even being diabetic it says I will live to be 82. Don't know about that either. I take it one day at a time and try to make the most of it lead paint and all.
I threw in the lead paint just to keep this on topic.
Daris
Ya spelled personal wrong, Rusty............. Probably from lead or asbestos poisoning.
One day at a time is all any of us have Daris. Bein' in this trade and still workin at 67 tells me you are far above average.
No way do I need to tell you to get the lead out of your pants, you're movin along just fine.
I threw that in just to keep this on topic.
Last edited:
Hope know one takes my comments as to mean that I don't care because I do, and I think that giving us contractors some proper guidelines and information on handling hazardous materials is a good thing. My only issue is on having one more mandated hoop we have to jump through. Providing us with the information would serve just fine even if we had to toss EPA $10 or $20 to cover the costs of printing and postage.
