Fixing The RRP Law
It’s safe to say that, when Congress passed the “Repair, Remodeling, and Painting” (RRP) law, the country was distracted. It wasn’t just a presidential election year, it was a historic presidential election. The war in Iraq was still front page news, Afghanistan was on the rise, the housing market was collapsing, and then came the financial meltdown. RRP was so far under the radar it would have taken a submarine to find it.
So, while nobody was looking, we ended up with a law that was so poorly written its implementation has been postponed twice (and it looks like it will probably be postponed a third time); EPA keeps changing the rules, so even knowing exactly what defines compliance is a moving target; the NAHB is filing suit; and firms performing jobs following the new rules (or trying to) have discovered that even the most outrageous sounding predictions of how much compliance would add to job costs have proven to be low. Meanwhile, the number of jobs being done under the table by unlicensed contractors, or by owners escaping compliance and its associated costs by doing it themselves, is growing. (I’ve heard of three in just the last month!)
In short, things are such a complete mess that the law may never actually be implemented or, if it ever is, will be a nightmare for everyone. Worst of all, for all the expense and headaches it will cause, it won’t solve the problem. So, what to do?
First, let’s understand the real problem: The dangers of lead in paint isn’t a new revelation. Trade journals have written about it for decades, and competent contractors have always worked in a reasonably safe manner — cleanliness being the biggest weapon against lead paint dust. Setting aside the problem of incompetent contractors for a moment, the real problem is the lead based paint that still exists in places the RRP law is unlikely to reach: Rentals inhabited by the poor (“slum lords”), in older homes inhabited by either low income home owners or older folks living on fixed incomes. Folks in these homes aren’t just exposed to the lead paint from their do-it-yourself painting projects, but through natural sluffing of the paint through daily use: Opening and closing cabinet doors and windows, sliding everything from cups to flower pots along window sills, washing surfaces with a wash rag that is then used on dishes, and so on. Too, many major interior repainting projects are done between habitation. A renter moves out, the landlord repaints (do-it-yourself style), leaving paint dust in corners, closets, cabinets, and ledges, and another renter, perhaps one with young children, moves in.
So unless we’re prepared to crack down hard on do-it-yourself home improvement (a tactic that would undoubtedly fail), regulation is not going to solve the problem anymore than following even the strictest interpretation of the RRP law while performing a bathroom remodel is going to remove the lead from the old kitchen cabinets. Rather, I propose a three prong approach that addresses the entire problem, without this mess of overblown and ineffective regulation:
- Educate, don’t regulate. Education has proven effective again and again at dealing with the most intractable problems. And let’s face it, most painting is not done by professionals, it’s done by citizens. Teach citizen painters about the dangers of lead paint, how to test for it, and how to safely prep a painting surface and clean up afterwards. After all, there’s nobody more protective of a child than the parents. Also, rather than this silliness of allowing only “certified” testers able to test use “only EPA certified” test kits, let citizens use do-it-yourself kits they can buy in the hardware store. Do-it-yourself lead test kits are about as likely to replace professional testing as home pregnancy tests did doctors office pregnancy tests. More is better, even if the tests are less accurate — a fact package labeling would logically acknowledge. It increases participation and involvement, and involvement is the key to ultimate success.
- Building professionals should be required to adopt clean work habits. Yes, this likely means more regulation, inspection, and testing, but it should be done at the state or local level where it can be enforced as a matter of routine, not by the EPA who has neither knowledge, experience, or infrastructure to be part of the daily building inspection process.
- Building professionals should become the nation’s “first responders”. As professionals, they should be the ones the public can turn to for reliable, professional, lead testing, do-it-yourself oriented lead safe practices training, and so on. Will these lead safe certified contractors charge for the service? Surely. But to baby Johnny’s young parents, paying for a bit of on the job training is a lot cheaper than hiring that contractor to do the job for them, and for that small fee they — and we — have the assurance that they’re making their home safer for their child.
Educate the public, require clean work habits, and ensure that lead safe certified contractors are empowered to test for lead and train the public, and we will have addressed the lead problem at all levels of society. Even better, we will have increased awareness of lead poisoning. And an educated, involved public is never a bad thing.
Powered by ScribeFire.
9 Responses
Sean @ SLS Construction
Very nicely stated Michael – one quick point I would like to mention; all rental owners that own pre78 apartments or houses are required to be certified firms & renovators now. With that being said if they just want slap paint on the walls doesn’t fall under the RRP, which we know that’s about all the “slum lords” do – if that sometimes
Michael
Thanks for the comment, Sean.
And yes, that was my point about slum lords. I knew one once, many years ago. He was so cheap he’d even save his paint and mix it all together, coming up with nauseating colors, to get the quantities he needed to repaint after a tenant moved out. Whatever it took to save money yet give the appearance of livability. Those people are unlikely to register and, even if they do, they’re unlikely to comply.
Rian @LeadCheck®
I applaud your plan to educate people and raise awareness on the dangers of lead. As the only EPA-recognized lead test kit, LeadCheck® plays a huge rule in the RRP rule. LeadCheck® swabs are inexpensive, easy to use, reliable, and above all accurate. They have been tested by two independent studies and came back with stellar reviews. The EPA has deemed us the only recognized test kit because our company and our product have been around for over 23 years and have a long history of being a reliable home test kit.
A common misconception is that only contractors can purchase this. That is not true. Our LeadCheck® swabs can be purchased by anyone, whether it be a painter or a mother who simply wants to check her child’s toys for lead.
For more information, please visit: http://www.leadcheck.com
Or if you are a contractor looking for updates on the RRP Rule or EPA Compliance, visit our blog:
http://www.leadcheck.com/blog
Rian @LeadCheck®
LeadCheck’s mission is to raise awareness on the dangers of lead exposure. There should be more PSA’s that explain these dangers and the importance of testing for lead. At LeadCheck, we are trying to head up a campaign to inform the public about testing for lead, lead-safe practices, and how even regular household items can have lead in them, such as cups, mugs, bathtubs, and even toys and jewelry.
No amount of lead is good lead. Even a small amount of lead–the size of a sugar packet–can affect a whole neighborhood. There has been some confusion with the current RRP Rule and as an industry leader, we are doing all we can to provide information for both the contractor and the homeowner.
That all said, I believe your proposal is progressive one and I agree that educating the public as well as the homeowner would prove quite beneficial in our fight to make lead-poisoning a thing of the past.
For more information see our website and blog:
http://www.leadcheck.com & http://www.leadcheck.com/blog
John Poole
Hey Michael,
Just FYI & for whatever it’s worth: The July 2010 issue of FHB magazine (#212) featured a Q&A on RRP that read like a best practices guide for RRP compliance, and in fact claims to be a synopsis of just such a forthcoming guide from GreenBuildingAdvisor.com. And it also mentions LeadCheck as an EPA-approved test kit available to anyone.
My own prediction is that, over time, some de facto set of best practices for RRP compliance will evolve as the result of a lot of smart people out in the field attempting to achieve compliance while minimizing costs, and eventually be codified somewhere, by someone. The EPA will never officially endorse it, but there will be a widespread tacit understanding that following that best practice achieves compliance, and the RRP on the books will probably remain forever broken.
Of course, where as the above would be purely tactical, your own vision (which is excellent) I hope would emerge as the longer term, more global, solution to the problem, brought about by the thought-leadership of people such as yourself.
~ John
Sean @ SLS Construction
John, careful about using that guide as a best practice – I don’t have the issue in front of me, but there were a few issues in it. As always (even with my postings, items found on the EPA’s site, etc…)make sure you verify what you read with what is stated in the regulation
The EPA is also supposed to be releasing it’s updated & approved list by Sept (?) for kits that meet it’s new standards.
Michael Anschel
In my defense I would like to note that the author of this blog asked for me to add “my highly opinionated response” to this post. He asked for it…
OMG! Are we really still talking about this? C’mon folks, let’s move on. The ground is falling out below your feet and the sun is burning out your
Look. Lead is toxic. It sucks to get lead poisoning. Remodeling increases risk of exposure. We, the industry,do a shitty job of managing dust debris and general safety precautions. I’m on job sites constantly, trust me, even the best of the bunch have a ways to go.
The rules are no work of art, and should be rewritten as soon as possible, but they are such a significant step for the vast majority of remodelers, that while imperfect they will make a difference for the workers and the general public. For some companies the rules are simple to follow and are just not that big a deal. I asked my team about it compliance with the new regs. They agreed, the rules were poorly written, the trainings had issues, but compliance was easy.
I say regulate. Regulate the crap out of lead, fly ash, dioxins, phalhates, and all the endicrine disruptors and hazardous crap that we insist on using to make cheaper crappier products. The public has shown time and time again that they don’t want to know, and that they will chose price over quality of life. We in the industry surely have not demonstrated an interest in serious education or understanding of the materials we use and distribute.
I also say turn the jerks who refuse to follow the rules in, and feel good about it. We are in this mess because we don’t regulate ourselves. I agree with Michael on the rest of the points. Beef up our best practices and take your clients and your teams health seriously.
Now, I am off to the wilderness for 12 days to be followed by 3 days of drinking at lstiburek’s place. Rock on folks!
Michael
Umm…. Why don’t you tell us what you really think, Michael. When you have time, of course.
(Enjoy your trip!)
Michael (Post Author)
I don’t usually comment on my own blog posts, other than to say “thank you,” but after Michael’s “regulate the crap out of [lead]… ” I just have to horn in.
You see, I’ve been regulated right out of business, twice. Both times by out of control regulators; both times I saw hundreds of thousands of lives and hopes and dreams destroyed; both times the natural resources the regulatory agencies were charged with protecting were not only not helped by their actions, but were actually harmed, because by destroying the industries using the resources, they also destroyed the (self imposed) tax revenues that were protecting and restoring those resources.
I’ve seen regulators tell elected members of of the United States Congress from three states, and members of those state’s legislators to, quite literally, to go back to Congress and keep their nose out of their (the regulator’s) business!
Yes, they actually said it. And, they got away with it cold! I saw regulators over-rule the will of the Native peoples of this country and the folks I was charged with representing when they threw out a resource sharing agreement supported not only by all parties, but by the U.S. Congress.
So while I agree, and stated in my article that some regulation is necessary, forgive me if I have come to the conclusion over the last 27 years that regulation is like taxation: Up to a point, it’s beneficial and does exactly what it’s supposed to do. But after that, the rate of return diminishes until the regulation does more harm than good. Sometimes because of backlash, sometimes because of regulatory over-reach. Usually because of some combination of both.