Okay, I couldn’t read this article in the LA Times without commenting on it. It’s a story book case of what happens when enthusiasm backed by no more than an academic understanding of the building sciences is turned loose on a complex project. This quote from the article says it all:

He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built.

Long time readers of this blog probably know my mantra well: All the college degrees in the world don’t replace experience and bucket loads of common sense. Unfortunately we live in a time where certificates are often considered more important than achievement,  rather than as a foundation for it. I know of one young person who now runs her own sustainable consulting business – right out of college! She has no real world experience working in her field under the supervision of a seasoned veteran. Someone who knows what really works, and what is just, like the case cited above, a utopian pipe dream. And from what I’ve seen of her advice – which her clients pay for, remember – it shows more similarity to the later than the former.

The LEED AP program seems to be another prime example of education trumping real world experience. I can’t think of not one builder who is a LEED AP. I know lots of lawyers, activists, and consultants who have the certificate. I know of exactly one engineer who has the certificate. But I know of not one person whose profession it is to actually construct a building that has bothered to get the certificate. (Okay, I take that back, I know of one “recovering” builder who is a LEED AP.) Is it any wonder then, that LEED found itself the target of a class-action suit?

By contrast, look at what happens when folks with real world experience are both educated and consulted. HERS, RESNET, and Minnesota GreenStar are good (but hardly exhaustive) examples. The latter was cofounded by a builder and has some of the strictest green building standards in the country. But it’s a standard that is entirely achievable because it was designed by people who – surprise! – actually build buildings for a living.

Had Larry Eisenberg implemented “his vision” by hiring professionals to work through the design and regulatory process right from the beginning, the Los Angeles Community College District might have saved $10 million in energy costs, rather than blowing it on an impossible dream.

green, energy, building, consulting

Powered by ScribeFire.

On February 10^th the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held hearings on the Federal RRP law as administered by the EPA. For those who don’t know, about the RRP law (called LRRP in the Committee Report):

In 2008, EPA promulgated the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP) pursuant to section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address lead-based paint hazards in housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. The rule requires that any renovation work that disturbs an area more than six square feet in size on the interior of a pre-1978 home to follow certain lead work practices supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified firm. In May 2010, EPA removed the “opt-out” provision from the LRRP that exempted the renovating firm from certain requirements of the rule where the firm retains certification that no child under the age of six resides in the renovated home.

In the same Federal Register Notice, EPA also required renovation firms to provide copies of compliance documentation along with training and work practice requirements of the LRRP rule to residence owners. Also in May 2010, in settling petitions by environmental and children’s groups, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding renovations to public and commercial buildings other than those that were child-occupied under the same guidelines as the residential programs. That month, EPA also proposed a rule under LRRP for the cleanup of projects that generate lead dust, requiring testing on the completion of these renovations.

The Committee took comments from several different quarters of the building industry:

The American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA), a trade association that represents over 250 window, door, and skylight manufacturers and industry related suppliers, maintains that “[a]s renovators began to inform homeowners of the additional remodeling costs now associated with renovations, window sales in some parts of the country plunged by 20 percent.” AAMA, along with other groups, urged EPA to reconsider the changes to the “opt-out” provisions and cited a Small Business Advocacy letter arguing that EPA “…failed to perform needed outreach and failed to examine seriously several regulatory alternatives…” Furthermore, a coalition of construction and renovation related industry groups (coalition) asserts that the increased cost of hiring certified contractors “means that legitimate businesses that are complying with the LRRP Rule cannot compete for much-needed work against non-compliant contractors that…lack the training [sic] to actually perform lead-safe renovations and prevent lead hazard exposures.”

The coalition cites a number of costs that befell renovators and their surrounding industries upon implementation of the LRRP. First, the LRRP did not present enough opportunities for renovators to become EPA-certified by the start of implementation. Second, lead test kits produced over 60 percent false positive readings, causing an EPA estimated $200 million in unnecessary compliance costs for firms. Finally, EPA’s failure to accurately gauge the cost of this rule on small business detrimentally impacted that business sector.

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) also came to the hearing. They also raised concerns about the opt-out provision:

Their issue regards the one-size-fits all approach to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking extending the LRRP rule to commercial and public building renovations. The trade group feels that “simply taking residential rules and applying them to commercial buildings will mean a never-ending cycle of lead paint testing, contractor certification, worker training, and comprehensive management practices – all increasing the cost of construction.” The coalition is concerned that the EPA stepped outside of the framework of TSCA by considering a new rule without conducting a separate study of lead paint hazards in public and commercial buildings instead of relying on the residential data.

EPA’s latest proposed rule change to add “clearance testing” to materials came under fire from the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association (NLBMDA):

“These regulations immediately threaten the recovery of our residential construction and renovation markets and the many jobs associated with construction and renovation.” Furthermore, this association calls for “[a] more narrow and tailored approach…” to this regulating scheme.

The American Architectural Manufacturers Association, representing window, door, and skylight manufacturers was concerned that:

The LRRP removed “opt-out” provisions for those renovating homes built prior to 1978, thus subjecting such construction projects, and the inputs required to complete those jobs, to regulation under the rule. The changes to this rule increase the costs of projects carried out on pre-1978 structures, discouraging the purchase of new inputs, such as windows or doors, as well as the undertaking of the entire construction project.

While small business owners voiced their own concerns:

Contractors and homebuilders are worried about the LRRP as well. Remodelers predict lost business and even unintended negative health effects because the rule does not apply to homeowners. Because of increased costs, these homeowners may elect to forgo professional services and do remodeling themselves, thus increasing the risk to the population who own older homes. Contractors also have concerns about the rule’s application to commercial buildings, when the law was originally intended for residential buildings. The industry feels that this rule would create a perpetual state of testing, training, and certification due to the necessity for “continuous maintenance” at commercial sites – leading to unnecessary costs and project delays.

All quotes are from the Committee report (link below); I have removed the footnotes leading to testimony transcripts and submissions.

The Committee’s page on this hearing can be found here. A PDF copy of the Committee’s full report can be found on this page.

And, so it begins. You might remember: Back in March I predicted that, because of the way the RRP law was written, it would be a field day for lawyers. It would, therefore, increase the cost of renovating old homes as contractors scrambled to cover themselves, both on the job site and off.

Well, despite that, I thought we were ready to put the whole RRP business behind us and would just have to live with the mess. Then, over the weekend, I got this email:

I’ve been following you on Twitter and decided to check out your web page. Great discussion on the lead paint law, which is tying me up in knots — my core biz is older homes. I’m thinking just to lay off for six months until I figure out what’s going on.

My daughter in OREGON got a letter from a Baltimore law firm inviting her to be part of a potential lawsuit — that would be against me, I guess – naming the home where she grew up, which fortunately was built after 1979. I guess this guy is writing everyone who ever lived in
Balto — I’ve gotten three letters from him naming properties I once owned. Thank heavens, I didn’t rent them (sold them).

So it’s a zoo for predatory attorneys.

Last month I pointed out just how much of a mess the RRP law is. Apparently I’m not the only one. Last week (the day before the public comment period ended), I got this email from the CONNER Institute:

To the Renovation, Repair and Painting Community,

Should you wish to submit written comments to the EPA regarding the RRP Rule, but have not yet done so, August 6th is the last day for such submissions. We suggest that if you or your company’s management feel:

• Damaging a surface with a hammer is not demolition — you may need to submit comments.
• Dust-lead sampling following rental unit “Make Ready Activity” is unnecessary — you may need to submit comments.
• Dust-lead sampling the floor of a room where you did not work is unnecessary — you may need to submit comments.
• Dust-lead sampling fees, per job, of $160 to $280 or more, are expensive — you may need to submit comments.
• Dust-lead sampling, mobile facilities, or transportable, self-contained operations to perform analytical lead testing under controlled environmental conditions have not yet reached your workplace — you may need to submit comments.
• Anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) analyzers are not carried by your local hardware supplier — you may need to submit comments.
• Providing dust-lead test results directly to a resident of rental housing is not practical (i.e. you may not have access to the resident) — you may need to submit comments.
• Replacing a window or door frame is routine, and you can adequately clean the area without a dust-lead test — you may need to submit comments.
• Your 10+ years of federally-assisted housing work experience and passing dust-lead testing without using a HEPA vacuum is proof enough of thorough work practices — you may need to submit comments.
• The proper measurement for trim and base material is linear feet verse square feet — you may need to submit comments.
• 8 hours would be an appropriate amount of time for lead-safe worker training — you may need to submit comments.
• The exam’s minimum passing score of 80% is too restrictive — you may need to submit comments.

If you need the Federal Register for ease of reference please click HERE.

Please consider that your professional trade association may be of further assistance. They may already have organized a written response for your review and consideration, so today is the day to check in with them.

CONNOR Institute has launched its Countdown to Compliance program. We are working with our students, numerous trade associations, state agencies and other interested parties, to increase the level of compliance. This link is available 24/7 to assist you with some of the critical deadlines we must meet to achieve full compliance. To clarify, CONNOR Institute’s reference to the Firm Certification deadline is based on your certificate being “in hand” versus having an application “in the mail.” Please bookmark our Countdown to Compliancee for future reference.

We have several August class specials available for those individuals who must become Certified Renovators.

For a general determination of whether training is required for you, please review the CONNOR Institute Training Decision Logic Tree.

(Note that I printed the email intact, with it’s links, even though the comment period is over.)

It’s obvious that the CONNER Institute sees many problems with the RRP law as it stands. And while I don’t necessarily agree with all of the issues they cite, their list puts an interesting spotlight on what’s probably driving the bloom in predatory law practices that are lining up to sue anyone and everyone who has ever rented or renovated an older home. Put the two together and they provide an interesting way of looking at just how screwed up this thing is.

Emails reprinted with the permission of the original senders.

Originally set to expire this very month (March 2010), Business Week Reported this morning that CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed an extention of the 1^st time home buyers $10,000 tax credit into law.

The new law doubles the amount of money set aside for the program and applies to purchases of both new and existing homes.

Have any more information on this program? Let us know in the comments.

If you’re planning on having your house (apartment, child care facility, or school) painted, or on doing some remodeling, after April 22, 2010, then you need to be aware of the new Federal regulations that effect that renovation. Regulations that may make that renovation or repainting job cost you more than you thought it would. In some circumstances, a lot more.

The concern is the lead content in paint produced before 1978. And it is a legitimate one. While it is of no particular hazard while on the wall (unless you chew on it), sanding turns the paint into a dust which, once airborne, is breathed and, as it settles on the toys of small children and pets, is ingested. Studies have shown that children exposed to even small amounts of lead can suffer from the effects of poisoning (don’t know if any tests were performed on pets, but I would assume a similar result): Reduced IQ, learning disabilities and behavioral problems are all symptoms. Adults are also susceptible, of course, but the dosage apparently must be higher.

So bring on the Federal Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP), or “Lead Law”. Passed in 2008, it goes into effect April 22, 2010. It requires contractors renovating more than six square feet of a home built before 1978 to a) be certified by the EPA and the work crew to be trained, and b) to treat that portion of the house being renovated as a toxic materials zone, which means establishing full containment and toxic waste control measures complete with placards, testing, and record keeping. Prior to even beginning work, the contractor must provide you with a copy of this nineteen page “brochure” (booklet would be more accurate), which the contractor must make you sign for. (It contains a lot of information. I suggest you read it carefully.)

If work is being done on the outside of the building and there is another building within twenty feet, then a containment dam must be established and maintained during sanding and/or demolition. Finally, all waste must be treated, and therefore disposed of, as a hazardous material.

Having read the heavy handed language of the actual regulations promulgated by the EPA to satisfy the legislation, I see hidden costs here too. I suspect remodeling, painting, and general contractors will see their liability insurance rates begin to climb. To try and limit potential future liability, even work sites that “test clean” may be treated as contaminated—just in case. Consider: Three years after renovating that 1950s craftsman little Johnny is found to have lead poisoning. The contractor didn’t follow containment procedures because testing showed no lead in any of the paint in the renovation area. But an investigator finds a trace of lead based paint embedded in the wood fibers of one window sill. Bammo! Lawsuit, fine, and damages.

So yes, the good news is, we finally have regulations in place to deal with one of the last remaining health hazards in the home. The bad news? The chest pounding of of Congress has produced a result that is expensive and ungainly. Every State in the Union has methods and procedures in place for dealing with asbestos, and after forty years of rubbing the rough edges off, they work well. Asbestos poisoning is by in large now a thing of the past. With one paragraph Congress could have directed the States to deal with lead paint in the same way. The States probably would have simply then rolled lead paint mitigation into their existing systems at little cost to the tax payer, contractor, or customer. But that would have denied the Congressional bulls an opportunity to bray come election time.

Got an opinion about “the lead law.” Let me hear it!

I’m pleased to announce that Alternative Building Services has been awarded the “Best of” award in the Building Contractors category by the US Commerce Association (USCA).

I’d like to thank the USCA for the honor. If memory serves, this is the second time it has awarded Alternative Building Services the award. All of us here are very proud of the quality of work we do and the service we provide to our community.

building, contractors, us commerce association, usca, awards

Powered by ScribeFire.

It’s no secret that here in California’s Pacific Northwest the idea of deconstruction is a pretty foreign concept. What little recycled lumber there is around has usually been salvaged from rotting rail road trestles or old barns. The idea of actually un-building a house to reuse the lumber in a new house just hasn’t caught on.

But as Erin Golden reports in Central Oregon’s The Bulletin, a little further north the idea is catching on. Read “Want to build green? Demolish with care here.

green, building, deconstruction, demolition

Powered by ScribeFire.

CityCenter Emerges as Leader of Sustainable Urban Development, Driving Green Economies of Scale in Multiple Industry Segments:

urban development, green economy, sustainability, building

Powered by ScribeFire.

A fascinating look at where energy efficiency in headed in the future of today.

green, energy efficient, home, LEED

Powered by ScribeFire.