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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

RRP, lead law, remodeling, regulation

Powered by ScribeFire.

Well, after having the size and scope of the project tripled earlier this year, the Park Project is in finally in in the home stretch! CEQA has been restarted. All the public agencies are doing their reporting thing. The electrical engineer is finishing up the electrical panel design and doing the lumins calculations. I’m working on the plumbing. The NGO is putting together his grants for the restoration work. By fall we’ll be ready to sit down with the supervising engineer and scour the construction documentation one more time before handing the package over to the client. Everything will be ready to go to the State for final approval whenever he’s ready.

One of the things we’re most proud of on this job: We’ve been able to save our client a little over $100,000; about 10% of the estimated $1 million cost to build out the entire project — not including another estimated $750,000 in grant funded restoration work. And along the way we were able to divide construction into two halves so that the owner (who is considering building the project himself, rather than hiring us to do it) can build out in two separate phases. This will allow him to build the most lucrative section of the park first, then use the revenue it generates to fund the other half.

This project has been one of the most enjoyable we’ve ever done and I hope we’ll be able to do more “Special Occupancy Parks” in the future. Most enjoyable was blending environmental restoration and recovery with a design for the park that has minimal environmental impact on either the park area or the very sensitive natural surrounding areas.

And now, some pictures and models of the project in process:

The picture at right shows what will be the main area of pull-throughs, with a row of right-side back-ins behind it. The road in the bottom left hand corner is dirt and was originally constructed by the local community services district when they laid a new sewer main. It will be retained and paved with a permeable material rather than hard surface asphalt. The native evergreen trees will be retained and the native plants will be moved to other areas of the park to create a natural barriers in sensitive areas.

Here’s a beautiful view of the creek we’re trying to restore. Despite it being classed as an ‘urban stream’ it’s still in very good condition and has both trout and steel head in it. Unfortunately, younger steel head cannot make it back into the creek because of the huge jumps shown in the second photo. (The individual looking at the culvert is an expert in stream restoration.) To add insult to injury, the young fish must then make a very long swim with no rest through that culvert that goes beneath a major highway. Adult fish can swim the gauntlet, which is why there are very young fish still in the stream. Though not on Park property, there are plans to use State funds available for the purpose to correct this fish ladder system and rip-rap the culvert. Another insult to the fish is the surfactants you see floating on the water in the top picture. It’s coming from upstream, and The California Department of Fish and Game has been trying to catch the individual pouring soap into the creek for a couple of years now.

Invasive plant species are another issue that will be addressed. On the tree leaning out over the creek (top photo, above) you can see English Ivy attached to the trunk. At right the same stream expert is discussing the removal of the English Ivy and the eucalyptus with the Fish and Game restoration expert. Eucalyptus oil is very toxic. Some studies have suggested that they sterilize fish eggs laid in the river gravel. Behind the Fish and Game guy is a streams and trails expert. To his left and right representatives from the Park.

To facilitate all this restoration work, I ended up having to do a topographical survey of over three acres of stream area, then translated that into mapping data for CAD use. Outsourcing that work alone would have cost the client some $30,000, according to bids I received (and rejected) to address the FEMA flood zone issue several months earlier. (Yeah, that’s me in the photo.)

Finally, here’s a quick little model of the bathroom the supervising engineer and I designed for the new park area. The original bathroom is a wood structure built on top of a two foot masonry stem wall. The shower stalls were also built of wood powder nailed into the concrete floor. The results were predictable. Because bathrooms and laundry facilities are unheated, and always damp, the building is now laden with rot. The men’s shower stalls had to be completely rebuilt this last winter. So this building is built entirely out of CMU block — including the interior walls and shower stalls. We also designed a plumbing maintenance corridor into the building. Access is through the wrought iron door you see in the center of the wall. It also provides access to the attic above. The mens and womens bathrooms and showers are the doors (ThermaTru Fiberglass Entry Door Systems) to the left and right. Not visible is the laundry facility and mechanical room at the rear of the building. The gable end siding is Hardy Select Cedarmill. The roofing is ‘Chestnut’ from CertainTeed’s ‘lifetime warranty’ Presidential TL line.

Cruise around the web on this day of independence and, in spite of the present polarized political state and caustic political rhetoric, complete with a new poll out showing the nation divided right down the middle on whether President Obama has the nation headed in the right, or wrong, direction, and you’ll find all kinds of links, like this one, to the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. It’s easy, from our nostalgic point of view here in the 21st century, to forget that back when our new country was being founded, things were just as divided, just as tempestuous, as they are today. “Let us now attend to the consequences of this enormous innovation, and daring encroachment, on the liberties of citizens,” wrote a columnist for the Pennsylvania Herald on October 17, 1787. He was replying to a speech by James Wilson given in Philadelphia on October 6th of that same year. Wilson was a supporter of the draft of the proposed constitution that would form the basis of a United States of America.

The stakes of their choices, and of the citizens of the colonists in accepting or rejecting the now famous documents on which our great republic is based, were no less critical to their future (for they could only scarcely imagine the future in which we now live) than ours in how we deal with the seemingly insurmountable issues of our day. They, like us, feared that an unruely majority might trample the will of an honest minority, that individuals and monied interests might trod underfoot the less fortunate members of society. And they understood that popular opinion shifts like the changing winds. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Maddison observed:

Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice would be most easily collected, and the public affairs more accurately managed. We know, however, that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent Philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light.

–James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, New York, October 24, 1787 (Spelling and capitalization of the original document retained)

So on this day, of all days, while reminiscing about the wisdom of those who crafted our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights, let us especially remember that they did so under the same stresses and strains, and in the same highly charged and politically polarized environment that we find ourselves today. Yet they succeeded and met the challenges of their time.

And so can we!

independence day, 4th of july

Powered by ScribeFire.

We need training programs; we need third party certification and verification systems too. But for them to work, we also need the correct mix of government/private partnership; the right laws, and the right regulations that point industry in the right directions.

In this guest post at Building Moxie I cover some ideas on just what that right relationship should be, and how it could work. Read the whole article here.

So, starting in January of this coming year (2011), California architects, designers and builders will have another building code to comply with. The “…first-in-the nation mandatory green building standards code…” Governor Schwarzenegger called it, claiming “…California continues to pave the way in energy efficiency and environmental protection.” It does do a few things worth while:

First, all buildings built under the new code will be required to reduce water consumption by 20%. Also, there’s a little mentioned requirement that building lots deal more efficiently with storm water run off, preferably keeping as much of the water on the lot (and away from the building) as possible by percolating it through the landscaping, before the surplus is picked up by storm drains. This will have a side benefit of cleaning the water before adding it to our streams and rivers. The second most often mentioned requirement is that half of all building waste will have to be diverted, rather than being simply dumped into land fills. What’s been overlooked is the intent to start the reduction at the very beginning of the building process by encouraging the use of pre-assemblies (such as SIPs) or composite materials made for the the job. Another never mentioned item is a requirement that stud walls not be closed up if the moisture content of the wood exceeds 19%. The third most often mentioned requirement is the requirement that all HVAC systems in buildings over 10,000 square feet keep their systems working at “maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies”, to use the laymen’s language from the press release. The new code also includes a great many voluntary measures, and includes two “tiers” that designers and builders can comply with in their projects for if they choose to.

In some quarters new code has been well received. In others, there’s a lot of head scratching going on. Brian Pontolilo over at Fine Home Building had to ask: “Why CALGREEN? I’m curious why California wrote a mandatory green building code instead of incorporating these provisions into their existing building codes.” To which I might add: Why didn’t they just participate in IBC’s code production process? After all, California has already adopted the IBC for its code model.

For the answer, we have to remember a bit of history. Before (reluctantly) adopting the IBC, the State spent millions and nearly five years trying to write its own building code from scratch. Thousands of pages later, it was only when everyone from the NAHB to the AIA  bluntly told the Standards Commission that their proposed code was so different from traditional model codes that it would cause more problems than it solved, that the whole fiasco was stopped and a model code considered. California politicians and bureaucrats are addicted to the notion that the they “pave the way” with their “first-in-the nation” this, that and the other thing. In reality, as the building code debacle showed, they often spend a lot of time (and a lot of hard earned tax payer money) reinventing the wheel.

That said, I think the CalGreen Code does do take some important steps that have nothing to do with whether enough water gets saved or building waste diverted — all of which will be argued until we’re all blue in the face. The legislation takes a stab at providing a set of baselines that are independent of the self promoting NGOs and their programs. Want your project to be LEED? You can do that. Want your project to be HERS? You can do that too. Energy Star? It’s got you covered. BPI? No problem. CalGreen is simply a (minimum) standard. How you get there is entirely up to you. And that’s how it should be. The Senate should take notes and apply them to the Cash for Caulkers bill, with it’s Building Performance Institute (BPI) — and only BPI — certification requirement.

Now, could this have been done by helping to write and then adopt the IBC green code? Yup.

green, building, standards, CalGreen

Powered by ScribeFire.

Written by Holly C. Bertsch.

Originally posted on Building Moxie… The Blog. What she has to say is just so important for customers to remember when looking for a contractor — whether for a new project or a remodel or repair — that I’ve reprinted it here with her permission.

Did you know that when you are interviewing a contractor, they are often interviewing you too?

It works both ways, much like a job interview should. Unless said contractor is desperate for work, they are often checking out your project and making a mental decision on whether they want to take it or not. By asking questions along with the usual first time formalities of an initial meeting, your contractor is drawing conclusions about your project, and how you, as a consumer, would be to work for. And believe me, I have turned down high paying jobs simply because a prospect did not seem as though they would be easy to work for (more on that later). I am not saying that I want a person to be a pushover, just accepting anything that we do, but I do want some understanding and flexibility — because without these things my job would be nearly impossible.

Another thing we look for in potential projects is: Is it even feasible? Are you thinking you can have champagne on a beer budget? Are you wanting to turn your only outdated 5′x8′ bathroom into a spa retreat (which we can do, if you are prepared for some serious inconveniences)? Are you wanting some HGTV miracle makeover to happen with no planning and in a very short time frame? Are you wanting to complete some of the project yourself, and are you capable of doing it in a skilled and timely manner? And . . . the most important, are you desperate to have this work done, now, no questions asked, no planning, no budget considerations? These all are big red flags to us. A good contractor works with time, planning, budget, and your dreams to make your project a complete success.

A well respected contractor also looks for problem customers. I am not talking about the type of customer who wants to stay informed and be really involved in the process. I am talking about the customer who wants to “run” a project, or considers themselves a general contractor. The one who wants to buy every single two by four and basically seems to think they know how to, well, run a project. These people usually have full time jobs, or are semi-retired, and fancy themselves as experts because they may have even “overseen” the building of their own home. They often demand a lower rate because they feel the “general contracting fees” should be waived.

We typically do not want to work with someone on a “contract basis” and/or someone who wants to be their own GC. This is usually because we end up wasting a lot of time doing their job as the General Contractor for them, in other words — scheduling deliveries, running to the store for materials, and dealing with otherwise poor planning on their part. We have been doing this a long time and we know what needs to be done, when and by whom. If you want our particular skill set, you can feel free to hire us at our company rate by the hour as sub-contractors for your project. Just know though that it may end up costing you even more, because we exactly know how to make a job run efficiently. After all, we do this every day. The amateur general contractor-type usually rubs a good renovation contractor the wrong way. (Remind me — I need to write a whole new entry about this alone, so forgive me for venting in this paragraph! –Holly)

What we look for usually is a customer who is genuinely interested in what will be going on during a project, has questions initially and along the way, and is willing to grant some type of confidence in us. It is a short-term partnership that is formed to reach your final goals, as well as ours. We want to see your project through to completion, to your full satisfaction, and with a full payment at the end because we stuck to your budget. Can you begin by relating your wishes and dreams to us, but still be willing to accept advice and realities?

A good general contractor will want to “feel out” an initial customer during a few meetings to determine if this is a customer they want to be working with. A not-so-good contractor may be all smiles, wanting to jump on whatever job you have – right away. This not-so-good contractor in general may also be a little too over-enthusiastic about your work. I am not saying that it is bad to have a person who is excited about your project, because we often get excited about certain types of work, but if they seem to be desperate, they may not be the contractor for you. A good contractor is usually booked at least a month to six weeks out or more. There may be extenuating circumstances when they are not, but remember, a good renovation takes planning and . . . time.

A good contractor will be looking at you, while you are looking at them. They will qualify you as a potential client. Sometimes, a contractor will not call you back or answer your emails. I have heard this complaint from customers of ours before. They call a few professionals, and never get a call back or they meet with said professionals and never hear from them again. Maybe the problem is your expectations or your attitude? Maybe they are just really bad contractors? Maybe you need to call more professional contractors. Or you can call us, no matter where you live, and we will give you our “always free advice” because we are good, honest, and receptive remodelers.

And this is my two cents.

The following is a guest article contributed by Dan Harding, originally posted on CalFinder’s Solar Blog on May 20, 2010.

This time last year I wrote about the introduction of a new breed of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV): the Solé Power Tile. This unique midnight-blue roofing tile is the first-ever solar product specifically designed for curved roofing systems, according to its manufacturer, SRS Energy. The PV tile is not designed to mount onto a roof, but to seamlessly incorporate into it, creating clean solar electricity while maintaining the home’s overall aesthetic.

All PV products must go through testing by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to prove their ability for reliable performance. This is especially important in California, where solar products must be UL-listed to qualify for state rebates. The Solé Power Tile recently passed UL testing, which, considering that it is meant to integrate into curved clay tile roofs very common to sunny California, opens it up to a whole new market and millions of potential rooftops.

SRS Energy even partnered with US Tile, the largest manufacture of clay roof tiles in the U.S., to ensure seamless integration. US Tile designed a non-solar tile that matches the relatively odd blue color of the Solé Power Tile.

But are these tiles ready for your roof? At only 5 percent conversion efficiency, the Solé tiles at their best stand far below the average rooftop solar panel. Therefore, they require a lot more space and product to produce the same amount of solar electricity. However, the plastic tiles are cheaper, ship in bundles and are lighter than traditional clay tiles. Homeowners with a lot of roof space and concerns over aesthetics may be good clients for the Solé Power Tile, but I’m betting this will be a small niche market in the face of other products that are four times as efficient, at least to start.

Also, passing its UL 1703 testing is important for proving that it can perform well, but that still leaves questions about durability. Solar panels will almost certainly be producing energy in 40 years. Can anyone say that about the Solé Power Tile?

Of course, if SRS Energy can get that efficiency up to, say, 10 percent in future product generations, then I think we’ll find a decent amount of people wanting to try them out, which will lead to their being proven in the field.

It should be noted that if there’s any market you want to go into with a fresh, rebate-eligible product, it’s California. There, residents have proven time and time again that they’re willing to lead the way in renewable technology. Perhaps the Solé Power Tile can ride that wave.

I had a post on the Cash for Caulkers program in the mill, but Sean beat me to it. Since he has said everything I could have said about the legislation now pending, with his permission, I’ll just let him say it again in this repost of his article: — Michael

HomeStar (aka Cash for Caulkers) is a proposed measure introduced in the Senate to “create good living-wage jobs in construction and related industries by providing strong short-term incentives for home energy efficiency improvements.”  It was also designed to “reward homeowners for investing in insulation and weatherization, high-efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment, replacement windows and other cost-effective home improvements that can permanently reduce household energy bills.“ (EF.org’s Talking Points)

The HomeStar Plan

Senate Bill 3177 aka the ‘Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010’

This bill as proposed above gives homeowners a choice of two types of incentives.  The Silver Star Home Energy Retrofit Program and the Gold Star Home Energy Retrofit Program. One nice item in the bill is the Contractor requirements for both sections which include: (1) that they are licensed as required by the State (2) insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for general liability (3) warranties to homeowners that completed work will be free of significant defects; be installed in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer; and perform properly for a period of at least 1 year after the date of completion of the work.

The Silver Star program provides rebates for air sealing; attic, wall or crawl space insulation; duct sealing or replacement; and replacement of existing windows, doors, water heaters, household appliances or heating and air conditioning equipment. Rebate amounts are up to $1,500 per qualified installed measure, capped at 50 percent of project costs or $3,000 (whichever is less).

The Gold Star program is a performance-based incentive program. It is based on predicted energy savings as determined by a thorough energy audit performed before the work begins. Based on this Energy Audit, homeowners can receive $3,000 for modeled savings of 20%, plus $1,000 for each additional 5% of modeled energy savings, with incentives not to exceed 50% of total project costs.

Senator Markey & his 4 Star rating

Senator Markey is one of the Senators that introduced Senate Bill 3177. After he introduced it, he sent out a press release where he stated that he feels that HomeStar Will Be Summer Blockbuster for Consumers, Jobs & gave it a rating of Four Stars.

• Creating New Jobs – Over 168,000 jobs will be saved or created in the construction, manufacturing, and retail sectors.
• Saving Consumers Money -Energy efficient homes will save hardworking families more than a billion dollars in 2011 alone – and $9.5 billion over the next decade.
• Saving Energy – Efficiency upgrades cut energy waste and foreign oil imports. Home Star will save the same amount of energy as 615,000 cars, and means we’ll need 4 less power plants.
• Products Made in the U.S.A. – 90% of the retrofit products for Home Star – windows, doors, and insulation – are manufactured in the USA.

The Verdict

Based just on the items listed above, it should come as no surprise that there are over 1200 organizations and manufacturers actively supporting this legislation. One of the biggest organizations “getting out the vote” is the HomeStar Coalition. Many of these organizations are also hoping that this just might help get some consumers over the hump. Many consumers are gun shy, due to the past history of the Energy Efficiency market. They are hoping to get consumers to realize that retrofitting is the most cost-effective proven ways to reduce household energy costs. Not only can a retrofit help you with your long-term energy bill savings, but the comfort that one can derive from it.

Speaking not only as the owner of SLS Construction, but as a regular citizen, I really do think that we are getting into some serious trouble with all our spending and borrowing that has been occurring lately. We have now survived the Tech, Oil, and the Housing bubbles in the last 15 years to find ourselves in a Government Spending Bubble. If we are not careful when this one pops, we could face some very serious issues that cannot be overcome as easily as the market based ones.

With that being said, I really do think that this can be a very good piece of legislation, which would probably meet the goals of reducing energy usage and probably create some much-needed jobs. The cost vs. value argument I think would come down on the side of the bill passing (even without the typical inflation of benefits that people love to use).  So why then isn’t SLS Construction listed as a supporter? I happen to see a few problems with the way the bill is written, that I feel need to be addressed before I can really say that “yes, this is a great bill.”

In a future article – some of the issues we will cover:

• Duplication of rebates with other programs
• The big issue with the Gold Star contractor requirement
• Certain items listed in Silver Star program, should be handled under the Gold Star program, due to health, safety, and other concerns
• The rebate program which will probably artificially increase the costs to the Homeowners, resulting in less savings than they might have had with an appropriate Tax Credit

You can read the sequel here. —Michael

On Thursday, April 22, 2010 the new Federal Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) law became the law of the land. Much has been written about it, and most of what has been written is pointed at industry professionals. So, what does the RRP law mean to you, our customers and property owners.

It means a lot!

Are you affected?

If you own a building that was constructed prior to 1978, the law applies to you and will touch on almost everything you have done, from flooring to repainting to plumbing. Only jobs covering less than 6 SF (six square feet) on the interior and 20 SF (20 square feet) on the exterior are exempt.

Jobs that fall under RRP jurisdiction must be performed by a “registered company” and a “Certified Lead Renovator” (CLR), and you must be provided a copy of Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers, and Schools (PDF), and sign for receipt of the pamphlet. (The duties of the CLR are identified in 40 CFR 745.90(b). You can read the regulation here.)

What does this mean? Well, that’s a bit gray. It seems to mean that, unless your job site has been certified to be lead free, not only must the general contractor you hire be “registered” (with the EPA) and use a “Certified Lead Renovator”, it also seems that the firms s/he subcontracts with must be registered etc.—unless they’re not disturbing lead paint or dust. So for instance, if the general contractor clears away all contaminated dry wall, s/he could then hire a non-CLR plumber to come in and re-plumb that area. But if the plumber has to remove contaminated dry wall, then the plumber too must be a CLR. The difficulty is in the wording of the language. The square foot rule seems to be a trigger for the lead safe work practices, not the requirement that the firm be registered and the workers trained.

Owners of rentals should take special notice: Not only does the CLR have to keep certain records to prove they have complied with the law, you do too. You must provide your tenants with copies of the Renovate Right (PDF) pamphlet, and have them sign for it. I personally think you should also request copies of all lead practices compliance check lists and tests performed by your contractor for your own legal protection. Reputable firms should be more than willing cooperate as it’s in their best interests too!

Also, you cannot opt out! As originally written, Congress allowed property owners to opt out of complying with the RRP by signing a sworn statement that there were no children or pregnant women living in, or visiting, the building. But last year the EPA, the Sierra Club, the New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, and others sued for stricter enforcement—and won. The EPA website says it has:

propose[ed] to expand lead-safe work practices and other protective requirements for renovation and painting work involving lead paint to cover most pre-1978 housing, and after certain renovation, repair, and painting preparation activities are performed to require renovation firms to perform quantitative dust testing to achieve dust-lead levels that comply with EPA’s regulatory standards. Renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings will also be proposed to be covered and EPA will evaluate whether renovations in the interior of these buildings create lead-based paint hazards.

Whether the opt out rule is really gone or not seems to be something of a debate. However, you can get around the law by doing it yourself. Obviously the EPA highly recommends you follow the guidelines set forth in their Renovate Right (PDF) pamphlet. It is also recommended that you call the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) and ask for more information on how to work safely in a home with lead-based paint. (See 40 CFR 745.82. You can read it here.)

How will RRP compliance effect my job?

Obviously, it depends. If the site of a proposed job can be certified to be lead free, then there will be no impact at all. On some jobs the impact to those using the building will be minimal. This is especially true if there is easy direct access to the job site. On other jobs, however, the impact can be pretty dramatic. The EPA recommends, and your contractor may insist that:

• Alternative bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen arrangements be made if work is occurring in those areas of a home.
• Occupants use a different entrance to the building than that of the contractor. In fact, the entire work area and its communication with the outside should be kept separate from rest of the building as much as possible.
• You remove all furniture from the job site. Covering it up is likely not going to be acceptable—save perhaps for tables and other hard finished furniture with no drawers.
• Air ducts from HVAC equipment be disconnected from the system.
• For really invasive jobs where containment can’t be guaranteed: That you move out! (If you run a child care facility, it is highly recommended that you not only close the facility during construction, but that you implement all of the above in addition to closing.)

What’s this going to cost me?

The EPA claims all of this is only going to cost you between $8 and $167 per job. As usual, things out here in the real world look a lot different than they do inside those government cubicles. Little by little state General Contracting Associations are coming up with numbers and they’re not good. Estimates start at around $500 for a small kitchen remodel and go up to as high as 30% of the cost of a job. Which means RRP could add as much as $6,000 to a $20,000 job.

But that’s just the direct cost the contractor must add to the job. Then there are the indirect costs to you, such as: temporary lodgings, meals out, storage fees for furniture, down time to your business, and so on.

So, what do you think?

Thanks for asking. For those who don’t know: I’m a green design/builder. I’ve been around for thirty years, and I’ve spent more than my share of time in D.C. I could give tours through the underground tunnels beneath the capital.

I’ve been pretty vocal about my belief that this law is bad, bad, bad, and should be repealed. Not because it’s intent is wrong. Not because we should ignore lead paint and its related health issues, but because:

A) It probably won’t be enforced. The EPA has no funding for enforcement. It is my understanding that they are currently lobbying Congress for the necessary funding to open enforcement offices around the country. Given that the deficit is rapidly becoming the crisis de jour, I doubt they’ll get it. So in the end, responsible builders will follow the rules; the hacks will continue to be hacks and get away with it. Therefore, nothing will change; we’re no safer than we were. We’ve just spent more money and forced responsible contractors to take on more liability.

B) If the EPA does manage to get funding for enforcement it will probably make things worse rather than better. Like all Federal agencies, it’s a huge, top (management) heavy agency with no experience in construction, and no stake in local communities and their businesses. Its relationship with contractors will be adversarial, rather than solution oriented like that of the local building inspectors. (If you’ve ever had to deal with the IRS or the SSA then you know what I’m talking about.) Over time, EPA harassment can only drive up the cost of doing business and guess what: You, the customer, will be picking up the tab.

C) The States already have hazardous material mitigation and containment programs in place. Rolling a lead program into those systems would cost us (as taxpayers) almost nothing. And for that “nothing” we would have gotten a real mitigation and containment program with meaningful involvement and real enforcement through the contractors and agencies already doing that very work.

Now it’s time for you to tell me what you think. Have I forgotten something? Leave a comment and let me know. Agree? Disagree? Let me hear!

The following is a guest article, written by Ed Cholfin, AK President, CAPS, PMP and Kitchen and Bathroom Designer in Atlanta. For more information please see the end of the article.

We’re not talking about emerald, forest, lime, fern or olive – we’re talking GREEN! Of late, the word green has come to symbolize environmental protection and those products and procedures that are environmentally friendly. In the construction and remodeling industries, green building products and practices have become an industry of their own. A green home can mean energy efficiency, ecological benefits, health considerations and will provide long-term cost savings, comfort, and safety.

The kitchen alone is responsible for nearly half of a home’s energy consumption. Remodeling your kitchen provides a perfect opportunity to improve your homes energy efficiency as well as make it a healthier place for your family and your environment. A green kitchen is an inherently brighter and well ventilated workspace thanks to the numerous operable windows that provide light as well as heat. Another way to create healthier air in your kitchen is to choose products with low VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds.) VOC’s diminish air quality and can be hazardous to your family’s health; many cabinet manufacturers use a VOC called urea formaldehyde.

A special line of cabinetry, Nature’s Collection by Tedd Wood, has options for water-based and low VOC finishes. This line is also the highest certified green line of cabinetry available anywhere; it has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as well as the Rainforest Alliance. Ensuring the safety of the forests is also possible by choosing flooring and countertop surfaces made from sustainable resources: Bamboo, cork, wheatboard and eucalyptus as well as recycled glass and concrete make beautiful design statements in a kitchen.

Another important element is a green kitchen is storage; special sorting spaces are created for recyclables and compostables. Making space for this in the kitchen reduces your amount of household waste and the compost can help you grow your own organic herbs for cooking. Working with a professional designer who is in tune with your desire to create a green kitchen can be very helpful with this space planning! A green kitchen also has appliances which are rated for energy efficiency and have water-saving features. Did you know you can go even beyond “Energy Star?” Other things like induction cooktops, versus traditional electric radiant or gas, waste less heat and takes less time. It’s rated at 90% energy efficient versus the traditional 50-60%. Don’t forget the high-efficiency water heater in your remodeling process as it affects the kitchen water supply along with the rest of the house.

There is a lot to consider when remodeling your home; add on top of that your desire to do it green and you have even more to think about. Working with a professional design/build firm may just be a sanity saver, and will also help keep you up to date on the latest products and trends.

Ed Cholfin, AK President, CAPS, PMP and Kitchen and Bathroom Designer. “Let’s Play House Together” Visit AK’s website to learn more about Green kitchens, kitchen design and all other home renovations!

Office: 1-866-282-6231
Fax: 1-888-539-6734
Cell: 770-335-2694
Email: Ed@AKCompleteHomeRenovations.com
Visit our Website: http://www.AKatlanta.com