Why I’m grateful for the EPA’s new lead certification rule
A few weeks ago, early on a Monday morning, 17 of us filed into the basement of the Masonic Lodge in Newington, Conn., for our EPA-mandated 8-hour RRP training. Among the attendees were a few remodelers, a property manager, a flooring installer, two guys in ball caps, one woman, and a painter. When he found out there would be a test at the end of the class, the painter got a little agitated. “Oh, man, I flunk everything,” he said. “I flunked the safe boating course. I flunked my DUI class. . . . The only thing I know how to do is work hard.” I sympathized.
As we learned exactly what was involved in working on pre-1978 houses that contain lead, we all groaned at the finicky procedures, extra time, and additional cost that would be required. And of course, we wanted to know who was going to pay for it. But listening to the complaints (my own among them), another question came to mind, one that I haven’t heard anyone ask yet: Given that childhood exposure to lead can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems, is there a correlation between early exposure to lead and the decision to become a contractor?
I guess it’s just human nature to resist change, to balk at extra work, and to condemn government regulations, but just once I’d like to hear a builder respond to the new RRP rule with appreciation and relief: “OMG. I had no idea that my work was putting my children and my customer’s children at risk (not to mention me and my customers). And thank goodness I now understand the issues, and thank goodness I can handle them with some plastic sheeting and a HEPA vacuum.”
In the end, I suspect that compliance with the new RRP rule will break down the same way as compliance with building codes, OSHA regulations, and insurance requirements. Unscrupulous, low-ball contractors will ignore it and continue to undercut the conscientious builders. But the best among us will do what we’ve always done: Use our best judgment. When young kids are present and the work is extensive, we’ll be meticulous. Other times, maybe less so. But we can only exercise that judgment because we’re armed with the knowledge of what’s at stake when dealing with lead paint and how to deal with it safely, knowledge that the EPA has worked furiously to provide us.
Now I wonder what other hazards we’ve got in our houses whose toxic effects we don’t fully understand. Fiberglass insulation? PVC pipes? Will we learn anything from the example of lead paint? Will we be more careful about what we put into our houses?
The day after my RRP certification class, I installed a new dishwasher, using a braided stainless-steel supply hose. In small print on the back of the package, I noticed the following note: “Warning: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Reliable Crimp Connectors
Handy Heat Gun
Click here to find an accredited RRP course near you.
View Comments
Kevin, while I agree with your conclusion on how the RRP rule will fall into levels of compliance though out the construction trades. I'm taken back by your childish and uncalled for insult to contractors. I reread your little EPA cheerleader article to make sure I was correct. Why do you need to go to the lowest level to try to prove a point. You are insulting the very people that will be in the middle of this legal mess created by your beloved EPA.
I have been speaking with many contractors in my area. I will admit we are not happy with The EPA. But, one thing is for sure we will carry out their regulations. You should know this Kevin, since you completed the course. You are now top on the sue list if anyone in the house showing up positive for lead poisoning once your project is complete until time unlimited. A very simple clause of contractor exemption should of been included, but was conveintly left out. That's the top issue with this regulation, even the lowest IQ of contractors can figure that out Kevin(your words). So instead of wavy the pom poms and blowing the EPA horn. Why don't you put your energy into the issue which will effect the contractors in the most negative way. Promote and help get an exemption clause into the regulations.
I'm sure if you keep "wondering" what else can harm us you would be right there cheering away when more regulations come our way.
Hers's one that will soon be reality, CO2. Leave it to Al Gore, Obama and your buddies at the EPA, CO2 will be considered toxic. Soon, maybe we will need to be hooked up to an CO2 recovery mask while renovating, because our breathing might damage the enviroment. Maybe you can start it off Kevin, by holding your breath, waiting for a contractor/builder to bow down to the holy EPA with thanks giving on how well thought out this legal nightmare of a trap is set for us.
Did you put any thought into you article before you published. Think about this, why leave the door open for lawsuits. It doesn't even matter if the work was completed right or wrong. You can still be sued. If that's the case, what contractor in his right mind would take on such a project with such huge liability. Like I posted before, once that first multimillion dollar lawsuit is awarded. Contractors will avoid pre 78's like the plague. And then what good was all of this regulation in the first place if the end result is that the lead stays.
I have been using tool activated vacs, saw hood, air filter unit, and setting up work area bubbles for years. RRP rules just require other contractors to do the same kind of thing finally. It is just working clean... only now I get to play with a swiffer.
The lead-safe practices are no big deal. I don't like the extra paperwork though. Also not too jazzed about the $300 registration fee after two lean years... bad timing.
When will we cry "Enough!"?
Not that I'm in favor of lead poisoning ... not any more than I'm in favor of traffic accidents, bank robberies, or lightning strikes. That's not the point.
Businesses, at least in the free world, are expected to be regulated by 'the market" - and not dependent upon some paper-pushing bureaucrat with a monopoly on your livelihood.
Let's look at all the various 'certifications,' licenses, permits, and other requirements we pile on the LEGAL contractor. From witholding payroll taxes to this latest one, the contractor is seen as an bottomless pit of resources for the government; a supplier of endless hours of work filling out forms, making accounts, maintaining records, and attending seminars; a bottomless wallet for various fees, taxes, and assessments. These burdens are both direct (to the governemnt) and indirect (required by the governemnt, but provided to other parties, such as seminar operators).
It's no wonder that the construction trades see a larger than average number of illegal immigrant workers. These folks, and their employers, exist 'under the radar.' To steal a line from an old film ... we don't need no stinkin' badges!
OK, so an employer has to 'train' his crew. What good does that do the crew? Very little - as the worker can NOT take that certification with him to the next job. The next employer gets to foot the bill all over again. Sounds like a path to serfdom, if you ask me.
Kind of makes you how we ever managed to conquer the West, build the worlds' tallest buildings, largest dams, best phone system, and invent a multitude of new industries .... without first having obtaines all the necessary permissions and complying with all these new rules.
Nor is it any accident that the greatest economic growth is in places like India and China - places that lack the guidance of OSHA, EPA, and all the rest.
I have always worked clean, plenty of drop clothes, plastic, damp mopping. It makes your final clean up, much easier. You leave the home sometimes cleaner then when you first arrived.
At the very worst, your client will not be happy with the cleanup, so you will go back and clean again. Now, thanks to the beloved EPA. You can be sued, possiblity put out of buisness if your cleanup is not 110%. Because some one in the household has lead poisoning. Try to prove the lead poisoning came from your work, good luck.
I have zero problems doing the set up, the time or material used, as long as I'm compansated. I do have a major problem leaving me out to dry in the event of poisoning.