# No Opting Out of Lead Safe Practices



## parodi

From this announcement yesterday at the EPA site, it appears that ALL pre-1978 homes must use lead safe practices without any option for the homeowner to opt out. I hope I am wrong:



http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/LRRP Opt-out_FRM_PrepublicationCopy_2010-04-22.pdf

RIN 2070–AJ55
Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule
established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work
practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978
housing and child-occupied facilities. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out”
provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice
requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he
or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is
not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a copy of the
records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP
rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of
the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to the certification,
accreditation and state authorization requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date 60


----------



## BrushJockey

They've been saying that it's going. Now its gone.


----------



## CK_68847

The opt out happens when you go to estimate the job and see it's pre 1978. The best thing is to walk away unless the person signs off on the lead safe practices. Most likely it cant happen because it might be a rental or kids might live in it. I got certified a couple months ago. If you go the lead safe way, your bid will be super high, and it will be about nearly impossible to get the job. There arent enough officials to oversee this yet, so there will be a lot of paint crews who dont go by the standards anyways.


----------



## BC_Painter

I wonder how many of these student franchises will get certified before working on these old homes :whistling2:


----------



## NEPS.US

BC_Painter said:


> I wonder how many of these student franchises will get certified before working on these old homes :whistling2:


I bet they all will but that doesnt mean they will follow the rules.


----------



## CK_68847

Overall the class is a joke. You pay 150 bucks or so a person then the company pays 300 to be certified. For instance, if you were bidding 5,000 to paint a house add about 10,000 to 15,000 if you want to practice the lead safe way. The owner of the house will most likely paint their own hose or windows because they dont have to abide by the rule in most cases.


----------



## johnpaint

CK_68847 said:


> The opt out happens when you go to estimate the job and see it's pre 1978. The best thing is to walk away unless the person signs off on the lead safe practices. Most likely it cant happen because it might be a rental or kids might live in it. I got certified a couple months ago. If you go the lead safe way, your bid will be super high, and it will be about nearly impossible to get the job. There arent enough officials to oversee this yet, so there will be a lot of paint crews who dont go by the standards anyways.


Are you just now figuring this out.


----------



## daArch

And now we hear from an NGPP member in SoCal that he called the EPA for the pamphlets we HAVE to hand out. He waited 45 minutes on the phone to find out there are none.

I am personally in favor of the intent of the law, but with every thing I hear about the implementation of it, I just shake my head in incredulous befuddlement and anger


----------



## johnpaint

daArch said:


> And now we hear from an NGPP member in SoCal that he called the EPA for the pamphlets we HAVE to hand out. He waited 45 minutes on the phone to find out there are none.
> 
> I am personally in favor of the intent of the law, but with every thing I hear about the implementation of it, I just shake my head in incredulous befuddlement and anger


Yeah, I gave them a call the other day with some Q's and the same here.Same old same old.


----------



## RCP

It looks like the Opt out is good for 60 more days from being listed on the Federal Register, which has not been done.
I did not read all 66 pages, but it looks like you must have it signed by HO.


The Renovate Right Brochure


----------



## ezpaintks

They said that, that was coming. Not too suprised! I'm still wainting on that state of kansas to send me a piece of paper, which I'm supossed to be carrying with me.....I can't carry it if they don't send it! LOL


----------



## RCP

ezpaintks said:


> They said that, that was coming. Not too suprised! I'm still wainting on that state of kansas to send me a piece of paper, which I'm supossed to be carrying with me.....I can't carry it if they don't send it! LOL


I assume you are talking about Firm Certification, not CR certificate?
The EPA issued a memo saying if you had turned in app by April 22 and not yet recieved, they "would not take action" if you worked without it in hand. Go hereand look for this in a box on the right.
_April 23, 2010 -- EPA is moving expeditiously to process firm certification applications received by April 22, 2010. EPA is providing guidance to facilitate compliance and ease the transition period following the RRP rule's effective date. For more information, please see an Agency memo on implementation (2 pp, 762K, about PDF) and a set of frequent questions. (3 pp, 27K, about PDF)_


----------



## CK_68847

johnpaint said:


> Are you just now figuring this out.


We have figured this out along time ago. We will never take a job like this because we dont need to. We deal in big commercial jobs for the most part. For the small house painter this matters. We just took the class to add another certification.


----------



## johnpaint

CK_68847 said:


> We have figured this out along time ago. We will never take a job like this because we dont need to. We deal in big commercial jobs for the most part. For the small house painter this matters. We just took the class to add another certification.


I'm sure you do man, just having fun.


----------



## parodi

CK_68847 said:


> The opt out happens when you go to estimate the job and see it's pre 1978. The best thing is to walk away unless the person signs off on the lead safe practices. Most likely it cant happen because it might be a rental or kids might live in it. I got certified a couple months ago. If you go the lead safe way, your bid will be super high, and it will be about nearly impossible to get the job. There arent enough officials to oversee this yet, so there will be a lot of paint crews who dont go by the standards anyways.


I keep reading the final rule over and over again and I don't think that is what is says. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that you are right. This sentence:

*In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility.
* 
Flipping this sentence around it IMO says, "If an owner of a residence attests that his residence is free of children under 6 and pregnant women, there used to be an exemption for the renovation firm whereby there was no requirement for the lead safe work practices or certified training on this job if the owner checked the box that exempted the firm....but we are hereby eliminating that provision."

So when you say that the best thing a contractor can do is walk "unless the person signs off on the lead safe practices."....well...this new rule is saying they can't sign off anymore, isn't it? The "opt out" here is not that a contractor could walk away from the job (which they still can) this is the property owner's right of opting out of lead safe if they meet the criteria of no kids and no pregnant women.


----------



## parodi

parodi said:


> I keep reading the final rule over and over again and I don't think that is what is says. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that you are right. This sentence:
> 
> *In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility.
> *
> Flipping this sentence around it IMO says, "If an owner of a residence attests that his residence is free of children under 6 and pregnant women, there used to be an exemption for the renovation firm whereby there was no requirement for the lead safe work practices or certified training on this job if the owner checked the box that exempted the firm....but we are hereby eliminating that provision."
> 
> So when you say that the best thing a contractor can do is walk "unless the person signs off on the lead safe practices."....well...this new rule is saying they can't sign off anymore, isn't it? The "opt out" here is not that a contractor could walk away from the job (which they still can) this is the property owner's right of opting out of lead safe if they meet the criteria of no kids and no pregnant women.


Apparently my reading on this is correct. I have been scouring Google News for ANY reports on this major game changer. This came in 6 minutes ago:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100424_16_A1_WASHIN318686

_*The EPA officially served notice that it is getting rid of a provision in the rule that allowed certain homeowners to opt out and said it also was increasing its outreach efforts amid criticism that it had not done enough to get the word out about the rule. (snip)...That change cannot go into effect for at least two months.

It eliminates an exemption that allows a homeowner to opt out of the rule by certifying that neither pregnant woman nor children younger than 6 reside in the home.

EPA spokesman Dale Kemery confirmed that the change grew out of a settlement reached last year with several public interest groups.

Those groups had challenged the EPA legally on what they considered flaws in its initial rule. They viewed the opt-out exemption as a loophole that would permit dangerous practices and create hazards for future occupants of a home or its current neighbors. 


*_


----------



## parodi

daArch said:


> And now we hear from an NGPP member in SoCal that he called the EPA for the pamphlets we HAVE to hand out. He waited 45 minutes on the phone to find out there are none.
> 
> I am personally in favor of the intent of the law, but with every thing I hear about the implementation of it, I just shake my head in incredulous befuddlement and anger


Bill, I am in the middle of writing this column about the RRP and promised the editor it would be measured and non-inflammatory. But this new No Opt Out twist is the epitome of stupidity on the part of the imperious EPA and I am distinctly feeling unmeasured today about it. 

Like the declaration of Prohibition it does not take into account any of the economics and unintended consequences that an ill-advised stoke of a pen may have. (Consider that declaring Prohibition on alcohol caused the unintended consequence of creating the Mob/Cosa Nostra/Mafia's influence in the US and later paved the way for organized crime's influence in unions, prostitution, waste management, crooked politicians, Las Vegas,etc. )

The RRP was reasonable up to this point. A painter could work around it by getting the opt out from a property owner. Now it effs both the painter and the property owner. Like Prohibition, it will create a very interesting trip into not only non-compliance, but a vast array of underground and illegal adjustments to this ruling and the US home owners will be driving the economics of it just the way US drug users create the Columbian Mob and Afghanistan poppy harvest money going to Al Qaeda.

Like in Italy where they can't collect sales tax (or most other taxes for that matter) the EPA has now created the seeds of lawlessness. Like the Mob with their illegal dumping of chemicals in land fills, the EPA will de facto encourage a vast number of willing homeowners who simply will not pay the lead upcharge if they own a pre-1978 home to seek illegal alternatives. It will be a boon for illegal foreign workers since they won't be on the hook for the $37,500 fine nor the civil law suits. Like the coat hanger abortions of the past, when a homeowner wants to have a paint job done for half or one third the price of a lead safe job they will ask around if anybody "Knows anybody who can do it", wink, wink, just like they ask if anybody can get them some excellent bud. Now honest painters who must obey the rules of overhead economics will be up against unenforced, un-lead-certified, unlicensed, undocumented, and uninsured illegals and other criminals.


----------



## vermontpainter

I've already had a couple of homeowners say to me: "maybe we can find some way around this" :glare::brows:.

:no: I have never used the phrase "risk/reward" so much in my life.


----------



## vermontpainter

The one thing that will never be eliminated is the homeowners right to diy non compliance. They can poison themselves, their children, their neighbors as much as they want. The backlash would be astonishing if the govt tried to meddle in people's constitutional right to do whatever the heck they please in the privacy of their own home. 

I was thinking about this yesterday as I sat in the home depot parking lot for 10 minutes watching the swarm of homeowners gathering up their supplies for their weekend projects. Many of the homeowners had brand new carhartts, with tape measures clipped to their belts and pencils behind their ears as they tied (not strapped) sheets of luan or lattice to the roofs of the sentras, and outbacks, and volvos. 

This is a great opportunity for the big box stores to tap into the fantasy that so many homeowners have. They often despise contractors, but they want to be one in their spare time. 

"You can do it noncompliant, we can help..."


----------



## Slingah

vermontpainter said:


> The one thing that will never be eliminated is the homeowners right to diy non compliance. They can poison themselves, their children, their neighbors as much as they want. The backlash would be astonishing if the govt tried to meddle in people's constitutional right to do whatever the heck they please in the privacy of their own home.
> 
> I was thinking about this yesterday as I sat in the home depot parking lot for 10 minutes watching the swarm of homeowners gathering up their supplies for their weekend projects. Many of the homeowners had brand new carhartts, with tape measures clipped to their belts and pencils behind their ears as they tied (not strapped) sheets of luan or lattice to the roofs of the sentras, and outbacks, and volvos.
> 
> This is a great opportunity for the big box stores to tap into the fantasy that so many homeowners have. They often despise contractors, but they want to be one in their spare time.
> 
> "You can do it noncompliant, we can help..."


the paint co's are well on their way.....has anybody else noticed all the commercials on the boob tube...HD, BM, SW, Glidden....I hardly ever remember seeing ads like these for paint in the past...


----------



## DeanV

I wish the EPA had issued driver's license type cards for us to carry. Those stupid certificates are huge.


----------



## parodi

vermontpainter said:


> I've already had a couple of homeowners say to me: "maybe we can find some way around this" :glare::brows:.
> 
> :no: I have never used the phrase "risk/reward" so much in my life.


Remember when American citizen, John Smith, was the Anglo paint contractor who spec'd the job, did the selling, was project manager and got the check made out to John Smith Painting while he had a crew of 4 illegals named Carlos to do the work? How about this:

Mr. Smith and illegal Carlos Riviera go to the estimate. Mr. Smith is Carlos's agent and business manager. Smith does all the same things he normally does except when the contract is signed the deposit check (or more likely cash) goes to "Carlos Riviera Pintura". Carlos gets an extra special kick back from Mr. Smith for his fronting. That way if there ever is any enforcement by the EPA Carlos is hauled in and fined $37,500...only the problem is he doesn't own anything nor does he have a bank account. At worst Carlos may be deported and he will be back with Mr. Smith within a month because as our president admitted yesterday, the feds have been remiss in enforcing the immigration to the US. (Who knew?}

How about this one:

Nunzio has been working the very profitable "illegal painting beat" in the toney suburbs of NJ, Long Island and Westchester. Business has been great all year....unlike business for the lead legal painters. All of a sudden he sees a legitimate lead-legal contractor park in a driveway of one of the many pre-1978 houses in that area. He informs the legit painter that there is a special fee to work in this neck of the woods or "bad things happen." Failure to comply results in the sound of snapping bones. Think this is a ridiculous scenario?....try doing non-union work on a union job site in NJ.


----------



## vermontpainter

Ahh, the seedy underworld of paint contracting...


----------



## parodi

vermontpainter said:


> Ahh, the seedy underworld of paint contracting...


Hey Scott, in 2005 I thought wallpapering was going to go the way of the hula hoop and took a certification course to sharpen very expensive hair salon shears at $20 bucks a pop. These shears can cost upwards of $500 dollars. I fitted out my van with sharpening equipement, a Honda generator etc and went about my area announcing the new side business I had going.

Despite the fact that there are no certified sharpeners listed in the telephone books in my area I found that the region was sewed up by "independent contractors." These consisted of ex-cons who worked the area for cash. (Hair salon people deal in cash and a stylist always has $20s to give to a sharpener.) I was surprised to learn that the ex-cons did not appreciate my new service and I was told in no uncertain terms to leave town in a few areas. I was thinking about doing a screen play about the unknown "seedy underworld of scissor sharpening" at the time, but then decided it would be stupid.


----------



## vermontpainter

parodi said:


> Hey Scott, in 2005 I thought wallpapering was going to go the way of the hula hoop and took a certification course to sharpen very expensive hair salon shears at $20 bucks a pop. These shears can cost upwards of $500 dollars. I fitted out my van with sharpening equipement, a Honda generator etc and went about my area announcing the new side business I had going.
> 
> Despite the fact that there are no certified sharpeners listed in the telephone books in my area I found that the region was sewed up by "independent contractors." These consisted of ex-cons who worked the area for cash. (Hair salon people deal in cash and a stylist always has $20s to give to a sharpener.) I was surprised to learn that the ex-cons did not appreciate my new service and I was told in no uncertain terms to leave town in a few areas. I was thinking about doing a screen play about the unknown "seedy underworld of scissor sharpening" at the time, but then decided it would be stupid.


 
That could do very well as an independant film. Who knew...scissor sharpening.


----------



## nEighter

Still trolling Eh VP? Nothing better to do than act like you are a god among mortals?


----------



## vermontpainter

I dont see a problem in this thread. But, I'm not a moderator.


----------



## RCP

vermontpainter said:


> I've already had a couple of homeowners say to me: "maybe we can find some way around this" :glare::brows:.
> 
> :no: I have never used the phrase "risk/reward" so much in my life.


I attended an RRP insurance webinar yesterday, that phrase has a whole new meaning!


----------



## vermontpainter

RCP said:


> I attended an RRP insurance webinar yesterday, that phrase has a whole new meaning!


Yup, its like: $12k v $37.5k. No brainer. Its fun to say no.


----------



## parodi

vermontpainter said:


> Yup, its like: $12k v $37.5k. No brainer. Its fun to say no.


I got the $37.5 but what does the $12K refer to?

I was just thinking how this new twist that EVERYONE with a pre-1978 house must have a lead safe job may lead to the law's own demise. The problem with it is that not every house built before 1978 necessarily has lead paint yet this new ruling assumes that the house does and places an onerous and unfair burden on the owner. There doesn't seem to be an escape hatch for someone who, by lead testing, can prove that the house doesn't contain lead. Then there is lead abatement. Suppose someone in 1995 paid $30,000 to have the pre-1978 house lead abated?


----------



## vermontpainter

parodi said:


> I got the $37.5 but what does the $12K refer to?
> 
> I was just thinking how this new twist that EVERYONE with a pre-1978 house must have a lead safe job may lead to the law's own demise. The problem with it is that not every house built before 1978 necessarily has lead paint yet this new ruling assumes that the house does and places an onerous and unfair burden on the owner. There doesn't seem to be an escape hatch for someone who, by lead testing, can prove that the house doesn't contain lead. Then there is lead abatement. Suppose someone in 1995 paid $30,000 to have the pre-1978 house lead abated?


If the reward is a sale of $12k and due to lack of clarity from the epa, or lack of certification on the contractors part, the risk of $37.5k would make the project not worth taking on.


----------



## DeanV

parodi said:


> I got the $37.5 but what does the $12K refer to?
> 
> I was just thinking how this new twist that EVERYONE with a pre-1978 house must have a lead safe job may lead to the law's own demise. The problem with it is that not every house built before 1978 necessarily has lead paint yet this new ruling assumes that the house does and places an onerous and unfair burden on the owner. There doesn't seem to be an escape hatch for someone who, by lead testing, can prove that the house doesn't contain lead. Then there is lead abatement. Suppose someone in 1995 paid $30,000 to have the pre-1978 house lead abated?


If testing with the LeadCheck test kits or if you hire an XRF test, you could show that lead paint is not present and then the rule does not need to be followed. The rule gives these options:

1. Assume lead is present, follow RRP.
2. Test, if lead not present, do not need to follow RRP.
3. Test, if lead is present, follow RRP.


----------



## parodi

DeanV said:


> If testing with the LeadCheck test kits or if you hire an XRF test, you could show that lead paint is not present and then the rule does not need to be followed. The rule gives these options:
> 
> 1. Assume lead is present, follow RRP.
> 2. Test, if lead not present, do not need to follow RRP.
> 3. Test, if lead is present, follow RRP.


I see. Resident/Owners can not choose to opt themselves out by choice (after 60 days from now), but a certified lead expert could get them out by a certified lead test. Thanks for that point.


----------



## RCP

parodi said:


> I see. Resident/Owners can not choose to opt themselves out by choice (after 60 days from now), but a certified lead expert could get them out by a certified lead test. Thanks for that point.


Dean is right, but be aware of a few things if you do test for lead.

If you know lead is present, OHSA rules may apply. Think Air Monitoring, Respirators, Employee Blood tests.

The Homeowner will now have to declare it when selling/renting

In some states, that means you have to hand it over to a Lead Abatement Contractor.

Sometimes it may be better to not know!


----------

