# "Disturbance"



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

After living with the new lead laws in the field for a while now I am still encountering contractors (myself included) who have slightly different interpretations of some aspects of the new rules. I realize that you MUST be certified to do paint work in a pre '78 home, but all paint work in a pre '78 home is not going to necessarily need to be an RRP job. The exteriors are more obvious. An older home with wood siding that has paint failure that needs to be scraped and sanded is a no brainer. Many times though on the interiors it is not as obvious when it comes to strictly paint work. If there is an area twice as big as my van on the living room old plaster ceiling, peeling in sheets due to water damage, the choice is clear, but how are other guys handling repaints where you are basically only redecorating-changing colors and freshening up? I believe the best way to protect homeowners and workers from the lead is to NOT disturb it( that's what the law is about right?-protecting people). We have cut back on and changed some methods of prep from years ago to try to accomplish this. We no longer scuff sand doors and trim that is sound and in good condition older homes. If adhesion is a concern we apply bonding primers. I know there was a discussion in another thread about sanding down walls and sanding in-between coats. We have stopped doing any of this in older repaints unless there is some sort of paint failure. The HO has most likely lived with these walls for a while and accept them as they are. More than likely I was the guy who painted them last. They are only interested in a color change or update. It is silly in my opinion to turn this job into a RRP job by starting to sand down these walls and run the risk of creating lead dust-which still is far from likely because the lead is 6 coats back and we are not sanding through the last coat that was applied within the last ten years. What about wallcovering removal where the walls underneath are prepared properly and in sound condition? The paper is being removed with no disturbance to the wall underneath. The primed walls are washed, again with no "disturbance". Is this an RRP job just because it is in a pre '78 home? We have always protected the customer's belongings and cleaned up meticulously anyway. Different guys I talk to are interpreting these things differently after taking the same class. Remember there is still the 6 sq. ft. and 20 sq. ft. rule as well. I know some guys are paranoid about not getting in trouble, and to some extent that is good. The EPA defines "disturbance" as prep work prior to painting that involves scraping and sanding that creates dust. Just curious how some of the gang here are interpreting some of these things out in the field in the real world.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

My interpretation:

If the rule is in the book, follow it.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the EPA and its enforcement arm thinks. Do you really think you will win going up against them?

So it really becomes a matter of choosing to cya or not.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Cliff,

Although I agree with you about "disturbing", do not think for a minute that what I say, or anyone else on this forum, will keep the EPA goons off your back.

Now, that said, one of my painting buddies is notorious for just going into a home and painting over the existing woodwork. NO sanding. NO washing. Which in his opinion is not disturbing the existing surfaces. But the results look like SH!T ! Also, he has bonding issues. 

IMO, slap dash is NOT what professional painters do. A professional is hired to know how to do the job correctly and to do it. Painting over lumps, bumps, dust, grit, and unfeathered edges is NOT right. And we all know that a pre-78 home is going to NEED sanding to smooth out past sins and deterioration of the existing surface.

And personally, I would not want my name on such a slap dash job. 

Now as far as wallpaper removal. That is definitely a gray area. I've had many a removal where I know I have not disturbed the underlaying surface, yet I doubt the enforcement agencies would see it my way. I have advised HO's to have the painters strip because the rest of the room would fall under RRP rules and it would be more cost effective to do all RRP work at the same time.


----------



## Different Strokes (Dec 8, 2010)

I'll be certified this month, only because I know that I'll need it, not because my target market is in restoration..... def not.

Also, from what I've read, the enforcing arm of the EPA concerning RRP misconduct is going to do very little unless "informed" of a violation. They'll need a nation full of tattletail painters and I just don't see that happening.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Best definition of “disturb” I can find is from HUD's LSHR

*Painted surface to be disturbed means a paint surface that is to be scraped, 
sanded, cut, penetrated or otherwise affected by renovation work in a manner 
that could potentially create a lead-based paint hazard by generating dust, fumes, or paint chips. *

_Note: I changed rehabilitation to renovation. To HUD rehabilitation means renovation._

If you know or are unsure if you will be disturbing ... RRP applies. To me, removing wallpaper is an unsure.

If your customer wants a slap & dash interior job, then many times you don't have to do RRP. If your customer understands a quality job and is willing to pay for a quality job, then RRP is going to apply more often.

On a exterior paint, you almost always will have to follow RRP, unless you can get a lead inspector to just check the exterior and clear it.

With the enactment of RRP, your sales approach has just gotten more difficult. You may not even mention RRP on jobs, where you aren't disturbing. If you do mention RRP ... how you talk about it depends on ...

1. Children in the home.
2. Wife thinking about having another baby.
3. Older adults living in the home.
4. Slap & Dash job or Quality job.
5. and more


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

bikerboy said:


> My interpretation:
> 
> If the rule is in the book, follow it.
> 
> ...


 The opt out provision is in my book. It's the gray areas and interpretation on disturbance that I am referring to.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

Different Strokes said:


> I'll be certified this month, only because I know that I'll need it, not because my target market is in restoration..... def not.
> 
> Also, from what I've read, the enforcing arm of the EPA concerning RRP misconduct is going to do very little unless "informed" of a violation. They'll need a nation full of tattletail painters and I just don't see that happening.


 Most likely the case. I think the enforcement( and revenue creating fines) will come from audits of certified firms records. I think you actually have a better chance of being fined if you are certified than if you are not, unfortunately.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

CliffK said:


> The opt out provision is in my book. It's the gray areas and interpretation on disturbance that I am referring to.



You have an out dated book. Opt out is out. It was out when I took the course in April of 2010.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Bill is right, the cover should have a lot of pink on it.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean explained it well.

Here is the link from the register



> Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces, unless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation includes (but is not limited to): The removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or painted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface restoration, window repair, surface preparation activity (such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint dust)); the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings, plumbing, windows); weatherization projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted surfaces to install blown-in insulation or to gain access to attics, planing thresholds to install weather-stripping), and interim controls that disturb painted surfaces. A renovation performed for the purpose of converting a building, or part of a building, into target housing or a child-occupied facility is a renovation under this subpart. The term renovation does not include minor repair and maintenance activities.


And from the FAQ in the EPA site


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Best definition of “disturb” I can find is from HUD's LSHR
> 
> *Painted surface to be disturbed means a paint surface that is to be scraped,
> sanded, cut, penetrated or otherwise affected by renovation work in a manner
> ...


 Thanks Dean, great information as usual. For interior painting, in an instance where the customer is interested in what you describe as "slap & dash", where there is no failing paint and no expected disturbance, is it still necessary to give them the brochure and document that you have done so? If so, how do you handle the record keeping beyond that point once you have the signed paper that they received the brochure and there is no actual RRP work involved? In that type of situation is the protocol of the brochure still necessary if you know you will not be "disturbing" from the initial meeting and walk thru as long as you discuss the options with the homeowner.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

daArch said:


> You have an out dated book. Opt out is out. It was out when I took the course in April of 2010.


 I realize that. I was one of the first guys to get certified in my area and things have changed since. It's funny because I took the course spring of 2010 and the instructor was still teaching the opt-out. I learned shortly after that is was gone. I guess nobody told the company that was offering the class that I took! I paid good money to be taught obsolete rules. We all left with the paperwork for the opt-out.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

CliffK said:


> I realize that. I was one of the first guys to get certified in my area and things have changed since. It's funny because I took the course spring of 2010 and the instructor was still teaching the opt-out. I learned shortly after that is was gone. I guess nobody told the company that was offering the class that I took! I paid good money to be taught obsolete rules. We all left with the paperwork for the opt-out.



There was a period of time when conflicts and confusion were rampant.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

daArch said:


> There was a period of time when conflicts and confusion were rampant.


Still is! With many states adopting the rule, the game keeps changing! My state still has the opt out, but plans to remove it thru legislative steps, which can drag on.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

I still have the old books too.

I need to print out the change from the EPA's site and attach them (rather than buy new books)

I just need to find some free time.

*moving on to next thread*


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

CliffK said:


> Thanks Dean, great information as usual. For interior painting, in an instance where the customer is interested in what you describe as "slap & dash", where there is no failing paint and no expected disturbance, is it still necessary to give them the brochure and document that you have done so? If so, how do you handle the record keeping beyond that point once you have the signed paper that they received the brochure and there is no actual RRP work involved? In that type of situation is the protocol of the brochure still necessary if you know you will not be "disturbing" from the initial meeting and walk thru as long as you discuss the options with the homeowner.


If the customer wants just walls re-coated (slap & dash) and any failing paint (or imperfections) under 6 sq ft per room ... I do not even bring up RRP. No pamphlet. No additional cost.

If trim is going to be painted in the above scenario and no sanding is going to take place (like using a bonding primer) ... still no RRP is brought up and no pamphlet.

I do make personal notes though reflecting why no RRP was required.

The reason no RRP and no pamphlet is needed is because you are not doing a renovation in the eyes of the EPA.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

RCP said:


> Still is! With many states adopting the rule, the game keeps changing! My state still has the opt out, but plans to remove it thru legislative steps, which can drag on.


 Interesting. I didn't realize it was individual states that determined the opt-out. I thought is was the EPA and it was a federal rule.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

Dean CRCNA said:


> If the customer wants just walls re-coated (slap & dash) and any failing paint (or imperfections) under 6 sq ft per room ... I do not even bring up RRP. No pamphlet. No additional cost.
> 
> If trim is going to be painted in the above scenario and no sanding is going to take place (like using a bonding primer) ... still no RRP is brought up and no pamphlet.
> 
> ...


 Many many thanks for all the input Dean-you are a valuable resource:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

CliffK said:


> and the instructor was still teaching the opt-out. I learned shortly after that is was gone. I guess nobody told the company that was offering the class that I took! I paid good money to be taught obsolete rules. We all left with the paperwork for the opt-out.


One of the instructors in my class said:

"..if you touch the wall with a paint brush, you've disturbed it"

(That's an exact quote...burned instantly into my brain because I knew she was mistaken)

My instructors also REFUSED to talk about power washing.
They both said we should already know about collecting wash water rules.

Maybe so, but I'd never attempted to do so... and I still think it sounds kinda ridiculous.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

CliffK said:


> Interesting. I didn't realize it was individual states that determined the opt-out. I thought is was the EPA and it was a federal rule.


It is kind of weird, it's not that they want it, but when they adopted the EPA rule and it was approved by the state, the opt out was in. So it takes a legislative change to remove it. States cannot be below the EPA Standard, it is really just a temporary loophole.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> If the customer wants just walls re-coated (slap & dash) and any failing paint (or imperfections) under 6 sq ft per room ... I do not even bring up RRP. No pamphlet. No additional cost.
> 
> If trim is going to be painted in the above scenario and no sanding is going to take place (like using a bonding primer) ... still no RRP is brought up and no pamphlet.
> 
> ...


Dean, it is my understanding that you still have to certified to make this determination though, is that correct?


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

Steve Richards said:


> One of the instructors in my class said:
> 
> "..if you touch the wall with a paint brush, you've disturbed it"
> 
> ...


 Exactly- This was the reason for starting this thread. There is still much confusion and gray area out there for the certified contractors. I have heard that before from other guys as well. The first instinct is to think maybe some of the contractors aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, or to think to yourself "maybe it's me" but then you start to realize that a lot of the confusion was started in the classes by the instructors and by the EPA itself.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> Dean, it is my understanding that you still have to certified to make this determination though, is that correct?


It only makes sense that a Certified Renovator is the only one that can make this call. However, if a contractor is not doing a *renovation* (EPA's definition) they don't have to be a Lead Safe Certified Firm.

The key word is renovation. 

I use to think a little differently, but was corrected (nicely) by Washington EPA.

However (again), if a non-certified firm think they know the law and what they can do or can't do ... they are in very dangerous boundaries.


----------



## chrisn (Jul 15, 2007)

daArch said:


> There was a period of time when conflicts and confusion were rampant.


 
WAS???:whistling2:


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

chrisn said:


> WAS???:whistling2:


Chris, people like you and me will always be Dazed and Confused and in conflict with some authority figure :thumbup:


----------



## chrisn (Jul 15, 2007)

daArch said:


> Chris, people like you and me will always be Dazed and Confused and in conflict with some authority figure :thumbup:


 
No doubt about it.:blink:


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

daArch said:


> There was a period of time when conflicts and confusion were rampant.


 You used "was", when _exactly _that period end? I suggest everyone, especially if you are going wing it, have a good lawyer.


----------

