# RRP regulations



## Pete_E

It's been some time since I visited this site, and is nice to see that it is still up & running. 
I would like to post two letters I wrote recently. The first was sent to my town and then both were sent to a number of legislators both here in Vermont and nationally. Along with industry leaders I have come to know in my 30 years as a contractor.
I am hopping to start some conversation with other professionals here at Paint Talk.
Pete Ellis, 
for those who may remember me, aka Pete_E & Paint Can Pete 

Regretfully, respectfully, but publicly, I would like to withdraw from the bidding of the exterior painting of the municipal building and police department in Wilmington, Vermont. With the new federal and state law regarding lead based paint, non-compliance of any or all of the procedures I have been certified in (Essential Maintenance Practices [EMPs], and EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting [RRP] Rule) would result in heavy penalties. My hands, as with any contractor taking on this project, are tied to use lead-safe work practices spelled out by this law. 

Act 176 requires anyone who renovates a home built before 1978 to use only lead-safe work practices, and prohibits activities such as removing lead-based paint by dry scraping, machine sanding and high-pressure washing. Pre 1978 buildings are presumed to be lead-based, unless a lead inspector or lead risk assessor, using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers, has determined it is not lead-based. 

My one thought was to have the building professionally staged. While costing the town a considerable amount of money, it would bring the labor costs down to a minimum with the elimination of ladder time and traffic control. My concern is not with the law, as I know the health issues lead dust and paint chips can cause. My concern is of the labor-intensive practices I have to abide by in order to contain what I remove. 

The bacteria on the walls of the main level, left behind by the flood waters, along with road dirt and diesel exhaust on the upper levels, have to be removed to ensure the longevity of the new coating. I can no longer use a power washer to do this in a cost effected manner. Any paint chips that may fall from a hand washing would have to be screened (filtered), in order to be contained, and disposed of properly. That being the case, my question (which is not clearly addressed in the Vt. law) would be if the water would have to be contained as well. 

I can no longer use a mechanical sander, even though it is connected to a HEPA Vacuum system, because the state does not recognize this as proper containment of the dust. The procedure calls for a mist of water followed by a hand sanding with a piece of sand paper. Proper preparation to insure the longevity of the new coating is to have the transition between what is scraped off to what is not, be as smooth as possible to eliminate premature failure of that area. The time involved and labor costs in these two aspects alone are astronomical, and could bring my very rough estimate at this time to be as high as $45,000.00 to $50,000.00. It is also very likely that the town will be faced with an inferior paint job that will prematurely fail, resulting in the high cost, and these same regulations again in as little as 3 or 4 years. 

I do feel my production methods of handling a project such as this could benefit the town, and the exposure would enhance my business in the short term, but by complying to these regulations, and risking an inferior paint job, It would jeopardize my business by labeling me as the person who painted the building for such a high cost just a few years prior. I feel uncomfortable profiting from a law that I feel needs to be reviewed in regards to the dwellings that fall into this criteria, and of the homeowner who is faced with the financial ramifications. I would be willing to work with you in finding a cost effective, but legal solution in resolving this situation, while ensuring a quality paint job for the town. 

The asbestos scare was big in of itself, but was mainly contained to the industrial and commercial fields and had a group people or investors paying for the removal of it, whereas lead paint affects the individual homeowner, who is faced with the cost, and the fact that they will have to deal with these issues once again in the near future.

Peter Ellis

Feb. 13, 2012

My concern is not with the law itself as it is with the understated labor intensive costs in abiding to the EPA’s regulations in containing the lead paint & dust. 

What needs to be contained as well is the can of worms opened by these EPA regulations. These costs on this particular job are absorbed by the tax payers in the community. What is hard for me to justify is of the individual home owner who is faced with the financial ramifications. I’ve been told by the instructors of the certifications I have received that this is an opportunity for us to make a lot of money. My feeling is that it is an opportunity for me to legally take advantage of the unsuspecting home owner. 

The lead was outlawed in 1978 and did not even have to be disclosed in the sale of such properties until the 90’s. The fault is not of the home owners who were never educated as to the dangers of lead, nor did they have an options before that time. I’ve also been told a number of times over the years that there was no new technology available to replace the lead at the time it was removed from the paint. Lead is flexible and would expand & contract with the movement of the house. It was one of the best qualities as an additive to paints, and is why older customers would say that the old time painters could make their paint jobs last for a long time. The 100% acrylic technology within the last 10 years is as flexible as the lead of years ago. Between the lead of old and the acrylic of today the flexibility of the additives were not the same. As the lead expanded, the more brittle coating would not. That is one of the main reasons why these older houses had peeling problems. 

A short story for what it’s worth. One of the first houses I painted was in 1979. It was the home of a friend’s Mom. She had bought the paint which was the Sears Weatherbeater. On the label of these particular cans, underneath the word weatherbeater was the word Rubberized Paint. At the time it struck me as odd because I have used the weatherbeater before without that added labeling. It was a thick bodied paint that took some getting used too as far as the brushing ability, but it covered very good. Because of my curiosity and for the fact that it was my friend’s Mom, I checked the coating every year for 17 or so years finding no failure. The house was sold to his sister when his Mom died and she had it painted it only to change the color. I would have to say that my paint job would’ve lasted at least 20 years. I wish I had one of those old cans of paint, because In the past couple of years I’ve called Sears over 20 times just to talk to different representatives about the rubberized paint and no one seams to know what I am talking about. Speculate what you want and the reasons for it, but I believe that at the time the acrylic technology was there to replace the lead. If that is the case, where does the fault really lie. Certainly not with the home owner. 

The lead issue in this country has become a huge issue. Whether or not we own a home that falls under the EPA pre 78 criteria, we are all in this together There should be funding available to off set the cost of non-conforming as opposed to conforming to the labor costs involved in these lead safe practices regarding these regulations. 

Is it just me, or do some of you have feeling about these regulations spelled out in this new law. There must be a more realistic financial solution to this lead problem.

Peter Ellis


----------



## CliffK

Any painter who spends anytime in _this_ area will quickly realize that the "old fashioned exterior paint job" is little by little becoming extinct. There is much more exterior work in this area for siding mechanics than there is for exterior painting teams. Even prior to the lead laws, the majority of homes in this area have been covered in vinyl. All new construction is primarily "maintenance free" exteriors. Some older homes are on their 2nd or even third time around with newer siding. A lot of the vertical cedar, that was the craze in the '80's has been replaced or covered. Many of the older more historic type homes that have been the hold outs have reached the tipping point with the RRP regs. There are still some that are painted, but it is less by the day. The tudor styles are difficult to side and have look decent, but I am even seeing the trim on those covered and only the masonry left to paint. All the r & d $ in siding is spent on having it look more and more like wood siding and they are doing a better and better job. When you compare the cost of a professional quality paint job on an older home that needs significant prep, then include the RRP compliance, to a siding job that people have the perception will last "forever" it's almost a no brainer. People have come to resent what has become an expensive cycle of painting. Granted many have brought it on themselves going with less costly inferior paint work over the years, but what's done is done. The ones who can afford it are becoming eager to opt out and go for the siding. I'm sure this will vary from area to area, but those are my observations here.

I appreciate your letter, frustration and intention Pete( you make some very good points), but unfortunately I think you are making a point for what I have mentioned above. I too have spent a lifetime in this industry....the times, they are a changing.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Point One

This really doesn't have anything to do with RRP. It has to do with Vermont laws, which I'm not familiar with.

Under RRP, you can pressure wash away, use sanding machines (without HEPA) and use your own judgement about the best way you want to do the project. This is because these are not considered target housing and do not fall under RRP.

Point Two

Large projects like this, usually involve other workers (employees or sub-contractors). Since it most likely does, you are probably following OSHA and the additional cost of complying with RRP (if it covered this) would not add significantly to the cost.

Point Three

Is the city requiring all contractors to follow lead safe practices? If so, then the most competitive contractor should win. If not, then you probably would have not been competitive anyway (since it seems you would follow some forms of lead safe practices).

Point Four

The EPA came way late to the lead safe party ... I agree. With that understood ... what was the best approach that wouldn't cost homeowners extra money, but protects people? In my opinion ... there really isn't any. It's just going to cost. For those who own a pre-1978 home ... it was just bad timing.


----------



## mikemb72

*flexibility*

the problem with latex paint for an exterior is not flexibility, it is the fact that it does not penetrate the pores of the surface and is not breathable.


----------



## chrisn

mikemb72 said:


> the problem with latex paint for an exterior is not flexibility, it is the fact that it does not penetrate the pores of the surface and is not breathable.


 

?:blink::blink:


----------



## StripandCaulk

mikemb72 said:


> the problem with latex paint for an exterior is not flexibility, it is the fact that it does not penetrate the pores of the surface and is not breathable.


Mike i had this crazy thing happen to me the other day, i was applying a latex solid stain and i could actually watch it sink into the wood. Im still mind boggled. I was using superpaint(its latex) on stucco, and again i saw the paint being taken into the substrate. Idk whats going on man, its trippy. I think the martians have landed on earth or something


----------



## chrisn

StripandCaulk said:


> Mike i had this crazy thing happen to me the other day, i was applying a latex solid stain and i could actually watch it sink into the wood. Im still mind boggled. I was using superpaint(its latex) on stucco, and again i saw the paint being taken into the substrate. Idk whats going on man, its trippy. I think the martians have landed on earth or something


 
I think they have messed with his mind


----------



## mikemb72

chrisn said:


> I think they have messed with his mind


Latex paint has zero penetration into the wood pores.


----------



## StripandCaulk

mikemb72 said:


> Latex paint has zero penetration into the wood pores.


Mike, i would disagree with you. Latex paint has penetration into wood pores. Its just not as good as primer:thumbsup:


----------



## chrisn

mikemb72 said:


> Latex paint has zero penetration into the wood pores.


Well the latex paint I use here on the planet earth does.


----------



## TJ Paint

Latex breathes but it is true it doesnt penetrate substrates well. 

Thinner latex products like stains do better than full bodied paint.

Have a great day everybody. My 2 yr old has been whining and crying for the last 1.5 hrs....


----------



## mikemb72

TJ Paint said:


> Latex breathes but it is true it doesnt penetrate substrates well.
> 
> Thinner latex products like stains do better than full bodied paint.
> 
> Have a great day everybody. My 2 yr old has been whining and crying for the last 1.5 hrs....


theres a difference between true penetration into the wood and just "key" on the surface. Water based paints will sink into the small variations on the surface of the wood but will not sink into the actual wood pores.

If paint is peeling and forming chips on the surface and becoming detached, then how has it penetrated? If you scrape off a chip and you see wood underneath, that proves the paint merely formed a surface film.
If you take a piece of wood and paint it, then let it dry, then saw that piece of wood across the grain, you can measure the actual surface penetration of whatever material you used by viewing a cross section of the surface.


----------



## StripandCaulk

mikemb72 said:


> theres a difference between true penetration into the wood and just "key" on the surface. Water based paints will sink into the small variations on the surface of the wood but will not sink into the actual wood pores.
> 
> If paint is peeling and forming chips on the surface and becoming detached, then how has it penetrated? If you scrape off a chip and you see wood underneath, that proves the paint merely formed a surface film.
> If you take a piece of wood and paint it, then let it dry, then saw that piece of wood across the grain, you can measure the actual surface penetration of whatever material you used by viewing a cross section of the surface.


 
Do you not use primers? the job of the primer is to penetrate the pores, seal the surface and give something for the paint to bond too. Personally oil paint for exteriors isnt better than latex nowadays..latex breathes better and it is more flexible than oil. also very washable and doesnt grow mold/mildew as easily as an oil does. 

IF paint is peeling/ forming chips on the surface it is failing..and that could be for a number of different reasons. That does not mean it did not penetrate the pores of the wood. I can scrape off a chip of paint on any wood sided house, and see the wood underneath it. chances are the whole house is not a total failure..and i can scrape it back to a point where it is not peeling. sand th edges to feather in..prime and paint with latex. and that will be fine for at least another 7 years if i did it right. 

Do you have some paint that is so damn good that it will never fail and when it does..you scrape it back and even though its only a couple mils thick to begin with..you dont see wood?


----------



## wamacher

*New Pressure on the EPA RRP*

This appeared on the Check4Lead.com website today: 
http://archive.mlgngo.com/?u=4e2a6330465c8ffcaa696a5a16639176&id=afd27bb6&e=0acac546

The original on the Office of the Inspector General's website is at:

http://www.dealer.org/files/EPA%20IG%20report%20Julu%202012.pdf

+++++++++++ From the Inspector General's Office ++++++++++++++++
Although EPA stated that its economic analysis underwent extensive intra-Agency review and was approved by the Office of Management Budget prior to publication, EPA used limited data to develop its cost and benefit estimates for the Lead Rule. We did not conclude that EPA violated policies or failed to follow requirements in conducting its analysis. Rather, EPA conducted its economic analysis under time pressures and subsequently used its discretion to complete its analysis using some limited data and approaches. EPA’s economic analyses were limited in that:


The estimated cleaning and containment work practice costs to comply with the rule were not based on a statistically valid survey. 

EPA did not quantitatively analyze or include other costs outlined in Agency guidance, such as costs due to increased consumer prices, costs of unemployment, and costs to markets indirectly affected by the rule. 

EPA did not include the cost to renovation businesses of securing 
additional liability insurance. 

EPA recommended additional work practices in a training program that,while not required by the rule, would likely result in additional cost because the regulated community would view these practices as required.
Further, an EPA science advisory committee reported that limitations in the Agency’s data for estimating intelligence quotient changes in children exposed to lead dust during renovations would not adequately support a rigorous cost benefit analysis. In our opinion, the data limitations in EPA’s analyses limit the reliability of the rule’s stated cost and benefits. In public rulemaking documents, EPA acknowledged several of the limitations. EPA’s obligation under terms of a settlement agreement to issue the Lead Rule by March 2008, the use of discretion in conducting the economic analysis, and EPA’s subsequent assumption that the costs of the rule were low limited EPA’s approach in estimating the cost and benefits of the rule.
+++++++++ End +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If those of us who are affected by the cost of the RRP the rule are on our toes, every contractor and rental owner should follow up and send letters and emails of support to their Congressperson, copied to the Office of the Inspector General in support. This should result in thousands letters of support to the Inspector General’s Office, [email protected]

I have not met a contractor yet who is in favor of the rule. In my experience very few are complying. Contractors web sites have hundreds of comments almost exclusively, if not exclusively against this rule. There are, however a few contractor’s, that are using scare tactics, taking advantage of the rule to make more money. 

Now, I am not against containing lead dust in a cost effective and meaningful way. I believe that it can be done by educating the public and by contractors and landlords using reasonable, unenforced, rational means. I am very much against the government hiring a needless budget busting corps of agents to enforce the rule. 

The RRP rule is the most concise, nitpicking, absurd rule I have ever read. It is far too lengthy for anyone to successively comply. It’s like setting a speed limit where you must always s drive between 64.9 and 65.1 MPH or you get a ticket, i.e. impossible. lt is enough red tape to cover the Pacific Ocean. I really don’t want my government doing absurd costly things like the lead rule. The rule is way overkill for the problem. 

Let’s all get off our butts and make our congresspersons aware of this change of events. It’s important. It’s fun writing to your congresspersons, sometimes you even get a personal reply. This is a big break for us who want to see the law changed. Let your contractor friends know about this too.

Here is a list of congresspersons and federal government officials. Please take action this is an opportunity that may not repeat itself: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Please write. Note: write up your comments first in Word or Notebook and then paste them into each congressperson’s website email form. The Congressperson's form disappears after you send it.

Wayne


----------



## Roamer

The cost to the government to implement this rule and to maintain the current enforcement level is minimal at best. The bulk of any of the costs are suffered by both the consumer that seeks to comply and the contractor who stays compliant.


----------



## dpeters

StripandCaulk said:


> Mike i had this crazy thing happen to me the other day, i was applying a latex solid stain and i could actually watch it sink into the wood. Im still mind boggled. I was using superpaint(its latex) on stucco, and again i saw the paint being taken into the substrate. Idk whats going on man, its trippy. I think the martians have landed on earth or something


:notworthy:


----------

