Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

NARI: New Survey Fuels More Questions About EPA’s RRP Rule

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

More items for Good Technical Practice

A nationwide survey of remodeling contractors by the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) suggests that the additional cost of the EPA’s lead-paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule deters homeowners’ use of lead-safe certified contractors.

The recently conducted survey also found that awareness of the RRP rule is lacking among homeowners, with more than 60% of contractors responding to the survey saying their homeowner clients were not familiar with the rule. Many of those clients said they became aware of the rule only due to communication and education provided by the contractor, NARI said.

“And yet, EPA is poised to add more layers to the existing regulation, which is only a year old,” the organization said, referring to a pending requirement to add “lead clearance testing” to renovations in homes built prior to 1978.

The testing will add even more costs to a project for homeowners, “already resentful of the regulations and extra costs they carry,” NARI said. “The new regulation is certain to impact the regulation-compliant small contracting business owners who are unable to stay within already tight remodeling budgets.”
 
Awareness of Rule Found Lacking

NARI said that, among those contractors replying to its online survey, 61% said their homeowner clients were not familiar with the lead-paint RRP rule. While 39% said their homeowner clients were familiar with the rule, many contractors said the clients became familiar after the contractor educated them about the rule and explained the EPA’s “Renovate Right” brochure.

Also an eye-opener was the response to a survey question about avoiding compliance with the RRP rule due to the added costs of complying:

Question: Have any of your potential or current homeowner clients indicated they would opt to do their own remodeling or hire someone regardless of their compliance to federal regulations because compliance costs them more?

More than three-fourths of those responding—77%—said they would opt to do the job themselves or hire someone regardless of compliance, with just 23% answering “no.”

Increased Risk from Rule’s Implementation?

As a result of the survey’s findings, NARI said EPA’s implementation of the RRP rule may actually increase the risk of lead poisoning rather than reducing it.

“Many of our respondents stated they lost projects because the added cost caused homeowners to hire uncertified individuals or perform renovation work themselves. This contradicts the intent of the rule, which is to protect children and pregnant women from the possible danger of lead exposure,” NARI said

‘Additional Layer of Regulation’ Called Problematic

A primary objective of the survey was to gauge the potential additional effect of a new requirement the EPA is expected to impose, involving “lead clearance testing.” Such testing involves sampling procedures at the conclusion of a renovation project to determine if any lead is present. The sampling would require use of an EPA-approved wipe and sending it to an EPA-approved laboratory for analysis.

NARI said a small percentage of remodelers answering the survey—26%—reported doing any lead-clearance testing currently. The survey found that, of those doing such testing, the additional cost varies considerably, although the largest percentage—40%—placed the cost in the $100-$300 range.

Impact on Business, Additional Hazards Cited

In comments on the survey’s findings, NARI said it “agrees that children and pregnant women must be protected from the dangers of lead poisoning. As an organization it has educated its members on lead safety long before regulation was enacted.”

The association added, however, that “this latest information points to an alarming trend that 1) could cause more harm to vulnerable populations of children and pregnant women and 2) severely impede the economic recovery of small businesses in the remodeling sector.”

The organization goes on to say that in an “already delicate economy” and with consumer confidence jittery, cost-conscious homeowners may choose to hire a contractor or handyman that is not in compliance with the RRP rule, do parts or all of the project themselves, or choose not to do the project altogether.

“Two of the three scenarios above would put children and pregnant women at risk for lead poisoning, and all three put the industry itself at risk, because the rising cost of hiring lead-certified remodelers is too high for homeowners,” NARI said.

“The consequence of any of these scenarios would be another downturn for an industry of predominantly small businesses still recovering from the last recession.”

More than three-fourths of contractors responding to the NARI survey said customers indicated they would opt to do the job themselves or hire someone regardless of compliance with the EPA’s RRP rule.

The organization also noted that a recent government census reports that there are more than 652,000 remodeling businesses in the U.S., and nearly 85% (or 552,191) of those businesses are not registered as an EPA RRP-certified business.

“Additionally, the 99,809 firms that are listed as certified renovator firms will have to go through re-training of the new compliance practices,” NARI said.

 
America’s housing, which continues to age, is in need of renovation and repair work as homeowners choose to stay put rather than move in an uncertain real estate market, NARI said.

“Lead clearance testing only applies to contractors, not to homeowners,” said David Merrick, president of Merrick Design and Build Inc., Kensington, Md. “Once homeowners discover this loophole, they often choose to do the demolition or project work themselves to save on costs. Ultimately they risk lead exposure because homeowners are not trained in lead-safe work practices.

“Low incomes, unemployment, tight credit, costlier home remodeling, and larger liabilities in the industry are a recipe for disaster,” Merrick said. “We will have hazardous renovation work undertaken by under-skilled workers or homeowners because of regulations that should be reviewed and re-established with reasonable solutions.”
 
More information on NARI: www.nari.org.

Comment from Robert Burke, Burke Painting Company in Wilmington, DE, (6/29/2011, 9:20 AM)

I may be wrong here but shouldn't the workers be wearing suits with hoods and boot covers, that way they won't be taking the lead home with them. Even if they have a change of clothes the EPA recommends (states) that suits, hoods and boot covers are to be worn at all times and removed on site in a area. Really, who knows where to go with all this but my men are going to wear suits, hoods, gloves and boot covers so inspectors will know we are doing the best we can, am I wrong with this?

Comment from Cherry Scarmardo, (6/29/2011, 9:48 AM)

I have a question that I hope someone out there can help us with. IF we have a house tested for lead content and it proves to be lead-free are we allowed to do the job without being certified and doing all the required rules on a pre 1978 house?

Comment from Terry Singleton, (6/29/2011, 2:15 PM)

Cherry, according to the Federal Register, section 745.81, 2ii, no firm may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations without certification from EPA unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exemptions identified in section 745.82(A or C). Item A says "If you have a written determination by an EPA certified inspector or risk assessor which shows the home is free of lead paint and/or coatings,you are exempt from these laws and do not have to be EPA certified. If you want to work this way, you really should provide a copy of your test/report to all interested parties and make sure you keep a copy in your file for at least 3 years. I agree with the survey's findings. The only buildings I have seen where they do lead safe practices are government owned. We never have the chance to do work on homes with lead paint because the owners all hire another company that will ignore the laws. Whose lives are being saved by this? Anyone want to buy supplies for doing these renovations? I've got them here and they are all brand new and unused!!

Comment from Joe Maty, (6/29/2011, 2:36 PM)

Robert, in reply to your comment, I'd like to mention that the photo was simply intended to provide a representation of remodeling activity, not a lead paint-related project specifically. That said, you do make a good point, and certainly your position here makes a great deal of sense.

Comment from Kevin Frost, (7/7/2011, 9:14 AM)

I'm with Terry and have yet to see a house that looks like the photo. Where is the EPA enforcement? I keep losing jobs by being compliant, and every day I drive past jobs being done on 60+ year old houses on well traveled streets with no one in a bunny suit, no visqueen, no perimeter tape. Every day I feel like a fool for taking these pie in the sky rules seriously. All any new rules will do is put more nails in the coffins of compliant contractors. How bout first trying to enforce the rules they already have?

Comment from Wyatt Allen, (8/10/2011, 5:16 PM)

Our small firm has been in business since 1927. We have lost two big ( for us) jobs recently when we tested and found lead. The homeowners chose to use non lead certified firms who did the job without any compliance. All this is doing is costing us jobs in a very difficult time.

Comment from Robert Burke, Burke Painting Company in Wilmington, DE, (8/12/2011, 10:28 AM)

I understand what you are saying Wyatt, do something about it. Inform the customer that it is a wrong thing to do by using non lead certified firms and that problems can arise. You can also inform city inspectors etc as to the wrong doings. In most cases the customer was going to take the lowest bid anyway and who needs that work!

Comment from Ron Cross, (8/12/2011, 11:44 AM)

I do not hesitate to call my local inspector contact to report these people that are not in compliance. They are shut down and a fine is imposed. I have been contacted by homeowners who had the person removed from doing their job and they said that the person was fined. I would like to start seeing commericals put out by the Federal EPA informing the general public about the R.R.P. Rule and the consequences for non-compliance. Do you think this would help?

Comment from Robert Burke, Burke Painting Company in Wilmington, DE, (8/19/2011, 12:18 PM)

Lead paint and the EPA are herre to stay. The the rules and do great work and all the other fly by night conpanies will disappear, we just need to hang in there and do the right thing!

Comment from Robert Burke, Burke Painting Company in Wilmington, DE, (8/19/2011, 12:19 PM)

Lead paint and the EPA are herre to stay. The the rules and do great work and all the other fly by night conpanies will disappear, we just need to hang in there and do the right thing!

Comment from Robert Burke, Burke Painting Company in Wilmington, DE, (8/19/2011, 12:22 PM)

Sorry about spelling in my last comment, using my smart phone......

Comment from Karen Sanders, (8/23/2011, 11:42 AM)

We have also lost jobs because the homeowner will not pay for "d..." government regulations. We have seen many jobs done that we know are lead base and the rules are not being followed. We have had more than one home owner suggest that we use undocumented workers to do the prep work cheaper and they would pay them cash.