RRP in California

[Jim Green]

Here in California, where we are not allowed to do our own testing for lead in paint, I just got two estimates to take 4-5 paint samples in a family room remodel added on in the mid 80's. To do it with an XRF gun was a $500 minimum and to have a certified inspector physically take the samples and take them to a lab was $695. Are you contractors in the rest of the country paying these kind of prices?

If there is anyone out there who is also in the San Francisco peninsula area who has a good source for lead inspections, please let me know.

All the best,
Jim Green

[Dancing Dan]

I can get an entire house shot with an XRF gun for that price here.

[Dick Seibert]

Jim:

If the room was added in the mid 80s why are you doing anything? My understanding is that after 1978 you are clean.

[Jim Green]

Dick,
My understanding is that since the house, itself, is pre-1978, any addition, no matter what year it was done, has to be tested. This is one of the more significant aspects of the RRP that makes me crazy.

If I am wrong on this...somebody please chime in.

Thanks,
Jim

[Dean CRCNA]

Dick,
My understanding is that since the house, itself, is pre-1978, any addition, no matter what year it was done, has to be tested. This is one of the more significant aspects of the RRP that makes me crazy.

If I am wrong on this...somebody please chime in.

Thanks,
Jim

You're correct

[VTNorm]

Not even if you have a building permit showing the addition in question was post '78?

I'm doing work on an apartment building (in VT) we have the lead paint EMP requirements for rentals that are similar to HUD and RRP - only the disturbed paint threshold is much lower - 1 sq ft inside or out. The only exterior problem was flaking paint on a deck, the owner produced paperwork showing it was built in '04 (as opposed 1890 like the rest of the house) and the state accepted that - as they should IMO.

-Norm

[Jim Green]

I was mistaken on the minimum charge for the XRF gun inspection. It is $450, not $500.
Now I feel better.
Jim

[Dick Seibert]

Jim:

The threshold legal question is the legal authority to enforce the requirements:

§35043. Presumed Lead-Based Paint.

“Presumed lead-based paint” means paint or surface coating affixed to a component in or on a structure constructed prior to January 1, 1978. “Presumed lead-based paint” does not include paint or surface coating that has been tested and found to contain an amount of lead less than one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2) or less than half of one percent (0.5%) by weight.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 105250(a) and (b), 124160 (b) and 131200, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 105250(a) and (b), 124160 (b) and 131051, Health and Safety Code.¹

I'd say that if you are dealing only with surfaces affixed after January 1, 1978 that you don't have to comply no matter what the regulations state, the code doesn't address when the house or addition was built, it address when the paint was affixed, but check with your own attorney.


¹ http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CLPP...ts/Title17.pdf

[Dancing Dan]

Not according to the EPA, Dick. This is a good site for RRP questions.

[Dick Seibert]

Dan:

From your link:

The Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule applies to all firms and individuals who are paid to perform renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb paint in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. This includes home improvement contractors, maintenance workers, painters and other specialty trades.

First, when a state takes over enforcement the EPA doesn't come into the state, second the EPA states "projects that disturb paint in pre-1978 housing", from what Jim says the addition was built subsequent to 1978 so he is not "disturbing paint in pre-1978 housing", just don't touch any older painted areas.

[Dancing Dan]

Dick - First, the question states "If a renovation is taking place in a home built in 1950, but in an addition that was built in 1980, does the RRP Rule apply to the renovation?" Second, the answer begins "Yes."

Your move.

[Dick Seibert]

Dan:

Who posed the question and who answered "yes", post a link and I want to see the authorizing law. California does not presume lead in any paint affixed after 1978, and the EPA has ceded authority to the state.

[Dancing Dan]

As per usual you exhaust me, Dick. Jim, your call. I'd say ignoring the EPA's own Q&A website seems a tad presumptuous.

[Dean CRCNA]

EPA has the authority in California for the RRP. California does not handle RRP ... EPA does.

[Dick Seibert]

Dean:

That's news to me, do you have authority for that statement? California has it's own department called Cal/EPA. As I understand it the EPA has encouraged states to set up their own enforcing agencies, much like OSHA doesn't come into California having certified CalOSHA to enforce it's own regulations.