Please note that the JLC forums are now displayed read-only. New posts are no longer possible, but the collected work of building professionals sharing information remains available here as a resource to the JLC community.
According to the law, I'm not allowed to test until I have my certification processed. As of yesterday, it still wasn't so, I'm just preparing myself for "how to". Original idea was to get input on "sticky work situations" and how to address them with the new regs. Hopefully, I'll find my name on the EPA site soon.
Time to give them a call again.
You can test the paint right now. First of all, to test it, you're not disturbing more than 20 square feet of surface. Secondly, the law doesn't go into effect for another week. Finally, I don't find anything in the RRP regulation that says you have to be a certified renovator to do a lead test. Please let me know if I missed something.
You can test the paint right now. First of all, to test it, you're not disturbing more than 20 square feet of surface. Secondly, the law doesn't go into effect for another week. Finally, I don't find anything in the RRP regulation that says you have to be a certified renovator to do a lead test. Please let me know if I missed something.
From the rule ...
Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified renovator, using an EPA recognized test kit as defined in §745.83 and following the kit manufacturer's instructions, has tested each component affected by the renovation and determined that the components are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight.
Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified renovator, using an EPA recognized test kit as defined in §745.83 and following the kit manufacturer's instructions, has tested each component affected by the renovation and determined that the components are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight.
Dean
Sorry to be dense, but I'm not seeing that a person has to be a certified renovator to do a lead swap test. It does say that (after April 22, 2010), unless a certified renovator (or one of the other authorized inspectors/assessors) has done the test and shown LBP to be below that threshold, a certified renovator has to do the work. The earlier poster was saying that he couldn't even do a lead test, which is not the case.
Sorry to be dense, but I'm not seeing that a person has to be a certified renovator to do a lead swap test. It does say that (after April 22, 2010), unless a certified renovator (or one of the other authorized inspectors/assessors) has done the test and shown LBP to be below that threshold, a certified renovator has to do the work. The earlier poster was saying that he couldn't even do a lead test, which is not the case.
Your not dense. May be I'm not understanding your statement/question.
Let me rephrase ...
1. He doesn't have to do a lead test or RRP until on/after 4-22. However, he was wanting to know about RRP. So, we are playing within the guidelines of RRP (the way I understand it).
2. If he asked this question on/after 4-22 ... and it's a target building ... the only way not to do RRP is ...
(from the rule)
(1) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a written determination has been made by an inspector or risk assessor (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at §745.226 or a State or Tribal certification program authorized pursuant to §745.324) that the components affected by the renovation are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams/per square centimeter (mg/cm2 ) or 0.5% by weight, where the firm performing the renovation has obtained a copy of the determination.
(2) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified renovator, using an EPA recognized test kit as defined in §745.83 and following the kit manufacturer's instructions, has tested each component affected by the renovation and determined that the components are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an integrated whole, such as the individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the renovator is required to test only one of the individual components, unless the individual components appear to have been repainted or refinished separately.
------- end of rule
Your choice is to either have a certified renovator, lead inspector or risk assessor) do testing ... if you don't want to do the RRP and only if the test comes up negative.
3. If before, on or after 4-22 ... if a non-certified renovator (or lead inspector/assessor) does a test ... it is no good.
So, if he is not a certified renovator working under a certified firm ... he shouldn't be doing any test whether now or later.
Thanks. Ultimately, what I was getting at is that he can do a swab test now without having to be a certified renovator working for a certified firm. He could actually do a swab test on 4/23 without either qualification as well. There's no law stopping him in either case. We both agree that he can't proceed with the project after 4/22 until it's either cleared of LPB by a certified party or he becomes certified and is working for a certified firm and follows RRP.
"Always-learning" was trying to plan for the project and I would think it would be worth it to do a swab test right now, rather than spending a lot of time planning for containment, etc., only to find that it's not needed. Even if the test is negative, he'd have to test it again once he's certified and before he starts the project to be in accordance with the rule.
I've been testing components on our sites for years. Before there were LeadCheck swabs, I made up my own sodium sulfide solution for testing. I often do it as part of the original estimating process. "Always-learning" thought that he wasn't allowed to do a swab test until he's certified, but he can do one any time to help him plan the project.
I think anyone can still test for lead whether they are certified or not. The big thing is that if they aren't certified (even after 4/22) they would have to turn the job over to a certified RRP company and that company would have to run its own lead test before proceeding.
edit- well- except for pre-1978 houses where I suppose the non-certified contractor isn't supposed to go in to do anything unless the house has already been certified as lead free. But- seems like a contractor wouldn't get in trouble for doing a test, just that the test wouldn't have any standing.
I wonder how reasonable they are going to be about applying the rules. Some- like the requirement for a plastic sheet extending 10' horizontal from any work surface is one that will go the way of the dodo pretty quickly, or not be enforced. If you can create a safe, effective capsule for doing small repair work like a window I don't see why it would be necessary, better or safer to also have to set up a secondary sheet that's not going to have any benefit.
I wonder how reasonable they are going to be about applying the rules. Some- like the requirement for a plastic sheet extending 10' horizontal from any work surface is one that will go the way of the dodo pretty quickly, or not be enforced. If you can create a safe, effective capsule for doing small repair work like a window I don't see why it would be necessary, better or safer to also have to set up a secondary sheet that's not going to have any benefit.
On a few very small jobs, we've actually constructed the equivalent of a "glove box" where you reach into the enclosure using gloves built into the wall of the enclosure. All of the work is in a sealed area, but we were outside. It's a variation on one techique used by asbestos workers to remove cladding from pipes. I'd certainly hope that the EPA would be reasonable about the 10-foot rule where you gone to the extra work to do things even more thoroughly, although I'm not sure that I want to bet $37,500 on it.
Question
Can a renovator use innovative work methods and or containment strategies that ultimately comply with the RRP Rule performance objectives of containment, or do they need to follow the requirements for plastic containment? For example, can a renovator set up a tent-like structure of plastic on the interior in front of a window replacement and a plastic bubble outside the building over the same window that effectively contains/captures any exterior lead disturbance?
Answer
The renovator must comply with the requirements of the RRP Rule for containing the work area. The rule specifies minimum requirements that apply to all jobs, as well as stating a performance standard that containment must be established in such a way that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work area.
The containment described in the question could be used as long as the minimum standards prescribed in the RRP Rule are also met for removing objects from the work area, closing and covering ducts, closing windows and doors, COVERING FLOORS, and making sure tools and personnel free of dust and debris before leaving the work area.
My gut feeling is they want the plastic on the floor/ground even if it serves no actual purpose.
The rule specifically states that you MUST cover the floor 6' interior and the ground 10' exterior.
And that's the problem with the RRP rules. It's one thing to tell me I can't let lead dust escape; it's entirely another thing to dictate exact procedures...
Francois
Truth is just one man's explanation for what he thinks he understands. (Walter Mosley)
EPA inspector, you don't have plastic on the ground.
But, I'm working on the outside of the building on the 42nd floor. What good would it do me to put plastic on the ground?
EPA inspector, the rule says you must....Pay me $37,500.00!!
Don
Personally I would love it. It would be an interesting case- if the fine wasn't immediately tossed out you'd get to go through the system, possibly even to the SCOTUS. I'd risk it just to get the chance to overturn that part of the rule.
Personally I would love it. It would be an interesting case- if the fine wasn't immediately tossed out you'd get to go through the system, possibly even to the SCOTUS. I'd risk it just to get the chance to overturn that part of the rule.
SCOTUS would side with you on this one...they seem to align with Dick on the environment. Wouldn't want the cost of getting a case that far, though.
Chuck, Set up plastic on the roof and make sure you fall off. File suit against the EPA for making you work in unsafe conditions and save the rest of us from this idiocy. The government can give you a nice "pension" of a settlement and you can retire.
"American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest" --Richard Dawkins
Comment