RRP Rule | Check4Lead.com

Please note this is not intended to be a complete discussion of all the information related to the issues covered in the “Settlement Agreement” signed by the EPA. We only hope to give you a heads-up and maybe you will communicate your opinion to your congressmen and to the EPA Oversight Committee.

In 2008, the Sierra Club filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit for Review of the EPA’s LRRP Rule-other entities joined in the litigation (click here to see the Settlement Agreement) In accordance with the settlement, The EPA agreed to address what was defined in the “Settlement Agreement” as short comings prior to the RRP rule effective April 22, 2010. One of the items is called the “Clearance Proposal” in paragraph 7 of the “Settlement Agreement”. In paragraph 7.b the EPA agreed to take the final action on the “Clearance Proposal” on or before July 15, 2011. Under some constraints, Paragraph 7.c allows the EPA to extend the deadline in Paragraph 7.b by up to four months.

This could require dust wipe sampling and lab test verification on un-carpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area after the follow types of renovation:

o Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
o Removal or replacement of window or door frames.
o Scraping 60 square feet or more of painted surfaces.
o Removing more than 40 square feet of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures.
o Removal of more than 6 square feet of plaster and lathe building component.

The EPA estimates it could add $160.00 per room for the testing cost for a project. Your cost could skyrocket if you have to pay a certified lead dust sampler every time you replace a door jamb or 40 feet of trim.

CONCLUSION

Who paid the legal fees for the attorneys that litigated the “Settlement Agreement” against the United States Environmental Protection Agency? If we, the taxpayer, footed the bill, how much much did it cost us? Sorry, only a question.

Has the Sierra Club conducted studies to determine that cleaning verifications are not accurate? I have not seen a single study that indicates this “Clearance Testing” rule is needed-we need more information. I think they just assumed that we need yet another rule to keep us honest. In my opinion, it is simple enough to use the existing 8 hour training program already in place for a “Clearance Testing” Certification. I think contractors will follow the RRP procedures because it is part of their ethic as well as to reduce their legal exposure and possible EPA fines.

EPA could simply refine the existing RRP Procedure for final clean-up verification. Currently you use a test wipe on the effected surfaces and compare it to a cleaning verification card. If it does not pass, the surfaces are cleaned as many times as necessary to get the desired result. If this process is inadequate, find one that will work-like maybe using statically charged wipes that change color when exposed to lead. Adding an amendment that will require third party testing will add another expense to the cost of compliance. In addition, are there enough laboratories to handle the additional clearance tests in a timely manner?

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. The objective of the RRP Rule is to reduce lead poisoning exposure for children and adults. The EPA could add so many regulations that more property owners will find a way around the rules. They may do the job (incorrectly) themselves, or hire contractors who are not RRP-certified. Consequently, we may have less compliance rather that more.

P.S., Oh, buy the way, we are renovators and not in the lead abatement business. I think the water can get a little muddy here.

ABT