U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

LEAD; MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE

RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT

June 11, 2009

	The commenter expressed support for the RRP rule in general.  According
to the commenter:

“The RRP rule, by establishing the Renovator and Dust Sampling
Technician as two new training disciplines in the field of lead-based
paint and developing an in depth accreditation and certification program
for those who perform these tasks, has improved the level of protection
from environmental lead exposure for families with children across the
United States. It created necessary work practice standards that are to
be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities. Such a
rule is a sure sign of progress as lead abatement regulations alone left
much of the issue unresolved. Through this effort, the Environmental
Protection Agency has developed an approach that not only minimizes the
costs and burdens associated with regulation, but also provides adequate
protection against lead-based paint hazards created by renovation
activities, of which the EPA itself estimates to regularly exceed 8
million projects annually.”

	“By requiring that all renovations subject to this rule only be
performed by certified firms, EPA has put in place a system of high
standards that will promote safer and more effective work practices.
Such a system also allows for EPA to establish a more progressive way to
classify a firm or individual renovator as being properly certified and
to ensure that these standards are upheld. The requirement that the RRP
puts forth for the completion of accredited training and certification
process for both renovators and dust sampling technicians is further
facilitated by the fact that they must possess a copy of the course
completion certificate at the job site.”

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter also expressed support for this amendment, by agreeing
that a renovator’s possession of a training certificate alone would
not be sufficient for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts.  The
commenter also noted that that EPA inadvertently omitted the requirement
for post-course notifications from the final RRP rule.  

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter also agreed that the requirement for accredited
lead-based paint activity training providers to submit a digital
photograph of each successful trainee to the EPA along with their
post-course notification was unnecessary and should be removed.  

	EPA agrees, and thanks the commenter for his support.

	The commenter suggested that renovators be issued photo identification
cards (using the photo provided to EPA in the post-course notifications)
as a way for renovators to demonstrate their certification both on and
off the worksite. According to the commenter, this could increase the
initial cost of training courses, but the practicality of this approach
would provide opportunities to cut costs in the long term because a
photo identification card is easier to carry and is more likely to last
for the 5-year certification period than a paper certificate.

	EPA agrees that there must be a way to determine if a renovator has
completed a formal training course and is current with training
requirements.  EPA will include renovator and dust sampling technician
identifying and training information in the Agency’s Federal Lead
Paint Program (FLPP) database.  In addition, the final RRP rule requires
training programs to include a photograph of the individual who
completed training on their training certificate and to submit that
photo to the Agency to be included in the database record.  This will
enable compliance inspectors to determine whether a particular
individual has completed an accredited training course and is current
with training requirements. 

 	With regard to the durability of the certificate, the final RRP rule
requires renovators and dust sampling technicians to have copies of
their initial and most recent refresher course completion certificates
with them at the work site.  They do not have to have the originals.  If
they are issued paper certificates, EPA recommends that certified
renovators and dust sampling technicians keep the originals in a safe
place and make copies of the certificates to carry with them to the work
site. 

	The commenter notes that renovation firms must document that a
certified renovator was assigned to every renovation project, that the
certified renovator provided on-the-job training for other workers, and
that the certified renovator performed the cleaning verification and
performed or directed all other required tasks.  The commenter suggests
that, in the future, the photo identification cards could be “used in
conjunction with innovative on-the-job technology that could save time,
money and resources by enabling such reports to be submitted from the
worksite, directly into the database (as seen today with such
professions as package delivery companies).”

	EPA encourages renovation firms to use technology that facilitates
compliance with the RRP rule’s recordkeeping requirements.  EPA does
wish to clarify that, unlike lead-based paint abatement firms,
renovation firms are not required to submit project notifications to
EPA.  Renovation firms must maintain the records required by 40 CFR
745.86 and make them available to EPA’s compliance inspectors as
requested in connection with an inspection.     

	The commenter states that there are no documents that can be used to
verify on-the-job worker training by a previous employer.  The commenter
suggests that EPA develop a “system wherein workers can be identified
based on their level of on-the-job training and years of experience. 
Such a system would allow for more practiced individuals to earn a
higher grade as they continue to improve their skills.  With a uniform
system in place, not only would firms not have to waste man-hours
training a new individual who already has on-the-job experience due to a
lack of documentation, but also the workers themselves will be able to
have increased mobility within their respective professions, on both the
federal and state level.”

	As EPA noted in response to similar comments on the RRP rule, because
each worker may not receive training in all aspects of the work
practices, a certificate or other form of training completion that would
indicate an employee’s on-the-job training (OJT) is complete would not
necessarily be transferable between jobs and therefore is not
appropriate for this program.  EPA did not intend OJT to be as portable
as certified renovator training.  Certified renovators will generally
have to provide OJT each time a new worker is used, or whenever the
nature of the work to be performed varies.  EPA believes that this will
serve as an incentive for firms to have their permanent employees
trained as certified renovators.  As the RRP program begins to be
implemented, many renovation workers may be trained on the job, but
eventually the majority of workers are likely to receive formal
renovator training.  This will provide the greatest degree of
flexibility for firms, and ensure high levels of compliance with the
final RRP rule work practice requirements and increased oversight for
remaining employees trained on the job.    

	The commenter asked whether renovators are required to formally report
homes where children and/or pregnant women reside that have not been
through the lead-based paint abatement process.    

	None of EPA’s regulations require the abatement of lead-based paint
or lead-based paint hazards.  Once a decision has been made to perform
an abatement, EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities Regulations (40 CFR
part 745, subpart L) prescribe who may perform the abatement and
establish basic parameters for performance.  Because there is no EPA
requirement to perform abatements, there is no EPA requirement to report
houses that have not been abated.  

	The commenter also expressed interest in learning what steps are being
taken to ensure that renovators are being protected from the increased
risk of lead exposure.  

	The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has
regulations that address lead exposure on the job.  Information on the
OSHA regulations can be found at: 
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/lead/index.html

	

	Finally, the commenter stated that “the withdrawal of a renovator or
firm’s certification is the most significant penalty mentioned in this
rule if the regulatory standards are not upheld,” and expressed a wish
that the penalties be more strict.  

In addition to the withdrawal or suspension of certification, EPA would
like to direct the commenter’s attention to Section 409 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This section states that it is unlawful
for any person to fail or refuse to comply with a provision of
subchapter IV of TSCA or with any rule or order issued under subchapter
IV of TSCA.  The final RRP rule was promulgated under Section 402(c)(3)
of TSCA, so failure to comply with the RRP rule is an unlawful act. 
Under Section 16 of TSCA, persons who commit unlawful acts under Section
409 of TSCA may be subject to civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day
per violation and/or criminal fines of up to $25,000 per day per
violation and/or imprisonment.   

  

