On March 31, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final rule on lead-safe work practices in order to comply with the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

This new rule updates older rules and issues new directives. In summary: A new information brochure to be distributed to homeowners; the banning of certain work practices when dealing with lead-based paint; standards for performing renovations that disturb lead-based paint; and required certification and training.

The new rule accomplishes two things: 1) It establishes the methods in which renovations that disturb lead-based paint must be performed, and 2) it sets up certification and training requirements for home improvement companies doing those renovations. With certain exceptions, it applies to renovations that disturb lead-based paint in houses, child-care facilities, and schools built before 1978.

The EPA is encouraging contractors to adopt the work practices now that are laid out in the rule, but the rule doesn't go into effect until April 22, 2010. Starting December 22, 2008 contractors will be required to provide a copy of the EPA's new lead information pamphlet — “Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers, and Schools” — to owners and tenants of buildings that will undergo renovations that disturb lead-based paint. This new pamphlet will replace the one called “Lead: Protect Your Family,” which remodeling contractors have been required to disseminate to clients for the last nine years. For the last nine years Grew Design has been emailing a PDF of the old pamphlet to our new clients of projects that were covered under the old EPA rule. We will now start to send out the new pamphlet by email to new clients.

WORK PRACTICES

The new rule specifically bans the following techniques when renovating an area containing lead paint:

• Open flame burning or torching of lead-based paint;
• The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high-speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control;
• Operating a heat gun above 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING

The new rule requires two levels of certification. Once the rule goes into effect, any company undertaking renovations covered under the rule must be certified by the EPA to do so. There is no training for this aspect: Starting on October 22, 2009, firms will send an application plus relevant fees to the agency, which will then evaluate the company on the basis of the environmental compliance history of it, its principals, and its key employees. Firms will be required to renew their certification every five years. So apparently, Grew Construction LLC will be seeking this certification from the EPA.

In addition, each remodeling project covered under the rule must have a certified renovator assigned to it. Individuals wishing to become certified renovators must enroll in a class accredited by the EPA. At a minimum, classes must be eight hours long and feature two hours of hands-on training. Individuals with previous EPA or Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) training in lead-safe work practices will be required only to take a refresher course to earn this certification. Certified renovators must renew their certification every five years, though the renewal course will be half as long as the original certification class. Training programs can begin applying for EPA accreditation beginning on April 22, 2009, and individuals may pursue certification as soon as it's available. Grew Construction, LLC or Grew Design, Inc. will have staff that will have the required certification for our projects.

CERTIFIED RENOVATORS

As noted above, each project that falls under the new rule must have a certified renovator assigned to it. That individual is not required to perform the renovation or even be on site for all of it, though he or she must be present for certain stages. The certified renovator is responsible for providing on-the-job training to anyone who is not a certified renovator themselves and who will be working on the project. They must also be available — if not on site, then by phone — at all times while the renovation is taking place. This will not be a problem for either Grew Design or Grew Construction.

The rule essentially identifies six stages of the project:

• Occupant protection. Signs that define the work area and caution people to remain outside it must be posted before the project starts and remain posted until the very end. The certified renovator must be present for this step.
• Containment. The rule lays out extensive requirements for isolating the work area to prevent dust and debris from escaping while work is being performed. The certified renovator assigned to the project must be present while containment is established.
• Renovation. Individuals working on the project must follow the lead-safe work practices previously mentioned. As noted, the certified renovator does not have to be present for the entire renovation, but must provide on-the-job training to workers and must be reachable at all times while work is being done.
• Waste management. The rule establishes involved processes for ensuring that lead dust doesn't contaminate beyond the work area. All personnel and items leaving the work area must be free of dust and debris, and all waste must be properly contained.
• Cleanup. Individuals cleaning the work area at the end of the project must be trained in the proper techniques, which include the use of HEPA vacuums.
• Cleaning verification. One of the more controversial aspects of the proposed rule from two years ago was the “white glove test,” in which renovators would be required to wipe down surfaces in the work area with a damp white cloth and compare it to a cleaning verification card provided by the EPA. If the color of the cloth matched or was lighter than the card, the surface was clean; if darker, the surface would have to be recleaned and then retested, with the process repeating until the cloth matched the card.

After a visual inspection confirming that there is no visible dust on the surface, the certified renovator — this is the one part of the process that person must do themselves — must wipe it with a wet cloth and compare it to the cleaning verification card. If the cloth is darker than the card, the surface must be recleaned and then retested with a fresh wet cloth. If the cloth still doesn't pass the test, the certified renovator must wait one hour or until the surface dries, whichever is longer, then wipe it with a dry cloth. Once that step is complete, the project will be considered clean, and no further testing is required.

Records asserting that the regulations were followed must be kept by the renovation firm for three years.

Our firm does not provide any legal advice or counseling and the above it merely our understanding of the new EPA rule and how it will apply. We encourage you to review the material yourself at the EPA's lead paint website: http://www.epa.gov/lead/

This is not an issue that will affect local building codes or permits. It is still an important requirement to comply with. As we continue to see on the Federal and State levels, codes and regulations continue to become more complicated and require one to keep up to date on their development. The result is a better project for our clients and reduced exposure and liability on our part. This is just one example of how Grew Design seeks to stay on top of regulatory issues that affect our industry and our clients. If you have questions please feel free to contact us.

Now, I don't want to sound like a snobbish or elitist architect but here is a list of only a few of the problems I have noticed over the years with such plans purchased by prospective homeowners or spec builders:

• Did not meet local zoning regulations.
• Did not meet local building code criteria for structural loads such as for snow, high winds, frost protection, or coastal sites, depending on where the house was going to be located.
• Did not meet local energy code requirements.
• Did not describe construction methods or materials that are in common use and familiar to local contractors.
• Although the design service claimed otherwise, the plan purchased did not have enough drawings and details for the house to be built properly.

Sadly, at times I have also seen similar problems with house plans prepared by licensed architects, too.

It is very hard to know with the mail or internet order services that you are getting complete, competently prepared construction drawings. That is why I would always recommend a consumer to stay away from them other to look over their designs as a way to understand what you like and don't like in current home design trends.

With local unlicensed home designers you might be able to get a sense of their competence by seeing samples of their plans for other homes in the area, tour some of those homes, get references from clients and contractors who have worked with their plans, and even ask a building inspector if he had to make a lot of corrections or request more information from that designer than what was on the plans at the start. The problem with the unlicensed is that their levels of experience and competence vary so wildly that it would even be hard to know where to start in looking for the right one.

With a licensed architect there is at least the baseline understanding that they have met similar requirements of education and/or experience, which are extensive, and have passed a uniform 36-hour long exam given to prospective architects across the country. Still there is plenty of incompetence in this profession and it would be good to find out as much as you can about the architect's practice and practicality before hiring.

Typically there is one reason someone hires an unlicensed home designer- they're cheaper. That's it. You often get what you pay for. Why someone would go for the cheapest right from the start on their most important investment is a mystery to me.

I have been involved in a substantial 7-figure renovation of a house in Westchester Country, NY. During construction it was revealed that a section of the house’s second floor joists would have to be replaced. We decided to replace the old 2x8 joists with I-joists (http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?content=prd_joi_main), which can support longer spans. This allowed us to open up the first floor and remove some walls and posts. It was a great solution to the problem.

Then the local building inspector got into it. Upon completing the framing inspection, he asked the builder if they were going to install the fireresistance rated drywall for the ceiling under the I-joists. The builder said he was planning to use regular ½ inch drywall and knew about nothing else. Next the builder calls me. Being quite familiar with the NY State Residential Building Code, I confidently tell him not to worry about because using fireresistance rated drywall is not required in the code. Just to make sure I am correct, I check the state code and the local ordinances. I find nothing.

So I send the building inspector an email asking him about his request and telling him I know there is no such code requirement. In part, he writes back:

Whenever we receive plans showing TJI's it is our policy to ask for 5/8" Fire Code Rock covering on all ceilings. It would be a shame to have this residences receive a lesser standard of fire protection than any other in Town…

Dear Mr. [Building Inspector]: 

Based on your strong opinion regarding the lessened fire safety of I-joists, I have been doing more of my own research. A balanced approach seems to be that regular gypsum board cover on I-joist floors is a reasonable cover which gives occupants the time needed to egress a single family house. It is clear that uncovered I-joists are worthless in a fire. The IBC assigns 15 minutes of additional fire endurance to 1/2" regular gyp bd and 25 minutes for 1/2" type x. Various reports and sources make it clear that even noncombustible members behave unpredictably in a fire situation and laboratory results are never like the real situation. Sometimes materials behave better than expected, sometimes worse. It seems, until more definitive results are published and there is more agreement in the industry, it would be wiser to concentrate on regular drywall cover and inspecting for proper bridging, fireblocking, and smoke/heat detection.

Fire reports indicate that a very small percentage of the deaths are attributed to structure collapse and then not all of those due to I-joists. If you were really intent on preserving lives to a higher degree than everyone else you would have gotten the town to enact an ordinance to require residential fire sprinklers like in New Castle, not some unofficial policy like 5/8" type x when the science isn't really clear that there is any demonstrable benefit. The science and empirical evidence is clear when it comes to the benefit of sprinklers. 

Short of that I was disturbed by your insinuation that I, as an architect, and every other town in NY and all other jurisdictions that don't have your policy somehow care less about people's lives. Because you are a building official in NY and not CT you might not be aware that I am a licensed CT building official besides architect. Since I took the exam about 5 years ago I still hold the record for the highest score in the state and I keep up my license with the 90-hours/3 years continuing education besides the continuing education I pursue for my architectural practice. The only reason I bothered to take the exam, become a licensed building official, is that I do care about codes and standards and their application and enforcement in building design and construction. I do care about the lives of my clients, contrary to your assertion.

What I find disturbing is when code officials take it upon themselves to create their own little parochial "policies". It is the same as the old fashioned "that's not the way we do it in my town". It goes contrary to the entire reason statewide codes and national model codes and standards have been developed. If you feel strongly about an issue or you think the science is all on your side, would it not be better to push for a statewide change or at the ICC level? Or is the argument not strong enough to be accepted by code enforcers at large? Frankly, why stop at just the ceiling cover on I-joists? There are so many things that could be better in houses than the minimums required in the codes. And certainly some others would enhance public health, safety and welfare, too.  

I have provided in the PDF attachment and items below some of the available information on the subject that make it clear that your 5/8" type x "policy" is not the panacea you may think. I have attached the latest overview report from NFPA (of which I am also a member). It is very revealing because it does not list light construction or I-joists as in issue in resulting deaths or injuries from fires. In fact it indicates that fires have gone down about 50% in the last 25 years. How can that be so at the same time that framing is getting lighter and we are using more engineered lumber and trusses and everyone except [your town] is using 1/2" regular gypsum board? Could it be that what is more important is the increased awareness and enforcement of blocking, penetration seals, and detection? If you have more definitive information I hope you will share it with me so I can be more educated on the subject. In the meantime, our contractor at [Address withheld] Rd this weekend is either adding the 1/2" type x to the reg layer already on, or his removing that and putting up new 5/8" type x. It depends on how his light trims work out. I thank you for raising the issue so that I would could pursue investigating it myself. I am not quite so convinced as you are of your position but I don't think that means I care less about people's safety. 

Here is a site for firefighters with a balanced summary: http://njdfca.com/Reports.html#NJTF1 

From http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/documents/nltr/nltr0700.htm, this report shows how divided the experts are about the issue of i-joist fire performance.

Also see http://www.cloptonrealty.com/newhome.html

Thank you for sending along the article. It has done little to sell me on the virtues of Trusses in general. This test has been widely discussed in the fire service. Before too much weight is given to this it is important to recognize who is putting on this show. The Manufactures and distributors of Trusses who derive their lively hood from selling this product to the general public have a different agenda than those of us in Code Enforcement and the Fire Service. The article states that a large number of the skeptics in the audience were older Veteran Firefighters and that the New members of the departments easily accepted the results. This does not surprise me because you learn from what you see, if all you have experienced from truss construction is this demonstration then it is easy to believe that they are safe. If however like me you have in excess of 25 years of hands on experience you tend to believe what you see and that is a dramatic departure from what the Industry wants you to believe.  I strongly recommend reviewing current and archive articles from Fire Engineering Magazine or any Publication from John Mittendorf. retired Chief of the Los Angles Fire Department regarding Truss Construction. The important thing to remember is that those of us in the Fire Services are not trying to sell you anything and in many cases it is our lives that are put in jeopardy by these products.