As of April 2010, the US EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule 40 CFR, part 745 goes into effect. The new rule requires that contractors working on houses constructed before 1978 become “Certified Renovators” and use lead paint safe renovation practices and procedures.

For centuries, going back to the Romans, the element lead (pb) has been been documented to be a poisonous chemical, particularly for the very young. In this country it has long been used as an additive in oil based paint. In Europe, lead paint was banned in Europe in the 20’s and 30’s, but the US didn’t enact a ban until 1978. (Lead paint is still used for certain industrial applications including marine paint and the yellow lines on your neighboood street.)

Homes built before 1978 have a high likelihood of having lead based paint, particularly on woodwork since lead was an additive in oil based paint, not in water based paint. Note that some percentage of homes built after 1978 also have proven to have lead paint, even though lead paint was banned for residential use in 1978.

The new EPA rules require the following:

1 Contractors must provide their customers with the EPA lead brochure. (Not a new rule). http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadpdfe.pdf
2 Posting warning signs on job sites for homeowners and visitors
3 HEPA and wet vacuuming
4 Bans heat guns, grinders and sanders on woodwork unless equipped with HEPA filter.
5 Individual certification
6 Disposable drop cloths
7 Containment areas to prevent spreading dust
8 Cleaning and waste disposal practices.
9 Verification and record keeping (3 years)
a. Notification of owner/occupant receipt of the Renovate Right pamphlet or attempt to inform.
b. Documentation of work practices.
c. Certified Renovator certification, and proof of worker training.
10 Exemptions:
a. Home was built after 1978.
b. Disturbing less than 6 sft.
c. House or components test lead free by a Certified Risk Assessor, Lead Inspector or Certified Renovator

Lead, like asbestos before it, represents the proverbial feral cat that got out of the bag and then proliferated and wreaked havoc.

While it should be lauded for its work to finally address head on the issue of what happens when a remodeling contractor rips apart a home draped in lead paint, the resolution is arriving decades after the problem. In the delicate balance between the duty of government to protect its citizens and the duty of industry to turn a profit for its shareholders, don’t hold your breath waiting for the right answer.

While it’s hard to guess what will be the next “lead paint” or “asbestos” you can be sure that at some point there will be something else that we all have in our homes.

Formaldehyde is a likely candidate and an example of another widely used chemical which is known to have negative health effects. It is classified as a known human carcinogen and can cause respiratory distress, depression, coma, renal failure, gastrointestinal damage, etc. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring in many things including wood and urine. In its man made form, industry widely uses it widely in all manner of industrial and consumer products. This includes everything from insulation, cigarettes, pressed board cabinets and melamine counters to that wrinkle free shirt on your back. (Whether you knew it or not, that’s one of the reasons you wash clothes before you wear them.) Building products, particularly variants of pressed board contain varying amounts of formaldehyde.

In 1982 US Consumer Safety Product Administration called for a ban of Urea-Formaldehyde, though it did not result in a ban in the U.S. Europe, also, has not banned urea-formaldehyde.

The other variant of formaldehyde used in building products, phenol-formaldehyde, is somewhat less toxic. Urea formaldehyde off-gasses at a slower rate than phenol formaldehyde. However because it is slightly more expensive industry often chooses to use the more toxic variant for their resins and additives.

http://gsaxcess.gov/htm/fema/doc/CDC%20Formaldehyde%20Exposure%20Reference.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html

CASE STUDY: GREEN RENOVATION WITH SMALL ADDITION – FOCUS ON QUALITY RATHER THAN QUANTITY

The owner of this upper Northwest DC single family home had been renting it out to a group of recent college graduates and decided it was time to return to this wonderful DC neighborhood.

[When they grow a little older, the tenants will surely reminisce about this, their first adult abode: the front door was missing both handle and lock so they used the side door; the kitchen functioned mostly for beer storage; one of the tenants lived in a large closet and the two other rooms were little bigger. The home was dark, drafty and without any insulation. The sole bathroom needed bleach and a sledgehammer.]

After hiring an architect who proposed tearing down the house and building new, Landis Construction, a Design/Build firm, was retained to redesign the home. A renovation suited the client’s budget. The project focused on quality of space rather than quantity. Her goals include a much more energy efficient home with comfortable and more open spaces tailored to her personal lifestyle. From the outset, her wish list included a geo-thermal heating and cooling system.

[see below as-built/demo plan]

After our first round of schematic design, the already modest (15’x22’) addition shortened from almost 15 feet to 8 feet so that the budget would accommodate the geothermal heating system. Because of the thoughtfulness of the design of the interior space, the 8 additional feet was sufficient for the homeowners needs. The 150 square which the homeowner lopped off of the initial design also represents space she doesn’t need pay to heat and cool or clean.

During the design process, we looked not just at the potential new space, but at underutilized space in the home. At the first floor a wall between the existing kitchen and dining room was removed to open the floor plan. The existing front door had opened into the center of the house. To create a more defined entry area and living room, we relocated the door to the side and reworked the windows at the front façade. Brick was carefully toothed in to make the door location look original.

At the second floor the bedrooms and existing bathroom were reconfigured to create a guest bedroom and a larger master bedroom with a substantial closet with laundry center and larger master bathroom. The homeowner chose a unique Japanese style seated soaking tub which we integrated with a shower area.

The project had numerous Green features including:

• A new Geo-thermal heat pump system with one vertical well in the rear yard.
• Ductwork sealed with mastic and carefully sized using Manual J & D calculations.
• Icynene foam insulation throughout including the attic rafters, exterior walls and band boards.
• At least 40% of debris (by weight) was recycled by our roll off dumpster provider, Environmental Alternatives (EAI).
• The eaves on the south face of the house were deepened over the windows to provide shade from summer sun.
• A new attic fan was installed to pull air through the house during temperate months. By installing an attic fan in the ceiling of the first floor (rather than in an exterior wall) and using an attic window to allow air to escape, we avoided interrupting the attic’s thermal envelope.
• Ceiling fans in bedrooms and common areas.
• We built custom kitchen counters with Forbo Marmoleum with a wood edge detail. (Marmoleum is a resilient and completely natural product made from Linseed oil.)
• Fusiotherm water piping throughout the house.
• New Pella energy star clad wood windows throughout the home.
• Low VOC paints, caulks and adhesives. Bon-Kemi low VOC polyurethane on all floors.
• Compact Fluorescent lighting.
• Energy Star appliances.
• Low flow plumbing fixtures.
• IKEA cabinets – no added formaldehyde boxes and low VOC finish.
• Energy star exhaust fans in the bathrooms on timer switches.
• An integrated vegetable steamer at the kitchen sink provides energy efficient, healthy meals.

Like many projects, the design process carefully balanced budget with the owner’s many objectives and wishes. As noted above, the addition was made a bit smaller than during the first round of design. The original selection of tile flooring in the kitchen and addition was replaced with oak flooring to match the rest of the house. IKEA cabinetry was selected for their green features and their aesthetic, but also to accommodate the budget.

The end result is a home without any feeling of compromise, at once cozy and commodious, but generously proportioned, energy efficient and healthy. The homeowner is very happy with her home. She enjoys hosting a dinner club now and loves the praise she receives.

She is also delighted with her decision not to tear down the house and add it to a landfill, as her previous architect had suggested. As is often the case, the greenest innovation was to do little rather than much.

To see photographs of this project cut and paste the following link into your browser:
http://www.landisconstruction.com/our_portfolio/g_05.htm

We would like to extend Kudos to TW Perry for its excellent Green Building Workshop, an all day series of lectures and panel discussion held on February 25th in Rockville.

Along with several interesting and relatively short pitches by suppliers touting their product’s green credential, three speakers offered their informed perspectives on Green Building.

Peter Yost is the Technical Director of www.greenbuildingadvisor.com and was a very engaging speaker. Think of your favorite lecturer or professor in college. The Greenbuildingadvisor website is an authoritative and amazingly extensive source of information and discussion on all aspects of building. The website is non-advertorial and relies on a subscription program for funding. Any renovator or builder looking to produce a smarter and higher quality product should subscribe and use this website. There is a good deal of free content to give you a taste of what’s behind the pay wall, so check that out.

Peter Pfeiffer of Barley & Pfeiffer architects in Texas, the sole speaker invited back from last year, also gave an engaging and illuminating talk. His view of how your remodeling or construction dollar should be spent is a rational and pragmatic approach based upon the idea of the food pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid (representing how you should spent most of your dollars) are the lowest cost most effective items such as insulation and durable smart construction details. At the top of the pyramid are what he and others referred to as “Eco-Bling.” These include PV solar panels, Geo-thermal heating systems and Solar Hot water systems, etc. “Renewables” have their place he said, but the focus and dollars of construction and renovation should first be on durability, energy efficiency and building health (particularly in strategies to control humidity). Mr. Pfeiffer was featured in a Washington Post article in December of 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wpdyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120305116.html

During his talk Mr. Pfeiffer projected an interesting pie chart showing the lifecycle costs of a home broken down into the following categories: financing, construction, maintenance and insurance, alterations and Energy. While the construction costs of the home are 15% of its total cost, energy is 27% and maintenance and insurance are 23%. Alterations and improvements are 21%. (see above) The following three conclusions can be drawn:

(1) While fundamental issues of durability, energy efficiency, comfort and quality are determined during the design and planning processes, the costs associated would not even show up on this pie chart.
(2) Do not scrimp on the quality of a home’s initial construction or its renovation. Choose the best materials and systems you can afford. Over time, durability for a home is like health for a person.
(3) Make the home as energy efficient as possible.

The first speaker of the day was Chuck Miller, principal of Miller Custom Homes in the Tidewater region of Virginia. Mr. Miller built the first EarthCraft home in his area and builds both homes on spec and custom homes. Also an engaging speaker, Chuck discussed his experience with building Green Homes with a focus on energy efficiency.

Chuck made the interesting and controversial assertion that a large home can be a green home. He uses a formulation of approximately 800 square feet per occupant. According to the NAHB, the average home size in 2000 was 2,330 sft. In 1970 the average home size was 1,400 square feet and the average household size was 3.14*. If you look at the last census, (2000) the average household size was 2.59 people. Chuck’s formulation is about right on average and even a little low. That said, it is debatable whether after the 3.14’th person in a home, each person needs 800 more square feet. In the spirit of Sarah Susanka, we would recommend putting your resources into quality first then quantity.

* From US RITA website