Test kits aren't inaccurate, just not quantitative. They have been exhaustively tested and EPA approved them after finding them to have an error rate in the ballpark with XRF. The problem is test kits being used incorrectly on very thick paint films. They are also can lead to some false positives (if you are comparing to XRF). This issue is convuluted by the fact that EPA "recognizing" a certain brand of test kit is not the same as "approval" because it meets a more stringent false positive criterion specified in the rule.

I agree with EPA "recognizing" rather than "approving" a test kit that may not be acheivable under current manufacturing standards w/o understanding the full technical legalities of test kit performance. Someone from EPA recently spoke at a state lead conference and stated that EPA does not officially recognize XRF as acceptable for RRP compliance but that they are "working on this." The problem I believe is that the XRF LBP standard of 1.0 mg/cm3 is arbitrarily too high and outdated and that EPA recognizes a lot of 0.5-0.9 paint is unregulated/uncontrolled (considering typical contractor ignorance of OSHA) and is being sanded or otherwise aggressively disturbed and causing a lead hazard. Therefore, I suspect EPA recognizes the existing test kits, while not perfect, tend to be more protective of EPA's health standards (actually HUD dust levels), which in contrast, are very low.

I looked up two articles on Rep Rehberg's bill and neither seems to understand the supposed "false positive" issue.

I appreciate your heads up on this. However, I think consultants have zero (ok, how about non-detect) political influence. Nevertheless, I think we should argue for or against something on its scientific merits rather than be like all the other special interest groups that are thinking only of their own. My XRF project revenue this yr was about 30k, compared to about $500 for test kit work. Of course I would like more XRF work and see the test kits go away from a business perspective. But ultimately, I want my clients to respect my profession for being scientifically-based and come to accept regulatory cost burdens that are reasonable and flexible that they won't think is wasted money.

I think you threw Jesse off track by saying "no one believes" as if including yourself rather than saying, "the problem is that no one (contractors) believes..." I took it the same way until you followed with the important note that almost no one is collecting NEA data for lead.

https://www.acca.org/archives/industry-resources/government-affairs/hot-air/5304

Ok, I see how I misunderstood you--because in my mind the test kits are more of a compliance tool for EPA and HUD rather than OSHA because the OSHA standard applies to any detectable level of lead. You make a good point that whatever little NEA lead data are out there isn't typically shared. As far as I know, OSHA doesn't formally recognize the 1.0 LBP standard--instead they regulate "lead-containing paint" at the 0.06% threshold, which once could estimate to be in the ballpark of 0.1-0.5 mg/cm2 although they are obviously not directly comparable. Whether or not disturbing non-LBP above 0.06% can actually exceed PELs is an open question--as you say, show me the data, but nevertheless the regulations are clear that compliance with the lead standard is required, and most contractors and landlords are ignoring or oblivious to that requirement. I would rather be concerned with the dust left from RRP projects and how it might affect children than how lead dust might affect those heavy smoking contractors who are typically exposed to all sorts of crud and for the most part don't care (pardon the stereotyping).

Again, the LBP definition is too high and it should and probably will be lowered--as you may know, some states have passed a more stringent definition. That would dampen the "good news" some but I suppose generate more Pb business.

 I have new information.

I spoke with someone in Representative Rehberg's office this week, and was told that contractors in Montana and other states which are mostly rural complained that consultants were few and far between, so they want an accurate chemical "test kit.".   I pointed out that consultants have long been needed to test for asbestos, so the far out projects should already have been more costly due to the travel time required for the consultant.  In many cases the same consulting company provides both services.  EPA's web site show 14 lead inspection companies located in Montana, and companies located elsewhere could also provide services there.

Of course, it seems obvious that they contractors were and are ignoring asbestos, and want to keep ignoring lead.  Thus, they (and many building owners) need mirrors to see why there was demand to create a regulation such as RRP.

I encouraged her to also understand that the regulation is putting good contractors between the rock of heavy penalties for non-complaince and the hard place of losing business to those who ignore lead (many are illegals), so EPA may have shot themselves in the foot by not requiring owners to have buildings inspected.  I suggest giving apartment owners three years to have all of their buildings inspected, and requiring that owner-occupied houses be inspected when sold, or before renovation work is done. 

If someone chooses to have a property far out, everything will be more expensive, not just lead testing.   

 
Of course, this applies to renovations, not simple projects involving only wood.