EPA's New Lead Renovation/Repair Rules

[wptski]

I got this earlier this month from a vendor about "EPA?s NEW LEAD RENOVATION, REPAIR AND SAFETY RULE".

Here's a link to the newsletter: http://www.professionalequipment.com/images/email/html/100301-email-all.html?source=pe100301-news

 

[ohmhead]

Well whats next everything today is unsafe .

We cant even climb a ladder its unsafe .

Most electronics devices today are going lead free components lead free soldering & practices lead free .

I can not wait to put that lead free suit on over the PPE stuff we ware now with the safety harness on .

 

[dreamsville]

Thanks again Bill for the reminder. I warned everybody a while ago but I'm sure not many saw or remembered it.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=108264

 

[kwired]

how many people are going to follow these rules until they are forced to.

who will enforce these rules.

they may be EPA regulations but until local jusridictions start to enforce them they are just ideas to most people.

I am also willing to bet that the lead levels on newer sites is higher than most people realize.

 

[dreamsville]

I would imagine any government related work I would be careful to investigate it before quoting or starting. As far as regular everyday stuff you're probably right, nobody will know the difference unless somebody squawks.

As for myself if I run into something like that, (can't say that I have up to this point), I'd follow the law. Ain't worth a lawsuit down the line.

 

[kwired]

About 8-10 years ago I was working on several government funded housing rehabilitation projects. The coordinator of these projects had a lead safety training program for all involved contractors. Since the projects were funded with government funds we were supposedly required to follow lead safety requirements at that time.

The training was provided by a third party who was also the lead safety compliance inspector (or some similar title). I found a lot of the imformation to be very interesting, but was very disappointed with the inspection procedures that were presented to us, although I never ended up having any issues with final inspections because I was not the last one on project at clean up time.

According to the information given at the time they wanted the place super clean as far as lead contamination goes. The stupid thing was if not inspected right away it would fail because anyone walking into the house had a good chance of contaminating the floor enough that it would not pass. Most of the people in attendance felt they were way too extreme with the inspection process.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

This is a real can of worms that the EPA has managed to get passed into LAW. GS 130A-453.12-453-21. Any house or facility built prior to 1978. This impacts all trades in that all have the potential to "disturb" lead-based paint. You must be certified to deal with lead-based paint. I feel that since EPA has no one on the payroll it is going to be dumped on Code Enforcement to deny permits on these jobs unless someone on this job can prove they are certified. DDBS in my opinion.

 

[wtucker]

Enforcement will be strictly in the hands of the EPA, unless they get an agreement with states for the states to do it. EPA's fines are way bigger than OSHA's. I have a friend who's a GC who got hit by nearly $500,000 in federal fines for lead violations. Their method of operation is to levy the biggest fines possible and put it in the papers to scare everybody else into compliance. OSHA's been doing that, too.

The lead rule has nothing to do with protecting workers. It's to protect the building occupants, particularly kids. Not for nothing, complying with the rule is smart for another reason: lead poisoning effects kids faster than adults, and causes behavioral problems, learning disorders and attention deficit disorders--which translate into a lifetime of decreased earning power and immeasurable financial loss. When their mommies figure that out, you'll be going to court.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

Enforcement will be strictly in the hands of the EPA, unless they get an agreement with states for the states to do it. EPA's fines are way bigger than OSHA's. I have a friend who's a GC who got hit by nearly $500,000 in federal fines for lead violations. Their method of operation is to levy the biggest fines possible and put it in the papers to scare everybody else into compliance. OSHA's been doing that, too.

The lead rule has nothing to do with protecting workers. It's to protect the building occupants, particularly kids. Not for nothing, complying with the rule is smart for another reason: lead poisoning effects kids faster than adults, and causes behavioral problems, learning disorders and attention deficit disorders--which translate into a lifetime of decreased earning power and immeasurable financial loss. When their mommies figure that out, you'll be going to court.

A PAINTER friend of mine died last year at the age of 83. He was exposed to lead based paint for 83 years. He smoked a pack of unfiltered cigaretts for 70+ of those years and he drank whisky every night for the 40 years I knew him. I am sure he was brain damaged but he managed to raise a family of boys and run a sucessful business all of his working career. I am quite sure one of the four killed him. 83 years of hard work. Keep in mind that he started out as a child as did his children in a "LEAD LACED" environment. You don't appear to be mentally challenged and I guess you have been exposed to lead and asbestos.

 

[kwired]

My question is why is EPA supposably behind this and not the health department?

 

[iwire]

A PAINTER friend of mine died last year at the age of 83. He was exposed to lead based paint for 83 years. He smoked a pack of unfiltered cigaretts for 70+ of those years and he drank whisky every night for the 40 years I knew him. I am sure he was brain damaged but he managed to raise a family of boys and run a sucessful business all of his working career. I am quite sure one of the four killed him. 83 years of hard work. Keep in mind that he started out as a child as did his children in a "LEAD LACED" environment. You don't appear to be mentally challenged and I guess you have been exposed to lead and asbestos.

Jack is there a point hidden in their somewhere?:grin:

 

[c2500]

Just an FYI....

A magazine I subscribe to, The Journal of Light Construction, had a bit on this and that the EPA is going to go out and start making examples of contractors on April 22. Since the law has been out a while, there are no plans to delay implimentation.

So, do what I have done....pay $595 and spend April 12-14 in class for 8 hours a day and become a certified lead inspector. Then charge for being on the job site where 6 sq ft or more of 1978 or earlier paint is being disturbed for those guys that didn't plan ahead. Email me if you are in upstate SC. I have not determined my excessively high inspection rates yet, but I am sure we can work something out. (The previous sentence was not a solicitation. It was sarcasm in case you missed it) I plan to retire very wealthy. I guess I better buy that powerball ticket.

c2500

 

[One-eyed Jack]

Jack is there a point hidden in their somewhere?:grin:

Yes,wtucker and the EPA feel that the world as we know it is going to end if we don't take drastic measures about this deadly lead paint dust. I have made enough lead paint dust to kill several million as did my painter friend. It took it 83 years to kill him(approximately 7 years past the median for males) and his children are still alive as am I and my kids. It is EPA the sky is falling song to generate tax money. I may as well die from lead poison rather than be taxed to death. We have too few people working as it is and now they want to put the rest out of business with foolish regs and asinine fines. We allready give up 50-60% of our income to taxes. Now they are trying to fund the bailout with more taxes.
c2500 was being sarcastic but he is right on point. Your 1000.00 service upgrade just went to 2000.00.

 

[wtucker]

No, One-eye, I DON'T think this is a good rule. I was just pointing out that the EPA, acting on what they feel is their mandate under the Toxic Substances Control Act, is trying to protect children, and can and will fine contractors thousands of dollars a day to do so.

Yes, I'm sure your 83-year-old friend smoked, drank, worked with lead and did all sorts of stuff to his body, but lots of people who do the same things wind up with lung cancer, cirrosis of the liver, and central nervous sytem damage before they're 40. Some of us can handle it, some can't. EPA is trying to protect those who can't.

But this stupid rule targets the wrong population. Kids don't get lead poisoining from chewing on window sills. They get it from touching lead (as in paint), then putting their fingers on their food as they eat. Kids whose mothers clean house and make them wash up before eating don't get enough lead on their fingers to get lead poisoning. Kids who live in slum apartment buildings with lead paint in the stairways and halls can get lead poisoning even if their apartment is spotless. So, applying the rule in single-family occupancies solves a problem that isn't a problem, and applying it in a slum doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't get the lead out of the entire environment.

BUT, the parents who can afford to renovate their houses are more likely to know just enough about the dangers of lead and just enough about the lead paint rule, and be just protective enough about their kids to sue you into the poor house if you don't follow the rules. Consider the mothers who don't want to get their kids a measles/mumps/rubella vaccine because they think it'll give their kids autism. NEVER get between a mother and her cubs.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll finish this whiskey before my cigar burns itself out.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

No, One-eye, I DON'T think this is a good rule. I was just pointing out that the EPA, acting on what they feel is their mandate under the Toxic Substances Control Act, is trying to protect children, and can and will fine contractors thousands of dollars a day to do so.

Yes, I'm sure your 83-year-old friend smoked, drank, worked with lead and did all sorts of stuff to his body, but lots of people who do the same things wind up with lung cancer, cirrosis of the liver, and central nervous sytem damage before they're 40. Some of us can handle it, some can't. EPA is trying to protect those who can't.

But this stupid rule targets the wrong population. Kids don't get lead poisoining from chewing on window sills. They get it from touching lead (as in paint), then putting their fingers on their food as they eat. Kids whose mothers clean house and make them wash up before eating don't get enough lead on their fingers to get lead poisoning. Kids who live in slum apartment buildings with lead paint in the stairways and halls can get lead poisoning even if their apartment is spotless. So, applying the rule in single-family occupancies solves a problem that isn't a problem, and applying it in a slum doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't get the lead out of the entire environment.

BUT, the parents who can afford to renovate their houses are more likely to know just enough about the dangers of lead and just enough about the lead paint rule, and be just protective enough about their kids to sue you into the poor house if you don't follow the rules. Consider the mothers who don't want to get their kids a measles/mumps/rubella vaccine because they think it'll give their kids autism. NEVER get between a mother and her cubs.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll finish this whiskey before my cigar burns itself out.

Knock yourself out. You touched on the very thing that is the overall problem with laws such as this. "The lack of education" Like I said you did not appear to be mentally challenged. Our school systems are cranking out more functionally illiterates today than they did 20-30 years ago. Education,not more laws is the key. The idea that it is always someone else fault that I burned myself with a cup "HOT" coffee that I ordered is flooding the court systems with foolish law suits. You are most likely right about the mothers sueing because EPA and others like them are giving them the amunition whether it be true or not.

 

[wtucker]

And you've just provided an example of the "just enough" knowledge problem. The famous McDonald's hot coffee case involved coffee that McDonalds' quality assurance guy admitted in court was not fit for consumption because it was so hot--185 degrees--that it would burn the mouth and throat (175 degrees for 1/10 sec. will cause a 2nd-deg. burn), and they KNEW it was too hot, but they kept it at that temperature for "quality" purposes alone, and had no intention of reducing the temperature, even after settling more than 700 hot coffee cases out of court. Coffee served at home is usually at about 135 degrees, so it'd be logical to assume that coffee served at a restaurant would be at a similar safe temperature. So maybe the jury was right. Amid all the cries for tort reform is the fact that people screw up, sometimes grossly negligently, and corporations (particularly hospitals) cover it up and choose to paper it over with Benjamins instead of doing the right thing.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

And you've just provided an example of the "just enough" knowledge problem. The famous McDonald's hot coffee case involved coffee that McDonalds' quality assurance guy admitted in court was not fit for consumption because it was so hot--185 degrees--that it would burn the mouth and throat (175 degrees for 1/10 sec. will cause a 2nd-deg. burn), and they KNEW it was too hot, but they kept it at that temperature for "quality" purposes alone, and had no intention of reducing the temperature, even after settling more than 700 hot coffee cases out of court. Coffee served at home is usually at about 135 degrees, so it'd be logical to assume that coffee served at a restaurant would be at a similar safe temperature. So maybe the jury was right. Amid all the cries for tort reform is the fact that people screw up, sometimes grossly negligently, and corporations (particularly hospitals) cover it up and choose to paper it over with Benjamins instead of doing the right thing.

I agree with you on the temps even thou I have no personal knowledge thru testing. You and I don't drink hot grease out of the frying pan;is it too much to ask the rest of the world to be at least as responsible? I have never poured a cup of coffee straight out of the pot that I could drink right away so it is equally logical for me to assume restaurant coffee would be the same. It all started out at 212 degrees at sea level.

 

[pfalcon]

EPA lead rules are already in effect for notifications. They are rarely enforced but are draconic in nature. Consider:

A landlord or seller that fails to notify a potential tenant or buyer of the possibility of lead paint being present will be fined $1000.00 per day from the time of possession (moving in or purchase). They may at their discretion negotiate with you to use the money on lead remediation instead. They don't have to catch many people to collect their taxes.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

EPA lead rules are already in effect for notifications. They are rarely enforced but are draconic in nature. Consider:

A landlord or seller that fails to notify a potential tenant or buyer of the possibility of lead paint being present will be fined $1000.00 per day from the time of possession (moving in or purchase). They may at their discretion negotiate with you to use the money on lead remediation instead. They don't have to catch many people to collect their taxes.

This is a sneaky back door tax very similar to the crap the credit card companies were doing with their interest rates. Not OK for them but perfectly acceptable for the Feds. Double standard.

 

[pfalcon]

This is a sneaky back door tax very similar to the crap the credit card companies were doing with their interest rates. Not OK for them but perfectly acceptable for the Feds. Double standard.

Yep. Consider the fact that EPA may not insist on cleanup. Consider that most pre-1978 homes still standing look pre-1970. Consider that all pre-1978 homes may have lead unless you had a professional group clean and certify the house. Consider that without professional certification you have to notify the tenant/buyer even if you had professionals clean it of all lead.

If you are buying/selling a home then the affirmation that it may, not does, contain lead will be in the stack of papers for both parties to sign.

Just as a rose by any other name is tax deductable; A tax by any other name (fee, fine, assessment, judgement) is not unconstitutional.