EPA lead certification

[GUNNING]

yup

yup

I got the RRP cert when they first came out. It was a good lesson on how things are done. Taught me what to walk --- run--- away from and what to look for. I dont want to get poisoned and I dont want my customers to get poisoned either. Bad Karma.
The rule on hazardous waste is anyone that has owned will own or has an interest in owning a peice of real property is liable. Where is it that says anyone that works on it is liable. I think this is a misapplied law. It should be that the property owner is the expert on what they own not make the electrician or plumber or contractor or painter or gardner or ... the expert on what the owner has that is hazardous. Put the ownous on the owner.
Education is good, I want to know what I am getting into. I want to work safley. I do not want to loose IQ points as a penalty for working. Do not penalize me for not having the right paperwork. Penalize the owner of the property. Im going to sue him if I get sick. Let the EPA do the same.
I am more knowegable about what to look for. I have all the right equipement, knowlege, and am grateful for being educated in that regard. I wish it had happened a few years earlier but I would not have done it if it were not for the mandate. Bottom line I have a better safer product because of the classes.

 

[kwired]

I would like to stop and take a moment to thumb my nose at the so called experts in the environmental hazards field.

I am 45 years old and in fair health AFAIK. I am overweight, have high blood pressure and high cholesterol problems, so maybe something will eventually get me - but may be more of my own fault.

Otherwise according to those experts I should have had serious health issues back when I was a child. Between lead, asbestos, mercury, formaldehyde contaminated drinking water, air pollution, second hand smoke, EMF's, UV rays, undercooked food, under refrigerated food, and probably a long list of things I can't think of, I probably should have died or been seriously ill before I was even 5 years old.

 

[mjf]

You probably didn't wear a helmet at the breakfast table just in case the toast popped out of the toaster too hard either.

 

[Ponchik]

I would like to stop and take a moment to thumb my nose at the so called experts in the environmental hazards field.

I am 45 years old and in fair health AFAIK. I am overweight, have high blood pressure and high cholesterol problems, so maybe something will eventually get me - but may be more of my own fault.

Otherwise according to those experts I should have had serious health issues back when I was a child. Between lead, asbestos, mercury, formaldehyde contaminated drinking water, air pollution, second hand smoke, EMF's, UV rays, undercooked food, under refrigerated food, and probably a long list of things I can't think of, I probably should have died or been seriously ill before I was even 5 years old.

I can add some to that as well,
did not sit in a car seat, booster seat, my dad always cut the seat belts out of the car.....

The big brother is too concerned about the contractor.

There are bunch of unlicensed contractors on Craig's list or other sites, instead of spending tax payer dollar and coming up with none sense EPA rules just use the tax dollars and arrest unlicensed contractors and punish customers.

This brings back memories of the suggested law about gardeners not being able to use gas powered lawn mowers and trimmers. Seriously???? who comes up with any one this none sense?

 

[renosteinke]

let's see... some of the points covered were.....

went over this afternoon to the pretty island ....

was there any violation of RRP practices in doing this?

Yea, Fulthrottle, you violated RRP like a fallen alcoholic on a brewery tour. Kiss your financial welfare and personal freedom goodbye. You might even be open to felony charges.

I do not jest.

First off, the age of the drywall does not matter. Only the age of the house, as recorded by the county. Pre-1978, and RRP applies. Period. So,what is RRP, exactly?

First off, if the house is pre-78, you must provide the official booklet, and have them sign for it. Period. Then, you have two choices: you can either test the work area, or you can accept a 'lead free' survey prepared by a specially certified survey firm. You need this no matter how little work you plan to do. You log record the results. Unlike OSHA rules, the EPA has asserted that being self-employed provides no exemption.

No test, no survey: the assumption is that lead is present. You must document it as such.

Now, and only now, does the amount of work matter, in deciding what your procedures must be.

NOW do you see how RRP is designed for the creation of fines? Enforcement is centered on paperwork- not work practices.

 

[ceknight]

Yea, Fulthrottle, you violated RRP like a fallen alcoholic on a brewery tour. Kiss your financial welfare and personal freedom goodbye. You might even be open to felony charges.

I do not jest.

You may not be jesting, but you may not be fully informed either. From the EPA RRP FAQ:

"

1. Question (23002-18426)
   What is a ?whole house gut rehabilitation project? for RRP purposes? What RRP requirements, if any,apply during a whole house gut-rehabilitation project? If target housing has, at some point after 1978,been gut-rehabbed, would the RRP Rule apply to subsequent renovations on the property?
   Answer
   The phrase ?gut rehabilitation? may have different meanings across the construction industry. EPA,however, used the phrase ?whole house gut rehabilitation? in a very limited sense to describe only thoseactivities that demolish and rebuild a structure to a point where it is effectively new construction. At aminimum, these activities include the removal and replacement of all interior and exterior paintedsurfaces, including windows. The term should not be confused with a comprehensive renovation asdescribed in FQ 23002-23415.
   If an activity meets these narrow criteria (i.e., if a firm demolishes and rebuilds a structure to the extentthat it is effectively new construction), then the activity is not a renovation for purposes of the RRP Ruleand therefore not subject to any RRP requirements.
   If, after 1978, target housing has been demolished and rebuilt to the extent that it is effectively newconstruction, subsequent renovations on the property would also not be subject to the RRP Rule. In otherwords, if target housing has been demolished and rebuilt to the extent that it is effectively newconstruction, it is no longer target housing. Conversely, if only a portion of the target housing hasundergone a post-1978 modification (e.g., an overhaul of a kitchen or bathroom), then a subsequentrenovation would still be covered under the RRP Rule. "
   

 

[renosteinke]

The key is not that the remediation was done - but that you can document it. The EPA isn't coming to the site - they 'inspect' your file cabinet.

 

[infinity]

A far as I know no one here in NJ is bothering with certification because no one here is enforcing this. The local building departments who are responsible for permits and inspections want nothing to do with it.

 

[kwired]

A far as I know no one here in NJ is bothering with certification because no one here is enforcing this. The local building departments who are responsible for permits and inspections want nothing to do with it.

As it should be, it is not a building code issue, it is a health issue.

 

[ceknight]

The key is not that the remediation was done - but that you can document it. The EPA isn't coming to the site - they 'inspect' your file cabinet.

In general, yes, but not in Fulthrottle's case. I'm pretty sure "no longer target housing" means you don't even have to hand out the pamphlet.

 

[Rewire]

and sp it begins
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...756bc243b954f31485257b5f00563d63!OpenDocument

 

[Fulthrotl]

Profile of the Violations
The majority of these 16 enforcement actions took place in
EPA Region 1 (Boston), EPA Region 2 (Edison, N.J.), and
EPA Region 5 (Chicago).

Of these 16 firms, eight were contractors, residential remodelers
or window/door replacers, four were painting companies, two were
property managers and one was a training provider for lead-safe certification.

In at least five of the cases, children lived in the home ? which raises the EPA fine.
In several of the cases, EPA enforced the lead paint rule because the firm failed to
obtain lead-safe certification before beginning the renovations. In a few other cases,
the violations were the result of not providing EPA's ?Renovate Right? pamphlet to
the home?s occupants.

the fines:

$0
$90,750
$0
$1,500
$2,040
$980
$623
$4,000
$3,766
$1,000
$200
$600
$200
$616
$116,500
$6,188
$23,000

 

[GoldDigger]

Profile of the Violations
The majority of these 16 enforcement actions took place in
EPA Region 1 (Boston), EPA Region 2 (Edison, N.J.), and
EPA Region 5 (Chicago).

None of the cases contained any allegation that lead-based paint was actually present at the work sites. That is not required for any of the violations charged.
Although it is not explicitly stated, it appears that the higher penalties were levied on firms that did not promptly admit guilt and make a settlement offer but instead fought the charges or did not have good advice.