EPA Lead safe updates ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Has anyone heard of new and/or updated requirements for the EPA lead-safe law ? I have a GC telling me that (in New Jersey specifically) they have thrown out the 6 sq. ft. disturbance rule and are now using the 2 sq. ft. rule only irrespective of whether there is a pregnant woman or children under 6 in the house. I've tried to keep up to date on this but I may have missed this. I'm hoping this GC mis-read the rule and is blindly focused on the $37K fine involved.

Thanks in advance:)
 

MJW

Senior Member
I believe HUD uses a different set of rules and uses 2 square feet as their standard. This may be what he is talking about.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
You may be correct. But, does HUD get involved in every home sale or remodel ? Or do they just get involved in urban areas ?
 

ceknight

Senior Member
Has anyone heard of new and/or updated requirements for the EPA lead-safe law ? I have a GC telling me that (in New Jersey specifically) they have thrown out the 6 sq. ft. disturbance rule and are now using the 2 sq. ft. rule ...

The EPA rule hasn't changed, and there's no alert on the NJ division of codes website requiring a more stringent statewide standard.

I'm pretty sure the HUD standard is 2sf interior, but that would only apply for HUD jobs.
 

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
There's a wealth of information available at the "Fine Homebuilding" site.

The latest news is a press release on how they hammered one guy for not having his paperwork in order. This is telling, as the new rules are paperwork-heavy. That is, you MUST provide the customer with a certain brochure, have them sign as CERTAIN form, etc.

The short version is: for anything built after 1978, you get to treat is as though it were made of moldy, radioactive asbestos - and document the crap out of it.

Please note my restraint in only reporting.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
There's a wealth of information available at the "Fine Homebuilding" site.

The latest news is a press release on how they hammered one guy for not having his paperwork in order. This is telling, as the new rules are paperwork-heavy. That is, you MUST provide the customer with a certain brochure, have them sign as CERTAIN form, etc.

The short version is: for anything built after 1978, you get to treat is as though it were made of moldy, radioactive asbestos - and document the crap out of it.

Please note my restraint in only reporting.

Why after 1978?
 

LEO2854

Esteemed Member
Location
Ma
There's a wealth of information available at the "Fine Homebuilding" site.

The latest news is a press release on how they hammered one guy for not having his paperwork in order. This is telling, as the new rules are paperwork-heavy. That is, you MUST provide the customer with a certain brochure, have them sign as CERTAIN form, etc.

The short version is: for anything built after 1978, you get to treat is as though it were made of moldy, radioactive asbestos - and document the crap out of it.

Please note my restraint in only reporting.

Hopefully the law gets repealed,,,

It is Unnecessary and buerdensome.
 

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
As I have mentioned in another thread, the new rules - in effect for a year now - have not only reduced the size of the disturbed area to 2 sq. ft TOTAL for the job, but also require barriers, HEPA vacs, certification, lead testing, recordkeeping, etc. The financial burden is substantial (those who disagree should feel free to send me a couple of the 'minimal' thousand dollars or so that they consider unimportant).

1978 is when the Federal ban became effective. Only lead in HOUSE paints was regulated. Automotive paints and printer inks might very well still have lead in them.

The rules are held to apply to everyone - even sole proprietors- and every residence built before 1978. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager there's a similar law somewhere that extends this to schools as well. Nor is it enough for you to be working for a 'certified' GC .... YOU need to have your papers in order.

I'm getting differing opinions as to the test kits you can buy at the hardware store. Here, there might be a difference in the "AHJ." That is, HUD administered, FHA financed, and "abatement' jobs will probably require lab-certified tests. Also, not all of the 'store-bought' test kits are "EPA certified," and many of the 'kits' are simply mailing packages for sending samples to a lab for processing (at an additional charge).

There's some dispute as to what is a "HEPA" vacuum. "Certified" HEPA vacs have recently had a major jump in price- as the manufacturers assert that simply putting a HEPA filter in a regular shop-vac does NOT comply.

Another sore point is that -at least according to the EPA leaflet - nearly any means you might have of removing, sealing, or covering suspect paint is a 'don't do it.' Kind of makes you wonder.

Thank you, Bob. I knew you would appreciate my restraint. As you might guess, I have LOTS of issues with this mess - but that's another topic.
 

ceknight

Senior Member
As I have mentioned in another thread, the new rules - in effect for a year now - have not only reduced the size of the disturbed area to 2 sq. ft TOTAL for the job, but also require barriers, HEPA vacs, certification, lead testing, recordkeeping, etc.....

I know it's hard not to rant about regulations, but it's also important to make a real effort -- as a business potentially affected by those regulations -- to understand them as clearly as you can and clear up any misconceptions that might stand between your opinions and the truth.

As mentioned in the other thread, for instance, the EPA rule has not changed -- RRP doesn't kick in unless you're disturbing 6sf or more of interior painted surface per room.

Also important to note that you are not required to perform lead tests, either. If you simply treat every potentially-qualifying job site as if lead is present and practice full containment, you don't have to test for anything but a clean surface at the end. You CAN test for lead if you want (and if your customer agrees), and if you're lucky and don't detect lead you can use the test as a way of working around the full containment.


Nor is it enough for you to be working for a 'certified' GC .... YOU need to have your papers in order.

This is true, and will become a bigger issue as time goes on. Alliances between compliant and non-compliant trade partners will dissolve as enforcement steps up and liability suits get filed. You need to not only cover your butt, but you need to make sure your GCs are covering their butts, too. There will be liability suits.

I'm getting differing opinions as to the test kits you can buy at the hardware store.

This is covered by EPA guidance: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/testkit.htm

There's some dispute as to what is a "HEPA" vacuum.

Well, there's not much dispute about what a HEPA vac is :) , but there is an issue in that the EPA only published vacuum guidance instead of an actual standard. So they told everyone that a standard canister-style vac with an add-on HEPA filter wouldn't cut it, but they didn't tell us which vacs were OK. The mfrs are catching up, though, and are getting more certified (by letter from EPA) HEPA vacs on the market.

And yes, they're expensive. Mine set me back $650. But you do get to write the tool off...like I did, just a few hours ago while working on my taxes. ;)

Anyway, enough of the technical points, my real point is that everyone needs to stop screaming about this and they need to get informed properly. Screaming won't do any good, this is the future and it is now. And literally everything you really need to know is covered in EPA guidance, available online. The actual facts of compliance are not that horrible -- some would say a conscientious tradesperson should already have been employing most of the jobsite diligence already. Yeah, there's recordkeeping, but manila file folders are cheap and it's not really that much paper. Yeah, the certification costs money and so does the training, no one likes that but we all ought to be used to jumping through regulatory hoops and writing off the costs of doing business by now. That's how we got where we are, right? :)
 
Last edited:

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
I did not want to get bogged down in the details. While I respect your right to disagree, I assure all that when I say something is 'debatable,' I'm not just imagining things. Like the EPA 'guidance' regarding lead tests- I can point to EPA links that are in conflict with each other. Ditto for the vacuum issue. Ditto my reference to 2 sq. ft.

"Screaming" has a place, but, IMO, not on this thread. Believe me, there's plenty to scream about - and I expect many legal challenges. In the meantime ... do you want to CHOOSE to be the test case - or just happen to get caught up in things? I think everyone here has the need to know this stuff.

The law certainly HAS changed ... the existance of the April 2010 effective date in the statute is alone proof that things changed. What changed, etc., is another discussion.

Manila folders are wonderful, but they won't meet the documentation requirements. YOU are required to PROVIDE a SPECIFIC pamphlet (14 page?) to the customer ... and have them sign off that they received it. The contractor I was referring to earlier was cited for not having signed acknowledgements from his customers - and not for any specific jobsite practice.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
As I have mentioned in another thread, the new rules - in effect for a year now - have not only reduced the size of the disturbed area to 2 sq. ft TOTAL for the job, but also require barriers, HEPA vacs, certification, lead testing, recordkeeping, etc.
Is this something I missed ? Based on the responses to this thread I was under the impression that the disturbed area (be it 6 or 2 sq ft) had to be on a "per room" basis and that the 2 sq ft rule was for HUD jobs. Please clarify.

Thanks,

Phil
 

ceknight

Senior Member
Is this something I missed ? Based on the responses to this thread I was under the impression that the disturbed area (be it 6 or 2 sq ft) had to be on a "per room" basis and that the 2 sq ft rule was for HUD jobs. Please clarify.

EPA RRP: 6 sf of painted surface, per room

HUD: 2 sf of interior surface. It's a little more complicated than that as I recall, but the link on the HUD page that would clarify seems to be broken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top