# Sticky  RRP Questions



## RCP

Article in APC of frequently asked Questions and Answers.

American Painting Contractor


----------



## PatsPainting

that's cool, that Santiago Conception dude was my instructor.

Pat


----------



## DeanV

Noticed in the article that if you hand wash a home, you still need to capture all the wash water and dispose of according to local regulations.

I think I will try to spray soap on a home right before rain storms from now on to clean.


----------



## CliffK

DeanV said:


> Noticed in the article that if you hand wash a home, you still need to capture all the wash water and dispose of according to local regulations.
> 
> I think I will try to spray soap on a home right before rain storms from now on to clean.


 I noticed the same thing! Obviously if you pressure wash and you've got failing paint there is disturbance, but if there are numerous coats of non lead containing paint(applied since '78) in sound condition over the lead containing coating and you are only washing the surface by hand to get rid of some dirt and mildew where there is NO paint failure in preparation for repaint how is that disturbing lead paint and constituting reclamation of waster water????? I am the first one to advocate protecting the children, but this gets more and more frustrating.


----------



## Lambrecht

Do you have to collect run-off on a pre-78 home that has had aluminum siding, soffit, and fascia installed in the late 80's? Seems to me that you would not disturb any possible underlying lead.


----------



## RCP

The problem is RRP does not clarify the washing issue, only that all chips/dust must be contained. The local water authority governs the disposal of the water.

Lambrecht, a swab test on all exterior components to be disturbed would show no lead in that case, so you would be fine, if I read you right.


----------



## Lambrecht

The entire house is encapsulated with aluminum installed in late 80's. So would you still have to follow RRP regs to be compliant?


----------



## RCP

Lambrecht said:


> The entire house is encapsulated with aluminum installed in late 80's. So would you still have to follow RRP regs to be compliant?


As long as you do not disturb more than 20 sq feet of painted surface. Pressure Washing is not considered renovation per se, so you would be fine. Although you must still be certified to perform the work.



> (ii) On or after April 22, 2010, no firm may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations without certification from EPA under §745.89 in target housing or child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in §745.82(a) or (c).


Not quite the same question, but some relevant info.


----------



## Paint Master General

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I've been doing restorations of multimillion dollar turn of the century homes for 45 years in the Greenwich, Conn area. Started apprenticeship at age 12, during the 60's, when painting was actually a knowledable trade and worked applying and removing lead paint ever since. My question would be, under the Guidelines, plastic sheeting is required 10 feet out from the foundation on exterior work. The homes I work on have 100,000 of dollars in shrubs and trees close up to the foundations. Many of these plants, trees and shrubs suffacate and burn when covered in plastic for only a few minutes. How does one remain compliaint, ( with plastic) or even contain debris, without doing thousands of dollars in damage, and not be legally liable in an actual lawsuit for non ability of 100% containment? ( which as you all know is virtually impossible to do on an exterior, and certainly slightly less immposible to do on an interior). To fucus the point: I could go to any certified job site, and find lead dust, to a large or small degree, anytime, anywhere and any place, after you've clean up. Simple as that. And in a court of law, you can and will be sued, if indeed, someone elected to do so on the basis of the EPA guideline rules as they are quite specific. I believe, at the end of the day, in my professional opinion, we have been asked to comply with a Legally immposible task. I do not believe you can defend yourself in court against any claim of negligence, if put to the test. After all, one iota of lead dust, constitutes a health risk to an infant, and we, my contracting friends, have no humanly possible way to contain that iota. Thats the issue, not an atta boy award for a good try at incapsulment. Many lawyers are going to become even wealthier off the backs of bankrupt lawabiding contractors who tried their best at this impossiblity. I wecome responses to the theroretical legal challanges of a neglegence suit, filed by a homeowner, claiming a bit of dust poisioned their child?. This would be the typical claim, for example. What if the child had already contracted lead poisioning for chewing a toy? say from China, say a year ago? China did, and still does use lead in their paint. We purchase everthing from China, don't we? Anyway, there are a lot of bright people on this forum, and I'd like you to weigh in with your reasoned opinions. Thanks, PMG


----------



## daArch

In our class the point about suffocating ornamentals was brought up.

there were no good answers. 

Sometimes discretion may be the better part of valor and excuse yourself from some jobs because of too many conflicting demands that are impossible to resolve. 

There are many here who do not do RRP work because of all the legal issues you point out.

As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the frying pan.


----------



## chrisn

In my class last week, we were told that ALL water needed to be collected and put through a 5 micron filter and then you could dump it in the toilet. Just how stupid is that? I asked the guy if he had ANY idea about the volume of water that power washing a house put out. He said and I quote" Now , you are the expert and you need to figure it out." The same was said about the shrubbery" Put down white plastic", About containing dust on a three story condo, " Build some kind of scaffolding," What about wind?, You are the expert, figure it out.
Gotta love it.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Paint Master General said:


> My question would be, under the Guidelines, plastic sheeting is required 10 feet out from the foundation on exterior work. The homes I work on have 100,000 of dollars in shrubs and trees close up to the foundations. Many of these plants, trees and shrubs suffacate and burn when covered in plastic for only a few minutes. How does one remain compliaint


I could write an article on this subject alone. Short answer ... there is no perfect solution. Each house has it's own best solution. Some solutions are 

1. that you only need to cover 10 feet out from where you are working. By only putting plastic down in the area (or side) that you are working on ... the plastic stays down a shorter time span.

2. Clear plastic seems to sunburn the plants and grass. I've used black plastic and have even ordered white plastic to help with this.

3. you don't cover trees, so trees are not a problem.

4. vertical containment can bring that 10 feet down to 3 feet, which helps for some flower beds.

5. test to see if it even has lead based paint.

6. and more.

wind is also a problem.




> I could go to any certified job site, and find lead dust, to a large or small degree, anytime, anywhere and any place, after you've clean up. Simple as that.


Do a soil sample before starting. This is called a baseline. As long as there is not more dust at the end of the job ... it shows you didn't add any.



> I do not believe you can defend yourself in court against any claim of negligence, if put to the test. After all, one iota of lead dust, constitutes a health risk to an infant, and we, my contracting friends, have no humanly possible way to contain that iota.


I believe it is impossible to defend if you are a non-certified contractor. If you are certified and can show you took precautions, I believe it becomes vastly easier to defend. Example, what was the baseline of the elevated blood lead level of the child before you started? Most likely the parents didn't do a preliminary blood test. No way of proving it was from you ... especially with all the precautions taken.

There are a ton of ways to reduce liability. Another article


----------



## Paint Master General

Thanks for the replies. I meant to say " can't defend" in a court of law. I'm not so sure the attaboy defense would hold up? That is to say, I did the best I could at containment, your honor. The rebuttal would be, Well, you didn't do good enough. Every leaf on every tree catches dust. When it rains, it returns to the soil. It's kind of hard to put out a fire, after gasoline has been poured on it. The lead issue adherance rules have elevated the occupation of house painting to that of NASA environment control specialist, and not, as I inturpet the rules and fines, as You boys do the best ya can at keepin the dust down. I think the contractor unfairly becomes the target of lawsuits he cannot possibly defend himself against. Impilmenting a prerscribed system that cannot possibly contain all dust particles.That's quite a burden, and a legal problem. This is a peculiar issue, as it deals with the entire building and real estate sector, pre 78. Both property and livelyhood, and to a lesser degree, health. What has been done here, without much thought, has effectively condemned 1/3 of the total habitable living structures in our country, as unfit for infants under age 6, unless, oddly, you decide to do the work yourself on the structure, in which case it's OK to expose your child to lead. Yet there is no waiver clause? They've put all the onus on the contractor! Do you not think we should at least petition for a waiver clause, to exempt the permitted contractor from frivolus lawsuits? This is not a lot to ask, considering the amount of preparation and overhead, one must assume to carry out the work, never mind the immposibility of total containment. If it gets too hot in the kitchen, sometimes, you can just open a window.


----------



## chrisn

Paint Master General said:


> Thanks for the replies. I meant to say " can't defend" in a court of law. I'm not so sure the attaboy defense would hold up? That is to say, I did the best I could at containment, your honor. The rebuttal would be, Well, you didn't do good enough. Every leaf on every tree catches dust. When it rains, it returns to the soil. It's kind of hard to put out a fire, after gasoline has been poured on it. The lead issue adherance rules have elevated the occupation of house painting to that of NASA environment control specialist, and not, as I inturpet the rules and fines, as You boys do the best ya can at keepin the dust down. I think the contractor unfairly becomes the target of lawsuits he cannot possibly defend himself against. Impilmenting a prerscribed system that cannot possibly contain all dust particles.That's quite a burden, and a legal problem. This is a peculiar issue, as it deals with the entire building and real estate sector, pre 78. Both property and livelyhood, and to a lesser degree, health. What has been done here, without much thought, has effectively condemned 1/3 of the total habitable living structures in our country, as unfit for infants under age 6, unless, oddly, you decide to do the work yourself on the structure, in which case it's OK to expose your child to lead. Yet there is no waiver clause? They've put all the onus on the contractor! Do you not think we should at least petition for a waiver clause, to exempt the permitted contractor from frivolus lawsuits? This is not a lot to ask, considering the amount of preparation and overhead, one must assume to carry out the work, never mind the immposibility of total containment. If it gets too hot in the kitchen, sometimes, you can just open a window.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> NO,NO,NO, the freeekin dust will escape and contaminate 300 square miles


----------



## Paint Master General

Yeah, Chris, I'm afraid your right! LOL However, I believe painters, and all tradesmen who's livelyhoods are affected by this law, should band together for an opt out clause to be reinstated in the governing rules. Because of the containment immposibility, this is really nothing more than a tradesman fee for instructions on how to elaborately use plastic film and masking tape, which in itself is a good thing, but really boils down to is " Try and keep the dust down the best ya can, Fellas," common sense. All good practice, when dealing with large volumes of dust an debris. Because the rules call for no quarenteen of premises, The Scare tactic threshold for homeowners is a bit high, and fankly unjustified, as are the vaugeries of the rules themselves. The problem does not lie with certification, or it's fee, it lies with the inability to actually comply.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

When you ban the group together to reinstate the opt-out or to promote a waiver ... you are going to have to bring forth evidence (scientific studies, research ... etc.) that shows this would be acceptable.

What cannot be used is personal opinion or speculation IMO.

Can any of you reference me to these types of studies? I really would like to read them.


----------



## Paint Master General

Hi there Dean, Please exhibit data that concludes that airborn dust particles on the exterior of a house can be FULLY contained, (as obviously the laws were written after studies showed that this could be done successfully). Please do not speculate with me here, as I have done this type of work for 45 some odd years, and I know a little bit about about what happens under the best conditions. Show me concrete data that shows how this magical feat is accomplished. If it is toxic and deadly ( so is Clorox Bleach) If you cannot contain it entirely, then it should be outlawed entirely, otherwise it is just an attaboy certification that does't protect the contractor. The certification is good, containment of any dust is always good, but the legal liability it places on the contractor is absurd. If a homeowner is allowed, by law, to spread lead dust at will in their own house, than they should be able to hire a certifed contractor who they cannot hold legally responsible, to work in or on their home and follow resonable proceedure. This would be common sense and fair to both parties. the law needs some revision. Understand that I am speaking hypothetically, and mean no disrespect, and am not anti certification, but I do question things that I can be sued for, even if done to the letter.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Paint Master General said:


> Hi there Dean, Please exhibit data that concludes that airborn dust particles on the exterior of a house can be FULLY contained, (as obviously the laws were written after studies showed that this could be done successfully). Please do not speculate with me here, as I have done this type of work for 45 some odd years, and I know a little bit about about what happens under the best conditions. Show me concrete data that shows how this magical feat is accomplished. If it is toxic and deadly ( so is Clorox Bleach) If you cannot contain it entirely, then it should be outlawed entirely, otherwise it is just an attaboy certification that does't protect the contractor. The certification is good, containment of any dust is always good, but the legal liability it places on the contractor is absurd. If a homeowner is allowed, by law, to spread lead dust at will in their own house, than they should be able to hire a certifed contractor who they cannot hold legally responsible, to work in or on their home and follow resonable proceedure. This would be common sense and fair to both parties. the law needs some revision. Understand that I am speaking hypothetically, and mean no disrespect, and am not anti certification, but I do question things that I can be sued for, even if done to the letter.


????

What does any of this have to do with my response to your response (post 15) where you said, "_I believe painters, and all tradesmen who's livelyhoods are affected by this law, should band together for an opt out clause to be reinstated in the governing rules_"?

All I was responding to was the banning to get the opt-out reinstated.

With your last post, you're trying to change the subject.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

_changing subject_

On your post 17, I don't necessarily disagree. There is risk. There are ways to manage risk, but not totally delete it.

For 45 years, you've probably been leaving some lead dust around. Have you gotten sued for it? Abatement companies have been doing this for years. Lawsuits aren't rampant.

Do baseline testing if you are concerned.
Get clearance testing after your projects.
Take better compliance steps than what the RRP mentions.
Get insurance

Many ways to reduce risk. 

If it is still too much, then simply don't do pre-1978.


----------



## PatsPainting

Paint Master - here is a good read. I'm not a law guy so reading stuff like this makes have to go number 2. However wondering what the update on this is if any one knows.

http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=166033

Pat


----------



## PatsPainting

Here is the link to the whole thing - the doc in the last post was from 7-6-2011. If you found that interesting read the one from 3-30-2011

link

As you can see they are being sued for not having done any studies on the matter - Just like dean is asking you to show studies. This group is asking the Epa to show its studies which there were none when concerning this opt out rule

Pat


----------



## chrisn

I still would like to get an answer from the EPA about the generation of billions,( trillions?) of pounds of lead dust contaminated PLASTIC sheeting that is being generated(or will be, if all the rules are followed)

I asked this at my class and got a laugh and buy some 3M stock quote.

I ,for one, take this seriously. This stuff cannot be recycled, so it sits in a landfill forever?. Just think of the quanity of this stuff if everbody gets compliant, it blows the mind.:blink:


----------



## Paint Master General

@ Dean, sorry about the confusion, brother. I meant no disresect. It's hard to nuance print talk, but my dialog is not of an angry man, shouting and foaming at the mouth, while pointing a finger, but rather, respectively subdued. So please except my apologies, as I did not mean to be offensive. Yes, it's true that I have raised a bit of lead dust in my time, and no I havn't been sued, and the effective methods of removal ( ie flame removal, interior, grinding, exterior) have lost thier appeal to me. But, these massive projects were completed before the laws were instated, And it's younger man work. The majority of my work is and was interior restoration, design and construction.
My only intentions are to protect conscientious, hard working guys, from being exposed to lawsuits they cant defend themselves against, by asking questions and posing solutions. I think were on the same page.

@ Pat Thanks for that link, brother. that information is exactly what I wanted, and it's pretty clear by those challenges, that a lot of knowledgeable people are on this case on our behalf. That is good news for us. Again, thank you


----------



## Roamer

Dean CRCNA said:


> When you ban the group together to reinstate the opt-out or to promote a waiver ... you are going to have to bring forth evidence (scientific studies, research ... etc.) that shows this would be acceptable.
> 
> What cannot be used is personal opinion or speculation IMO.
> 
> Can any of you reference me to these types of studies? I really would like to read them.


That is pretty funny as the EPA presented no real data to prove that the Opt-Out clause should be removed in the first place. This is the basis of a suit brought against the EPA by NARI. In fact, most of the data that supports this ruling, that the RRP is necessary at all, is suspect. 

Yes there is lead, of that there is no doubt. Yes, it is bad for you, but so is salt. The real numbers and percentages of individuals poisoned by lead because of professional renovations is a fraction of the over all number of poisonings and yet the focus of this regulation is to protect that fraction of the possibly poisoned.

What's more there is always the unintended consequences: that the work is being performed by the less-than professional contractor who is willing to skirt the rules and the client is willing to do so to save the added expense and thus possibly endangering themselves needlessly because said contractor exposes the client's family to lead.

And on top of all of this even though Lead has been banned from just about all paints there are greater hazards in the paint now than lead could ever hope to be. Crystalline Silica is a component of most contractor grade paints is a widely known carcinogen. A subject for another day probably 30 years from now.


----------



## chrisn

Roamer said:


> That is pretty funny as the EPA presented no real data to prove that the Opt-Out clause should be removed in the first place. This is the basis of a suit brought against the EPA by NARI. In fact, most of the data that supports this ruling, that the RRP is necessary at all, is suspect.
> 
> Yes there is lead, of that there is no doubt. Yes, it is bad for you, but so is salt. The real numbers and percentages of individuals poisoned by lead because of professional renovations is a fraction of the over all number of poisonings and yet the focus of this regulation is to protect that fraction of the possibly poisoned.
> 
> What's more there is always the unintended consequences: that the work is being performed by the less-than professional contractor who is willing to skirt the rules and the client is willing to do so to save the added expense and thus possibly endangering themselves needlessly because said contractor exposes the client's family to lead.
> 
> And on top of all of this even though Lead has been banned from just about all paints there are greater hazards in the paint now than lead could ever hope to be. Crystalline Silica is a component of most contractor grade paints is a widely known carcinogen. A subject for another day probably 30 years from now.


 No doubt we will all be dead by then from silica poisoning:blink:


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Roamer said:


> That is pretty funny as the EPA presented no real data to prove that the Opt-Out clause should be removed in the first place. This is the basis of a suit brought against the EPA by NARI. In fact, most of the data that supports this ruling, that the RRP is necessary at all, is suspect.


First, the EPA included the opt-out. They were sued and the other party presented the proof.

Secondly, where does it say that no real data was presented? You are hearing this from a brief that the NAHB gave. This brief is "opinion". They could have also said in the brief that you like to wear women's clothes. Doesn't mean it is true. Doesn't mean they have any evidence. Just means they are expressing an opinion.

Plus, anyone can say anything is "suspect". Once again, it doesn't mean it is true. Doesn't mean they have any evidence. Just means they are expressing an opinion.



> Yes there is lead, of that there is no doubt. Yes, it is bad for you, but so is salt. The real numbers and percentages of individuals poisoned by lead because of professional renovations is a fraction of the over all number of poisonings and yet the focus of this regulation is to protect that fraction of the possibly poisoned.


What are the real numbers and percentages? What are the numbers that show it is a fraction of the over all number of lead poisonings? I would like to know what those numbers are that you have!!!



> What's more there is always the unintended consequences: that the work is being performed by the less-than professional contractor who is willing to skirt the rules and the client is willing to do so to save the added expense and thus possibly endangering themselves needlessly because said contractor exposes the client's family to lead.
> 
> And on top of all of this even though Lead has been banned from just about all paints there are greater hazards in the paint now than lead could ever hope to be. Crystalline Silica is a component of most contractor grade paints is a widely known carcinogen. A subject for another day probably 30 years from now.


More on the opt out. 

1.	What about the woman who opts-out without knowing she is pregnant?
2.	What about the 6 year old child?
3.	What about the grandparents opting out and then have their grandchildren visit?
4.	What about the homeowners who opt-out but their exterior work poisoned the neighbors 2 year old?
5.	What about the new buyer/renter who moves in with their infant to a place that just had major sanding of lead based paint?

The list goes on and on.

There is plenty of research on these.

On top of this, In adults, 3.6 mcg/dl can cause 

1. a 25% increase risk of dying of cancer.
2. a 55% increase of dying from cardiovascular disease
3. a 89% increase of dying from heart attack
4. a 250% increase of dying from a stroke

this from a recent study published in Journal of the American Heart Association. JAMA showing similar things.

Adults measuring 2.11 mcg/dl, have 230% greater chance of major depressive disorders. This not including increase risk of panic and anxiety disorders.

3.6 and 2.11 is a speck of dust.


----------



## PatsPainting

Dean - Santiago Conception who was my instructor who is also in the article in the OP basically told us that the majority of all the testing was done on section 8 type houses. He also told the only reason they epa pulled the opt out rule was because they got sued by the sierra club. 

There are some major flaws with this whole thing - How is it that homeowners are exempt from this rule if they perform their own work? yet we are not? So in a sense there is a opt out rule. And if the owners do their own prep work do you really think they will be as neat as a professional? 

Dean - I appreciate your dedication and your position on pushing this thing. If everything stays the way it is we need allot more people like you. 

Pat


----------



## Dean CRCNA

PatsPainting said:


> He also told the only reason they epa pulled the opt out rule was because they got sued by the sierra club.


Kind of what I was implying with my first response in the above post. EPA (when sued) didn't have to provide proof ... the people suing did. EPA basically saw that they were going to lose the suit, so settled. NAHB came in latter and did a lawsuit, but basically tabled it (put a hold on the lawsuit).



> There are some major flaws with this whole thing - How is it that homeowners are exempt from this rule if they perform their own work? yet we are not? So in a sense there is a opt out rule. And if the owners do their own prep work do you really think they will be as neat as a professional?


I agree. However, there is a major difference between someone poisoning/harming themselves and someone poisoning/harming others ... especially if they get paid for it.



> Dean - I appreciate your dedication and your position on pushing this thing. If everything stays the way it is we need allot more people like you.
> 
> Pat


Thanks. I fought to keep the opt-out in. In fact, to a large degree, I like where the original law was. Where the only requirement was to give the Renovate Right. 

I see this similar to seat belt laws. Does wearing seat belts save lives? You bet. But how far can government go to force you to protect yourself? A fine line. On the issue of lead. Do the lead laws protect people? Yes. But how far should the government go in protecting people from their own decisions?


----------



## Roamer

> What are the real numbers and percentages? What are the numbers that show it is a fraction of the over all number of lead poisonings? I would like to know what those numbers are that you have!!!


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5803a3.htm

Above site by the CDC details a study of lead poisoning in NY state during 2006-2007.



> The results indicated that, during 2006--2007, the elevated BLLs of 139 (14%) of the 972 children with BLLs >20 _µ_g/dL were related to RRP activities (Table).


Yes this is disconcerting and definitely reason for concern. However, closer inspection of the 14% of the children exposed to lead from RRP activities shows that only 6.5% of of the 139 children (9 kids) were poisoned due to activities by professional contractors, whereas, 66% of the 139 children (91 kids) were exposed to lead from DIY'ers.



> Contractors performed a small percentage (6.5%) of RRP work related to elevated BLLs in New York state during 2006--2007. Resident owners or tenants performed 66% of this work. To help prevent lead contamination when contractors perform RRP projects, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations in March 2008 that will require all renovators in the United States that work on certain types of housing or child-occupied facilities to be certified and follow specific work practices as of April 2010 (_8_). To address the risk from RRP by owners and do-it-yourselfers, more public outreach and education is needed to raise awareness of potential lead-exposure hazards from RRP and to ensure protective measures that safely contain dust and paint chips. In New York, state and local health departments have implemented education programs on RRP activities and lead-safe work practices for contractors and do-it-yourselfers.†


It stands to reason that one of the unintended consequence of these regulations should consequently mean that more kids will be exposed to lead poisoning. This would be the result of increased costs associated with a professional RRP contractor as more homeowners seek to save money and do the work themselves.

The above study was performed two years prior to the implementation of the RRP.


----------



## PatsPainting

Great post Roamer - In other words this new RRP will make things worse not better as more and more Home owners decide to tackle the prep on their own instead of hiring out to a professional. 

Pat


----------



## Dean CRCNA

_Ref post 29_

Roamer,

I could see where you would be upset if all of this RRP stuff was to help 79 kids nationwide (from what I understand you are implying). 

My calculations ...

1. New York State says; _A total of 8,723 children nationally had blood lead levels ≥ 25 mcg/dL in 2000._ (closest figure to ≥ 20, which is showing in your link that I could find on their site).

2. 14% got EBLL from renovations, which equals 1,221 kids

3. 6.5% from contractors, which equals 79 kids

Do you really believe all this stuff is to just help 79 kids nationwide?

_note: found that link a long time ago. I too had to read it several times and then investigate it._

_additional note: In re-reading, it sounds like I'm being a smart a--. Sorry if I come across that way. Not my intention._


----------



## RH

So according to that data the money spent on RRP design and implementation plus the huge cost to contractors and HOs is to protect a microscopic sliver of the countryside children. 

The EPA isn't spending money informing HOs about lead danger it is focused on the contractors. Well less than 1400 kids have EBLL from renovation AND contractors combined apparently.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Gibberish45 said:


> So according to that data the money spent on RRP design and implementation plus the huge cost to contractors and HOs is to protect a microscopic sliver of the countryside children.
> 
> The EPA isn't spending money informing HOs about lead danger it is focused on the contractors. Well less than 1400 kids have EBLL from renovation AND contractors combined apparently.


Believe me, if that was the case, then NAHB, NARI and the other contractor organizations would have used this successfully to get rid of RRP.

The first thing wrong is the 20 mcg/dl. The level of concern for children under 6 is 10 mcg/dl. Recent research is showing the level of concern at 5 mcg/dl, which equals to around 2 to 2.5 million kids. 

The second thing that is wrong is that the report itself claims it's limitation. At the same time as this research, they did another along side. It showed 40% comes from renovations ... not 14%.

A third thing that is wrong is the definition they used for contractor ... a person under a contract. Many of the resident owner (who use their own employees (apartments)), other and unknown would now need to be Lead Safe Certified Firms officially.

Fourthly, while kids are the major concern, adults get harmed at very low rates as shown in a post above. Also of concern is the timeline. A contractor could have worked on the home 5 years ago and created the lead dust (that stays around forever, unless properly cleaned up) that is causing the EBLLS ... but weren't associated with the report.

These and more reasons are why the big contractor organizations realized that this wasn't a good thing to use to overturn the RRP (or even the opt-out). Once again, believe me ... they would have if they could have.


----------



## RH

Dean CRCNA said:


> Once again, believe me ... they would have if they could have.


Good point I'm sure they would have.


----------



## Paint Master General

Roamer said:


> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5803a3.htm
> 
> Above site by the CDC details a study of lead poisoning in NY state during 2006-2007.
> 
> Yes this is disconcerting and definitely reason for concern. However, closer inspection of the 14% of the children exposed to lead from RRP activities shows that only 6.5% of of the 139 children (9 kids) were poisoned due to activities by professional contractors, whereas, 66% of the 139 children (91 kids) were exposed to lead from DIY'ers.
> 
> It stands to reason that one of the unintended consequence of these regulations should consequently mean that more kids will be exposed to lead poisoning. This would be the result of increased costs associated with a professional RRP contractor as more homeowners seek to save money and do the work themselves.
> 
> The above study was performed two years prior to the implementation of the RRP.


 I read the study with interest and have but 2 observations. were these studies based on testing a target group of newborns, say age 1 year. Determining that the infants bbl was certifiably lead free, and then allowing them to be subject specifically to a lead contaminated job site, to arrive at the asumption that this was positively where the poisoning originated from? Of course not! This is my point, it is immposible to arrive at the conclusion these children were poisoned with RRP lead paint dust unless they were indeed subject to that kind of researched exposure, the rest is pure speculation. Did the child chew a painted toy? Who knows, who cares, it's now the contractors fault. Sue him. It is absolutely humanly immposible to contain lead dust 100% My second observation would be that there should be millions ( not hundreds) of people suffering from lead related illness at least, as all prior contruction would make the problem nationally epidemic. ( I think all those exposed children grew up and became congressmen and senators, that would explain it) Oh well, we're stuck with this law, as exasperating, and presumtuous as it is, but I was just curious on how this data was acquired, bacause it certainly wasn't scientifically acquired, that's for sure. Age old job site Bromide: When in doubt, blame the painter.


----------



## Fishing and Painting

Can someone please clarify a question on the rrp issue for me. I am bidding a 35 k sq ft commercial building, all exterior, that was pre 78. I have read on several articles that rrp only applies to residential and schools. Am I violating rrp rules by undertaking this job? Thanks


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Fishing and Painting said:


> Can someone please clarify a question on the rrp issue for me. I am bidding a 35 k sq ft commercial building, all exterior, that was pre 78. I have read on several articles that rrp only applies to residential and schools. Am I violating rrp rules by undertaking this job? Thanks


No RRP. Unless their is a child care facility in the building.


----------



## ron e

hi guys , how many of you been in the middle of scraping a lead job when it starts to rain . are we held liable for that ? so why can,t we pressure wash it,s a bunch of bs


----------



## epicbp

its called check the weather!! pressure washing only blows **** everywhere!!! and yes ive been in the middle of a lead abatment right before the rain!! plan your trip and youll be fine


----------



## ron e

*Pressure washing conundrum*

Pressure washing has its' place as a tool for removing mold, mildew, dirt and for cleaning the home after scraping and sanding to allow for proper paint adhesion. As long as it is done right it doesn't just "blow ---- everywhere! I was being facetious as my comment was merely taking a jab at our responsibility as painters to collect the runoff. As for the weather, New England is unforgiving as it can change in a moments notice and as any painter knows even with 'planning ahead' there will be those occasions out of your control. Get it!


----------



## dean king

I Have just read this thread, now i am friom the UK and i can say,
thank **** i am from the uk. is everyone there nut? sivve the water from 
cleaning the outside of a house? collect all the dust if sanding? ROFL 
i feel for you all, what total BS.

Me


----------



## JourneymanBrian

That has to be regulated in the UK as well. In Germany you need tubs at the base of the building to collect all the dirty water.


----------



## JourneymanBrian

What i dont understand is how its supposed to be so much better to release all that lead dust into the air or lead vapors if youre using heat, than just to paint over the old coating with something safer. Unles you want to see the bare wood again, why remove the old coat? They havent sand blasted the eifel tower, either


----------



## Roamer

Making vapors of out of lead paint or spreading lead dust as a result of prep work are both in direct violation of the RRP.


----------



## ridesarize

JourneymanBrian said:


> What i dont understand is how its supposed to be so much better to release all that lead dust into the air or lead vapors if you're using heat, than just to paint over the old coating with something safer. Unless you want to see the bare wood again, why remove the old coat? They havent sand blasted the eifel tower, either



Are you saying if you have paint cracking peeling and falling off the walls you are going to paint over it without prep work?? 

Even if previous painters coated over lead paint in good condition 25 years ago, if you have to scrape anything there you are releasing million/billions of lead dust particles and need to deal with it and contain it. You can't just clean a dirty lead dust ridden area manually if you didn't contain it first.


----------



## JourneymanBrian

No I meant an intact coating. Sure, you need a stable substrate, but what I dont understand is why you would completely remove a coating that still holds well, especially when the removal woul release so much contaminant into the air.


----------



## JourneymanBrian

Weve got mostly older buildings here, albeit with very little exterior lead paint. If we had to bring in a special lead paint team everytime we use a heat gun on or sand windows/doors, no one would make any money


----------



## stelzerpaintinginc.

JourneymanBrian said:


> No I meant an intact coating. Sure, you need a stable substrate, but what I dont understand is why you would completely remove a coating that still holds well, especially when the removal woul release so much contaminant into the air.


I don't think many people are trying to completely remove a perfectly in-tact coating. Where the EPA draws the line is, "disturbing the surface". Even old buildings which are still relatively sound will have some peeling/loose paint. Those areas are the main focus, and need to be done per regulations.


----------



## epretot

Ugh.


----------



## salmangeri

Am I the only one that sees RED when reading and thinking about the imposed lead laws? Why if another painter wants to get even with you because you supposedly outbid him he can call 311 and call down the lead masters on you....and even if you have dotted every "I" and crossed every "T" they will still find something to fine you for....took the class 4 years ago and until my friend got fined for the scenario mentioned above I wasn't taught about a first aid card, msds sheets on every product your using and a fully encapsulated suit...yes I can go on and on...but I've just run out of blood pressure medicine.....


----------



## Gough

salmangeri said:


> Am I the only one that sees RED when reading and thinking about the imposed lead laws? Why if another painter wants to get even with you because you supposedly outbid him he can call 311 and call down the lead masters on you....and even if you have dotted every "I" and crossed every "T" they will still find something to fine you for....took the class 4 years ago and until my friend got fined for the scenario mentioned above I wasn't taught about a first aid card, msds sheets on every product your using and a fully encapsulated suit...yes I can go on and on...but I've just run out of blood pressure medicine.....


So, whose responsibility was it to teach you about the OSHA laws that you mentioned? Those have all been around for a long time. It's been over 20 years since HAZCOM and the Lead in Construction Rule were put in place.


----------



## Mike2coat

Paint Master General said:


> Hi, I'm new to the forum. I've been doing restorations of multimillion dollar turn of the century homes for 45 years in the Greenwich, Conn area. Started apprenticeship at age 12, during the 60's, when painting was actually a knowledable trade and worked applying and removing lead paint ever since. My question would be, under the Guidelines, plastic sheeting is required 10 feet out from the foundation on exterior work. The homes I work on have 100,000 of dollars in shrubs and trees close up to the foundations. Many of these plants, trees and shrubs suffacate and burn when covered in plastic for only a few minutes. How does one remain compliaint, ( with plastic) or even contain debris, without doing thousands of dollars in damage, and not be legally liable in an actual lawsuit for non ability of 100% containment? ( which as you all know is virtually impossible to do on an exterior, and certainly slightly less immposible to do on an interior). To fucus the point: I could go to any certified job site, and find lead dust, to a large or small degree, anytime, anywhere and any place, after you've clean up. Simple as that. And in a court of law, you can and will be sued, if indeed, someone elected to do so on the basis of the EPA guideline rules as they are quite specific. I believe, at the end of the day, in my professional opinion, we have been asked to comply with a Legally immposible task. I do not believe you can defend yourself in court against any claim of negligence, if put to the test. After all, one iota of lead dust, constitutes a health risk to an infant, and we, my contracting friends, have no humanly possible way to contain that iota. Thats the issue, not an atta boy award for a good try at incapsulment. Many lawyers are going to become even wealthier off the backs of bankrupt lawabiding contractors who tried their best at this impossiblity. I wecome responses to the theroretical legal challanges of a neglegence suit, filed by a homeowner, claiming a bit of dust poisioned their child?. This would be the typical claim, for example. What if the child had already contracted lead poisioning for chewing a toy? say from China, say a year ago? China did, and still does use lead in their paint. We purchase everthing from China, don't we? Anyway, there are a lot of bright people on this forum, and I'd like you to weigh in with your reasoned opinions. Thanks, PMG


 I use old bed sheets


----------



## Wildbill7145

Mike2coat said:


> I use old bed sheets


I use paragraphs. Yikes, that's quite the wall of text.


----------



## salmangeri

Gough said:


> So, whose responsibility was it to teach you about the OSHA laws that you mentioned? Those have all been around for a long time. It's been over 20 years since HAZCOM and the Lead in Construction Rule were put in place.


hahahahahahahaha you are a funny guy to suggest I be schooled in all the rules 
and regulations instituted over 20 years ago,not to mention all the numerous
amendments since 2008....and add to that these rules and regulations are coming form the gov't......hahahahahahahahahahahahah


----------



## Gough

salmangeri said:


> hahahahahahahaha you are a funny guy to suggest I be schooled in all the rules
> and regulations instituted over 20 years ago,not to mention all the numerous
> amendments since 2008....and add to that these rules and regulations are coming form the gov't......hahahahahahahahahahahahah


Silly me, I had thought that learning the applicable rules and regulations was part of running a business.


----------



## daArch

Wildbill7145 said:


> I use paragraphs. Yikes, that's quite the wall of text.



that "wall of text" was posted 09-26-2011, by a member who posted 6 times, and last visit was 10-28-2011.


I gots TWO questions

Does that tell you something ?

and WHY are we necroing his comments ?????











:thumbup: :thumbsup: :yes:


----------



## chrisn

daArch said:


> that "wall of text" was posted 09-26-2011, by a member who posted 6 times, and last visit was 10-28-2011.
> 
> 
> I gots TWO questions
> 
> Does that tell you something ?
> 
> and WHY are we necroing his comments ?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup: :thumbsup: :yes:


that guy looks like Lou Reed:blink:


----------



## daArch

chrisn said:


> that guy looks like Lou Reed:blink:


Even when alive, Lou never looked that good :whistling2:

may he RIP :notworthy:


----------

