# "target" project clarification



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

I have some questions on what constitutes a "target" facility. It seems to me that, no matter who lives in a pre 78 home, all roads point to proceeding with compliance. I've read the legalese concerning children under 6 and pregnant women, does that mean if a child's 7 and no pregnancies = no compliance? I know the answer to that question but the inclusion of that language is confusing. What if you have a senior couple, no grandchildren visit, and granny's had her tubes tied, do you not have to be compliant, even if lead is present? By including parameters, they imply there are instances where you can fire up the grinder. letting it fly, and breathe in the sweet smell of lead, you know, like the old days. Any thoughts, knowledge, or experiences appreciated.
Joe


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Welcome to the forum!
Sounds like you are thinking of the "opt out", which was removed from the rule last year. RRP applies to all "Target Housing", which is defined as,



> Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.


Source

Even then, if it is HUD housing LSHR applies, and as always, OHSA applies.
So there really is no way to be "non compliant" when LBP is present.

It also appears that New Jersey has required certification for multi family since 2005.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Joe,

I too noticed this confusing language while taking the course and asked the instructor what if no child lives in or visits the home.

It was pointed out to me that ALL dwellings were included. When they talk about "elderly housing" that is basically to mean assisted living type of housing. 

But if granny is living in a regular house, they the RRP rule applies.

Now, here's food for thought. What if a house is totally empty and is being gutted and totally remodeled, can one then claim it is not a residence until certified for residency by the building inspector?


----------



## Lambrecht (Feb 8, 2010)

What about rental properties that are not currently occupied. Children may or may not end up living there so do you have to be compliant or can you forgo EPA since it is an unoccupied structure? I would lean toward EPA compliancy but it I am unclear on where that line is in this situation.


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

That is why I said, all roads lead to compliance. Here's my prediction, someday *all *jobs will require compliance, lead, pre 78 or not. The way that government slowly wraps its tenacles, eventually it will be harmful for kids to breathe vinyl acetate, silica, even just dust itself. If you think I'm kidding, look at cigs. It started with a ban on advertising. If blood lead levels went from 88% in the 70's to 1.6% today, without RRP, why the rule now? Once government and special interest groups get a foothold, they need to continually recreate their own need. Do you think that if lead disappeared tomorrow, the rule would go away? It would simply expand to cover other ingredients or byproducts? If these chemicals were as harmful as they claim, there would be no old painters. How did we all survive the brutal lead infested 50's, 60's and beyond? Not to diminish the impact of lead, but government and special interests create a hysteria and government rides in to the rescue with the solution. We need to shorten government's leash. Hire a good lawyer!


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Lambrecht said:


> What about rental properties that are not currently occupied. Children may or may not end up living there so do you have to be compliant or can you forgo EPA since it is an unoccupied structure? I would lean toward EPA compliancy but it I am unclear on where that line is in this situation.


From the EPA FAQ

_Temporarily unoccupied or vacant housing is not exempt from the requirements of the RRP Rule_


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

jsheridan said:


> If blood lead levels went from 88% in the 70's to 1.6% today, without RRP, why the rule now?


Lead poisonings dropped because the government created a law to ban leaded gas. Basically all the drop was from lead gas being banned. Poisonings from lead based paint has been flat all these years. The exception is that some states have had a 100% increase of poisonings from lead based paint.


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

"In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6;
. . ."
this is now down to 310,000, according to the CDC

"The estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above the CDC level of concern declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.6%
between 2003 and 2004."

The efforts taken prior to the rule have reduced child levels. What percentage of the 1.6% is directly and solely attributable to lead paint? Dean, I respect your knowledge on this issue. I realize that major plunge in levels is more attributable to gas ban, but the lead paint problem IS going away on its own as we get further away from the lead ban. Why the rule now? RRP is a program in the works since the early nineties. I think this is all an overblown response.
Source of quotes: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2008/April/Day-22/t8141.htm


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

A good time to re-mentioned my opinions. From all of my research and a contractor's opinion ...

1. I think disturbing lead based paint poisons people. I also believe that people should be able to poison themselves if they want to. This is why I'm an advocate of the rule before April 22 2010. This was where all a contractor had to do was give the pamphlet to the homeowner and let the homeowner decide if they wanted to take precautions or not. The only exception to this, is I think strong enforcement should have been done.

2. While not a big fan, I can understand the April 22 2010 law that had the Opt-Out provision. Protecting children is understandable.

end of my stance 

There has always been people getting lead poisoned from lead based paint. From all my research, it has has steady for many decades, increasing some during the remodeling boom period.

Another way of putting it of those 3 million kids ... 300,000 were being poisoned from lead based paint and 2.7 million were being poisoned from lead gas (and some other sources). Today, we still continue to have the 300,000 kids poisoned *a year* by lead based paint that was happening (in the same amount) as many decades ago.

There has never been any improvement in lead poisoning from lead based paint.

The above is why I disagree with the statement "_the lead paint problem IS going away on its own as we get further away from the lead ban_". 

-----

Many states have lowered the rate of lead poisoning to 5 mcg/dl. If the CDC decides to do the same thing ... we will have 2.5 million kids being poisoned a year. Basically all of it from lead based paint (per the CDC (mentioned it, because you used them in your example)).

-----

One other point I'll make is if anyone has read the history of the RRP, they will realize that the EPA was drag screaming and kicking to create the law. They were basically force by the politicians. Doesn't make me a lover of the EPA, but is interesting.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Well put Dean. 
Another thing I have read is that more children are being tested, but in the past testing was minimal, and because the symptoms of lead mimic so many other disorders, there is really no good data available. 
You are right about the history of RRP, that and the history of lead paint use is very interesting! 
Many of us have not practiced Lead Paint Safety before RRP, even when we were supposed to be giving out the book, and complying with OHSA and LSHR.
I wonder if the big groups like NARI and NAHB had pushed for more education and enforcement 10 years ago if it would be different now?


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

The problem I have from all these statistics is they act like paint is the only thing that has lead in it, thus all poisoning comes from paint that we sanded. When in reality there is so much chit out there that contains lead from toys to candy in Mexico.

Those statistics are just pure bs in my opinion. Our day will come Dean, sorry bud. I do predict the Opt out rule coming back, have no idea when. but it's not over 

Pat


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

Gents, I respect your opinions and agree that something should be done about the lead issue. Disagreeing with this particular method doesn't mean one condones children getting lead poisioning. I also respect that you guys are simply trying to find a way to become compliant in the interest of your business and livelihood. I have chosen not to become certified. I'm a one, sometimes two, man shop. At this point in my life and business, I'm not up to learning a whole new way of doing things. I'm too old school for that. I'm burned out on running a crew, and tired of the headaches. Depending on the mental caliber of today's rank and file crew to keep me safe against lead liability would cause migraines and sleepless nights. I have no plans to compete and underbid those who are certified, and just won't entertain doing that kind of work. There are plenty of things that need painting that don't require certification. And I'm angry. The government has put the everyday contractor behind an eight ball of liability, something I'm hearing little about. RRP is a hostile action. RRP is an attempt to establish a chain of liability. We now face liability from customers, employees, and the government itself, we're completely exposed, and every decision from this point forward has to viewed through the prism of liability. The paint companies are already being sued for lead to recover a variety of costs, and punitive damages as well. Why, the government knew the paint companies were using lead and they knew the consequences, yet they allowed it. Witness the tobacco and asbestos companies. They're going to rip through this industry and collect from every pocket they can, ours included. The trial lawyers are preparing their commercials as we speak. "Have you recently had your house painted, does your child have a high blood level, you may be entitled to cash compensation . . .". Can you hear it? In additon to plastic, caution tape, and hepa vacs, there is a whole legal underbelly attached, and no one is talking about it. That's what I'm against and reject. Most of the problem with lead is pure neglect by parents, landlords and shoddy contractors. Homeowner renovation is fairly big contributor to lead poisoning. The government knows where the problem is centered, pinpoint, yet they throw this big net over the entire industry. You don't turn an entire idustry on its head over what we're dealing with. And Dean, respectfully, I say it's not possible for paint lead to be the problem today that it was thirty years ago, it's just not. No lead has been applied for thirty-three years, many old structures with lead have been demolished or are unused, higher education and lead erradication efforts, and simply burying lead under thirty-three years of recoats simply make that claim impossible. I'm sorry but I can't buy that, it defies logic. Pat's right, there are too many possible environmental sources of lead to pin it all on paint, even the small planes that dust our crops still burn leaded fuel. Jet fuel is unleaded, small engine prop plane fuel is not. The EPA may have fought this rule because, if you read between their lines, they know it's an overblown, destructive, and ultimately ineffective way to combat the residual effects of lead. There is a contingent of Congressman who want to see this rule put out of its misery. I hope that as we continue, on these pages, to struggle to learn to be compliant, that we also stay on top of their doings and help them to succeed in that effort. Thomas Jefferson admonished us to question authority. I take that seriously. Thanks for listening and putting up with me.
Respectfully


----------



## chrisn (Jul 15, 2007)

jsheridan said:


> That is why I said, all roads lead to compliance. Here's my prediction, someday *all *jobs will require compliance, lead, pre 78 or not. The way that government slowly wraps its tenacles, eventually it will be harmful for kids to breathe vinyl acetate, silica, even just dust itself. If you think I'm kidding, look at cigs. It started with a ban on advertising. If blood lead levels went from 88% in the 70's to 1.6% today, without RRP, why the rule now? Once government and special interest groups get a foothold, they need to continually recreate their own need. Do you think that if lead disappeared tomorrow, the rule would go away? It would simply expand to cover other ingredients or byproducts? If these chemicals were as harmful as they claim, there would be no old painters. How did we all survive the brutal lead infested 50's, 60's and beyond? Not to diminish the impact of lead, but government and special interests create a hysteria and government rides in to the rescue with the solution. We need to shorten government's leash. Hire a good lawyer![/QUOTE]
> 
> It would take the ultimate of all lawyers to fight the US government:blink:, don't you think?
> 
> Good thought but expensive also


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

> It would take the ultimate of all lawyers to fight the US government:blink:, don't you think?


Chris, that sentence may not have been placed properly. It wasn't to fight the advancing government, though there are lawyers right now at higher levels doing just that. It was meant to protect yourself against the litigious environment in which we are now going to be conducting business. Anyone who, from April 22, 2010, deals with lead in their business is completely exposed to liability. Points to keep in mind;
Standard GC insurance, in general, does not cover lead, you need special insurance which deals with toxicity and pollution, which is very costly. 
Your employees can now go after you for lead poisoning. OSHA is all over that.
The government is now encouraging all parents to have children tested regularly, so if you're just pretending at RPP, as some guys I spoke to are and the guys in the paint stores confirmed, you're going to get caught. If you do it, do it right. 
Once the government gets a hold of you, you need a lawyer.
Thanks


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Joe, I agree with many of your points. I think the RRP Rule is poorly thought out and enforcement is a joke. I don't blame you a bit for having no part of it, there are many here who feel the same way.

But there are many here (and lurking) that do not know about RRP. Many of us have long ago accepted the fact that RRP is here to stay, like it or not, and do what we can to keep our brethren informed.

The difference is that you have educated yourself on the issue, so you make that decision to not do pre 78, and like you said, the guys that are pretending are going to be in a world of hurt someday!

Great discussion!


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Joe, thought you might like this,
http://www.shawnmccadden.com/rrpedi...RP-Have-Any-Factual-Basis-Guest-Blog#Comments


----------



## jsheridan (Mar 12, 2011)

Thanks RCP, sight looked familiar, no wonder, already been there and have it bookmarked. Besides my interest as a painter, I'm also doing an article for Buildipedia.com on RRP for publication next wednesday. I agree about the lack of education on everyone's part. No wonder, it's extremely complex and vague in many respects. I respect everyone's approach to it as well. There are other ways to skin this cat other than RRP. I'll restate my hope that even as we learn to deal with it we fight to help those seeking to overturn it. The paint companies just go along, because in Washington, if you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu. And they get involved to *limit* the damage arising from what government will inevitably do. They need us to fight, we're the only resort.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Be sure to post it here when it comes out, look forward to reading it, that looks like a great site!


----------

