# Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Once again, trying to bring the Opt Out back ... http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=15067


----------



## premierpainter (Apr 17, 2007)

They should. Ridiculous law for a person w/o kids living in or around the home.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

Thanks Dean!
I hadn't heard anything about it.

Truth is, I stopped digging around the EPA/gov. website for news and updates quite awhile ago.

Now I just look here @ PT..

PT's an invaluable resource (where things are usually dumbed-down too, so that painters can understand it)!


----------



## Scotiadawg (Dec 5, 2011)

Steve Richards said:


> Thanks Dean!
> I hadn't heard anything about it.
> 
> Truth is, I stopped digging around the EPA/gov. website for news and updates quite awhile ago.
> ...


_*
*_ 
true, although I have trouble undestanding Bill sometimes


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Good luck trying to over turn a law that benefits the children. Even if the rules were changed so that homeowners without children could opt out, buyers with children may want that information disclosed. 

I think it's too late. The RRP rules have already infected the home remodeling industry with liability.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

CApainter said:


> I think it's too late. The RRP rules have already infected the home remodeling industry with liability.


Good point.

What would keep an opt-out homeowner from using "the painter didn't throughly explain it to me" as grounds for a future claim?

Their signature on a form? pffft!


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

I was mocked before on here for saying contact you congressmen but please do so we can get the opt out back. I have contacted all of mine numerous times and gotten other people I know to as well. Notice how both senators from Oklahoma are sponsors of the bill. It can work to contact them and let them know what you think.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

jacob33 said:


> I was mocked before on here for saying contact you congressmen


Don't take it to heart. You can get mocked here for using a 3/8" nap.

I'm not even sure I personally want it back.

What I'd rather have happen, is for the public to be informed of the regulations.
I'm tired of bringing up RRP to HO's and getting a blank stare in return.

..but that's for another thread


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

jacob33 said:


> I was mocked before on here for saying contact you congressmen but please do so we can get the opt out back. I have contacted all of mine numerous times and gotten other people I know to as well. Notice how both senators from Oklahoma are sponsors of the bill. It can work to contact them and let them know what you think.


Curious, if the opt out was allowed back, and you knew there was lead paint, what would you do differently?


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

Good question, RCP.
Tough question too...

(is there a correct answer?)


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

RCP said:


> Curious, if the opt out was allowed back, and you knew there was lead paint, what would you do differently?


This is a good point because even if the homeowner doesn't have kids and isn't concerned about potential lead exposure, what about the worker and his exposure. Would this be accepted by OSHA? Maybe the worker has kids and doesn't want them exposed to dust that wasn't properly contained in the first place.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

CApainter said:


> This is a good point because even if the homeowner doesn't have kids and isn't concerned about potential lead exposure, what about the worker and his exposure. Would this be accepted by OSHA? Maybe the worker has kids and doesn't want them exposed to dust that wasn't properly contained in the first place.


Exactly, OHSA has had lead rules to protect workers that were largely ignored for a long time.


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

Honestly lead is a big scare and it is not as bad as being reported and I will take the heat for saying it. Lead used to be used in everything from lead water pipes to lead in gas. It used to be used as a sweetner instead of sugar. It is still in makeup. There was a big study published on it about the high content in the big name makeups like clinque maybaline and others. That includes lipstick and powders with are breathed I am sure and put on skin which is absorbed. The truth is today people are exposed to far less lead than almost any time in history.

I'm all for worker safety and following the laws as best is possible but honestly the fines and things go to far. All my power sanders hook up to vaccumes my pole sander hooks to a vaccume. It would be plain stupid to not do that the extra dust is foolish to put into the air and to clean up. Resperators are a must for any dust or spraying. My problem is with the power washing collecting and filtering it, vertical containment outside, 32,000 fines, controlling the liability how do I prove I did not cause it when it could have been their makeup. The average person cannot afford to vertically contain a house so what happens than. I have hand washed exteriors to avoid this and turned down many jobs because it was not feasible to do or do without exuberant costs.

To answer RCP's questions if I could get people to opt out I would change how I currently powerwash and scape as well as vertical containment outside. Also the plasticing off of entire rooms and areas would be diminished. Plastic would still be used but not to the same extent. Good powertools and vaccumes solve alot of the problems and with the opt out I would feel safer just doing that.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

jacob33 said:


> Honestly lead is a big scare and it is not as bad as being reported and I will take the heat for saying it. Lead used to be used in everything from lead water pipes to lead in gas. It used to be used as a sweetner instead of sugar. It is still in makeup. There was a big study published on it about the high content in the big name makeups like clinque maybaline and others. That includes lipstick and powders with are breathed I am sure and put on skin which is absorbed. The truth is today people are exposed to far less lead than almost any time in history.
> 
> I'm all for worker safety and following the laws as best is possible but honestly the fines and things go to far. All my power sanders hook up to vaccumes my pole sander hooks to a vaccume. It would be plain stupid to not do that the extra dust is foolish to put into the air and to clean up. Resperators are a must for any dust or spraying. My problem is with the power washing collecting and filtering it, vertical containment outside, 32,000 fines, controlling the liability how do I prove I did not cause it when it could have been their makeup. The average person cannot afford to vertically contain a house so what happens than. I have hand washed exteriors to avoid this and turned down many jobs because it was not feasible to do or do without exuberant costs.
> 
> To answer RCP's questions if I could get people to opt out I would change how I currently powerwash and scape as well as vertical containment outside. Also the plasticing off of entire rooms and areas would be diminished. Plastic would still be used but not to the same extent. Good powertools and vaccumes solve alot of the problems and with the opt out I would feel safer just doing that.


I don't even believe it has much to do about the health hazards anymore as much as it has to do with the financial liability that has been created with the RRP. And all that liability is strongly supported with medical data that proves lead is a hazard to children. And there will always be children.

Even at my place of work where it's considered a childless area, there is still major liability to my employer if I expose other personnel to lead or asbestos. I have to take extreme precautions to prevent that exposure, and it takes time.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

jacob33 said:


> Honestly lead is a big scare and it is not as bad as being reported and I will take the heat for saying it. Lead used to be used in everything from lead water pipes to lead in gas. It used to be used as a sweetner instead of sugar. It is still in makeup. There was a big study published on it about the high content in the big name makeups like clinque maybaline and others. That includes lipstick and powders with are breathed I am sure and put on skin which is absorbed. The truth is today people are exposed to far less lead than almost any time in history.
> 
> I'm all for worker safety and following the laws as best is possible but honestly the fines and things go to far. All my power sanders hook up to vaccumes my pole sander hooks to a vaccume. It would be plain stupid to not do that the extra dust is foolish to put into the air and to clean up. Resperators are a must for any dust or spraying. My problem is with the power washing collecting and filtering it, vertical containment outside, 32,000 fines, controlling the liability how do I prove I did not cause it when it could have been their makeup. The average person cannot afford to vertically contain a house so what happens than. I have hand washed exteriors to avoid this and turned down many jobs because it was not feasible to do or do without exuberant costs.
> 
> To answer RCP's questions if I could get people to opt out I would change how I currently powerwash and scape as well as vertical containment outside. Also the plasticing off of entire rooms and areas would be diminished. Plastic would still be used but not to the same extent. Good powertools and vaccumes solve alot of the problems and with the opt out I would feel safer just doing that.


I don't even believe it has much to do about the health hazards anymore as much as it has to do with the financial liability that has been created with the RRP. And all that liability is strongly supported with medical data that proves lead is a hazard to children. And there will always be children.

Even at my place of work where it's considered a childless area, there is still major liability to my employer if I expose other personnel to lead or asbestos. I have to take extreme precautions to prevent that exposure, and it takes time.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Chris (RCP) knows that I have moved more into Elevated Blood Lead Level Investigations as an increasing part of my work recently. Simply put, I have to try and find out why and what caused a child to have a certain amount of lead in their blood.

The more of these I do, the more I realize ...

1. that Lead Safe Certified Firms rarely cause elevated (10 mcg/dl or more) blood lead levels in children because of the protocols they are using. However, non-certified contractors do cause lead poisoning in children.

2. that reinstating the Opt-Out will lead poison children through indirect ways. Is the number high enough to not reinstate the Opt-Out? I'm not sure.


----------



## CliffK (Dec 21, 2010)

jacob33 said:


> My problem is with the power washing collecting and filtering it, vertical containment outside, 32,000 fines, controlling the liability *how do I prove I did not cause it when it could have been their makeup.*


That actually brings up a good point. Maybe Dean has an answer or opinion here. Has it ever been *proven* that a particular contractor was directly responsible for a particular child's lead poisoning?

I can see how a contractor can be fined for not following proper legal protocol, but when there are so many possible sources of lead poisoning, how can it be determined that one contractor's practices caused it in one particular child? Most homes have had several repairs and renovations over the years that could be a possible cause. Hell, we've determined that it is some bathtubs and yes, mommy's lipstick. I was under the impression that we still operated in a system where one is innocent until proven guilty. 

Again, I can see how one could be proven guilty of proper protocol not being followed(and I know they have)-even there I would think you would need a picture and/or eye witnesses, but I am having trouble seeing how a contractor could be proven guilty of directly poisoning a child with lead. How can it be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the painter who sanded a door caused the elevated levels in the child and not the child chewing on a window sill or playing "dress-up" wearing mommy's lipstick?

I am not questioning the dangers of lead or the fines for unsafe practices. I am only talking about the direct liability to the painter for a child's illness. Don't get me wrong, I am not interested in being the test case! Just interested in thoughts/opinions.....Is it really the burden of a contractor that did some paint work in someone's home to prove he is NOT responsible for a child's lead poisoning or is it the burden of the parents/state to prove that he did?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

CliffK said:


> That actually brings up a good point. Maybe Dean has an answer or opinion here. Has it ever been *proven* that a particular contractor was directly responsible for a particular child's lead poisoning?
> 
> I can see how a contractor can be fined for not following proper legal protocol, but when there are so many possible sources of lead poisoning, how can it be determined that one contractor's practices caused it in one particular child? Most homes have had several repairs and renovations over the years that could be a possible cause. Hell, we've determined that it is some bathtubs and yes, mommy's lipstick. I was under the impression that we still operated in a system where one is innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> ...


Proof ... beyond a shadow of doubt ... obvious.

In court, it has been obvious that non-certified contractors have lead poisoned children. But with that said, a Lead Safe Certified Firm has a certain amount of protection from liability, because they are following a proven protocol, that if followed, has shown that kids should not get lead poisoned.

It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the Lead Safe Certified Firm did not take the proper precautions (not follow protocols), which is very hard to do.


----------

