Is everyone ready for the new lead testing requirements?

Anyone else filing complaints with the EPA for companies not following lead practices? They can still be fined or given a citation for not following the lead safe installation practice.

I'm holding out until EPA starts offering cash rewards or a bounty. They created this ridiculous law, let them enforce it. My time is too valuable to work for them for free.

Karma

All I do is when I find out that I didn't get a job, I forward the information to the EPA and they do the rest. I even let the homeowners know what is going on. Most don't care because they aren't effected by any fines. Most just fax me the contract of the job and I forward it to the EPA. When the EPA visits the business they will double check to make sure the address is on the lead installed books that a certified firm keeps. Takes a little time but is very necessary.

Wow, I am 100% for following the rules but that sounds downright vindictive... Maybe your market is differnt than mine, but around here the customers that would ask me to cut corners or break the rules arent the type of people that I want to work for anyway.... I'll join buddy in the "karma club"

Agreed.
Besides, the EPA is not going to visit ANY job site just because Joe contractor called them up. If you think differently, you're fooling yourself

i agree,i am NOT ever going to turn anyone in,i think thats down right nasty. i am certified and will follow procedure,not that big of a deal.
if the EPA was serious and concerned about lead they would force a home inspector to determine if lead is present during the home inspection when the home is sold. if lead is found,the home owner will have the choice of getting a full abatement or signing a waiver.the contractor should have nothing to do with it. another example of the governement using politics and shifting responsibilty.

They are shifting responsibility to those who profit while disturbing lead.I have told subcontractors on my jobs that it's about time you finally have to clean up after yourselves.The funny thing is you can go and disturb up to 6 square ft. of plaster and you are not required to follow the rules but take out 1 window have to be in compliance.I'm sure there will be alot of updates to the RRP rule and all being more stringent.

again,if the epa was serious they would force a homeowner to divuldge whether or not there is lead at the point of sale through a certified inspector then the prospective buyer can ask for an abatement. if a homeowner has children,its THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to address any potential lead issues NOT THE CONTRACTOR. AFTER ALL,WE DID'NT BRING THEIR CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD,THEY DID.

It is your reponsiblity once they hire you.There are lead disclosure laws on the book already and have been for quite some time.Afterall they didn't decide to become a contractor who works on old houses you did.Whether or not who brought the children in or what choices the parents made you should use due care.

LOL, those disclosure laws are a joke. My wife was a realtor so I'm pretty familiar with how that one goes: Realtor gives seller lead disclosure, seller signs stating that they are not aware of any lead, done deal... Problem passed along to the next person... The whole problem that I and most others have with this rule is that it puts the burden on the people who are least likely to contribute to the problem: legitimate, ethical, contractors who were already doing a pretty damn good job of cleaning up after themselves. It does not address careless diyer's, it does not address careless, "billy-bob" or illegal contractors who are working for cash, and most importantly is does not effectively address the problem at the point of sale when a home's ownership is transferred. I agree 110% with the others who've suggested that this is the most appropriate time to do so. I'd also assert (although I don't have research on this) that most lead poisoning cases have nothing to do with remodeling projects. They are in shabby homes in the inner cities of our country that are in total disrepair. Why can a slumlord profit off selling some POS property that has lead paint literally falling off the walls because he never had to test for lead, therefore can honestly say that he is "legally" unaware of it's presence, yet we as contractors not only have to follow procedures, but take on this liability when we come in and replace the windows??? It's ridiculous and indefensible. Should we take due care and do everything we can to keep our jobsites clean? Of course! I have far less problem with the RRP procedures themselves, than I do with the half-assed, shady motivation and implementation of this whole thing.

There is a little more to the form then that.The buyer does have a choice, and needs to sign off as well.I guess in an idea world the seller will have a lead risk assessment,have lead abated,remodel and then sell house.When was the last time your wife recommend to the buyer or seller to have a lead risk assessment done?Before this rule It was very common to see contractors cleaning up with shop-vacs, and alot still do .Most lead poisenings I have personally dealt with are from very poor house keeping in older homes I have seen toddlers eating froot-loops out of dirty window wells.I also know of many homeowners who have poisened their own children from remodeling(most were fond of shop-vacs)Very few have been through contractors.Contractors would have to take on this liability anyway unless you want to enforce full abatement at point of sell.It getting harder to sell a home with paint falling off of it but I'm sure they make some new rules.What exactly is the whole shady motivation and implementation of this whole thing?

Ok, so does the fact that the buyer has to sign change anything?.. They both sign off because they don't care, and then we come in when the new owner wants windows and get stuck holding the bag... You admit that very few poisonings are the fault of contractors which is my entire point, and why I don't understand why you are such a proponent of this rule which singles us out. IMO, this rule is about political posturing, and maybe revenue generation. As I and others stated, if the EPA really wanted to get this issue handled, they would require testing and abatement before ownership of the home could be transferred. They don't do that however, because it would CRUSH the housing market and put a nail in the coffin of our economy. Instead, we as contractors get crapped on to make it look like they are doing something.

Homesealed, i could'nt agree more.

Gentlemen,

We would strongly encourage everyone to continue this discussion in the contractor forum at http://www.replacement-windows.com/windowbb/viewforum.php?f=9

Ed's