Scary thought RRP rule

[Chuck Kiser]

I notice many people who are trying to think of ways to continue business without following the new EPA RRP rules. Now I'll say, I too think this a poorly thought out law and is not ready for prime time, for a variety of reasons. However, if nothing else gets your attention how about a 'theoretical' scenario.

You go to a customers house to discuss some repair or renovation project that clearly falls under the new law. You tell the customer about the new requirements and also the increased cost to perform the work. After a few minutes of general Government bashing the customer says "Hey, just do the work without all the new procedures, were inside, who is going to know but us? And Hell I'm not going to tell, I'm saving money". Now you need the work and you know about the new rules, because you told him about them. But, what the heck, I'll take a chance, the inspectors around here don't know squat about the new law anyway. I'm never going to get caught.

So thinking you've got a real peach of customer, off you go and do the work. After the work is complete and your their waiting for the check...Guess what happens.

Mr. Homeowner says, 'you know I've been thinking about this lead stuff and the possible dangers to my family and the effect on a possible re-sale of my house......................'

Yep, thats right fellow Builders, you are screwed. He can refuse to pay, threaten to report you and your firm, tie you up in legal issues until the last coming of Christ.

Remember you have no legal grounds not to follow the new law, none, nada, zip.

So to avoid the potential fallout you just walk, and walk quickly, never looking back.

What you say, "I'll turn this guy in for extortion, I'll show that SOB". Surprise, you got nothing to prove squat. The work for you to prove your case is much higher than him proving his. Your potential fine, $37,500.00. His, if you can prove it ?

Is it really worth the chance?

ps. this assumes the existing opt-out clause is removed. Which is the current thinking.

[tom struble]

yea Chuck ive been thinking the same thig

[SteveC]

Just another thought, more costly than not getting paid.

You bid a job using LeadSafe RRP practices.
You get and do the job as per regulations.
You get your check and leave.
The HO sees a Personal Injury lawyer ad on TV about lead and how to have the kids tested for elevated blood levels. They come back POSITIVE because they have been crawling around and living in the house for X number of years before you got there.
Now you're in court having to prove you did everything right.
Is that part of the EPA $35 per job cost ?

Difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road ?
Skid marks in front of the snake.....☺

[Allan Edwards]

My wife and I sometime swatch this Tru TV show, it is sort of like CSI where they show true incidents of crime and how forensics help solve the crimes. A couple of nights ago they had one where a small child had died and in doing the autopsy they found high levels of lead. They eventually discovered he had eaten some lead paint from a porch at the apartment complex his family lived in. The manager had forged some documents that had to do with lead content and was convicted and did some jail time.

[TSJHD1]

Just another thought, more costly than not getting paid.

You bid a job using LeadSafe RRP practices.

Insert here:

You have a stipulation in your contract that everyone in the household gets tested for lead prior to your work beginning.

You get and do the job as per regulations.
You get your check and leave.
The HO sees a Personal Injury lawyer ad on TV about lead and how to have the kids tested for elevated blood levels. They come back POSITIVE because they have been crawling around and living in the house for X number of years before you got there.
Now you're in court having to prove you did everything right.
Is that part of the EPA $35 per job cost ?

Difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road ?
Skid marks in front of the snake.....☺

You bring up a good potential issue. But as I think about it, if the household was tested beforehand it could open up further liability if they decide to get tested after the work is completed, and then find their levels are higher than before.

That $35/job certainly won't cover the cost of discussing these issues with your attorney so you can add more cya clauses into your contracts.

I think along with doing the above, make sure you keep good daily records of the procedures you followed while doing the work. Take pics, fill out daily reports, cross your fingers, and add a new line item for a contingency fund to pay for legal representation in the event you get sued??? Couple thou per job sound about right?

Shaking head in disbelief, Tom

[VTNorm]

The manager had forged some documents that had to do with lead content and was convicted and did some jail time.

We had a similar situation here; the VT EMP law is nearly identical to the RRP, it's been in effect for a few years but only applies to rental property. The property has to be inspected annually with reports sent to the state. You can become 'self-certified' by the state to do your own inspections and repairs. The biggest landlord in the county was caught submitting falsified reports and not doing lead paint repairs. He avoided jail but on top of the $80k fine he's in the process of vinyl siding and repainting the interiors of 20+ multi-family units. There's been hints of tenant lawsuits but it appears as though he's trying to settle out of court.

-Norm

[Ohiobuilder]

My wife and I sometime swatch this Tru TV show, it is sort of like CSI where they show true incidents of crime and how forensics help solve the crimes. A couple of nights ago they had one where a small child had died and in doing the autopsy they found high levels of lead. They eventually discovered he had eaten some lead paint from a porch at the apartment complex his family lived in. The manager had forged some documents that had to do with lead content and was convicted and did some jail time.

I am in Sacramento Ca. this week visiting my wifes family. Her cousin is a remodel contractor here doing high end work in an area that is near the downtown, most of the homes were built in the 40's and 50's I am assuming. I asked how they were handling the lead paint issues and he said they are not. Lead paint, asbestos...it all goes in the dumpster and to the dump. He wasn't even clear on the rules at this point. I suppose the real problem will be when the public becomes more aware of the rules.


He also has a rental property and mentioned that all he has to do is to disclose to the tenant that the rental has lead paint in it in their lease agreement.

[VTNorm]

I can't let these scenario's, no matter how plausible, paralyze my business. I work in area that is dominated by old houses and the 'rusty truck and workin' for beer money' crowd so I'm somewhat accustomed to competing against corner-cutters and guys that have literally nothing to lose if they get caught. And none of these guys know or care what RRP is.

I'm currently educating my customers on the dangers of lead paint and the law (this has accellerated some jobs so that they'll be complete before April 22), try and contain my costs and get efficient at implementing RRP on the job so in the long run my overall project costs don't get too crazy. There will be a learning curve for me and my customer base, the early inefficiencies will impact my bottom line. In 6 months or a year I should know if my business has a chance of staying viable. If not, I'll post some great deals on tools & equipment.

-Norm

[always-learning]

I notice many people who are trying to think of ways to continue business without following the new EPA RRP rules. ,,,,,. Surprise, you got nothing to prove squat. The work for you to prove your case is much higher than him proving his. Your potential fine, $37,500.00. His, if you can prove it ?

Is it really worth the chance?

ps. this assumes the existing opt-out clause is removed. Which is the current thinking.

What is really cool, according to the actual rules, which I posted a link to in another thread, is that it is $37500 per Occurrence. Meaning that if you remove one window....it's a fine. If you remove a second window, it's a second $37500, and so on.

I'm informing my perspective clients, as soon as I get the calls. Telling them, up front, that you are not doing anything that would cause me to become entangled in these fines or lawsuit, usually has them just finding someone else to call. Eventually, if the gods have any pitty on my soul, I'll get more calls from folks that are either interested in spending more money, or have newer homes.

No it's not worth the chance, and the Opt Out clause won't hold up in court, even if it is left in place.....from the way I understand. It's no different than any other written contract that goes against current law.... Null and void....

[Dick Seibert]

It seems that much of the concern is about the potential for fines, yet many objecting here willfully violate OSHA regulations on a daily basis, violations also capable of imposing huge fines.

Here are the top 10 OSHA fines for 2009, one a contractor:

A construction company agrees to pay $750,000 in fines and cut the pay of unsafe supervisors. Broadway Concrete of New York, NY, agreed to reduce the salaries of senior job superintendents who failed to comply with job safety practices. Broadway also agreed to hire a full-time corporate safety director, develop a new corporate safety plan, and provide OSHA with information on major projects and access to all job sites for the next four years.¹

And:

U.S. Labor Department's OSHA fines 2 contractors $175,000 in penalties following construction collapse and injuries at building site in Meridian, Miss.

JACKSON, Miss. -- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing $175,000 in penalties against W.G. Yates & Sons Construction and Spectrum Concrete Services following the November 2008 collapse of a wood shoring system at Jeff Anderson Regional Medical Center's medical towers addition in Meridian, Miss.

Workers were pouring concrete for the second floor of the building when the floor collapsed, injuring eight employees of the two companies. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. was the general contractor at the site and had contracted with Spectrum Concrete Services LLC to pour and finish the concrete.

OSHA is proposing two willful violations with penalties of $140,000 and five serious safety violations with $33,000 in penalties against W.G. Yates & Sons. The willful violations are for the company's failure to adequately erect and brace framework to support loads and to adequately brace tiered shoring. The agency defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. The serious violations are for the company's failure to train staff, provide drawings on site during the first two weeks of construction and vertically align tiered shores. In addition, shoring equipment had not been inspected prior to erection and the tiered shoring had not been inspected by an engineer.²

¹ http://www.safetynewsalert.com/top-1...fines-of-2009/
² http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...SES&p_id=17918

[MarkMc]

Maybe lead paint will return ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health...,7549400.story

[Dick Seibert]

Mark:

While building a radiation suite in a hospital I noticed that the lead lined sheetrock rooms were incredibly soundproof, I started using lead lined sheetrock in homes I was building where people wanted soundproof rooms. Since the EPA isn't going after the lead in PVC/CPVC pipe, PEX pipe fittings, shower pans, tile roof flashings, and other lead usage I guess they think it only dangerous in paint, of course that assumes they are thinking, which assumes that they can think, being government employees it's doubtful that they can think beyond thinking about retirement and how much money they will be getting.

[MarkMc]

I recall you thinking about retirement and someone used money to entice you. Money is a collective attribute. You must be a Liberal, or worse if we follow that 'style' of logic, no? Of course a thinking person might just realize the difference in potential exposure from the various sources, but you will be pleased to know that they did issue a bulletin about letting your kids drink from the downspouts of lead lined gutters...

[GaryJR]

How I received the RRP is it's all about children and lead. I doubt kids will be on a roof top playing with lead flashing or the lead contained within a wall to reduce radiation exposure.

This is a law that should have been enacted years ago not only to protect children but to smarten up us contractors about the exposure to harmful dust particles.

I've always been very selective with who and what projects I take on, but now I've become even more selective with this new epa law just around the corner.

[FStephenMasek]

Your potential fine, $37,500.00. His, if you can prove it ?

You have a very good point, but the fine can be much higher, up to $37,500 per day, plus time in the federal jail. On a ten day job, that is $375,000....