New EPA demands for homes built before 1978!

I don't know how accurate the above assessment is; I understand there is a new mandate from EPA but I've not read it specifically.

IMO, if so, it's one of those that folks just simply should use the power of numbers and silence and rebel by simply not paying any attention to the Feds on their own places. They simply cannot effectively enforce such silliness unless people do become sheeple.

Of course, use reasonable work habits, etc., ...

There's a point at which folks simply have to say "enough's enough and we're _not_ taking it anymore...

--

Why not just teach the kids to not lick the paint?

This sounds like something that further encourages unlicensed/unpernitted activity. This is lead, not plutonium. These people need to get a grip on reality.

Michael Dobony wrote the following:

What is the statute of limitations for blaming a previous President, i.e. Bush?

Another example of right wing hysteria.

The law applies to "renovations performed for compensation." In other words, contractors.

The annual fee for getting certifed is a measly $300.

The law requires that contractors provide homeowners with a brochure from the EPA about the risks of leak. Then they must mask off the area where they're working and clean up after themselves. That's pretty much it.

So stop listening to radio talks shows that blow this out of proportion. It's a fairly simple law that protects children and requires minimal extra work by contractors. Basically makes them clean up after themselves when digging into lead painted areas.

If anybody on the board cares about getting the facts instead of these hysterical rants, all they have to do is go to EPA.gov. It's all there.

Geez, dude. Guys like you are called male hysterics, 'cause you all act like you've got a problem with your hormones. Learn to address your PMS, willya?

Anyhow, to address your hysteria over the EPA rules:

1. It exempts homeowners.

1. It's an eight-hour class. BFD. Over 50,000 renovators have been certified already and there are trainers offering classes all over the US. So unless you've got a emergency project, it should be no big deal to wait a little longer *if necessary* to get a certified renovator. If it is an emergency, you and your buddies can legally DIY.

It is actually a big issue, and very few people seem to know about it - especially contractors.

The short version is basically that as of Aprill 22, 2010, anyone who does work for compensation who is working on a residentially property built before 1978, and who either disturbs (scraps, sands, etc.) more than 6 square feet of paint on the interior or 20 square feet of paint on the exterior, or does any demolition, or does any window replacements, must be a certified lead renovator and must follow certain procedures etc. This includes landlords who do their own work on residential properties that they own and rent out.

If I can find the links to the actual law, I'll post them.

In the meantime, here is a link to 16 short videos about the new lead-based paint renovation rules:

Among the videos, there is one that is near the end that is particularly interesting. It's the one entitled, "Is it possible to avoid this rule?"

It says that if a home was built after 1950, the is a very good chance that the home has no lead-based paint in the interior. The reason is that most paint manufacturers stopped producing lead-based interior paint beginning in

Yeah, that was the way I'd heard it, too.

Wonder if there's an exemption for working on 'new work' done on a property dating from before 1978? e.g. if someone puts up a new wall* in a 1960's house and a contractor later comes in to work solely on that wall, do they still have to follow the lead rules - even when they know the area they're working on post-dates the 1978 cut-off?

• or, taking that a step further, something like an add-on room or an adjoined garage.

Funny how much lead plumbing there used to be around, and we're all still here :-) Maybe that's different, and anything in water passes through the body, and the danger's just in airborne particles...

cheers

Jules

Same as for blaming Reagan, I think?

So, it costs "a measly $300" to do what you could do before the tax? How many measly $300 would you like added to your life?

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message news:hogkce$uoa$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org...

Yeah, and Obama's in the white house. . . could there be a relationship?

Just ignore the EPA and go ahead and do as you please. If one followed all their stupid rules, one would be bankrupt quickly.

Oh, that's priceless. Just priceless.

They haven't finished on Clinton yet.

There you go again. Trying to confuse the government haters with the facts. It won't work.