In the US, this has remodelers up in arms. Essentially buildings older than 1972 risk having paint with lead, so removal of old walls and ceilings is now regulated similar to asbestos. Maybe this has been brought up elsewhere but this definitely impacts remodels.
Has this issue impacted anyone on this forum yet?
New Lead Abatement Laws
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 14373.
It's always been recognised as a problem in Australia but it's never reached the level of asbestos where a qualified remover is required.
John, Becoming "certified" means you spend up to 500 dollars for a 5 day course for the business - and then have to cover at least one person who will be working on the job by paying another fee (up to 350 dollars) for another 1 day course........ this is actually a government hustle..........and one of the biggest bunch of BS i have ever seen..... it is written under the guise of being needed to protect children and pregnant women (actually the child they carry) from the possible dangers posed by lead paint........ Now - before beginning the work - the testing of surfaces any time the work will disturb more than 6 square feet of surface area, if the test is positive then the area in question must be isolated from the rest of the residence - lay-down of plastic and covering of all surfaces not a part of the work in the space - the disturbed material must be plastic wrapped before leaving the work area and taken for proper disposal afterwards....... door openings in to other areas must be double sealed, etc., etc., etc. These requirements are in place for both inside and outside of the home. Then - after the work is completed - there must be a white glove test to verify that there is no residual dust. The the issuance of a certification of compliance....... OK - so the law (again) is intended to protect children, and contains a clause whereby any home with no children under 6 - or pregnant women - the owner has the right to "opt out" of the measures as long as they will state in writing that there are no children (or pregnant women presumably) who visit the residence on a regular basis. However - they agreed (upon pressure from some special interest groups) over a year ago to remove the "Opt-Out" clause - yet it was released with the bill - but will be removed in "perhaps 2 months". They are also now talking about expanding this to cover public and all commercial buildings (that of course because the kids are dropping like flies here - 10's of hundreds of thousands lining the streets each and every day as we speak). OK - here are the real BS parts of all of this - First - local authorities have no part in enforcement or inspections - and I don't mean they don't have to do it - I mean they CAN'T DO IT - this is not allowed. The feds have no enforcement agency for this either........... however - should a complaint ever be made - fines are 13,500 dollars per day per occurrence........ Next - and more importantly - THIS ONLY APPLIES TO CONTRACTOR'S DOING WORK ON THE BUILDING. The homeowners themselves are not regulated nor required to even comply with any of the regulations. With asbestos no one can touch the material unless they are licensed - period ........ homeowners are not allowed to touch it regardless of how they handle it...... you must be a licensed hygienist to do the work - no exceptions, and to become a hygienist you require a heck of a lot more training than a one day class.......... in fact they established five required training disciplines (worker, contractor/supervisor, inspector, management planner, and project designer) for a company before you can contract to do the work. The workers must take a 3 day class - then there must be a supervisor for those worker - that's a 5 day class - then the inspector of the work another 3 days - the Management Planner - another 5 day class and the project designer just another 3 days - - so for a company with one worker to remove asbestos there are a minimum of 19 8 hours days of training. With lead - Joe homeowner with 5 kids under 6 years of age and a pregnant wife can just walk in and make all the dust he wants - no training requirements - no special treatment of the waste - no special disposal requirements - all of those rules only apply to the contractor's trying to make a living. Like I said - it's a feel good BS regulation. Sincerely, RodIt's always been recognised as a problem in Australia but it's never reached the level of asbestos where a qualified remover is required.
Real nice rundown, Rod. It's BS as you said.
Interesting that the "opt-out" clause may still have a chance to be removed. Also good to know that a homeowner can do the removal themselves without penalty.
And it would seem that despite the potential fine (I seem to recall $35,000 a day) there's really no one "looking" which moves the liability to a nosey disgruntled neighbor.
wow! thanks Rod.
Ted, the opt out clause is being removed - no questions on that - they have announced it - but do not have a definite date - what they have gone public with is exactly what I noted - that it would be "perhaps 2 months" And you are correct (almost) it was 35,000 dollars a day not 13,500 - thanks for pickling that up.......... It is the homeowner clause that actually proves this is a BS regulation - those are the people who can cause the greatest harm to the children - 1) because they think it's fun having their children around when they work - while any contractor is not going to place himself in that kind of jeopardy....... 2) they are more apt to do something foolish like using a heat gun to loosen up wallpaper or paint - which releases lead vapor into the air for direct introduction into the blood stream via the lungs......... yet the government doesn't see the need to protect those children (which unfortunately are usually from families with less money).......... Can we sing the word "stupid" in 4 part harmony?Real nice rundown, Rod. It's BS as you said. Interesting that the "opt-out" clause may still have a chance to be removed. Also good to know that a homeowner can do the removal themselves without penalty. And it would seem that despite the potential fine (I seem to recall $35,000 a day) there's really no one "looking" which moves the liability to a nosy disgruntled neighbor.
John, my pleasure as always.......wow! thanks Rod.