The 6 / 20 Exemption & Demo Exclusion

[SLS-Construction]

Sometimes, I hate it when I am right... EPA FAQ on Demo (http://toxics.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/toxics.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=6725&p_created=1269464561&p_sid=A4OHp-Xj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_srch=1&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9NjAsNjAmcF9wcm9kcz03MTYsNzQ3JnBfY2F0cz0 mcF9wdj0yLjc0NyZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9Mg!!&p_li=&p_topview=1)

Question: If a renovator removes less than 6 square feet of crown molding, is that considered demolition? Does it matter whether the molding will be discarded, replaced with new molding, or reinstalled?


EPA's Answer: It depends on how the molding is removed. If a renovation activity removes or otherwise disrupts a painted component in a way that destroys or ruins the component, the activity is a demolition.


Another one I just found LINK (http://toxics.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/toxics.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=6739&p_created=1269615247&p_sid=A4OHp-Xj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_srch=1&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9NjAsNjAmcF9wcm9kcz03MTYsNzQ3JnBfY2F0cz0 mcF9wdj0yLjc0NyZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9NA!!&p_li=&p_topview=1)
Question: If I use a hammer to make a hole is a wall that is two feet on each side, does the RRP Rule apply?

EPA's Answer: Yes. Although making the hole disrupts less than six square feet of painted surface, using a hammer to make the hole is demolition of the surface, so the minor repair and maintenance exception does not apply. Making the hole using a cut-out technique that does not destroy the section of the wall that is removed is not demolition, and the minor repair and maintenance exception would apply.

[Eieio]

Sean how long did it take you to get a response after submitting the question?

[SLS-Construction]

I didn't - I found it on their FAQ's this morning (I was seeing what their big 2 day update would bring)

The last time I sent in a question back in Nov - it took them over a week. I would hate to think about how long it will take them now

[Bodger]

This is going to be interesting.
The EPA is seriously overestimating the willingness and ability of the average contractor to decipher and apply all of this.

A two man shade tree painter with a workable but modest grasp of the English language, who managed to get his license and be legal, is going to read and understand these requirements and take the time to implement the proper procedures?

Good luck EPA.

[Leo G]

I don't care what the EPA says. Removing a crown molding is not demolition. idiots.

And even if you can convince me it is, it is only contacting the surface of the wall on two points which have a surface area of 1/4" each. You would have to remove 144LF of crown to hit 6 sq ft.

[Bodger]

I don't care what the EPA says. Removing a crown molding is not demolition. idiots.

And even if you can convince me it is, it is only contacting the surface of the wall on two points which have a surface area of 1/4" each. You would have to remove 144LF of crown to hit 6 sq ft.


What's $32,000 divided by 1/4".

[Leo G]

$37,500...........

[bconley]

I don't care what the EPA says. Removing a crown molding is not demolition. idiots.

And even if you can convince me it is, it is only contacting the surface of the wall on two points which have a surface area of 1/4" each. You would have to remove 144LF of crown to hit 6 sq ft.



How many LF of Multimaster cut would it take to add up to 6 SF.?
Isn't the actual cut the only part being disrupted?

[Leo G]

1,152 LF at .0625 kerf

[Bodger]

$37,500...........


I took a professional discount. I used to work for the government. :grin:

[Dean CRCNA]

I don't care what the EPA says. Removing a crown molding is not demolition. idiots.

And even if you can convince me it is, it is only contacting the surface of the wall on two points which have a surface area of 1/4" each. You would have to remove 144LF of crown to hit 6 sq ft.

From the same Q & A site as in the first post ...

When calculating the 6 square feet when a component is being removed, it's based on the surface area of the component.

[Leo G]

But you are not disturbing the component, just removing it. So it sounds like any rule they have is based on the worst case scenario. Glad I just install cabinets.

[SLS-Construction]

Even in black & white...

If you are trashing the componet, you are doing demo

Reusing it, you are fine as long as you stay under the 6 SF

[Leo G]

So when I make tea at night and throw the teabag away I am doing demo?

[Bodger]

So when I make tea at night and throw the teabag away I am doing demo?


If you go by EPA guidelines, it would seem so.

So, the price of replacing 150 line feet of crown molding in an old house just increased by what, 30%?

[mmike032]

this has clusterfvck written all over it

[bconley]

When calculating the 6 square feet when a component is being removed, it's based on the surface area of the component.
And I suppose that is calculating all 6 sides?!

[IHI]

this has clusterfvck written all over it

Just like the other things gobbernment has their say in and on:smash:

[J.Renza]

I took the class today.
Unfortunately,we had a rookie trainer(two weeks out of training) who seemed to be unaware of some of the points expressed here.
I don't believe a lot of the new trainers have been exposed to the questions some have covered here, so they are learning more each time something new is brought up.
Our trainer hadn't even heard that the opt-out was scheduled to be deleted from the EPA's rulings,and taught the class that this was a viable option.

No material removed from a project,according to him,is considered abatement.
He said we are allowed to use the Lead Check to determine how to proceed.
Positive,use RRP.Followup with dust sampling.
Negative,no RRP.

He also stated that after Sept of this year,third party testing may be mandatory for final clearance on all pre 78' properties?
He also was at $32,500 for the fine.
The one thing he did stress was to keep an eye out for each state's interpretation and adjustment to the rulings.

Our liabilities are outrageous!

Things to consider
For any exterior renovation prior contamination may be present, so liability issues dictate that a pre -testing should be done.
The expense of removing excess amounts of any contaminated soil would fall on the last person there.$$$$$................

On interior renovations,prior testing in rooms adjacent to our work area should probably be done.
Removal of debris to exterior containment facilities could also put us in jeopardy if there was a prior contamination issue with surrounding soil.

I do not see a way around the third party testing either before or after each project,if only for the peace of mind of easing any future liabilities.

[Bodger]

I took the class today.
Unfortunately,we had a rookie trainer(two weeks out of training) who seemed to be unaware of some of the points expressed here.
I don't believe a lot of the new trainers have been exposed to the questions some have covered here, so they are learning more each time something new is brought up.
Our trainer hadn't even heard that the opt-out was scheduled to be deleted from the EPA's rulings,and taught the class that this was a viable option.

No material removed from a project,according to him,is considered abatement.
He said we are allowed to use the Lead Check to determine how to proceed.
Positive,use RRP.Followup with dust sampling.
Negative,no RRP.

He also stated that after Sept of this year,third party testing may be mandatory for final clearance on all pre 78' properties?
He also was at $32,500 for the fine.
The one thing he did stress was to keep an eye out for each state's interpretation and adjustment to the rulings.

Our liabilities are outrageous!

Things to consider
For any exterior renovation prior contamination may be present, so liability issues dictate that a pre -testing should be done.
The expense of removing excess amounts of any contaminated soil would fall on the last person there.$$$$$................

On interior renovations,prior testing in rooms adjacent to our work area should probably be done.
Removal of debris to exterior containment facilities could also put us in jeopardy if there was a prior contamination issue with surrounding soil.

I do not see a way around the third party testing either before or after each project,if only for the peace of mind of easing any future liabilities.


Liability is one thing that I see being a real problem. Last contractor on the site seems to be the first target for action if there is any subsequent problem with lead.

This opens the door for lawsuits like nothing I have seen in this business before. To the point that even if we do everything by the book, and document as we go, if there is a lead problem, it's ours.

[naptownCr]

Liability is one thing that I see being a real problem. Last contractor on the site seems to be the first target for action if there is any subsequent problem with lead.

This opens the door for lawsuits like nothing I have seen in this business before. To the point that even if we do everything by the book, and document as we go, if there is a lead problem, it's ours.

This is a good argument for testing BEFORE work. Assuming lead is present and following procedure by the book could still land you in a heap of trouble.
My opinion is test everything including humans first follow the rules and test afterwards.
All it will take is one job and a slick lawyer and you will be sunk.
That's my opinion I may be wrong

[Bodger]

This is a good argument for testing BEFORE work. Assuming lead is present and following procedure by the book could still land you in a heap of trouble.
My opinion is test everything including humans first follow the rules and test afterwards.
All it will take is one job and a slick lawyer and you will be sunk.
That's my opinion I may be wrong


I agree with your opinion. And slick lawyers abound, as do people who are looking to put blame wherever they can, justified or not.
I worry about getting the HO to foot the bill. It's a damn sad state of affairs when part of my closing process is that they HO has to get their kids down to the lab before I can even start.

And what if they wander through the job site and get contaminated when I'm not there? Are we supposed to hire 24 hour guards?

We're potentially on the hook for other people's f**k-ups here.

[Bodger]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but it's something I have thought about.
I've done previous work on dozens of houses that probably contained lead. Even though there was no RRP rule back then, that lead got disturbed and was not contained according to current guidelines.

What is our liability on pre-RRP jobs, even though we weren't aware of the dangers? Now that this is being publicized and promoted, is it a matter of time before slick lawyers put us in the tank for past work?

[PA Woodbutcher]

You mean like they are going after the asbestos companies and contractors. Good question

[Dean CRCNA]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but it's something I have thought about.
I've done previous work on dozens of houses that probably contained lead. Even though there was no RRP rule back then, that lead got disturbed and was not contained according to current guidelines.

What is our liability on pre-RRP jobs, even though we weren't aware of the dangers? Now that this is being publicized and promoted, is it a matter of time before slick lawyers put us in the tank for past work?

Lead stays in the blood around 30 to 40 days. So for elevated lead blood levels, the pre-RRP that you would really need to worry about would be the ones that are a month old.

[Bodger]

Lead stays in the blood around 30 to 40 days. So for elevated lead blood levels, the pre-RRP that you would really need to worry about would be the ones that are a month old.


Oh, I thought it stayed in your body forever. Good to know.

[neolitic]

Lead stays in the blood around 30 to 40 days. So for elevated lead blood levels, the pre-RRP that you would really need to worry about would be the ones that are a month old.

That is the first time
I've ever heard that.
Care to give us a source?
That wasn't how it went for
employees at National Lead
(Dutch Boy) plant here....

[Bodger]

I did some research. It would appear that led in adults stays in the bones and teeth indefinitely, but will not appear as elevated level in blood after about 40 days.

So theoretically, if you had everyone tested prior to the remodel, and test results were negative, it could be assumed that tests during the work that might indicate elevated lead levels in blood could be caused by ingesting the spoils from the construction.

But, certain conditions within the body can trigger release of lead stored in the bones and teeth, and this could also show up on a blood test.

Start shopping for an expert witness?

Source for above was Wikipedia and some info from EPA. Google.

[neolitic]

Some how I don't see adding
blood tests to my estimating
check list....:o

[naptownCr]

Some how I don't see adding
blood tests to my estimating
check list....:o

Just ask for a tooth
No problem

[Dean CRCNA]

That is the first time
I've ever heard that.
Care to give us a source?
That wasn't how it went for
employees at National Lead
(Dutch Boy) plant here....

Bodger mentioned some places. Also http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/lead_section1_a.pdf and http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/inorglea.htm

I got the info from a lead toxicology site, but would have to dig around to find it again.

Like Bodger said, hangs around in the bones for decades. Lead mimics calcium. That is why so much of it is found there.

[Bodger]

That is the first time
I've ever heard that.
Care to give us a source?
That wasn't how it went for
employees at National Lead
(Dutch Boy) plant here....


Doesn't the EPA approved test kit have a blood sample litmus strip or something?

How hard could it be to get a little blood from the HOs? I've been taking a pound of flesh from them for years now. :laugh3: