Lead as a HAZ MAT

**gazhekwe** · January-06-11, 02:20 PM

We decided to get new windows while the tax credit was still available. Well, they are going in today. The old frames tested positive for lead, so we are under Haz Mat regs due to a law passed in April. Plus it costs about $100 more per window because of the abatement. Now, we have been living in this house for 20+ years. We have painted the window frames ourselves, with non-lead paint of course, so the lead paint is all covered. It's an exciting scene, the neighbors are wondering what crime was committed in here.

YET, because of this law, the entire house is surrounded by yellow tape and HazMat warnings are posted on the doors. None of the workers is wearing a Moon Suit, but they did tell us we were not supposed to be here and should have completely cleared out the rooms where the windows were to be installed. They taped everything over with plastic.

I frankly think this is overkill. These laws need to have some kind of range of application from minor to major hazard. Asbestos, same thing. Jumping in like something is going to kill you when there would be little if any impact makes no sense to me.

Here is info on the law:

http://www.homeconstructionimproveme...april-22-2010/

lincoln8740 · January-06-11, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

We decided to get new windows while the tax credit was still available. Well, they are going in today. The old frames tested positive for lead, so we are under Haz Mat regs due to a law passed in April. Plus it costs about $100 more per window because of the abatement. Now, we have been living in this house for 20+ years. We have painted the window frames ourselves, with non-lead paint of course, so the lead paint is all covered. It's an exciting scene, the neighbors are wondering what crime was committed in here.

YET, because of this law, the entire house is surrounded by yellow tape and HazMat warnings are posted on the doors. None of the workers is wearing a Moon Suit, but they did tell us we were not supposed to be here and should have completely cleared out the rooms where the windows were to be installed. They taped everything over with plastic.

I frankly think this is overkill. These laws need to have some kind of range of application from minor to major hazard. Asbestos, same thing. Jumping in like something is going to kill you when there would be little if any impact makes no sense to me.

Here is info on the law:

http://www.homeconstructionimproveme...april-22-2010/

Overkill? You should actually see the effect that new Detroit Lead Law is having on Landlords. If you were a guy that wanted to buy a house and rent it out the costs are so detrimental that it is not even worth the trouble. You can buy a house for 5k but the abatement will cost 10k--who the hell would ever purchase a house in the City of Detroit?

Apartment buildings are also closing up because of the new law. Obviosly, there are a ton of other factors that are contributing to them closing up but the lead law is just another death blow.

Thanks Sheila!!!! Way to cause even more houses/buildings to be abandoned!

**johnsmith** · January-06-11, 03:50 PM

What a crock. It's definite overkill. Lead isn't harmful unless you ingest it. So unfortunately, it sounds like the tax write-off becomes zilch since you have to pay for this abatement, along with the headache of the whole debacle. Those windows should be in lickety-split and done with.

**gazhekwe** · January-06-11, 04:30 PM

There used to be an exception where the homeowner could sign off on it, but that was eliminated. What would really be helpful is a risk assessment scale. Flaky peeling lead paint? Old lead water pipes? Hazard level 1. Window frames with lead paint under three or four layers of non-lead paint? Hazard level 3 maybe. If the piece can be removed without disturbing the lead paint, then you have no hazard on site, it just relates to disposal in a designated manner.

I plan to write to my US rep and Senators about this. Yes, it cost quite a bit extra, and it pretty much eats up the tax credit.

**Detroitej72** · January-06-11, 04:42 PM

Gaz, I understand your frustration, as I work in the home improvement industry and the law is definitely overkill. What started out as a good intention law has morphed into an albatross.

They need to have different levels of hazard. Like you stated, if the old window is removed without disturbing the paint on the sill, there is no need to be alarmed. Lead is only harmful when ingested anyways, so as long as nobody is eating the paint chips, there is no worry.

Hell, the house in Detroit I grew up in had lead pipes for our drinking water. We just made a practice of letting the water run for a few seconds before drinking it.

**rb336** · January-06-11, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Lead is only harmful when ingested anyways, so as long as nobody is eating the paint chips, there is no worry.

The big problem with lead isn't as much eating it as it is breathing in lead dust. I know several people who have had lead toxicity reactions and it isn't pretty

**Johnlodge** · January-06-11, 05:04 PM

That sucks, Gaz. I had new windows put in last year with the credit, there was probably lead paint in there, the house was built in 1922. Glad I made the deadline, I guess. Is the increased cost seen even with the large window companies like Wallside and such?

**Johnlodge** · January-06-11, 05:12 PM

I should say, they were put in at the end of 2009.

**gazhekwe** · January-06-11, 05:19 PM

Yes, We had ours done by Andersen. The cost for abatement was $80 per window, total cost $560. The credit will amount to less than $500.

There should have been no risk of ingesting dust in this job. All they did was pry the moldings off and carry them out. The lead paint was under at least two coats of non-lead paint.

**Johnlodge** · January-06-11, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Yes, We had ours done by Andersen. It was $80 per window, total cost $560. The credit will amount to less than $500.

There should have been no risk of ingesting dust in this job. All they did was pry the moldings off and carry them out. The lead paint was under at least two coats of non-lead paint.

That seems like a good deal for Andersen windows.

**Gannon** · January-06-11, 05:46 PM

They just need homeowners to fund the list of homes which've been returned to scannability.

I've come to conclude that both lead and mercury are not the threat they claim 'em to be...for a variety of reasons.

But for those famous house-scanning technologies, lead-based paint is most certainly a shield. Same with metal-screened plaster walls.

They'd appear as a bunch of rectangles to the scanner, no depth available.

All someone would have to do is apply some contrained-layer damping tape to the windows, and they'd not be the vibrating laser-microphone membranes they currently are.

Individually damped leaded glass might be fun, too.

Cheers

**Johnlodge** · January-06-11, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

They just need homeowners to fund the list of homes which've been returned to scannability.

I've come to conclude that both lead and mercury are not the threat they claim 'em to be...for a variety of reasons.

But for those famous house-scanning technologies, lead-based paint is most certainly a shield. Same with metal-screened plaster walls.

They'd appear as a bunch of rectangles to the scanner, no depth available.

All someone would have to do is apply some contrained-layer damping tape to the windows, and they'd not be the vibrating laser-microphone membranes they currently are.

Individually damped leaded glass might be fun, too.

Cheers

I don't follow, how would new windows make your house easier to scan, the windows weren't painted with lead, just the trim around them. Plus your walls would still be covered in lead paint.

**GOAT** · January-06-11, 06:52 PM

$80/window? That is a good deal. I need new windows on almost all of myhouse. I looked for vinyl on the outside and wood trim on the inside of the window [[for the downstairs only) and I could only find windows that are approx. $900-1000 each! Considering I need 7 plus the remainder of the house...I will buy them one at a time.

As for the lead BS, it is just that...BS. Even lead dust isn't that bad if you buy a $20 face mask. Definitely overkill.

**gazhekwe** · January-06-11, 06:57 PM

Hmmm, I agree with Johnlodge, the windows were not covered with lead paint, and we didn't strip or abate any of the walls, so it's just the window frames and windows. We could be like Winston in 1984, hiding in the corner writing in our journal.

As for $80 a window being a good deal for Andersen, that might be but they did have to do an awful lot of extra work that took extra time. They lined the whole room, each three rooms, with plastic inside and lined the drop area outside and all the walkways and stairway with plastic. All that has to be disposed of as HazMat along with the painted wood, although one of the guys told me the plastic just goes to "the landfill." He was making a point that if it was so hazardous, why would that be? But I am not sure if he was correct in the disposal method or if there is a particular landfill that takes HazMat that they use. The crew sure don't enjoy the extra work, and say it is dangerous walking on the plastic in weather like today's, all snowy.

**gazhekwe** · January-06-11, 06:59 PM

Goat, the Abatement was $80 EXTRA a window. I paid $1100 plus for each window. They do look beautiful, and are promised to keep it a lot warmer in here.

**Johnlodge** · January-06-11, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Goat, the Abatement was $80 EXTRA a window. I paid $1100 plus for each window. They do look beautiful, and are promised to keep it a lot warmer in here.

OK haha, I totally misunderstood you. That makes a heck of a lot more sense.

**Detroitej72** · January-06-11, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

But for those famous house-scanning technologies, lead-based paint is most certainly a shield. Same with metal-screened plaster walls.

They'd appear as a bunch of rectangles to the scanner, no depth available.

My only argument with this scenario is, if that were true, authorities would never be able to use scanners to bust houses in Detroit that grow weed.

Every so often, you hear a news story about raids on home where they used scanners to see the heat from grow lamps. Since most houses in Detroit have some lead underneath all that paint, how can the scanners work? I doubt all those homes have had the walls removed and replaced.

**Detroitej72** · January-06-11, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Goat, the Abatement was $80 EXTRA a window. I paid $1100 plus for each window.

That's about the standard rate for most double hung windows. You will notice a huge difference in warmth, especially if you had drafts in your old windows.

**Gannon** · January-06-11, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

My only argument with this scenario is, if that were true, authorities would never be able to use scanners to bust houses in Detroit that grow weed.

Every so often, you hear a news story about raids on home where they used scanners to see the heat from grow lamps. Since most houses in Detroit have some lead underneath all that paint, how can the scanners work? I doubt all those homes have had the walls removed and replaced.

Heat signature is a far cry from x-ray identification of individuals and listening to them.

Plus, even if it DID do a bit of 'camoflage', I am not sure anyone ever painted their roof boards or attic rafters with lead paint. From the heat those huge grow lights create, they glow glaringly on those heat trackers in the helicopters.

If you caught the defense of this misbehavior from silly-law enforcement, those houses REALLY light up their scanners! I call it that specifically, because there should be NO laws against anyone growing their own herbs for any and all purposes. It is silly to do any form of prohibition, those never work.

Cheers

Oh, and I wasn't talking lead windows as in the problem listed in the thread...but rather leaded glass as a form of art, decorative windows...which I think will also shield from the scanners. At least muck up their clarity a bit.

How does one MAKE leaded paint, anyways?! LOL

**oladub** · January-07-11, 01:27 AM

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was passed through Congress with a large majority of support and was signed by President Ford. Only one section of the bill had anything to do with home remodeling.

Subchapter IV of the TSCA, "Lead Exposure Reduction," was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1992 under PL 102-550. It requires the EPA to identify sources of lead contamination in the environment, regulate amounts of lead allowed in products, including paint and toys, and establish state programs to monitor and reduce lead exposures.

So this EPA program was authorized many years ago. It was not until President Obama opened his EPAndora's box and let loose EPA's Lisa Jackson though that this agency was allowed to financially attack our citizens. It will, no doubt, slightly reduce the number of lead related poisonings. It will also create financial hardships, lead to greater housing ownership and rental costs, and ultimately more homelessness. According to one article, the removed lead painted wood is sometimes burned at dumps allowing the lead into the air. No matter, the feds now have more control of local contractors and also housing. Also, everyone with a pre-1978 house, including myself , will now be contributing more to the economy.

Lisa Jackson had a big hand in writing the cap and trade bill that is stalled in the Senate. In the version passed by the house were similar requirements forcing anyone selling their house to submit to energy assessments and being required to bring their houses up to the most current standards. Again, the owners of older houses and anyone looking for a fixer upper they can afford would have taken the hit.

gazhekwe, As an aside to my rant, I noticed that in the EPA link linked to your OP link contains some information beginning at 745.320 which might be of some use to some tribal people you run into. I didn't understand it but perhaps tribes are allowed a different standard.

**wolverine** · January-07-11, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

We decided to get new windows while the tax credit was still available. Well, they are going in today. The old frames tested positive for lead, so we are under Haz Mat regs due to a law passed in April. Plus it costs about $100 more per window because of the abatement. Now, we have been living in this house for 20+ years. We have painted the window frames ourselves, with non-lead paint of course, so the lead paint is all covered. It's an exciting scene, the neighbors are wondering what crime was committed in here.

YET, because of this law, the entire house is surrounded by yellow tape and HazMat warnings are posted on the doors. None of the workers is wearing a Moon Suit, but they did tell us we were not supposed to be here and should have completely cleared out the rooms where the windows were to be installed. They taped everything over with plastic.

I frankly think this is overkill. These laws need to have some kind of range of application from minor to major hazard. Asbestos, same thing. Jumping in like something is going to kill you when there would be little if any impact makes no sense to me.

Here is info on the law:

http://www.homeconstructionimproveme...april-22-2010/

Dust containing lead can be a hazard, especially to children. Though work can be done carefully to remove the windows and minimize airborne dust, I think workers rather do things the right way to avoid lawsuits, even though the risks are likely to be low.

Same thing for asbestos....though renovation work in areas where asbestos is present doesn't necessarily mean workers need respirators or that these places can't remain occupied, depending on the type of work being performed.

lincoln8740 · January-07-11, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was passed through Congress with a large majority of support and was signed by President Ford. Only one section of the bill had anything to do with home remodeling.

So this EPA program was authorized many years ago. It was not until President Obama opened his EPAndora's box and let loose EPA's Lisa Jackson though that this agency was allowed to financially attack our citizens. It will, no doubt, slightly reduce the number of lead related poisonings. It will also create financial hardships, lead to greater housing ownership and rental costs, and ultimately more homelessness. According to one article, the removed lead painted wood is sometimes burned at dumps allowing the lead into the air. No matter, the feds now have more control of local contractors and also housing. Also, everyone with a pre-1978 house, including myself , will now be contributing more to the economy.

Lisa Jackson had a big hand in writing the cap and trade bill that is stalled in the Senate. In the version passed by the house were similar requirements forcing anyone selling their house to submit to energy assessments and being required to bring their houses up to the most current standards. Again, the owners of older houses and anyone looking for a fixer upper they can afford would have taken the hit.

.

right on the money, what's even worse the EPA comes at you like you committed murder when you violate any of the Federal Regs. Just another example of pencil pushing bureaucrats with way too much power.

**Detroitej72** · January-07-11, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

Heat signature is a far cry from x-ray identification of individuals and listening to them.

Thanks for the clarification.

**gazhekwe** · January-07-11, 01:45 PM

Thank you for pointing out the provisions regarding States or Indian Tribes at 745.320 and following. The meat of these provisions offers to turn over the enforcement and administration of these laws to States or Indian tribes which qualify and submit applications to do so in accordance with these provisions. The really important part is that this law equates States and Indian tribes, a very significant recognition of tribal sovereignty. That is a very good thing.

While I do not hate the spirit of this law, I do believe it is another case of unintended consequences, putting older homes in danger of abandonment due to excessive costs of bringing them up to modern standards. The law requires additional cost and record keeping to assure compliance. That is why I would advocate for a measured approach, applying the full consequences only to buildings that contain dangerously deteriorating lead. The method of removal should take into account the chances of disseminating lead into the air or ground. Contained lead as in our case, should be rated minimally risky for removal.

Another issue is disposal. There are reports of incineration of the debris, or sending it to a regular landfill. In my humble opinion, disposal, regardless of condition, should be a prime concern. Yet, after extensive rules for containing and isolating the hazardous material during and after removal and cleanup, the regs allow disposal in a municipal or construction landfill. Should not such a dangerous product be contained in a special landfill for hazardous materials? Where do they put mercury and those new squiggly lightbulbs and batteries? I mean, if it can go in an ordinary land fill, is it so dangerous to remove and store?

**rb336** · January-07-11, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

. It was not until President Obama opened his EPAndora's box and let loose EPA's Lisa Jackson though that this agency was allowed to financially attack our citizens.

That is a total crock. Lead abatement in private homes has been enforced for years - levels of enforcement, of course, went up and down. I know people who have made a decent living at it [[not the same people as the ones who got sick from lead). However, Gaz' situation seems a bit extreme, possibly to the level of gouging. If I recall correctly [[it has been years since I saw MI's lead abatement regulations, which, I think, were first enacted in the 1970s), items being removed from a residence like moldings, etc. aren't subject to the abatement regulations, but merely to the disposal provisions.