Lead paint on houses built before 1978

[Belmont Resident]

Homeowners a law was passed last year making it mandatory that any house built prior to 1978 be tested for lead paint before work can be done.
Failure to have a lead certified contractor performing the work could result in a fine of $35,000 levied on the contractor as well as a stop work order placed on the job.
This law applies to any work that is done to your home including plumbing, electrical, painting, and general contracting that disturbs the paint by cutting into it or scraping it off.
Regardless of weather you know there is or isn’t lead paint if it was built before 1978 it must be tested and the documentation must be in hand to prove this was done.
The funny thing is none of this applies if the actual homeowner performs the work themselves unless it is rental property, then you fall under the same guidelines as being a contractor yourself.
Good luck.

[RailroadJoe]

More ridiclous red tape from our un-founding fathers in NH congress.

[XJLPS]

The fine is actually 37,500

[michael]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

Homeowners a law was passed last year making it mandatory that any house built prior to 1978 be tested for lead paint before work can be done.
Failure to have a lead certified contractor performing the work could result in a fine of $35,000 levied on the contractor as well as a stop work order placed on the job.
This law applies to any work that is done to your home including plumbing, electrical, painting, and general contracting that disturbs the paint by cutting into it or scraping it off.
Regardless of weather you know there is or isn’t lead paint if it was built before 1978 it must be tested and the documentation must be in hand to prove this was done.
The funny thing is none of this applies if the actual homeowner performs the work themselves unless it is rental property, then you fall under the same guidelines as being a contractor yourself.
Good luck.

for the most part this post is true. this law aka "redtape" protects children below the age of 6 years old. lead paint was made illegal prior to 1978, because research proved that young developing children could not could not purge high lead levels, because required organs were still developing, and most of this heavy metal was being stored in the brain. much of the research was taking place at state residential schools, where children had been filed away, and given the title of being "mentally retarded". the paint was not removed from shelves, yet lead additives were readily available, and yes people did mix them with paint. lead paint was is probably the best paint ever developed lasting well over 100 years prior to chipping and cracking. lead based paint rarely peels off. if your paint has signs of simetrical cracking similar to a car windshield/safety glass, it may have a lead component. it is possible for lead paint to have a lower level of toxification, therefore the testing comes into play, and with caution a contractor and/or homeowner may disturb it. using a simple hepa filtured vacum will capture most of the dust. it is the higher leveled dust that is toxic, and provides a quik contamination to the the bloodstream by way of the lungs. the homeowner without tenants could easily migrate the dust to a neighbors yard/sandbox. while never actually tasting it, researchers claim that the lead has sweet/candy type flavor, and that under age six children have fairly mature tast buds. this law became federal, because many states considered the research ( it started research in the 50's) to be "redtape". without younger than 6 children living in the dwelling, i believe only the areas being disturbed, have to be tested, with follow-up dust samples taken at completion of renovation. it is usually only the unlicensed contractors that complain about this process. given the high cost of labor and materials now days, its a small price to pay to protect the grandchildren and the innocent child next door. my 2 cents.

[Belmont Resident]

I have elected at this time not to become certified and avoid exterior work on older homes due to the high visibility. As for the law, it is what it is and there is no way of getting around it. It’s there to protect but the fact that a homeowner can do as they see fit and have to accountability for their actions seems to negate the law.
I believe that homeowners should bear some of the brunt and be susceptible to fines if they choose to hire an unlicensed contractor to perform the work.
I just wanted to make people aware as I’ve been approached twice and turned down the work because the houses were dated as well as having cracked and peeling paint.
Many of the towns around this area will not allow a building permit to be pulled on a house built before 1978 without proof the contractor is licensed.

[pjs1342]

what happened to the Live Free or Die state?

[songkrai]

Where is the reference to the law?

[TOAD]

Originally Posted by pjs1342

what happened to the Live Free or Die state?

It died. To many out of staters moving there. I am looking forward to moving and fighting for what used to be. Things are changing and not for the better.

[jmen24]

Songkrai, start here http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

It is not a state law but a federal one and has come on in phases.

The first phase started over 10 years ago with taking care in lead areas.

Phase 2 was a requirement for contractors to present a lead safe pamphlet to the owners of a pre-1978 home that lead paint was likely in place and what the risks to them and there families was.

We are now at Phase 3, full implementation of the law that was signed in the 90's, with the requirement of certification.

A couple of things to note:

You as a homeowner can perform any amount of interior or exterior painting or renovation activities without being certified or having to test for lead paint in your home. It only applied to professionals performing the work under contract.

The initial Lead Test is not a requirement to start the work (when you take the cert class they go over this) in a pre-1978 home. It should be assumed to have Lead Paint and thus the proper handling is required.

I do not have the numbers right off my head, but it is spelled out on the EPA site, that if the work area being disturbed is less than a certain square footage amount (different for interior vs exterior) than abatement is not required. Whether a professional is performing the work or not.

The person on your job performing the work does not have to be lead certified, but they do require a lead safe supervisor to oversee all aspects of the work and to perform the final testing to ensure all lead dust has been abated and all required aspects of protecting the home have been met. Basically a laborer can demo your old painted kitchen cabinets without certification, but requires the oversite of a certified employee of the same company to ensure adherence to the law.

"Removed Text"

As the homeowner, you can expect to pay an additional 2-3 manhours for every 100sf of surface area needed abatement. This can add a substantial cost to your project.

It is no longer lawful under any conditions to burn off lead exterior paint. Most in the industry will know that this was very common place when dealing with exterior lead paint removal.


Review the EPA site if you own a home older than 1979 and are planning a renovation or would just like to know where you stand.

Also, any home that is older than 1982 can still have Asbestos. It was used for all sorts of things within the home such as: Linoleum flooring, steam pipe insulation, other forms of insulation, exterior siding and as an add mix in plaster. Care needs to be taken when working around Asbestos. If disturbance occurs than a full abatement of the area is required, by a licensed outfit, most contractors do not carry this level of certification and the fines are huge.

Belmont Resident, the homeowner does not carry the brunt of the fines, because the law requires the contractor to be licensed. If the homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor to knowingly perform lead paint abatement work does not matter. The law does not require the homeowner to verify certification, just that the contractor must be certified and abate properly.

Take the class, it is worth the effort. Yes it is expensive as you have to get certified personally and then certify the company as well.

[songkrai]

My next question would be:

Who does the enforcement of this law or proposed law or rule?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Please note, this is not a law but an EPA rule. If you you don't like laws passed by elected officials you should really like a ruling of this type by a federal bureauracy. I believe the EPA comes under the control of the Executive Branch of the Federal government.

[SAMIAM]

Somehow,I just can't see children gnawing on wood as a major problem.......if you want to protect your kids from brain damage,just stop giving yhem those diet drinks,candy and foods that containe aspartame sweetener ......far bigger danger than lead paint.

[Belmont Resident]

Why should the homeowner not bear some of the brunt? Because they can knowingly go from contractor to contractor until they find someone willing to bypass the law and perform the work. I've seen it first hand on a house next to the one I was working on.
I believe it IS a good law but it also has a lot of flaws in it as do almost every contractor I've spoken with. The main reason is that a homeowner can produce all the lead dust he wants too even if there are kids out playing in the yard next door and be perfectly within his/her rights.
As for taking the class I do intend to because as owners of rental property we have to be licensed to perform work on those houses because as soon as you take rent money you fall under the category of a contractor when performing work.
We both took the state class in Concord way before it became law. Unfortunately that class does not qualify under the new law.
As for enforcement I believe the town building inspector has the right to verify compliance and order work to be stopped for noncompliance. But I do not believe they have no ability to issue fines.
Insurance companies are requiring a lead test on many homes that are being purchased that were built before 1978. I’m sure a positive test result will mean some sort of change in premiums.

[TOAD]

Lead paint was banned in 1977. If it is/was so bad a thing there shouldn't be anyone alive or not lead paint retarded older than 34 years old.

I find it ridiculous how the goernment puts out these mandates.

People did just fine with lead based paints for hundreds of years.

[RailroadJoe]

TOAD And then we got the EPA. Nice group, huh!

[tis]

And since they banned lead and (was it) mercury and all the other things, the paint doesn't want to stick anymore. Have you noticed how it doesn't last now?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Somehow,I just can't see children gnawing on wood as a major problem.......if you want to protect your kids from brain damage,just stop giving yhem those diet drinks,candy and foods that containe aspartame sweetener ......far bigger danger than lead paint.

I think this post has set a new standard for idiotic and irresponsible posting. Children do not have to gnaw or chew wood to be poisoned by lead paint. And your idea that aspartame is more damaging than lead is absurd.

What you SHOULD do is delete your post before someone reads it and thinks you might know what you are talking about. However I suspect pride is more important to you than children's health, therefore I think you will leave it.

Lead paint regulations are not a government plot to rob you of your "Live Free or Die" heritage. I know a child that suffered severe brain damage from lead poisoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_paint

[Belmont Resident]

Actually many of the new latex paints are as good if not better then the old oil products.
As a painting contractor I've found that 90% of the time that paint peels it is due to things other then the product. The surface must be clean, dry and properly primed before using paint. Many of the do it yourself painters do not realize how much prep is required to properly get a house ready for paint or stain. Stain is different in that it is self priming and not nearly as durable as paint.
Most but not all houses require the use of bleach to remove mold & mildew then once they are dry I sand those areas to be sure there will not be any problems with materials adhering. Nothing will last for long on a surface that has mold or mildew on it to begin with.

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I know a child that suffered severe brain damage from lead poisoning.

Do you have a reference to this case? A newspaper article? Was it lead paint?

[SAMIAM]

Wow, BI....that was a pretty savage reply. I really didn't think that post was out of line but would gladly delete it if I knew how.....never deleted one before but it's certainly not a matter of pride when it comes to safety......Jeez, buddy....lighten up.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by songkrai

Do you have a reference to this case? A newspaper article? Was it lead paint?

Many years ago the son of someone I worked with had lead paint poisoning. A devastating situation for everyone involved.

In the 60's working in my fathers hardware store I sold lead paint. I remember my father showing me how to up-sell to lead paint by having the customer hold a gallon of leaded in one hand an unleaded in the other. The customer could tell that one can has heavier than the other. The heavier paint had lead in it and was therefore the better paint. I must have used that trick a hundred times to sell the more expensive lead paint. Then years later you find out it causes brain damage in small children.

Then years after that someone tells you that diet soda causes more brain damage than lead paint. When it comes to safety or health people should think a little before they post.

[SAMIAM]

I can understand your passion for that issue since you knew someone that was effected by it but it happens to be true that lead paint is not very high on anyones radar since it has been banned for so many years.
I think you were out of line to use terms such as "idiotic" and "absurd" to discribe my point of view just because you disagree with me.And to say that I value "pride" over a post on the forum more than childrens health is a little over the top and is not in line with the tone of this forum.
Not to hijack the thread,but aspartame is indeed a danger....which you could see for yourself if you would bother to reseach it.I had a family member who developed severe migraines.She lived a healthy lifestyle,good diet, excerise with no tobacco or alcohol use.....But she drank 4 Diet Cokes a day.After some reseach,I found that aspartame was developed as an ant poison and was denied approval for use in food by the FDA until some political wrangling took place.
Bottom line...she gave up ther aspartame and the migraines disappeared.
Google up "dangers of aspartame" and see for yourself.You may think it it's all baloney and that is your right, but there is no need to be insulting to make your point.

[jrc]

The whole lead paint thing is frustrating because of the half hearted approach. Assuming this really is the scourge to children depicted and attested by BI anecdote then why such a weak response?

I saw a This Old House episode maybe 20 years ago where they stripped and scraped lead paint off door jambs with chemical stripper and heat but stoped at 4 or 5 feet up the jamb, the belief was children would not reach any higher. Maybe five or ten years ago, on the same show, they wrapped the house in plastic, wrapped the worker in tyvek and sand blasted. Surely children haven't changed that much in the last ten years.

BI be careful what you admit to, there is no statute of limitations on stuff like this. A co-worker was tried in a civil court by the federal goverment and found finacially liable for disposing of toxic material (lead solder) in the 70's. He disposed of the lead in a way that was legal in the 70's, but is illegal now, he still had to pay.

When the goverment went after the toxic waste problem it went after the people profiting from the materials. This included the people making the waste and dumping it. Maybe they should do the same for lead paint, go after the people who profited from selling this poison. Not after some poor homeowner that bought an old house.

[Just Sold]

Here is the link to this new law: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

If you want to be properly informed and knowledgable on Lead Paint please read the HUD required disclosure that must be provided to buyers and renters of real estate. It should give you a good idea of how important and serious this problem can be. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/docu...=DOC_12337.pdf

BTW the fine for not providing this document and the EPA signed disclosure form by RE professionals to buyers and renters is $11,000 per omission/error on the form. The EPA has fined RE professionals and agencies in MA & NH in the last few years.

Seller Form: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/docu...=DOC_12343.pdf

Renter Form: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/docu...=DOC_12343.pdf

[pops]

I had new windows installed in my very old house last fall. Our paint contained lead also. It was going to cost $75 per window because of the lead paint and the extra work of having to safely remove and dispose of the old windows. I asked the contractor if I could avoid the extra cost by removing the sashes myself. He checked with whoever is in charge of enforcing this law and found out it was legal for me to do it myself. I didn't even have to remove the windows just the just the two panels on each side of the window.

Pop's

[RLW]

When I was a kid working in Allen's hardware and paint (54-55 years ago), we sold lead to painters to add more to the paint for better durability. Yep added more lead to the paint. It was in liquid form and in a small can, some manufactures put in jars.

[waverunner09]

Just the facts:
1. The lead law comes into play when you disturb 6 square feet or more per room of painted surface or 20 square feet or more of painted exterior surface.
2. Any home built prior to 1978 must be assumed to have lead paint.
3. If you test for lead paint in your home and the test is positive, you are required to disclose that to any future buyers or renters. (think twice before testing) ref to #2
4. Local building depts. have no juristiction to enforce this law, only the EPA.
5. Power washing the exterior of your home falls under this law, as this act dislodges the loose paint. Plastic must be installed to catch not only the paint chips but also the water. Both the chips and the collected water must be disposed in accordance to the EPA regulations.
6. The "Opt-Out" provision was removed July 6 2010. You can no longer "Opt- Out"
7. Yes, it is true that a homeowner can do the work themselves. However, the minute a dollar exchanges hand (you paid a college kid, or out of work freind to help), the law takes effect.
8. The EPA website has a list of registered contractors, take the time to look and ask questions.

[RailroadJoe]

Get rid of the EPA. We didn't have it in the 40's or 50's. and we had lots of wok in manufacturing companys. Too much government is too much.

[tis]

I couldn't agree more, Railroad Joe!

[jmen24]

Waverunner09, thanks for the clarification on the Opt-Out, you are correct.

I will remove that item from my post above.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Get rid of the EPA. We didn't have it in the 40's or 50's. and we had lots of wok in manufacturing companys. Too much government is too much.

The 40's and 50's were the good old days before the EPA. Black Lung, Brown Lung, Asbestosis, Chromium Poisoning, Byssinosis, Silicosis, Radium Girls, rivers that fish can't live in etc. The good old days.

[dpg]

Originally Posted by TOAD

Lead paint was banned in 1977. If it is/was so bad a thing there shouldn't be anyone alive or not lead paint retarded older than 34 years old.

I find it ridiculous how the goernment puts out these mandates.

People did just fine with lead based paints for hundreds of years.

So everyone should keep smoking and not worry about it. right?

[jrc]

The EPA is like any other government agency, they start with good motives, make good progress, accomplish the bulk of their goals and then they become a problem. The massive clean-up of the mess left by industrialization was a great accomplisment, we all love the clean air and water. The EPA accomplished that major goal, and yes we still need a vestigal agancy to keep things from reverting.

[Gearhead]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Get rid of the EPA. We didn't have it in the 40's or 50's. and we had lots of wok in manufacturing companys. Too much government is too much.

I'm not too excited about government intrusion, but every time I have to follow a pre-1974 American car on the highway, I'm thankful for the clean air act. I wonder how long it will be before two-cycle engines are banned - especially on lakes.

I remember Northwood lake when I was a kid. It stunk so bad from the two-cycle pollution (and tetra-ethyl lead) that you could taste it.

[TOAD]

Originally Posted by dpg

So everyone should keep smoking and not worry about it. right?

Not even close to being a good analogy...FAIL.