Liability Anxiety As much as he is concerned about the added cost of the proposed work practices, Hanbury is just as concerned with potential liability issues. He says that two years ago, he inquired about insurance for lead work, and after two months found just two or three companies that would even consider it. After a lengthy application process, the insurance companies returned to Hanbury with policies that had premiums of 40 to 45 cents on the dollar.
Although he doesn’t expect insurance costs to stay quite that high, Hanbury is fearful that the cost will be prohibitive. “I still think it will be a lot more expensive than workers’ comp,” he says. “Maybe 50% more.”
In the e-mail, the EPA did acknowledge the potential insurance problem. However, it said only that it was “hopeful that … insurers [would] evaluate the potential risk associated with this work and develop affordable insurance products for the industry.”
Hanbury is also concerned that the fear of making an error will scare off some remodelers. Noting the extensive rule book for lead abatement contractors and anticipating something similar for remodelers, Hanbury says, “If anything goes wrong, you’re the bad guy. A slight slip-up could get you into big trouble.” That, combined with the added costs, might be enough to keep some remodelers from working on homes with lead-based paint, which, according to the text of the proposed rule, is about 40% of the nation’s housing units.
Byrd voiced concern about the viability of the “White Glove Test,” the standard for cleanliness that the EPA proposes to establish. The test would require that at the completion of the job, remodelers wipe the floor and windowsills in the work area with a damp white cloth, then compare the cloth with an EPA-issued “cleaning verification card.” If the color of the cloth matches the color on the card, the area is deemed clean; if not, it must be re-cleaned and re-tested. Byrd calls the test “laughable” and says that it adds another layer of liability. “It’s more ammunition, another gun that some attorney can point at us.”
In the text of the proposed rule, the EPA defends this test as a cheaper, less involved substitute for dust-sample analysis. The text also addresses another concern: the presence of pre-existing lead hazards. The agency claims that while requiring the dust sampling would hold the renovation company responsible for abating all lead hazards, the “White Glove Test” would not. That’s not enough for Hanbury, who fears that remodelers will become “clean-up” services for all lead hazards, pre-existing or not. “[The proposed rule] doesn’t differentiate between what we create — which we should be responsible for — and what was already there,” he says.
The text of the proposed rule and a brief fact sheet can be found on the EPA Web site, www.epa.gov. Though long, it’s worth your while to read; its effect on your business is too great to not educate yourself. Public comments will be accepted through the EPA Web site until April 10.