Feds come knocking for home inspections

[workpublic]

prove the "hazard" before throwing out the baby out with the bathwater.

i'm just giving what i perceive to be another example of the federal govt overstepping it's boundaries. not trying to change the thread, going with the spirit of the thread. ;D

[workpublic]

both issues are imho loca(town/county)l inspector responsibilities, not a federal agency.

we've known that lead has possible health issues for years. why now the urgency on the federal level?

[fairlycrazy23]

I've done some research (is research too strong a word for googling?) , but it seems like this is not new EPA rules. When I find a good link i'll provide it. But it does seem like it is beyond the bounds of the Federal Government.

Seems like the EPA says you can't have 'clear water' enter the sewage system because it could cause the sewer system to overflow, don't hook your gutter drains to the sewer etc... . Which may or may not be a good idea, sounds like a good idea, but the EPA should be issuing guidelines, but shouldn't have the authority to enforce it via fines etc.

[workpublic]

do you agree with the "new" standards of lead protection. cause that's what they've changed that now makes previously "safe" levels unsafe. what new discovery did they hit on? were the previous "safe" levels wrong all along?

[bubblyandblue]

I, as a liscensed contractor, have no problems with the new law. I think it was long overdue. The cost for training was a pain in the butt but, the law is good. Your plumber guy can get trained to abate - he sure as heck is spending money to keep current with best practices and can use lead abatement training as a competative advantage and tax deduction. Also, a ton of people have been hurt by lead and, asbetos for that matter. I don't think the Fed govt is overstepping because, I sure as hell know that the current business model would not do anything about it - Free Markets do not care about freedom.

[magichat]

Work show me the new regs and then we can have a real discussion, not speculation.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 20, 2011 13:49:55 GMT -5 @magichat said:

So each state should have a different law in regards to hazzardous materials? I'm not a fan of the Federal Government but uniformity in certain areas does have it's advantages.

Yes, sovereign states should be the ones creating these type of laws, since it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
Now if state A is dumping sewage into a river that is flowing down to state B, that is somewhere the Feds could get involved to resolve the issue.

But this isn't even about hazardous material it is about clear water getting into the sewer system.

[workpublic]

www.windowanddoor.com/article/junejuly-2010/gearing-up-epa-lead-abatement-rules

not the regs. article regarding them. will get the regs

the course is $800 not $200 as the EPA said it would be. all of the EPA cost estimates are way low.

why?
cause it costs a lot to be a test giver and there aren't a lot around. so you pay what he charges.

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/regulation.htm

regs

I don't recall any federal inspections of private homes for mold or asbestos

[bean29]

We do have a similar issue here in Milwaukee. They however did not mention mandatory inspections. Just an estimated cost per homeowner of houses built before 1970 of $3,000. On top of a minimum of $3,000 in property taxes you are talking some big $$.

www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/114022314.html

We own one property in the city of Milwaukee so it will probably affect us. We own two more properties in Milwaukee county - One is not in the MMSD sewerage district and was built in 2005 so that one will be exempt. I am not sure if the other property will be affected or not.

Article said there will be a meeting tonight so I am sure more info will be forthcoming.

[magichat]

Jan 20, 2011 14:03:19 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jan 20, 2011 13:49:55 GMT -5 @magichat said:

So each state should have a different law in regards to hazzardous materials? I'm not a fan of the Federal Government but uniformity in certain areas does have it's advantages.

Yes, sovereign states should be the ones creating these type of laws, since it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
Now if state A is dumping sewage into a river that is flowing down to state B, that is somewhere the Feds could get involved to resolve the issue.

But this isn't even about hazardous material it is about clear water getting into the sewer system.

Did you even read my analysis on the previous page?

[workpublic]

bean,

let us know what happens.

[billisonboard]

Don't forget that those little turds may come out of the behinds in your state but they can flow down stream and into other states or oceans that have a common shore with your state.

[workpublic]

so just go with a toilet flush tax. set up govt meters on every toilet and flush away!!! ;D

it'll be for our own good.

i hope none of you are smoking while on this board. it's bad for you.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 20, 2011 14:17:18 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Jan 20, 2011 14:03:19 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Yes, sovereign states should be the ones creating these type of laws, since it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
Now if state A is dumping sewage into a river that is flowing down to state B, that is somewhere the Feds could get involved to resolve the issue.

But this isn't even about hazardous material it is about clear water getting into the sewer system.

Did you even read my analysis on the previous page?

Yes.
The EPA does set standards/rules/regulations on the amount of clear water that can enter the sewer system (for the reason of preventing the sewer system from overflowing, which is probably a good reason).

I found numerous reports from municipalities to the EPA, presumably these municipalities did the testing/checking without any uproar from the citizens, either they didn't mention it was a EPA rule or they simply didn't tell the citizens they where there doing this, or it just didn't bother anybody.

And it does seem to be an "old" rule definitely before the current administration.

[magichat]

Jan 20, 2011 14:39:11 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jan 20, 2011 14:17:18 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Did you even read my analysis on the previous page?

Yes.
The EPA does set standards/rules/regulations on the amount of clear water that can enter the sewer system (for the reason of preventing the sewer system from overflowing, which is probably a good reason).

I found numerous reports from municipalities to the EPA, presumably these municipalities did the testing/checking without any uproar from the citizens, either they didn't mention it was a EPA rule or they simply didn't tell the citizens they where there doing this, or it just didn't bother anybody.

And it does seem to be an "old" rule definitely before the current administration.

The overflow issue isn't at the home it's at the treatment plant. Instead of expanding their plant they are choosing to do home inspections. Doesn't sound like EPA enforcement it sounds like local municipality doing the dirty work.

[workpublic]

is there really a problem in the OP case? who determined it? how many people were hurt by the water?

[magichat]

Jan 20, 2011 14:49:40 GMT -5 workpublic said:

is there really a problem in the OP case? who determined it? how many people were hurt by the water?

You like untreated sewage in your streams and rivers?

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2011 14:49:40 GMT -5 workpublic said:

is there really a problem in the OP case? who determined it? how many people were hurt by the water?

That is why I have noted a couple of times that a good article needs to be found before we all jerk our knees.

[magichat]

Jan 20, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 20, 2011 14:49:40 GMT -5 workpublic said:

is there really a problem in the OP case? who determined it? how many people were hurt by the water?

That is why I have noted a couple of times that a good article needs to be found before we all jerk our knees.

The article is just fine once you read through the spin. The guillibility shown by most posters here is pretty typcial as well.

[workpublic]

You like untreated sewage in your streams and rivers?

no.

is there untreated sewage flowing out? what is untreated sewage?

literal cr.ap or bacteria that once was considered safe(and was)?

[magichat]

Jan 20, 2011 16:35:31 GMT -5 workpublic said:

You like untreated sewage in your streams and rivers?

no.

is there untreated sewage flowing out? what is untreated sewage?

literal cr.ap or bacteria that once was considered safe(and was)?

I have one word for you, typhoid. Based on my reading of the article, during rain events the inflow to the treatment plant is larger than can be handled. When this happen untreated sewage passed through the system. If you would like a dissertation on what it takes to treat sewage I'm sure I could provide but the details get kind of crappy. ;D

[workpublic]

rain events have been producing sewage overflow for decades. what's so urgent now that requires the federal govt to step in?

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 20, 2011 14:42:18 GMT -5 @magichat said:

The overflow issue isn't at the home it's at the treatment plant. Instead of expanding their plant they are choosing to do home inspections. Doesn't sound like EPA enforcement it sounds like local municipality doing the dirty work.

It overflows at the treatment plant because maybe too much clear water gets into the system. The EPA has recommendations?rules/regulations about private sewer laterals , which are the ones from the home. This is what this is about inspection of private sewer laterals to make sure clear water is not getting into the sewer system from the private laterals.

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2011 18:11:01 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

This is what this is about inspection of private sewer laterals to make sure clear water is not getting into the sewer system from the private laterals.

You mean it isn't about the local lackeys of the feds at the EPA to snoop around in people's houses to find out where they keep their guns?

Jan 20, 2011 10:31:50 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I too was concerned when I saw this article,traelin. What are they looking for in peoples homes? Information on the owners?Where they keep their guns? The government is oversteping for a reason.

[bean29]

www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/114312014.html

Looks like they decided not to charge individual property owners but to spread the cost out to all property owners in the system via taxes. or possibly usage the article really is very vague on were they will get the money to pay for the updates.

I don't think this will necessarily cost us less. Taxes - will probably cost us more. IF it is based on usage - probably less - our building in Milwaukee is a business that has no basement - no one lives there so there is no shower and we don't water the grass there.

[texasredneck]

I own a home in Plano, Texas. Several years ago there was a hole in the garage door about 5 inches in diameter a city inspector walked up my drive way and told me I would have to repair it. I told him I did not have the money. Few days later I get a notice in the mail to fix the hole in the door and replace the roof.
I called them and they gave me two options 1. They would loan me the money for the repairs and place a lien on the house which was paid for or 2. I could move out of the house. I refused and they took me to court. I spent $400.00 on attorney to go with me and when we got there they accused me of being a child molester they had charges outstanding on. Good thing I brought an attorney with me. We ended up with an extension of time to make the repairs.

If you thank you own your home you are so wrong. You just have the right to pay the taxes.

[handyman2]

Lets be clear. Just check the plumbing codes on piping storm water into a sanitary sewer system. This has been a no-no for a long time. Even if you are on a septic tank doing this will flood the tank and cause digestive bacteria problems.
As far a a local treatment system is concerned, the system is designed and built to handle and treat sewege not storm water. A flood of storm water can throw the whole balance out of kilter and the municipality must use much more treatment chemicals to get it back into control.
The issue of the EPA is well founded on the premise that if a system is flooded and due to volume it is not properly treated due to overload it then enters the waterways and will contaminate the fish and the potentual of wells over time and drinking water.
For the municipalities it is only good sense to rectify the problem where it exists. It is a big long term money saver to the public and city.
The worry about big brother intruding is much ado about nothing. You should say thankyou in this case.