I was just reading on EPA's web site about the April 22, 2010 requirement that contractors working on pre-1978 housing will have to have EPA certification for lead remediation...http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm
Are you guys doing anything to address that? What are the responsibilities of the property owner?
Lets see now. We are talking about disturbing paint that has been there since 1978 and before because it might contain lead.
Back then it was commonplace to strip off paint, especially peeling paint areas, before painting. Therefore is there any lead based paint left really?
How many paint jobs last for 32 years anyway?
Take a scraping of the area and have it analyzed for lead. If it contains none you have the proof that you are not subject to the lead based rules because you have no lead.
You can tell my opinion of this "rule" but which would be cheaper, certification or analyzing each project?
With the law you have to have an EPA licensed certified person do that lead test.
You ask what are we doing with the rule? Hiring a certified person if/when the law requires. Which by the way is pretty much all of the time.
The best part of the law . . . . any citizen has "standing". So any "do gooder" can sue you if you are not in compliance. So I would not try to skirt the law.
Who said skirt the law? The law is based upon lead particles being released as being harmful to those in the area and those working on the area.
If there are no lead particles disturbed by the job then there can be no contamination and you are in compliance no matter who you use.
Anyone can question what was done. No problem as you have proof of no need for compliance since there is no lead. With no lead disturbed you are in compliance and any questioning has NO STANDING no matter who it comes from.
With the previous obvious stated, you are in error in some of your conclusions. First of all it is not a person that is certified, but the LAB which does the tests. Second there are several exceptions to the law which makes your claim of pretty much all the time incorrect.
Next, I asked the question, which way would be cheaper? That question was rehetoric in that hiring such a lab would be much more expensive on an per job basis, than the certification would be. Therefore the only business decision would be to become certified or only use certified personnel.
A responsible business decision demands that you comply or decide to dissolve the business.
I certainly did not aim my "skirt the law" at you jawsette and I apologize if you took it as such.
And I am no expert in the EPA regulation. But I did not think you could test it yourself. I really recall the regulation stating that the test had to be done by an EPA licensed "certified renovator" according to Â§ 745.82 and that "certified renovator is defined in Â§ 745.89 .
I am not here for a debate or fight I am just going by how I remember everything and certainly do not feel like reading the whole regulation again this late at night.
When I said "pretty much all of the time" I was stating that in some way you must document compliance in any pre-1978 home. Unless you are a homeowner doing the work yourself. But if you hire someone then I recall that it was necessary to document the exception to the regulation.
But whatever, if a lab can get you off the hook, then where do I find a lab?
Become Lead Hazard Free Certified....in NJ it requires a one day course and a $50.00 fee. The course has been offered for teh past 1 1/2 years, long before this new law's effective date. Why take the risk?
No problem, JCC. No fight intended or accepted, it is all in the discussion realm that we do here.
I too am going by my what I recall from the bill AND the intent of the bill. It is that intent that is most often applied by the courts and if you are lead free (according to tests) then you are in complience with the intent.
I am not really sure about that "certified renovator". I believe that is speaking about the person doing the renovation (contractor) and not the lab personel. I do not remember the bill actually speaking about a lab (it might) but there are several "labs" that are certified by the EPA. They would either train the individuals themselves or just not hire anybody that has not already been trained.
I am speaking to common sense. I would be cost prohibitive for any business to have such a lab come and test all the areas that you might have to renovate. Think of the Chinese drywall problems. One 4 X 8 piece contained the problem, but the next one would not (in some homes). Or an unknowing contractor used a contaminated piece to patch a hole in a good piece.
It is common sense that checking the entire house would be cost prohibitive and therefore a responsible business will make sure that they comply by only using certified personel to do the renovations. Just as one would ask to see the certification of a CPA before taking his advice on taxes.
As Ingrid said, It might be ok, but why take the risk. This is not an area where more risk equals more profit potential.
So, if you are not disturbing the paint, but merely giving it a new paint job, nothing to remediate, correct?
Jawsette, JCC, & Ingrid - thanks for the education & your opinions on that topic. What are your plans to demonstrate compliance for each project? It seems like a form / checklist for the certified contractor would make sense. I haven't seen an EPA form like that...have you?
As of yet, I have not had to project that far. I buy distressed, abandoned, properties and fix them up. The only thing I have to worry about is verifing that the contractor is certified by the EPA (not the contractor board) and put a clause in the contractor agreement that he accepts all responsibility for his workers (the only ones that will be there during the renovation for the rule to affect) for their compliance to the EPA rules.
I learned about the law the hard way one year ago. In NJ we have State "green card" inspections every five years. At my last inspection the inspector asked "do you have your lead certificate? who does your painting repairs?". Naturally with a super I advised her he made my repairs. She politely informed me of the law. I was given a laundry list of violations and 60 days to make repairs with a Lead Hazard Certified person, NOT the Super.
Education next - I immediately signed myself and my Super up for one-day courses offered at Rutgers University - cost $35.00 each. Course taught the hazards of lead of course, ways to "properly" do repair work and Certifications. This building is 100 years old this year and there are photos on my profile so it is inevitable that I must comply. Once the repairs were completed I had to produce the "Certificate" evidencing we were certified to make such repairs.
Where the lab and outside lead remediation contractor come into place is when you are given a specific violation stating this requirement. For example, in 37 units I had about 12 painting violations. There was no rhyme nor reason why those units were selected as many had NO peeling paint. She just wanted them painted because they looked like they hadn't been painted in a while. In other units that had minimal peeling paint, the Certfiicate we provided covered these repairs (because the amount of peeled paint was less than 2 square feet). She selected two of these apartments requiring that they be tested by an outside remediation contractor. For the units that required minimal painting repair we were required to produce paperwork evidencing that one certified person took dust samples and the other certified person made the repairs. The same certified person could not do both. Lab tests per apartment-dust wipes ended up costing $50 per apartment for 5 dust samples. More paperwork.
If you are still reading and interested in how the remaining two occupied apartments had to be handled I'll post it. I figured you may be getting bored by now :)
Create Lasting Wealth Through Real Estate
Join the millions of people achieving financial freedom through the power of real estate investing