DTCI: EPA addresses lead paint renovation issues

Jason M. Massaro
April 14, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After April 22, 2010, 40 C.F.R. § 745.80, et. seq. (hereinafter Act), mandates that no person or company may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations without first being certified by the Environmental Protection Agency where such renovations occur in structures that were, inter alia, constructed before 1978 and visited regularly or occupied by a child under the age of 6 or by a pregnant woman in which such structures are shown to have a high enough level of lead-based paint after testing. The structures are defined under the Act as "target housing" and "child-occupied facilities."

The Act should be consulted as its requirements far exceed the scope of this article. However, the Act can essentially be broken down into three main aspects: (1) certification and training of a renovator; (2) lead-based dust and debris containment; and (3) education of the general public about the hazards of leadbased paint.

With regard to certification, a renovator must successfully complete a course accredited by the EPA, pay a fee, and receive a certificate of completion. There is also a dust-sampling technician certification that allows dust-clearance sampling. Most renovators will want both certifications if they desire to be a full-service renovation company. Make note, however, that if work is done on HUD homes, additional training and certification requirements may apply. That notwithstanding, every five years a certified renovator must take an EPA refresher course or face loss of its certification. In addition to obtaining certification, a renovator must train its workers on the work practices they will use in performing their assigned tasks.

When performing lead-based dust removal, the Act specifically limits the allowable methods for removal and for dust and debris containment. There are also specific requirements for work-site isolation, storage of dust and debris during the renovation process, as well as containment during transportation. Moreover, when the renovation is complete, there is a litany of testing and cleaning procedures that must be followed to ensure that no lead-based paint is left behind.

Renovators must maintain specific records and reports, and make them available for inspection by the EPA upon request. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil and criminal sanctions under the Toxic Substances Control Act for each violation as well as revocation of certification by the EPA.

Finally, a renovator must be aware of and follow the notice and educational aspects of the Act. After April 22, 2010, all certified renovators must provide owners and occupants with a specific pamphlet prepared by the EPA entitled "Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers, and Schools." This pamphlet must be given to the owner or occupant no more than 60 days before beginning renovation. Written acknowledgment of receipt of the pamphlet must be obtained as well as a certificate of mailing at least seven days before renovation. Further, while the renovation is ongoing, the renovator must post information signs describing the general nature and location of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. The signs must also be in the primary language of the occupants. How a renovator determines the "primary language of the occupants" is not set forth in the Act.

Even this brief overview of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation Act clearly demonstrates the extensive scope and magnitude of complying with the same. There is little doubt that compliance with the Act will increase the cost of the services rendered by renovation companies which will, in turn, most likely be passed on to the consumer. However, if renovators want to stay in the business of renovation, compliance with the Act is a necessary evil.

Jason M. Massaro is an attorney practicing in Indianapolis and can be reached at The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.