ILNews

DTCI: EPA addresses lead paint renovation issues

Jason M. Massaro
April 14, 2010
Keywords
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 jason.massaro@hotmail.com. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT