# Testing for lead for a non-certified contractor



## DeanV

Can I check an exterior for lead for a non-certified painter and if no lead is found, he is then able to do the painting?


----------



## daArch

Not from what I learned. If it is a pre-78 house, then all records have to be kept so if the work was ever questioned, YOU could pull out all the paper work and prove there was no lead on all the surfaces that were distrurbed.

In our class it was asked if we could test a house "for" the homeowner, we were told NO. We are not certified lead remediators or testers. No one else can work on a house based on our testing.

From what I understood. 

You can test and have a non-certified painter working FOR you do the work as long as you are on site at all times supervising while work is being done.


----------



## 6126

Thats a good question. I dont see why not. So much of this new law is very vague. Im glad Washington State took over here. I have the guy in charge up in Olympia on my cell. He is very good about returning calls to answer my questions. From what I have gathered, they are very helpful here to certified contractors and are mainly interested in popping the guys who arent certified.


----------



## plainpainter

DeanV said:


> Can I check an exterior for lead for a non-certified painter and if no lead is found, he is then able to do the painting?


Won't you have to do all the paper work as well, and be on file for the next 4 years? That's not liability I would want. I would think you would need the lead abatement license and the appropriate insurances in order to give other companies the go-ahea on projections. 

RRP is not lead abatement - it's lead containment. No way I would get involved.


----------



## 6126

daArch said:


> Not from what I learned. If it is a pre-78 house, then all records have to be kept so if the work was ever questioned, YOU could pull out all the paper work and prove there was no lead on all the surfaces that were distrurbed.
> 
> In our class it was asked if we could test a house "for" the homeowner, we were told NO. We are not certified lead remediators or testers. No one else can work on a house based on our testing.
> 
> From what I understood.
> 
> You can test and have a non-certified painter working FOR you do the work as long as you are on site at all times supervising while work is being done.


Good point Bill. It will be intersting to read more feedback on this topic.


----------



## DeanV

One other odd thing is the home is aluminum sided. Did that ever have lead?

If no lead is found, then it would be fine since RRP would not apply, but I do not think we can say that for another person's project.


----------



## plainpainter

DeanV said:


> One other odd thing is the home is aluminum sided. Did that ever have lead?
> 
> If no lead is found, then it would be fine since RRP would not apply, but I do not think we can say that for another person's project.


But if there is no lead, it still has to be documented as such. And of course aluminum siding had lead, if there was any form of white or red pigment as late as the 60's - it was definitely a form of white or red lead oxide.


----------



## DeanV

Wanting to help some one out often skews my better judgement. My first thought was bad idea.


----------



## daArch

I think the most practical thing for you to do is tell the other painter that you are not allowed to determine lead presence (or lack thereof) for another contractor.

There are just too many variables here. PLUS, without you being there to supervise, you will have NO idea if window, doors, and other trim will be disturbed.

Walk away, would be my advice. Not worth it.


----------



## daArch

DeanV said:


> Wanting to help some one out often skews my better judgement. My first thought was bad idea.



remember, no good deed goes unpunished


----------



## RH

Are you guys sure or just shooting from the hip here? You're saying someone certified to test for lead cannot give copies of the results to their clients? 

Would a previous lead test (w/ documentation) be sufficient for the next painter? The HO must have a test performed every time they paint? 


Dean I would confirm the regs regarding this with someone in authority and if they say you're good to go write down all their info and the date and time just to CYA. 

I don't see why you couldn't do that though, and certainly if no lead is found.


----------



## daArch

Gib,

Have you taken the course and are now certified?


Or, as you ask, are YOU just shooting from the hip? Not to be rude by throwing your question back at you, but what I wrote came from the class I took and specific questions asked of our instructor.


----------



## plainpainter

daArch said:


> remember, no good deed goes unpunished


I was going to write that, you beat me to it. There is an addendum to that phrase....screwed to hell.


----------



## plainpainter

Gibberish45 said:


> Are you guys sure or just shooting from the hip here? You're saying someone certified to test for lead cannot give copies of the results to their clients?
> 
> Would a previous lead test (w/ documentation) be sufficient for the next painter? The HO must have a test performed every time they paint?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you couldn't do that though, and certainly if no lead is found.


This is a theoretical that hasn't been seen yet - I think we'll need to wait like 5-10 years to see the answer to this question. In the meantime do you really want to be 'kind' for another contractor and accept all the responsibility on already very nebulous and murky rules?


----------



## RH

daArch said:


> Gib,
> 
> Have you taken the course and are now certified?
> 
> 
> Or, as you ask, are YOU just shooting from the hip? Not to be rude by throwing your question back at you, but what I wrote came from the class I took and specific questions asked of our instructor.


I'm totally shooting from the hip :whistling2: I was only trying to apply common sense to the situation as that generally works for me. Too bad I forgot there isn't much of that at the EPA....


----------



## plainpainter

Gibberish45 said:


> I'm totally shooting from the hip :whistling2: I was only trying to apply common sense to the situation as that generally works for me. Too bad I forgot there isn't much of that at the EPA....


What does the EPA know about painting? They've had to come to speed in order to implement these rules, and I imagine it's going to be years before they come up with something that makes sense.

Just remember, this was reactionary to what people wanted. EPA had no intention of going in this direction. Then a bunch of people complained, most mothers, about their children becoming contaminated by painters grinding lead paint. We all talk about wanting 'smaller' government, but in the end it's the people that wanted government to come in and regulate this. We're our own worst enemy.


----------



## daArch

Gibberish45 said:


> I was only trying to apply common sense to the situation as that generally works for me. Too bad I forgot there isn't much of that at the EPA....


Yup, you need to remember common sense and gov't agencies are oil and water. They are Venus and Mars. AC vs DC. Two forces that will never mix in the same realm.



plainpainter said:


> We all talk about wanting 'smaller' government, but in the end it's the people that wanted government to come in and regulate this. We're our own worst enemy.


Even Walt Kelly realized this in the 50's and in 1971 distilled his thoughts to this still famous frame:


----------



## TJ Paint

*Let me get this str8...*

So if this was Dean's project he would:

1) Test for Lead

2) If no lead was found, or if Lead was found but the surfaces didn't need to be disturbed, no RRP would be needed (no plastic/containment)

If another guy had this project but Dean just tested for lead for the other guy and he found it was negative, this somehow changes everything?

I guess either I'm missing something, or something seems very unreasonable to me.


----------



## daArch

TJ,

the bottom line is that we, being only certified to test for RRP work, may not test for other entities. 

A qualified lead remediator is the only one qualified (in the eyes of the EPA) to certify a surface is lead free for what ever purpose.

Example: when a house is sold and the documents about lead are signed, what we determine with our little rudimentary test kits can not be used on the document to legally determine the presence or lack of lead.


----------



## TJ Paint

So, as an certified RRP contractor, you can test your own jobs and then do those jobs, correct? And that contractor will use the results of the lead test to determine whether or not containment will be used?

So if a RRP contractor isn't qualified to determine lead presence in other structures not their own, why are they qualified to test structures they will work on?

This, seemed pretty wacky.


----------



## daArch

Are you trying to question the logic of the EPA ?


Go find a brick wall, hit your head against it and write down what you felt.

then go to another brick wall, hit your head against it, and try to figure out why it didn't feel EXACTLY the same as the first wall.

You will have more success doing that than figuring out the logic of the EPA.


----------



## TJ Paint

I will retire now, to my local Militia HQ and tell this story and share another govt created befuddlement. :gun_bandana:


----------



## sagebrush123

and now that I read here, I have a naive question. 

this is a case scenario in my life. I have already said "no" to the job, but nonetheless, interested or shall I say curious.

as I walked this small exterior project and the house was built before 78......I talked with her regarding the high probability of lead.....and she had said that the house was tested by the window installation company after they gave a possible bid to replace these old multi-diamond grid windows...and upon the possible removal was the possible lead issue.....bid was more than she can afford this time.....and will repaint/glaze.....

I am not certified. However, if I was certified, could I use the documentation from the window company from their lead test results?

Certainly if there was a current test on hand- it would not need to be redone?

- I have watched her nephew do the work along with a friend and I was impressed with the level of prep, and seeing them use what appeared to be a Dremmel...then I saw a few panes broken....overkill.....

maintainance is key--why wait 20 years to repaint exterior window frames?

anyway...anyone know answer here?


----------



## daArch

Again, if the window company was certified as a lead remediation/testing company and had the multi dollar equipment to test, it may be legal for you to use their findings. 

If they were only certified for RRP work, and thus only certified to use the EPA approved vials, then their results would not be a valid test for your work. \

But it would behoove everyone to become certified to understand all the BS and not take our interpretation of what you describe and of what we heard in the classes. 

Definitely, the EPA will NOT accept, "But I heard on the Internet that I could (or could not) do .................."


----------



## Dean CRCNA

DeanV said:


> Can I check an exterior for lead for a non-certified painter and if no lead is found, he is then able to do the painting?


Yes you can


----------



## RCP

Dean CRCNA said:


> Yes you can


Dean is right, albeit brief!

One thing to consider is the components tested, if a Certified Firm tested the windows and they showed negative, a painter could use that to paint the windows, but only the windows. 
Sometimes a good option is to have a Lead Inspector do a XRF test and have the whole home certified Lead Free.

From the EPA



> If a certified renovator using an EPA-recognized test kit determines that the components that will be affected by a renovation are free of lead-based paint, can a firm that does not have RRP certification do the actual renovation work? What record-keeping requirements would apply?
> 
> 
> 
> Where a certified renovator uses an EPA-recognized test kit, follows the kit manufacturer’s instructions, tests each component affected by the renovation, and determines that the components are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead at regulated levels, the renovation can be performed by a non-certified firm and without regard to the work practice standards or record-keeping requirements of the RRP Rule. See 40 CFR 745.82(a)(2).
> 
> However, the certified renovator and firm making the lead-based paint free determination are still subject to the recordkeeping requirements of 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and 745.86(a). Specifically, the certified renovator must prepare a record that states the brand of test kit used, the components tested, and results of the tests. The certified renovator’s firm must retain a copy of this record for three years. EPA further recommends that the firm actually performing the renovation also retain a copy of these records to demonstrate that compliance with the RRP Rule was not required.


Check out Deans blog for more info.


----------



## daArch

well, my instructor told us a fib


----------



## daArch

OK, now a dicey question. Who is the responsible contractor IF the workers disturb and area that was not tested or showed to be lead at some time in the future?

Who is responsible if the test was erroneous. ?

And I assume our instructor was correct when he said that one needs to test each component of each window because so often a replaced sash, sill, or trim could show a false negative for other parts that were not replaced. 

but now I am questioning everything he said.


----------



## RCP

Bill, what you have to remember is that many of the trainers were just average joes hired by companies to follow the EPA powerpoint show and follow a script. I have attended 3 RRP trainings and saw three different views. A lot of it was interpreted incorrectly, so it is always best to go back to the rule whenever there is a question.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

RCP said:


> Dean is right, albeit brief!


I tried typing "yes", but it was too short 

Bill,

A Certified Renovator can test for other contractors where the job falls under the RRP. A CR can not test a HUD job. A CR can not do a lead inspection (whole house).


----------



## Dean CRCNA

daArch said:


> OK, now a dicey question. Who is the responsible contractor IF the workers disturb and area that was not tested or showed to be lead at some time in the future?


The contractor who is doing the work, plus the GC, Interior Decorator, Architect, Real estate agent, landlord or whoever hired the contractor (except the homeowner). If a lead inspector, risk assessor or CR did testing, they would be the primary.



> Who is responsible if the test was erroneous. ?


The tester.


----------



## TJ Paint

RCP said:


> Bill, what you have to remember is that many of the trainers were just average joes hired by companies to follow the EPA powerpoint show and follow a script. I have attended 3 RRP trainings and saw three different views. A lot of it was interpreted incorrectly,
> .


Sounds like a worthwhile and valuable deal...

For somebody....


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Gibberish45 said:


> You're saying someone certified to test for lead cannot give copies of the results to their clients?
> 
> Would a previous lead test (w/ documentation) be sufficient for the next painter? The HO must have a test performed every time they paint?


A certified renovator, lead inspector or risk assessor can give a copy of the inspection report to the clients. The inspection report is good for the life of the home and may be used in the future.

The RRP inspection report shows which components were tested.


----------



## daArch

well, with all the differing opinions out there, makes me glad I shy away from RRP work. I may be testing and containing correctly for one inspector, but the next day a different inspector may want to fine me a few thousand. 

back to the OP,

Dean, if you decide to test for the other contractor, do NOT give him a signed report or any evidence that would leave a paper trail back to you. Who knows how the situation will be judged in the future.

tell him to get certified and registered and put his own ass on the line.


----------



## RDK

So I took the test and never paid to be for the license. I wont touch lead jobs. I always get under bid. The way I under stood it electricians or plumbers could come into a house and cut a receptacle in and not have to test for lead. I think there is a certain sq ft that your not required to test. so if your taking a small chip I would say you don't need to be certified. Also the way it was explained to me that homeowners could scrape all the lead and throw it on the street and wouldn't have any repercussions. But a licensed contractor will get a fine. If no lead is found you don't have to follow EPA regulations. The most common way of getting caught is your competition telling on you. If you are certified you can check any house for lead. I wouldn't suggest using a non certified painter if lead is found though. Hope this helps.:no: 




DeanV said:


> Can I check an exterior for lead for a non-certified painter and if no lead is found, he is then able to do the painting?


----------



## daArch

Most of us who took the course know the answers to what you have posted.

6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior

Rule applies to those doing work for compensation. Homeowners can do whatever they like, unless they are renting the property out. I doubt they could throw lead chips on the street with impunity.

If no lead is found on the surfaces to be worked on, RRP containment rules do not apply.

Thanks for joining in.


----------



## chrisn

daArch said:


> well, with all the differing opinions out there, makes me glad I shy away from RRP work. I may be testing and containing correctly for one inspector, but the next day a different inspector may want to fine me a few thousand.
> 
> back to the OP,
> 
> Dean, if you decide to test for the other contractor, do NOT give him a signed report or any evidence that would leave a paper trail back to you. Who knows how the situation will be judged in the future.
> 
> tell him to get certified and registered and put his own ass on the line.


 
$37,500 to be exact, as of yesterday


----------



## daArch

chrisn said:


> $37,500 to be exact, as of yesterday


that's the fed's fine. States that administer it can and do vary their fine structure. I think I remember (don't feel like spending time confirming) that Mass is in the $5,000 range. The rumor I heard is that a "small" fine will be paid more readily whereas a huge fine would only motivate the contractor to fight it in court.

You certified now? Congrats. Are you going to register with the EPA? Or just stay away from RRP jobs?


----------



## TJ Paint

daArch said:


> well, with all the differing opinions out there, makes me glad I shy away from RRP work. I may be testing and containing correctly for one inspector, but the next day a different inspector may want to fine me a few thousand.
> 
> 
> .


Hopefully the inspectors aren't getting a commission for the fines they administer...


----------



## chrisn

daArch said:


> that's the fed's fine. States that administer it can and do vary their fine structure. I think I remember (don't feel like spending time confirming) that Mass is in the $5,000 range. The rumor I heard is that a "small" fine will be paid more readily whereas a huge fine would only motivate the contractor to fight it in court.
> 
> You certified now? Congrats. Are you going to register with the EPA? Or just stay away from RRP jobs?


I gave the  their $300 just so I am legal and could do a RRP job if I want too.The "teachers" keep stressing that above all else it is a good marketing tool. I have my doubts but at least I am legal.:yes:


----------



## RCP

There is a fine schedule, certain fines for certain rules, could be a couple hundred for not handing out RR book to the 37k for a willful violation. Most states that adopted it are taking more of "let's help you get compliant" rather than fines.


----------



## daArch

chrisn said:


> but at least I am legal.:yes:


feels weird, doesn't it


----------



## chrisn

daArch said:


> feels weird, doesn't it


 
Hey, I have been "legal" for a couple or three decades:whistling2:


----------



## BreatheEasyHP

Last week I completed some RRP work. A fellow painting contractor and friend was at the site and he said he talked to 2 inspectors and they chatted and watched me and my crew work for a bit. He said they were like..."plastic's ten feet out, and some more where there's two stories...no illegal tools blowing dust into the air...looks pretty good."

I know that the government _can _go ape sh*t crazy on us, but sometimes they make a huge war-chest full of miscellaneous weapons so that they can have the right one on hand if someone is acting dangerously.


----------



## RCP

BreatheEasyHP said:


> I know that the government _can _go ape sh*t crazy on us, but sometimes they make a huge war-chest full of miscellaneous weapons so that they can have the right one on hand if someone is acting dangerously.


I think that is an excellent point, thanks!


----------



## Steve Richards

daArch said:


> well, my instructor told us a fib





RCP said:


> Bill, what you have to remember is that many of the trainers were just average joes hired by companies to follow the EPA powerpoint show and follow a script. I have attended 3 RRP trainings and saw three different views. A lot of it was interpreted incorrectly, so it is always best to go back to the rule whenever there is a question.


I know I'm late...but I can't remember if I already said this here, or if it was on CT.

One of my instructors told us "if you touch the wall with a paint brush, you've disturbed the paint"

I knew at the time it didn't sound right...but who was I (or any of us in the class) to argue with the instructor?


----------



## Steve Richards

BreatheEasyHP said:


> Last week I completed some RRP work. A fellow painting contractor and friend was at the site and he said he talked to 2 inspectors and they chatted and watched me and my crew work for a bit. He said they were like..."plastic's ten feet out, and some more where there's two stories...no illegal tools blowing dust into the air...looks pretty good."


:thumbsup:
I (think) I'd like to have someone appreciate/notice me following the rules.


----------



## Steve Richards

BTW
What I enjoyed most about my class, was the guy sitting next to me.

He bitched and moaned the whole time. He drew the attention of the instructors away from what they were saying over and over, yelling stuff like "THAT'S BS" and "THIS IS ALL BS".

The stupid bastard was the only one in class that failed the little test at the end. HA!


ok I'm done
sorry


----------



## chrisn

Steve Richards said:


> BTW
> What I enjoyed most about my class, was the guy sitting next to me.
> 
> He bitched and moaned the whole time. He drew the attention of the instructors away from what they were saying over and over, yelling stuff like "THAT'S BS" and "THIS IS ALL BS".
> 
> The stupid bastard was the only one in class that failed the little test at the end. HA!
> 
> 
> ok I'm done
> sorry


 
He must have been REALLY stupid:yes:


----------



## Steve Richards

Yeah, but one of the instructors just took him aside and went over all the answers with him, while the rest of us stood in line for our diplomas.

I'm sure he's still a (proud) member of our graduating class


----------



## sagebrush123

Thanks for the responses and answers to my ?

I really did turn the job down. I can (behind the scene) ask the window company how they go about testing as I know what company she called.....I do trust that tests were done because this lady is a valued neighbor to my mother, and I trust that she is communicating honestly (surprised that the results were negative-but who know how the test was done?)

I did want to add to Steve-that I think it is absolute bull**** not to question a teacher/teaching. They are in no position of a higher authority, any worthwhile teacher, I would think, would value being challenge. It is afterall, not grade school.


----------



## Steve Richards

Nah, Sage..they were having a hard enough time already, I kinda felt sorry for them.

I just sat quietly...I knew any questions I had, I could find later in the book they gave me. 

And yeah...it WAS pretty much like (my first day of) grade school.. I didn't know WTF was going on then either!


----------



## sagebrush123

I, too, probably would have sat quiet, but had a flood of thoughts in my head.


----------



## Steve Richards

It's been a year and a half since my class.

I use the book quite a bit..but from the class itself, I pretty much just remember the wrong info given, the guy sitting next to me, and having coffee in a cup that came with a saucer.


----------



## [email protected]

daArch said:


> 6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior
> 
> Rule applies to those doing work for compensation. Homeowners can do whatever they like, unless they are renting the property out. I doubt they could throw lead chips on the street with impunity.
> 
> If no lead is found on the surfaces to be worked on, RRP containment rules do not apply.


I have gotten a number of leads for interior homes older than 78. I'm not RRP qual'd. 

*I have some questions that weren't directly answered by reading this topic. If one of them was, please excuse my ignorance:*



Are you guys saying, in order to test the paint for lead I have to be certified to do so?
Do I have to test the paint for lead if I stay under the "6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior" minimum?
To what extent of sanding or scraping of a "6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior" area applies? How do you measure surface area on sporadic (some here and some there...) prep?
If the home doesn't need any prep, can I still service it without being RRP qualified?


----------



## DeanV

If not RRP certified, in the eyes of the EPA you are not allowed to work on the at all since you are not qualified to even determine if there is a lead hazard, if you are disturbing lead or not, etc. no RRP=no pre 78 unless some qualified has cleared the building and said no lead is present on stuff you will work on. My take.


----------



## daArch

Jason,

I could answer each of your questions ..... but then I'd have to kill you  :whistling2: :thumbup: (sorry, couldn't resist)

I can not strongly advise enough to take the course and become certified. Once you are certified all these answers will be yours. 

I took the course not because I expected to be faced with RRP jobs, but because I wanted to be EDUCATED as to what the EPA requirements and stipulations were. Now I can look at a job and decide out of *knowledge* if I wanted to tackle it or not. 

Jason, in the words of our adopted Jewish grandmothers, "so take the course, it can't hurt"


----------



## [email protected]

daArch said:


> Jason, in the words of our adopted Jewish grandmothers, "so take the course, it can't hurt"


I feel the pain...










Honestly, there are no funds for this right now.... So, cough up the info buster! lol...


----------



## RCP

[email protected] said:


> I have gotten a number of leads for interior homes older than 78. I'm not RRP qual'd.
> 
> *I have some questions that weren't directly answered by reading this topic. If one of them was, please excuse my ignorance:*
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guys saying, in order to test the paint for lead I have to be certified to do so?
> Yes
> Do I have to test the paint for lead if I stay under the "6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior" minimum?
> It is not considered renovation if you are disturbing less than that, so technically no, but in the earlier reg there was a part that said "you cannot offer to perform work in a pre 78 home unless certified" Windows are excluded from the exemption
> To what extent of sanding or scraping of a "6 sq ft interior, 20 sq ft exterior" area applies? How do you measure surface area on sporadic (some here and some there...) prep?
> It is not sanding or scraping, but "disturbing" the paint, a grey area for sure.
> If the home doesn't need any prep, can I still service it without being RRP qualified?
> My read is no, because in 5 years when you get audited and have no documentation that you worked on a pre 78 home it will be very hard to defend yourself with, "but I did not disturb any paint"


Talk to your paint rep, many of the stores offered discounted classes. Like Bill says, you don't need to spend all the money to equip your company to do RRP, but at least get yourself certified. It looks like Oregon has adopted the rule, so check with them. Here is a list of CR's, maybe you could find one that would that would do testing for you. Or have the HO get a test done.
Hopefully Dean will come along and correct me if I am wrong, or has more to add. He has written some good articles on the blog that may help you as well.


----------



## CliffK

Jason, 
Like Bill says, if you are in a market where you encounter pre 1978 homes you should get certified whether you intend to "renovate" & "disturb" or not. That way you are at least educated. You owe that to yourself and the customers you service. I believe that is the best approach.

Chris- I believe you _*can*_ perform paint work in a pre 1978 home without being certified as long as there is no disturbance beyond the 6 sq. ft. limit(interior). I know this was a gray area early on. I have no idea after the fact how it would be determined if more than 6 sq. ft. was disturbed. Paint work is a little different from some of the other trades because it is _possible_ to paint in a home(pre-78) without disturbance. Where as it would be impossible to do a remodel, or kitchen or bath rip out without "disturbing".

I also don't see how someone will get audited if they are "not" certified, unless there is a complaint. I believe those of us who are certified are the ones who will be audited and records checked. So I have to disagree. If there is no prep completed where the paint surface is disturbed on a pre 1978 home, I believe it can be accomplished without being certified. Mind you, I don't think it's a good idea and do not recommend it.
Just shows you after all this time there are still professionals who are certified that have different takes on the actual laws and rules. Seems like we should be past that by now. I went to a follow up class(free) and an EPA representative was there to answer many of these questions. It was helpful, but she was asked several questions by some attending that she didn't really know the answers to as well.

PS. I hear now they are _considering_ making the lead check swab test ok for drywall. Don't know if it's just a rumor.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

Jason,

All the replies above come from trained and tested contractors. A major theme in their replies are that someone who doesn't know the law, can get themselves in a mess and probably should pass on the job. This is because there are exceptions and even exceptions on the exceptions and only a trained, tested and specialist (Certified Renovator) knows the answers for a variety of conditions.

It is also important to note, that if you happen to disturb just a few inches of paint that is actually lead based paint ... you have officially contaminated the *entire* home.


----------



## [email protected]

Dean CRCNA said:


> It is also important to note, that if you happen to disturb just a few inches of paint that is actually lead based paint ... you have officially contaminated the *entire* home.


That's bu** Sh**! lol... For the most part, all this hype on lead based paint and the justifications of the lead paint "laws" is so far overboard... 

But nonetheless I'm hear trying to figure out how best to solve an issue within my business practices and being RRP certified is not what I have planned. I will not support the EPA. 

Again, I always turn down leads on homes older than 78. I don't even test them. 

The overall sensus is that you cannot even step into a house to bid the job if the house is older than 78 with out some for of RRP license/certification. That is really all I was looking for. 




CliffK said:


> You owe that to yourself and the customers you service.


No I don't. I owe no man anything other than what I provide as a service and working on homes older than 78 is not in my business plan. 


Thanks guys/gals. :thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected]

Dean CRCNA said:


> All the replies above come from trained and tested contractors. A major theme in their replies are that someone who doesn't know the law ...



This is ironic...

You all are qualified for RRP, but yet you don't know the law... Amazing. I say that because no one will out right explain what the law says pertaining to my questions. You guys are all over the board with your answers and just shoving me off to take the course due to your lack of knowledge concerning something you are trained and tested for. 

All you have to say is: "I don't know, go take the course for yourself." That would have saved a bunch of time and energy for all of us. :no:

I commend Chris for giving her best shot at my questions, but even the critical questions didn't leave for any real solid answer.


----------



## [email protected]

Granted, no one has to answer my questions and it is a privilege to have anyone hear to answer them as they see fit. I do understand that. Thank you for your attempts and the privilege of being here to ask these industry related questions. :thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected]

Here is what the Handbook says, and yes it is updated with the 2011 amendments.



> What Housing or Activites Are Excluded and Not Subject to the Rule?
> 
> 
> 
> Housing built in 1978 or later
> Housing for elderly or disabled persons, unless children under 6 or are expected to reside there.
> Zero-bedroom dwellings (studio apartment, dormitories, etc.)
> Houseing or components that have been declared lead-free. Such a declaration can be made by a certified inspector or risk assessor. Also, a certified renovator may declare specific components lead-free using an EPA recognized test kit or by collecting paint chip samples and obtaining tests results from an EPA recognized labratory showing the components do not contain lead-based paint.
> Minor repair and maintenance activities that disturb 6 square feet of less of paint per room inside, or 20 square feet or less on the exterior of a home or building.
> Note: minor repair and maintenance activities do not include window replacement and projects involving demolition or prohibited practices.


----------



## CliffK

Glad you've got this all sorted out for yourself Jason.......


----------



## [email protected]

CliffK said:


> Glad you've got this all sorted out for yourself Jason.......


Thanks...

So much for asking the pro's who are suppose to know this stuff... :whistling2:


----------



## DeanV

[email protected] said:


> Thanks...
> 
> So much for asking the pro's who are suppose to know this stuff... :whistling2:



Jason, I just want to let you know that you may think it is so nice and cut and dry, disturb less than 6 sq. ft. or 20 sq. ft. and you can do whatever you want, is not that clear. If YOU WOULD TAKE THE CLASS you would find out that the common sense definition of disturbing paint is not the EPA's definition of disturbing paint. 

If you really think that without taking the class you can understand more about the RRP stuff that Dean (the other one, I freely admit that I took the class and it has left me with more questions than answers in some areas), you are deceiving yourself.

If you want to proceed on pre-78 without RRP, it is your risk. I would not touch it without RRP certification, even on jobs that based on your interpretation do not need certification.

If you took the class you would also realize the requirements are different for homes with any connection to federal funding. So, you may think you are in the clear by one set of rules, but would be in violation on another set of rules.

You are acting as if people here are trying to do you a disservice in how we answer your question. But, really you are behaving more like some previous members and asking for advice only to ignore it and do your own thing.


----------



## daArch

Jason,

Hearing your determination not to take the course and educating yourself, understanding that you do not think we are giving consistent advice, and empathizing with you that the EPA is an agency that you do not want to deal with, then I do believe you have decided on the best course for you.

Stay completely away from pre-78 housing. 

I would suggest that you do not just take a HO's word for it that the home was built after '78 if you think otherwise. If you have an inkling of an idea that it may be pre-78, check county records etc.

The stakes are too high for you to mess with this. You say that spending a couple of hundred dollars is not within your budget to be educated, can you imagine what a dent EPA fines and legal fees would do to that budget ? You have too many mouths to feed to take any risk. Again, stay completely away from pre-78 housing, don't even walk through the door with your estimating pad.


----------



## [email protected]

I'll continue to do more research. Thanks for your comments deArch. It seems apparent that those that are RRP qualified are still in the grey concerning the rules and my answers cannot be directly answered here.


----------



## RCP

Jason,
Part of the reason I could not be more specific was the questions you asked were (to me) vague and trying to avoid the "spirit of the rule". I agree the rule is poorly crafted and executed and not every particular situation is covered. That is why everyone is encouraging you to get certified. Learn what you can/should do and the rest will follow. Otherwise, do like NEPS' suggests and "just say no".
If you want me to post links, let me know and I will later.


----------



## Dean CRCNA

[email protected] said:


> That's bu** Sh**! lol...


If you sand the paint off of a 1' x 1' square, you would at minimum create 930,000 mcg of lead dust. This amount is enough to contaminate 10 2,300 square foot homes if spread out evenly.


----------



## ajpainting

*Atp*

Anthony Thomas Painting
Website link removed- moderator




I am a painting contractor and sent a pic for a positive and negative lead base check.



A lead based test. The red is positive. More responsibility to do as a painter. Upcharge of close to 40% if tested positive at your house. We all need to be aware of the dangers and risks when doing renovations and dealing with houses built before 1978 for our own safety and our children's well being.


----------

