# To Test or not?



## 6126 (May 9, 2010)

I bid my first pre '78 exterior yesterday. (1977) He signed the opt out.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Can you still do the opt out? and how?


----------



## 6126 (May 9, 2010)

RCP said:


> The opt out is gone as of July 6th.


Really? I did not know that. Thanks for the info Chris.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Woodland said:


> I bid my first pre '78 exterior yesterday. (1977) He signed the opt out.


That is not an option,good luck with that!


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

Woodland said:


> I bid my first pre '78 exterior yesterday. (1977) He signed the opt out.


I would think the odds of this house containing lead are extremely low, maybe you could test it or have someone certified to test it for a fee, then you can treat it like you always have.

Pat


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

If you do not test then you are to assume lead.Are you certified? If you are then do a test!


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

What if you did the test and there was not lead, but you were not certified?


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Do you still get in trouble?


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

johnpaint said:


> Do you still get in trouble?


good question, I'd like to know. But I thought I heard only someone certified (someone who paid the govt for the piece of paper) can do the test.


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

If your not certified then you don't know how to test, in the eyes of the EPA. If you don't have a paper saying your smart then your dumb.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

TJ Paint said:


> good question, I'd like to know. But I thought I heard only someone certified (someone who paid the govt for the piece of paper) can do the test.


You have to be certified to do the test. You have to be certified to enter into any agreement for compensation to work on a pre 78 house.

If you are not certified, you could have a Lead Inspector test the house and clear it for lead.

I have heard those tests can run from 200 to 800 dollars.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

RCP said:


> If you are not certified, you could have a Lead Inspector test the house and clear it for lead.
> 
> I have heard those tests can run from 200 to 800 dollars.


so much for "free estimates"


----------



## 6126 (May 9, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> If you do not test then you are to assume lead.Are you certified? If you are then do a test!


Yes, I am certified but was not aware the opt out went away July 6th.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

I have 17 customers that we have not started, yet, that have signed and opted out before the law went into effect. I am currently going to each one of them to explain the recent change in the regs. I am getting quite a bit of push back about additional costs to contracts that they've already signed.

We are toying with the idea of absorbing some of those costs as we feel partially responsible for not notifying the customers of this recent change at the time of the bid. I just found out about on Monday, June 5th from this site.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

Roamer said:


> I have 17 customers that we have not started, yet, that have signed and opted out before the law went into effect. I am currently going to each one of them to explain the recent change in the regs. I am getting quite a bit of push back about additional costs to contracts that they've already signed.
> 
> We are toying with the idea of absorbing some of those costs as we feel partially responsible for not notifying the customers of this recent change at the time of the bid. I just found out about on Monday, June 5th from this site.


If you have done enough of them to have become efficient at it you may not have to absorb much. 17 customers are a lot of poeple to piss off. Maybe you can present the additional costs and offer to absorb half. They already chose you, so they found some value in dealing with you. Most reasonable people should be willing to work with you. 

If you have to walk, at least you won't lose money.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

> Maybe you can present the additional costs and offer to absorb half.


This is the likely route we will have to take. There are a couple of jobs amongst the 17 that are over $20k. I'd hate to have to absorb the added costs on those jobs but half might be do-able.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Roamer said:


> I have 17 customers that we have not started, yet, that have signed and opted out before the law went into effect. I am currently going to each one of them to explain the recent change in the regs. I am getting quite a bit of push back about additional costs to contracts that they've already signed.
> 
> We are toying with the idea of absorbing some of those costs as we feel partially responsible for not notifying the customers of this recent change at the time of the bid. I just found out about on Monday, June 5th from this site.


That would be a tough one! Did you test all of them? How sure are you they have Lead? Is testing and ruling out an option?

I agree with Bikerboy though, if you can absorb, and the scope allows, you could still honor your original agreement. But if some will require extensive "extra for RRP" work, the customer should bear part.

When did you take your class, the removal of the opt out has been discussed at classes, some instructors have created mailing lists of attendees and send out notices of changes. 

You can also set up "Google Alerts" to keep you posted, or visit the EPA site.
You do know about the new requirement to give a copy of info to customers in 30 days?


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

I got no notice from either my class or the EPA. I took my class last November. We were compliant when the law went into effect. We have also had three of our residential crew leaders certified as well in early May of this year. The instructor did mention that the regs were pretty fluid and that stricter measures were likely on the way but he gave no time frame. I visit the EPA site occasionally to look for these kinds of updates and never saw anything about this recent change.

I read somewhere on the EPA site since that the EPA only received 350 'comments' during the discussion period about the removal of the opt-out and the additional records to be provided to the homeowner. I can only assume that this recent change was not well known. We definitely would have voiced our concerns to the EPA about these changes and I'm sure many others would have too. I think it will be fair to assume that the current debate over including commercial projects in the RRP will have substantially more 'comments'.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Well put and true, the EPA has not been real good about promoting RRP. 
We try to stay up on it here, I may have posted a few times on it:whistling2:
So stick around and share what you learn as well!:thumbsup:


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

You would think that they would be able to "Easily" let all certified firms no of any and all changes since they have all of our information.It's like everything else the government is a part of,they just don't seem to grasp the idea of making communication & co-operation a priority.


----------

