2013 Lead Ordinance Amendment FAQs
2013 Lead Code Amendment FAQ's
EPA requires certification for all home improvement contractors, property management firms, handymen, or others compensated for renovation work that involves window replacement or that disturbs more than 6 square feet of interior and/or more than 20 square feet of exterior paint or surface coating in pre-1978 residential housing or child-occupied facilities. This EPA requirement also applies to landlords working on rental properties.
Environmental Education Associates (EEA) currently has free training based on city funding for anyone who wishes to get certified. The RRP Certification class is an 8-hour course. Once issued, the certificate is good for 5 years. You can contact EEA at 1-888-436-8338 to register.
The standards found in the lead ordinance are the same as EPA; their inclusion into our local ordinance eliminates the need to go to a different and more complex code to review them. Anyone who has been trained and certified by EPA should not have any problems understanding or applying the requirements of our local code.
A nonresponsibility determination by the Director may be appealed to the Commissioner in writing within 10 days of the receipt of the determination by the Director. The Commissioner shall offer the issuer an opportunity to be heard, at which a hearing examiner appointed by the Commissioner who is not a city employee shall preside.
Yes. Any final determinations in this area will be referred not only to the EPA but to the Monroe County Health Department, the City grant facilitators, the Rochester Housing Authority, and the Housing Council. This information will also be posted on our web-site to inform anyone who may wish to do business with the contractor.
This is not a new requirement; the ordinance has always required a visual inspection of a unit prior to performing a lead dust wipe test. If you do not perform a visual inspection, how would you know whether or not the unit still has deteriorated paint, paint chips or debris in the areas subject to wipe testing, which is any habitable room or space within the unit?
Section 90-55 requires that every inspection the city performs includes an observation for interior deteriorated paint. It goes on further to state in the absence of an interior deteriorated paint violation, in units located in the high risk area, a lead dust wipe test will be performed. Why would the code have a more inclusive standard for visually inspecting a unit with no known lead hazards, as required by 90-55, then it does with one we know has a lead hazard? Almost 100% of the 12,000-14,000 units we inspect annually are occupied and we perform this type of inspection in every unit. Based on our own activity and the industry standard, a complete inspection of a unit (visual & wipe test) should not take any longer than an hour, and that's for an occupied unit.
It should not. The city has been conducting lead dust wipe tests for almost 7 years now. Our cost to perform this type of inspection, including the full visual inspection and including all associated expenses, is less than $70 a unit. Although we believe there has been no increase to the job duties nor the time it takes to perform a clearance test and since the third-party providers are charging between $150 and $200 per unit, it would appear as though the current fees should cover the required activity.
Basements and attics are considered part of the dwelling unit if they are in fact incorporated into the unit. This is not a change to our current policy. The reason they are included is due to the fact that if these areas are integrated into the unit, then kids are likely to be playing in them and when an owner has to mitigate peeling paint in either area, we need to make sure that they did not tract the potential lead dust into the habitable spaces of the unit as a result of unsafe work practices. This is simply accomplished by the unit being wipe tested.
The only change that comes about as a result of this code section is the fact that by including the basements and attics in the visual inspection when they are incorporated in the unit we are also eliminating the need for private clearance when they are not integrated into the units and are part of a common area. This is a tremendous benefit to the landlords in that any violation of deteriorated paint in the common areas will only require visual clearance by a city inspector so it will not cost the owner money to have it cleared by a third party. Deteriorated paint in common areas will now be treated the same as that on the exterior.
No. The only purpose of their inclusion, when they enter into the unit, is for the visual assessment; we are not wipe testing basements and attics, and we have no expectations that third-party clearance providers are doing so as well.
If the attic is only accessible from a pull down ladder and is otherwise unfinished, then it will also not have any protected covered surfaces, so there would not be a potential for deteriorated paint.
This section in general is not new, we are applying this theory now. It all comes down to the area where there is peeling paint that has to be corrected.
What is the likelihood that the activity will affect the interior of the unit if safe work practices are now followed?
- If you are repairing the exterior frame of a window, it is easy to avoid lead dust entering the unit by simply covering the window opening when working on the deteriorated areas.
- If, however, you are working on the back of the interior window sash, even though it faces the exterior or any area between the exterior storm and the interior window, then you are more likely to have lead dust going inside the unit and, as such, the clearance test ensures you did not compromise the safety of the occupants with unseen lead dust in doing so.
The seasonal wooden storm window would be considered a separate component from the exterior because it can be easily removed and properly repaired without potentially causing lead dust to enter the unit.
The following three examples, detail what portions of the window in the given installation are considered interior to assess lead hazards: