![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chhotiiHere's the vexing, complex, and confusing situation I'm in:
I bought a condo at the end of 2014. Before buying it, I had a lead inspection done. Why the f*** did I do this? I didn't have any children under the age of six. My only kid was 8, almost 9, far too old to crawl or mouth surfaces. But at the time, it seemed like a good idea, because at one point she had spilled Cheerios on the bedroom floor-- near the window, which had peeling paint-- and then ate some of the Cheerios off the floor, which made me hyperventilate. Eating the occasional thing off the floor that LOOKS clean enough and passes the "3-second rule" is behavior that one might not ever outgrow. (Admit it.) Thus, I just wanted to know: Did the paint on the walls have lead, or not? (The condo complex was built in 1969/1970.) Seemed a straightforward enough question.
The inspection did not result in a Letter of Compliance because a few things were found. But I deemed these things No Big Deal, and thus bought the unit anyway. Here's what was found, and why I thought them to be No Big Deal:
1) Tiles in the bathroom contain lead. The tiles are old, plain, and hideous. The whole bathroom is plain and hideous. I bought this unit as a fixer-upper and planned to immediately renovate the bathroom, and replace these tiles, anyway. (But then life got complicated, and I'm only getting around to the bathroom renovation now.) If, in the course of doing renovations, the problematic tiles just go away, they shouldn't be a problem.
2) The railing on the balcony is contaminated with lead paint. However, the old railings are rusty and hideous and it would spiff up the unit a lot to replace them. The condo association has been in search of a suitable manufacturer of replacement railings for years. They are trying to encourage owners to replace the railings, but have been having trouble coming up with a replacement that is both attractive and affordable and not many owners have done this yet. I gather that this is still an issue, because there's a "Railing Committee" having meetings periodically, so I guess they still have things to discuss. But, surely, eventually, there will be a settled-upon solution, and I'll opt in for it. Complete replacement of the affected part, the EPA's recommended ideal solution.
3) Various surfaces in common areas which little children wouldn't spend a lot of time touching anyway. The rusty railings outside some windows that nobody ever opens in the common hallway, for example. I'm like... seriously? How is this a hazard? Who is going to let their little children open these windows and touch the nasty-looking railings outside? Also the fire doors on the stairwells. Again, whose little children would be touching these doors? It's not like there's a problem with any easily accessible surface, such as the paint in the lobby. Two points: a) No future tenant's children will ever actually be poisoned by these hazards, because they are either fairly inaccessible to little children or not in places where people would leave their little children to hang out very much. b) My real estate lawyer assured me that I'm not responsible for issues in common areas; the condo association is. Whether my lawyer grasps case law relating to obscure lead paint situations, or just knows how to run a closing, I don't know.
Now I'm looking to have the bathroom renovated. The Big Questions Of The Day: Does the person who removes the old tile from the bathroom need to have any particular training or certification? Do I need to have any additional inspections done before or after this particular work?
I couldn't find any useful guidance on the EPA's website, and the contractor I spoke with about the renovation project thought I was crazy bringing up the concept of lead in relation to tiles, he had never heard of such a thing. Turns out, this is because on the federal level, the regulations aimed at curbing lead paint problems are aimed at paint. The word "paint" is explicitly defined. From the Code of Federal Regulations: "Paint and other similar surface-coating materials means a fluid, semi-fluid, or other material, with or without a suspension of finely divided coloring matter, which changes to a solid film when a thin layer is applied to a metal, wood, stone, paper, leather, cloth, plastic, or other surface. This term does not include printing inks or those materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing." So all the stuff on the EPA's website about the RRP program, abatement, etc., etc., the tiles in the bathroom have nothing to do with any of this. Massachusetts law might differ from this, however. From Chapter 111 of the Massachusetts General Laws: "...any premises in which any paint, plaster or other accessible structural material contains dangerous levels of lead, the owner shall abate or contain said paint, plaster or other accessible structural materials..." Tiles might fall under the heading "other accessible structural materials".
Eventually I would like to get a Letter of Compliance. I don't think I want to live in this condo for the rest of my life. Living here makes sense as long as the local school is doing so well for my kid, and my job is just down the road. But eventually my kid will be out of school. Eventually my job will go away. When either or both of these happen I will be tempted to move on. If I rent the unit, and the tenant has a baby, I could be required to fix any lead issues, and put them up in a hotel while the work goes on, ouch. Much better that any lead issues go away before even trying to rent it out. If I try to sell the unit, now that the lead inspection is out there, I'm likely to get a better price if I can get a Letter of Compliance.
I probably can't get a Letter of Compliance any time soon, because of the railings. Probably the condo association has to collectively remove their heads from their asses regarding some issue with the railings, and then the decision as to what type of new railing owners are allowed to opt for for their units can be finalized.
Can I ever get a Letter of Compliance, given that some of the issues are outside my unit? I can't fix the railings outside common-area windows or do anything about stairwell fire doors. However, the state has a website where you can look up any property's address and see its history of lead inspections and status (not any details, just the status) and it shows that somebody in this building in fact did get abatement done and got a Letter of Compliance! Given that they are living with the same stairwell doors etc. they must have been working with an inspector who is willing to report on just what is inside the individual unit. Their inspector was named Jack Kane. According to LinkedIn,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
persis knows somebody who knows Jack Kane, if it's the same Jack Kane. There's also a Jack Kane in Massachusetts whose website mentions things like pest inspections and general house inspections. Different guy? Same guy, got out of doing lead inspections? Or what? Considering chasing down this lead. (This lead like lEEd, not Pb.)
You would think that all lead inspectors would have the same understanding of the law, and give the same advice, but I think the guy who did my inspection (MacIsaac, of ASAP Environmental) was an over-zealous nut. It's controversial whether a lead paint inspector should be aiming their XRF device at tiles, given that tiles are not paint. And this guy went nuts trying to inspect every surface in the common areas. There's a page in my report on the common Weight Room. Who lets their little children into the Weight Room? Exercise equipment designed for adults is dangerous for children, nobody brings their kids into the Weight Room. I have never seen anyone under the age of 16 in the Weight Room, I think they are banned. And yet the lead inspector inspected it. He finally got kicked out by management while trying to inspect the Men's Locker Room off the other wing of the exercise facilities. What a nut! NOT recommended.
I'm also posting this to elbows-joints, in hopes that someone has been through the process of doing abatement to get a Letter of Compliance and can give a first-person account of what the territory looks like. Not looking for *hugs* or "gosh you wonder-woman your life is so hard admiration or sympathy!" I know it looks like venting, but I'm in the mode of actually wanting advice, I just am so lost I am not yet able to succinctly phrase the questions yet.
I bought a condo at the end of 2014. Before buying it, I had a lead inspection done. Why the f*** did I do this? I didn't have any children under the age of six. My only kid was 8, almost 9, far too old to crawl or mouth surfaces. But at the time, it seemed like a good idea, because at one point she had spilled Cheerios on the bedroom floor-- near the window, which had peeling paint-- and then ate some of the Cheerios off the floor, which made me hyperventilate. Eating the occasional thing off the floor that LOOKS clean enough and passes the "3-second rule" is behavior that one might not ever outgrow. (Admit it.) Thus, I just wanted to know: Did the paint on the walls have lead, or not? (The condo complex was built in 1969/1970.) Seemed a straightforward enough question.
The inspection did not result in a Letter of Compliance because a few things were found. But I deemed these things No Big Deal, and thus bought the unit anyway. Here's what was found, and why I thought them to be No Big Deal:
1) Tiles in the bathroom contain lead. The tiles are old, plain, and hideous. The whole bathroom is plain and hideous. I bought this unit as a fixer-upper and planned to immediately renovate the bathroom, and replace these tiles, anyway. (But then life got complicated, and I'm only getting around to the bathroom renovation now.) If, in the course of doing renovations, the problematic tiles just go away, they shouldn't be a problem.
2) The railing on the balcony is contaminated with lead paint. However, the old railings are rusty and hideous and it would spiff up the unit a lot to replace them. The condo association has been in search of a suitable manufacturer of replacement railings for years. They are trying to encourage owners to replace the railings, but have been having trouble coming up with a replacement that is both attractive and affordable and not many owners have done this yet. I gather that this is still an issue, because there's a "Railing Committee" having meetings periodically, so I guess they still have things to discuss. But, surely, eventually, there will be a settled-upon solution, and I'll opt in for it. Complete replacement of the affected part, the EPA's recommended ideal solution.
3) Various surfaces in common areas which little children wouldn't spend a lot of time touching anyway. The rusty railings outside some windows that nobody ever opens in the common hallway, for example. I'm like... seriously? How is this a hazard? Who is going to let their little children open these windows and touch the nasty-looking railings outside? Also the fire doors on the stairwells. Again, whose little children would be touching these doors? It's not like there's a problem with any easily accessible surface, such as the paint in the lobby. Two points: a) No future tenant's children will ever actually be poisoned by these hazards, because they are either fairly inaccessible to little children or not in places where people would leave their little children to hang out very much. b) My real estate lawyer assured me that I'm not responsible for issues in common areas; the condo association is. Whether my lawyer grasps case law relating to obscure lead paint situations, or just knows how to run a closing, I don't know.
Now I'm looking to have the bathroom renovated. The Big Questions Of The Day: Does the person who removes the old tile from the bathroom need to have any particular training or certification? Do I need to have any additional inspections done before or after this particular work?
I couldn't find any useful guidance on the EPA's website, and the contractor I spoke with about the renovation project thought I was crazy bringing up the concept of lead in relation to tiles, he had never heard of such a thing. Turns out, this is because on the federal level, the regulations aimed at curbing lead paint problems are aimed at paint. The word "paint" is explicitly defined. From the Code of Federal Regulations: "Paint and other similar surface-coating materials means a fluid, semi-fluid, or other material, with or without a suspension of finely divided coloring matter, which changes to a solid film when a thin layer is applied to a metal, wood, stone, paper, leather, cloth, plastic, or other surface. This term does not include printing inks or those materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing." So all the stuff on the EPA's website about the RRP program, abatement, etc., etc., the tiles in the bathroom have nothing to do with any of this. Massachusetts law might differ from this, however. From Chapter 111 of the Massachusetts General Laws: "...any premises in which any paint, plaster or other accessible structural material contains dangerous levels of lead, the owner shall abate or contain said paint, plaster or other accessible structural materials..." Tiles might fall under the heading "other accessible structural materials".
Eventually I would like to get a Letter of Compliance. I don't think I want to live in this condo for the rest of my life. Living here makes sense as long as the local school is doing so well for my kid, and my job is just down the road. But eventually my kid will be out of school. Eventually my job will go away. When either or both of these happen I will be tempted to move on. If I rent the unit, and the tenant has a baby, I could be required to fix any lead issues, and put them up in a hotel while the work goes on, ouch. Much better that any lead issues go away before even trying to rent it out. If I try to sell the unit, now that the lead inspection is out there, I'm likely to get a better price if I can get a Letter of Compliance.
I probably can't get a Letter of Compliance any time soon, because of the railings. Probably the condo association has to collectively remove their heads from their asses regarding some issue with the railings, and then the decision as to what type of new railing owners are allowed to opt for for their units can be finalized.
Can I ever get a Letter of Compliance, given that some of the issues are outside my unit? I can't fix the railings outside common-area windows or do anything about stairwell fire doors. However, the state has a website where you can look up any property's address and see its history of lead inspections and status (not any details, just the status) and it shows that somebody in this building in fact did get abatement done and got a Letter of Compliance! Given that they are living with the same stairwell doors etc. they must have been working with an inspector who is willing to report on just what is inside the individual unit. Their inspector was named Jack Kane. According to LinkedIn,
persis knows somebody who knows Jack Kane, if it's the same Jack Kane. There's also a Jack Kane in Massachusetts whose website mentions things like pest inspections and general house inspections. Different guy? Same guy, got out of doing lead inspections? Or what? Considering chasing down this lead. (This lead like lEEd, not Pb.)You would think that all lead inspectors would have the same understanding of the law, and give the same advice, but I think the guy who did my inspection (MacIsaac, of ASAP Environmental) was an over-zealous nut. It's controversial whether a lead paint inspector should be aiming their XRF device at tiles, given that tiles are not paint. And this guy went nuts trying to inspect every surface in the common areas. There's a page in my report on the common Weight Room. Who lets their little children into the Weight Room? Exercise equipment designed for adults is dangerous for children, nobody brings their kids into the Weight Room. I have never seen anyone under the age of 16 in the Weight Room, I think they are banned. And yet the lead inspector inspected it. He finally got kicked out by management while trying to inspect the Men's Locker Room off the other wing of the exercise facilities. What a nut! NOT recommended.
I'm also posting this to elbows-joints, in hopes that someone has been through the process of doing abatement to get a Letter of Compliance and can give a first-person account of what the territory looks like. Not looking for *hugs* or "gosh you wonder-woman your life is so hard admiration or sympathy!" I know it looks like venting, but I'm in the mode of actually wanting advice, I just am so lost I am not yet able to succinctly phrase the questions yet.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 02:34 am (UTC)But that would be expensive, and complicate the bathroom renovation project.
I'm reading the law myself, and fishing for second opinions, because I think that the so-called "expert", the inspector I hired, was an overzealous nut. Note, his attempt to inspect every surface in the complex, regardless of whether it was likely that a small child would access those surfaces, until the management threw him out. Note, the controversy out there on the Internet as to whether one should report, as he did, the XRF reading on tile. XRF was designed to assess the hazard of lead in paint, and ceramic glaze is not paint. Bozo.
Perhaps it would behoove a GC to have a good understanding of the laws relating to lead, but on the other hand it's a perfectly good business model for the GC to stick his head in the sand about the whole thing.
I think it is my job, as the owner of this property, to figure out who is right about what I should do. They might all give different answers because they all have different interests. The lead inspector has an incentive to look at things in a way that maximizes the number of inspections I need to have done, and the GC has an incentive to look at things in a way that minimizes his hassles and headaches.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 03:33 am (UTC)California might be more strict than Massachusetts, however.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 12:11 pm (UTC)But here might be OSHA concerns about doing the demolition of the old tiles. There should be, as the dust from the tiles when they break can get into the workers' hair and contaminate their whole families if they aren't careful. I'm sure that OSHA concerns are not my problem, as a homeowner hiring a GC. If the GC doesn't establish proper procedures and his workers have a problem, it's his liability, I'm sure. I don't know how that would differ in your situation. But if you're developing a detailed plan, rather than just pointing to the bathroom and telling the contractor "have at", OSHA requirements should be addressed in that plan.
I'm going to have those tiles removed, it's just a question of whether I need to jump through any hoops in this process.