The Pre-1981 Apartment Renovation With Missing Records
A developer is renovating a 14-unit apartment building constructed in 1974. The previous owner provides a 2019 inspection report that covers only the common areas and two vacant units. The report was prepared by a person whose certificate number is not shown, and the laboratory report attached lists three samples as 'assumed positive' with no analysis. The developer's project manager wants to skip a new inspection and rely on the old report to save two weeks. The renovation will disturb wallboard joint compound, floor tile, and mastic in all 14 units, and the work is federally funded through a local housing program. The project manager also asks whether the abatement contractor's own crew can perform the inspection to speed things up.
1. Evaluate whether the 2019 report is adequate for the project and what the developer must do before work begins.
Read the worked answer
The 2019 report is not adequate. It covers only common areas and two units, so it says nothing about the other twelve units where the work will occur. The inspector's certificate number is missing, so there is no way to confirm the person was accredited at the time of inspection. The laboratory report lists three samples as 'assumed positive' with no analysis, which is not a determination; assumed positive means the material must be treated as asbestos-containing, but it does not substitute for a proper inspection and analysis of the materials actually present.
Because the building was constructed in 1974, it falls in the pre-1981 window in which asbestos-containing materials are presumed present absent a proper inspection. The federally funded nature of the project triggers additional requirements: the inspection must be performed by an accredited inspector, and the abatement must be designed and overseen consistent with the applicable federal rules. The developer must commission a new inspection by an accredited inspector covering all 14 units and all materials to be disturbed, with samples analyzed by an accredited laboratory. Until that is done, the materials must be treated as asbestos-containing.
The old report can be used as a starting point, but it cannot be the basis for a negative determination. The two-week savings is not worth the liability, and the funding agency will likely require a complete inspection before releasing funds.
2. The project manager proposes using the abatement contractor's crew to perform the inspection. Explain why this is problematic and what separation is required.
Read the worked answer
The proposal creates a conflict of interest and undermines the independence of the inspection. The inspector's job is to determine what asbestos-containing material is present and where, without an incentive to find more or less of it. If the same firm that will profit from the abatement also performs the inspection, the determination is compromised. The inspection must be performed by an accredited inspector who is independent of the abatement contractor, or at minimum the inspection function must be separated from the abatement function within the firm and the inspector must exercise independent judgment.
There is also a practical problem: the abatement contractor's crew members are not necessarily accredited inspectors. Accreditation is individual, not firm-wide, and the person performing the inspection must hold a valid inspector certificate. A worker who is accredited only as an abatement worker or supervisor cannot perform the inspection.
The correct approach is to retain an accredited inspector who is not the abatement contractor, document the inspector's certificate, and have the laboratory analysis performed by an accredited laboratory. The developer should keep the inspection report, the inspector's credentials, and the laboratory results in the project file.