Answers About the EPA Lead Certification (RRP) Rule
1. How does the EPA justify the $300 fee? Will that be used to fund the EPA lead program?
As specified in section 402 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA must establish and implement a fee schedule to recover for the U.S. Treasury the Agency’s costs of administering and enforcing the standards and requirements applicable to lead-based paint training programs and contractors. The fees will recover EPA’s costs for processing applications, enforcing program requirements, and administrative activities such as maintenance of the central database. EPA established the fees in March 2009 as part of a rulemaking which provided notice to the public about the rule and considered public comments on the rule. The rule text can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/March/Day-20/t6167.htm
The fees go to the General Treasury.
2. How did the EPA come up with the estimated cost per job? It’s ridiculously low. For example, does it include the added burden of pollution insurance, which the growing awareness of lead is likely to trigger more contractors to buy? Does it include the cost of training one’s crew? Given the high turnover in the construction trades, and the responsibility of the certified RRP person to train the rest of the crew, training costs will be high.
While developing the RRP rule, EPA conducted extensive economic analyses, which show that the requirements of the rule are not excessive or overly burdensome, in light of the importance of avoiding the potentially severe consequences of exposure to lead-based paint hazards. EPA estimates that the costs of containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification will range from $8 to $167 per job, with the exception of those exterior jobs where vertical containment would be required.
This includes:
• Costs of equipment (for example, plastic sheeting, tape, HEPA vacuums and tool shrouds – the equipment varies by job).
• Costs of labor (for example, the time required to perform cleaning and cleaning verification).
In addition to work practice costs, your costs will include training fees and certification fees. The costs include:
• Training costs to individual renovators working in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities who must take a course from an accredited training provider (cost is set by the training provider; estimated to be about $200 for a 5-year certification).
• Certification costs to firms to obtain certification from EPA ($300 fee to the U.S. Treasury for a 5-year certification. This fee is required by law to cover program administration).
Renovation firms are already carrying out renovation, repair and painting jobs and already pay insurance premiums for their businesses. The new rule will not change this practice. In fact, renovators who are EPA certified as lead-safe firms will be able to demonstrate to their insurers that they follow protective lead-safe work practices. Therefore, EPA does not believe insurance rates will be adversely affected by following this rule.
Training the crew should be done on the job as part of normal training on work skills and safety.
3. How many cases of lead poisoning are currently related to remodeling activities ? What reduction do you expect?
In the RRP final rule preamble, EPA estimated the number of children living in homes that would be renovated each year. As a result, there will be approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 6 who will be affected by having their exposure to lead dust minimized due to the rule.
73 FR 21692, at 21750 (April 22, 2008)
4. What’s the likelihood of anyone actually getting the maximum fine, and what circumstances would trigger it?
In the first year of the rule, EPA will focus on helping firms comply with the rule’s requirements to become lead-safe certified. The Agency will also respond to tips and complaints. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides that any person who violates a requirement is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 for each violation. However, in determining a penalty, EPA must take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of each violation. EPA must also take into account the effect on the violator’s ability to continue to do business, and the violator’s history of violations and degree of culpability. With very limited exceptions, EPA also seeks to eliminate the economic benefit a violator may have gained from its violations. EPA is currently developing a penalty policy which will provide guidance to the EPA Regional Offices on how to apply the penalty factors from TSCA to the RRP rule.
5. Why are RRP certified contractors only allowed to use the least accurate method of testing for the presence of lead?
Certified renovators are trained in using the test kits but are not trained in the other methods of detecting lead-based paint. Certified inspectors and risk assessors are trained in the other methods. A report from a certified inspector or risk assessor can be used by the renovation firm when determining if the RRP rule applies to the renovation.
6. Why is the trigger surface area based on the size of the component rather than the specific work area? (For example, although one clapboard may be significantly smaller than 20 sq. ft., removing it would still fall under RRP because it defines the entire wall, not that single board, as the “component.”)
The trigger surface area is based on the amount of lead-based paint disturbed. If the total surface area of all painted surfaces of the component is less than 20 feet on an exterior job, then that job would not fall under the rule. If a renovator removes 10 sq ft of an exterior wall , and that is the total amount of paint disturbed during the renovation, then the job would not fall under the rule. The size of the wall is not the trigger for the rule; rather, the size of the amount of paint being disturbed triggers the rule.
7. Certified RRP personnel have to be retrained every five years. How often does the RRP person have to retrain non-certified employees?
Although there is no specific requirement for ‘‘refresher training,’’ on-the-job training must be provided for each worker for each job to the extent necessary to ensure that that worker is adequately trained for the tasks he or she will be performing.
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Reliable Crimp Connectors
Affordable IR Camera
View Comments
EPA's off-the-wall cost estimates damage its own credibility and do a real disservice to legitimate contractors will comply with RRP while competing with those who don't. Some of the scofflaws may ultimately be fined, but in the meantime, compliant contractors will have lost work from clients who, partly thanks to EPA, don't appreciate the true costs.
This article (http://www.remodeling.hw.net/lead-paint/how-much-will-the-rrp-cost.aspx) contains a much more complete and thoughtful cost analysis.
Here is my cost breakdown for a New York contractor. Installing three windows on the first floor bedroom.
$5.00 ($600.00 Cert. fee) spread out over 5 years at
at two jobs per month.
$30.00 Two men,Booties, suits, gloves, mask
$75.00 Plastic, tape, signs, cleaning supplies, bags
$ 5.00 Cost of Hepa vac. spread out over same time line
$450.00 Three hours, three men, set up, clean up, testing
$100.00 Overhead of buisness for three hours
$120.00 Profit (I hope) This should be included
So as you can see a total of $785.00 for just three windows in one room. What if you have several rooms, maybe on the second floor or third. This is for only ONE set up and break down.Now, I'm sure that over time, with pratice I can shave the time down. And if I truely want to work in pre 78,s I will be buying in bulk everything that I will need. But don't take us as fools.
Fantastic to see the money goes into the general treasury. I'm sure the folks on capital hill will spend it well.
Also great that they tout the low cost by completely ignoring the worst case and probably most important (in preventing lead poisoning) scenario. BRILLIANT!!!
RE: Question number three. Could you please state the ACTUAL number of cases of lead poisoning there are in a given year related to renovation/remodeling activities using any year in the last five as an example?
Here's a question that just came up today.
What if your employee refuses to work with these new regulations. That he will only work on post78's homes. Saying that he is not comfortable have the responsilbity of the risk of poisoning someone with lead. What should I do, in a way I agree with him. Your reponse is appreciated.
Thanks for the link to the article on calculating cost. Everything I read and the training i received (courtesy of my window supplier)is focused on these small eaisly isolated jobs. I do major additions and whole house renovations. I now have to (or get to) evict my clients from their homes. I am competing against other licensed and supposedly profesional contractors yet i keep hearing from the potential clients that i am the only person mentioning these rules (at least prior to signing the contract). Since here in the DC area every other person is a lawyer, I am concerned about some nosy neighbor turning me in for not following the letter of the law. Now they are taking away the opt out clause, I will probably stop working on pre 1978 houses unless they are abated first.
That's it, seven answers. Out of all the questions and concerns within the related blogs concerning the EPA guidelines. All we get is seven answers. Shame on you FHB. If you are going to offer help, then help. One month later and still no answers, do you even review these blogs to see what concerns your subscribers have.? If you truly have your finger on the pulse of contractors you will notice that the rate is about 200bpm. Not at all happy with the response, or should I say, the lack of it.Please prove me wrong, redeem yourself.
who in their right mind would want to work on a home built 1978 and before this is outrageous this is a paint industry and homeowner problem they voted (homeowners) these idiots in to make these laws not the contractor we are getting screwed 7% cost add on my ass that's what my seminar instuctor told us i laughed at him. and they can sue you for anything, you need to have them all tested before you start working on the job to set a baseline for exposure, they are already exposed to lead i think the value of pre 1978 homes will drop like a rock. but if you want to knock the whole house down and rebuild you don't have to do anything no containment at all
what a friggin joke.
Typical government program voted in by a few short sighted people and implemented by bureaucrats. Same as the CPSIA regulating toys and the EPA expects us to believe that they have our best interests in mind. BS!! My own home was built in 1977 and stained and re-stained but I have to go through the same garbage just to re-stain it, otherwise some nosey neighbor will be on the phone. I am going to watch for other contractors that get the jobs and turn them in. If compliant, then no big deal. If not, the home owner will find out what a can of worms has been spoon fed to them.
Worse yet.
This is another "unfunded mandate" come down from "on high". That's right, the gov't. has no money to enforce the rules they make without a congressional vote! (Our lazy and ignorant representatives abdicate their responsibility to tree-hugging career bureaucrats). They have and will continue to get the State governments to "take over" oversight. This is why I am a staunch Federalist.
I took the training (recommended by the state heating and AC association). The instructor told us to hand a brochure (none are currently available) to all prospective customers "alerting" them to the "potential" dangers of lead poisoning, thereby making "me" the smart guy.
Sounds like the National Association of Trial Lawyers a.k.a. ambulance chasers, http://www.theatla.com/ at work.
I have added a $1200.00 minimum "Lead Control Fee" to any job where I might disturb more than "6 square feet" of suspected lead paint. I find this the best way to "inform" my customers of the real threat of "big brother" gone wild!
It is time fiscal conservatives start voting for fiscally responsible candidates who will de-fund the EPA, ASAP!
Your vote counts.
$8.00!? Really? Driving to the store, buying the $8.00 test kit, driving to the job and testing the sample area costs $8.00? $167!? Why not round up to $170.00? Or round down to $165.00? Should I thank them for the extra $2.00? Simply putting on the suit, a respirator, the booties, the gloves, the goggles, the hat and then removing all this in reverse order and rolling it up into a ball and saving it in a sealed bag until tomorrow would cost $100.00. Really, EPA? At least give us a realistic figure to convince our customers we're not taking advantage of them.