Business Costs
Lead Paint Rules Could Have
Far-Reaching Consequences
Regulations taking effect next month may prove a big hassle -- and a huge expense -- for contractors and homeowners alike.
By Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
March 11, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
New lead paint rules will reach further than many businesses may realize. Under Environmental Protection Agency regulations that go into effect April 22, any contractor who repairs, renovates or paints homes built before 1978 must have at least one employee undergo safety training. Such a licensed employee would need to be present at the worksite at the start and the end of any project that might disturb lead-based paint and throw contaminated dust into the air. The rule requires eight hours of training from an EPA-accredited instructor, at an average cost of $200-$250 per employee, and the certification must be renewed every five years.
While the time and resource commitment are relatively modest, there is a significant shortfall in the number of approved trainers. Nationwide, there are just 146 companies licensed to provide such training, only eight of which are willing to cross state lines. As of the end of last month, fewer than 7,000 of the more than 200,000 individuals the EPA estimates will require such training had received it.
As long as the housing market remains weak, the shortage of certified contractors will have little effect on homeowners. But if the economy recovers and demand picks up before the problem is fixed, the cost of remodeling will accelerate. More homeowners are likely to take on the task of remodeling themselves as a way of saving a few bucks. In so doing, they’d run the risk of exposing themselves and their family to any lead paint they may disturb in the process. Lead poisoning can damage the brain, central nervous system, red blood cells and kidneys. Young children are particularly susceptible.
Michael Mittelholzer, assistant vice president for environmental policy at the National Association of Home Builders, fears that a large number of subcontractors are likely to be caught unprepared when the rule goes into effect. “There’s a whole universe of trades that may not even be aware of it,” says Mittelholzer. Electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians and, indeed, anyone whose work requires them to cut through walls in a pre-1978 home would fall under the rule. Roughly 68% of the current U.S. housing stock was constructed prior to 1978.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, penalties for firms that engage in remodeling without the proper lead safety certification can be severe. Each day of noncompliance can bring up to $25,000 in civil penalties. Criminal penalties for willful violations can add up to an additional $25,000 and/or up to a year in jail for each day out of compliance. Even a brief time operating without the proper license would be more than enough to break a small firm.
Maria Doa, director of the EPA’s National Program Chemicals Division, expects the number of safety licensed contractors to increase dramatically in the final six weeks before the rule takes effect. “People are waiting, as they do for many things, until the last minute,” says Doa. The agency is planning a major marketing and outreach effort to encourage affected contractors to enroll for training. It’s also working with the Ad Council on a campaign to alert parents and homeowners to the dangers of lead poisoning, underscoring the importance of hiring remodelers trained in lead paint safety.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy



Reader Comments (3)
Posted by: I love Gov Scams at 03/15/2010 04:08:09 AM
I love scams like this certification scam more than 200,000 individuals at a cost of $200 to $250 each LoL . $200 to get certified plus the cost of time for the employee and travel expense to and from certification and any other expenses involved. So lets start with their admitted expenses 200000 x 250 = $50,000,000 thats right FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS. Plus and estimated additional cost of 100,000,000 all borne by the employer ... I just want to know who's relative gets the fee money, or is this just a make work for the deadbeat government employees ???? I just want to know
Posted by: Fergus at 03/16/2010 03:44:12 PM
Today, I was forced to threaten termination of a construction contract because a contractor felt lead paint hazards are not a serious concern. This contractor has put his employees & their families at risk and should be accountable for his negligence. Unfortunately, he has probably been getting away with his irresponsible behavior for years while exposing his worker to unnecessary risks. Lead (as well as asbestos) is a serious heath concern that should not be taken lightly. It is not a scam but a real concern that must be handled properly.
Posted by: Gary C Fink at 08/10/2010 07:04:33 AM
This absolutely is a scam. There isn't a person over the age of 50 who didn't grow up in a house full of lead paint. That means the majority of adults should have some form of severe impairment. Statistics show that blood lead levels in the US are currently 1/10 the level they were in the 1970s when leaded gas was the norm. The current average is 3 micrograms per deciliter. In the 70's it was 25 micrograms per deciliter. Studies have shown the children at highest risk for lead poisoning are children of immigrant families from under developed nations, who were exposed to high levels of pollutants prior to coming to this country. This is a beauracratic overreach by an agency that seeks to make itself relevent and self sustaining in much the same way as OSHA has over the last several decades.