| Connect Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
About | Subscribe | Advertise


Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

Senate Votes to Block Lead-Rule Fines

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Comment | More

The U.S. Senate has voted to delay imposition of fines and liability related to the controversial new federal lead rule, and one senator has called for a hearing on the measure.

The move to delay the rule came May 26 in an amendment (S. 4253) to the Fiscal Year 2010 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 4899). The amendment was introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R, Maine) and approved May 27 on a 60-37 vote. It will now go to the House.

At issue is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Lead-safe Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule,” which took effect April 22. The measure requires contractors and companies to earn lead-safe certification if their work will disturb more than six square feet of interior paint in a home, day-care center or school built before 1978. Fines for non-compliance range up to $37,500 per violation per day.

The rule has raised a firestorm among contracting and remodeling-related trade associations and retailers, who say that contractors have not had enough time to prepare for it.

Collins’ amendment would bar the EPA from levying fines against contractors who have signed up for training classes by Sept. 30, 2010. Nor could the agency “hold any person liable for construction or renovation work performed by the person, in any State…” The measure was co-sponsored by 14 Republican senators and by Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

“Unfortunately, as a result of EPA's lack of planning, there still are not enough certified trainers in most states to educate contractors about these new requirements,” Collins said in a statement. “In Maine, there are just three EPA-certified trainers. Hundreds of Maine contractors have signed up for training, but are being forced to wait.”

EPA has said the RRP Rule had a two-year phase-in period and that more than 220,000 contractors have already been certified, with about 30,000 to go. The agency also says that many of its trainers are mobile and that training is available in every state.

EPA says it has had to cancel hundreds of training classes over the last year, due to lack of attendance. The rule’s requirements are “simple, low-cost, common-sense steps contractors can take during their work to protect children and families,” the EPA said in a memo on enforcement, issued April 20.

“EPA has conducted extensive outreach and compliance assistance efforts for the RRP Rule for almost two years,” the memo said.

An EPA spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the Senate action, saying the agency does not comment on pending legislation.

Collins said EPA “must step up to the plate and work quickly to boost the number of certified trainers in each state.”

“The fines that EPA will levy would be devastating to small businesses that have been unable to comply due to EPA's failure to adequately plan for the implementation of this rule,” Collins said.

Said co-sponsor Olympia Snowe (R, Maine): “… I am concerned about the manner in which EPA has failed to provide information and public notice about this major lead abatement rule, causing confusion for homeowners and uncertainty for businesses.”

Last week, co-sponsor Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting a delay in fines, more training, and the restoration of an “opt-out” provision that would have allowed homeowners to sign a waiver exempting their contractor from the requirements.

EPA eliminated the opt-out option in a separate action after the rule was implemented, triggering even more opposition.

After the Senate approval of the delay, co-sponsor James Inhofe (R, Okla.) called for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to conduct an oversight hearing “to help alleviate the widespread confusion over the rule's implementation.”

In addition to Snowe, Alexander and Inhofe, the measure’s Republican co-sponsors were Sens. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), George V. Voinovich (Ohio), John Thune (S.D.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Scott P. Brown (Mass.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and Michael Enzi (Wyo.).


Tagged categories: EPA; Lead; Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP); Worker training

Comment from Catherine Brooks, (6/4/2010, 8:27 AM)

Postponing fines on contractors legitimately registered for the training does accommodate the delay caused by EPA's lack of sufficient training classes. However, the lead-safe work practices guidelines are already defined clearly and widely available to all contractors and the general public right now on EPA website. Non-"certified" contractors can change their work practices immediately to apply the basics of these practices. Delaying fines is one thing; allowing contractors to further delay using these safety practices is another.

Comment from Pete Ramsey, (6/4/2010, 8:57 AM)

Delaying fines and liability takes the teeth out of the measure. However, it seems like this is only aimed at contractors who have signed up for classes. This means that guys who aren't signed up would still be liable, and contractors who are already trained would still be liable. This leaves a small problem because, despite EPA protestations to the contrary, the new rules are not low-cost. They require additional consumable materials as well as significant increases in labor time. This allows contractors who have signed up for classes to exploit a gap in pricing on contracts.

Comment from Jim Johnson, (6/4/2010, 11:43 AM)

While the EPA states it has held hearings, they are notorious for ignoring anything that does not fit their agenda. Lead rules already exist and many question the need for this latest regulation and whether it is overkill and intrusive. Hopefully there will be a Senate hearing and it will be resolved. Personally I believe home owners should be able to opt out.

Comment from Jim Johnson, (6/4/2010, 11:49 AM)

One also has to remember the EPA is self serving. They are funded by the revenue of fines. No fines - no funding. So if they want to have a paycheck tomorrow they must assess fines. It raises the question of Do they enact tighter regulation to generate funding after people have learned to comply with the existing regulation and revenue falls, or are the new regulations really needed?

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings

Join SSPC and Enhance
Your Career !

Sherwin-Williams Protective & Marine Coatings

With 4,000 distribution points and 3,700+ years of experience, Sherwin-Williams delivers the products, support and expertise you need, right where you need it.

KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office
KTA Analyzes
Coating Failures

• Field Diagnosis
• Lab Diagnosis
• Determination of Cause
• Recommendations

GMA Garnet USA
GMA Garnet™
Natural Abrasives

- Superior cleaning
- Even Profile
- Low Dust
- Cost-Effective
- Environmentally friendly
- Recyclable up to 5 times
Tel : +1 832 243 9300

Novetas Solutions
Number 1 Crushed Glass Abrasive in America!

6 NEW plants coast to coast! Safe for environment, 100% recycled glass. White Metal Finish! No unsafe toxins like Beryllium & Arsenic!
Call 866-775-6226

Industrial Vacuum Equipment Corp.
Hurricane Vacuums
& Dust Collectors

Vacuum and dust collector hose, filters and related accessories.

Midsun Specialty Products
Stopaq 30+ Year Coatings

Use Stopaq corrosion prevention coatings on pipelines, field joints, tank chimes, structural steel and more. Learn more at

US Minerals
US Minerals -
Black Magnum

With nationwide production and distribution capabilities, U.S. Minerals supplies a complete range of coal slag and other abrasives to meet all of your blasting needs.

Novatek Corporation
Dustless Coatings Removal

Strip it, clean it, and profile it,
all dust free! High production
rates and Blast like finishes.
Comply with new lead

Julbert, Inc.
Built from the ground up.

Dust Collectors Available!
We deliver to your Jobsite!
Built Tough! Priced Right!
PH: 208-437-2100

Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker

EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us

© Copyright 2000-2015, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail