Contractors who have not complied with new federal lead paint regulations have received a temporary reprieve from harsh penalties that could have put many of them out of business in a single day.
If two U.S. senators from Massachusetts and New Hampshire win their fight, the contractors may receive a second break and avoid fines of up to $37,500 a day for not being certified if they do lead paint removal work.
Nearly seven weeks after the Environmental Protection Agency regulations took effect, no contractors have been fined, according to David Deegan, spokesman for the agency's New England office.
"I'm not aware of any enforcement action thus far," he said. "Typically, in most cases, it takes a fair amount of more time."
While many contractors have not received the certification needed to work on homes, schools and day-care centers built before 1978, Deegan said the EPA's main goal right now is to make sure they are properly trained.
"Our focus has been trying to promote compliance and help get contractors the training they are supposed to have," he said.
There are so many contractors across the country struggling to become certified, several U.S. senators are trying to stop the EPA from penalizing them until after Sept. 30 — as long as they have registered for the daylong classes.
They have introduced an amendment to an emergency spending bill that would delay the fines, noting that there are not enough certified trainers in most states to educate the contractors.
This includes Tennessee, where U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander is concerned the new regulations would slow building repairs after flooding recently devastated the state, killing 22 people and causing millions of dollars in damage. Sponsors of the amendment include Republican Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Both senators said in statements that although they support efforts to protect people from lead poisoning, the EPA regulations are too restrictive.
"This amendment will provide contractors with additional time and education to adjust to the new EPA requirements," Brown said, "and will go a long way toward ensuring that small businesses, which are the key to our economic growth, are not adversely impacted."
Gregg agreed.
"In today's difficult economic climate, we should not be implementing fines that will cripple small businesses because the EPA cannot meet its own certification quotas," he said. "Our amendment will still protect the safety of children and pregnant women, while ensuring that small contractors aren't unfairly hit with these hefty fines."
Gregg spokesman Laena Fallon said New Hampshire contractors are clearly upset.
"I think they are aware there is a problem," she said of the EPA. "We have heard from a lot of contractors with concerns."
Contractors say rules add cost
Contractors from the Merrimack Valley and Southern New Hampshire say while the new regulations help protect their customers, complying with them is both burdensome and expensive. The special equipment — such as vacuums and filters — and time-consuming procedures required add thousands of dollars to project costs, they said.
Any work areas more than 6 square feet in size must be properly sealed to prevent the spread of lead paint chips or dust.
While weeks have passed since the EPA's April 22 deadline, the leaders of home builders associations in both states said many contractors still aren't trained and the classes are booked.
"We have classes that are full through the middle of July," said Larry Kady, president of the North East Builders Association of Massachusetts. "There are so many who don't realize that they need the requirement."
He estimated it would take two years to train the state's approximately 45,000 contractors.
Kendall Buck, executive vice president of the National Home Builders and Remodelers Association of New Hampshire, said many Granite State contractors remain uncertified and will avoid accepting jobs at homes built before 1978 to avoid the fines.
"We have some who are going to stay away from the older projects," he said.
Mixed response to enforcement delay
The EPA's delay in punishing those caught in violation drew a mixed response from contractors, including Kevin McCann of Finish Painting in East Hampstead.
Although McCann said he is certified, the potential penalties contractors face are a hot topic of discussion in the industry.
"A lot of them aren't certified yet," he said. "Everybody talks about it."
Delaying enforcement of the regulations would help contractors, McCann said.
"The longer they put it off, the better for everyone else," he said. "I think it's a very good idea."
"It's kind of a bummer in a way," said Allan Marcus.
Marcus, owner of Allan Painting in North Andover, said delaying enforcement just means unscrupulous contractors will do work they are not certified to perform.
"I've turned down a lot of houses because of the penalties," he said. "That's unfortunate."
Like many contractors, Marcus is staying away from the older projects because work that involves the removal of lead paint can be hazardous, time-consuming and expensive — for homeowners and contractors.
"I don't want to jeopardize getting fined and also underestimate the time it takes jumping through hoops," he said.
Socrates Stamateas, owner of Alpha Painting in Haverhill, said while the regulations are beneficial in the long run, enforcement is needed to keep violators in check. Stamateas also said he had to turn down certain jobs until he and his crew became certified.
"That cost us some jobs," he said. "Now, I see we lost opportunities for no good reason."
• • •
Join the discussion. To comment on stories and see what others are saying, log on to eagletribune.com.
