Lead in Paint: 30-Year-Old Training Rules Undermine Success

Thirty years ago, EPA established requirements for lead-based paint (LBP) activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities. LBP activities consist of training, certification, and work practices for certified inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, abatement supervisors and workers.¹ Those requirements have changed little despite sea-changes in training methods powered by online tools, in dust-lead standards, and in our collective understanding of lead exposure sources and risks.

In this blog, Unleaded Kids evaluates the current situation and suggests reforms that EPA should make to ensure there are sufficient certified individuals and firms who are ready, willing, and able to do the work safely. We do not suggest we have all the answers. Rather we want to start the long-overdue discussion. Please let us know what you think by emailing tneltner@unleadedkids.org.

Why the Requirements Matter

EPA’s training, certification, and work practice requirements are the backbone of federal efforts to protect people from LBP-related exposure by ensuring there is a workforce capable of properly conducting inspections, risk assessments, and abatements using minimum work practices that should be reliable, effective, and safe. If the certified individuals cannot properly do the work, the system will start to crumble as people lose confidence in the quality or accuracy of the reports they receive or review.

To accomplish this objective, the rules require that only individuals² certified by EPA (or a state³) are allowed to perform critical tasks such as:

• Inspecting a home to determine where LBP is present;⁴
• Taking dust samplesto determine whether LBP hazards exist;⁵
• Making specific recommendations to remedy LPB hazards;⁶ or
• Conducting abatement work designed to permanently eliminate LBP hazards.⁷

The protections the rules provide are particularly important where the private sector is driving demand, and there is no government oversight. HUD provides oversight through its rules when federally subsidized property is involved or its guidelines when hazard reduction grant funding supports the work.

Most States Have Few Firms Certified to Perform LBP Activities

When EPA finalized its 1996 LBP activities rule, the agency sought to balance the burden on individuals and firms to get trained and certified with the need to ensure they could safely and effectively conduct the work. The agency recognized the need for enough certified people to be able to provide timely and cost-effective services to meet the potential demand. Yet, without a national mandate for LBP inspections, EPA was uncertain how strong the demand, especially from the private sector, would be.

For the past 30 years, five programs have driven demand for LBP activities:

1. HUD Lead Hazard Reduction Grants provide resources to conduct the inspections, risk assessments, and abatement work in affordable housing. In recent years, Congress has provided more than $400 million annually to support this work, effectively driving modest demand in funded communities.
2. Elevated blood lead level (EBLL) investigations, whether lead hazard screens or risk assessments, conducted by risk assessors of state and local health departments or their contractors. The investigations often result in LBP abatement. This work is commonly funded by Medicaid. The effort drives stable but modest demand across the states.
3. Requirements of HUD’s 1999 Lead-Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) that apply to federally subsidized housing. The LSHR drove a surge in demand when the rule went into effect more than 25 years ago but creates much less demand now. Note that for the more than 2 million homes covered by Housing Choice Vouchers, this rule does not require proactive dust-lead testing. As a result, the LSHR currently creates little demand in these homes beyond EBLL investigations.
4. Dust-lead clearance required by a small cadre of states or large municipalities for rental property. See below for details.
5. Enforcement by HUD or EPA for failure of a property owner to follow the LBP disclosure requirements where the violator agrees to pay a smaller fine in exchange for conducting LBP inspections on its properties and abating LBP hazards that are found. This option, called Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), was common in the late 1990s when disclosure requirements were new and compliance was low. Currently, SEPs are not allowed, so it creates no demand.

The reality is that only a small fraction (< 10%) of homes built before 1978 has ever been evaluated for LBP or LBP hazards and even fewer had those hazards abated.⁸ For reasons we will explore in future blogs, we see little demand for inspections, risk assessments or abatement when homes are being sold.

We used EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Professional Locator to get a sense of the number of certified inspection/risk assessment firms and abatement firms available in the state.⁹ Seven states—Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—stood out:

• Each had more than 650 inspection/risk assessment firms compared to the remaining states having no more than 75 of these firms.
• Each had more than 1,350 abatement firms compared to the remaining states having no more than 250 of these firms.

Not coincidentally, each of the seven states either have a statewide rental registry that requires dust-lead clearance or have a major city in the state that does. This suggests that where dust clearance testing is required, the private sector will respond by getting enough individuals and firms certified and that, while improvements are always possible, EPA’s training and certification rules do not pose a significant barrier to meeting that demand.

Reform #1: Probationary Certification Contingent on Documented Performance

We think it is unrealistic to expect that, despite the best efforts of both trainer and student, a certified:

• Abatement supervisor with two years of experience in building trades will consistently meet the new dust-lead action levels¹⁰ and properly complete an abatement report after taking 32 hours of training and passing the test.
• Inspector with no experience will properly use an X-ray fluorescence device (XRF), independently write a complete LBP inspection report, and appropriately sample for lead in dust and soil after taking 24 hours of training and passing the test. 
• Risk assessor with a bachelor’s degree and one year of experience in construction will properly sample dust and soil for lead, conduct a lead hazard screen, and independently write a complete risk assessment report after taking 40 hours of training¹¹ and passing the test.

While training is fundamental, we maintain that someone must review student’s work practices to ensure compliance with the law, at least until they demonstrate proficiency.

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (NHDHHS) demonstrated leadership and innovation when it took on this issue by modifying its rules in 2025 for certified LBP inspectors and risk assessors. When someone successfully completes inspector or risk assessor training, the state gives them a provisional license for a six-month probation period.

During this probationary period, the risk assessor applicant must perform at least five risk assessments on five separate dwellings and send each to the agency within 15 days. The agency reviews the documents before approving or denying the license.

Similarly, the lead inspector applicant must submit five lead-based paint inspections and five lead-based soil and dust sampling inspections to the agency for review. Their license is marked “in training” until the agency confirms the reports were proper and signs off on the license.

If EPA or a state is uncomfortable with taking on the task of reviewing the documents, it could adopt rules giving the task to the accredited training provider because they already have a connection to the student and know the work practices. The agency  should periodically audit the training provider’s reviews. The practical effect of this approach may be to set up the trainer as an ongoing mentor to the student, a situation that will likely benefit the trainer—and the student—in getting feedback.

When the training firm has reviewed the student’s work practices and first five reports and verified compliance, it can notify the agency to remove the probationary status. The training firm can sign a non-disclosure agreement with the student’s organization if needed.

EPA’s rules already have a mechanism it can build on through an interim certification. Students with an interim certification have successfully completed the training but have not taken the EPA certification exam. Under the current rules, the interim certification expires after six months of training. EPA could also make the certificate contingent on getting confirmation from the training provider that the student has successfully demonstrated proficiency in conducting the work and completing the necessary reports. A state could also adopt the process and get EPA’s confirmation that it would be as protective as current requirements.

We recognize that training provider review will increase the cost of the training but think those costs may be offset by other changes we suggest as well as by the benefits of getting a more productive workforce that can do the work properly.  

Reform #2: Focusing on Hands-On Training and Allowing Online for “Classroom” Aspects

People learn in many ways. Some get it quickly; others need more work. Some thrive in the classroom and need the option to engage with expert trainers; others benefit from interactive videos that they can repeat to master a topic.

Rather than focusing on sitting in class for a minimum number of hours, the rules should allow training firms to make greater use of asynchronous, online training tools for lessons commonly covered in the classroom. The online training must be interactive and not just watching a video and getting 70% on a multiple choice exam. It must also address risk of fraud.

We think the in-person training should focus on the hands-on aspects where online options are likely to be much less effective. The mandatory in-person hours could be narrowed to current requirement of at least eight hours of hands-on training for inspectors, supervisors, and workers and four hours for risk assessors. Existing requirements that trainers evaluate student’s ability to satisfactorily perform the work practices could be strengthened.

We recognize that a shift to online training will be controversial for many expert trainers who firmly believe that there is no substitute for classrooms. That ship has sailed as online training is commonplace for many skills, and procedures in place to address fraud have become common. In addition, unfortunately, too many classroom trainers already rely heavily on videos that fall short of what can be done online. Expert trainers will need to convince employers and students of the value as they do for other classes.

Online training should reduce the number of hours students are in the classroom, reducing the burden on both the student and the training firm. This should increase the number of students trained and certified. Some of those reductions will be offset by increasing the post-training oversight by the trainer during the student’s probationary period.

Note that this shift to online training has already occurred for RRP certified renovator training.

Other Elements of Reform

We suggest that reform also consists of:

• Document Review with Refresher: We cannot assume that those already certified are doing the work properly especially with the changes to dust-lead standards. The periodic recertification should require review of the work products like what is proposed for the probationary certification for new students. If the person does not provide the document, their certification would be suspended as if they submitted an incomplete application.
• Timing of Refresher: Asynchronous training enables refresher training to be taken more frequently with less of a burden. It will also enable them to stay current on changes to the requirements or other course content. EPA already does this for certified renovators though the schedule should be more frequent.
• Update Training Topics: Some of the mandatory training topics such substrate correction for the XRF and combining samples into a composite are outdated. In addition, greater emphasis is needed on HUD’s guidelines and on more effective abatement work practices designed to meet the new dust-lead action levels.
• Worker Protection: We now know that workers can be harmed by even low levels of exposure. In addition, the workers can bring dust-lead home, putting their families at risk. Congress directed OSHA to establish regulations that are as safe and as healthful as HUD’s guidelines. OSHA was also directed to consult and coordinate with EPA for the purpose of achieving the maximum enforcement of the LBP activities rule and the OSHA law while imposing the least burdens of duplicative requirements on those subject to the requirements. There is more than can be done to protect workers.
• Exams: EPA and authorized states should consider relying on third parties that specialize in delivering this training and have the means to validate the identity of the person taking the training to avoid fraud.

Re-establish Dormant Task Force Established by Congress

EPA could begin the process by reconvening the Congressionally mandated Task Force on Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing, just as it did for the original 1996 rules.¹² That Task Force published a 1995 report that significantly impacted the rules. To our knowledge the Task Force has not met in more than 25 years.

Reforming the Task Force brings together individuals representing key federal agencies¹³ as well as those representing the following organizations:

• Building and construction trades industry,
  • Landlords,
  • Tenants,
  • Primary lending institutions,
  • Private mortgage insurers,
  • Single-family and multifamily real estate interests,
  • Nonprofit housing developers,
  • Property liability insurers,
  • Public housing agencies,
  • Low-income housing advocacy organizations,
  • National, State and local lead-poisoning prevention advocates and experts, and
  • Community-based organizations located in areas with substantial rental housing.

Does EPA Have the Statutory Authority to Make These Changes?

Yes, EPA can implement these changes by modifying the rule; no changes are needed to the statute at 15 U.S.C. § 2682. If done well, the agency can significantly reduce the burden on the regulated community and improve the impact of their work.

When Congress enacted the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (“Act”), it found that

“the Federal Government must take a leadership role in building the infrastructure — including an informed public, State and local delivery systems, certified inspectors, contractors, and laboratories, trained workers, and available financing and insurance — necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible.”¹⁴

A key purpose of the Act was “to reorient the national approach to the presence of lead-based paint in housing to implement, on a priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in the Nation’s housing stock.”¹⁵

Congress directed EPA to:

“promulgate final regulations governing lead-based paint activities to ensure that individuals engaged in such activities are properly trained; that training programs are accredited; and that contractors engaged in such activities are certified. Such regulations shall contain standards for performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. Such regulations shall require that all risk assessment, inspection, and abatement activities performed in target housing shall be performed by certified contractors.”¹⁶

---

1. We are referring only to those activities covered by 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart L. They do not include renovation, repair, painting and interim control activities. These are covered by 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E. ↩︎
2. Technically, no one may do these tasks, even informally, as a volunteer, or on behalf of a government agency such as a health department. ↩︎
3. State certification is required where EPA has authorized the state to operate its own LBP activities program. See EPA website for list of authorized states. ↩︎
4. Only a certified inspector or risk assessor may conduct an inspection. A certified renovator may determine whether paint affected by a renovation is LBP using a spot test kit or collecting a paint chip sample, but this work is focused on paint to be disturbed by a renovation. It is narrower in scope than the surface-by-surface investigation for LBP that constitutes an inspection. ↩︎
5. Dust-lead samples may be collected by a certified: 1) risk assessor as part of a lead hazard screen or risk assessment; 2) inspector or risk assessor as part of a post-abatement clearance or post-renovation dust clearance sampling; or 3) dust sampling technician as part of post-renovation dust clearance sampling. ↩︎
6. Specific recommendations may be made only as part of a lead hazard screen or a risk assessment. ↩︎
7. Work designed to permanently eliminate LBP hazards constitutes abatement and must only be done by a certified abatement firm managed by an certified abatement supervisor and done by certified abatement workers. ↩︎
8. For context, HUD estimated in 2021 that, based on a nationally representative sample of about 700 homes, roughly:
   – 60 million homes are built before 1978,
   – 34.6 million homes contain some LBP,
   – 18.2 million homes have significantly deteriorated LBP, and
   – 29 million have floor dust lead levels ≥ 10 micrograms per square foot (μg/ft²) or a windowsill dust lead level ≥ 100 μg/ft². ↩︎
9. We selected the states and searched for firms within 200 miles (the largest range provided in the tool) of the state capital or major city. We recognize that tool does not include firms that are only certified to work in one of the 39 EPA-authorized states. However, we assumed that a private firm would also become EPA certified to extend its reach. The states administered by EPA are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. ↩︎
10. Five micrograms of lead per square foot (µg/ft²) on the floor ↩︎
11. Assuming they have also completed 24 hours of certified inspector training. ↩︎
12. 42 U.S.C. § 4852(a). ↩︎
13. The named agencies are: 1) the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2) the Farmers Home Administration, 3) the Department of Veterans Affairs, 4) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 5) the Federal National Mortgage Association, and 6) the Environmental Protection Agency. ↩︎
14. 2 U.S.C. § 4851(8). ↩︎
15. 42 U.S.C. § 4851(a)(2). ↩︎
16. 15 U.S.C. § 2682(a). ↩︎