RRP Cert renewal

[dgbldr]

Firms that require certification


In general, anyone who is paid to perform work that disturbs paint in housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978 must be certified. This includes all firms, even sole proprietorships.

Examples of the types of firms covered: Residential rental property owners/managers
General contractors
Special trade contractors, including
Painters
Plumbers
Carpenters
Electricians

Firms can’t advertise or perform renovation activities covered by the regulation in homes or child occupied facilities built before 1978 without firm certification.

https://www.epa.gov/lead/renovation-...am-contractors

[Bill Robinson]

That train left the station DG

[Ablesupe]

The whole question of having a license or not is a confusing one to me. I took the Lead class and passed the test about 10 years ago. Never used it on my own and when it had to be renewed in 5 years I let it lapse.
In Pa. where I started and worked for over 25 years there were no state contractor licenses of any kind to my knowledge. I knew a lot of great contractors. think Philadelphia and possibly some of the other big cities had license requirements.
In SC a license is required for most construction trades. The company I worked for routinely did 40 - 50 mil per year. For many years I was the only one in the company that held a license. In fact I held the license for SC, NC, Tenn and Ga. I was the designated test taker. When they got a job in a state they hadn't worked in before they'd get me the information on the test, book a hotel room and I'd take the test(s). Once they got the job(s) I seldom set foot in the state.
All the states I took tests in were open book. If you could figure out how to navigate the books you could pass the test. I don't think holding the licenses made me a better builder. I knew some very smart, experienced and capable people who tried and failed on several occasions to get a license. On the other hand I knew some who had zero field experience, never ran a job and I wouldn't trust them to build my dog's house but, they could take a test and got their license.
The guy who held the license was called the "qualifying party" The size of job the company could do was based on their net worth not on their expertise or experience. If the "qualifying party" left the company the company had 60 days to come up with another "qualifying party" before they were non compliant.
In SC I took a night plumbing class at the local tech school. Passing the class entitled you to take the SC journeyman's plumbing test. You had to have 2 years of experience to take the test. When I called the state Licensing board to sign up for the test the person I spoke with asked me how much actual experienceI had. I told her if you added up all the time I'd spent plumbing and working for plumbers it wouldn't have amounted to more than 2 weeks. I then told her that I'd been in construction for 25 years and had run jobs with numerous plumbers in commercial and residential work. Her actual response was "well, Mr. Yeager I've been working in this office for 25 years and you're the first person who's ever told me they didn't have the experience required to take the test. She said "I appreciate your honesty. I'll send you the form to fill out to take the test, and in 2 more years if you decide you want to take the test for your Master's license you call me and I'll send you that form as well.
The guy who taught the lead class had never done any remodeling or lead remediation. He was one of those guys who knew all the answers but had never been asked the questions in real life.
Maybe licenses weed out some people who shouldn't be doing work, I'm not sure. I'm not convinced they're a safeguard to the public at large.
I am glad that when I fly with my son-in-law that he's got his license. I'm glad that my cardiac doctor passed some kind of test and that my daughter passed the bar when I ask her legal advice.
For contractors maybe a European apprentice model would be best.

[dgbldr]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, although none of it has anything to do with RRP. The EPA gives you a "firm certification" and doesn't care if that firm is licensed.

In MI you can do a $1B commercial project without a builder's license. Only residential requires a license, there is no such thing as a Commercial Builder's license. The idea is that little old ladies need protection, whereas a big time commercial customer can afford their own due dilligence. It may surprise you why most fly by nite contractors don't get a license in my state. It's because they know they can't. It's not the exam they fear. It's the thorough background check.

We have a similar license path for plumbers, but it's done by the book. When you go to take your exam, you need to produce employment records showing the number of hours you worked. No BS-ing someone over the phone. And the employment has to be with a licensed Plumbing Contractor.

I agree with you that more strict licensing requirements, involving field experience, would help weed out some of the hacks.

[srvcarpentry]

Its a little confusing, but if you have a company inc, llc, doing business as, etc, you have to be firm certified, then someone employed to the company or owner has to be lead certified. Then others can be instructed and work under that lead certification.
Two separate fees. That goes for someone who works alone with no employees.

[dgbldr]

SRV, that's correct. It's not really 2 fees, one is the tuition for the course and one is a fee to the EPA.

[Bill Robinson]

SRV, that's correct. It's not really 2 fees, one is the tuition for the course and one is a fee to the EPA.

Can you clarify?

I believe one payment is made to the individual or organization conducting the RRP class for Certified Renovator and a separate fee directly to EPA for the certified firm cert.

[dgbldr]

Can you clarify?
I believe one payment is made to the individual or organization conducting the RRP class for Certified Renovator and a separate fee directly to EPA for the certified firm cert.

Yes, that's what I said. What do you want me to clarify?

[Bill Robinson]

SRV, that's correct. It's not really 2 fees, one is the tuition for the course and one is a fee to the EPA.

It is not really 2 fees you say in your post.

what does that mean, please clarify

[dgbldr]

It is not really 2 fees you say in your post.
what does that mean, please clarify

Sorry. Perhaps it's regional lingo. I don't call the payment for a class (a service performed by a business) a fee. Just like I don't pay Kroger a "fee" for groceries or ask Wendy's what the 'fee" is for a hamburger. We refer to payment for classes as tuition.

Just semantics. You can call them both fees by the strict dictionary definition.

[Bill Robinson]

Tuition a definition

[srvcarpentry]

Tuition a definition

There are 2 separate certs, both have to be renewed.

[Bill Robinson]

There are 2 separate certs, both have to be renewed.

the question is it a fee or tuition?

[srvcarpentry]

the question is it a fee or tuition?

Thats a good question. When this requirement became a federal mandate, I took the class and got lead certified. I was able to instruct my employees in the protocol. My certificate for passing the test at the end was 300.00 I believe. I think its a 3 yr cert that has to be paid in time or you have to take the class/test again. Then I had to be firm certified, which lasts 5 yrs? 300.00 again,
Its all sitting in a file in my office. I often sub out the demo, so its not an issue, if theyre legit, and amazingly there are demo companies that dont do RRP.
Its often learning centers that get subbed to teach these classes, so they get paid, through the 'tuition'.