Senate committee hears bill to codify state lead renovation, repair and painting program

A Senate committee on Environment, Energy & Technology heard testimony on Senate Bill 5,494, which would place the state’s renovation, repair and painting (RRP) program for lead-based paint into state law and give the Department of Commerce authority to administer and enforce it.

The bill, introduced in staff briefing by Alicia Kinney Clausen, staff to the committee, would direct Commerce to administer a state RRP program consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements and grant Commerce rulemaking authority and authority to set fees. Senator Claudia Kaufman, sponsor, told the committee that “lead exposure remains a preventable but presents persistent public health issue, especially for children and families that are in older homes.”

The bill would require renovation activities on pre-1978 residential or child-occupied facilities to be done by certified firms and certified renovators or individuals trained by certified renovators. Commerce would have to ensure the state program is “at least as protective as the federal program,” establish an appeals process consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, and may delegate implementation to other agencies or private partners. Staff said a fiscal note had been requested and was not yet available.

Commerce staff and program officials described current program activity and enforcement practices. Katie Meehan of the Department of Commerce said the agency currently certifies about 2,000 contractors each year, responds to roughly 4,000 compliance assistance requests annually and conducts more than 100 in-person inspections a year, treating inspections as educational opportunities. Meehan summarized the federal context: “Dust from lead paint is the number 1 method of lead exposure,” and noted EPA warned last July that the state needed to update statute or risk having EPA take both programs back.

Opponents and industry representatives focused on enforcement and cost concerns. Andrea Smiley of the Building Industry Association testified in opposition, saying Commerce “is not very well suited for the enforcement piece of this legislation” and worried about the impact of enforcement on contractors and renovation costs. Jamie Switras, a trainer with Now Environmental, and contractor-trainers including Steve Hoff supported keeping the program with Commerce, saying state oversight has lowered costs and improved access to training and compliance assistance. Commerce’s Jennifer Carraway (program enforcement officer) described the agency’s preventive enforcement approach and said contractors frequently call for compliance assistance.

Testimony also described penalties and fee changes the bill would make: staff said the bill would repeal statutory fees (noted in testimony as $25 certification/recertification and a $200 training-accreditation fee) and allow Commerce to set fees by rule. Commerce told the committee EPA penalties could run as high as $48,000 while Washington currently caps penalties at $10,000 and had not issued a penalty in five years. Committee members asked about disposal and disposal oversight; Commerce and its enforcement staff explained waste disposal for residential lead-based paint is handled differently than commercial waste and that Ecology’s role focuses on commercial/industrial waste and contaminated soils.

The committee heard broad support from public-health and environmental organizations for updating statute to preserve state authorization, and from industry groups that wanted clarity on enforcement authority and education-outreach options. The panel closed with the committee chair noting public sign-in counts for the hearing: 159 signers who chose not to testify, 8 pro, and 151 con were recorded for the record. No formal vote or amendment occurred during the hearing.

The committee left the bill in committee for further work; staff and witnesses said fiscal details and fee rulemaking mechanics remain to be completed.