By the end of 2010, after most remodelers and installers had complied with training and certification requirements under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, we were on the lookout for an EPA enforcement action.
An announcement of the first such action in the U.S. rolled out of the EPA’s Office of Public Affairs for New England this week. In a legal complaint dated May 6, the agency alleges that Colin Wentworth, a renovator based in Rockland, Maine, violated requirements designed to protect children from exposure to lead-based paint during painting and other renovation activities, according to an EPA press release.
The complaint alleges that two of Wentworth’s employees “failed to contain dust and debris generated by lead paint removal activities during a repainting project in October 2010″ at one of several residential properties Wentworth owns in Rockland. Portions of the paint removal, it turns out, were recorded on video and posted to YouTube. An anonymous tipster alerted the EPA to the video, which showed Wentworth’s workers “using power equipment to remove lead paint from an exterior wall of a residential building without using any containment for lead-containing dust and debris,” according to the agency.
Dust and debris
Wentworth in fact had trained and was certified for lead RRP work, the complaint notes, but his two workers were neither properly trained nor supervised. Another point raised in the complaint is that at least six children, including one under age 6, lived in the four-unit building, which had been constructed in 1852.
Among other concerns cited in the complaint: failure by Wentworth to obtain EPA certification for his renovation firm and his firm’s failure to post warning signs in the work area, cover the ground in that area with plastic sheeting to collect falling debris, and failure to contain waste from the renovation in a way that would prevent dust and debris dispersion. The complaint also noted that the high-speed machines used to remove lead-based paint were not equipped with the required high-efficiency particulate-air filters, and that Wentworth did not keep records required to demonstrate compliance with RRP rules.
Dave Deegan, of the EPA’s Office of Public Affairs in Boston, told GBA that the complaint is in fact “the first of its kind in the U.S.” A complaint is the first step in the legal process that the EPA uses for enforcement. The maximum penalty for the alleged violations in this case is $37,500 per violation per day.
LEAD SAFE REMODELING INFORMATION:
Visit Fine Homebuilding’s Lead Safe Remodeling Center for downloadable Special Reports on the EPA rule, videos showing how to comply with the EPA rule, a free downloadable jobsite sign, a compliance toolkit, and links to more crucial information.
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Affordable IR Camera
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Reliable Crimp Connectors
View Comments
I do not see any statement that lead paint was actually present.
As the owner of the property, the man may very well be beyond the scope of the EPA.
An anonymous video ... all manner of 'chain of custody' issues there. I doubt a judge would admit the 'evidence.'
More to the point ... I grew up in a country where obeying the law was not dependent on keeping up with myriad rules generated and altered by countless bureaucracies. As children, survivors of Hitler and Stalin told us tales of life in places where anyone could be an informer. I grew up in a place called the "Land of the Free."
I'm not sure when I left it.
At least six children, one of whom was under six years old, lived in the four-unit building at the time of the project Have they been living under a rock – It’s proven that lead paint causes brain damage in children! http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm#health
The exemption for owners applies only to owner OCCUPIERS, but this was rental property. This was the case of a landlord indifferent to the health of his tenants. This was hardly a matter of messing up some trivial paperwork.
The landlord/renovator had better hope all the children test well above average in mental capabilities, because the tenants certainly have grounds to sue over lead exposure.
The article doesn't indicate that the video was the ONLY evidence against the perpetrator. It merely triggered the investigation. I'll bet there was in fact actual testing for lead, just as there were opportunities for the perpetrator to have provided appropriate records. It likely would not have been needed if the perpetrator had challenged the fine in court. In addition, where there was a video, it is likely there are other witnesses as to what was done.
The EPA is hardly "countless" bureaucracies, and the rules were entirely clear to the perpetrator--he had been trained in lead repair,renovation and painting proceedures. A great deal of information about the regulations has been provided to the contracting community, well in advance of the effective date, so "keeping up" was hardly a chore. It's a normal part of citizenship to report offences, and has been for longer than "amish electician" has been alive.
Re: Amish Electrician and SteveSchoene... When events are reported, it is possible (and is historically favored) for those reporting to select the facts for the desired effect. It is also possible for law enforcement to do this. (A duly sworn law officer recently testified that he had observed my son, during a right turn from a standing start, execute rear wheel spin and fishtail around the corner. The officer said he saw it, and the judge saw no reason to doubt that report in spite of it being physically impossible for the front wheel drive car involved.)
As I see it, the core of Amish Electrician's comment concerns the lack of information about the composition of the paint. It is now a regulatory requirement to do certain things as part of a process because the regulations now say so. It is also possible, without conflicting with the facts -as- -reported- so far in Fine Homebuilding's article, for the owner of the building to have known from first-hand knowledge that no lead paint was ever applied to the building since its construction. This may not be the case, but it does not conflict with the report. The regulatory agency could proceed with its case even with no endangerment to others if it wanted to vigorously enforce its authority.
This discussion necessarily touches Political Philosophy. I agree with Amish Electrician that the lead content must be part of a reasonably written regulation, and that the limitations on the Federal government ought not to be allowed to evaporate "to protect the children" in cases where there is in fact no danger. I also agree that if lead paint was actually present, the contractor is open to additional civil liability. But a responsible citizen should demand not only that the -authorities- as well as other citizens abide by laws, but that the laws should not be unnecessarily burdensome and should be crafted around a core of common sense.
The owner may well have been flagrantly and willfully negligent and have endangered children, but that is not proven by the report provided even if we agree for the sake of argument that the report were accurate. Responsible citizenship in these United States involves thinking and participating, not just obeying. Neither citizens nor authorities are always honorable in intent and execution, as my son and I have unfortunately observed. Please forgive me if I seem off-target. I'm responding to the comments as I have read them.
Owner tenants need not comply? If we can be sued because our clients kids test below average on IQ tests we are all in trouble.
Just another way to tap the contractor.
I would like to see evidence of this Lead Based Paint epidemic that has inspired our goverment to step in and wrench even more money from the working class. Let's not be stupid. The goverment is not here to help or serve us. Where are the victims? There must be 100's of thousands to do this kind of thing nationally. I've never known of or heard of these things commonly happening. I've done searches and I don't see it. So much needs to be done for the people yet they spend millions on some bs campaign like this.
For people to still question the safety of being exposed to lead is appalling. It has been proven without any doubt that lead affects the brain, especially children who are still developing. It has been proven time and time again that the more lead in your body/blood the lower your IQ. What about the "freedom" of those children they were exposing to that lead? And yes, there is in fact an epidemic in this country for lead-based poisoning. The problem is that it doesn't instantly kill you like a bullet and make the news, it just continuously deprives our children of having the life they could have had.
Seems to me, it would have been cheaper to burn the house down, let the "purported lead" into the atmosphere, and call it a day. Seriously, if lead were so harmful, why do so many people, myself included, who as children were exposed to, and inhaled/injested high levels of lead do just fine. Just my $0.02
WSJ
I know of several churches in my area that have active outreach ministries in the community. I am talking about several hundred people working Thursday - Saturday to renovate old houses occupied by people who are sick, old, and handicapped. The work includes painting, reroofing, cleaning, reflooring, rebuilding porches, decks and ramps.
In the last two years, 4 of the 6 churches pulled out because of concerns and warnings about possible violations of government rules and regulations. They simply do not have the resources and time to keep up with all of it. While the government is effectively scaring good people away, the nanny state is NOT taking care of these people who desperately need help. I know of two people on our list to be helped last year who have been evicted by the government this year because their houses were declared "unlivable" and condemned.
The people in these local churches are angry so maybe they will care enough to vote the current administration out of office. The local and national news media are not interested in this story so most people just assume that the government is taking care of these people that they evicted.
@WSJ: Maybe all that lead "ingestion" is the cause of your less than stellar spelling abilities?
'ChimeWind writes: For people to still question the safety of being exposed to lead is appalling.... And yes, there is in fact an epidemic in this country for lead-based poisoning.'
Sorry ChimeWind but your alarmist rhetoric was too much for me to allow to pass without comment.
1) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the number of American children having elevated blood lead levels is "more than 250,000". A tragedy for those children and their families certainly, but hardly an "epidemic".
2) And for some to question the validity and value of an alarmist reaction to something that is deemed unsafe by our government doesn't seem appalling to me. Prudent maybe, but not appalling.
I mean no offense.
Lead toxicity depends on the route of exposure. The most prevalent route of exposure is oral ingestion (paint chips from radiators). Sanding aerosols are another issue (inhalation exposure). The other potential routes of exposure (ground debris, water borne) are more likely than note wihtout consequence.
For years, I'd encouraged stronger lead paint law enforcement, because I saw many children in the course of my work who had ingested paint with lead in it and the laws on the books were not at that time enforced.
Now that better enforcement is here I see things from a different perspective. I bought an old house and am restoring it. I am not a professional home builder; I just "putter." After a shoulder injury, I was told to avoid painting and larger carpentry projects. I used to have a number of people I could call for work that was more than I can do; now I can not find any one who will work on a building that was built before a certain year in the 1970's, because of the complex rules and severe fines (I am only reporting what I have been told). The contractors I spoke to tell me there is a long waiting list for the course, and it will be next year before they are certified to work on my house and barn. The painters who took the course say they're sorry but they are no longer painting old homes. One told me he receives weekly emails from the EPA since taking the course, describing graphically those who have been fined that week (so it surprised me to hear this was "the first fine"- he said every week they report a new fine.) Why terrify those conscientious enough to take the course? I said I was willing to pay extra for the extra expense of following the laws precisely. So far there is so much fear no one will even paint my barn, never mind my house. I have been told it simply is not worth the risk. "Someone", one said to me, "could be driving by and shoot a video from an odd angle so that it looks like, for example, the plastic is not under the ladder, and submit that to the EPA and to them you are guilty until proved innocent". I have no idea of the veracity of these stories; I only know I can't find anyone willing to work on my old buildings last year and this year, when prior to that there were plenty of people. And supposedly, this is the field most affected by the Recession. There are quite a few people who advertise but I have hired them before and they do shoddy work - I'm not even sure they are certified. I have a short list of workers whom I have carefully vetted who do good work and are conscientious and careful. These are the folks who are afraid of working on old buildings since the new rules took effect- even if they are certified. In fact, the course seems to have scared them out of using their certification. The new laws seem to have unintended consequences on conscientious workers.
It is the level of fear and intimidation that amazes me! I am hopeful that in a few years, everyone will calm down and be more reasonable. Meanwhile, I thought I could at least get my barn repaired and painted. The barn had just been tested negative for lead paint, and from the EPA web site it appeared to me that Out Buildings were exempt from the rules. However, they were still unwilling to take a chance because "it is not that clear cut". Until there is more clarity they won't have anything to do with older buildings. A couple of the painters quoted one of the major paint companies (Sherwin Williams) -he seemed afraid to ask the EPA and instead was relying on information from the local store. It made me wonder what on earth happens in those courses - shouldn't the EPA be encouraging questions?
If painters are unwilling to paint old houses, the lead paint on those surfaces will still chip, lead dust will still be present, and children will still ingest lead. So I am not sure how this protects children.
Mine is a small sample size - 8 professional carpenters, contractors and painters at most- and not in a city. However, I have noticed that there are 4 older homes on my road which were occupied a few years ago and abandoned today. I know that the owners have died, but of course I don't know the details - could they not be sold because they were older than mid 1970's? In the same area, 5 new homes have been built. Will we lose our 150 year old buildings because it is too expensive to maintain them? Some of it no doubt has nothing to do with the lead paint laws - but how many have tried to maintain their older homes and have run into the problems I have?
BTW, I tried to view the U-Tube video at the beginning of this discussion and there is a message saying it had been removed because "its content violated U-Tube's Terms of Service". So I do not have that information available to me. What about that video violated U-Tube's rules?
Even FH can't stay out of trouble these days...
I would venture that the video was pulled off YouTube because it violated someone's privacy and / or is now evidence in a lawsuit.
I personally believe the current hoopla over lead paint is ridiculous. This is not to minimize the poisonous effects of lead as a metal, but 100-yr old lead paint is highly inert and unless it is vaporized / made airborne by way of high-speed sanding or torching, let's say if it is hand-scraped it is pretty harmless. People usually don't go on all fours eating paint chips off the lawn. My guess is this will blow over like the Great Asbestos Scare of the 80's and rules will settle down at a workable level.
But my main concern is, this is another nail in the coffin of affordable housing. The cost of compliance is making affordable housing construction a luxury / specialty item affordable only to governments, and wealthy non-profits like Catholic Charities or others for whom spending $200 / sq ft on condo-grade housing for groups they favor is just normal. The days of mom-and-pop or small investors building apartments the working poor can afford to live in seem to be over for good. This, folks, should make us wonder where our priorities are and where we are headed as a society.
Will one lead paint sherriff, please show me some actual statisics that indicate that an enormously unbalanced amount of the WEALTHEST people in the country's children are brain damaged from lead poisoning. After complete restorations of turn of the century mansions in the northeast, for 45 years, with total burnoffs of the interiors, etc. while inhabited by families with small children, who all grew up, went to the best colleges, and became extremely successful stock brokers, and professionals, I think something is wrong with this equation. Why do you think that is? Luck? Here's some logic: WEALTHY PEOPLE
, not poor people are the ones with the highest likelyhood of exposure, because they can afford theses massive renovations. Logic dictates that hundreds of thousands of the WEALTHEST children, over the last 100 years, should have brain damage, from airborn contamination, and I for one would like to see some proof that that is true, otherwise it's fabricated nonsense, by eco alarmists, who's only purpose is to put already struggling people out of work.
I took the EPA-approved course, and got certified for lead work. Having said that, the course taught me that there is no way I will ever again work on a structure that was built before the lead-safe cutoff date. I can see a situation where a contractor does a job and follows all the rules to the letter. Then, later down the road, someone in the home develops asthma or some other breathing disorder. The first thing the owners will wonder is whether or not their job was done properly, or if their contractor has caused their health issue. I expect by then that the trial lawyers will be advertising on TV,urging people to call them if they think they have been injured by lead dust. I was unfairly sued years ago by people who were just looking to make a quick buck, and I can tell you that it costs a fortune to fight a lawsuit, even if you win.
In addition, anyone who follows lead-safe practices will be bidding against the guys who have no intention of doing so. This is nothing new...the unlicensed and the uninsured have always been around. These new requirements, however, up the ante to the point where it is time for me to "just say no".
11am 11am writes:
"Will one lead paint sherriff, please show me some actual statisics that indicate that an enormously unbalanced amount of the WEALTHEST people in the country's children are brain damaged from lead poisoning."
The younger you are, and the richer you are, the less likely you've been exposed to the huge amounts of lead that are released by something like paint removal without containment.
But it happens. It happens a lot.
"After complete restorations of turn of the century mansions in the northeast, for 45 years, with total burnoffs of the interiors, etc."
"while inhabited by families with small children, who all grew up, went to the best colleges, and became extremely successful stock brokers"
Ever read "The Black Swan"?
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515
"and professionals, I think something is wrong with this equation. Why do you think that is? Luck?"
See the book linked above.
"Here's some logic: WEALTHY PEOPLE
, not poor people are the ones with the highest likelyhood of exposure, because they can afford theses massive renovations."
But wealthy people also leave during them, don't they? They go elsewhere.
"Logic dictates that hundreds of thousands of the WEALTHEST children, over the last 100 years, should have brain damage, from airborn contamination, and I for one would like to see some proof that that is true, otherwise it's fabricated nonsense, by eco alarmists, who's only purpose is to put already struggling people out of work."
Its the exact opposite. Lead poisoning puts people out of work. Health keeps people working. Health is wealth.
And of course, poor people get exposed to far more lead and other toxicants than the rich, for some inexplicable reason.
This 2007 article has a great many references in it.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.10871
or
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2022649/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16982939/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15613953/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15583371/
God bless all contractors who will not take work on buildings built before the cutoff date.
I asked my dentist about the mercury in the fillings of my teeth. He said the American Dental Association has determined that it is safe to put it in my mouth.
He also said that the EPA has strict guidelines and paperwork that must be complied with before he can disposed of it. (unsafe in our environment)
Now tell me why I should trust those looking out for my "best intrests"
Sorry, forget what I said about the contractors who will not work on buildings with the lead paint pox.
If our government can make us buy health insurance they can sure as hell make us take those jobs.
The government can make people buy health insurance, but it can't make the health insurers provide decent healthcare, after all, Liz Fowler wrote the bill.
What's happening in the real world is gag clauses. Doctors are paid a fixed amount that goes up the "healthier" their patients are. See no evil.
Insurers now also apply the "innocent until proven guilty" logic to investigating and paying for illnesses, and of course ERISA section 514 gives them carte blanche to do so, using the excuse that rates would rise if we made them accountable when somebody dies or simply is way too far gonne to be saved when they finally admit theyre sick.. (often people have to self pay to get the tests or scans, etc. Or, leave the country to get the tests and care..)
What this all means is that people with any kind of cryptic or non-obvious illness keep getting referred from one doctor to another with no actual health forthcoming, using up their money until they can no loger pay for insurance and then they still often have to wait until they have absolutely nothing to be eligible for Medicaid (if they are a parent of school age children) Which is not a grant, its a loan..
It may have changed, but as far as I know, thats the way it works.
Eventually they get the picture of whats going on but by then they often are dead or close to it.
That's perhaps the whole point.
In 2008 we had a choice to perhaps speak out to get something that might marginally work but we didn't pick that candidate, we picked the one who looks cool in sunglasses.
If I were a contractor, i would charge more to work on older buildings with lead paint. A lot more.
I would have to, as its far more time consuming. If people don't like that, that's their right, they can choose to sell the property or do the work themselves, safely.
What do they expect? People to ignore the law? If a contractor ignores the law they are taking a calculated risk, a gamble. If they don't get caught 50 times and that 51st time, somebody reports them, that fine might be large to reflect the fact that these things are rarely reported or investigated, but they make a lot of people sick, and those people rarely, if ever, get any clue as to what did it. If they are over 50, and not rich enough to buy a ticket out of the "managed care", our society just attributes it to "old age".
When Americans travel, they are often flabbergasted by the difference in healthcare between other countries and here.
Unless they face the fact that right now we are pouring literally half of each healthcare dollar into a black hole- they just can't figure out what the hell is going on.
"I tried to pay them, but they wouldn't take my money!"
After a year plus of these regulations in place. I tried, I am certified and my firm is certified. I tried but, I am now close to deciding that I will not do work on pre 78's. It has nothing to do with money and yes, it cost a lot for the supplies and for the time to preform the task needed to comply. It has nothing to do with the paper work. I have done four small to mid size projects. I kept all the paper work up to date and coupled with the regulations. Of a matter of fact, the paperwork was the easy part.
It has everything to do with this cloud of uncertainness floating over my head every second of every minute of every hour that I am doing the work.
Did I cover the outlet?
Did I tape the plastic enough?
Did I put enough plastic down, what if a big gust of wind comes?
Will The epa come by and find something wrong?
Will my client get sick, even if I do everything right?
Will I get sued three years from now?
These questions and a thousand more are streaming though my head while I am working. To the point that I am more concerned about the lead then the quality of my work. The epa has the contractor on the hook and being liable for 60 years plus, of neglect by the very agency responsible for this mess in the first place.
I am just saying, Yes work smart and clean. Be aware that lead is no good for anyone. But WHY HOLD THE CONTRACTOR responsible. I guess I just don't have the stomach for this type of stress. I can run 3 crews, several jobs at once, millions of dollars in renovation jobs (not lately) thats no problem. But, being fined because no one noticed the warning signs blew away. Or being sued that the three old of your client just got sick because I was the last contractor to work on their home. I am sorry, I think I am out. I guess this is what the epa wants. Make it so threatening to contractors to work on pre 78's. That no one will want to touch one. So all the lead stays where it is and the industry falls apart. Did any of you pencil pushers figure out that maybe part of the reason why the construction industry is failing is because of these regulations.
For all of us who have taken these courses. We all understand the level of protection required to perform these tasks. I have not seen any video, but if the picture reflects what has taken place. There were obvious infractions. I think overkill is the better way to handle these jobs. In this day and age where everything can go viral. Big Brother is not just the govt but instead the teenager down the street.
Where was the contractor when the work was being done. He knew the rules. They make backpack HEPA vacs that connect to these paint shavers. Not to mention the plastic.
As far as the fine...I think that is a little overboard. Are they giving it to the 6 kids. I doubt it!!!
The problem with the program was that no one wanted to give strait answers. I talked with people from the State and the EPA and the only thing I learned was. Your on your own, do it right, if someone still gets sick, then it's your fault. and that it should only cost about 3-5% more. and No one knew what level of exterior protection was correct. One said they do not want even small amounts of airborn dust, yet another said a plastic tarp on the ground is fine. But if something goes wrong they can tell you what you did not do. and you will recieve a large fine.
Living in Maine with numerous homes older then 100 years old. I don't believe the governor himself will be able to afford the cost changes himself to totaly strip a house of it's lead based paint like the photo.
There is a technique that shaves lead paint off of houses very quickly and sends it to a HEPA vacuum that exhausts far away from people. That is the way to go.
Then if it passes a survey by an inspector with an XRF unit a, formerly toxic lead-painted house is clean.
Tearing down a lead painted house is very dangerous to those nearby. It should *never* be done on even a moderately windy day, and always should be done wetted with water.
Yes, people who live nearby have a right to be concerned about something that could potentially destroy their health and ruin much of their property.