EPA means business on lead-paint rules

"Resistance is futile, you will comply."

Star Trek

This is the stance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and numerous state and county health departments are taking since the implementation of EPA Title X. This mandate concerns lead hazards, particularly for children under the age of six and pregnant women.

A section of this regulation addresses contractors that conduct renovation, remodeling and painting activities in "target housing and child-occupied facilities." A target house is any house or tenant occupied dwelling constructed prior to 1978, the year that lead-based paints were banned in residential construction. A child-occupied facility is a structure where children may be exposed to lead-based paint, such as a day-care center or school. These regulations also apply to contractors performing regulated activities in HUD/Section 8 housing units. While the rule references renovation contractors, repair companies and painting firms, if also applies to any company that disturbs six square feet inside a residence (HUD properties are listed at two square feet), 20 square feet on the exterior of an affected property and window replacements at properties that test positive for lead-based paint.

Basically, any trade can potentially fall under these regulations. Mandates require contractors that at least one person must have attended an EPA accredited training facility and obtained their certification as a renovation, repair and painting or RRP individual. This person is responsible for ensuring the crew is properly trained and works in a lead-safe manner. In addition, the certified employee must also see that dust and debris are contained to limit the spread of lead dust and that at the job's conclusion the site is cleaned to the designated standard. The firm must also register itself with the EPA and become a certified firm.

Some have criticized government agencies and regulations governing mandates targeted at businesses by claiming they are nothing more than a source of much-needed revenue, but with these regulations, this is not the case. The EPA does not charge the individual to become an RRP person and only charges a company $300 for a five-year certification. These regulations date back to 1992, well before the current budget crisis.

In the years prior to the implementation of Title X, more than 3 million children were identified with elevated blood lead levels annually. Lead is extremely dangerous a neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and hampers children's mental development. For years, it was misdiagnosed as ADD or ADHA as the symptoms are quite similar to acute/chronic lead exposure. This is a necessary regulation to protect our children. And because many contractors are still disturbing lead-based paint without the necessary training and utilization of vital lead-safe work practices, the regulatory agencies are starting to swing a very heavy hammer against those that fail to comply.

Noteworthy and recent RRP violations:

Case No. 1: Colin Wentworth, a rental property owner in Rockland, Maine, was responsible for his building's operation and maintenance. He holds the dubious honor of becoming the nation's first contractor to draw a formal EPA complaint pegged to the RRP after April 22, 2010, when the rule took effect. The agency announced it had filed a complaint against Wentworth in May 2011. Less than a year later, he agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve the violations, which included the use of power equipment to remove paint from the exterior of a circa-1850s apartment building that he owns. The EPA also alleged that workers employed by Wentworth had not received the mandatory training as required under the rules and that he had failed to apply for a firm certification with the EPA. Two of the four apartment units were rented to recipients of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 vouchers, where children were occupants. A video of workers using power equipment to remove the paint had been posted to YouTube, and a tipster alerted the EPA to the clip.

Case No. 2: On March 20, Valiant Home Remodelers, a window and siding company based in New Jersey, agreed to pay $1,500 for failure to use proper containment methods for renovation dust and waste. The company also failed to provide mandatory training on lead-safe work practices for workers on the window and siding replacement project.

Case No. 3: Johnson Sash and Door, based in Omaha, Neb., agreed on Feb. 22 to pay $5,558 for failing to obtain initial RRP certification before performing renovations at five homes built before 1978 and for failing to provide the building occupants with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet, known as "Renovate Right." The company failed to obtain the required written acknowledgment from the occupants before the renovations began.

These companies got off rather lightly, considering the EPA has the ability to fine $37,500 a day per incident. An interesting aspect to the first case mentioned is that someone videotaped the illegal activity, posted it on YouTube and the contractor was reported much like Secret Witness. This is much akin to the reporting of unlicensed contractors performing construction activities without the proper licenses, insurance and bonds. It appears that the industry is policing itself.

It boils down to a few simple facts: unlicensed/untrained contractors run the risk of:

* injuring families;

* running the risk of fines and penalties;

* generating bad publicity for their company;

* being sued; and

* increasing their workers' compensation costs.

On the flip side, homeowners, day-care facility operators and landlords run the risk of shoddy work, increased contamination of their property, lawsuits from renters and like the contractors, bad publicity.

Compliance is not as difficult as it is made out to be, and if done correctly, reputable contractors can actually make money on RRP projects.

(For more information on these requirements, visit www.epa.gov/lead and select "Renovation, Repair and Painting.)"

Scott Alquist is the manager of the TMCC Safety Center, which provides customized training and public courses on industrial safety and regulatory compliance. The Safety Center is an EPA-accredited training facility. Contact him at salquist@tmcc.edu or 857-4958.