Subscribe by Email

Your email:

RRP Documentation Forms

The Contractor Coaching Partnership Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

EPA RRP Enforcement Has Begun; Window Contractor Fined $39,577

  
  
  
  

Recent enforcement action in St Louis costs window contractor $39,577.00!! Penalty of $19,529 plus replacement of old windows with lead for a whopping $20,048.00. The contractor was caught not giving out a simple Renovate Right Brochure to homeowners.

As we predicted last fall and in several articles the EPA is using their "Secret Weapon" to begin enforcement of the EPA RRP Lead Law. The "Secret Weapon" is the documentation requirement. We wrote that the EPA doesn't even have to leave their office to enforce. All they have to do is make a phone call to your office and ask to see your documentation going back to 4/22/2010. No documentation and you can be fined. This fine on top of the one in Connecticut (see related post) last month for $30,700 is the beginning of the promised EPA enforcement effort.

Here is a copy of the press release from the EPA.

mark the coach

Renovate Right

Contact Information: Chris Whitley, 913-551-7394whitley.christopher@epa.gov

Environmental News FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Kansas City, Kan., March 31, 2011) – Window World of St. Louis, Inc., has agreed to pay a $19,529 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to notify owners and occupants of at least 20 St. Louis area residential properties built before 1978 of lead-based paint risks prior to performing renovation work at those locations.

According to an administrative consent agreement filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., the window replacement company, located in Maryland Heights, Mo., was legally required to provide owners and residents of the properties with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet before starting renovations at the properties.

Provision of the lead hazard information pamphlet to property owners and occupants is one requirement of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, which Congress passed in 1992 as an amendment of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The regulation is intended to protect owners and occupants of residential properties, child care facilities and schools built before 1978 from health risks associated with lead-based paint. Lead-based paint was banned for residential use in the United States in 1978. Most homes built before 1978 contain some amount of lead-based paint, and subsequent renovation activity of such properties can cause occupants to be exposed to dust, chips and debris that contain lead.

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act requires renovators of such properties to obtain certified training, follow safe work practices, and take specific steps to make owners and occupants aware of health risks associated with lead exposure before renovation work occurs.

As part of its settlement with EPA, and in addition to paying the $19,529 civil penalty, Window World of St. Louis has agreed to perform a supplemental environmental project, through which it will spend an estimated $20,048 to replace a total of 73 old windows contaminated with lead paint at three group home facilities operated by the non-profit social services organization Youth in Need. Those facilities are located at 1420 N. 3rd Street, 516 Jefferson Street, and 529 Jefferson Street, in St. Charles, Mo.

mark the coach

epa rrp training

osha respirator and lead in construction training

mark the coach

Contractor Business Coaching    Design/Build Training

Fall Protection Training  RRP Training  Safety Manual Workshops  

Tags: 

Comments

Mark, 
 
Everything you've said about the RRP Rule has been dead on. I hope this encourages contractors to get certified and learn about OSHA regulations. 
 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Andrea 
 
Andrea Goldman, Esq. 
Law Office of Andrea Goldman 
305 Walnut Street 
Newton, MA 02460 
T: 617-467-3072 
F: 617-467-3074 
 
www.andreagoldmanlaw.com 
 
“Massachusetts Builders Blog”www.buildingconfidence-llc.blogspot.com 
"Home Contractor vs. Homeowner Blog" www.andreagoldmanlaw.blogspot.com 
 
Helping parties manage their businesses and resolve disputes in construction  
and other industries through litigation, arbitration and mediation. 
Posted @ Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:49 PM by Andrea Goldman
I agree Andrea. It's good to have a place to come and find current information. 
 
As the fines start, I'm sure there will be an increase in the amount of contractors that attend the class. It will be interesting to see who plays by the rules and who rebels against them now that this is taking place. 
 
Thanks Shawn.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:18 AM by Jason Helms
Mark, thanks for staying on top of EPA RRP enforcement news! As you have mentioned, one contactor who was fined for $30,702 by the EPA for failing to give lead hazard pamphlets to occupants: http://bit.ly/eUUmtA. It is important to note that these violations went back three years and took place before the RRP law went into effect: the contactor violated the Pre-Renovation Educational rule. So contractors should make sure they keep their records and are compliant with all the rules.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:06 PM by Jim Birrel
It is now time to retire. To much government regulations. People can not afford the added cost to have work done. With work at a premium now this is not the time to add expense.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:38 PM by Pat Laurendine
Thanks for the comments. 
Pat, I understand the sentiment and reality of the tough times we are facing as an industry. 
There are some contractors who are using this as an opportunity to differentiate their businesses from those who do not follow the rules. I am not saying it is easy but showing consumers why it is important can set you up as the expert. Some see it as a sign of a professional. As consumers become more aware of the rule many will want this protection. 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:16 PM by mark
Mark, 
 
I think the reality of the situation is in many areas LEAD SAFE certification and RRP compliance means nothing to a majority of homeowners. I can sell it to higher end customers, but a very large portion of homes that need testing and possible containment in our area are much lower income. These customers are far less likely to accept 10-15% higher bids in order to offset the costs of actually following the letter of the law. Considering the very low number of actual certified renovators, along with the prevalence of uncertified and un-licensed contractors most of these jobs will be done without RRP guidelines being followed. The homeowners share no legal responsibility, and as such have no real incentive to pick certified contractors unless you can really sell them on the very real dangers of lead paint. Trying to do that with someone on a very fixed budget is next to impossible when the next guy comes in and undercuts us without ever considering the RRP rules. I can sell the small up-charge all day to consumers who don't need it, typically the ones who can pay for the cost aren't the ones living in pre-78 homes. 
 
I'm in a unique situation, not only am I an RRP certified renovator(general contracting, windows and doors, remodels, etc), but we've also opened a store selling RRP products(HEPA vacs, test kits, PPE etc). I talk to a lot of contractors through both businesses, many of them know nothing of the RRP rules, or are simply ignoring them. Another good chunk of them are testing homes but refusing to bid projects where lead containment may need to be done to avoid any possible run-ins with enforcement. The remainder of them are ignorant to large chunks of the rules(willingly in some cases) including how proper testing is supposed to be conducted. A very very small group of us are performing the correct RRP compliance to the best of our abilities and know how. Through our store and our dealings with subs and our normal construction customers I've seen both sides.  
 
Long winded post aside, I believe using RRP certification as a differentiator during a sale is marginally effective at best. Lets be honest, the majority of homes we test don't require containment anyhow as no lead is present. Of those that DO require containment, we lose probably 80%+ of them after testing confirms the necessity of containing the project at additional cost. Whether they go to an uncertified firm or simply cancel the project is up to the consumer, but in this climate VERY few customers who need the containment are willing to pay for it.
Posted @ Friday, April 08, 2011 3:58 PM by Josh Bennett
Although 70% Homes in Tampa Florida are pre 1978 EPA Lead-Safe RRP Rules are widely being ignored putting children at risk.  
 
 
 
So so sad! 
 
 
 
www.leadPaint-Tampa.com  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:37 PM by Leadsafe33629
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics