EPA Announces More Lead Paint Violation Fines; This Time Against Landlords

Seems EPA has started their publicity campaign regarding enforcement of RRP and other lead related regulations.  This one is not RRP specific, but as the second violation announcement this week it certainly seems to demonstrate that EPA is using enforcement and press releases to get their message out about compliance with lead paint requirements.

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
April 11, 2012

Contact: Paula Ballentine, 617-918-1027

Conn. And Mass. Based Landlords Face Fines for Failing to Notify Tenants about Lead Paint

(Boston, Mass. – April 11, 2012) The owners of rental properties in Bridgeport, Conn. as well as South Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester, Mass., face EPA penalties for violating federal lead paint disclosure rules. In both cases, these violations potentially put tenants at risk of exposure to lead hazards.

According to a complaint filed by EPA’s New England office, Juan Hernandez allegedly violated lead-based paint disclosure requirements seven times when he rented apartment units in Bridgeport, Conn. between 2008 and 2010.  Mr. Hernandez faces an EPA penalty of up to $127,150 for violating federal lead paint disclosure rules. During the time period relevant to EPA’s investigation, all of the apartment buildings owned by Mr. Hernandez were located in potential environmental justice areas. 

In a separate EPA complaint, Edward Franco, owner of El Paso Management, and its affiliates allegedly violated lead-based paint disclosure requirements when they rented apartment units three times in South Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester in 2009.  Most of the tenants involved in this case live in low income and/or minority areas.

Both parties are charged with failing to give tenants required lead hazard information pamphlets, failing to include lead warning statements in leases, failing to disclose any known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, and/or failing to provide records or reports pertaining to lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.

Federal lead disclosure rules are meant to give tenants adequate information about the risks associated with lead paint so that they can make informed decisions before signing a lease contract. Property owners leasing housing built before 1978 are required to provide the following information to tenants: the EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home; a lead warning statement; statements disclosing any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards; and copies of all available records or reports regarding lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.  This information must be provided to tenants before they enter into leases.

Infants and young children are especially vulnerable to lead paint exposure, which can cause developmental impairment, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity and behavioral problems.  Adults with high lead levels can suffer difficulties during pregnancy, high blood pressure, nerve disorders, memory problems and muscle and joint pain.

More information:
Lead-based paint health hazards (www.epa.gov/ne/eco/ne_lead/index.html)
Lead-based paint disclosure rule (www.epa.gov/ne/enforcement/leadpaint/index.html) 

Click here for more RRPedia blog posts for landlords.

Shawn is available to help landlords with the RRP Rule.  If you are a landlord or belong to a landlord association that is seeking assistance with the RRP rule, contact Shawn today to discuss how he can help.

Video Instructions For Testing DryWall and Plaster Using Lead Check

Recently, EPA recognized the LeadCheck Test Kits for testing drywall and plaster for lead under the RRP rule.

Below is an old video with instructions for testing drywall and plaster using LeadCheck.  The video was created by Hybrivet, the manufacturer of LeadCheck before it was recently bought out by the current manufacturer 3M.  This video was produced before the RRP Rule came into effect and before EPA recognized LeadCheck for testing drywall and plaster.  I contacted 3M to see if the video instructions below were accurate for RRP purposes. 

3M reported that they are temporarily using the video until a new video is released.  The major change 3M will make to the video will include the following language:

"Carefully rub the swab around the periphery of the peeled back flap, taking care not to contact the drywall (gypsum) or plaster. Only rub the swab on all layers of paint found on the flap. Do not rub the swab in the pocket."

The current video can be found at the 3M LeadCheck Web site.   As soon as the new video becomes available I will post it here on RRPedia to replace this video.

RRP Training Refresher: What is Vertical Containment and When is it Required?

It’s probably been a while since you took your RRP Certified Renovator Training Class.  This blog post is offered as a refresher topic to help you keep important details about the RRP rule top of mind when selling, estimating or performing RRP renovations.

What is Vertical Containment

Vertical containment refers to a vertical barrier consisting of plastic sheeting or other impermeable material over scaffolding or a rigid frame, or an equivalent system of containing the work area. Vertical containment is required for some exterior renovations but it may be used on any interior or exterior renovation.

Is vertical containment required for interior jobs?

No, the use of vertical containment is not required for interior jobs, but you can minimize the amount of floor containment needed by making use of vertical containment for interior projects.  Floor containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when using a vertical containment system consisting of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling and are tightly sealed at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls.  One advantage of vertical containment in addition to the reduction of floor area to be covered is the potential reduction of the floor area and other areas that will need to be cleaned on completion of renovations

Is vertical containment required for exterior jobs?

Yes, vertical containment, or an equivalent system of containing the work area, is required for exterior jobs where the property line is within 10 feet of the area of paint disturbance. In addition, vertical containment can also be used to minimize the amount of ground containment needed for a project.  Ground containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when using a vertical containment system.

Creative Use of Vertical Containment

Constructing vertical containment can also allow the contractor to create a sealed working space within a room where the dust can be completely contained to a limited and controlled area.  The space created is referred to as a “dust room”.  This can be extremely helpful in reducing containment and cleaning costs in other work areas if painted components are brought to this area to be repaired or modified, and are then cleaned before returning them to their original location.  One example of this might be cutting down interior doors after the installation of carpeting.  Another might be ripping down head stops when installing replacement windows.

Additional Resources

What is a "Dust Room" and why consider using one for EPA RRP work?

Zip Wall video about creating a variety of vertical barriers using their products

EPA Fines Violators of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

The following press release was sent out via email by EPA on Thursday April 5, 2012.  Click here to subscribe to and receive RRP rule specific information and updates from EPA.

Release Date: 04/05/2012
Contact Information: Stacy Kika, Kika.stacy@epa.gov, 202-564-0906, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced three enforcement actions for violations of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP) and other lead rules. The RRP rule requires the use of lead-safe work practices to ensure that common renovation activities like sanding, cutting and demolition, which can create hazardous lead dust, are conducted properly by trained and certified contractors or individuals. EPA finalized the RRP rule in 2008 and the rule took effect on April 22, 2010.

“Exposure to lead can cause serious health problems and affects our most vulnerable population, our children,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By taking action to enforce lead rules we are protecting people’s health and ensuring that businesses that follow the rules have a level playing field.”

On March 21, 2012, Colin Wentworth, a rental property owner who was responsible for building operation and maintenance, agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve violations of the RRP rule. The complaint alleged that Mr. Wentworth’s workers violated the rule by improperly using power equipment to remove paint from the exterior surface of an 1850’s apartment building he owns in Rockland, Maine. The complaint also alleged that the workers had not received any training under the rule and that Mr. Wentworth had failed to apply for firm certification with the EPA. Because the lead dust had not been properly contained, residents were potentially exposed and the dust could have also contaminated the ground surrounding the apartment building. Two of the four units in the building were rented to recipients of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 vouchers and there were at least four children under the age of 18, including one under the age of six, living in the units. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also responded to the alleged violations.

On March 20, 2012, Valiant Home Remodelers, a New Jersey window and siding company, agreed to pay $1,500 to resolve violations from failing to follow the RRP rule during a window and siding replacement project at a home in Edison, N.J. Valiant Home Remodelers failed to contain renovation dust, contain waste, and train workers on lead-safe work practices.

On February 21, 2012, Johnson Sash and Door, a home repair company located in Omaha, Neb., agreed to pay a $5,558 penalty for failing to provide the owners or occupants of housing built prior to 1978 with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet or to obtain a written acknowledgment prior to commencement of renovation activities at five homes. The complaint also alleged that Johnson failed to obtain initial certification prior to performing renovations at these residences.

As required by the law, a company or individual’s ability to pay a penalty is evaluated and penalties are adjusted accordingly.

These recent actions are part of EPA’s effort to ensure that contractors and individuals follow the RRP requirements and other lead rules to protect people’s health from exposure to lead. Lead exposure can cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death, putting young children at the greatest risk because their nervous systems are still developing.

More on the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/tscaenfstatreq.html

More about lead: http://www.epa.gov/lead

Doreen Cantor Paster
Associate Chief, Lead, Heavy Metals, & Inorganics Branch
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (7404T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0486

Using LeadCheck To Test Paint On Drywall (Gypsum) And Plaster Surfaces Is Easy!

EPA has recently updated recognition of the 3M™ LeadCheck™ for use on drywall and plaster.  Below are the specific instructions from the manufacturer, 3M, for conducting testing of drywall and plaster for lead.   These instructions must be followed by the certified renovator for the test results to be recognized under the RRP rule by EPA.  I think the key point to remember when doing such testing is that you are testing the paint, not the drywall:

Instructions for using LeadCheck to test drywall and plaster:

Sulfates present in drywall (gypsum) and plaster dust can interfere with 3M™ LeadCheck™ Swabs color development. It is possible with a minimum amount of care to accurately test for lead paint on plaster surfaces with 3M™ LeadCheck™ Swabs.

a) With a clean utility knife, make a nickel sized half circle cut at a low angle (about 5 degrees) cutting down to the bare drywall (gypsum) and plaster core to expose all layers of paint. Make the cut as seen in figure A.

b) Fold down the semicircular flap with the knife blade so that it forms a pocket.

c) Using an activated 3M™ LeadCheck™ Swab, hold the swab above the cut allowing the 3M™ LeadCheck™ reagent to flow into the pocket making sure that the liquid contacts all layers of paint both in the cut itself and the peeled back flap. Carefully rub the swab around the periphery of the peeled back flap, taking care not to contact the drywall (gypsum) or plaster. Only rub the swab on all layers of paint found on the flap. Do not rub the swab in the pocket.

d) If lead is present, a pink or red color will develop along the edges of the cut, flap, or swab tip usually within 30 seconds.

e) If no pink or red color develops, immediately confirm the negative result by squeezing a drop of the 3M™ LeadCheck™ reagent onto one of the confirmation card dots. It should turn red immediately.

Updates on MA RRP Rule From The MA Department of Labor Standards

As EPA amends the RRP rule, renovators working in states that have taken over the rule from EPA need to know if and how these states incorporate the changes into their own rule.   Yesterday I inquired with the State of Massachusetts to find out about a few recent amendments and changes.

One of the good things about the state of Massachusetts taking over the RRP rule is that communications with the Department of Labor Standards (DLS) is much easier and much quicker than trying to get answers from EPA.  I also find their staff is much more informed and always helpful.  The Q&A below was conducted completely via email (I sent the questions out of the blue) and I got a complete and what I would call an intuitive response in less than 4 hours!  Credit to the DLS!

Here is the Q&A

Question: Can you tell me if MA allows the lead safe renovation supervisor to take paint chip samples same as EPA does?

DLS Answer: Massachusetts incorporates the federal protocol by reference in our regulation. LSR Supervisors are authorized to sample painted surfaces in accordance with their training.  Of course, they must do adequate sampling for different painting histories of surfaces, document their findings, maintain records of testing and provide documentation to the property owner as required.

Question: Does MA require that the firm provide the renovation checklist to owners and tenants within 30 days of completion of final billing, whichever comes first (just like EPA)?

DLS Answer: Yes. DLS has the same documentation requirements as the federal rule.

Question:  EPA requires towns and municipalities to become certified firms and have Certified Renovators before doing their own RRP work on town properties that are target housing and or Child Occupied Facilities.   They can however hire out the work to a Certified Firm and therefore would not need to be a Certified Firm if the work is hired out to one.  Does the Massachusetts law follow the same requirements?

DLS Answer:  Yes. Massachusetts mirrors the requirement but offers the opportunity for the fee to be waived for property owners with trained employees working on their own properties.

You can find them listed on our LSRC list published on the DLS web pages.

Question: Also, does MA now recognize LeadCheck for Drywall and Plaster?

DLS Answer: Yes.  But as usual, there is a caveat which is also applicable at the federal level.  When the trained individual takes a sample – s/he must follow the prescribed protocols.  In order to take advantage of the new approval; they must follow the new testing methods and adequately test surfaces.  In some cases, many samples must be taken in order to effectively disclude the work under the rule.

Training Providers will likely being teaching the new methods, however, those who were previously trained will need to justify that they know how to sample in order to validate their findings.  Of course, the safest path is to presume the presence of lead.

Question: Any other updates or clarifications I should know about?

DLS Answer: I know you are aware that DLS has been doing enforcement and civil penalties.  We are still interested to have the regulated community provide us feedback to provide better regulations.  I don’t have a specific date but we will certainly let you know when we are going back to public hearings to update our regulation.

Its spring and we are in the field doing compliance checks.

EPA Report Card:  How well are they doing with the RRP Rule?

Many news outlets and politicians have been using report card scores to express how well they think people, government policies and regulations are performing.   Several politicians, government employees and even our president have provided their own self assessment scores as well.  It is almost two years now since the EPA RRP Rule went into effect.   I thought I would offer my own report card on how I think the EPA has performed so far in four areas regarding the RRP Rule.  EPA is welcome to offer their own self assessment score.

Subject: Outreach about the rule

EPA has claimed to have done extensive outreach to consumers and the regulated community.  They list a variety of methods used and places where ads and announcements were placed.  

Report Card Score: D-

In reality what they have done has not been effective.  Either the message is not effective, the placement is not effective or both.  According to a survey done by Professional Remodeler magazine 65% of remodelers surveyed estimated that less than 10% of their potential clients are aware of the rule.  Only 5 percent think more than half of homeowners know about it.

On a recent webinar with EPA Officials Regarding RRP Public Awareness and Enforcement Efforts hosted by NCHH, I asked EPA officials if they were doing any tracking to check the actual effectiveness of their outreach efforts.  They are not.  Essentially the answer was that EPA is not a professional marketing organization and has no way of tracking results.   But they said they will be doing more outreach…

Subject: Getting Firms Certified

EPA requires all firms doing renovation, repair and painting work on homes built prior to 1978 become EPA Certified Firms before performing or offering to perform such work.

Report Card Score: F

Before the rule rule came into effect EPA stated; "There are approximately 211,000 firms estimated to become certified to engage in renovation, repair, or painting activities." As of posting this blog EPA’s web site claims that EPA has certified 97,746 firms (118,885 firms including those approved by authorized states).  According to a report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, the most recent government census showed more than 650,000 businesses received a majority of their revenue by providing remodeling services in 2007 and that number does not include the large number of part-time, semi-retired, and “moonlighting” contractors reporting gross revenues of less than $25,000.   I think we also know there are many illegally operating contractors as well that did not make it into the census count. 

Admittedly not all remodeling companies work on pre-1978 homes.  However, there are many other business types other than remodelers who disturb lead paint.  One example is exterminators.  According to Exterminator.com there are over 20,000 extermination companies in the US.  Others who would need to become certified include landlords, property management firms, banks that own foreclosed properties, housing authorities, cities/towns and municipalities. (According to Google answers there are 18,443 cities, towns, villages, and other such governing groups in the United States, not including any island areas other than Puerto Rico) I am sure you could list other business and entity types that would fall under the rule.  My best guess is that EPA has only certified about 10% of the firms that should be certified and has completely misjudge the number of firms affected by this rule.

As a side note, I contacted EPA to find out how many workers have become Certified Renovators so far.  I was told they are still trying to decide how to count them…

Subject: Enforcement

There are 12 states that have taken over the rule so far.  That leaves 38 states plus American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico under administration and enforcement by EPA. 

Report Card Score: F

So far EPA has only published one violation since the rule came into effect in April of 2010.  On the other hand the state of Massachusetts took over the rule in July of 2012 and has published over 20 violation enforcements to date.

Though not confirmable facts, one commenter on a LinkedIn discussion claimed “there are only 37 Certified Firms in Maui County when there are 1,500+ Licensed Contractors and double to triple unlicensed contractors”.

Industry insiders report EPA has been doing RRP investigations.  EPA claims we will hear more about violations and enforcement very soon.

Subject: Protecting children and others from lead poisoning due to renovations

 “The purpose of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule is to minimize exposure from lead-based paint dust during renovation, repair, or painting activities. This is a key effort in reducing the prevalence of childhood lead poisoning, particularly lead poisoning caused by housing contaminated by renovation activities. This will also minimize exposure to older children and adults who are also adversely impacted by lead-based paint dust exposure.”  (From EPA Web site)  

Report Card Score: Incomplete

It is a fact that lead is poisonous and RRP activities can cause poisoning. However, EPA does not know how many children were actually poisoned by RRP activities before the rule came into effect.  If you check any of the data it refers to RRP activities as the “likely source” of lead poisoning, not “the cause”.   That being the case, EPA has no way to know if the RRP rule is making a difference or not.  It is ‘likely” that it is helping.  But, without knowing where EPA started and where we are now that the rule has been in place for almost a year, EPA has no idea if what they have been doing is effective enough and or if or where it can improve effectiveness within the rule. 

Unfortunately, the rule may also be causing more children to be poisoned than before the rule came into effect, because of EPA's inability to adequately enforce it.  As reported in this press release, to keep costs down, consumers are hiring non-certified firms to work on their homes and the required lead safe-practices are not being used.  Also, contractors are reporting that some realtors and insurance adjusters are falsely telling consumers that the rule does not apply at their homes based on location and or for the work they are having done.  All of this has fostered an underground economy of contractors taking advantage of purposely ignoring the rule to keep prices down and improve their ability to sell jobs.

How do you think EPA has been doing with the RRP Rule so far?  Consider using the comment area below to offer your own subjects and report card scores.

A Message From The Lead Paint Police: It’s Not What You Think..

Bet you thought this would be about EPA enforcement! 

Actually this is about helping spread the word to children and parents about avoiding the dangers of lead exposure.  

In the video below Sesame Street characters sing a song that gets that message into the heads of young children.  Apparently, for whatever reason, children love the characters and the song.    This is further evidenced by this quote found with the video on YouTube:

“This is the only thing I remember from 4th grade. Some kid made the teacher replay this song 10 times...”

I suggest renovators could use this video on their website.  Consider creating an area on your site dedicated to the RRP Rule.  Make it a place that offers information, advice and links that would help visitors understand the rule and the realities of lead exposure.  If you do so you can send prospects and customers to your site to help pre-educate them prior to a sales call or before beginning work at their home.  

This video is just one of many on YouTube about lead and the RRP rule.  Get creative.  Use some key word searches to find and then embed videos on your site.

Check out this RRPedia article for additional links you can use on your web site:

Resources About Lead and the EPA RRP Rule for Home Owners and Contractors

Instructions For Using LeadCheck Lead Test Kits On Drywall And Plaster

EPA has recently updated recognition of the 3M™ LeadCheck™ for use on drywall and plaster. Currently-recognized test kits, with information including substrates upon which they can be used, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/testkit.htm.

Please note that all EPA-recognized test kits must be used following the manufacturers’ instructions for the applicable substrate.

NOTE: FOR USE ON PLASTER AND DRYWALL, users of 3M™ LeadCheck™ should download updated instructions for using the test kit on plaster and drywall. The updated procedure for testing plaster and drywall is slightly different than the procedure used previously.

Download the instructions here

3M™ LeadCheck™ test kits shipped to retail outlets after April 1, 2012, will contain the updated instructions. Kits purchased prior to April 1, 2012, or that contain the older instructions can still be used but the user must follow the updated instructions when testing plaster and drywall.

Is Low Level Exposure To Lead A Big Deal?  Here is Your Answer…

Before you decide to use the RRP Opt Out if/when it comes back, consider the information below.  Will you, your clients, their kids and your employees be at risk if you do not use lead-safe work practices?

 While the toxicity associated with exposure to high levels of lead was recognized by the ancient Greeks and Romans, the adverse health effects associated with low-level lead exposure only became widely recognized in the second half of the 20th century.  Over the past 40 years, epidemiological studies, particularly in children, continue to provide evidence of health effects at lower and lower blood lead levels.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concludes that there is sufficient evidence for adverse health effects in children and adults at blood Pb levels below 10μg/dL and below 5μg/dL as well.  The table below provides a summary of effect by life stage at which the effect is identified.

Note: This information was found in a document published by NTP titled:

Draft NTP Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead, dated 10/14/11