Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

YouTube Video Leads to EPA’s First RRP Enforcement Case

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

More items for Maintenance + Renovation

An anonymous YouTube video has led to the first action the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has brought against a company or individual for lead-safe work-practice violations under the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.

Colin Wentworth of Rockland, Maine, is the renovator facing penalties for allegedly violating the RRP Rule while his employees were conducting renovations using high-speed power tools to remove lead paint from a residential building in Rockland, Maine, in October 2010, EPA’s Region 1 office in Boston announced.

The video posted to YouTube in 2010 shows workers using power equipment in removing the lead paint without using containment for lead dust or debris.

EPA conducted its own investigation after receiving the anonymous tip. The investigation conducted by the EPA, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that two workers employed by Wentworth failed to contain dust and debris generated by lead-paint removal activities conducted at the four-unit residential building.

The EPA also noted that six children lived in the pertinent residential building at the time of the project.

The EPA complaint is the first step in the legal process that the EPA follows in enforcement actions of this type. The maximum penalty for the alleged violations in this case is $37,500 per violation per day.

YouTube Video

Image from the anonymous YouTube video

The RRP rule has been the subject of strident criticism, with objections being voiced by contractors, trade associations, and some Congressmen. Among the issues generating the most intense criticism was EPA’s decision to remove the so-called “opt-out” provision from the rule, which would have given property owners the choice of waiving the rule’s requirements that a certified, trained RRP contractor be hired for remodeling or other work on pre-1978 housing.

The Allegations

EPA officials alleged six violations, saying Wentworth failed to:

• obtain required certification as a renovation firm from EPA;

• post warning signs in the work area;

• cover the ground in the work area with plastic sheeting to collect falling lead paint debris;

• contain waste from the renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris before the waste is removed from the work area for storage or disposal;

• prohibit use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation without HEPA exhaust controls;

• establish and maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the RRP Rule. 

Wentworth declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by Durability + Design, saying only, “It’s very premature.”

The EPA said that Wentworth had completed the eight-hour course required by the RRP Rule, but failed to provide proper training or supervision to his employees to ensure they followed procedure under the law. He also did not obtain the mandatory lead-safe certification for his firm, the agency said.

“This was the first formal enforcement action of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule,” EPA said in a statement issued by the agency’s headquarters office in Washington, D.C.

“No other enforcement actions have been taken at this time,” the statement said. “However, EPA continues to receive tips about possible violations of the rule and will respond to those tips that provide sufficient information as quickly as our resources permit.”

The RRP Rule

The RRP Rule is designed to prevent exposure to lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. The rule requires individuals performing renovations for compensation at most pre-1978 housing to be properly trained.

The rule’s certification and training requirements for individual renovators and companies performing renovations are designed to ensure that safe work practices are followed, EPA says.

EPA said the Wentworth case signifies the “importance of high-quality tips that include the name, address, and phone number of the person who allegedly violated the rule, and contain details about the violations observed.”

“While every such tip doesn’t always result in a formal enforcement action, EPA follows through on tips to identify if violations have occurred and if public or environmental health has been jeopardized,” EPA said.

Observers may report environmental violation tips anywhere in the U.S.

EPA: Enforcement Actions
Benefit ‘Those Who Follow the Rules’

The head of EPA’s Region 1 office in Boston said enforcement of the RRP rule is needed to protect health of residents—and the business interests of renovators and other contractors who are complying with the regulations.

“In New England we have a high proportion of older houses where lead paint can still be present,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “It is critically important that all tradespeople understand and follow the RRP requirements so that during renovations, children are not exposed to lead and face serious, life-long health consequences.”

“Many renovation firms have done the right thing by becoming certified, sending their employees to training and following the appropriate, health-protective work practices,” Spalding said. “Enforcement of these rules is important to protecting children and the business interests of those contractors who are following the rules.”

Comment from Jose Joven, (5/18/2011, 8:44 AM)

I've seen this. Just what the EPA wants. We are becoming a nation of rats.

Comment from shane hirvi, (5/18/2011, 11:06 AM)

Looks like some home owners are going to be priced out of painting their own homes.

Comment from Carl Thompson, (5/18/2011, 7:18 PM)

The lead in paint that caused brain damage in children in New York was caused by Lead Carbonate. This was used to make white paint prior to World War II. Since the war gave us a shortage of lead, another white had to be found. After the war Titanium Dioxide made by either the sulphate process or chloride process replaced the "white lead". Other lead containing paint products included Lead Sulphate, Lead Chromate and lead molytbdate.These were used in bright yellows, oranges, and reds. Laboratories across the country were working on removing these from house paints in the early 1970's. See the following address for further information. http://www.paintquality.com/homeowners/paint-tools/project-planner/interior/step5.html

Comment from Jose Joven, (5/19/2011, 9:56 AM)

the "anonymous" person who made this video was a guy who "spent thousands of dollars" taking classes and buying equipment to do RRP work. I wonder if he gets a portion of the fine for being a whistleblower?

Comment from Gregory Stoner, (5/20/2011, 9:21 AM)

Can you believe it...Contractors are out poisoning the air and ground and the best you can do is complain about the person that did the right thing. You talk about cost...What about the cost we all pay for the posioned children that spend the rest of their lives with decreased IQ's. If you were being robbed or poisoned and somebody videoed it should they turn that video in to help you? I hope so...Think, think, think

Comment from Ron Cross, (5/20/2011, 6:34 PM)

I applaud the person who took the video, I'm sick and tired of these people who think they can skirt the law and not conform. I fully comply with the RRP Rule, it protects people from this lead hazard. It doesn't cost that much more to comply. It's NOT going to price people out from being able to paint their homes...that's just stupid! I see no problem with turning in someone who are breaking the law, I have. And no,.. Jose Joven... we are not becoming a nation of rats. I hope we are becoming responsible as contractors. BTW..I have made thousands of dollars incorporating the RRP Rule, because my customers appreciate the fact that I am protecting their home and family. Quit complaining, embrace the rule and go make money!

Comment from Terry Singleton, (5/20/2011, 7:13 PM)

I am also sick of trying to compete with guys that don't follow the law. However, I must disagree when people say that RRP rules don't raise cost. In California, a lead test(with an electronic gun) starts at $400.00. Our time to prepare the job site and clean up adds at least %50 more time needed (= higher prices to customers). $500.00 more is needed for a waste charactorization test. Hazardous waste disposal ranges from $400.00 for a trash bag to $6,000.00 for a small dumpster. And, let's not forget what it cost me to send everyone of my crewmen and every one of my estimators to RRP class. Don't forget the cost of plastic sheeting, zip walls, hepa vacuums, hepa filters, respirators, etc. If you add that up, that is a pretty substantial price increase. Now, you know why no one wants to pay me $1,600.00 to replace a slab door(My old price was $400 for labor and materials). Please note that proposed new regulations will require a third party lab perform testing after our clean-up. How much more will that cost??

Comment from Jose Joven, (5/24/2011, 9:01 AM)

"Poisoning the children" is a fantastic emotional talking point. Gee, I used to work with old timers who spent their careers stirring white lead into linseed oil, applying lead based paints day in and out. They were in their 60's then and many lived to be 70=80. I wonder how we made it this far? It's all about the money. Money for classes, money for licences, money for extra equipment. You can pitch and moan about poisoning the environment all you want, the guy who took this video IS A RAT.

Comment from Ron Cross, (5/25/2011, 11:55 AM)

I don't believe Jose Joven is a "Lead Safe Certified Firm" and he is probably in violation of the new RRP Rule.!!. Terry Singleton, you have some good points, however we can't charge one customer for the initial equipment we need, spread out the expense. The most expensive piece of equipment I had to purchase was a Hepa vac. as a contractor I all ready had the other items you mentioned...zip wall, respirators, filters. Plastic sheeting per standard residential job is around $50.00. Disposal has not been a problem or major expense. I don't see how it cost an additional $1200. to replace a slab door as you stated. The final clearence inspection report cost me $175. per job, of coarse if you don't clean up well you will need another report. You also don't have to send everyone of your crewmen to the rrp class, only one Certified Renovator needs to be present durning setup and clean up. I personally like the RRP rule, and I will again say I have made thousands of dollars because of it.!! And I will turn in a person if they are not in compliance. When the RRP rule first came out I also had a negative response to it, then I embraced it, fine tuned my opperation and booked job after job.

Comment from Terry Singleton, (5/27/2011, 10:34 AM)

I appreciate Ron Cross' comments. Just to clarify, my cost increase are mainly due to California regulations. Unlike the other states, I can't just take my trash bag to the shop and dump it. Once we have removed the damaged wood, we have to take a small sample to have it tested. If it has a low lead content, we only need one test. Wood with higher lead contents may take up to 7 days worth of testing and of course, cost go up. These test are needed to determine how much lead from these materials might leach into the water system, once it has been disposed. Our most toxic materials are shipped to Nevada and that is another reason why disposal cost are so high. We also have to pull a hazardous waste generation permit from Cal EPA (75.00). Another point I'd like to make is that we do mostly wood repairs. My job is to get everything ready for a professional painter. We don't normally have to lay out plastic, put up zip walls and use hepa vacs. Add up all of the additional cost and you'll see why that door becomes as $1200.00 job. I can asure you that our company is not making additional profits on these jobs. At the end of the month, we're just hoping to maintain our 5 to 10 percent profit margin. It is tough - my competition doesn't follow rrp rules.

Comment from Ron Cross, (5/27/2011, 11:51 AM)

Well said Terry, I am also in Calif. We do have to put up with a lot of crap that other States don't have to. Make sure you inform your customers on the fact that it is a Federal rule and not local and the fines for not being in compliance are high. I will continue to sell to my customers the fact that we will protect their home by incorporating "Lead-Safe Work Practices". In my area I will turn in any contractor that is not incompliance with the Federal R.R.P. Rule.

Comment from Kevin Frost, (5/31/2011, 9:32 AM)

I'm an Idaho contractor and I don't see the cost increase as minimal. I've doubled the price on jobs. I have lost jobs that I already had when they tested lead positive and the homeowners balked at the new prices and all hired non compliant contractors. I'm now having homeowners calling who ask if I'm compliant and end the call when I say yes. I have a handyman friend who has been doing 90% of his work on pre 60's houses and apartments, he saw his choice as being non compliant or standing on a streetcorner with a cardboard sign. As long as this law is not being strictly enforced jobs will go to the non compliant. To comply means to give away work. I can't afford to do not comply, I can't afford all the work I'm losing.

Comment from Stephen Masek, (6/17/2011, 3:21 PM)

I own an environmental consulting company and haev been giving seminars on RRP, writing articles for magazines, and discussing it on sites such as Contractor Talk. I just found this site. It has been obvious from the start that EPA is risking shooting themselves in the foot by driving work to the contractors who will ignore RRP (and the OSHA lead regulations). Fortunately, enforcement is happening. They have also reportedly started audits. Also obvious is the ease with which audits will yield loads of fines. There is good news - lead is not nearly as common as some people think - we've never seeen a building built after 1960 where mroe than 1% of teh painted surface area was coated with elad-based paint, and many with none. Therefore, lead surveys/inspections pay off very quickly, as they provide the information needed to avoid using costly RRP procedures when there is no lead-based paint present.

Comment from M. Halliwelll, (6/22/2011, 10:32 AM)

Stephen, I wish my area were as nice as yours. I've found a good number of buildings in my area, built up to the mid to late 1970's, where most of the exterior and some of the interior had lead. Yes, it's generally not that common anymore...but there are still some pretty "hot" areas. Regardless, it's good to see folks taking lead exposure and the RRP regulation seriously.