Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

Paint Clean-up to Settle Emissions Case

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

More items for Good Technical Practice

A Minneapolis-area hospital will clean up lead paint in a low-income community housing development to settle allegations of federal clean-air violations.

Park Nicollet

Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital will fund a lead-paint abatement project.

Under a Consent Agreement and Final Order signed late last month, Park Nicollet Health Services, of St. Louis, MN, agrees to spend $56,250 on a lead-based paint abatement project to resolve Clean Air Act citations issued by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.

The company also agreed to pay a fine of $18,750 to settle the case.

“As a result of this agreement, the people of Minneapolis will breathe cleaner air, and fewer young children will be exposed to dangerous lead at home,” said EPA Regional Administrator Susan Hedman.

Clean Air Act Violations

The allegations stem from emissions dating back several years from two ethylene oxide sterilizers at the company’s Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park. According to the consent agreement, Park Nicollet failed to keep mandatory records and submit required reports on emissions from the sterilizers.

Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize medical equipment.

After being notified about the violations, the company took steps to meet the requirements and agreed to resolve the allegations with the fine and lead-paint abatement project.

Abatement Project

The project will include removing lead-based paint and dust; permanent enclosure or encapsulation of lead-based paint; and replacing windows, lead-based painted surfaces and fixtures in low-income housing in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park occupied by children under age 6 or pregnant women, EPA’s Region 5 office reported.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/25/2012, 8:48 AM)

The article isn't clear on whether the hospital was actually exceeding emissions standards, or had some faulty record keeping. If it's the former, then this seems like an innovative and beneficial outcome. If it's the latter, I can't help but think it would be a clerical version of "gotcha", and yet another example of government taking credit for spending other people's money.

Comment from Mary Chollet, (7/25/2012, 11:53 AM)

John, good question. The allegations relate to both record-keeping issues and lack of pollution control equipment. Under the settlement, the company admits no wrongdoing. For more details, see the link in the article to the full settlement agreement.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/25/2012, 4:18 PM)

Thank you, Mary. Although I didn't have time to thoroughly read the consent decree (ie: I am way out on a very thin limb), it appears the hospital was not violating any statute for lack of pollution control equipment. Just that the record keeping was necessary to prove the pollution control equipment was not necessary. I didn't see (in the consent decree or in the article) that they were actually found to have caused any pollution. Which certainly calls into question the validity of EPA Regional Administrator Susan Hedman when she said "As a result of this agreement, the people of Minneapolis will breathe cleaner air, and fewer young children will be exposed to dangerous lead at home”. Perhaps a bit of grandstanding?

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (7/27/2012, 10:21 AM)

If it's just a recordkeeping penalty it makes the low OSHA penalties for worker fatalities due to negligent employers all the more insulting.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/30/2012, 8:40 AM)

I agree, Tom. I hope we haven't come to the point where employee safety, and lives, are not perceived to have as powerful a constituency as, say, the environment. And as a result, are not as valuable from a regulatory perspective.