In-Depth Look at the EPA’s Latest Round of RRP Fines for Lead Paint

In an effort to better understand how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is meting enforcement of its Renovation, Repair & Painting (RRP) rule, Testudo LLC is examining the government agency’s latest round of RRP fines. The agency’s latest RRP enforcement actions were significant because the EPA rolled out two “pilot programs” in order to quickly determine a firm’s ability to pay penalties and then move toward a quick settlement.

RRP Fine Pilot Programs

The first is the Lead-based Paint Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) Pilot Program. The EPA has been lacking in its transparency in describing the ESA pilot program; however, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) says these types of RRP fines are limited to recordkeeping violations where no building occupant is pregnant or under the age of 18; it is intended for companies that commit “minor violations” and fines range from zero to $5,000. carcasas galaxy a5 2016 When a company is served with an ESA, they retain the right to contact EPA about the violation; however, the fine is not negotiable and the firm has just 30 days to respond. iphone x carcasa moto Whereas the ESA pilot program makes a distinction whether building occupants are pregnant or under 18, the Pilot RRP Penalty Program for Micro-Businesses makes an economic distinction of companies. carcasa iphone 8 plus pc A violating company is eligible for the Pilot RRP Penalty Program for Micro-Businesses if it has gross pre-tax revenue of $300,000 or less; fines are no more than $4,000. iphone x carcasa spigen Also, the micro-business program is not restricted to violations such as recordkeeping or by the age of the occupant.

Looking at Kindred Painting LLC

Here is Testudo’s first in a series of in-depth looks at companies the EPA recently caught violating the RRP rule. carcasa iphone 7 negro The first company is Kindred Painting LLC of Dover, N.H., owned by Jon Taylor. On July 1, the EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) visited Taylor’s residential job site at 435 Exeter Road, Hampton, N.H. The home in question was built before 1978, when lead-based coatings were banned under the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act. According to the EPA, Taylor failed to:

  1. Obtain firm certification from EPA prior to performing, or offering to perform, renovation activities in housing constructed prior to 1978.
  2. Obtain RRP training course completion certification.
  3. Post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area
  4. Failed to prohibit the use of machines designed to remove paint or other surface coatings through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting without HEPA vacuum attachments.
  5. Failed to contain waste from renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris before the waste was removed from the work area for storage or disposal.

Since Taylor’s company had gross pre-tax revenue of $300,000 or less, he was eligible for the EPA’s Pilot RRP Penalty Program for Micro-Businesses, and he paid an RRP fine of $2,730. When Taylor was first informed about the fine in a July 19 letter delivered via certified mail, the EPA said it would determine his fine using—get ready for it it!—the Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy for the Pre-Renovation Education Rule; Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule; and Lead-Based Paint Activities Rule. carcasa samsung s4 galaxy But he was also given the opportunity to “quickly resolve the alleged violations” by waiving his right to a hearing or appeal. On Aug.

Comments are closed.