Lead Paint Law Claims First Contractor

Grotesque
by Donald Bryan

This is an excellent example of grotesque overreach by an un-elected bureaucracy.

Agree
by Wayne Gregan

I could not agree more. This should be a states issue not the EPA.

lipstick on the pig
by Matthew Amann

Where was the EPA the last 30+ years, now they want 100% bureaucracy for 10% of what is left. I have my LBPR license and I practice the law, but this is all too little too late IMHO.

what would you have done?
by Joseph Ford

'Unelected bureaucrat' sure sounds bad but we do elect the people who appoint or hire said bureaucrats, right? Let's not pretend there's no accountability. Public officials delegated these powers to the EPA. Also, why a state issue? Is the toxicity of lead any different in Maine relative to Texas or Ohio? Are children living in Maine more deserving of protection from neurotoxins than those elsewhere?

Wentworth's misconduct was committed knowingly and willfully. He knew what the rules were and he chose to ignore them. The violations were public and flagrant. The violations were substantive. The threshold for the RRP rules is over 20 square feet and we're talking about the whole side of a house. Lastly, according to one of the linked articles Wentworth admitted to all but one of the violations.

If you were to argue that the dollar amount is unreasonable I would agree. I think $150,000 would be disproportionate to the harm involved. My hope is that Wentworth and the EPA reach a settlement much less than the statutory maximum. That said, if you're the EPA, the law is on the books, and they are handed this evidence...what do you expect them to do other than enforce the law? If this guy doesn't have it coming, no one does.

Response to Donald and Wayne
by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

Donald and Wayne,
If you had ever been involved with a case involving a young child with elevated blood lead levels, your attitude would change.

Look at the video -- these contractors are being utterly irresponsible. What if your children (or your nieces and nephews) lived in that building? Wouldn't you be furious?

Blatant disregard
by Greg Follet

While I will tend to agree that many of the new regulations tend to be over reaching, and borderline ridiculous (are you listening OSHA), this is a blatant disregard for public safety. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would be irate. Now, is $150,000 necessary? Not sure, but I would think even a $10,000 fine would get the point across?

A few more observations
by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

1. As far as GBA can tell, this is the EPA's first enforcement action of the new RRP rule.So it's not as if the EPA has been running around citing hundreds of contractors.

2. Once this video was up on YouTube, the EPA could hardly disregard the case.

3. Lesson #1 to scofflaws: remember that most people's cell phones can record video images.

4. Lesson #2 to scofflaws: If you are working on a house across the street from the local Sherwin Williams outlet, remember that all of your competitors -- all of the painting contractors in town, some of whom have higher bids than you because they actually obey the law -- pull into the Sherwin Williams parking lot at some point.

Homeowner Exemption
by Joseph Miller

As I understand it, the law on lead based paint removal specifically exempts owners of residential property from the provisions of the law. Since he owned the building and since it is a residential dwelling, a case might be made that he is exempt from complying with the law. Beyond that, there is little that elected politicians can do stop a run amok bureaucracy. Congess tells EPA that it can't do something and the EPA tries to find away around Congress. Until we start putting bureaucrats in jail for willful and intentional over reaching, we are all going to be at their mercy and have to bear the cost of power grabbing bureaucrats.

Homeowner Exemption
by Jay Walsh

Information for Property Owners of Rental Housing, Child-Occupied Facilities

After April 22, 2010, property owners who perform these projects in pre-1978 rental housing or space rented by child-care facilities must be certified and must follow the lead-safe work practices required by EPA's Renovation, Repair and Remodeling rule. To become certified, property owners must submit an application for firm certification (PDF) (9 pp, 642K) and fee payment to EPA. EPA began processing applications on October 22, 2009. The Agency has up to 90 days after receiving a complete request for certification to approve or disapprove the application.

SEE http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#owners

Exemption
by Matthew Amann

Joseph, they removed the homeowner exemption from the law a year ago. Thank goodness, everyone should have to follow the same law in order to be fair and protect the public effectively. I think it is an important law, just WAY too much too late. Most of the lead paint in this country has already been hastily ground off of houses the last 50+ years, and 30 years after banning the sale of it, they decide to actually enforce a law that was already in place for painters, just not as stringent. Where is their (the EPA and government) accountability?