Close this Advertisement

EPA Cites Company $784,380 for Failing to Warn Residents of Lead-Based Paint Exposures

  • Jun 20, 2010
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently filed a complaint and proposed a $784,380 penalty against Hanson’s Window and Construction Inc. of Madison Heights, Mich., for violations of the 1998 federal rule for failure to warn residents of potential lead-based paint exposures.

EPA alleges that in May 2005, Hanson, a window installation firm, failed to provide home owners and tenants of 271 residential properties in Lansing, East Lansing, Haslett, Charlotte, Onondaga, Williamston, Holt, Stockbridge, Mason, Leslie, and Warren with required information warning residents that their construction activities could expose residents to lead. The citation is based in part on information that two children living in renovated Michigan homes had tested positive for elevated blood lead levels.

The Pre-Renovation Lead Information Rule requires that renovators provide homeowners, tenants, and owners of child-occupied facilities with the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and obtain written confirmation that they have received it. The purpose of the rule is to protect families during renovations in housing built before 1978.

Lead exposure can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities, developmental delays, reduced height, poor hearing, and other health problems in young children.

Lead-based paint dust created during renovations is the most common source of lead exposure to children in the United States. About 75 percent of the nation’s housing built before 1978 contains lead-based paint. When properly managed, lead-based paint poses little risk. If paint is not maintained, however, even low levels of lead exposure can threaten occupants’ health, especially children and pregnant women.



Share this Page

Related Articles

Webinars

Whitepapers

Products

Comments

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 Phil Vanderloo Fair Oaks Ca.

I concur with the following- 1. The fine is grossly excessive! 2. The EPA completely dropped the ball in educating the public, and contractors, about the new law. 3. The likelihood that these 2 children were contaminated by this contractors acts is very low at best. Get used to hearing about people suing contractors for lead poisoning.

Sun, Jul 25, 2010

"Remember - If your contractor is not telling you about lead paint or is not following the law regarding lead paint, you should find another contractor!"--- From Hansons Website

Mon, Jul 12, 2010

I've been building since 1987, and this is the first I've ever heard of a law going back to 1998. It makes me wonder how many dozens of other laws are on the books that we don't know about and will be liable for at the government's whim. The government has made every construction zone a crime scene.

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 Malcolm Kansas City

In my opinion, the fine is greatly disproportionate to the offense as the enforcement action is based entirely on the contractor not giving the homeowner a pamphlet on the risks of lead exposure. I am highly skeptical that any of the homeowners would have read the pamphlet, let alone change their behavior based on anything the pamphlet said.

In all my years of renting apartments and then in buying a home, I was given various pamphlets and brochures about lead paint and other risks. All were quickly recycled upon receipt along with dozens of other papers provided by various entities involved in the transactions.

My 2 cents.

Mon, Jun 28, 2010

EPA law regarding presentation of the lead notice brochure took effect in 1998. We were investigated by the EPA in 2008. Thankfully we have distributed the lead notice brochure consistently since 1998.
Dennis Gehman

Thu, Jun 24, 2010 Dave

The notification regulation has been in effect since 2000. All they had to do was distribute the EPA pamphlet and they would have been covered. If they were a contractor of any size, they should have known about their requirements. I can't feel too sorry for them for being fined. I'm not too sure about the size of the fine, however.

Wed, Jun 23, 2010

EPA has extended the enforcement date until Oct 1 of this year http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=10957

Tue, Jun 22, 2010 Joseph Frederick, MD

There were other rules in effect before this year. I'm sure this is what the EPA is going to try to use. As for the kids... I feel bad for them but highly doubt that the contractor made them sick. Even so, the EPA will have a hard time trying to prove it. First of all, 2 kids in a 271 unit complex is a very small percentage. If the contractor was grossly negligent there should be a lot more affected people. It is more likely that the kids were chewing on the lead paint, like the brother of the guy who taught my RRP/lead safe practices class. In his case, the lead-poisoned brother would chew on the window sill as he watched his sisters and brothers play outside. In this case, the parents were the only ones at fault. Why would they let the kid chew on a dirty window sill and damage the landlord's property.

I fail to see where the property owner or a contractor was to blame. I have a 120-yr-old house with lead paint throughout. I accepted this from the get go, and took precaution accordingly. All window sills are well painted. They are vacuumed regularly. Hands are washed when we work around anything with lead paint. We do not allow our son to chew on anything that is not meant for him to chew on. He is two now and thus far, all lead tests are normal. Remember, Albert Einstein grew up in a house with lead paint.

I would also like to note that I spoke with a pediatrician recently. She had not even heard about the RRP law. She further told me that the number of children with elevated lead levels has been going down over the past few years. She finds that most children who come in with elevated levels of lead do not even require treatment. Personally, I doubt the claim "Lead-based paint dust created during renovations is the most common source of lead exposure to children in the United States." It is more likely that parents are not watching their kids.

Tue, Jun 22, 2010

I thought this law went into effect April 21st of this year.

Tue, Jun 22, 2010

"EPA alleges that in May 2005," Whats with going back to 2005 when the rules weren't even in place? I smell a fish.

Tue, Jun 22, 2010

Right the contractor made them sick? How about living in 100 yr old home for years and years with your kid eating the paint.

Mon, Jun 21, 2010 Unleaded

Read up!!
Existing Lead dust in homes poisons kids before work ever begins.
Who is to blame for that?
Friction surfaces make dust over time. Window extraction just spreads the dust already there. "CLEAN IT BEFORE YOU DISTURB IT."
The majority of people who need the RRP procedure during a remodel are the least able to afford it. Now you have achieved nothing. The LEAD DUST is still there spreading through out the house every time you open and close a window or a door.
Request test results on the kids for LEAD levels BEFORE work begins. BTW, did you know HUD Required LEAD to be in ALL paint back in the day. They would not let contractors use any other kind. This is the government's dirty little secret.
Make HUD pay for the surcharge, NOT the buyer.
This rule may protect the child but eventually destroys the land. PLASTIC PLASTIC PLASTIC. Coast to coast. This plastic is strictly only allowed to be used once and has to be put in "PLASTIC BAGS" and disposed of in the landfill.
EPA Stands for what? NOT ANYMORE....
Why cite HANSONS, EPA, for not "EDUCATING"???
This should be the Government's job and expense.

Mon, Jun 21, 2010

It seems like a high amount for a fine, but they should have been more careful especially since children were harmed.

Mon, Jun 21, 2010

And the contractors wonder why the EPA came out with the RRP Regulations.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Follow Us

Join OH&S Magazine on SafetyCommunity!
Join us on SafetyCommunity!

Upcoming Webinars

5/24: It's Not Just the SAMHSA 5 Anymore: K2/Spice, Bath Salts and Emerging Drug Trends
Which drugs should employers test for? Synthetic drugs like K2 and Spice, as well as seemingly harmless products like Bath Salts, have become as popular as the illegal drugs they try to mimic. These questions and more will be explored in this enlightening webinar.

5/30: An Introduction to Machine Safety
A common sense look at the regulatory framework of machine safety, best practices and practical solutions to ensuring a safe machine and workplace.

5/31: IAQ is Critical to Earning LEED Points, Green Building and a Healthy Workplace
This is an informative webinar on the role of high performance buildings in workplace health and safety.

6/14: OHSAS Guidance for Small Businesses: Protect and Grow Your Business
OHSAS 18001:2007 Certification offers more than just a globally recognized Health and Safety System. It can also help your business.

6/27: The Different Forms of Machine Safeguarding and When to Use Them
Some of the topics include: the different forms of safeguarding and when to use them. Safety devices to be reviewed may include: interlocking devices, light curtains, safety mats, safety scanners, two hand control units, and safety strips.

Spotlight

For May, OH&S puts the spotlight on: