 |
As most people in the regulated community know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency isn’t shy about enforcement, especially when it comes to substances as toxic as lead. Lead exposure is especially toxic for children, but no one is old enough to be unaffected by lead that is ingested or inhaled. In general, lead damages the brain and nervous system, can affect hearing, cause headaches and anemia, and in acute poisoning cases, seizures, coma, and death. In pregnant women, lead can cause miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, and brain damage. In children (those 6 years and younger are at highest risk) exposure to lead may cause behavior and learning disabilities, slow growth, and any of the above afflictions, depending on the level of exposure. Thus, it is no surprise that the EPA is keeping a close eye on regulated activities concerning lead in construction.
A perfect example of this diligence is the November 2012 enforcement announcement that netted 15 contractors (and one training company) with multiple violations. According to the EPA, the violations occurred between 2009 and November 2012 at sites in Michigan, Massachusetts, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. With the exception of the one training company that was cited for violations, most of the violations can be classified under one of the five following headings, which are ranked by the number of companies cited for the violations, not by the number of violations. Several companies were cited for multiple violations under some of the headings.
Provide Environmental Training that is painless, and be confident your environmental compliance issues are covered. Get it Now.
In first place was “Failure to provide lead hazard pamphlet to property owners” with 11 companies cited. This is a violation of 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E, 745.84 Information Distribution Requirements that mandate contractor provide building owners with EPA’s “Renovate Right” pamphlet and document receipt as well as other notification and recordkeeping requirements.
Two violations earned second place rankings with nine companies cited for each. “Failure to Establish and Maintain Records” violations covered a range of sections in Part 745 covering everything from failure to keep any records at all to failure to maintain records for training, certification, work practice standards, cleaning verifications, and other requirements. Running neck and neck was “Failure to Obtain Firm Certification” the first step in becoming compliant with the Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule and a precursor to all the other requirements necessary to operate legitimately under the rule.
Train Better in 2013
Environmental Training Library combines an extensive library of prewritten environmental training materials developed by BLR’s experts. Get it Now.
Coming in third was “Failure to Comply with Work Practices Standards” with seven companies cited for violations. The EPA cites diverse types of violations under this very expansive section of the rule, including “failure to contain the work area by covering the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material,” failure to post signs that defined the work area and warned people to stay outside of the work area, failure “to contain wastes renovation activities to prevent release of dust and debris,” and failure to isolate the area and close windows and doors.
And last but not at all least is “Failure to Comply with Training Requirements” in fourth place. These violations also ran the gamut from having no trained personnel, to not assigning correctly trained personnel, to failing to obtain training certification documents.
In total, 112 properties were involved in the violations with the majority of companies being very small companies that were cited at only one site. Several of these companies received “significantly reduced” penalties pursuant to the Pilot Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule Program for Micro-Business dated May 13, 2012. Several others received normal penalties, including the Massachusetts company with both the most sites, 82, and the most violations, 101. The 2012 complaint sought “a statutory maximum of $37,500 for each alleged violation.