WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced 75 enforcement actions from the past year that require renovation contractors and training providers to protect people from harmful exposure to lead dust and debris, as required by EPA’s Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) regulations.

Seventy-five settlements were filed from October 2014 through September 2015 for renovations performed on pre-1978 homes and child-care facilities, and each requires that the alleged violator certify its compliance with RRP regulations to EPA and, in most cases, pay civil penalties to resolve the alleged violations. The violations cited in the settlements reflect EPA’s goal to reduce illegal and unsafe renovations, and the lead hazards risks that result from them.

“Ensuring that lead-based paint is properly removed and handled helps protect children’s health when repairs or renovations are performed in older housing, particularly where kids live” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “These cases show that EPA is serious about making sure companies that break the law are held accountable when they undercut responsible businesses and put public health at risk.”

In three of the settlements, entities agreed to fund voluntary lead abatement projects, which require removal of lead-based paint and post-construction testing to ensure that no hazardous conditions remain. Each of the projects is expected to cost at least $20,000 to complete.

Approximately two-thirds of the cases involved failure to obtain EPA certification prior to conducting renovations. The cases reflect an increased focus on ensuring that firms and renovators comply with lead-safe work practices intended to protect children and others from exposure to lead dust. More than half of the cases cited violations of work practice standards and other requirements that directly affect how work is performed.

Lead dust and debris from improper renovation activities on properties built prior to 1978 is a major source of lead exposure that can cause lead poisoning. Although using lead-based paint in dwellings was prohibited after 1978, it is still present in more than 30 million homes across the nation, in all types of communities. The RRP Rule provides important protections for children and others vulnerable to lead exposure. Even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in behavior and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems and anemia. In rare cases, ingestion of lead can cause seizures, coma and even death.

The RRP Rule, which is part of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, is intended to ensure that owners and occupants of pre-1978 “target housing” and “child-occupied facilities” receive information on lead-based paint hazards before renovations begin, that individuals performing such renovations are properly trained and certified, and that renovators and workers follow specific lead-safe work practices during renovations to reduce the potential for exposure to lead.

The penalties in the settlements address the cited violations. Enforcement penalties also help deter other violations, and level the playing field for companies that follow the law. These fines help eliminate the financial advantage a violator may get by underbidding competitors that are compliant.

Contractors that are certified under EPA’s RRP regulations are encouraged to display EPA’s “Lead-Safe” logo on worker’s uniforms, signs, websites, and other material, as appropriate. Consumers can protect themselves by looking for the logo before hiring a home contractor, and by being generally aware of whether a renovator is following lead-safe work practices when working on their property. Those practices, such as what a renovator must do to minimize lead dust dispersion, are outlined in EPA’s Renovate Right lead hazard information pamphlet, available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/renovaterightbrochure.pdf

Renovators are required to give the pamphlet to property owners and occupants within 60 days before starting any renovation.

In the following settlements, the companies paid civil penalties in excess of $25,000, respectively:

•           Garden Homes Management, Corp. (CT) paid a penalty of $54,644, and will perform a window replacement supplemental environmental project valued at $20,000 for violating certification, firm responsibility, information distribution, and recordkeeping requirements; and violating Lead-based Paint Disclosure Rule information distribution and disclosure requirements.

•           Blue Mountain Air, Inc. (CA) paid $51,030 as a penalty for violating firm certification, recordkeeping, and firm responsibility requirements.

•           Line Construction Company (KS) paid a fine of $33,642 to settle violations of firm certification, recordkeeping, and information distribution requirements.

•           The Whalley Glass Company (CT) paid a $31,286 penalty for violating firm certification, firm responsibility, information distribution, and recordkeeping requirements.

•           William DeMarse, d/b/a Bill DeMarse Professional Painting (MI) paid a fine of $28,545 for non-compliance with firm certification, work practice, and firm responsibility requirements.

•           Cardo Windows, Inc. (NJ) settled, paying a fine of $27,000 for failing to comply with information distribution and recordkeeping requirements.

In each of the following cases, EPA recovered more than $20,000 in a combination of penalties and a Supplemental Environmental Project:

•           RDF Inc. d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration (NE) will perform a supplemental environmental project valued at $27,304, in addition to paying a penalty of $3,033, for failure to comply with firm responsibility, recordkeeping, information distribution, and work practice requirements.

•           Bordner Installation Group, Inc. (MO) will undertake a supplemental environmental project valued at $20,000 and pay a penalty of $2,198 for violating recordkeeping and information distribution rules.

In the following settlements, companies paid civil penalties in excess of $10,000, respectively:

•           Scherrer Engineering and Construction, Inc. (WV) paid $22,500 as a penalty for violating requirements for firm certification, information distribution, firm responsibility, and work practice standards.

•           Colossal Contractors, Inc. (MD) paid a $21,196 penalty for failing to comply with information distribution, recordkeeping and work practice requirements.

•           JSH Home Improvements, LLC (PA) paid $19,096 as a penalty for non-compliance with firm certification, firm responsibility, information distribution, recordkeeping, and work practice requirements.

•           Blue Door Painters, Inc. (VA) paid a penalty of $18,000 for failing to comply with standards for work practices, firm responsibility, information distribution, and recordkeeping.

•           Envirotech, Inc. (MO) paid a penalty of $14,024 for failing to comply with information distribution, work practice, and firm responsibility requirements.

•           Blue Springs Siding and Windows, LLC (MO) paid $13,566 for non-compliance with firm certification and recordkeeping requirements.

•           AAPCP LC (VA) settled, paying a fine of $12,800 to settle information distribution violations.

•           Pella Windows & Doors (MO) settled with a fine of $12,558 for violating firm certification and recordkeeping requirements.

•           Damage Control & Restoration, Inc. (KS) $12,194 for non-compliance with information distribution and recordkeeping obligations.

•           Whitney Management & Maintenance Co. (CT) paid a penalty of $10,285 for failing to comply with firm certification, information distribution, firm responsibility and recordkeeping requirements.

EPA entered into expedited settlement agreements with the companies listed below. These agreements allow violators to quickly resolve certain minor lead-based paint offenses (not including work practice violations) with a reduced penalty, typically $2,000 or less.

•           Hatillo, LLC Home Improvement Services (CT)|
•           8AS Construction (NY)
•           Total Perfection Construction, Inc. (NY)
•           Chesapeake Finishing, Inc. (MD)
•           RLS, LLC, (PA)
•           Jimmy Johns Construction, LLC (PA)
•           Only Bathrooms, LLC (PA)
•           Ohio Laborer’s Training & Apprenticeship Trust Fund (OH)
•           Arch Environmental Group, Inc. (MI)
•           Northern Environmental Consultants, LLC (MI)
•           Fortune Homes, Inc. (CO)
•           Gold Spring International, Inc. (CA)
•           JUV, Inc. (CA)
•           Southwest Construction & Property Management (CA)
•           KCK Builders, Inc. (CA)
•           Taber Construction, Inc. (CA)
•           Kitchens By Design, Inc. (CA)
•           All Best Builders, Inc. d/b/a All Trusty Builders (CA)
•           Wickman Development and Construction (CA)

In the following settlements, the companies paid fines less than $10,000, respectively, generally reflecting a reduction based on ability to pay. Every case obtains compliance with RRP regulations.

•           DiNuzzo LLC d/b/a DiNuzzo Painting (CT)
•           John Fogg Jr. Enterprises, LLC (CT)
•           Star Painting, LLC (NJ)
•           Integrated Construction Maintenance, LLC (MD)
•           J & R Builders, LLC (WV)
•           Elk Custom Homes Contracting, Inc. (PA)
•           Mark Ferrar, Hawk Mountain Soda Blasting & MARCAT VT, LLC (PA)
•           CertaPro Main Line Painters (PA)
•           Robert W. Heh, Jr. Construction Co., d/b/a Window Depot USA (PA)
•           American Remodeling and Roofing, Inc. (PA)
•           Zook Quality Builders (PA)
•           Window World Penn-Ohio, LLC (OH)
•           The Door Store of Louisville, LLC (KY)
•           Castillo Construction Services, Inc. (FL)
•           Perdue Builders (KY)
•           Allied Doors South Florida, LLC (FL)
•           Paul Sellars General Contractor (KY)
•           Tiny’s Construction, LLC (TN)
•           Hammond and Brandt Builders, LLC (TN)
•           The Clinard Co., Inc. d/b/a Clinard Home Improvement (TN)
•           Omni Services, LLC (SC)
•           The Glass Guru (FL)
•           Rohrer Group, Inc. d/b/a Window World of Akron, Ohio (OH)
•           Capitol Painting & Decorating (IL)
•           Matthew Young (MO)
•           Home Performance Services, LLC (MO)
•           Custom Builders Russellville, Inc. (MO)
•           Accent Systems, Inc. d/b/a Accent DKI (NE)
•           Tony Kapple d/b/a Kapples Building Remodeling (IA)
•           JakeCo Painting, LLC (MO)
•           Springer Building & Design, Inc. (KS)
•           Housemasters Contracting Co. (MO)
•           Brown Restoration, Inc. (MO)
•           Dynamic Specialties, Inc. d/b/a Dynamic Porch & Patio (MO)
•           Repairs Unlimited (KS)
•           Bielenberg Builders, Inc. (NE)
•           C & W Harrison (MO)
•           Superior Inspection Services, Inc. (OR)

More information about the RRP Rule and how contractors can get certified is available at http://www2.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program

Associated Press for www.theindianalawyer.com

Cities trying to limit panhandling in downtowns and tourist areas are facing a new legal hurdle because of a recent Supreme Court of the United States ruling that seemingly has nothing to do with asking for money.

Federal judges in at least three states have cited a June ruling by the high court on the size of church signs as a reason for overturning anti-panhandling laws or sending cases disputing those laws back to lower courts for review. One of those cases — in the western Colorado city of Grand Junction — has spurred Colorado communities including Denver and Boulder to suspend or change their laws restricting where and when people can panhandle.

The reason is something called content discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, did not have the right to limit the size of signs put up to direct worshippers to services at a small church because the town didn’t set the same limits for real estate or political signs. The same issue has been raised in lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging anti-panhandling laws.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled on Sept. 30 that it was unconstitutional for Grand Junction to bar people from asking for money after dark and near bus stops and restaurant patios because they singled out a kind of speech — asking for money — for special treatment without a compelling reason.

Arguello had concluded earlier in the case brought by the state ACLU that the law was discriminatory but said the Supreme Court church signs ruling made it clear that laws that limit speech on broad topics, not just particular viewpoints, also amount to content discrimination. She let stand parts of the law that prohibit panhandlers from threatening people.

After the Grand Junction ruling, Boulder quickly got rid of panhandling restrictions along its pedestrian mall, Longmont suspended its enforcement of panhandling laws and the Denver City Council is considering removing its restrictions on when and where panhandlers can solicit money but plans to keeping its ban on threatening behavior. Colorado Springs also suspended portions of its law at the urging of the ACLU before the Grand Junction ruling.

Appeals courts also have sent challenges to anti-panhandling laws in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Springfield, Illinois, back to lower courts to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Decisions on both are still pending.

The debate over panhandling laws comes at a time when more cities have sought to restrict where people can ask for money. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty says 76 percent of cities banned panhandling in some locations in 2014, a 20 percent increase since 2011. Many cities say the laws are meant not to discourage giving to people in need but to protect residents and help keep their communities safe.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado, thinks most panhandling laws nationally have been written so broadly that many of them also will have to be changed because of the ruling. His lawyers plan to tell cities in Colorado about the changes they think are needed.

“The government can’t pass a law to ban all speech that’s annoying or irritating,” he said.

Some constitutional experts think the sign ruling also could have implications beyond panhandling including government regulation of advertising, securities and communications.

While some see that as a good thing for free speech, others, like Yale Law School Dean Robert Post, see potential problems. He said the ruling was written so broadly that it applies to commercial speech and could be used, for example, to try to block the Federal Trade Commission’s sanctions against misleading advertisements.

In Worcester, city officials plan to fight to keep limits banning panhandling near bus stops and ATMs as well as standing in medians for any reasons.

“We see it (panhandling restrictions) as one important piece of the puzzle of dealing with the opioid crisis in the country,” city solicitor David Moore said.

Springfield also doesn’t plan to give up on its restrictions that bar going up to people and directly asking for money in the city’s historic downtown, where tourists flock to see Abraham Lincoln’s house. Panhandlers are still allowed to hold signs soliciting donations, city corporation counsel Jim Zerkle said. The city has filed arguments in favor of keeping the law.

In Denver, it’s not clear how much of a difference the proposed changes will make on the street. The city says it’s averaged about 300 panhandling citations a year since its law took effect in 2000 and roughly two-thirds of those violations involved aggressive behavior, rather than violating the time and place limits it’s considering scrapping.

On a recent day, William Jones, 69, was one of several panhandlers set up along the city’s 16th Street Pedestrian Mall not far from one of the parking meters the city installed to raise money for the homeless and discourage panhandling.

Jones, a Navy veteran who has worked breaking horses, as a restaurant cook and in construction, said he does not care for the aggressive style. He sat on his walker with a sign, saying good morning people and waved back at a passing bus driver and an outreach worker from a homeless shelter.

“I don’t make a lot of money, but I make a lot of friends,” he said.