What “Compliance Failure” Looks Like Inside Someone’s Home

Imagine you hire a window company to replace your old windows. The crew shows up, pulls out the frames, hauls away the old material, and leaves. Job done. You did not sign anything about lead. Nobody handed you a pamphlet. Nobody told you that your house, built in 1924, almost certainly has lead-based paint layered under every surface those workers disturbed. Nobody left a document proving that after they packed up, a certified person walked through and confirmed your floors and windowsills were clean.

Now imagine you have a child under six years old in that house.

Lead dust is invisible. You cannot smell it. You cannot taste it. It settles onto floors and windowsills and gets picked up on hands and then into mouths. The CDC has stated there is no safe level of lead exposure in children. Congress put the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule into federal law specifically because of what happens when contractors disturb lead paint in old homes and do not clean it up properly: children absorb it, and the damage is permanent. Lower IQ. Reading disabilities. Hearing loss. Shorter attention spans. Behavioral problems. These are not risks that resolve themselves. They follow a child for life.

River City Window and Door went into four pre-1978 homes in Peoria and Rock Island, Illinois in 2022. One of those homes was a duplex, built in 1910, where multiple families could be living. One was built in 1912. One in 1914. One in 1924. All of them are old enough to contain lead-based paint in their walls, their trim, their window frames. Window replacement is specifically listed in the federal definition of renovation because it directly disturbs painted surfaces.

At none of these four homes did River City obtain the written acknowledgement from the owner confirming they had been informed of lead hazards before work began. At two of them, the company left no documentation that anyone performed post-renovation cleaning verification. At one of them, no certified renovator was ever assigned to the project. At three of them, the contractors River City sent in were not certified renovation firms.

The people in those homes trusted that a company operating under a brand name as prominent as Pella was following the law. They had no reason to ask whether the workers had been certified. They had no reason to demand a pamphlet they did not know they were owed. They signed a contract for windows, not for a gamble with their children’s neurological development.

River City paid $23,987 to close this case. That is roughly what a used car costs. That is what the EPA determined was sufficient to settle ten violations of a federal law designed specifically to prevent permanent harm to children. No family in those four homes received any part of that fine. No family was notified by name in this document. The settlement resolves the company’s federal civil liability and nothing else.

Straight From the EPA’s Own Documents: Ten Violations, Zero Denials

River City Window and Door neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations in this consent agreement. But it also waived its right to a hearing and its right to appeal. Every quote below is taken verbatim from EPA Docket No. TSCA-05-2024-0023, filed September 18, 2024.

“At all four renovations described in the Table in paragraph 27, Respondent performed contracted renovations at the target housing dwellings and failed to obtain, from the owner, the written acknowledgement that the owner had received the pamphlet within 60 days of the renovation.”

— EPA CAFO, Paragraph 34

• This is a direct finding covering all four homes. The lead hazard pamphlet is not optional paperwork; it is the primary mechanism by which the law ensures homeowners know their rights and the risks before work begins. River City skipped it at every single job documented in this enforcement action.
• Each failure to obtain written acknowledgement is its own violation. Four homes equals four separate counts (Counts 1–4), each carrying a potential penalty of up to $48,512 per day under TSCA Section 16(a).

“At the renovation described in paragraph 27, Line No. 1 of the Table, documentation from the certified renovator that warning signs were posted at the entrances to the work area described in 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a), in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 745.86(b)(6)(ii).”

— EPA CAFO, Paragraph 38(a)

• Warning signs at entrances to the work area are a basic physical barrier. They exist to keep children and other occupants out of the lead dust zone during active renovation. At the Rock Island duplex job, there is no documented proof these signs were ever posted.
• A duplex means multiple households. The 1910 multi-family duplex at 2513 7th Avenue, Rock Island had the potential for children in adjacent units to be exposed if containment and signage were not in place.

“At the renovations described in paragraph 27, Line Nos. 1 and 2 of the Table, documentation that the certified renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning verification described in 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(b), in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 745.86(b)(6)(viii).”

— EPA CAFO, Paragraph 38(b)

• Post-renovation cleaning verification is the final safety checkpoint. It requires a certified renovator to confirm that lead dust levels in the work area are below the threshold considered dangerous. Without this record, there is no documented proof the cleanup ever happened at the Rock Island duplex or the 1924 Peoria home.
• The records must be retained for three years. River City could not produce them, which means either they were never created or they were destroyed. The EPA cannot determine which; both outcomes represent a failure of the safety system.

“Respondent performed or directed to perform the renovation and did not assign a certified renovator to the renovation.”

— EPA CAFO, Paragraph 43 (regarding 2513 7th Avenue, Rock Island)

• A certified renovator is the linchpin of the entire RRP Rule system. Every other safety obligation; work area containment, warning signs, post-renovation cleaning verification, on-the-job training of workers; flows through this person. River City sent a crew to a 1910 duplex with no such person assigned.
• This is not a paperwork failure; it is a structural one. The safety oversight mandated by law was simply absent from that job site from start to finish.

“Respondent failed to ensure that renovations performed by contractors of the firm were performed in accordance with the work practice standards in 40 C.F.R. § 745.85 by failing to ensure that the contractors of the firm were certified as a firm at the time of the renovations.”

— EPA CAFO, Paragraph 49 (regarding three of four job sites)

• River City did not just fail to follow the rules itself; it hired other companies that were not certified and sent them into people’s homes. Three of the four jobs used uncertified subcontractors: the Rock Island duplex, the 1924 Peoria home, and the 1914 Peoria home.
• EPA certification for renovation firms has been mandatory since April 22, 2010. River City had over a decade to build compliance into its contractor selection process. This was not an oversight born of inexperience with new regulations.

Who Absorbs the Costs When Lead Regulations Are Ignored

Public Health

Congress documented the public health stakes in the very law that River City violated. These are not theoretical risks; they are the documented outcomes of childhood lead exposure at any level.

• Congress found that up to 3,000,000 children under six years old were afflicted by low-level lead poisoning at the time the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act was passed in 1992. The primary source of that poisoning was identified as household dust from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint, the exact type of contamination produced by window replacement in old homes.
• Documented health outcomes for children exposed to low-level lead include permanent IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems. None of these conditions reverse once lead is absorbed into a child’s developing nervous system.
• The oldest property in this case, the Rock Island duplex, was built in 1910. Homes of this age have had over a century of lead paint application, repainting, and deterioration. Window frame removal in a structure this old generates substantial paint dust, and the risk profile is highest precisely where the compliance failures were most severe: no certified renovator, no cleanup verification, no certified contractor, no warning signs.
• Because River City failed to obtain post-renovation cleaning verification records at two properties, there is no documented evidence those homes were confirmed safe before families resumed normal activity there. The absence of the record is itself the health harm: it means the safety check either did not happen or was not preserved.
• Lead poisoning in children is disproportionately concentrated in older housing stock in lower-income urban neighborhoods. Peoria and Rock Island are both Illinois cities with significant proportions of pre-1940 housing. The families most likely to live in these homes are the families least likely to have resources to pursue independent testing after a contractor leaves.

Economic Inequality

The economics of lead poisoning are deeply unequal. The company collected revenue from these renovation contracts. The cost of any health consequences falls entirely on the families and on public systems.

• River City collected payment for four contracted renovation jobs. The EPA’s civil penalty of $23,987 represents the only financial consequence documented in this enforcement action. No portion of that penalty was allocated to the affected homeowners or their families.
• The maximum possible penalty per violation under TSCA Section 16(a) was $48,512 per day. With ten violations documented, the theoretical maximum exposure was enormous. The assessed penalty of $23,987 reflects a negotiated settlement that considered the company’s ability to pay and ability to continue doing business, per paragraph 51 of the CAFO.
• Lead-related cognitive impairment in children generates lifetime economic costs: special education services, reduced earning potential, and increased involvement in the criminal justice system are all documented downstream consequences. These costs are borne by families, school districts, and public health systems, not by the contractor whose non-compliance may have contributed to exposure.
• The CAFO explicitly states that this consent agreement constitutes a “prior such violation” for future penalty calculations under TSCA. This means the $23,987 fine is now on River City’s regulatory record, and any future violations would be assessed at a higher penalty tier. The deterrent is prospective only; no retroactive remedy reaches the families from the four 2022 jobs.
• Certification for renovation firms has been federally required since April 22, 2010. River City used uncertified contractors at three job sites in 2022, twelve years after the mandate took effect. The cost of obtaining certification is a business expense. The cost of a child’s lifetime exposure to lead is incalculable and externalized entirely onto that child’s family.

What the Fine Translates To

The penalty EPA collected represents roughly half of one percent of the maximum theoretical fine for these ten violations. EPA stated it considered the company’s “ability to pay” and “effect on ability to continue to do business” in arriving at this number. The families in those four homes were not parties to that calculation.

Who to Contact, What to Demand, and How to Protect Your Community

River City Window and Door, LLC d/b/a Pella Windows and Doors of Peoria is still in operation at 4308 North Sheridan Road Suite A, Peoria, Illinois 61614. This CAFO is now on their permanent regulatory record. Here is how to use that fact.

Hold the Right People Accountable

• The consent agreement was signed on behalf of River City by a company representative at brian@rivercitypella.com. The company’s full name is River City Window and Door, LLC. Its registered agent and corporate officers are public record through the Illinois Secretary of State business registry.
• The EPA enforcement contact on this case is Michael Todd, Pesticides and Toxics Compliance Section, EPA Region 5 (todd.michael@epa.gov). The legal contact is Olivia Bauer, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region 5 (bauer.olivia@epa.gov).
• The final order was signed by Ann L. Coyle, Regional Judicial Officer, EPA Region 5. The enforcement division director who authorized the action is Michael D. Harris, Director, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, EPA Region 5.

Watchlist: Regulatory Bodies with Jurisdiction

• U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago): Has direct enforcement jurisdiction under TSCA over all renovation firms operating in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. File a complaint about RRP violations at any Illinois contractor via EPA’s complaint portal.
• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): Administers state-level lead programs in coordination with federal EPA rules. Contact IEPA’s Division of Public Water Supplies and Lead Programs for state-level follow-up.
• Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH): Oversees childhood lead screening programs and can investigate exposure claims. If you believe a child was exposed during renovation work, IDPH’s Lead Program is the appropriate state-level contact.
• U.S. DOJ: Under TSCA Section 16(a), the Attorney General may bring a civil action to recover unpaid penalties. The CAFO explicitly preserves EPA’s right to pursue criminal sanctions for any violations of law beyond what was settled here.
• OSHA: Has jurisdiction over worker safety during renovation activities involving lead, separate from EPA’s consumer-protection mandate under the RRP Rule. Workers on these job sites may have had their own exposure rights violated.

Grassroots and Community Action

• If you live in a pre-1978 home in Peoria or Rock Island and had window replacement or other renovation work done by River City or any Pella-branded contractor, request your renovation records. Under the RRP Rule, firms are required to provide copies of certain records to owners. If they cannot produce documentation of a certified renovator, a lead pamphlet acknowledgement, and post-renovation cleaning verification, file a complaint directly with EPA Region 5.
• Request a blood lead level test for any child under six who lives in a home where window replacement work was performed without the documentation outlined above. Contact your local health department or pediatrician. Testing is often covered by Medicaid and many insurance plans in Illinois.
• Before hiring any renovation contractor in Illinois, verify their EPA RRP firm certification at the EPA’s Certified Renovators and Firms database online. Certification is public and searchable. An uncertified firm doing window replacement in your pre-1978 home is a federal violation in progress.
• Connect with local housing justice and environmental health organizations in Peoria and Rock Island. Groups working on lead abatement advocacy, tenant rights, and environmental justice in the Illinois River Valley region can provide mutual aid, testing referrals, and legal resource navigation for families who may have been affected.
• Share this enforcement record publicly. Docket No. TSCA-05-2024-0023 is a public document. Every neighbor considering hiring River City Window and Door deserves to know this record exists before signing a contract.