The Non-Financial Ledger: What No Fine Will Cover

Picture the building at 97 Oceanside Drive on a summer day in August 2022. Daly City is dense. The neighborhoods packed into those streets are working-class, immigrant-heavy, populated by families who rent because owning is out of reach. These are the people who live in pre-1978 housing. Not because they chose the vintage aesthetic. Because it is what they can afford.

Someone in management decided the exterior needed work. They called workers. The workers showed up with power sanders. Ordinary electric sanders, the kind you pick up at a hardware store. Not the kind with a sealed shroud and a HEPA filter attached directly to the point where dust is generated. The kind that just flings particles into the air.

Those particles were not ordinary paint dust. The building was built before 1978. That is the federal cutoff year because that is when the government finally banned lead from residential paint. A building that old, especially one that has been lived in and layered over for decades, carries the history of that era in its walls. When you sand its exterior surface without testing or treating it as lead-containing, you are treating the question of whether you are poisoning your tenants as someone else’s problem.

Nobody posted a warning sign. The residents who walked past the work area did not know to stay back. The children playing in the yard did not know. Nobody handed anyone a pamphlet. The federal government has a specific pamphlet for this exact moment: “Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools.” Its entire purpose is to put people on notice before the disturbance begins, so they can take precautions. It was never distributed.

No plastic was laid on the ground. Paint chips and sanding dust settled onto whatever surface was beneath the workers’ feet. Into the soil. Onto the pavement. Into the cracks where children sit and play. Lead does not wash away. It binds to soil particles. A yard contaminated by a single renovation event can remain a lead exposure risk for years, silently poisoning every small child who puts their hands in their mouth after touching the ground.

The company was not certified to do this work. That certification exists because the EPA decided, after decades of documented poisoning, that lead renovation requires trained supervision. MP Property Management had not applied for that certification. There was no certified renovator on site. There was nobody whose job it was to know the rules, enforce the protections, and verify that the cleanup met the standard before residents returned to normal use of the space.

The EPA caught this. Federal investigators found seven separate violations. The agency calculated the maximum possible penalty exposure at tens of thousands of dollars per day per violation. After reviewing the company’s claimed financial situation, the final penalty was set at $822. Less than a month’s rent in most of the units that company manages. Less than the deductible on a single emergency room visit for a child with elevated blood lead levels.

Nobody in this document is named as a victim. No children’s blood lead levels are recorded here. No medical bills are attached. That is not because no harm occurred. It is because the system that caught the violation and issued the fine does not require proof of harm to people in order to settle the case. The harm that may have happened is left to accumulate silently, showing up years later in a pediatric chart, a learning evaluation, a behavioral referral, without any line connecting it back to a summer afternoon in Daly City when someone decided to skip the plastic sheeting.

Legal Receipts: Straight from the Document

Every violation below is drawn word for word from Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket No. TSCA-09-2024-0045. These are not allegations from a plaintiff’s attorney. They are the factual record agreed upon and entered into a federal enforcement proceeding.

“During the Renovation, Respondent’s worker used high-speed sanders that were not equipped with HEPA exhaust controls to remove paint.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 48, Section III: Allegations

• Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(3)(ii) explicitly bans the use of high-speed sanding, grinding, or abrasive equipment on painted surfaces unless the machine has a sealed containment system and a HEPA vacuum attached at the point of dust generation. MP Property Management’s workers used machines that had neither.
• This is the most physically dangerous violation in the document. High-speed sanding without HEPA controls is the mechanism by which lead dust enters the air and the lungs of anyone in range. Every other violation in this case fails to protect people from this one.

“Respondent did not ensure that the ground was covered with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 45, Section III: Allegations

• Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(2)(ii)(C) requires that ground cover be laid out before exterior renovation work begins so that paint chips and dust are captured and can be disposed of as lead waste rather than absorbed into soil. Nothing was laid out.
• Lead-contaminated soil is a documented, persistent hazard. Children who play in lead-contaminated yards absorb lead through hand-to-mouth contact. This violation turns a one-time renovation event into a long-term environmental contamination of the property.

“Respondent’s worker did not post warning signs that clearly defined the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 42, Section III: Allegations

• 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(1) requires posted warning signs before renovation begins. Without signs, residents had no way of knowing a lead hazard was being actively generated. There was no physical barrier between the work area and the general population of the building.

“Respondent did not provide an adult occupant of the Property with the ‘pamphlet’ prior to the Renovation.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 30, Section III: Allegations

• The “Renovate Right” pamphlet is required by federal law to be delivered to occupants no more than 60 days before renovation begins, with written acknowledgment obtained. It is the minimum information residents need to protect themselves and their children. It was never provided.
• This violation compounds the warning signs failure. Residents received no advance warning and no in-the-moment warning. They were kept completely uninformed at both stages.

“At the time of the Renovation, Respondent had not applied to the EPA for a certification to perform renovations or dust sampling in target housing.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 33, Section III: Allegations

• EPA certification for renovation work in lead-paint housing has been legally required since April 22, 2010. MP Property Management was not certified. They had not even applied. This means the company has been managing pre-1978 properties and contracting renovation work for over a decade with no engagement with the federal safety framework designed to protect their own tenants.

“The assessed penalty was calculated based on Respondent’s ability to pay and Respondent’s ability to continue to do business.”

— CAFO, Paragraph 52, Section V: Civil Administrative Penalty

• The statutory maximum penalty under TSCA for violations after November 2, 2015 is $48,512 per day per violation. MP Property Management committed seven violations. The EPA settled for $822 total because the company claimed it could not afford more. The law explicitly permitted this reduction. The people living at 97 Oceanside Drive had no say in that negotiation.

Societal Impact Mapping: Who Bears the Cost When the Fine Is $822

Public Health

Lead poisoning from renovation dust is a documented, well-studied public health catastrophe. The specific violations in this case created multiple pathways for exposure.

• High-speed sanding without HEPA controls generates airborne lead dust particles fine enough to be inhaled deeply into the lungs. Inhalation is the fastest absorption pathway. This is not hypothetical: the EPA explicitly prohibits this practice precisely because the harm is well-documented and dose-dependent even at low concentrations.
• Children under six are the most vulnerable population. Lead absorbed during early childhood development permanently impairs neurological function, reducing IQ, disrupting attention and impulse control, and increasing the likelihood of behavioral and learning disorders. There is no safe blood lead level; the CDC currently recognizes 3.5 micrograms per deciliter as the reference value requiring intervention.
• Lead contamination of residential soil from paint debris persists for decades. Studies of older urban residential properties have found lead concentrations in soil adjacent to exterior walls that remain elevated long after the original renovation event that created them. Children playing near the building after August 2022 continued to face exposure risk with no way to know it.
• The property at 97 Oceanside Drive is in Daly City, a city where a majority of residents are people of color, including a large Filipino-American population, and where housing costs push lower-income renters into older building stock. Communities of color in the United States bear a disproportionate burden of lead exposure due to concentrated residence in pre-1978 housing. This renovation made that disparity worse.
• The failure to provide the “Renovate Right” pamphlet meant that no occupant received guidance on post-renovation cleaning practices specifically designed to reduce dust ingestion. Even if residents had access to the information, they were denied it.

Economic Inequality

The financial structure of this case turns the regulatory system into a cost-benefit problem that falls entirely on the side of doing nothing.

• The statutory maximum penalty for a single day of a single TSCA Section 409 violation is $48,512. MP Property Management committed seven separate violations in a single renovation project. The EPA’s own penalty framework exists specifically because the cost of noncompliance must exceed the cost of compliance to create any economic incentive to follow the law. A $822 settlement does not meet that threshold.
• The cost of HEPA-equipped sanding equipment rental is a fraction of $822. The cost of laying plastic sheeting is nearly zero. The cost of printing and distributing a pamphlet is literally zero; the EPA pamphlet is a free download. Every safety measure that was skipped was cheaper to perform than the fine that resulted from skipping it.
• EPA certification for renovation firms costs $300 per firm for an initial five-year certification. MP Property Management managed properties and contracted renovation work in pre-1978 housing for years without seeking this $300 certification. The fine for never seeking it was folded into a combined $822 settlement.
• Renters in California have no practical mechanism for learning whether their landlord holds EPA renovation certification before a project begins. The information pamphlet, which is the primary consumer-facing protection in this regulatory system, was supposed to be the warning. When it is not delivered, renters have no fallback protection.
• The Consent Agreement explicitly states that payment of the fine cannot be taken as a tax deduction. That is a protection built into the order. But the $822 penalty itself is still an operating cost of doing business, one that a property management company absorbs and moves on from. The residents of 97 Oceanside Drive absorb something different.

The “Cost of a Life” Metric

Seven federal violations of lead-paint safety law at a residential property. One final penalty. Here is what that number means in context.

What Now: Accountability Does Not End with a $822 Check

The Consent Agreement does not close every door. Here is who holds power in this situation and where pressure can be applied.

Who Is on the Record

• James Greenhaw, Chief Executive Officer, MP Property Management, 1108 Tahoe Drive, Belmont, CA 94002. Named in the Certificate of Service as the party who received the final order. He signed the Consent Agreement on June 11, 2024, certifying that the company is now in compliance with federal renovation regulations and that MP Property Management has relinquished management of 97 Oceanside Drive.
• The Consent Agreement states that MP Property Management now certifies it will not perform renovation work in any pre-1978 housing without first obtaining EPA certification. That certification is publicly searchable. Any future uncertified renovation work at any property they manage would constitute a violation of both federal law and the terms of this settlement.

The EPA’s Own Reserved Rights

• The CAFO explicitly states: “The EPA specifically reserves any and all authorities, rights, and remedies available to it (including, but not limited to, injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions) to address any violation of this CAFO or any violation not specifically alleged.” A future violation by this company opens the door to significantly more severe action.
• The settlement resolves only federal civil penalties for the specific violations listed. It does not resolve California state law liability, local ordinance liability, or private civil claims from individuals harmed by the renovation.

What Tenants and Neighbors Can Do

• Request a lead clearance test for any unit in a pre-1978 building managed by MP Property Management where exterior renovation work occurred. In California, tenants can request this in writing from their landlord as part of their right to a habitable dwelling. Document every request and every response in writing.
• Contact a local tenant union or housing rights organization in Daly City or San Mateo County. Organizations like the Peninsula Interfaith Action network and Bay Area legal aid clinics have experience navigating lead exposure claims in rental housing. Tenants do not have to navigate this individually.
• Request that your children be tested for blood lead levels by a pediatrician, especially if they lived at or played near 97 Oceanside Drive during or after August 2022. Testing is covered by Medi-Cal and most insurance plans. California law requires testing for children at ages one and two.
• Check the EPA’s RRP certification database at epa.gov/lead to confirm whether any property management firm overseeing renovation work on your pre-1978 building holds current certification. If they do not, file a complaint with EPA Region IX before the work begins.
• Support organizations pushing for TSCA penalty reform. The $822 fine is a result of a penalty structure that allows the EPA to reduce fines to near-zero based on ability-to-pay claims. Advocacy for minimum mandatory penalties in lead-paint violation cases is the systemic fix that protects future tenants.

Timeline: From Violation to a $822 Settlement

The gap between when the harm was created and when the government signed off on the settlement tells a story about enforcement speed, or the lack of it.