Yellow Van Cleaning Renovated Homes Around Kids With No Certified Renovator, No Records, and No Warning to Parents

Legal Receipts: What The Company Admitted, And What It Dodged

“neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations stated herein”

• This is the operative language of the settlement: the specific violations EPA describes in this document are formally unproven in any court, they are simply findings the agency reached on its own.
• It lets the company pay the penalty without ever conceding, on the record, that a certified renovator was missing from any of the three jobs.
• The public gets a signed settlement, not a ruling on the actual facts.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to assign a certified renovator to the renovations performed at the Properties.”

• A certified renovator is the person responsible for training on-site workers and directing lead-safe containment work on painted surfaces at pre-1978 housing.
• This same failure was found at all three properties covered by the settlement: one occupied by adults, one occupied by teenagers ages 13 to 17, and one child-occupied facility visited by kids ages 3 to 5.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to provide the pamphlet to the parents or guardians of children using the child-occupied facility.”

• Federal law requires the pamphlet, titled “Renovate Right,” be handed to parents up to 60 days before renovation begins specifically so they can decide whether to keep their kids away from the work.
• Parents of the 3 to 5 year olds who used this facility never got that legally required notice.

“waives any right to contest the allegations set forth herein”

• By signing, the company closed off any path to a hearing where EPA’s evidence would be tested by a judge.
• Paired with the non-admission clause above, the case ends with no trial, no appeal, and no binding finding of fact on the public record.

Who Was At Risk: The Public Health Picture

The company’s violations centered on target housing and a child-occupied facility built during the era when lead paint was standard, putting the exact people the federal renovation rule was written to protect directly in the work zone.

• 158 Lynn Lane in Grand Island, built in 1972, was renovated as occupied housing without a certified renovator assigned to the job.
• 809 West 15th Street in Lexington, built in 1975, was renovated while children ages 13 to 17 lived in the home, again with no certified renovator and no compliance records.
• 2103 West Anna Street in Grand Island, built in 1900, a child-occupied facility visited by children ages 3 to 5, was renovated without the required lead hazard pamphlet ever reaching parents or guardians.
• None of the three properties had the three years of compliance records federal law requires firms to keep, meaning there is no documented proof that lead-safe work practices were used at all.

The Settlement Isn’t Justice: A Penalty That Couldn’t Deter Anything

EPA settled all seven documented violations, across three separate properties, for a fraction of what federal law allows for even one.

• The maximum civil penalty under TSCA for violations assessed on or after January 8, 2025 is $49,772 per violation, per day.
• Calculated from source figures: the total settlement of $58,601 across all seven counts averages to about $8,372 per count, roughly a sixth of the maximum penalty available for a single day of a single violation.
• The company neither admitted nor denied a single alleged fact before agreeing to pay.
• Respondent gave up its right to a hearing, a jury trial, and any appeal, closing the case before a judge or the public ever tested EPA’s allegations.
• Full payment “shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations alleged herein,” leaving other legal avenues technically open, though the source documents none being pursued.

This Is The System Working As Intended

The timeline of this case, and the math behind the penalty, show a process built to close quietly rather than deter future violations.

• EPA inspected the Kearney facility on June 9, 2025, but didn’t mail the company its findings until July 29, 2025, seven weeks after the inspection took place.
• The case then took roughly another ten months to become a signed, public settlement, with the company’s president signing on June 1, 2026.
• The agreement was structured to be “simultaneously commenced and concluded” under EPA’s own streamlined settlement rules, meaning it was never filed as a contested public complaint.
• This settlement itself now counts as a “prior such violation” the agency will weigh if this company is ever investigated again, meaning the built-in consequence of this case is a paperwork flag for next time, not a structural fix.

What A Legitimate Fix Looks Like

This case exposes how easy it is for a small renovation firm to skip every safeguard built into the federal lead paint rule and settle it later for a fraction of the statutory maximum.

What Now?

This case is closed, but the pattern that produced it isn’t.

• Watchlist: EPA Region 7, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, the office that brought this case.
• Parents and guardians of children in pre-1978 homes or child-occupied facilities can request a firm’s certified-renovator credentials and a copy of “Renovate Right” before agreeing to any renovation.
• Nebraska renters and homeowners can request EPA’s public settlement record for any firm before hiring, using docket number TSCA-07-2026-0196 as a model for what to ask for.
• Local tenant and parent organizing groups can push landlords and school-adjacent facilities to confirm lead-safe certification in writing before signing renovation contracts.
• Anyone who suspects an uninspected renovation happened near young children can contact their local health department directly.