State Must Step Up: EPA Proposes New Lead Dust Limits Far Under Massachusetts Thresholds

By Kimberly Rau, MassLandlords, Inc.

This July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed stricter limits on dust from lead-based paint to continue reducing children’s exposure to lead. Massachusetts, once at the forefront of lead safety, now risks falling further behind if these federal guidelines pass into law.

The Environmental Protection Agency says there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood, and has proposed limits for lead dust that are 10 times lower than what Massachusetts currently allows. (Image License: Unsplash)

Lead Exposure Can Lead to Lifelong Problems

The risks of lead exposure are clear. Lead exposure can cause brain and nervous system damage, as well as contribute to slow growth and development. This can lead to lower IQ, and decreased school performance. And the effects are long-lasting: When America began banning lead in paint and in gasoline, greatly reducing everyday exposure, violent crime dropped drastically.

Though the correlation between lead and crime remains a hypothesis, we know that violent crime was reduced by half after lead was banned. This correlation suggests lead was to blame for that crime, and that the increase in crime before that drop could be attributed to lead. Other factors are also involved with the drop in violent crime, but right now, lead is believed to be the primary driver behind these statistics.

The federal government banned the use of lead paint in 1978, but older homes may still have lead paint on walls, windows, trim or staircases. Any children living in these homes are at risk for lead exposure.

EPA: “No Safe Level” of Lead for Kids

Health experts have stated that there is no safe level of lead in a child’s blood, and now the EPA is echoing that sentiment, targeting lead dust. As of writing this article, 10 micrograms of lead dust per square foot is considered hazardous on floors. For windowsills, that limit is 10 times higher. The new EPA proposed limits state that the only non-hazardous lead level for both floors and windowsills is “no detectable lead.”

Post-Abatement Lead Dust Limits Get Big Reduction

Though the EPA is unwilling to say that any amount of lead in a child’s bloodstream is okay, it’s nearly impossible to get “no detectable lead” when you delead a house. Therefore, they have proposed new limits that are higher than zero after lead abatement work is completed, but still substantially lower than what is presently allowed.

Currently, once a contractor completes lead abatement work on properties with elevated lead levels, the federal allowed limit for lead dust on the floor is 10 micrograms per square foot, with 100 micrograms per square foot allowed for windowsills. The new limits would reduce those numbers to 3 micrograms per square foot for floors, and 20 micrograms per square foot for windowsills.

These are the lowest post-abatement lead dust levels that the EPA feels can be reliably and effectively achieved. While these numbers are still greater than zero, to insist on no lead at all would be an impossible task in most situations. The federal government cannot force anyone to delead their properties, and few people would be inclined to if they had to achieve a level of no detectable lead after abatement. We can assume this concession to a higher-than-zero limit is to encourage people to work on deleading anyway.

Massachusetts Has Uneven History with Lead Compliance Laws

Massachusetts had one of the first lead laws in the country, but it has been remiss in keeping up to date.

The state is already behind when it comes to allowable blood lead levels. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently allow just 3.5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood; Massachusetts allows 10 micrograms per deciliter. If there is no safe level of lead that children can have in their bloodstream, it does our population a real disservice to be noncompliant with CDC allowances.

Now there are new proposed guidelines for lead dust levels, and again, Massachusetts isn’t where the federal government suggests it should be.

The state laws governing lead poisoning prevention and control, 105 CMR 460, puts acceptable post-abatement lead dust levels at 40 micrograms per square foot for floors, and 250 micrograms per square foot for windowsills.

This means that the state’s current allowable levels for in-home lead dust after abatement are more than 10 times greater than the new proposed federal limits.

It seems like a simple enough change to make, and if the proposed federal limits are accepted, Massachusetts will have to fall in line. But to create a reality where homes are made safe for children, the state has a lot of work to do.

Lead Abatement is Expensive; Lead Credits are Out of Date

In Massachusetts, landlords are held strictly liable for lead poisoning. If someone gets sick from lead paint exposure, you will be responsible for their medical costs unless you can produce a deleading certificate for your property or have a newer home. And all homes constructed prior to 1978 are presumed to have some lead paint unless they have proof stating otherwise.

If your home has lead paint in it, you must delead if a child under the age of 6 will be spending time there. Remember, it is illegal to refuse to rent to families with young children.

The problem is, lead abatement can be incredibly expensive. The state average for deleading a housing unit is approximately $6,000, but these costs can quickly skyrocket, especially if windows are involved.

Depending on where you live, your rental units may be eligible for a federal grant under the Lead and Healthy Homes Program. If not, there are deleading tax credits available, but currently, that is sitting at a paltry $1,500 per unit. That $1,500 might have covered the cost of deleading back when it was introduced, but it doesn’t even reach half of the average project cost today. Had the credit been adjusted to reflect inflation, it would be sitting at approximately $6,000.

Governor Maura Healey proposed a deleading credit increase in this year’s budget, doubling the credit to $3,000 for full deleading, and offering $1,500 for partial abatement.

We responded with our own bill, “An Act to Further Lead Remediation in Rental Housing by Increasing the Deleading Credit.” Bills S.1844 and H.2802 would have increased the deleading credit to a maximum of $15,000 per unit. Sadly, despite having co-sponsors in both the House and Senate, the bills did not go anywhere after being referred to the joint committee on revenue.

Conclusion

When we proposed S.1844 and H.2802, only 10% to 20% of Massachusetts addresses had deleading certificates on file, and there were an estimated 450,000 housing units that still needed to be deleaded. Currently, approximately 7,000 units are deleaded every year.

What does that mean for us? If the deleading credit is not increased significantly, it will take until the year 2170 for all Massachusetts housing units to be lead-free. Over this time frame, more than half a million children will be poisoned by lead, giving them a lifetime of problems small and large.

Massachusetts was one of the first states to stand up and promise to protect children from lead exposure, but it’s not enough anymore. Children deserve lead-free homes, and housing providers need practical amounts of financial assistance to make their units safe. Our inability to keep pace with basic science and medical recommendations is not due to partisan politics or lack of funding.

Instead, our ineptitude as a state stems from a legislative process that has no transparency, to the point where we’ve had to sue the state for access to what should be public records, and no sense of urgency. Need proof? The state missed its budget deadline for Fiscal Year 2024 and had to have an emergency appropriation to keep things chugging along. Right now, the state auditor is making moves to sue the legislature (that she used to be a part of) because the legislature is refusing to cooperate with her audit.

As a state, Massachusetts lacks accountability. Our elected officials aren’t challenged nearly as often as they should be. A recent Ballotpedia statistic shows that Massachusetts races are uncontested by a major party 70% of the time. If there’s an incumbent primary, that individual runs uncontested by their party 88% of the time. There’s so little competition in this state, it’s easy to let the status quo continue for decades, even when it’s obvious things need to change.

It’s time for Massachusetts to catch up, before it’s so far behind it becomes impossible.