Proposed changes to the Massachusetts lead paint laws are aimed at lowering lead levels in children, reducing the cost of abatement and bringing them more in line with federal statutes. The proposals have received widespread report, but not everybody is happy with them.

The biggest proposed change is the Department of Public Health (DPH)’s recommendation to redefine lead poisoning from the current 25 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (25µg/dL) to 10µg/dL or greater. That’s significant because the state can force a homeowner to delead their home or apartment if a child living there has lead poisoning, regardless of where or how the child is believed to have been poisoned.

There were 1,919 children reported with blood levels of 10µg/dL in 2004, according to DPH data; that number dropped to 591 children in 2015.

In a memo to the members of the Public Health Council, Acting Director of the Bureau of Environmental Health Jan Sullivan said lowering the level to 10µg/dL “will broaden the protection of children by expanding the number of properties where the [Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program] would require inspection and remediation of violations of the Lead Law, increasing the number of lead-safe units.”

Further, the DPH recommends “establishing a definition for ‘blood lead level of concern’ as a blood lead level 5-9 µg/dL and extend lead exposure educational prevention services to all families with a child having a BLL of 5 µg/dL or greater.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Association also endorsed the proposed changes.

Increased Remediation

The DPH estimates that 90 percent of Masachusetts’ housing stock built before 1978 has never been tested for lead or properly deleaded.

“Our association has been trying to get these changes done for seven or eight years now,” said John MacIsaac, owner of Dorchester-based ASAP Environmental Inc., a lead paint and mold testing firm, and president of local chapter of Lead Environmental Hazard Association (LEHA) “We see the need to make these laws better for the public. We feel that if they are adopted, there will be more inspections and owners will be able to make informed decisions.”

MacIsaac thinks the proposed changes to the abatement regulations would drive the cost of deleading down and encourage more people to do it.

Not every lead-painted surface in a house is treated the same. Some components can’t be made safe and must be replaced. On others, the lead paint must be removed or encapsulated. Some lead-painted surfaces don’t require anything at all, as long as the paint is intact. The DPH proposes to change the state’s classifications to more closely resemble those of the federal government, which could lower the cost of deleading about 40 percent, though that number would vary widely by project.

“If it does happen,” MacIsaac said, “it’s a win-win. There will be more houses tested and safer homes.”

Landlords Push Back

But not everybody sees it that way. MassLandlords, a trade association representing landlords in the commonwealth, submitted written testimony, entitled “Proposed Lead Paint Regulations are Flaky,” arguing against the changes.

Mass Landlords executive director Doug Quattrochi said his group acknowledges that lead paint in residences is a hazard, but he thinks the current solution forces landlords to delead and the tax credits offered by the state barely put a dent in the deleading bill.

“If we could wave a magic wand to remove all lead from children’s bodies, we would do that,” Quattrochi said. “It’s a societal problem and the solution is always to put the burden on the landlords’ backs, and that doesn’t make sense.”

The current deleading tax credit of $1,500 per unit was established in 1994 and is only a fraction of the cost of a typical deleading project, which varies by project, but averages around $8,000, he said.

“We would be completely in support of the proposed changes to the regulations if they were to also increase the amount of the lead paint tax credit to $8,000 to $10,000,” he said. “There is parallel legislation (H1626) that has been filed that would increase the credit as well as the fine for discrimination. That kind of thing is moving in the right direction.”

Former U.S. EPA enforcement attorney Rick Reibstein, who lectures on environmental law and policy at Boston University, anticipated and addressed cost-based objections to the proposed changes in his written testimony endorsing the proposed changes.

“Should the objection be raised that the action will require additional resources, or impose burdens, it must be recognized that the failure to take this action leaves in place burdens that are of incalculable cost,” Reibstein wrote. “It is now well-accepted that the evidence shows a large range of ill effects from even small absorption of lead. The impacts of lead affect all of society, not just the poisoned victim, because they are strongly associated with increases in crime, emotional and mental dysfunction, and a host of diseases requiring medical response.”