Lead in the Courts

1
Leadin the Courts
2
Lead-based Paint

• Added to Paint to Increase Elasticity, Durability
• In 1978, Pb-based paint was banned in residential
  settings
• Often, higher Pb content was marketed as higher
  quality paint!

3
We're Poisoning the Children

• Lead-based Paint is the 1 poisoning agent for
  children in the U.S.
• 890,000 CHILDREN AGE 1 TO 5 YEARS
• HAD ELEVATED BLLs IN 2004
• Cause - Deteriorating paint
• Chips
• DUST
• Friction Surfaces
• Impact Surfaces

4
We're Poisoning the Children
5
Health Effects

• DECREASE IN IQ LEVELS LEARNING
  DISABILITIES
• BEHAVIORAL DIFFICULITIES JUVENILE
  DELINQUENCY
• IMPAIRED HEARING DECREASED
  STATURE
• INCREASED DENTAL
• PROBLEMS CHRONIC MEDICAL
  ILLNESSES
• SEIZURES (KIDNEY DISEASE, ANEMIA
• COMA,
  DEATH)

6
Health Effects
7
Routes of Exposure

• Inhalation
• Dust
• Vapor
• Airborne
• Oral
• It tastes like candy!
• Chewing surfaces with lead paint (sills,
  railings)
• Hand-to-mouth with toys, fingers

8
(No Transcript)
9
Remedy

• Lead Safe over Lead Free
• Abatement must be performed by licensed
  contractor
• Regulated by ODH, further by HUD, Local HD

10
Court Challenges Pb Paint

• Several lawsuits have attempted to seek damages
  from the paint industry
• City of New York v. Lead Industries Association
  ("LIA")
• City of Philadelphia v. LIA
• Wright v. Sherwin-Williams Company
• Santiago v. Sherwin-Williams Company
• Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al.
• Etc.
• In all cases, charges were either dropped or
  dismissed
• Basically, the courts demonstrated that because
  the health effects were unknown by the paint
  companies, they were not liable for damages
  (there was no negligence or intent).

11
Airborne Lead

• In May '04, a lawsuit was filed by Missouri
  Coalition for the Environment challenging the
  EPA's airborne lead standards
• By law (under the CAA), EPA must review standards
  every 5 years Lead Standard had not been
  reviewed for 15 years!
• New evidence indicated airborne lead was more
  dangerous than previously thought
• In September ('05), U.S. District Court in St.
  Louis ordered EPA to review standards
• The judge chastised the EPA for blatantly
  disregarding Congress' mandate to review
  standards as stated by law
• Judge order EPA to review draft review by Dec
  '05, finalize revisions by Nov '07, and implement
  changes by Sept '08
• In this capacity, the court upheld environmental
  policy

12
(No Transcript)