Local
Bill targets lead-based paint threat
By: Michael Neibauer
Examiner Staff Writer
September 23, 2008
 |
| The District is trying to crack down on the lead-based paint threat in D.C. homes and rental units. — AP File Photo |
Legislation introduced by Ward 1 D.C. Councilman Jim Graham attempts to resolve lead threats before children are exposed to deteriorating paint or airborne dust particles. Current law demands abatement only after a child under 6 is found to have elevated blood lead levels, which may be too late to prevent learning disabilities, stunted growth and impaired hearing, among other issues tied to lead poisoning.
“We should no longer be using our children as lead detectors,” said Graham, who will host a hearing on the bill on Oct. 1. “We find out that there’s lead in the home when one of the children in the home becomes sick.”
Roughly 98 percent of D.C. residences built before 1978 contained lead-based paint — its use was banned in 1978 — and every year hundreds of children are found to have blood lead levels higher than considered safe.
But agreement on a solution has been slow to evolve. A similar bill offered in early 2007, which required property owners to get risk assessments every two years, met resistance and stalled.
“Everyone is interested and wants to make sure children are protected,” said Nicola Whiteman, vice president of government affairs with the D.C. Apartment and Office Building Association. “I think the question is what’s the scope of the problem and how do we focus our resources on that.”
Under Graham’s bill, the owner of a property tied to elevated blood lead levels in children must allow a risk assessment, hire an abatement contractor, pay for the family’s temporary relocation, and obtain a “clearance report” from a certified inspector.
The legislation also authorizes the mayor to order property inspections based on a “reasonable belief” that there is a lead-based paint risk. It permits random inspections of suspect buildings, requires disclosure of lead threats to prospective buyers and renters, and establishes penalties of $25,000 per violation and up to one year in jail.
The measure “puts some of the responsibility back in the property owner’s lap” while minimizing costs to property owners, said Harrison Newton, program director with the nonprofit Lead Safe DC.
“We’re convinced it’s effective and affordable,” Newton said.
