Particle.news
Download on the App Store
12 ARTICLES
·
6mo ago

EPA Enforces Stricter Lead Paint Dust Standards to Protect Children

The new rule mandates undetectable lead levels in homes and child-care facilities built before 1978, aiming to reduce exposure for millions.

Image
Image
St. Paul, MN., Wednesday, 3/29/2000. Aaron Wenger of South Minneapolis, a CLEARCorps lead removal crew member installed weather strip on new windows in a house near downtown St. Paul. Twelve windows in the house were removed and replaced as part of the effort to reduce the risk of childhood lead poisioning. Plastic sheeting was taped up in the kitchen to contain any dust from the lead cleanup job. CLEARCorps is a nonprofit lead removal company, part of the AmeriCorps national service network. LEAD31 All children up to age 6 living in Minneapolis and St. Paul should be tested for exposure to lead, state officials are expected to recommend Friday3/31. This is a departure from previous recommendations, which focused on children living in older homesthat have lead-based paint. Public health officials aremaking the change in an attempt to simplify the guidelines _ there's concern that too many children aren't being tested. There is little evidence at this point that lead poisoning is getting worse. In Minneapolis, about 10 percent of children who are tested have elevated levels of lead in their blood.(Photo By BRUCE BISPING/Star Tribune via Getty Images)
Joe Biden speaks in Berlin

Overview

  • The new EPA standards classify any detectable lead paint dust as hazardous, requiring cleanup by property owners.
  • The rule is expected to reduce lead exposure for up to 1.2 million people annually, including hundreds of thousands of children under six.
  • Lead paint, banned in 1978, still exists in an estimated 31 million homes, posing significant health risks, especially in low-income areas.
  • The rule lowers permissible lead dust levels to 5 micrograms per square foot on floors and 40 on window sills, aligning with New York City's standards.
  • Critics argue the rule imposes financial burdens on property owners, while advocates praise it as a necessary step for public health protection.