Recent state legislation aims to protect children from lead poisoning

The amount of lead in childrens' blood required to prompt a health inspection was reduced by half with new state legislation, effective Jan. 1, 2008.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 176 amends the Lead Paint Prevention and Control law, by creating tougher state oversight and protection of children

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch (D) signed Senate Bill 176 on July 12, 2007.  The bill specifically relates to the Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention and Control statute, RSA 130-A.  A New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services press release said the bill created five important changes to RSA 130-A.

The first four key changes took effect Jan.1, 2008.  They dealt with the blood lead levels of children age six and under.  The blood lead level in children that triggers an environmental investigation was lowered from 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) to 10 mcg/dL.  The blood lead level that triggers notification to families, property owners and health care providers was lowered from 10 mcg/dL to 7.5 mcg/dL.

In 1992 the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services created The Childhood Lead Protection and Prevention Program (CLPPP).

Lisa Bujno, Bureau Chief for the Division of Public Health, said the CLPPP is required to investigate a lead poisoning case when a child's blood lead level reaches 10 mcg/dL.

"They're definitely involved at a level of 10 and above, and that's a new change to the law," said Bujno.  "Up until January 1, we were only able to become involved at the level of 20."

In 2005, a study showed that 15 addresses in Cheshire County contained multiple children with elevated blood lead levels. 

Senate Bill 176 also mandates that all units in the same multi-unit dwelling as a rental unit where a child had an elevated blood lead level are to be investigated as well.

Language about the Lead Poisoning Prevention Revolving Fund was also amended January 1, 2008 to include details about additional funding for the program.

The passage of the bill on July 12, 2007 also established a commission to study current childhood lead poisoning prevention laws, policies and standards.

State Senator Molly Kelly of Keene co-sponsored the bill.  She said she was unable to recall what had occurred within the Senate during the passing of the bill.

House Bill 1367-FN, which amended RSA 130:A in 2002, changed the definition of "lead based substance" to conform to federal standards. The former legislation defined "lead based substance" as when the presence of lead in soil is equal to or greater than 1,000 parts per million.  The amendment to the bill changed the definition of "lead based substance" to 400 parts per million in children's play areas or 1,200 parts per million average for bare soil in the rest of the yard.

Michael Welsh, associate professor of political science at Keene State College, said the costs of lead induced problems in the future would probably outweigh the immediate costs of passing lead-concerned legislation.

"The cost of taking children to the hospital or treating them or inspecting the facilities and maybe cleaning the facilities that are found to have too much lead is often less than the amount you would otherwise pay if you didn't do this," said Welsh. "You would pay for children who are slower learners in school or that have health care problems later in life."

Welsh said the long-term costs would come from several different areas.

"What happens is the costs get blended into other things," said Welsh.  "There are slower learners so schools cost more.  They have health problems later on and the health care is burdened with helping this person who may or may not need public assistance to get over these health care problems."

According to Welsh, productivity in the future could also be damaged because of lead-poisoning effects.

"If they haven't been able to succeed in school or the exposure to lead has led to some sort of permanent damage, they're not going to be able to take jobs that might require certain kinds of mental capacity," said Welsh.  "There is that much less that is going to be contributed by these people into the economy."

Welsh said the immediate costs are easier to estimate than the long-term costs.

"It's much easier, though still difficult, to estimate how much it will cost to implement a bill like this," said Welsh.  "The savings are so indirect."

Welsh said he did not know the exact cost of creating tough lead policies.

"I wouldn't even hazard a guess," said Welsh.  "I imagine it will cost a bit."

According to Welsh, politicians voting on bills about public health have a difficult time dealing with the financial aspect. He said because the immediate costs are so tangible, politicians can get into trouble when voting for a bill to help reduce a public health concern.

"They pass a bill like this and someone opposes them the next election, and that opposition says so-and-so voted for a bill that is going to cost New Hampshire taxpayers and businesses $30 million a year," said Welsh.  "In response, the only thing these people who voted for the bills have to say is 'down the road in a very difficult to calculate way, people are going to be healthier, people are going to be more productive, and communities are going to be happier.'"

"They feel very vulnerable having voted the right way, having done the good thing, they're still very vulnerable to the criticism that they are still spending tax-payers' money," said Welsh.