After a seventeen year legal battle that broke new legal ground, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a lower court decision ordering three lead paint manufacturers to clean up lead paint inside older homes in the County of Santa Clara and nine other California cities and counties. Today’s ruling holds defendants Sherwin-Williams Company, NL Industries, Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Company responsible for the public nuisance created by lead paint inside pre-1951 homes.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lead paint. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lead paint. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, November 17, 2017
Friday, May 25, 2018
CA Cities and Counties announce settlement agreement with NL Industries on lead paint
NL to provide $60.2 million in funding to address lead paint in homes across California.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge
In a case that took six weeks to try after 13 years of litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg also will measure the credibility of expert witnesses and their theories in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield, et al. Not only do the plaintiffs have to prove that a public nuisance exists in pre-1978 built private residences in the 10 California cities or counties seeking abatement costs of more than $1 billion, they have to prove that paint companies promoted the use of white lead pigments in residential paint during the first half of the last century knowing it would create today’s alleged public nuisance. |
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Company Faces Fine for Failing to Inform Residents about the Presence of Lead-based Paint and its Dangers
Lead paint at worksites remains a clear and present danger to workers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a complaint against CRM Rental Management, Inc. of Rome, N.Y. for not informing residents of its buildings about potential lead-based paint in their apartments.
It is estimated that three-quarters of U.S. residential dwellings built before 1978 contain some lead-based paint. Infants and young children are especially vulnerable to lead-based paint exposure, which can cause IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity and behavioral problems. CRM Rental Management faces over $140,000 in potential fines for 43 instances in which the company failed to properly inform residents of four buildings in New Hartford and Rome, New York about the potential presence of lead-based paint.
“Lead paint is a serious threat to children’s health and disclosure can arm families with information they need to protect their kids,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. "Rental agents, property managers and building owners are required to follow EPA lead paint disclosure requirements and make sure people are aware of potential lead hazards in homes.”
Lead poisoning remains one of the most prevalent threats to children's well-being but it is also one of the most preventable. Under federal law, families have the right to know whether there are any potential lead-paint hazards in a prospective home, and must be informed about the harm lead can inflict on small children. Pregnant women and children younger than age six are among the most vulnerable to adverse health risks from lead-based paint.
EPA regulations require real estate management companies and property owners that sell or rent housing built before 1978 to provide renters or buyers with a form that contains a warning about the dangers of lead-based paint and discloses information about its presence. People renting or buying an apartment or home must verify that they received the required warning and disclosure information, including the EPA pamphlet, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home.Prospective purchasers have a 10-day opportunity to assess the property for risks for the presence of lead-based paint.
The complaint against CRM Rental Management alleges that the company failed to provide residents with lead-based paint warning and disclosure statements, making them aware of records or reports that would alert them to potential lead-based paint hazards, and secure required signatures verifying that the required information was received.
In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control, EPA operates the National Lead Information Center, including a toll-free hotline that can be reached at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
For more information on lead and the risks posed by lead paint, visit: http://www.epa.gov/lead......
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
It is estimated that three-quarters of U.S. residential dwellings built before 1978 contain some lead-based paint. Infants and young children are especially vulnerable to lead-based paint exposure, which can cause IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity and behavioral problems. CRM Rental Management faces over $140,000 in potential fines for 43 instances in which the company failed to properly inform residents of four buildings in New Hartford and Rome, New York about the potential presence of lead-based paint.
“Lead paint is a serious threat to children’s health and disclosure can arm families with information they need to protect their kids,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. "Rental agents, property managers and building owners are required to follow EPA lead paint disclosure requirements and make sure people are aware of potential lead hazards in homes.”
Lead poisoning remains one of the most prevalent threats to children's well-being but it is also one of the most preventable. Under federal law, families have the right to know whether there are any potential lead-paint hazards in a prospective home, and must be informed about the harm lead can inflict on small children. Pregnant women and children younger than age six are among the most vulnerable to adverse health risks from lead-based paint.
EPA regulations require real estate management companies and property owners that sell or rent housing built before 1978 to provide renters or buyers with a form that contains a warning about the dangers of lead-based paint and discloses information about its presence. People renting or buying an apartment or home must verify that they received the required warning and disclosure information, including the EPA pamphlet, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home.Prospective purchasers have a 10-day opportunity to assess the property for risks for the presence of lead-based paint.
The complaint against CRM Rental Management alleges that the company failed to provide residents with lead-based paint warning and disclosure statements, making them aware of records or reports that would alert them to potential lead-based paint hazards, and secure required signatures verifying that the required information was received.
In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control, EPA operates the National Lead Information Center, including a toll-free hotline that can be reached at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
For more information on lead and the risks posed by lead paint, visit: http://www.epa.gov/lead......
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
Friday, April 8, 2016
NJ: The Lead Paint Poisoning Crisis Continues
 |
| Lead Paint (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Lead paint for decades has been a problem in New Jersey decaying housing for decades. The consequences have been the lead poisoning of children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the health hazard that results in neurological disorders. Recent attention is again focussed on the issue. Today's post is shared from northjersey.com.
"The state will nearly double its spending to $22 million on lead safety programs for children this year, Governor Christie said Tuesday, amid sustained calls for attention and money to an issue that has for years been largely hidden from public view.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Closing arguments in Calif. lead paint trial take place Monday
 In the high stakes lead paint public nuisance case culminating in Santa Clara County Superior Court, both sides will make closing arguments Monday before Judge James Kleinberg. The 10 city and county plaintiffs — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — are expected to argue they have met a burden of proving their case by a preponderance of evidence. Among other things, a team of attorneys for the plaintiffs will argue that the five defendant companies knew or should have known about the hazards created by the use of lead paint in homes, but promoted it anyway. They seek abatement in approximately 500,000 pre-1978 built homes in the jurisdictions and estimate the cost at $1.6 billion for inspection and abatement if the public entities implement the program. Plaintiffs say it would cost $2.4 billion if implemented by the defendants. Their plan calls for the creation of a fund administered by the public entities. Defendant companies — Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, ConAgra Grocery Products, DuPont and Atlantic Richfield Company — are expected to fiercely defend their position, saying plaintiffs did not meet a necessary test set forth by the state’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. The paint companies will argue that the Sixth District allowed the 13-year-old case... |
Related articles
- Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies' witnesses were 'not persuasive' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Lead paint manufacturers facing California challenge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Friday, August 16, 2013
Coal Industry: The Next Target for a Major Lawsuit
The focus the past several weeks has been the lawsuit in California against the Lead Paint Industry. The lawsuit, pending for over a decade, was brought under the legal theory of "public nuisance." The case seeks to finally force the major suppliers of lead paint to the table to help in removing and correcting the alleged public and private health dangers the Industry created by marketing paint with lead pigment.
While the lead paint case is in its finals trial stages, a theory has emerged to litigate against the Coal Industry for its alleged acts that have damaged public health through crating industrial pollution.
"Coal industry executives ought to pay attention to the lead paint lawsuit currently happening in the California court system.
"Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of lead paint, alleging that the industry knew about the toxicity of their product and yet still promoted it as “safe” to the public. The industry has faced many lawsuits over their products in the past, most of which were unsuccessful for the victims, due to the fact that the industry was often up front about the dangers of their products, and they funded public studies to determine the health effects.
"But things have changed in the American legal system, and attorneys are now taking a page out of the tobacco litigation playbook. By unearthing documents that detail the lead paint industry’s attempted cover-up of the dangers, they avoid the “buyer beware” caveat that the tobacco industry used for so long.
While the lead paint case is in its finals trial stages, a theory has emerged to litigate against the Coal Industry for its alleged acts that have damaged public health through crating industrial pollution.
"Coal industry executives ought to pay attention to the lead paint lawsuit currently happening in the California court system.
"Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of lead paint, alleging that the industry knew about the toxicity of their product and yet still promoted it as “safe” to the public. The industry has faced many lawsuits over their products in the past, most of which were unsuccessful for the victims, due to the fact that the industry was often up front about the dangers of their products, and they funded public studies to determine the health effects.
"But things have changed in the American legal system, and attorneys are now taking a page out of the tobacco litigation playbook. By unearthing documents that detail the lead paint industry’s attempted cover-up of the dangers, they avoid the “buyer beware” caveat that the tobacco industry used for so long.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
EPA Enforcement Actions Against New England Painting Companies
Several recent settlements ensure that New England businesses performing painting and home renovation work are complying with requirements designed to protect children from exposure to lead-based paint during painting and other renovation activities. The settlements also contain financial penalties which must be paid for alleged violations of EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.
EPA’s RRP Rule is designed to prevent exposure to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, especially for children and infants. The rule requires individuals performing renovations for compensation at most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities to be properly trained. There are certification and training requirements for individual renovators and firms performing renovations to ensure that safe work practices are followed during renovations.
“Infants’ and children’s developing bodies are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead exposure, which can include lifelong impacts such as developmental impairment, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity and behavioral problems,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “The common-sense and easy-to-follow safe work practices found in the RRP rule are designed to help ensure that people are protecting their kids from suffering serious, lifelong health impacts from lead exposure.”
EPA recently reached settlements in the following lead paint RRP cases:
East Coast Pros LLC, Norwalk, Conn. – This company was hired in 2012 to perform renovations at the First Congregational Church on the Green in Norwalk. The church facilities were built before 1978 and included the L’il Critters Preschool facility, with approximately 80 children below the age of 6 enrolled at the time the renovation was being performed. An EPA inspection indicated that the company started renovation work and disturbed more than 20 square feet of exterior painted surfaces without using lead-safe work practices. EPA identified six RRP Rule violations, including: failing to provide the EPA information pamphlet “Renovate Right” to the owner or adult occupants of the L’il Critters Preschool facility, which is a child-occupied facility; failing to provide the EPA information pamphlet “Renovate Right” to the parents/guardians of children at the L’il Critters Preschool facility; not maintaining any records regarding TSCA and RRP rule compliance; failing to have RRP firm certification; failing to ensure that the company’s renovators were RRP-certified; and failing to contain renovation waste. The company has agreed to an expedited settlement of $3,577.
Bill Vizzo Contractors, LLC/Michael’s Painting, Shelton, Conn. – This company will pay a penalty of $2,200 for failing to comply with lead-based paint renovation requirements during renovation work at a residence in Monroe, Conn., in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, and the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.
Gerard Therrien, Manchester, N.H. – Gerard Therrien performed painting and renovation work at a single family home in Manchester, N.H. During an inspection of the work, EPA identified RRP Rule violations, including: failing to properly cover the ground at the exterior of the building with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material; failing to properly cover interior surfaces with taped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material; failing to contain waste from renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris; failing to obtain initial firm certification from EPA; failing to obtain a course completion certificate (proof of certification); failing to post signs clearly defining the work area at the work site. This matter was negotiated prior to filing an administrative action and Mr. Therrien agreed to pay a $2,980 penalty under EPA’s Pilot RRP Penalty Program for Micro-Businesses.
Collegiate Entrepreneurs, Inc., Braintree, Mass. – This corporation that specializes in renovating and painting apartment buildings and residences in Massachusetts and throughout New England paid a $30,000 penalty for alleged violations of the pre-renovation education and record keeping requirements of the Renovation Repair and Painting Rule. Their violations included failing to provide EPA’s lead hazard information pamphlet to customers before undertaking renovation projects in several Mass. communities, and failing to comply with the record-keeping requirements in connection with seven Mass. renovation projects during the summer of 2010.
EPA also recently announced settlements for alleged violations of the lead RRP rule for work to convert the former Frisbee School in Kittery, Maine into a community center. The companies involved were James J. Welch & Co., Inc., of Salem, Mass., hired as the primary contractor for the job, and New Hampshire Plate Glass Corp. of Portsmouth, N.H., which was hired as a subcontractor to install new replacement windows in the building. Under the settlements, JJ Welch will pay a penalty of $3,565, while NH Glass will pay a fine of $10,890.
EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule became effective on April 22, 2010 and allows for the assessment of penalties that may reach up to a maximum of $37,500 per violation per day.
Since 2012, EPA has pursued 14 actions in New England to enforce the RRP Rule. Continued enforcement of the lead paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule ensures both that children are being protected from avoidable exposure to lead, as well as there being a “level playing field” for contractors following the health-protective work practices in the regulation.
More information:
- Lead paint RRP Rule (http://www.epa.gov/lead/rrp/index.html)
- Why lead is a health hazard (http://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead.html)
Related Stories:
EPA’s RRP Rule is designed to prevent exposure to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, especially for children and infants. The rule requires individuals performing renovations for compensation at most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities to be properly trained. There are certification and training requirements for individual renovators and firms performing renovations to ensure that safe work practices are followed during renovations.
“Infants’ and children’s developing bodies are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead exposure, which can include lifelong impacts such as developmental impairment, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity and behavioral problems,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “The common-sense and easy-to-follow safe work practices found in the RRP rule are designed to help ensure that people are protecting their kids from suffering serious, lifelong health impacts from lead exposure.”
EPA recently reached settlements in the following lead paint RRP cases:
East Coast Pros LLC, Norwalk, Conn. – This company was hired in 2012 to perform renovations at the First Congregational Church on the Green in Norwalk. The church facilities were built before 1978 and included the L’il Critters Preschool facility, with approximately 80 children below the age of 6 enrolled at the time the renovation was being performed. An EPA inspection indicated that the company started renovation work and disturbed more than 20 square feet of exterior painted surfaces without using lead-safe work practices. EPA identified six RRP Rule violations, including: failing to provide the EPA information pamphlet “Renovate Right” to the owner or adult occupants of the L’il Critters Preschool facility, which is a child-occupied facility; failing to provide the EPA information pamphlet “Renovate Right” to the parents/guardians of children at the L’il Critters Preschool facility; not maintaining any records regarding TSCA and RRP rule compliance; failing to have RRP firm certification; failing to ensure that the company’s renovators were RRP-certified; and failing to contain renovation waste. The company has agreed to an expedited settlement of $3,577.
Bill Vizzo Contractors, LLC/Michael’s Painting, Shelton, Conn. – This company will pay a penalty of $2,200 for failing to comply with lead-based paint renovation requirements during renovation work at a residence in Monroe, Conn., in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, and the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.
Gerard Therrien, Manchester, N.H. – Gerard Therrien performed painting and renovation work at a single family home in Manchester, N.H. During an inspection of the work, EPA identified RRP Rule violations, including: failing to properly cover the ground at the exterior of the building with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material; failing to properly cover interior surfaces with taped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material; failing to contain waste from renovation activities to prevent releases of dust and debris; failing to obtain initial firm certification from EPA; failing to obtain a course completion certificate (proof of certification); failing to post signs clearly defining the work area at the work site. This matter was negotiated prior to filing an administrative action and Mr. Therrien agreed to pay a $2,980 penalty under EPA’s Pilot RRP Penalty Program for Micro-Businesses.
Collegiate Entrepreneurs, Inc., Braintree, Mass. – This corporation that specializes in renovating and painting apartment buildings and residences in Massachusetts and throughout New England paid a $30,000 penalty for alleged violations of the pre-renovation education and record keeping requirements of the Renovation Repair and Painting Rule. Their violations included failing to provide EPA’s lead hazard information pamphlet to customers before undertaking renovation projects in several Mass. communities, and failing to comply with the record-keeping requirements in connection with seven Mass. renovation projects during the summer of 2010.
EPA also recently announced settlements for alleged violations of the lead RRP rule for work to convert the former Frisbee School in Kittery, Maine into a community center. The companies involved were James J. Welch & Co., Inc., of Salem, Mass., hired as the primary contractor for the job, and New Hampshire Plate Glass Corp. of Portsmouth, N.H., which was hired as a subcontractor to install new replacement windows in the building. Under the settlements, JJ Welch will pay a penalty of $3,565, while NH Glass will pay a fine of $10,890.
EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule became effective on April 22, 2010 and allows for the assessment of penalties that may reach up to a maximum of $37,500 per violation per day.
Since 2012, EPA has pursued 14 actions in New England to enforce the RRP Rule. Continued enforcement of the lead paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule ensures both that children are being protected from avoidable exposure to lead, as well as there being a “level playing field” for contractors following the health-protective work practices in the regulation.
More information:
- Lead paint RRP Rule (http://www.epa.gov/lead/rrp/index.html)
- Why lead is a health hazard (http://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead.html)
Related Stories:
Apr 09, 2014
BOSTON – In an effort to improve compliance with laws that protect children from lead paint poisoning, EPA is sending letters to approximately 200 home renovation and painting contractors, property management companies ...
Dec 17, 2013
In an historic ruling, a California Judge, held the lead paint pigment manufacturers liable for the damage they caused children by placing toxic lead pigment into paint. The companies will be held accountable for the ...
Dec 17, 2013
Lead paint manufacturers were held liable for creating a public nuisance. The Court ordered them to pay $1.1 Billion dollars in damages. The claim was prosecuted by a team of lawyers including those from Motley Rice LLC, ...
Dec 26, 2013
She has represented public entities in litigation against the lead paint industry including the multi-billion dollar Rhode Island trial. Fidelma Fitzpatrick is a nationally recognized advocate of children's and women's health issues ...
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Stunning Loss for Lead Paint Makers in Lawsuit by California Cities and Counties
Lead paint makers suffered a landmark defeat Monday when a state court judge in San Jose, Calif., ordered the industry to create a $1.1 billion fund to eliminate lead hazards to children in hundreds of thousands of homes in the state.
The decision broke the industry’s perfect record of defending suits by public agencies seeking to extract money for removal of flaking lead paint from older homes and apartments. It marked a huge victory for 10 California municipalities — including Los Angeles County, and the cities of San Francisco and San Diego — that will be able to draw on the fund for home inspections and repairs if the ruling holds up. In the 114-page decision, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg found three companies—Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries, Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Co.—guilty of creating a public nuisance by manufacturing and selling lead paint long after learning of its dangers. Kleinberg dismissed claims against two other defendants, ARCO and DuPont, finding there was insufficient evidence that they had sold lead paint for use in California homes. The ruling drew a scathing response from Sherwin-Williams, NL and ConAgra. “The decision violates the federal and state constitutions,” said spokeswoman Bonnie J. Campbell in a prepared statement. “It rewards scofflaw landlords who are responsible for the risk to children from poorly maintained lead paint.”... |
Click here to read the complete Decision. People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
California Trial Starts Against Lead Paint Industry for Creating a Public Nuisance
After years of pre-trial arguments and following the denial of summary judgment motions by lead paint companies, Sherwin Williams and NL Industry, the case brought by several California entities has commenced in California.
"The lawsuit differs from other unsuccessful attempts in seven other states to sue lead
paint manufacturers by arguing the companies violated state public nuisance laws, rather than health laws. Government lawyers won’t have to show that specific individuals were harmed in a direct way, only that the industry assisted in the creation of a public nuisance."
Click here to read the complete article: "$1 Billion Lead Cleanup Lawsuit Underway after 13 Years of Legal Maneuvering"
"The lawsuit differs from other unsuccessful attempts in seven other states to sue lead
Click here to read the complete article: "$1 Billion Lead Cleanup Lawsuit Underway after 13 Years of Legal Maneuvering"
Monday, July 28, 2014
Attorneys Who Won Landmark Lead Paint Judgment and Cleanup Named Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year
The attorneys who successfully fought for lead paint cleanup in People of California v. Atlantic
The 27 attorneys won a $1.15 billion judgment against paint manufacturers last year, successfully arguing that lead paint in homes is a public nuisance that creates a quantifiable risk of harm to children who reside in or visit those homes. Leading the team of attorneys were (in alphabetical order) Mary E. Alexander of Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C. in San Francisco, Joseph W. Cotchett and Nancy L. Fineman of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP in Burlingame, Calif., Peter Earle of the Law Office of Peter Earle in Milwaukee, Wis., and Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of the firm Motley Rice in Providence, R.I. “This is for the children of California,” Mary Alexander said upon accepting the award. Fidelma Fitzpatrick noted that her participation in People of California was the greatest privilege of her professional career. In California, tens of thousands of children each year have blood lead levels that exceed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. There is virtual unanimity in the medical and scientific community that the primary cause of lead poisoning in children is the lead paint in their homes. It is also widely understood that the only way to prevent lead poisoning is to remove or remediate the paint in a child’s environment before a child gets poisoned. ... |
Saturday, July 27, 2013
EPA Fines Prudent Technologies $65,450 for Failure to Adhere to Repair and Painting Rule at Omaha Lead Site
Prudent Technologies, of Kansas City, Mo., has agreed to pay a $65,450 civil penalty to resolve violations of the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule at two properties within the Omaha Lead Superfund Site.
Prudent Technologies, working under a contract with EPA’s Superfund program, was performing renovation activities designed to stabilize paint at each location. Paint stabilization includes scraping and painting the exteriors of houses to protect EPA’s remedy at the site, which consists of removing lead-contaminated soil from contaminated properties.
At the first location, Prudent failed to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule. The violations included failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; failure to close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation before commencing work; failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation before the renovation; and failure to clean the work area upon completion of the work.
Violations at the second location included failure to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule; failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; and failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation.
Since 1999, EPA has been working cooperatively with contractors, local officials, agencies, institutions, community organizations, residents and property owners to sample and remediate lead-contaminated soils from Omaha’s residential yards, schools, day care facilities, parks and playgrounds. Addressed under EPA’s Superfund program, the Omaha Lead Site, consisting of approximately 27 square miles of eastern Omaha, has been on the National Priorities List since 2003.
The RRP rule is a part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule requires each person or firm hired to perform a renovation to be certified and to use specific work practices to minimize lead-based paint hazards for workers and occupants. Under the RRP rule, general contractors can be held liable for regulated renovation work that subcontractors perform for the company. This includes record-keeping requirements (e.g., handing out the Renovate Right pamphlet, keeping Lead-Safe Work Practices checklists, etc.) and work practices requirements (e.g., training workers, putting up appropriate signs, using disposable impermeable material to contain dust and debris, etc.).
Prudent Technologies, working under a contract with EPA’s Superfund program, was performing renovation activities designed to stabilize paint at each location. Paint stabilization includes scraping and painting the exteriors of houses to protect EPA’s remedy at the site, which consists of removing lead-contaminated soil from contaminated properties.
At the first location, Prudent failed to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule. The violations included failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; failure to close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation before commencing work; failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation before the renovation; and failure to clean the work area upon completion of the work.
Violations at the second location included failure to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule; failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; and failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation.
Since 1999, EPA has been working cooperatively with contractors, local officials, agencies, institutions, community organizations, residents and property owners to sample and remediate lead-contaminated soils from Omaha’s residential yards, schools, day care facilities, parks and playgrounds. Addressed under EPA’s Superfund program, the Omaha Lead Site, consisting of approximately 27 square miles of eastern Omaha, has been on the National Priorities List since 2003.
The RRP rule is a part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule requires each person or firm hired to perform a renovation to be certified and to use specific work practices to minimize lead-based paint hazards for workers and occupants. Under the RRP rule, general contractors can be held liable for regulated renovation work that subcontractors perform for the company. This includes record-keeping requirements (e.g., handing out the Renovate Right pamphlet, keeping Lead-Safe Work Practices checklists, etc.) and work practices requirements (e.g., training workers, putting up appropriate signs, using disposable impermeable material to contain dust and debris, etc.).
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Manufacturers Argue Against $1 Billion for Lead Paint
NL Industries Inc. is one of five paint companies that presented closing arguments against a public-nuisance lawsuit by 10 California cities and counties seeking more than $1 billion to replace or contain lead paint in millions of homes.
Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg in San Jose,California, interrupted closing arguments by Don Scott, a lawyer for NL Industries, who relied on studies by U.S .doctors to claim that the companies didn’t know about the potential forlead poisoning in children in the first half of the 20th century, as the counties and cities have claimed. Kleinberg, who is hearing the case, asked Scott about what he said was a “flat-out ban” of lead paint in Europe in the early 1900s, and a 1918 advertisement by Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont Co. that “distinguished themselves away from lead paint.” “Is it your position that if the American doctors that you cite say X, that’s the end of the issue, and that the court should not be concerned with these other pieces of evidence that are undisputed?” Kleinberg asked. “I am troubled by the idea that because American doctors, fine people I’m sure they were,say XYZ that’s the end of the inquiry.” Scott replied that the laws in Europe were a “mixed bag”in which some countries banned lead paint earlier than others. ‘Prevailing Standard’“The fact is that on the question of what is pertinent tothis case, we’re looking at... |
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case
| Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg on Monday ended proceedings in a 13-year-old case against paint companies by admonishing both sides, again, to settle. Kleinberg made his remarks after closing arguments in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et. al., which seeks to hold five defendant paint companies liable for an alleged lead paint public nuisance in 10 county and municipal jurisdictions in the state. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence,” Kleinberg said, quoting John Adams who defended British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial of 1770. Kleinberg also recalled a one-word response made by a judge in a civil case he tried as a lawyer. The judge, he said, asked the plaintiff’s lawyer how his clients felt about their prospects, to which the lawyer responded “Very confident.” “Why,” asked the judge. Kleinberg said the case settled a few days later. Saying it is “never too late to settle,” Kleinberg encouraged the sides to bring an end to the litigation that has spanned more than a decade and could put the defendants – Atlantic Richfield Co., ConAgra, DuPont, NL Industries and Sherwin Williams – on the hook for more than $1.4 billion to abate lead paint in pre 1978-built homes. Kleinberg said it takes He said it... |
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
SCOTUS Upholds California Supreme Court: Lead Paint Manufacturers Liable for Over $400 Million
The US Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision holding multiple lead paint manufacturers responsible for cleanup costs amounting to over $400 million. The longstanding litigation was brought under the theory that lead paint contamination was a public nuisance. Lead paint has been known for decades as toxic.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Lead Paint - Industry Has Yet to Meet Its Responsibility
Click here to see the entire video recording of the program: "Toxic Disinformation" aired on PBS May 17, 2013.
California Public Entity Lead Paint Lawsuit Trial Starts (Bloomberg 7.15.13)
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Calif. judge wants paint companies to cover cost of lead removal
Lead paint has been deemed a "public nuisance" and a Judge in California has directed several former lead paint companies to pay $1.1 Billion dollars to remove the lead. Lead has long known to be a toxic substance and has been banned in the US. Workers, children and the general public are at the risk of becoming ill to lead paint still in place in older dwellings and buildings. Toady post is shared from youtube.com and the CBS Evening News.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Lead Paint Makers Could Face The Same Fate As Big Tobacco
A lawsuit in California that seeks some $1 billion from former lead paint manufacturers is far from the first attempt to hold the industry liable for decades of poisoning children and leaving lingering contamination.
But experts such as Richard Rabin -- who directed a lead poisoning registry at the Massachusetts Department of Labor for over 20 years -- think the case just might be the first to finally succeed, marking the end of a long losing streak. "My ideal hope is something along the lines of what happened with tobacco," said Rabin, who initiated the inaugural trial against the lead paint industry more than 25 years ago. "It's gone on and on and on," he said of lead litigation, even as research uncovering lead's dangers, "keeps coming and coming." After fending off lawsuits since the 1950s, the tables eventually turned on big tobacco, forcing the industry to pay out hundreds of billions of dollars in the late 1990s. At that point, it had become common knowledge that the industry was well aware of the addictive qualities and the health hazards of their products. In 1987, with nearly a century of documented dangers accumulated on childhood lead poisoning, a lawsuit -- spurred by Rabin -- was filed on behalf of a Boston girl exposed to lead paint as a toddler. "I want to be a lawyer, but I don't think I can do the studying,'' Monica Santiago told The New York Times in 1988, then 15 years old. ''In school they teach me, but I forget. The kids call me dumb. Sometimes when I do... |
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Related articles
- How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Coal Industry: The Next Target for a Major Lawsuit (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Lead Paint - Industry Has Yet to Meet Its Responsibility (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Lead paint manufacturers facing California challenge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit
A Northern California judge Monday ordered three companies to pay $1.1 billion to remove lead-based paint from inside California homes, concluding a 13-year legal case.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg ruled that ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams created a “public nuisance” by selling lead-based paint for decades before it was banned in 1978, finding them liable for exposing children to a known poison.
The opinion set aside $605 million, or 55% of the judgment, to pay for lead removal in Los Angeles County. The money will go into a fund administered by the state’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch and will pay for inspections and lead abatement on the inside walls of tens of thousands of homes.
“The court is convinced there are thousands of California children in the Jurisdictions whose lives can be improved, if not saved through a lead abatement plan,” the judge’s ruling said.
Local governments sued major paint manufacturers in 2000,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Click here to read the complete Decision. People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657
Friday, August 23, 2013
Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial
|
| Kleinberg |
“Lawyers on both sides and their staff did an exceptional job in every way,” he said. “I must tell you that ‘impressed’ would be too mild of a word. All of your clients ought to be extremely, extremely proud.”
Kleinberg described the six-week trial experience as “difficult,” but “joyous.”
What awaits are a couple of deadlines for papers, but most importantly closing arguments which are set for Sept. 23.
At closing, plaintiffs will get 30 minutes for argument and 15 minutes for rebuttal. Each of the five defendants will get 30 minutes for argument and 15 minutes for rebuttal.
Ten California cities and counties are seeking declaration of public nuisance on pre-1978 built private residences with interior lead paint, as well as more than $1.2 billion in monetary damages to abate the lead in nearly 500,000 residences.
In The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield, et.al., other named defendants are The Sherwin Williams Co., Con Agra, DuPont, and NL Industries.
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)