Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lead Poisoning Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to strengthen lead‑hazard prevention wins broad support at House hearing; amendment removes immediate action‑level change
Summary
An amended HB 724 would keep prevention steps to reduce childhood lead exposure while removing a proposed immediate change to the state action level for blood‑lead investigation, sponsors told the House committee.
Representative Mary Hacken‑Phillips urged lawmakers to pass an amended HB 724 aimed at preventing and remediating childhood lead exposure. The amendment removed an earlier provision that would have changed the blood‑lead action level (a provision the sponsor said carried a substantial fiscal impact) and kept three prevention‑oriented, no‑cost changes:
• Require building‑permit applications for pre‑1978 buildings to include the contractor’s U.S. EPA renovation, repair and painting (RRP) license number as a prompt to use lead‑safe practices;
• Restore DHHS authority to inspect other dwelling units in the same multi‑unit building if one unit has a confirmed lead hazard; and
• Establish a rebuttable presumption that residences built before 1978 contain lead‑based substances unless a licensed inspector shows otherwise, to simplify evidence in court proceedings.
Department and municipal witnesses supported the changes in the amendment. Associate Commissioner Beverly Drewen of DHHS told the committee the department’s 2023 data brief shows 1,142 New Hampshire children had elevated blood lead levels — the highest recorded since testing began — and that municipal permit changes are a low‑cost way to improve awareness of lead hazards. Drewen also said DHHS can conduct subsidiary unit inspections on the same visit and does not anticipate significant new costs for that authority.
Conservation Law Foundation attorney Heidi Tramarco and public‑health advocates told the committee lead remains a critical, preventable threat that disproportionately affects low‑income families and children on Medicaid. Tramarco submitted written materials and municipal examples: small towns including Sugar Hill have already added an item on permits to prompt RRP compliance.
Advocates also reiterated the long‑term cost savings of prevention: DHHS and outside economists have previously estimated that preventing lead exposure generates many times the public‑investment return compared with later special‑education, health and social costs.
Several committee members asked about implementation details for permit changes and how the rebuttable presumption would operate in court. The committee did not vote on HB 724 at the hearing; sponsors asked for follow‑up examples and said they would continue to consult municipal clerks and the Department of Environmental Services about implementation.
