Judge orders 3 firms to pay for lead paint cleanup

Lead paint, outlawed nationwide 35 years ago, remains a menace to children's health, and three paint companies must pay the state $1.1 billion to remove it from surfaces in pre-1978 homes in 10 California cities and counties, including San Francisco, Alameda and San Mateo, a judge ruled Monday.

Studies have established that "there is no safe level of exposure to lead for children," said Judge James Kleinberg, who presided over a nonjury trial in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Although government prevention programs have reduced lead exposure, he said, "thousands of children in the (10) jurisdictions are still presently and potentially victimized by this chemical."

Further, he said, the companies' claims that they were unaware of the danger ring hollow - Sherwin-Williams Co. described the paint's ingredient, white lead, as a "deadly cumulative poison" in a 1900 document. Nine years later, the California Supreme Court held ConAgra, another current defendant, responsible for harm to its workers in a lead manufacturing plant.

Meanwhile, Kleinberg said, the companies continued to promote lead paint for decades, individually and through the Lead Industry Association.

He ordered Sherwin-Williams, ConAgra and NL Industries, formerly known as the National Lead Co., to pay $1.1 billion to establish a fund the state will administer to remove lead paint from doors, windows and floors of homes in the 10 cities and counties.

Those communities have 4.7 million homes built before 1978 - 317,000 of them in San Francisco - and a nationwide survey has found that 52 percent of homes from that period contain lead paint, Kleinberg said.

Children, more vulnerable than adults to lead poisoning, are exposed to lead in dust and by swallowing or chewing on household objects, Kleinberg said. He said even low levels can reduce children's IQ's and affect their growth.

One study found that at least 50,000 children in the 10 cities and counties had elevated levels of lead in their blood between 2007 and 2010, the judge said.

Cleanup crews will remove lead-containing dust and seal off or cart away contaminated soil from homes whose owners consent to the cleanups, Kleinberg said.

He dismissed the suit against two other paint manufacturers - Atlantic Richfield, because it did not promote the use of lead paint in homes, and DuPont, because that company did not sell substantial amounts of lead paint.

Similar suits have been unsuccessful in seven other states. The difference in California may have been a state law that allows judges to order a halt to practices that harm the "community at large" or large numbers of people. A state appeals court in San Jose relied on that law in a 2006 ruling reinstating the lawsuit.

The suit was originally filed by Santa Clara County in 2000 and joined later by the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, and the cities of Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco.

The ruling should send a message that "corporations that act irresponsibly in terms of putting dangerous products in the stream of commerce will be held accountable," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

"It's going to save a lot of minority children from the toxicity of lead paint," said Joseph Cotchett, another lawyer for the plaintiffs. He said a large proportion of the residents of older homes are minorities.

The paint companies denounced the ruling and said they would appeal.

"The decision violates the federal and state constitutions by penalizing manufacturers for the truthful advertising of lawful products" that the federal government had approved for home use, said Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general and spokeswoman for the three companies.

She said Kleinberg's ruling "rewards scofflaw landlords who are responsible for the risk to children from poorly maintained lead paint," and "will likely disrupt the sale, rental and market value of all homes and apartments built before 1978."