JACKSON — A  lawsuit filed by a Yellowstone National Park employee claims that the park knowingly placed his family in lead-contaminated employee housing.

In 2018, the park provided Anthony Aiuppa, an engineer equipment operator, with housing in Historic Fort Yellowstone, in Mammoth Hot Springs. Aiuppa and his wife later found out from other park employees that houses in the area were known to have toxic levels of lead.

The Aiuppas then had their children tested for lead poisoning. Both tested positive. Subsequent testing of the home showed high levels of lead dust. The family was then moved to another house in Historic Fort Yellowstone.

“Unbeknownst to them, that also was a hot house,” said Jon Moyers, a Billings, Mont., lawyer representing the family. “And then it’s like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’”

The children were exposed for about three years total, Moyers said.

Lead builds up in humans’ blood, brain and bones over time. Exposed children can take a while to show symptoms, which include impacts to language, attention and intelligence. The most common cause of lead poisoning is lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust in historic buildings.

“They’re committed to the Park Service and committed to its mission and all the sacrifices that came with it.” —Jon Meyer, attorney for Yellowstone employee

One of Aiuppa’s children has had medical issues that her doctors attribute to lead exposure, Moyers said. The other child has not shown any clear symptoms of lead exposure, though blood tests showed that the child has harmful levels of lead in their system.

“The way the kids were encountering it, in dust form, is a particularly troublesome way to do it because there’s such high bio uptake,” Moyers said.

Historic Fort Yellowstone was built between 1890 and around 1910, long before lead-based paint was banned in 1978. The park had previously tested other buildings in the historic area that had demonstrated toxic amounts of lead.

“Just as a rule, looking at a historic area there’s a 99% chance there’s lead,” Moyers said. “But here they actually had tested other structures.”

Yellowstone has 290 housing units that were constructed prior to the ban on lead-based paint, said Yellowstone spokesperson Linda Veress.

The park does not contest its awareness of lead contamination in historic buildings. Since 2018, the park has been working on improving its housing stock, including abating lead-based paint, spending about $20 million in total, Veress said. It has secured another $14 million to continue the work. Improving the aging housing in Fort Yellowstone has been part of the park’s four-pronged housing improvement initiative, which was publicly announced in 2020. That was two years after Aiuppa moved in.

But the park does claim that employees were made aware of the risks.

“The park notifies employees living in government housing of potential [lead-based paint] and other potential hazards and remains committed to protecting residents and workers from environmental health risks,” Veress said.

Moyers maintains that was not disclosed to the Aiuppas.

“This isn’t a case of like, ‘Oh, hey, we didn’t know.’ This is like ‘Oh, we actually did know,’” Moyers said. “And so a lot of this is anger about exposing their children to unnecessary harm and the developmental issues.”

The family is suing the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees the National Park Service, for damages to cover the children’s pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and medical care.

Moyers is unsure what damages could amount to. The family would also like to see a change in the park’s policy around placing employees in potentially contaminated housing.

“We’d like some change of policy, or some recognition that other people were exposed,” Moyers said. “That’s as important to the family as it is for them to have funds that would allow them to routinely screen their children and deal with the adverse conditions as they develop.”

The park responded to the children’s blood tests by remediating lead on the property, but the family did not find the park to be repentant, Moyers said.

It was never “‘I can’t believe we did this to you’ or ‘How can we help?’ or ‘How’re the children?’ or anything like that,” Moyers said, adding that the park suggested the children’s original testing might be inaccurate.

The family first filed a claim through the government’s grievance system that went unanswered, Moyers said. “They’re supposed to get back to you and here it’s just dead silence.”

The Aiuppas subsequently filed a lawsuit, which Moyers anticipates will lead to a settlement.

In the meantime, Aiuppa is still employed by the park.