More on Lead Paint Legislation

Published June 29, 2010 in the Salem News

Our view: New lead-paint rules a nightmare for contractors, homeowners

"Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work," Albert Einstein once said, and sadly, we haven't come very far since his time on this planet.

The latest victims of bureaucratic misfortune are contractors, and ultimately, homeowners, who make improvements in homes or other buildings that may contain lead paint.

Starting in April, the federal Environmental Protection Agency enacted a major change in how contractors deal with lead paint. The regulations have greatly increased the cost to consumers who want to have their homes painted or have work done that involves disturbing anything over six square feet in area that may contain lead paint.

Your bill will likely be 15 to 30 percent more under the new regulations. For people wanting to have the entire exterior of their home painted, the added cost will amount to thousands of dollars.

That's bad enough. For contractors, bureaucratic bungling has caused even more problems.

The new law calls for contractors to be professionally trained or face fines of up to $37,500 for each violation. But the EPA failed to ensure there would be an adequate number of trainers available to teach the 8-hour course. As a result, some states had no trainers in place when the law went into effect. Massachusetts had relatively few trainers — there were only a couple of dozen or so to handle the tens of thousands of contractors who needed to be trained. The entire state of Maine had only three trainers.

The net effect was many small contractors simply stopped working on homes that were built before 1978, the year that the United States banned the use of lead paint. Which means the pool of contractors has dwindled significantly.

Under howls of protest from Congress and trade organizations, the EPA last week postponed enforcement of the regulations until the fall, in hopes that trainers will catch up with the long line of contractors waiting to take the course.

No one would argue it's a bad idea to remove lead from homes and from buildings where children come in contact with it. Exposure to lead — in this case, through lead paint — can cause severe health problems. It is linked to developmental disabilities in children.

It's the disconnect between bureaucracy and the working world that it is supposed to regulate, that is most frustrating. Enacting laws from on high without giving contractors an adequate way to comply, is irresponsible. Congress should look into this matter, trace it through the EPA's chain of command, and hold the responsible bureaucrats accountable.

The United States banned lead from paint in 1978, and even back then we were decades behind the times. As early as 1904, doctors clearly traced lead paint's health impacts on children. In 1909, France, Belgium and Austria were the first nations to ban interior use of lead paint, followed in short succession by most European countries. America had a chance to join its League of Nations allies in 1922 in a ban on lead paint, but opted out.

Our efforts to catch up should be better planned than the fiasco we are currently witnessing.