Lead-paint rule counterproductive

“Rather than address the problem where it exists, the government has cast a net over the entire nation.”

Contractor John DiPrimio writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Next month will mark the second anniversary of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, known as RRP, under which contractors who work on houses built before 1978 must be trained and certified to work safely with lead paint, which can have a negative neurological impact on young children. The rule kicks in when at least six square feet of painted surface will be disturbed. If you hire someone to work on your home who is not requiring you to sign a “Renovate Right” pamphlet, that person is breaking the law and could face steep fines.

As a contractor certified under the rule, I think it represents a tremendous overreach by the government – one that forces homeowners to pay for onerous, expensive procedures. The EPA estimates the average added cost to be about 10 percent of the total cost of the work, but I am finding this to be a gross underestimation…

I understand the need to protect the most vulnerable among us. But what is the problem we’re trying to address? The vast majority of American children with elevated lead levels live in substandard housing in urban areas. But rather than address the problem where it exists, the government has cast a net over the entire nation. From coast to coast, billions of dollars will have been spent unnecessarily as a result…

One thought on “Lead-paint rule counterproductive”

  1. lib-er-ty:
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government

    Six square feet is clearly arbitrary. A free people would disband the EPA.

Comments are closed.