Author Topic: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010  (Read 122346 times)

Offline admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Flying this Spruce Goose
    • painterforum
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2010, 11:16:06 AM »
Presently only Wisconsin, Iowa and North Carolina are authorized by the EPA to administer their own RRP program. The State administered RRP rule is the same as the Federal Rule, the State will simply have control over certification, compliance and enforcement. If you live in one of these States contact your local Health Department or State or County officials for information on RRP training and certification.
I am a webmaster in the tradition of Howard Hughes, I fly this Spruce Goose of a website through cyberspace by the seat of my pants and I usually manage to keep her just above the water, but every now and then I get a wet ass. Let me know if you feel a shudder.

Offline CarlThePainter

  • postingpro
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 371
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2010, 12:57:21 PM »
My question is how the he** are we suppose to know how old a house is? Are we going to have to pull deeds to find out ( which can be costly) or get a permit for everything?

Here in NC the state has their own regulations & completely control it. They are the same as the fed. regs. There are 2 other states which are doing the same, don't remember who they are.
After hrs. of searching we found out our health dept. offers the course, ( at a much lower rate) but getting in the class may be a big problem.

Lynjo

Why is getting into the class going to be a problem? If hardly any painters know about the law, there certainly shouldn't be a big demand to get into the class, right?

Offline Lynjowoman

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1422
  • Sometimes the best man for the job.. is a Woman.
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2010, 02:50:17 PM »
Carl, it is not only painters. Wallpaper hangers, plumbers, electricians, building contractors, handymen,  landlords,anyone who is involved with remodeling, etc. The only exceptions for plumbers is in an emergency situation such as a water leak. Even Realtors are trying to get certified.
Class sizes are small & not offered but 2 days a month.  ::)

Lynjo
"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
Charlotte Whitton

the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2010, 06:06:29 PM »
Well folks, I'm out. As of the end a long and emotional discussion with my wife today, I am done with the paint bidnezz as of April 21. I have a couple of seriously huge contracts to fill by then, but done or not, I am. I'm not good with tyranny.

The wife has offered me a job as her office girl, which I will, until brighter prospects avail themselves, accept...

Offline Lynjowoman

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1422
  • Sometimes the best man for the job.. is a Woman.
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2010, 07:07:44 PM »
Eric, Man you can't give up now. Don't let all these new laws scare you. You were bored out of your skull when you had your surgery so what do you think you will be when you quit? Office girl, come on you couldn't stand the pressure  ;D

Lynjo
"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
Charlotte Whitton

Offline BrushJockey

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2010, 08:15:41 PM »
What Lynjo said. 
I think that this has to find some equilibrium after a bit. We are just looking at the worst case scenarios , but things will have to move forward and will have to mellow out.
"It would be ludicrous to think I'm new to this, I know this, this is what I do"  ( Prince and Geo Clinton..)

Offline chrisn

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • http://www.paintingwallpaperinghagerstown.com/
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2010, 04:24:52 AM »
Just to throw another wrench into the mix, does your insurance policy cover you when the lawyers get involved? What happens when some kid chews off all the paint on a window sill that you painted( no sanding) and gets diagnosed with brain damage? It could go on and on. :'(

the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2010, 06:35:20 AM »
This "rule" is written and is going to be enforced by an agency that belongs to an administration that is not only broke, but has broken the bank of generations to come. There's only one reason for a dictate like this and the health and well-being of the children ain't it. Any ten year old could sit down for an hour after having a real painter explain the story of lead alarmism in America and come up with a more sensible, less cash-emphatic set of rules.

Once stories start getting around about EPA strongarming Ma & Pop paint outfits into bancruptsy, then fear will set in. Painters will begin to refuse to touch pre-1978 structures and what's left over will be eaten up by lowballing corporate contractors. The EPA may well set up a reward system for turning in violators, so guess what happens to commaraderie in the trade?

And the EPA has just written a laundry list of wonderful government-sanctioned reasons for people to sue their painter, sue their neighbor's painter, sue the paint store who recommended the painter, the list will likely grow.

I may help out a neighbor or a friend on a non-professional basis now and then, but I have better things to do than constantly look over my shoulder to see if my own government is watching me...






Offline Lynjowoman

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1422
  • Sometimes the best man for the job.. is a Woman.
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2010, 05:43:17 PM »
It is going to be a real nightmare, no doubt. Just had to turn down a $ 30 thousand job. She could not believe the new laws, said she had talked to several painters & not one of them mentioned the new law. I wonder why.   >:( House was built in 1800's.

 Lynjo
"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
Charlotte Whitton

Offline admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Flying this Spruce Goose
    • painterforum
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2010, 06:27:24 PM »
This subject was not intended to cause alarm or panic, none of us like regulations that lack reason or common sense but take notice that painters are not being singled out, this regulation will require compliance from almost every Trade that works in pre 1978 homes. The true outcome and ramifications have yet to be determined.

In the meantime, since most painters work in a mixed market of newer homes and older homes, I would recommend getting certified. Write off all the costs and make it pay by adding a certification fee to each job that falls under the regulation, after all, some extra work will be required and you should be compensated for it, and be sure that you advertise your business as a "Certified Lead Safe Renovator". That could give you an edge in that market.

We have a lot of high end painters here and I know that they are very conscientious in regards to their client's homes. Certification could be an asset by acknowledging work procedures that you have always pretty much followed anyway.

This is not a barrier, it's just a bump in the road, turn it around and make it work for you and your business.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 06:33:27 PM by admin »
I am a webmaster in the tradition of Howard Hughes, I fly this Spruce Goose of a website through cyberspace by the seat of my pants and I usually manage to keep her just above the water, but every now and then I get a wet ass. Let me know if you feel a shudder.

the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2010, 08:28:33 AM »
Roger, as much as I appreciate your words, I have to disagree with much.

I know far too many one-man proprieters in this area alone who would not and could not be able to comply without dire threat to immediate livlihood and ultimate surviveability of their business. Most here are, and have been, hand-to-mouth operations; There is no means to pay the ridiculous fees inflicted, write-off or not. They have rent or mortgage payments and groceries and heating oil and such that are a constant, immediate monetary concern. Many are charging below-grade fees as it is just to get business in the customer base they patronize.

This rule takes nothing into consideration but what the government wants. They have obviously not canvassed the industry to guage how the trades would be able to absorb these costs or have the ability to conform. This is bureacratic ignorance at it's finest level. As Chris stated, there are going to be unknown costs in what ridiculous equipment we will have to have ON HAND in order to handle any of these "critical" situations, not the least of which may well be an investment in a vehicle large enough to carry even more gear. Once the EPA augers this unrealistic rule into our lives they will have carte blanche to arbitrarily dictate, on a whim, new and more expensive equipment. Who knows when they'll force us to have our own testing gear? After the last year of government insanity I have no faith or trust that we will be well served by this.

Quote
We have a lot of high end painters here and I know that they are very conscientious in regards to their client's homes. Certification could be an asset by acknowledging work procedures that you have always pretty much followed anyway.

Conscientious yes, and we know far better than Joe Homeowner to protect ourselves and our clients. So why then, is the government NOT targeting the ignorant? Because that is not the goal. A moment of objectivity will more than display the true nature of this kind of regulation. This is another in a long list of infringements on people who can (and HAVE) been, without the thumb of government, practicing good stewardship of our livlihood.

I would be greatly interested in knowing exactly who wrote this tripe. Guaranteed it was no one even remotely familiar with our practices.

Quote
This is not a barrier, it's just a bump in the road, turn it around and make it work for you and your business.

I disagree. This was designed as a barrier. This is nanny-state-ism that will hurt a lot of otherwise independant, self-dterminate hard working tradesmen (and Lynjo)...


the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2010, 08:26:48 AM »
I received an email from my congressman this morning:

Thank you for contacting me about the EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.   

As you may know, the EPA recently decided that it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions through a law passed in the 1970's, the Clean Air Act, and not wait for Congress to pass a new comprehensive energy law.  However, the Clean Air Act was never meant to fight global warming, it was meant to make sure Americans are not breathing in toxins like lead or carbon monoxide.  Using the Clean Air Act is also the least efficient and most expensive way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  It is a bad idea.

By taking these actions, the EPA is going around Congress.  It is well known that some members of Congress want to pass a comprehensive energy bill, but other members do not.  Whatever the outcome of that debate, these kinds of decisions need to be made by elected officials-not bureaucrats at the EPA.   

Because of my concerns about EPA's actions, I have sponsored legislation (H.R. 4572) with a few other members of Congress to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  I will work hard to pass this legislation, and although I am willing to consider other ideas, the bottom line is that elected officials need to act soon-or else the EPA will. 


The bill (H.R. 4572) he refers to supposedly addresses the very rule we are about to be inflicted with. We are not the only ones to be persecuted with it. An article sumarizes H.R. 4572:

Legislation would prevent EPA from overreaching on greenhouse gas regulation

Washington, D.C. - Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson joined a bipartisan group of Representatives in cosponsoring legislation to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the authority of the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4572 was introduced by Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN). In December EPA released a finding that greenhouse gas is an endangerment to human health under the Clean Air Act, which gives EPA broad authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in spite of the fact that Congress has yet to pass climate change legislation.

“The EPA’s recent decision was a shot across Congress’s bow, telling us that if we don’t act quickly to pass sweeping, controversial climate change legislation, the EPA is going to do it for us,” Simpson said. “Unelected bureaucrats at EPA should not be allowed to circumvent the legislative process or override the will of the American people. It’s clear that we need to take action through H.R. 4572 to prevent them from doing so.”

H.R. 4572 would amend the Clean Air Act to clarify that it does not allow for regulation of greenhouse gases on the basis of global climate change. It would also prevent EPA from following through with additional regulations proposed last year to use calculations of indirect land use changes associated with the production of biofuels in determining renewable fuels policy. Such regulations would disqualify ethanol and other biofuels from the renewable fuels standard, severely limiting our ability to address the energy crisis facing this nation.

“Over the past year, I’ve heard from farmers, ranchers, and employers all over the state who are deeply concerned about current efforts to push through sweeping environmental policy reforms without regard for the impact they are having on the economy and job creation,” said Simpson. “We must work to develop real solutions to our nation’s energy and environmental challenges, and I believe that H.R. 4572 is a good first step.”


I am responding to his email. I am no more comfortable with congress doing this than the EPA, but with congress, at least there is a slim chance that they will HEAR THEIR CONSTITUANCY.

the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2010, 08:46:26 AM »
My initial reply to Mr. Peterson:

Thank you for your prompt reply. This is an intensly emotionally charged issue for those of us directly affected by what we consider an infringement on our Right to do business without hinderance or undue restriction. Many, if not most of us are working on a hand-to-mouth basis as it is, and this EPA rule is as close to tyranny (a word that I do not use lightly) as I have seen in my industry.

I have no issue with common sense regulation, but this overreach by bureacrasy crosses too many lines. There is no common sense to it. The fees, proceedures and fines are excessive, senseless and will put thousands of otherwise conscientious, law-abiding tradesmen out of business.

Be aware, with the current atmosphere in Congress, that I am not all that confident in MY Legislative branch to do right by me and mine in the private sector. This is not directed at you personally, but the Cap and Trade Bill is another bad law that needs scrapped and rewritten, especially considering the fact that truths are now coming out that do not bear the hysteria promoted by global warming snake-oil magnates. The American People are paying much closer attention these days, and will not take passage of bad law lightly.

I appreciate your attention to this issue and am looking forward to diligent stewardship of your constituancy's concerns.




Offline Lynjowoman

  • postingpro
  • PF Mega God
  • *
  • Posts: 1422
  • Sometimes the best man for the job.. is a Woman.
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2010, 04:48:36 PM »
Way to go Eric. Our state controls ours so I don't think it will do us much good to e-mail them. All they can see is the big bucks coming their way. We should all give a try though, you never know. It is just another way to get money.

Lynjo
"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
Charlotte Whitton

the PAINTSMITH

  • Guest
Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2010, 08:22:18 AM »
It's nice to see the states waking up to this, their timing is the usual 11th hour idiocy, but I'll take what I can get;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1916237120100319

US states sue EPA to stop greenhouse gas rules

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - At least 15 U.S. states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to stop it from issuing rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions until it reexamines whether the pollution harms human health.

Florida, Indiana, South Carolina and at least nine other states filed the petitions in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, states said.

They joined petitions filed last month by Virginia, Texas and Alabama.

The Obama administration has long said it would attack greenhouse gas emissions with EPA regulation if Congress failed to pass a climate bill.

The EPA is set to issue regulations later this month that would require autos and light trucks to increase energy efficiency. That would trigger rules on large emitters like power plants requiring them to get permits showing they are using the best technology available to reduce emissions [ID:nN17158103].

The state petitions call for the EPA to reopen hearings on the so-called "endangerment finding" the agency issued last year declaring the emissions dangerous to people.

"If EPA doesn't reopen the hearings we will move forward to try to stop them from regulating greenhouse gases," said Brian Gottstein, an assistant to Virginia's Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli.

The states have complained that the EPA relied too heavily from reports by the U.N.'s climate science panel which included information that exaggerated the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The EPA said it was confident it would withstand legal challenges on the issue. "The question of the science is settled," spokeswoman Adora Andy said. The science "came from an array of highly respected, peer-reviewed sources from both within the United States and across the globe, and took into consideration hundreds of thousands of comments from members of the public, which were addressed in the finding," she said.

Allison Wood, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams, said the suits could push some lawmakers to support the climate bill if they oppose EPA regulation and the legislation preempts the agency from taking action.

About the same number of states support the EPA. In January, 16 states including New York and California asked the court for permission to support the EPA in industry lawsuits seeking to stop the agency from regulating the gases from stationary sources like power plants and factories.


This is the same EPA garbage that includes lead mitigation. The main indication that the EPA is an AGENDA-BASED bureacrasy and not an actual agency created for any health or welfare-of-the-public concerns is: "The question of the science is settled," spokeswoman Adora Andy said. The science "came from an array of highly respected, peer-reviewed sources from both within the United States and across the globe, and took into consideration hundreds of thousands of comments from members of the public, which were addressed in the finding," Which is first and foremostly a lie, and secondly a lie as well.

 

anything