House Painter Forum

Professional Painters => Professional Painters and associated Trades Forum => Topic started by: admin on February 25, 2010, 10:27:37 PM

Title: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: admin on February 25, 2010, 10:27:37 PM
The EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP) takes affect on April 22, 2010. Unlike many other less substantial regulations, this Rule will bring major changes in the way painting contractors and renovators are able to conduct business in the USA.
For the purpose of painting under the RRP Rule ANY residential home constructed before 1978 automatically falls under the Rule, the home Does Not have to be tested for lead paint and Does Not require that lead paint be present.  

For painting pre 1978 homes interior or exterior RRP requires:
One person that is always on site or readily available to be Trained and Certified in lead safe work procedures.
Formal written Documentation and record keeping by the Certified person pertaining to Home owner notice, proper setup, proper work procedure, and proper cleanup of the work site.

This one has Teeth:
Failure to comply with the RRP Rule can result in a fine of $37,500.00 per day per violation.
False or misleading documentation by the Certified job supervisor can result in criminal felony charges.

The only safe way to be excluded from the Rule is to have the home tested for lead paint by an EPA certified and approved lead tester, the cost of these tests could total more than the entire painting contract.

Training requires an approx.8 hour course in lead safe work procedures and certification approval by the EPA. After submitting training verification, the EPA may take up to 90 days to issue your certification approval. You will be responsible for training costs and the EPA certification fee.

Here is the link to the EPA Rule for contractors
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#contractors

Here is the link to the Realtor.org video about the new rules
http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/lead_paint_property_managers




Title: Re: New EPA Rules
Post by: CarlThePainter on February 25, 2010, 10:56:37 PM
The one thing I wonder is for those painting contractors that do not read this website or any painting website, how are they going to know that this 'rule' even exists?
Title: Re: New EPA Rules
Post by: BrushJockey on February 26, 2010, 07:28:00 AM
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Took the course, ordered a hepa vac, getting ready to work over 6 mil poly... oh boy.

Most my work is the "target" age.
Title: Re: New EPA Rules
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on February 26, 2010, 08:25:55 AM
The one thing I wonder is for those painting contractors that do not read this website or any painting website, how are they going to know that this 'rule' even exists?

A favorite quote drilled into me incessantly during my school days;

Ignorance is no excuse...

This is bad law, period. It is designed to acquire money and expand power of government.

...It is also, by design IMO, to eliminate competition and allow the "big boys" to monopolize the industry.

Ultimately I believe it will not stand the scrutiny of the Constitution (10th Amendment)...

Defiance will be widespread and the government will NOT be the good guy in all this, regardless how goody-two-shoes they make themselves out to be.

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN
Title: Re: New EPA Rules
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 26, 2010, 08:47:55 PM
We already have clients that are having a fit over the new law. Trying hard to complete one now before the law kicks in. Most of our work is in newer homes, but have a few really good clients that have completely remodeled their homes from top to bottom, inside & out, but will still fall in the new law category because the home was built in the 60's. It seems this new law does not take in to account when a house has been remodeled, it only cares about the birth date. All windows & doors have been torn out & replaced with modern design, all walls & trim have been torn out & replaced . The house was completely gutted. Even the floors were replaced with solid black walnut. No lead in this house at all.  :o
There needs to be an exclusion for remodeled homes, but there are none.
These attorneys may have a field day with this one.

BJ how much did the course cost you, if you don't mind telling us.

Carl, most of us were blind sided with this new law. No one has been informed by mail, paint stores or any other manner. Many are not prepared for this move. Waiting for the Sh** to hit the fan around here. My brothers are big building  contractors & had no idea this law was out there until I called them yesterday. They are usually on their toes with the new rules, codes, etc. It is going to hurt a lot of people. In this bad economy right now it is a very bad time for such a law.

Lynjo


Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: VJ1 on February 26, 2010, 09:55:35 PM
I'm scheduled for the class next week to be certified. One of the schools on S. Fl is $550. I'm getting it for $275 through the PDCA. Unfortunately I have to do this too for enforcement purposes.
Title: Re: New EPA Rules
Post by: LJ on February 27, 2010, 12:00:04 AM
BJ how much did the course cost you, if you don't mind telling us.

IN Oregon, the classes are going for $200.  I learned about them at a SW store.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: BrushJockey on February 27, 2010, 01:47:14 AM
A local paint chain sponsored  the one I went to and reduced it to $190. After you pass the class you still have to pay the gov $300 to be certified.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on February 27, 2010, 07:26:32 AM
There are things that really bug me about this rule.

#1, if it is so well thought out and organized that it can be inflicted on the public, then like Lynjo said, why should it apply to a house that though built pre-1978, had been completely remodelled since? My two main clients live in exactly that, one of which, built in 1962, has been rebuilt and added onto and remodelled countless times in just the last twenty years, much less the twenty before that.

This alone lays bear what I can easily see as the true nature of this bad rule; It is a Chicago-style gub'ment ripoff scam.

#2, where is the manpower going to come from to enforce this rule? Bureacrasies are by definition deaf dumb and blind to all but doctrine, but they have to know the scope of the industry they are planning to scam. Sure the EPA is a large bureacrasy, but they are spread pretty thin, what with protecting snail darters and owls and starving farmers in CA for an endangered ameoba...

I have been told that, like asbestos and certain molds, strict regulation is imperative at this time, lest we start losing our children...

I'm sorry, I didn't know that lead in paint ripened with age. I didn't know that kids are now that much more prone to gnawing on window sills and licking the paint chips off the playground equipment then they were 40 YEARS AGO.

I am angry about this. My "representative" in Washington has not yet returned my calls, but I am assured by some staff goon (whose salary I'm also paying) that there is absolutely nothing that can be done. I called him a liar and you can imagine the direction the conversation went after that.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Jake on February 27, 2010, 11:06:32 AM
The shitstorm that's on it's way for our country is going to be unbelievable.

Does the phrase "bread and circuses" mean anything to you guys?


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/cnn-poll-majority-says-government-a-threat-to-citizens-rights/?fbid=_0Et2lHY9CJ

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

 
Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

Filed under: 2010 • CNN Polls • Popular Posts
 
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 11:22:22 AM
I grow up in the era where all there was was lead paint. Yea teething babies gnawed on the top rails of the cribs to get relief . Hey I survived & so did my 5 brothers & sisters. Our cribs were hand made by my Grandfather. After six kids the top was in rough shape.  ;D

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: LJ on February 27, 2010, 11:38:00 AM
A local paint chain sponsored  the one I went to and reduced it to $190. After you pass the class you still have to pay the gov $300 to be certified.
Not $550?

• Initial renovation firm certification--$300
• Combined lead-based paint activities and renovation firm certification--$550

So as painters, we need the $300 certification?
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
What is amazing to me is their claim that compliance will only add $65.00 to a painting contract..  :o  Good luck with that one..  :-\

LJ YES, the $300 is simply a fee paid to the EPA for final approval after your training.. I am not sure what the "Combined" package is...could be included in that ... Dunno ..  :-\
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: CarlThePainter on February 27, 2010, 11:53:32 AM
I just can't visualize the enforcement part. I feel like I'm reading the law incorrectly because I just can't believe that the government would really fine a one man painter making $60K per year or less $37,500 for violating a law he didn't even know existed.

They can't do that...they just can't.  That would make the news and piss off way too many people directly.   What am I missing?
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 12:05:22 PM
I'm just waiting for the scammers to start calling offering a good deal on the class & ripe unknowing people off. You know they are going to be out there.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 12:09:10 PM
There are things that really bug me about this rule.

#2, where is the manpower going to come from to enforce this rule?

Enforcement (for now) will depend on someone turning you in, the homeowner, a neighbor, your competition etc.
Once the complaint has been filed they will be obligated to investigate and levy the fines etc. I expect them to make an example of a few unlucky Joes and expect the rest to fall in line.

I also foresee the states and counties grabbing a piece of the pie through permitting, random inspections and enforcement ... I believe that will be the next logical step.

Sorry Carl, you are reading it right, Government, like large Corporations, act without CONSCIENCE. Their first line to you will be "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...   :-\  
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: LJ on February 27, 2010, 12:13:05 PM
What is amazing to me is their claim that compliance will only add $65.00 to a painting contract.
That's a pretty bold statement... $65, I wonder how they calulated that.  Seems like a more realistic approach would have been to at least given a range.

I just can't visualize the enforcement part. I feel like I'm reading the law incorrectly because I just can't believe that the government would really fine a one man painter making $60K per year or less $37,500 for violating a law he didn't even know existed.

They can't do that...they just can't.  That would make the news and piss off way too many people directly.   What am I missing?
Exactly!!
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: LJ on February 27, 2010, 12:17:53 PM
Enforcement (for now) will depend on someone turning you in, the homeowner, a neighbor, your competition etc.
Once the complaint has been filed they will be obligated to investigate and levy the fines etc. I expect them to make an example of a few unlucky Joes and expect the rest to fall in line.
The whole, people turning you in, thing sounds pretty ugly... like....
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 12:21:10 PM
There has been no type of notification. They should at least have something in the papers & ads on TV & radio or through the paint stores. No notices or anything at the paint stores in our area. EPA is not on the ball with this one at all. I guess they can't afford a stamp or a little advertising. They are waiting to slam you with big fine to pay for it I guess. Most small businesses can't afford these types of fines, they would be put out of business & or in jail. Got to love our Government.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on February 27, 2010, 12:24:26 PM
I got no notification. If this is "for the children" and it applies to ME, why are they banking on my ignorance?

I'm getting no sympathy from the HVAC guys on other sites, who have been under the government's thumb for years now regarding mold and asbestos. I'm told "It's about time you guys got yours"...Thing is, the asbestos scam created an insanely lucrative industry in itself.

That's just what the government wants; People celebrating ill inflicted on other trades.

There will be black market paint contractors, and a lot of them.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 12:30:29 PM
If it is such a high hazard why are the home owners exempt? They can sand, knock out wall with lead dust flying with Jr in the crib beside them, no problem.

LJ as for people turning each other in I can see this happening specially the competition or nosy neighbor, waiting to sue the pants off you.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on February 27, 2010, 12:35:55 PM
Customers will now have a way to get out of paying you for your services.

So there will be no trust, between you and your customers, you and your competition.

Like LJ said, this sounds ugly AND eerily familiar.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 12:45:55 PM
Yeah, they designed this thing like a well constructed box... no exits and no way out of it..  :-\
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: LJ on February 27, 2010, 12:56:13 PM
LJ as for people turning each other in I can see this happening specially the competition or nosy neighbor, waiting to sue the pants off you.
I read an article recently where a painting company was inspected and fined by OSHA (I know, another story unto itself) not because nosy neighbors turned them in, but because nosy neighbors turned in the trunk slammer painter down the street... and while the OSHA inspector was in the neighborhood, he thought he would just drop in on this other contractor as well.  The author of the article had implimented OSHA practices and was still fined because not all practices were impliment correctly (how high you are allowed to use a ladder jack, etc.)  How frustrating to have done your best to follow government mandated procedures just to be inspected and fined even without a complaint being filed.  Imagine now if the fine was for 37 grand (or even much less) which forced you out of business despite your best efforts to be in compliance.  I agree with Paintsmith, I will be calling my "representative" and encouraging other contractors I know to do the same.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: CarlThePainter on February 27, 2010, 01:03:10 PM
There is one bright side to all of this.   If you do get certified, this will put you in a better position than your competition and you can use this as a tool to win jobs on your sales calls.   If you are one of three painters bidding on the same job and you are certified, this gives you an edge.   There are going to be a lot of painters out there not certified.   The only problem is I don't want to pay for certification because then it feels like the government has won.....what to do.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 01:16:22 PM
The EPA has had years to make this training course available online but the route they took is typical wasteful government fare. The EPA developed the basic course (with taxpayer money) then turned it over to middlemen who dispense it and charge $200 - $500 a pop for the course plus a $300 tip to the EPA just for doing their job...  Hmmmm...
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Jake on February 27, 2010, 01:21:36 PM
As an aside,

If you think this stuff is messed up....

Jake, dude, you know I love ya, but we need to keep this topic specific. It's verboten to discuss politics here, and yeah, I know, this topic is politics, but this is the politics of our trade.

Sorry man, had to off your post. I'll buy ya a Primo sometime, if you ever get the guts to venture farther north than Maple Grove... ;)
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Roadog on February 27, 2010, 04:32:38 PM
So does this include churches? the law or just residential, daycare stuff?
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: BrushJockey on February 27, 2010, 04:36:00 PM
I think anywhere children are present for more than 6hrs/ month or something like that.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 04:38:44 PM
All residential & commercial properties built before 1978. No exclusions.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 04:49:13 PM
I think anywhere children are present for more than 6hrs/ month or something like that.

Those exceptions are so vague they are pointless. How would you prove children weren't there more than 6hrs.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Roadog on February 27, 2010, 05:21:58 PM
Is a church considered commercial? I didnt think they fell under commercial building. I know some churches ARE in commercial, but your standard church structure I dont believe is listed as commercial? Just wondering.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
Roadog
It is my understanding that any building built before 1978 will be under the law. No exclusion for church buildings that I know of. JMHO, they would fall in the same category as a child care facility. I know it is driving us all crazy. Around here there are no class open until after June. Go figure.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Roadog on February 27, 2010, 08:42:33 PM
After reading it, this is about all that really is said...over and over and...

Finally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in
owner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant
woman resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of
``child-occupied facility.'' To claim this exception, the renovation
firm must obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement
from the owner of the housing that states that the person signing is
the owner of the housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,
that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the
housing is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner
understands that the renovation firm will not be required to use the
work practices contained in this rule.

``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401
as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly
or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or
is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under
this rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same
child, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any
week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit
lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6
hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-
occupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or
in target housing.


Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 09:17:53 PM
Dunno Roadog, seems pretty straight forward to me.

"Under the rule, beginning in April 2010, contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination."

Contractors who perform renovation, repairs, and painting jobs in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities must, before beginning work, provide owners, tenants, and child-care facilities with a copy of EPA's lead hazard information pamphlet

Understand that after April 22, 2010, federal law will require you to be certified and to use lead-safe work practices. To become certified, renovation contractors must submit an application and fee payment to EPA.

The Rule was expanded in 2009 and eliminated the waiver exemption you quoted

October 21, 2009 -– EPA is proposing to expand coverage of its 2008 Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule as part of its ongoing commitment to eliminate lead poisoning. The proposed rule would eliminate an exemption from the RRP rule.
The federal government banned lead-based paint from housing in 1978. However, if a home was built before 1978, it has a higher likelihood of containing lead-based paint. The 2008 rule requires contractors working in pre-1978 housing where children under six or pregnant women reside to take the proper precautions to work lead-safe, including minimizing the dust, containing the work area, and conducting a thorough cleanup to reduce the potential exposure associated with disturbing lead-based paint. This rule would expand such requirements to cover most pre-1978 homes.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Suz on February 27, 2010, 10:02:27 PM
I understand the need for safe work practices when you're dealing with lead-but this rule just chaps my @$$.

  You know it's a wonder any of us turned out alright. I mean, I don't remember wearing a seatbelt when I was a kid, never had a bike helmet, I ate peanut butter when I was a toddler, I drank unfiltered well water (none of that bottled stuff!) I got my hiney whooped more times than I could count, and I grew up in an old farmhouse w/ peeling paint~ I turned out just fine (trust me! haha)  


The EPA has had years to make this training course available online but the route they took is typical wasteful government fare. The EPA developed the basic course (with taxpayer money) then turned it over to middlemen who dispense it and charge $200 - $500 a pop for the course plus a $300 tip to the EPA just for doing their job...  Hmmmm...
 
Yeah, it's irritating to pay them for doing thier job that we're already paying them to do when we pay our taxes.  Sheesh- maybe I should've got a gov't job instead of busting my butt painting, and I bet they get awesome benefits!  :P
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Roadog on February 27, 2010, 10:17:45 PM
Yep, child dosnt live in a church and most dont go twice a week for 3 hours a day. And from what it says, if theres no child in the residence and the home owner lives in it, they can sign a waiver and the rule is not required except for proper disposal. No certificate needed.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 10:20:21 PM
The waiver exemption was eliminated when the EPA expanded the rule in OCT 2009... No more waivers, the only exemption is to have the home lead tested by an EPA approved outfit... with a cost of several hundred to thousands...

..and be prepared to prove that no child has been at that church for six hours in a week... ever tried to prove anything to a government agency?  :'(
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 27, 2010, 10:49:26 PM
Yep, child dosnt live in a church and most dont go twice a week for 3 hours a day. And from what it says, if theres no child in the residence and the home owner lives in it, they can sign a waiver and the rule is not required except for proper disposal. No certificate needed.
Roadog read the fine print anyone even walking past the work area can sue the contractor if they want to. Even a person walking with a child could sue for being exposed or claiming to be exposed to the dust. Investigation would begin & fines will pile up. Rmichael is right there are no waivers anymore. I would rather be safe than sorry. It sucks but it is the law.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: rmichael on February 27, 2010, 10:57:23 PM
I understand the need for safe work practices when you're dealing with lead-but this rule just chaps my @$$.

  You know it's a wonder any of us turned out alright. I mean, I don't remember wearing a seatbelt when I was a kid, never had a bike helmet, I ate peanut butter when I was a toddler, I drank unfiltered well water (none of that bottled stuff!) I got my hiney whooped more times than I could count, and I grew up in an old farmhouse w/ peeling paint~ I turned out just fine (trust me! haha)  


...and despite my best efforts I never put somebody's eye out...  ;D
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn on February 28, 2010, 06:23:01 AM
I got no notification. If this is "for the children" and it applies to ME, why are they banking on my ignorance?

I'm getting no sympathy from the HVAC guys on other sites, who have been under the government's thumb for years now regarding mold and asbestos. I'm told "It's about time you guys got yours"...Thing is, the asbestos scam created an insanely lucrative industry in itself.

That's just what the government wants; People celebrating ill inflicted on other trades.

There will be black market paint contractors, and a lot of them.  

It is going to force me right out of the business. I believe this whole fiasco is just wrong but what can I do? I cannot afford all the costs of this process, not only the approx $800 for initial state up but you need to have a certified hepa vac, all the tools and supplies necessary to cover everything with plastic, etc, all the literature necessary to notify the HO( this YOU must purchase), etc, etc, etc. With all this I would have to also buy a new vehicle to haul it all around.Me, I just cannot afford it and will find a new career at the age of 57, just free king great. I always thought the government was here to help the small business person not put us out of business, screw the whole system.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Roadog on February 28, 2010, 10:26:26 AM
HHMmmmm. I was just curious. I have already decided not to play. I will give up doing restorations I used to do and will avoid pre 78 unless just painting a decorative finish. I will probably market more of decorative paint and give up the straight paint side of my company. I figure to sit it out for a year or so and see where if any, the lawsuits go. I have also read about painters liability ins. either not covering for any lead work and also double and tripling rates. A lot of my work is subbing for other contractors so I think i'm safe if "they" are certified. I'm not as old as Chrisn (lol..sorry) but at 53 its not a good age to start over.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 28, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
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
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 28, 2010, 10:51:57 AM
Sorry Roadog, if it is your job you are still liable unless they are certified. It is a slippery slope any way you look at it.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn on February 28, 2010, 10:56:48 AM
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


You're responsibility also. :o
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman on February 28, 2010, 11:02:11 AM
Yes Chrisn, your job your responsibility. You just have to make sure any subs have a certified person on site to supervise the process & fill out the paper work.

Lynjo
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: admin 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.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: CarlThePainter 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?
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman 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
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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...
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman 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
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: BrushJockey 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.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn 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. :'(
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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...





Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman 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
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: admin 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.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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)...

Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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.



Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lynjowoman 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
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH 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.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Lazyjay on April 26, 2010, 10:17:25 PM
There is a Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule issued in response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161), EPA. It requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources. Manufacturers of fuel supplies, motor vehicles and the like are also required to pass an annual report to the EPA.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn on April 27, 2010, 03:25:52 AM
Into the studying of painting playground equipment, we noticed that there are several choices for coating, it has a higher the gloss, and the better it that they can repel dirt and such. I think that this might be a good rules in this time.

Come again??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: BrushJockey on April 27, 2010, 04:28:29 PM
Into the studying of painting playground equipment, we noticed that there are several choices for coating, it has a higher the gloss, and the better it that they can repel dirt and such. I think that this might be a good rules in this time.

Come again??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

PLUS!! Tastes great, less filling!!! :o 8)
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on July 20, 2011, 07:42:29 AM
So, over a year later and everyone is certified and no more children are chewing lead-saturated paint from window sills because of our illustrious and indespensable EPA...Right?...Right?

Anyway, I have a question; Has anyone heard of any fines levied so far on the unsuspecting industry? I thought the EPA would by now have a veritable secret police force set up. I simply haven't heard of even ONE infraction.

Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn on July 20, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
Dont know about finrs,I have not heard of any. I see scraping, sanding etc, on exteriors around here all the time with no safty precautions in effect. I would assume that there is way more going on inside.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: BrushJockey on July 20, 2011, 03:58:36 PM
I have heard of a couple- mostly out east.   But all quiet on the western front for the most part.
 The fact that all parts of Gov't are bankrupt might be slowing things down a bit...
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: chrisn on July 21, 2011, 04:24:55 AM
I have heard of a couple- mostly out east.   But all quiet on the western front for the most part.
 The fact that all parts of Gov't are bankrupt might be slowing things down a bit...
 ;D
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: the PAINTSMITH on July 21, 2011, 07:51:18 AM
I have heard of a couple- mostly out east.   But all quiet on the western front for the most part.
 The fact that all parts of Gov't are bankrupt might be slowing things down a bit...
 ;D

But hey, the MN gub'mint shut down "completely" and the state troopers continued their fundraising efforts.
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: Greenlandzone on October 28, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
Thanks. I was searching the same information since many months. Thanks for your hard work.

SEO Company (https://www.facebook.com/WebDesign.SEOCompany)
Textile Designing Software (http://www.pluraltechnology.com)
Erectile Dysfunction (https://www.dawakhanas.com)
Seforim (http://www.mysefer.com)
loadxtreme (http://www.ibcvmobile.com)
SEO Freelancer (http://www.ganpati-industries.com)
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: facembanidaimon on April 20, 2016, 03:11:56 PM
I have heard of a couple- mostly out east.   But all quiet on the western front for the most part.
 The fact that all parts of Gov't are bankrupt might be slowing things down a bit...
Title: Re: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22, 2010
Post by: facembani223 on July 05, 2016, 01:57:14 PM
Thanks. I was searching the same information since many months.
Title: Hi Casino, the biggest out benefit
Post by: Patrickrhync on September 20, 2017, 06:02:37 AM
online game slots London UK http://casino-real.org/online-game-slots-london-uk/
Title: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22 2010
Post by: Charliejthd on September 29, 2017, 01:59:12 PM
It is a pity, that now I can not express - it is compelled to leave. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.
Title: NOTICE New EPA Rules April 22 2010
Post by: BrycePiqe on October 11, 2017, 07:57:42 PM
I join. And I have faced it. Let's discuss this question.
Title: -
Post by: SamantaSn on June 25, 2022, 09:16:27 AM
The authoritative message :), funny...