# Thoughts on the New EPA. guide lines?



## BrushstrokesInc. (Jun 15, 2009)

SW is offering to pay half and supply lunch on the certifying course, for working on or in a house built before 1979. Anyone else, out there taken or heard of this new guideline from the EPA?


----------



## BrushJockey (Mar 15, 2009)

There's a dozen threads on it here. Look around. 
Large buzz.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

oooh, ooh, I have a few thoughts!:whistling2:

Please do a search for Lead, there are several.


Whether or not you choose to get certified, everyone should be aware of the new Lead RRP Rule taking effect April 22, 2010.


----------



## brushmonkey (Jan 4, 2010)

I called the SW near me & they're clueless as to a program to pay 1/2 of certification. Where is this info?? I just want the lunch :whistling2:


----------



## One Coat Coverage (Oct 4, 2009)

Brushstrokes said:


> SW is offering to pay half and supply lunch on the certifying course, for working on or in a house built before 1979. Anyone else, out there taken or heard of this new guideline from the EPA?


You gotta be kidding me. I've never heard of this promotion. Here in Ohio, 90% of the homes were built before 1979. They would be paying for just about every contractor in the state.


----------



## salestrainer (Oct 4, 2009)

I have asked a couple of painters here what their plans are for compliance and they haven't even heard of the new rules,lol!


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

I did not hear about this until just a few weeks ago, asked a few other painters I know and they had no clue about this new law. I'm guessing it was planned this way. The government is going to ask the painters of this country to reduce the deficit by nailing em all with a 37,500 dollar fine.

Pat


----------



## pollardpainting (Jan 26, 2010)

My SW Dealer in CT offered the class for $99. I took it and I am glad I don't do a large number of interior renovations!!!!


----------



## Builtmany (Dec 5, 2009)

IMO it's going to hurt the business for homeowners and contractors both. The HO already wants cheap, cheap in this economy wait until they hear what has to be done with the lead and the added costs. There will always be plenty hacks that will not comply and work for much less while breaking the rules thus killing the honest and reputable guys.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

If the fines are enforced at the max amount, how many painting companies do you think could withstand one day of fines and not go under?


----------



## One Coat Coverage (Oct 4, 2009)

Im sure the $37,000 fine is a scare tactic. Just think about how many of us scmucks have sent the epa $300.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Read a great blog today:

http://www.remodeling.hw.net/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=gantonioliblog&PostId=90748


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

One Coat Coverage said:


> Im sure the $37,000 fine is a scare tactic. Just think about how many of us scmucks have sent the epa $300.



To me its just way to high to gamble on no matter what type of tactic it might be.

Pat


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

daArch said:


> Read a great blog today:
> 
> http://www.remodeling.hw.net/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=gantonioliblog&PostId=90748


He has a good point about understanding the potential risk of the dust being transferred on your clothing.

Read what this family went through.

You ought to read some of the conversations on Linkedin in the Nari group!

Here is another good blog.

And this guy has posted a lot of good stuff.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

PatsPainting said:


> To me its just way to high to gamble on no matter what type of tactic it might be.
> 
> Pat


It is not always a 37,000 fine, there are separate fines for different violations, like OHSA.

Like this.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

> Sattled pleaded guilty to the offense in December 2009. On Feb. 25, the EPA announced that Carabetta Management Co. agreed to pay a $276,000 penalty for violating the federal lead-paint disclosure requirements.


Pretty freakin scary there..

Pat


----------

