# Trump looking to cut EPA's RRP



## Roamer

I am not trying to start a political argument just posting an article that details the administrations plans for the EPA and how it directly affects us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ct-children-from-lead/?utm_term=.e966cad1cb2b

For what it is worth. I think this is a mistake.


----------



## Rbriggs82

Roamer said:


> I am not trying to start a political argument just posting an article that details the administrations plans for the EPA and how it directly affects us.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ct-children-from-lead/?utm_term=.e966cad1cb2b
> 
> For what it is worth. I think this is a mistake.


I'm all for it. It's a state issue, if you like it lobby your state to institute a law regarding lead. 

One of the biggest problems with doing this on the federal level is lack of oversight. Next to know one gets caught doing jobs without certification meanwhile my price is inflated complying with the rules (some of which are overboard imho). If the states ran it they'd have much more oversight making the law more effective. Look at CD, he has his local lead inspector on speed dial. 

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## kmp

I don't have a problem with some lead base rules but I agree with Briggs in that some of them are over zealous. I think the fines are way out of wack with reality.


----------



## ridesarize

Roamer said:


> I am not trying to start a political argument just posting an article that details the administrations plans for the EPA and how it directly affects us.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ct-children-from-lead/?utm_term=.e966cad1cb2b
> 
> For what it is worth. I think this is a mistake.


I am grateful for the information I learned from the whole RRP regulation. Whenever I can, I take the opportunity to share the info and/or concerns to people that have to deal with lead paint in their homes, and newer or uninformed contractors/painters.
I think it is a sad thing that our P.I.C. is pulling. Trying to mislead everybody for corporate and shareholder interests. He's defunding everything to the point that there will be no agencies able to look after the interests of the people, the citizens of our country.


----------



## chrisn

I THINK this just got political:vs_shocked:


----------



## RH

I would prefer to keep this thread here so more can view it and respond but don't see how it can't be a political discussion since it's about the administration's regulation of the law rather than how to deal with lead paint issues on the job. I will allow it to stay a bit longer to see if I can be proved wrong but don't be surprised to see it get moved to the Outhouse sub-forum.


----------



## ridesarize

It won't let me edit it now. Anyways, remember to wear your dustmask when sanding, and sweep up your mess when done working.


----------



## RH

Here's a thought, just keep comments about the Democrats and Republicans and who is to blame for what out of the discussion. Should be fine to debate whether the federal government (regardless of the administration) or only state governments should be involved in regulating lead contamination, and to what degree.


----------



## PRC

As it is currently the financial responsibility for dealing with lead is not where it should in the industry. The companies that made these products have no burden while HO and contractors bear it all. I'd like to see that changed. Wishful thinking.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

PRC said:


> As it is currently the financial responsibility for dealing with lead is not where it should in the industry. The companies that made these products have no burden while HO and contractors bear it all. I'd like to see that changed. Wishful thinking.


I hear so many say that. Remember back when Lead paint was on the market it was the only paint around and no one had any clue as to what it would be like with future regulations. I don't agree with the feds or states holding Lead paint mfg's liable for what was the technology or best product at that time.

Soon this will be about oil based paints and how bad they are, it will start years from now as technology advances and EPA changes their views on oil.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Rbriggs82 said:


> I'm all for it. It's a state issue, if you like it lobby your state to institute a law regarding lead.
> 
> One of the biggest problems with doing this on the federal level is lack of oversight. Next to know one gets caught doing jobs without certification meanwhile my price is inflated complying with the rules (some of which are overboard imho). If the states ran it they'd have much more oversight making the law more effective. Look at CD, he has his local lead inspector on speed dial.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


I 100% agree that each state should be responsible for RRP. Maybe Federal guidelines for every state to follow. In Massachusetts we have our own rules to follow which some differ from the EPA. I don't know if you remember but I checked into becoming an inspector for the state. The problem was because of EPA rules MA couldn't figure out exactly how to train state inspectors.

Having the local inspectors number on hand is great. MA doesn't update their website and any rule changes I find out about. Every RRP job we do I call him to make sure no new rules are in effect.

Our inspector is pretty easy going the first time unless their are kids in the house without windows covered. He nails people for that other wise even a fine he tries to get the lowest the state allows.


----------



## Eagle Cap Painter

cdpainting said:


> I hear so many say that. Remember back when Lead paint was on the market it was the only paint around and no one had any clue as to what it would be like with future regulations. I don't agree with the feds or states holding Lead paint mfg's liable for what was the technology or best product at that time.
> 
> Soon this will be about oil based paints and how bad they are, it will start years from now as technology advances and EPA changes their views on oil.


The lead companies knew it was insanely toxic as early as the mid-sixties and waged a decades-long "lead isn't as bad as those damned scientists want you to think it is" campaign to protect their profits. Petroleum products are nowhere near as toxic to humans as lead, so while it's being used less, it's not a fair comparison at all. It was never the best product and the manufacturers knew it.

Whoever's to blame, we're stuck with it and it's something contractors and HOs have to deal with appropriately. I don't think state-level control is good since it's just as bad in Arkansas as it is in California for people and there doesn't need to be 50 sets of regulations on how to deal with it.


----------



## ridesarize

Eagle Cap Painter said:


> Whoever's to blame, we're stuck with it and it's something contractors and HOs have to deal with appropriately. I don't think state-level control is good since it's just as bad in Arkansas as it is in California for people and there doesn't need to be 50 sets of regulations on how to deal with it.


Do you think that there should be less regulations in place to protect me as a worker when my boss tells me to go sand lead paint, clean, prep and paint, etc., but just use all the canvas drops, no lead filtering dust extractors, no real rrp practices to speak of?


----------



## chrisn

ridesarize said:


> Do you think that there should be less regulations in place to protect me as a worker when my boss tells me to go sand lead paint, clean, prep and paint, etc., but just use all the canvas drops, no lead filtering dust extractors, no real rrp practices to speak of?


I don't think your "boss" has any right to put your personal safety at risk


----------



## Eagle Cap Painter

ridesarize said:


> Do you think that there should be less regulations in place to protect me as a worker when my boss tells me to go sand lead paint, clean, prep and paint, etc., but just use all the canvas drops, no lead filtering dust extractors, no real rrp practices to speak of?


There absolutely need to be protections and RRP programs in place at the federal level to protect workers. Allowing states to dictate their own requirements would immediately lead to them being gutted for many states. I'm all for combing through the existing rules and requirements to make sure they're sensible, but business owners need to accept that lead cleanup is expensive.


----------



## PRC

ridesarize said:


> Do you think that there should be less regulations in place to protect me as a worker when my boss tells me to go sand lead paint, clean, prep and paint, etc., but just use all the canvas drops, no lead filtering dust extractors, no real rrp practices to speak of?


It's OSHA that protects workers. EPA RRP does have specifics on that, they focus on the environment and the occupants.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Eagle Cap Painter said:


> cdpainting said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear so many say that. Remember back when Lead paint was on the market it was the only paint around and no one had any clue as to what it would be like with future regulations. I don't agree with the feds or states holding Lead paint mfg's liable for what was the technology or best product at that time.
> 
> Soon this will be about oil based paints and how bad they are, it will start years from now as technology advances and EPA changes their views on oil.
> 
> 
> 
> The lead companies knew it was insanely toxic as early as the mid-sixties and waged a decades-long "lead isn't as bad as those damned scientists want you to think it is" campaign to protect their profits. Petroleum products are nowhere near as toxic to humans as lead, so while it's being used less, it's not a fair comparison at all. It was never the best product and the manufacturers knew it.
> 
> Whoever's to blame, we're stuck with it and it's something contractors and HOs have to deal with appropriately. I don't think state-level control is good since it's just as bad in Arkansas as it is in California for people and there doesn't need to be 50 sets of regulations on how to deal with it.
Click to expand...

They knew in the 60's like you said but lead paint has been around a lot longer.
We need the regulations. I don't think there is enough.

We are stuck dealing with it and it stinks. We just passed on an rrp job due to I'm done with them. Pick and choose what we will take on.


----------



## PRC

cdpainting said:


> I hear so many say that. Remember back when Lead paint was on the market it was the only paint around and no one had any clue as to what it would be like with future regulations. I don't agree with the feds or states holding Lead paint mfg's liable for what was the technology or best product at that time.
> 
> Soon this will be about oil based paints and how bad they are, it will start years from now as technology advances and EPA changes their views on oil.


It's been known since the early 1900's that lead paint can cause childhood poisoning and several nations stopped using it not long after.
No it wasn't banned in the US till later, so yes they could legally sell it. But there were other options it just wasn't demanded of them by the gov't till '78.


----------



## ridesarize

chrisn said:


> I don't think your "boss" has any right to put your personal safety at risk



Thank you and I agree, but ten years ago if I were to bring up safety concerns, especially lead safety, I was the "problem" and people gave me an incredibly hard time. My boss then was a very reasonable person though, and I was not forced to do lead work then, the job just went on without me. I either worked at a different site or I had no work, wasn't let go. 

I am now partnering with that friend/boss from 10 years ago, and he agrees to not mess with lead jobs, pretty much from me discussing it with him for years, he read parts of my RRP packet but hadn't even got certified to learn about it.

15- 20 years ago a different boss would have said "bye bye" to me if I disagreed to sand and scrape those lead soffits like we all did. I was scraping and sanding that stuff right into my face without me knowing any better.

So yes, again thank you for your view, and in order to protect each person involved, each person hss to be educated about lead jobs/risks; the GC, the subs, the paint contractor, the employees, and clients/tenants in my opinion..

Education is key, and regulation is necessary for those who ignore the dangers...


----------



## Roamer

Leaving the enforcement up to individual states likely won't work either. Since the start of the RRP in 2010 only 14 states have started their own programs. What would encourage them to do so now? 

Furthermore, the Fed is also looking to cut state funding for environmental issues, in general. So the states would be tasked, if they feel so inclined, to create their own RRP's with less money.



> Soon this will be about oil based paints and how bad they are, it will start years from now as technology advances and EPA changes their views on oil


Most less expensive paints substitute calcium silicate or some such thing for the more expensive Titanium Dioxide. This cheaper substitute is potentially carcinogenic. So we will likely be working to remove it some time down the road, as well.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Roamer said:


> Leaving the enforcement up to individual states likely won't work either. Since the start of the RRP in 2010 only 14 states have started their own programs. What would encourage them to do so now?
> 
> Furthermore, the Fed is also looking to cut state funding for environmental issues, in general. So the states would be tasked, if they feel so inclined, to create their own RRP's with less money.
> 
> 
> 
> Most less expensive paints substitute calcium silicate or some such thing for the more expensive Titanium Dioxide. This cheaper substitute is potentially carcinogenic. So we will likely be working to remove it some time down the road, as well.


States like MA would start to fine the poo out of us for every little infraction if they could. Like I said have basic Federal guide lines each state must follow. Let the states deal with it. If they don't know how to modify the laws to suit themselves follow the fed rules. Now each state will keep the fine money instead of the feds.


----------



## Eagle Cap Painter

How do you fund the federal oversight? Where should those fines go?


----------



## lilpaintchic

How much $ gets sent back to the states from The feds then? Are we paying for services the feds no longer wish to render? What other things should each state demand a refund for? Does this quality as a taxation without representation? And to what end? Washington has it's own program and I think it's great for each state to manage it's own. I also think a % of paint sales in each state from corporations should be somehow be mandated. They all knew lead was problematic. Has been for centuries (leaded water vessels and cups n such in Greece or rome or whatever...cant remember but I've read some interesting stuff about it over the years...just Google it) it's not the ho's fault. But they get the shaft and we get the exposure and the fines if we don't play by the rules. Why shouldn't the local,state, feds and industry take some financial responsibility for cleaning up the mess?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## ParamountPaint

If you're not going to enforce something, what's the use? I don't care if it goes or stays, because it's not enforced anyway (here).


----------



## Rbriggs82

lilpaintchic said:


> How much $ gets sent back to the states from The feds then? Are we paying for services the feds no longer wish to render? What other things should each state demand a refund for? Does this quality as a taxation without representation? And to what end? Washington has it's own program and I think it's great for each state to manage it's own. I also think a % of paint sales in each state from corporations should be somehow be mandated. They all knew lead was problematic. Has been for centuries (leaded water vessels and cups n such in Greece or rome or whatever...cant remember but I've read some interesting stuff about it over the years...just Google it) it's not the ho's fault. But they get the shaft and we get the exposure and the fines if we don't play by the rules. Why shouldn't the local,state, feds and industry take some financial responsibility for cleaning up the mess?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


The percentage is nice in theory but the paint companies wouldn't be paying that percent of paint sales. They'd just raise the cost of paint to include it. Same goes for corporate taxes, they don't pay it the consumer does. 



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## lilpaintchic

Rbriggs82 said:


> The percentage is nice in theory but the paint companies wouldn't be paying that percent of paint sales. They'd just raise the cost of paint to include it. Same goes for corporate taxes, they don't pay it the consumer does.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


Well in this world where alternative facts Trump truth, the big boys pay for it. 
That being said "I reject your reality and substitute my own". (I can't remember what movie that was in..) 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## ridesarize

lilpaintchic said:


> Well in this world where alternative facts Trump truth, the big boys pay for it.
> That being said "I reject your reality and substitute my own". (I can't remember what movie that was in..)
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Adam Savage of "Myth Busters".

I cheated and looked it up on tropes and found this one quote that I like: Baron Munchhausen's "Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I am delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever! "


----------



## BhamPainter

Enforcement is probably best executed at a local level, but a federal minimum standard for safety seems reasonable. In fact, I would like to see more enforcement at the local level. I keep hearing folks Back East talk about how the lead inspector drops by regularly, but out here in Northwest Washington State I regularly see other painters working in violation of the laws with no worry whatsoever of getting caught. In fact, I don't think I've seen ANY of my competitors using what I learned in the lead class were the proper practices. At best, I see some visqueen thrown out haphazardly; never any personal protective equipment used or marking tape. Nobody pays any penalty because we only have one lead inspector for the western half of our state.

I never "drop a dime" on my competition; I just try to educate all my clients about the proper process. If a client balks at the thought of me trying to do a lead job correctly, I know they're not a good fit for me.


----------



## thinkpainting/nick

It's enforced here bigtime unless your in our country illegally then no worries . And that's a FACT!


----------



## Roamer

Most undocumented immigrants don't want to attract any attention to themselves. They would be more likely to be certified than not.


----------



## slinger58

Roamer said:


> Most undocumented immigrants don't want to attract any attention to themselves. They would be more likely to be certified than not.




Most illegal immigrants didn't worry about attracting attention until about 3 months ago. And wouldn't the process of getting certified attract attention to their illegal status?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lilpaintchic

Roamer said:


> Most undocumented immigrants don't want to attract any attention to themselves. They would be more likely to be certified than not.


Rightttt...undoncument yet rrp certified? Seems like an oxymoron.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Brushman4

Eagle Cap Painter said:


> The lead companies knew it was insanely toxic as early as the mid-sixties and waged a decades-long "lead isn't as bad as those damned scientists want you to think it is" campaign to protect their profits. Petroleum products are nowhere near as toxic to humans as lead, so while it's being used less, it's not a fair comparison at all. It was never the best product and the manufacturers knew it.
> 
> Whoever's to blame, we're stuck with it and it's something contractors and HOs have to deal with appropriately. I don't think state-level control is good since it's just as bad in Arkansas as it is in California for people and there doesn't need to be 50 sets of regulations on how to deal with it.


We had people specifically request white lead paint for their homes exteriors when I first got into painting in 1973. A popular brand we used at the time was made on the southside of Chicago, Scotch Laddie White Lead Paint!

I worked for a contractor from about 1992-1996 that did 90% of their work for Amoco, painting gas stations. The paint we used was called Amoco gloss oil made by Valspar Paint, Rockford Illinois. The label clearly stated for industrial use only, Contains Lead even though lead paint was banned for the consumer in 1978 or 79!
I'm pretty sure that some industrial finishes, especially traffic marking paint to this day still contain lead.


----------



## PRC

Brushman4 said:


> We had people specifically request white lead paint for their homes exteriors when I first got into painting in 1973. A popular brand we used at the time was made on the southside of Chicago, Scotch Laddie White Lead Paint!
> 
> I worked for a contractor from about 1992-1996 that did 90% of their work for Amoco, painting gas stations. The paint we used was called Amoco gloss oil made by Valspar Paint, Rockford Illinois. The label clearly stated for industrial use only, Contains Lead even though lead paint was banned for the consumer in 1978 or 79!
> I'm pretty sure that some industrial finishes, especially traffic marking paint to this day still contain lead.


As far as I know it is still available for industrial and marine applications.


----------



## Roamer

> Most illegal immigrants didn't worry about attracting attention until about 3 months ago. And wouldn't the process of getting certified attract attention to their illegal status?


Registering for the RRP in no way jeopardizes you with the INS, they have nothing to do with the process. The RRP is run by the EPA, not the Dept. of Homeland Security.


----------



## Jpokey

I think the 300.00 fee to get a cert from the epa to do business is bs. Im starting up in the florida keys and its one fee after another.. Getting my license through Monroe county.


----------



## ParamountPaint

If you give me a compelling reason to join your database, I'll think about it.

We used to do a lot of historic restoration type jobs...not anymore. We'll be fine painting mid-2000s McMansions, but who really cares.

I'm restoring my own double hung windows in my 1905 house. Sorry about your luck if you'd like to maintain your original superior-made home fixtures. 

The government has decreed that it is not to be.


----------



## ParamountPaint

I'll also strongly question the number of illegal companies that are registered with the EPA. You gotta be kidding me.

Everyone from El Salvador is a registered RRP contractor.

Go smoke another one.


----------



## Roamer

Not sure how this will affect us. Seems like splitting hairs to me. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...aint-rules-quickly/ar-BBHqIVH?ocid=spartandhp


----------



## Drew007

Man, the more Trump cuts regulations, the better.


----------



## The Montana Painter

I am/was (probably lapsed)lead removal certified...decided not to do lead removal period on interiors, exteriors I encapsulate with neverpeal prime and paint!! Was obvious to me that the law was problematic. The fines were too high and compliance difficult to the point of fear(basically bankruptcy)...at the end of the seminar it stated that ignorance is no longer an excuse , know you know!!


----------



## Roamer

If you are doing any sanding or prepwork before encapsulating then you need to be RRP certified.


----------



## robertdaley848

oh, old political


----------



## Epoxy Pro

I let my License expire and have no desire to renew it.


----------



## stelzerpaintinginc.

*Certified Lead Based Paint Contractor*

I hear so many Contractors say they stopped renewing their license for one reason or another. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do or how they run their business, but removing the option to work on all structures built pre-'78 seems like potential lost revenue IMHO, and working without certification on homes pre-'78 under the loophole of "not disturbing the surface" is a gamble at best.

I see the whole "loophole" practice way more of a risk on exterior vs interior though. I can think of countless old homes where I've prepped rooms and not "disturbed" more than 6 sq. ft., however, on exteriors, I'd have to think pretty hard last time I prepped an old home and didn't "disturb" more than 20 sq. ft.

Sorry for the derail, but it just gets under my skin that I'm no longer able to compete price-wise with many of my competitors on homes built pre-'78, simply because I'm following the rules. Those same competitors use loopholes to rationalize and justify non-compliance in most instances, and it's irritating. I try to educate each potential customer of the responsibilities of the Contractor they hire, as well as their own responsibilities for hiring a qualified Contractor, but honestly, I really don't care anymore. It's just gotten to be such a time-suck to jump through all the hoops and STILL be at risk of hefty fines that I don't care if I ever do another full restoration job again. I say "still be at risk of fines" because if, in the rare event, I was ever paid a visit by an overzealous inspector, I'm sure they could find something wrong if they wanted to. I'll still get and maintain my certification, but having to mark up a job 45% to maintain compliance that few follow is more hassle than it's worth. 

Back to the OP...I say either do away with it or enforce it. As it sits now, you've got a select few playing by the rules and still getting the brunt of it. I would think the only way to enforce it would be to consolidate the resources we have available to a local administration, since it's unrealistic to maintain oversight on a Federal level.


----------



## lilpaintchic

stelzerpaintinginc. said:


> I hear so many Contractors say they stopped renewing their license for one reason or another. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do or how they run their business, but removing the option to work on all structures built pre-'78 seems like potential lost revenue IMHO, and working without certification on homes pre-'78 under the loophole of "not disturbing the surface" is a gamble at best.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the whole "loophole" practice way more of a risk on exterior vs interior though. I can think of countless old homes where I've prepped rooms and not "disturbed" more than 6 sq. ft., however, on exteriors, I'd have to think pretty hard last time I prepped an old home and didn't "disturb" more than 20 sq. ft.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the derail, but it just gets under my skin that I'm no longer able to compete price-wise with many of my competitors on homes built pre-'78, simply because I'm following the rules. Those same competitors use loopholes to rationalize and justify non-compliance in most instances, and it's irritating. I try to educate each potential customer of the responsibilities of the Contractor they hire, as well as their own responsibilities for hiring a qualified Contractor, but honestly, I really don't care anymore. It's just gotten to be such a time-suck to jump through all the hoops and STILL be at risk of hefty fines that I don't care if I ever do another full restoration job again. I say "still be at risk of fines" because if, in the rare event, I was ever paid a visit by an overzealous inspector, I'm sure they could find something wrong if they wanted to. I'll still get and maintain my certification, but having to mark up a job 45% to maintain compliance that few follow is more hassle than it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the OP...I say either do away with it or enforce it. As it sits now, you've got a select few playing by the rules and still getting the brunt of it. I would think the only way to enforce it would be to consolidate the resources we have available to a local administration, since it's unrealistic to maintain oversight on a Federal level.


It's become more like Jay walking. And it sucks. Whatever. Let the low ballers race to the bottom. If/when they run into that one inspector they'll wish they'd have done things legally vs. being hit by a bus.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## CApainter

Regulatory compliance and enforcement only works within the confines of the bureaucracies that create it and the legitimate private companies strong enough to withstand it. Meanwhile, everyone else exists in the Lord of the Flies economy where only the reckless survive.


----------



## stelzerpaintinginc.

CApainter said:


> Regulatory compliance and enforcement only works within the confines of the bureaucracies that create it and the legitimate private companies strong enough to withstand it. Meanwhile, everyone else exists in the Lord of the Flies economy where only the reckless survive.


Nice to see you post in here again CA. Seems like it's been a while. Hope all is well.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

stelzerpaintinginc. said:


> I hear so many Contractors say they stopped renewing their license for one reason or another. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do or how they run their business, but removing the option to work on all structures built pre-'78 seems like potential lost revenue IMHO, and working without certification on homes pre-'78 under the loophole of "not disturbing the surface" is a gamble at best.
> 
> I see the whole "loophole" practice way more of a risk on exterior vs interior though. I can think of countless old homes where I've prepped rooms and not "disturbed" more than 6 sq. ft., however, on exteriors, I'd have to think pretty hard last time I prepped an old home and didn't "disturb" more than 20 sq. ft.
> 
> Sorry for the derail, but it just gets under my skin that I'm no longer able to compete price-wise with many of my competitors on homes built pre-'78, simply because I'm following the rules. Those same competitors use loopholes to rationalize and justify non-compliance in most instances, and it's irritating. I try to educate each potential customer of the responsibilities of the Contractor they hire, as well as their own responsibilities for hiring a qualified Contractor, but honestly, I really don't care anymore. It's just gotten to be such a time-suck to jump through all the hoops and STILL be at risk of hefty fines that I don't care if I ever do another full restoration job again. I say "still be at risk of fines" because if, in the rare event, I was ever paid a visit by an overzealous inspector, I'm sure they could find something wrong if they wanted to. I'll still get and maintain my certification, but having to mark up a job 45% to maintain compliance that few follow is more hassle than it's worth.
> 
> Back to the OP...I say either do away with it or enforce it. As it sits now, you've got a select few playing by the rules and still getting the brunt of it. I would think the only way to enforce it would be to consolidate the resources we have available to a local administration, since it's unrealistic to maintain oversight on a Federal level.


2 reasons I gave up my RRP license. 

1) Like you said a lot do not follow the rules, we did and got tired of loosing jobs to companies who are not licensed or certified and underbid us. 

2) I no longer paint houses. I gave that up this past May.


----------



## Rbriggs82

Epoxy Pro said:


> 2 reasons I gave up my RRP license.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Like you said a lot do not follow the rules, we did and got tired of loosing jobs to companies who are not licensed or certified and underbid us.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I no longer paint houses. I gave that up this past May.


What prompted you to stop normal painting and move into just epoxy? 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Rbriggs82 said:


> What prompted you to stop normal painting and move into just epoxy?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


The demand for it. I am also starting up a prep company. Some painters around here get calls for an epoxy job but either skip or hate the prep. Right now over the next 2 weeks I have 9 prep jobs lined up and 4 epoxy jobs. Money is better than painting, no more moving peoples stuff, No more dealing with pets, No more ladders. I only work in cleaned out areas, I work a whole lost less and make more money. 

Drawback's I have to commute around 2 hours each way to stay busy. People around here are tight wads (another reason I gave up painting). Considering I just started this this past May I've had 2 to 3 jobs a week. This coming spring 35 residential garage/basement jobs booked and so far around 500,000 sqft of warehouse/factory/school.

I also now have union wage bids in the works for just prep, subbing to 3 flooring companies just prep, weather it's tile removal or just a quick buzz to level the floor.


----------



## jennifertemple

Roamer said:


> Most less expensive paints substitute calcium silicate or some such thing for the more expensive Titanium Dioxide. This cheaper substitute is potentially carcinogenic. So we will likely be working to remove it some time down the road, as well.



The truth to tell, painting is not the healthiest line of work to be in. We get into all kinds of chemicals for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

On my 3 hour drive into work this morning I saw a van drive by that had lettering for full lead paint removal. In MA my state you need a deleader license which I had and let it go. It's the frist time seeing a painter advertise just for RRP removal. He can have it all. lol. Been there done that all set with it.


----------



## Lightningboy65

For most that are certified complying with the regs. involves nothing more than having a HEPA vac and roll of plastic on hand. Set them in a conspicuous area, for all to see. Regs. are needed to a certain extent, but the way it stands today is comical (unless you're the one being cited). We always maintained certification, but I know were never in 100% compliance. Luckily never had a problem. I'm glad I only had to deal with it at the end of my career.


----------



## Holland

The EPA is not involved with certification and enforcement (at least in Wisconsin) of RRP (Renovation, Repair, Painting). I spoke with the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) who is responsible for this function, because I am up for renewal soon. 

I asked if the EPA cuts would have any effect on the future of Lead Certification/Enforcement/Policy, etc...

The agent I spoke with said that the EPA's status has no bearing on the RRP Certification. The RRP is enforced at the State level. She said, in fact, that they were planning to expand operations.


----------

