# Painting Contractors Mindset on RRP



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

I wanted to put this in the general forum, so I can get the opinions from non-certified painting contractors about the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.

I'm trying to develop a program to where I would do component lead based testing on 1960 thru 1977 homes so that painters ... whether non certified or lead certified don't have to follow the RRP and still be legal. Cost of this would be around $150 for an exterior paint project.

I already know that many contractors think the RRP is bull ... no lead poisoning happening ... yada yada yada. But after those types of opinions, you ultimately come down to ...

1. Do it illegally in hopes that you don't get caught or you're not afraid of getting caught.

or

2. Just avoid doing exterior painting on pre-1978 homes

If you're in the number 1 group ... why aren't you afraid of not getting caught? Would you do testing for $150 so you don't have to worry about being caught? 

If you're in the number 2 group ... are you missing the extra sales and income from not doing this group of homes? Would you pay $150 to start doing pre-1978 homes and collect the extra work?

Another question. Everyone hates getting sales calls, but every now and then one of those sales calls can really help your biz grow. Would you prefer to get a sales phone call .... an email ... or a letter in the mail?

Thanks for any input


----------



## Slingah (Sep 24, 2007)

Sounds like a way for someone (you) to make a buck off this mess.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

I'm not sure I follow you??? If it tests positive how can a non-certified firm work on it???


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Slingah said:


> Sounds like a way for someone (you) to make a buck off this mess.


Of course it is. Plus, trying to make it where a painting contractor can make a buck off of it, without getting fined.

Had 19 painting contractors turned in to the EPA in my city this Oct.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

All a contractor has to do is get certified and he can do his own testing. I know you are just trying to make a buck we a little smarter than that. I dink, as my son used to say when he was five.


----------



## Slingah (Sep 24, 2007)

That came out a bit negative on my part...I guess I just don't see why a non-certified firm would want to gamble $150. to see if he stands a chance on landing the job. My thought is that the property owner should pay the fee and decide who to hire.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Could someone please respond to post #3?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> I'm not sure I follow you??? If it tests positive how can a non-certified firm work on it???


I'm finding that these homes in this time period only have a 8% chance of lead based paint down here. So, I would check them ... 92% to 95% would be lead based paint free (per definition) ... so a non-certified or certified contractor would be free to work on them.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> I'm not sure I follow you??? If it tests positive how can a non-certified firm work on it???


You can't Aaron. It be illegal.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> All a contractor has to do is get certified and he can do his own testing. I know you are just trying to make a buck we a little smarter than that. I dink, as my son used to say when he was five.


A certified renovator would have to check 100 to 200 spots for an exterior paint job. With the cost of the test swabs+time+repair damage from test swabs ... it would cost a ton more than I could do it for.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> I'm finding that these homes in this time period only have a 8% chance of lead based paint down here. So, I would check them ... 92% to 95% would be lead based paint free (per definition) ... so a non-certified or certified contractor would be free to work on them.


I see where you are coming from now, but really it's very easy to get certified so you business really can't go very far. I wish then I could just do it for other contractors.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> A certified renovator would have to check 100 to 200 spots for an exterior paint job. With the cost of the test swabs+time+repair damage from test swabs ... it would cost a ton more than I could do it for.


Thats not true at all. Do the trim the siding and door on a couple sides and your done. One test kit and six swabs.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Slingah said:


> That came out a bit negative on my part...I guess I just don't see why a non-certified firm would want to gamble $150. to see if he stands a chance on landing the job. My thought is that the property owner should pay the fee and decide who to hire.


I have a non-certified firm who is giving the homeowner a price for exterior painting, if it is shown to be lead based paint free. If on the rare chance that it has lead based paint ... I don't charge anyone.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I think you misunderstood your instructor


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

I have found that when testing more times than not I will get a positive withing the first 4 areas.


----------



## BrushJockey (Mar 15, 2009)

Dean- I take it that you have the gun ( faster easier, more -much more expensive) than just using swabs like most would use? 

That would be the difference- plus speed of info.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> I have found that when testing more times than not I will get a positive withing the first 4 areas.


Aaron are you getting positives on home built after maybe 1965 down there?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> I see where you are coming from now, but really it's very easy to get certified so you business really can't go very far. I wish then I could just do it for other contractors.


I already do testing for certified painting contractors. Just trying to expand.

For a certified firm ... if they don't know if it has lead or not ... they have to follow the work practices. They have to hand wash, since they can't pressure wash. They have to do all the precautions (plastic, signs, etc) which can cost them 25% to 50% additional. Some contractors are having to charge a grand to do the additional work.

I test it for $150 and 95% of the time they can subtract that grand from the estimate. I'm Happy. Customer is Happy. Certified Contractor is Happy.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

BrushJockey said:


> Dean- I take it that you have the gun ( faster easier, more -much more expensive) than just using swabs like most would use?
> 
> That would be the difference- plus speed of info.


Yes, I have the XRF + I'm a lead inspector, so I don't have to check "each and every component" (as the rule states)


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> I already do testing for certified painting contractors. Just trying to expand.
> 
> For a certified firm ... if they don't know if it has lead or not ... they have to follow the work practices. They have to hand wash, since they can't pressure wash. They have to do all the precautions (plastic, signs, etc) which can cost them 25% to 50% additional. Some contractors are having to charge a grand to do the additional work.
> 
> I test it for $150 and 95% of the time they can subtract that grand from the estimate. I'm Happy. Customer is Happy. Certified Contractor is Happy.


Well why don't they test?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> Thats not true at all. Do the trim the siding and door on a couple sides and your done. One test kit and six swabs.


Not true. You need to read the rule. Plus, I've verified it with EPA enforcement.

A certified renovator must check "each and every" component unless it is a part of a system (window, door and etc). Even on a window, the rule talks about it have 6 or 7 components that must be tested on the window. Plus, a certified renovator can't just check 1 window ... they must check all windows.

It adds up to a 100 to 200 test (depending on what you are painting on the exterior)


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Not true. You need to read the rule. Plus, I've verified it with EPA enforcement.
> 
> A certified renovator must check "each and every" component unless it is a part of a system (window, door and etc). Even on a window, the rule talks about it have 6 or 7 components that must be tested on the window. Plus, a certified renovator can't just check 1 window ... they must check all windows.
> 
> It adds up to a 100 to 200 test (depending on what you are painting on the exterior)


Thats too crazy, there has to be some common sense in this. The house is a unit right?


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

The EPA leaves it up to the tester to determine with the test, if it is neg on the first couple windows of like structure then the rest of the windows are fine.Go for it!


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

With your mind set it's more like the an excessive compulsive disorder, there would be no end to your testing.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> I have found that when testing more times than not I will get a positive withing the first 4 areas.


Aaron,

Here are my stats

1960 thru 1977 exterior homes I'm find 95% lead based paint free.
1950 thru 1959 exterior homes I'm finding 75% lead based paint free.
1940 thru 1977 interior homes it ranges 92% to 98% lead based paint free.

Now, I am South, so we don't have as much as say the North East.

Plus, a test swab shows positive or negative. If you have a .5 mcg/f2 ... the test swabs would show positive. My XRF shows it being .5 mcg/f2 which is not considered lead based paint. Lead based paint is 1 or high mcg/f2


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> The EPA leaves it up to the tester to determine with the test, if it is neg on the first couple windows of like structure then the rest of the windows are fine.Go for it!


Not according to the EPA enforcement or as the rule describes.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> With your mind set it's more like the an excessive compulsive disorder, there would be no end to your testing.


I didn't make up the rule ... I'm just reading it. Clarified with the EPA Q&A and confirmed with the EPA themselves.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Here are my stats
> 
> ...


There is still a little bit of lead in paints we have now. If you sand paint we have now you could get some lead dust in the air. The whole idea on RRP ruling is to control the dust of lead no matter if you are sanding newer paint or older paint.
I would think that if the lead test kits turn red you should consider it lead based paint. Right?


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

I think Dean has a good point, it is something I have looked at as well. 
Dean, correct me if I am wrong,
You could easily use 50-100 swabs on an exterior, and show several positive results, Dean could test with the XRF (the same positive areas) and it could be under the EPA minimum. Therefore, Certified Firm or not, it could be done without using RRP Lead Safe Practices. You could pressure wash it!


Dean, what are the possible liability issues down the road for doing this? I assume if a child in the home had an elevated BLL, the contractor would be in the clear based your report?

Also, have you used the DLead kits yet? Does that provide a more accurate result?

What is your opinion on a CR using a Swab to test for lead for another contractor? Offering it as a service similar to what you are suggesting?


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

RCP "Dean, what are the possible liability issues down the road for doing this?"

I think we all know the answer to this. Yes in a court of law I'm sure they would ask if you checked every little area possible, but with his reasoning he is going to give a good bill of health and your guys are going to get out there with belt sanders and it's not going to look good after all the lead is everywhere.
The best thing we can do is use good painting practices and safe measures good old common sense, so if there is the slightest amount of lead we don't multiply it by acting as if there is no lead at all.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> There is still a little bit of lead in paints we have now. If you sand paint we have now you could get some lead dust in the air. The whole idea on RRP ruling is to control the dust of lead no matter if you are sanding newer paint or older paint.
> I would think that if the lead test kits turn red you should consider it lead based paint. Right?


John,

I agree with you to a certain extent. Legally, you don't have to take precautions if the paint had .999 mcg/ft2, because it is not lead based paint (according to the definition).

In my official report I say it is lead based paint free (per the definition), but put on a warning that there still may be small amounts of lead in the paint.

I also agree if the test swabs turn red ... a certified renovator should consider it lead based paint.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> I think Dean has a good point, it is something I have looked at as well.
> Dean, correct me if I am wrong,
> You could easily use 50-100 swabs on an exterior, and show several positive results, Dean could test with the XRF (the same positive areas) and it could be under the EPA minimum. Therefore, Certified Firm or not, it could be done without using RRP Lead Safe Practices. You could pressure wash it!
> 
> ...


Chris,

Agree with everything you said in the first paragraph.

On the liability, it would be on me and not on the contractor, so the contractor would be clear.

I haven't tried DLead, but it is based on the "chemical test", which shows positive or negative. The good thing about DLead is you can use it on plaster.

In the summer of next year, they are going to allow CRs to take paint chip samples and send them to the lab. So a CR can do test for other contractors, but only on components that the contractor will be testing. Example, In Texas, if a CR does a test on a component not being disturbed they would be illegal.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Chris,
> 
> Agree with everything you said in the first paragraph.
> 
> ...


Thanks Dean, but what about a non CR contractor using a swab test result from a CR?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

I'll give an example.

On a 1956 exterior, I found it to be lead based paint free (per definition) on all areas, except two components. The painting contractor pressured wash the entire house and didn't take precautions ... except on those two components. 

On those two components, the contractor wiped it down with a sponge and painted it ... thus not disturbing those areas. 

Another subject ...

I'm finding that homeowners would rather have the house tested if it saves them money. They are willing to take the gamble even on 1950 to 1959 homes (exterior) because the savings is so much.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> Thanks Dean, but what about a non CR contractor using a swab test result from a CR?


The law allows a non CR to do the house if a CR, Lead Inspector or a Lead Assessor clears it.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Had 19 painting contractors turned in to the EPA in my city this Oct.


What happened? Were they all non CR?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> What happened? Were they all non CR?


Remember, I live in Dallas, so there are 100s of people doing painting. Yes, they were all illegals (non CRs) . We have around 700 Certified Firms in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, so many of the Certified Firms are turning in the non-certified.

We are more pro-active down here I guess.

The CFs aren't going to sit around letting the non-CFs take food out of their mouths.


----------



## smittydidit (Sep 21, 2008)

*Answers Please*

From post #4 - Had 19 painting contractors turned in to the EPA in my city this Oct. - What happened to these contractors? What were their fines? Are they Still in business? Give us some details on what happens to contractors who received a fine. Has a contractor contested a fine? If so what was the out come?
__________________


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Smitty,

These are brand new (for Oct) turn-ins, so I doubt they have been accessed fines as of yet. 

There have been fines issued from what I hear ranging in the $10,000 to $2,000 range and even just some warnings.

I talk with the lead based paint enforcement down here. The enforcement also contacts OSHA (lead based paint division) on some turn-ins too.

It is happening in your EPA region too. From what I hear, the lead based paint enforcement divisions are swamped.

I think this has a lot to do with that they just got their fine schedules (how much to fine) and now there is not much to hold them back.


----------



## CK_68847 (Apr 17, 2010)

Dean CRCNA said:


> A certified renovator would have to check 100 to 200 spots for an exterior paint job. With the cost of the test swabs+time+repair damage from test swabs ... it would cost a ton more than I could do it for.


You can go buy the test swabs at Sherwin Williams or about any other paint store for cheap. You aren't going to have to test 200 spots. You are looking at a box of swabs for a pretty cheap price and five minutes of testing. The swabs tell you within seconds if it has lead. Hell you have a pretty good idea even looking at the house before you start if it has lead. You can go take the class for around 150.


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

*One thing is sure from reading these posts, the EPA has done something people have been trying to accomplish for centuries, from the alchemists of the Middle Ages to today. 

Namely, turn lead into gold!*


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

CK_68847 said:


> You can go take the class for around 150.


Where are these $150 classes? Around here the only RRP classes available are almost twice that. Then include the EPA fee and it costs me $600.00 just to paint my OWN houses! (I own several rentals, all of which were built prior to 1978).


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

CK_68847 said:


> You can go buy the test swabs at Sherwin Williams or about any other paint store for cheap. You aren't going to have to test 200 spots. You are looking at a box of swabs for a pretty cheap price and five minutes of testing. The swabs tell you within seconds if it has lead. Hell you have a pretty good idea even looking at the house before you start if it has lead. You can go take the class for around 150.


CK,

Thanks for setting me straight. I assume you're a certified renovator.

Are you talking about the 8 pack or 16 pack of swabs? I didn't realize that certified renovators could check a ton less spots than a lead inspector.

Wait a minute ... you said it would only take 5 minutes, so you must be talking about the 8 pack. . It takes me 45 minutes to an hour to check an exterior, where it only takes you 5 minutes. I do feel dumb.

Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean, you really must work harder to keep up!

CK, to test an exterior properly, you will use more than a box of swabs, currently they are 8 for 24.99 at SW. Now if you do one swab, and it is positive and you want to assume the whole building is positive, go ahead. But if you want to isolate or rule out the LBP, you will have to do a lot more testing.

From the rule:

_§ 745.83 Definitions.
Component or building component means specific design or structural elements or fixtures of a building or residential dwelling that are distinguished from each other by form, function, and location. These include, but are not limited to, interior components such as: Ceilings, crown molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door trim, floors, fireplaces, radiators and other heating units, shelves, shelf supports, stair treads, stair risers, stair stringers, newel posts, railing caps, balustrades, windows and trim (including sashes, window heads, jambs, sills or stools and troughs), built in cabinets, columns, beams, bathroom vanities, counter tops, and air conditioners; and exterior components such as: Painted roofing, chimneys, flashing, gutters and downspouts, ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards, cornerboards, bulkheads, doors and door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice work, railings and railing caps, siding, handrails, stair risers and treads, stair stringers, columns, balustrades, windowsills or stools and troughs, casings, sashes and wells, and air conditioners.
_


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Chris,
> 
> 
> 
> On the liability, it would be on me and not on the contractor, so the contractor would be clear.


doing a bit of resentment nursing here but,

say you got sued in a civil court somehow (not saying you aren't professional in every way here, or that you aren't capable of accurate measurements) and the judgment was for the plaintiff(s) and they maxed you out and there was still money out there for them, I believe the painting contractor would be the next one to get hit. They would be the next pockets to plunder!


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

TJ Paint said:


> doing a bit of resentment nursing here but,
> 
> say you got sued in a civil court somehow (not saying you aren't professional in every way here, or that you aren't capable of accurate measurements) and the judgment was for the plaintiff(s) and they maxed you out and there was still money out there for them, I believe the painting contractor would be the next one to get hit. They would be the next pockets to plunder!


Agree with you TJ to a large extent. This is why I always suggest that the homeowner should contact (and pay) me personally to do the limited lead inspection. Doing it this way, really protects the painter.

The homeowner hired me ... not the painter. It is the way all the painting contractors are doing it, when using me.


----------



## dvp (Jun 21, 2010)

you could set up a business in california because all pre '78 structures here are presumed lead by law unless proven otherwise by a certified third party inspector. I hate to say this, but the rest of the country usually follows california on stuff like this eventually, and laws will only get stricter. Supposedly lead inspection companies will be one of the fastest growing and most profitable buisinesses in the near future and from what i understand there arent enough certified inspectors in california now to meet the demand. As a painter i think this will help me personally, as the company i work for does lead abatement, and being certified will reduce our competition. like it or not, this is the future of our industry.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

RCP said:


> Dean, you really must work harder to keep up!
> 
> CK, to test an exterior properly, you will use more than a box of swabs, currently they are 8 for 24.99 at SW. Now if you do one swab, and it is positive and you want to assume the whole building is positive, go ahead. But if you want to isolate or rule out the LBP, you will have to do a lot more testing.
> 
> ...


If I'm reading the rule correctly then I only have to test one window, in order to know that there is or isn't lead on every window on the house I'm testing. This is the presumption that we have been following on all lead testing. Using 150 swabs to test a house seems over the top and not practical at all.

The windows perform the same function, are located at the same location and have the same form.

For the record: just about every house that we lead test comes up positive for lead.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Just imagine. This is one of the few laws to come out that has a strong impact on us. And we are all shocked at lack of clarity, poorly thought out ramifications, etc. Can you imagine if we were a more regulated industry how crazy must be?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Roamer,

You need to check every single window. However, if you check one window and it has lead based paint, you can assume (if you want to) that the rest of the windows also have lead based paint. You just can't test one window and if it shows negative assume that they other windows are negative too. Here are two EPA FAQ that can help you answer the question. I have confirmed these FAQ directly with the EPA RRP group in Region 6.

*Question*

_When a certified renovator uses an EPA-recognized test kit to determine the presence of lead, can the
results be grouped? For instance, may the certified renovator test just one window sill in a room if all will
be affected?_

*Answer*

No. The certified renovator must test each component affected by the renovation. If the components
make up an integrated whole, such as the individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the
renovator is required to test only one of the individual components, unless the individual components
appear to have been repainted or refinished separately. Multiple window sills are not integrated parts of a
whole. They are separate components and must be tested separately.

(another FAQ describing why a Certified Renovator needs to check every single window).

*Question*

_Is a lead-based paint inspection, performed by a certified inspector or risk assessor, that includes a
written determination that various building components are free of paint or other surface coatings
containing lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight
sufficient to determine compliance with requirements of the RRP rule?_

*Answer*

The RRP Rule does not apply to target housing where a certified inspector or risk assessor has
determined that the components affected by the renovation are free of regulated lead-based paint or that
a property is free of lead-based paint for the purposes of the Lead Disclosure Rule.
The RRP Rule does not require certified inspectors or certified risk assessors to test each and every
component that will be affected by a renovation. Certified inspectors or risk assessors are free to conduct
representative sampling, so long as the components to be tested are chosen in accordance with
documented methodologies, such as the HUD Guidelines. *However, because certified renovator training
does not cover sampling protocols, certified renovators using EPA-recognized test kits to determine the
applicability of the RRP Rule must test each and every component that will be affected in order to
determine that the RRP Rule does not apply to a particular renovation.*


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks Dean for taking the time to clarify this. It is a shame that the testing part of the class is not more thorough.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

have the homeowner use his friend to powerwash and scrape. no charge!

just get to painting,,,,,no surfaces disturbed!

maybe you even know his friend, and loaned him your powerwasher and scrapers.

i imagine most thrifty homeowners would like this plan, they dislike government and high prices as much as the next guy!


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

i painted 2 houses this year that were already powerwashed and scaped when i showed up to paint and put my sign out. 

customers like to save money, show them how.

disturb no surfaces!


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

If I'm going to pressure wash, scrape and feather the edges ... I'm sure not going to pay a painter to come and do the easy part


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

good, i guess if you didnt catch on, the epa wont either!


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

this is shady>>>

talk to the homeowner about rrp and the added expense.

land the job.

send a few of your guys to do the powerwashing, scraping, and sanding. at this time they arent working for you,,,,they are friends of the homeowner. no money is exchanging hands. you dont even have a yard sign out,,,,,you havnt even really begun.

then you show up to apply paint.

you didnt disturb any surface.

the homeowner saved thousands, you paid your bills.

this is an example of a shady painting contractor, i do not endorse this type of behavior.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

it is important that all painting contractors operate within the constraints of the law!

follow all regulations, and be a good citizen.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

^All that is shady, and may work until you run into a jackass homeowner then you are screwed.


----------



## eews (Apr 18, 2007)

EPA says rules applies if you are paid for work. If you donate your services, then rule does not apply. I asked this question to Reg 2 EPA, explaining that we sometimes work on Churches, and donate our services. They confirmed that the rule would not apply, even if Church had daycare, and would otherwise fall under the regulation. Hmmm...


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

eews said:


> EPA says rules applies if you are paid for work. If you donate your services, then rule does not apply. I asked this question to Reg 2 EPA, explaining that we sometimes work on Churches, and donate our services. They confirmed that the rule would not apply, even if Church had daycare, and would otherwise fall under the regulation. Hmmm...


 
volunteering your time is a perfect way to show the community you care! i urge all of you to band together and give till it hurts. be a responsible citizen, and always operate within the law. bless each and every one of you.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

The Law says:


> _§ 745.83 Definitions.
> Component or building component means specific design or structural elements or fixtures of a building or residential dwelling that are distinguished from each other by form, function, and location._


I interpret this to mean that a window which has the same form and function and is at the same location would only require the test on one window to determine whether there was lead on every window.

If what you are saying is true then the EPA is obviously trying to discourage testing altogether which is just plain ridiculous and further testament to the overall impracticality of the RRP regulations in general.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Roamer said:


> I interpret this to mean that a window which has the same form and function and is at the same location would only require the test on one window to determine whether there was lead on every window.


I think post 50 makes it pretty clear each and every window has to be checked. However, here is another FAQ

*Question*

_When testing a property for the presence of lead prior to beginning a renovation using an EPA-recognized
test kit, must I test every component affected by the renovation?_

*Answer*

Yes. Because certified renovator training does not cover sampling protocols, certified renovators using
EPA-recognized test kits to determine the applicability of the RRP Rule must test each and every
component that will be affected in order to determine that the RRP Rule does not apply to a particular
renovation.

end of FAQ

1. There are many windows on a home that don't have the same form. Some are wider, some are thinner. Some are taller and some or shorter. So that eliminates the "same form"

2. Windows aren't located in the same location on a home. So that eliminates the 'same location".

3. Windows aren't a component. They are made up of dozen components.

4. Certified Renovators aren't allowed to do sampling. Sampling is where you check a certain amount and then assume the rest are the same.

With you scenario, a lead inspector could check 1 apartment of a 1,000 unit complex and say that all apartments are clear, because the 1 they checked is clear.

Lead Inspectors can do sampling, but they still have to check many many apartments before they can say "all clear".

I'm amazed that the EPA allows us Certified Renovators to even test when we haven't had any training on what to test!


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Does anyone know if LeadCheck is a publically traded company? I have to re-evaluate my portfolio.


----------



## Roamer (Jul 5, 2010)

It goes beyond dumb. Counter-intuitive, I'm the dumb one for being surprised that a government agency would come out with something like this. Why are paint stores and hardware stores selling two test kits per pack when that wouldn't even test one window.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Roamer said:


> It goes beyond dumb. Counter-intuitive, I'm the dumb one for being surprised that a government agency would come out with something like this. Why are paint stores and hardware stores selling two test kits per pack when that wouldn't even test one window.


Roamer this guy wants us to feel we can't do the test, and we are not competent to be able to work all this out, plus we need someone like him to explain it.:yes:


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

get lead.. lick lead. Go to RRP homes and lick everything.. see what is lead and not.. will save you TONZ of $$$$$!!!


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Come on guys, like it or not, RRP is here to stay. If you plan to work on pre 78, you need to know this stuff. Dean has provided some good information, he did not make the rules.

If you don't plan on getting certified, or doing the work, that's fine too. Let's not turn every RRP thread into a rant.

Thanks


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Yeah, but with his info non of us want to dare touch the stuff. I don't think that is what EPA wants do you? I know you are are overtaken by his stuff but, I'm not.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

dont believe everything dean crcna says, he's human,,,,,humans have a way of twisting things to their own benefit. have ray gun, will travel.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I think he has his on agenda. It's not hard to see.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Rcp, you are too nice sometimes to see what is in front of your eyes.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

He is trying to crave out a niche here.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

i showed up to an exterior im getting ready to paint, and there were several fellows in whites cleaning up.

i said who are you and what are you doing here? 

they said they were there doing some powerwashing and scraping,,,,,they are freinds of the homeowner.

i said "thanks, you guys did a really great job prepping this for me,,,,,if i were to do that it would cost a fortune".

so i just got to painting and didnt need to disturb any surfaces,,,this was all taken care of for me.

the homeowner saved himself thousands of dollars by getting those dudes to help him with the prep work.

i even hired them to do some work for me,,,,great group of fellas!

no surfaces were disturbed on my job!


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

high fibre said:


> i showed up to an exterior im getting ready to paint, and there were several fellows in whites cleaning up.
> 
> i said who are you and what are you doing here?
> 
> ...


You are kidding right?


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

johnpaint said:


> He is trying to crave out a niche here.


fear is a powerful sales tool.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I'm sure they tested on four places on a window, like always? lol


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

it depends on your definition of the word kidding.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

high fibre said:


> fear is a powerful sales tool.


It's called FOS.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

From now on HF I will test on 200 spots on every house just for the fun of it..lol


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

johnpaint said:


> I'm sure they tested on four places on a window, like always? lol


 
they didnt need to test anything,,,,,they were doing this for free,,,they are freinds of the homeowner.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Just like ten years ago when everyone was up in arms about mold this too will fade out.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

As the chinese lady say's, Oh I see.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Yeah, I guess you guys are right, I'll just use one swab, flying Dean out to test would be overkill. But with the money the homeowner saves on prep......


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

RCP said:


> Yeah, I guess you guys are right, I'll just use one swab, flying Dean out to test would be overkill. But with the money the homeowner saves on prep......


I know your being funny but really the EPA does not want to freak us out here like he does, there is a middle ground. Two hundred times what is he smoking?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

This is great guys! Seriously. I needed to know the mindset of painting contractors.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Sorry Rcp, I just tired of this stuff.Just think about this, most insurance companies have for four or five years stopped covering mold. What do you think will be next with people talking like this?


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> This is great guys! Seriously. I needed to know the mindset of painting contractors.


What do we care?


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

high fibre said:


> fear is a powerful sales tool.


"Fear of loss is a greater motivator than expectation of gain".


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

I will explain to the HO that if they want to save a ton of money they should pressure wash,scrape & sand.Then when they have it where they want t call me and I'll paint it!


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

If some of you guys are upset with needing to test in more than a couple of spots ... you really are going to be upset in several months, when ...


You will need vertical containment on exterior jobs.
Need to have dust sampling test when you scrape.
Have to pay for clearance testing after you use a power sander (even if hooked up to a HEPA)


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

It will be a boon for the vinyl siding industry then. Only wealthy people in historical districts will pay to have it done correctly (and that is only a possible option, most will not comply there either unless fines threaten HO's as well). Middle class and lower income already could not afford a good paint job on older homes, now it will be impossible unless they take out a second mortgage to finance the painting.


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

DeanV said:


> It will be a boon for the vinyl siding industry then. Only wealthy people in historical districts will pay to have it done correctly (and that is only a possible option, most will not comply there either unless fines threaten HO's as well). Middle class and lower income already could not afford a good paint job on older homes, now it will be impossible unless they take out a second mortgage to finance the painting.


I agree wholeheartedly. AND THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH VINYL SIDING TOO! Not so much in the product, but the manufacturing and eventual disposal after it's lifespan. And forget about a fire, a host of toxic fumes are released under heat. 


from http://architecture.about.com/cs/repairremodel/a/vinyl.htm
"1. Health Concerns 
Vinyl is made from a PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastic resin that is thought to cause cancer in humans. Although vinyl may be safe while it is on your home, some scientists believe that manufacturing and disposing vinyl is hazardous to our health and to the environment. Accidental fires in vinyl-sided buildings are more dangerous because vinyl produces toxic fumes when heated. In addition, doctors are reporting a high incidence of neurological damage, respiratory problems, liver and kidney failure, birth defects, and cancer among people who work in or live near factories where vinyl is produced."


----------



## y.painting (Jul 19, 2009)

DeanV said:


> It will be a boon for the vinyl siding industry then. Only wealthy people in historical districts will pay to have it done correctly (and that is only a possible option, most will not comply there either unless fines threaten HO's as well). Middle class and lower income already could not afford a good paint job on older homes, now it will be impossible unless they take out a second mortgage to finance the painting.


Veltman Painting and Siding, Inc. :yes:


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Everything is toxic eventually.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

Just say "No".


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I think that would be the last straw, the new changes would make an already dubious proposition on old homes (50's and before) an impossibility from both a logistics and a cost per job basis. Maybe a company specialize and charge an arm, leg, and first born child for a paint job and do it, but to do a few jobs a year would not be worthwhile. Too much cost in training and headaches to do it.

NEPS is right (and he can quote me if he likes). Just say no.


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

DeanV said:


> NEPS is right (and he can quote me if he likes). Just say no.


new sig :thumbsup:


----------



## NEPS.US (Feb 6, 2008)

NEPS.US said:


> new sig :thumbsup:


 :thumbup:


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

aaron61 said:


> I will explain to the HO that if they want to save a ton of money they should pressure wash,scrape & sand.Then when they have it where they want t call me and I'll paint it!


 I was thinking the same thing. Maybe even refer a crew of dumb dumbs and come in when they are done.


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> This is great guys! Seriously. I needed to know the mindset of painting contractors.


My mindset is...I hate the EPA. Hope that helps.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

mexicans and hillbillies will be powerwashing and scraping homes for many many years to come,,,,think of it like growing reefer.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> If some of you guys are upset with needing to test in more than a couple of spots ... you really are going to be upset in several months, when ...
> 
> 
> You will need vertical containment on exterior jobs.
> ...


just donate your time for the prep,,,no charge.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

You have to be nice to Dean he has giving up a lot of his time to get on here and help us all out.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I just went out today and did a test with 200 samples and recorded all and did it with one two swabs, I think I could have done it with one but it was getting a little dry after the first 100 areas. I did find lead on the very last one so the house will be treated as lead.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

the sky is falling


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

/me makes a tinfoil hat


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/QZZYRCNUzmA/default.jpg


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)




----------



## Fictitious Character (Oct 12, 2010)

Either get on board with the whole mess or just say no to those jobs.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

Fictitious Character said:


> Either get on board with the whole mess or just say no to those jobs.


Yes sir.


----------



## Fictitious Character (Oct 12, 2010)

PatsPainting said:


> Yes sir.


 I like your attitude. 

I forgot to say IMO


----------



## Capt-sheetrock (Feb 10, 2008)

high fibre said:


> mexicans and hillbillies will be powerwashing and scraping homes for many many years to come,,,,think of it like growing reefer.


 I'm a hillbilly with a powerwasher,,,,,, I thought you didn't like reefer,,,,,now you got me really confused!!!!


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

nah, i was probably joking,,im pretty uptight.


----------



## Capt-sheetrock (Feb 10, 2008)

high fibre said:


> nah, i was probably joking,,im pretty uptight.


 :thumbup:


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

You guys ever notice that when the government gets involved in any area of our lives it takes longer to do something and costs more too.


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

daren said:


> You guys ever notice that when the government gets involved in any area of our lives it takes longer to do something and costs more too.


All those attorneys who have no real world work experience, drafting the documents.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Yesterday evening, I did a whole house lead based paint inspection on a 1954 home.

I had 24 inspection locations on the outside of the home. Luckily, I can do sampling. If I did the exterior as a Certified Renovator is required ... it would have been close to the 200+ locations I mentioned in previous post.

There were 23 windows alone. LeadCheck themselves say that 5 spots on a window need to be checked at a minimum. This would be 115 spots just talking about windows alone. It actually would have been more on the windows, because several windows had different color (painted) casings.

It is amazing to me, that some contractors think that they can only check a couple of spots on the exterior and believe they are doing a good job or a legal inspection.

I briefly talked about this thread to the homeowner, a 30 year old single female. I mentioned that some painters suggest that she can pressure wash, scrape and sand the house herself to save money. Or, she could find a contractor who will pressure wash, scrape and sand the house for free and then charge her 2x 3x the painting price to make up for the free stuff  

Her response was that she wasn't looking for a painting *CON*tractor, but a professional painting contractor


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

Dean CRCNA said:


> I briefly talked about this thread to the homeowner, *a 30 year old single female.* I mentioned that some painters suggest that she can pressure wash, scrape and sand the house herself to save money. Or, she could find a contractor who will pressure wash, scrape and sand the house for free and then charge her 2x 3x the painting price to make up for the free stuff
> 
> Her response was that she wasn't looking for a painting *CON*tractor, but a professional painting contractor



I believe you, I also believe the 30 SF might have something to do with her response. 

For every one of her there are probably 2 who would opt to do the prep themselves.

Try it again on your next male customer.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Tell us what she says after getting the price for the work if there is extensive scraping an peeling. I had a landlord who had plaster demo'd with no containment in his half of the building. The home is a victorian style and he wanted the details painted accenting colors. But a price tag of around 12,700 for the whole exterior was too much and so was a price just under 4k for the front only (most prep and detailed portion).

I have explained his liability for lead as a rental owner, etc. Did not matter.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Also, is sampling is fine with the Xrf what is the logical reason that the same kind of sampling cannot be done with test swabs?

If 24 spot checks with a ray gun are good enough, why are the same 24 spots checked with a swab not good enough?

Sees like a hole in the training procedures on the governments part. Or just stupidity.


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

What does one of these ray guns cost?


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

I just don't see how the average joe or jill living in a pre 78 house can afford to hire an rrp certified painter if there is extensive scraping. At first, I read the EPA estimated the rule would only add $30.00 to the average estimate. 

It's evident that figure is BS. The visqueen alone could run that much!


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

DeanV said:


> Tell us what she says after getting the price for the work if there is extensive scraping an peeling.


No peeling paint. Not sure what the painting contractor is going to charge. However, she saved around $1000+ of the additional compliance cost that would have been added to the job if it had not shown to be lead based paint free.

By the way, LeadCheck would have shown the house positive, since there were several readings of .5. As you know, lead based paint is 1. or greater.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

DeanV said:


> Also, is sampling is fine with the Xrf what is the logical reason that the same kind of sampling cannot be done with test swabs?
> 
> If 24 spot checks with a ray gun are good enough, why are the same 24 spots checked with a swab not good enough?
> 
> Sees like a hole in the training procedures on the governments part. Or just stupidity.


I guess they don't allow sampling because no training was done in the 8 hour course, in the area of lead testing. My 8 hour course spent about 2 min showing me how to use leadcheck, but not what to check. Me personally, I think they should teach Certified Renovators to test, so they could do sampling. Of course that would take 3 days of courses ... past an EPA test ... more self study for a month or two and then passing a state test. At least that is how it is done in Texas.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

hoz said:


> What does one of these ray guns cost?


Mine, $20,000, but I got a good one.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

hoz said:


> I just don't see how the average joe or jill living in a pre 78 house can afford to hire an rrp certified painter if there is extensive scraping. At first, I read the EPA estimated the rule would only add $30.00 to the average estimate.
> 
> It's evident that figure is BS. The visqueen alone could run that much!


Totally agree.

Guess EPA thought we were using dust free containment originally and that this would only add a few dollars for paperwork.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

In a few years when the insurance companies start dropping the coverage for lead work we will not even have the opportunity to bid on these jobs, it will be left to guy's like the water damage contractors to bid on.Do you think the insurance companies are not watching this as we speak?*http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...p=opportunity&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top*


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

hoz said:


> I just don't see how the average joe or jill living in a pre 78 house can afford to hire an rrp certified painter if there is extensive scraping.


On my recent real life scenario, the contractor was a Lead Safe Certified Firm. The gave the homeowner 2 prices. One with RRP. One without RRP. If she wanted to get a limited lead inspection done for $150 and it showed no lead based paint, she could get the lower price.

She called me. I did it and it showed no lead based paint.

The contractor gets the job, because they were competitively priced and didn't have to add on for RRP. The contractor didn't even have to pay for the inspection cost!

To me ... a smart contractor. I win. Contractor wins. Homeowner wins.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

johnpaint said:


> In a few years when the insurance companies start dropping the coverage for lead work we will not even have the opportunity to bid on these jobs, it will be left to guy's like the water damage contractors to bid on.Do you think the insurance companies are not watching this as we speak?*http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...p=opportunity&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top*


I've already heard of some insurance companies not insuring, unless it can be shown no lead based paint. Some other insurance companies are increasing rates to cover the additional cost.


----------



## clammer (Feb 13, 2009)

Dean CRCNA said:


> No peeling paint.
> 
> If there was no peeling paint you would not be disturbing any lead based paint.You would only have to recoat.


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

Dean CRCNA said:


> There were 23 windows alone. LeadCheck themselves say that 5 spots on a window need to be checked at a minimum. This would be 115 spots just talking about windows alone. It actually would have been more on the windows, because several windows had different color (painted) casings.
> 
> It is amazing to me, that some contractors think that they can only check a couple of spots on the exterior and believe they are doing a good job or a legal inspection.


Well I guess I'm one of them. Sounds like they want us to just keep checking until we find the one square inch of paint on the house that had some lead drip on it from the roofer doing some soldering. 5 spots on one window is crazy. Who is going to use lead paint on the upper sash and not on the sill? Or just 1 or 2 windows and not all of them. Most houses it's going to be everywhere or nowhere or just on the main house and not the addition.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

He's working it.lol


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

daren said:


> Most houses it's going to be everywhere or nowhere or just on the main house and not the addition.


Wrong. I have never found a house that had it everywhere. I had a 50s house that it was all clear except on a spot under the front porch.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

clammer said:


> If there was no peeling paint you would not be disturbing any lead based paint.You would only have to recoat.


Guess they wanted to be able to pressure wash or sand the gloss.


----------



## Paradigmzz (May 5, 2010)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Wrong. I have never found a house that had it everywhere. I had a 50s house that it was all clear except on a spot under the front porch.



I took the stupid class and I have a question. So, in this case, the porch was painted with lead based paint but nothing else. You would contain the porch but not the rest of the home right? if this is the case then a modified paint bid could be created by a painting contractor.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Paradigmzz said:


> I took the stupid class and I have a question. So, in this case, the porch was painted with lead based paint but nothing else. You would contain the porch but not the rest of the home right? if this is the case then a modified paint bid could be created by a painting contractor.


Correct.

On this particular job, the ceiling of the porch area was drywall and it was lbp free. It was only 4 pcs of 1 x 3 frieze boards up next to the ceiling.

Contractor pressured wash (avoiding that area) and did their normal on the entire house. When it came to this area, they just wiped with a sponge and painted (no disturbing), so they didn't have to follow RRP on any of the house.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> Correct.
> 
> On this particular job, the ceiling of the porch area was drywall and it was lbp free. It was only 4 pcs of 1 x 3 frieze boards up next to the ceiling.
> 
> Contractor pressured wash (avoiding that area) and did their normal on the entire house. When it came to this area, they just wiped with a sponge and painted (no disturbing), so they didn't have to follow RRP on any of the house.


Ahhh, so if they had only done one or two swabs, the frieze being one, they would have assumed lbp on the whole job and had to do a lot more?!

Or conversely, tested a few other spots and not the frieze, and incorrectly assumed no lbp?


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

just work within the law. 

dont disturb surfaces inside,,,,wash them, seal them, do your mud work, sand with a wet sponge, spot prime and paint.

no dust, no surfaces disturbed.

the sky isnt falling.

exteriors? dont do the prep work,,,those other dudes will do it. have it all documented,,,that will save the h.o thousands, and they will love it.


----------



## tntpainting (Apr 3, 2008)

If it doesn't need sanding then why open that can of worms I don't get it just paint it yeah but that whole lbp things is brutal if removal is necessary I won't touch not worth the trouble like the old asbestos removal trade guys used to wear tyvek and respirators now they just work around the stuff with out any equipment u can thank the govt


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

those other guys can do the removal/demolition for free,,,,they are freinds of the homeowner i think. ive seen them around before,,,its a small town. when those gujys are dong the dusty nasty work and donating their time to the homeowner, make sure that is all in black and white so it never comes back on you. all your doing is the painting portion. 

although i am certified, i prefer to not to the prep or demolition on these homes,,,,,,the homeowners typically have their freinds/family do all of that. this saves them thousands, i dont need to set up containment, and they get a great paint job. there is absolutely no funny business, just working completely within the law.


----------



## hoz (Sep 27, 2010)

high fibre said:


> there is absolutely no funny business, just working completely within the law.


For the time being...


----------



## CPFSam (Nov 8, 2010)

New guy here.
Couple questions/comments.
1. The texas guy spent 20k on a test gun but charges 150 to test? Is this correct.
2. I have some experience in the lending business from another life, I had a freind call me last week to do a lead test on a house he's buying requested by the mortgage company prior to close, is it just me or does that throw up a red flag for those that want to buy older homes?
3. If we are going to be responsible for inspecting past coatings for dangers, shouldnt we charge accordingly.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

CPFSam said:


> New guy here.
> Couple questions/comments.
> 1. The texas guy spent 20k on a test gun but charges 150 to test? Is this correct.


That sounds about right, also I would think the cost would very from the size of the house. The guys here in Cal charge around $250.00 per house to use one of those xfr's. Takes them less then a hour to do. If you were to do a test by someone coming out to take paint chips, that could run you several thousands as they would have to take 100's of paint chips.

Pat


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

CPFSam said:


> New guy here.
> Couple questions/comments.
> 1. The texas guy spent 20k on a test gun but charges 150 to test? Is this correct.
> 2. I have some experience in the lending business from another life, I had a freind call me last week to do a lead test on a house he's buying requested by the mortgage company prior to close, is it just me or does that throw up a red flag for those that want to buy older homes?
> 3. If we are going to be responsible for inspecting past coatings for dangers, shouldnt we charge accordingly.


You need to hang around a little longer.


----------



## CPFSam (Nov 8, 2010)

We had to take an 8 hour brutal painting contractor exam in palm beach county florida, to be licensed. Credit check, background check more than you can imagine, but we charge for it. Has nothing to do with anything else.
The bigger your investment, you must make that up.


----------



## CPFSam (Nov 8, 2010)

Sorry guys dont want to rattle anything I just dont see the ROI for a 20k test gun at 150 per pop when 2-3k investvestment on advertising and marketing towards homeowners with 500k homes and up under 10 years old will line your pockets big time. Just sayin.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

CPFSam said:


> Sorry guys dont want to rattle anything I just dont see the ROI for a 20k test gun at 150 per pop when 2-3k investvestment on advertising and marketing towards homeowners with 500k homes and up under 10 years old will line your pockets big time. Just sayin.


You are fine, we loooove talking about RRP, right John! 



CPFSam said:


> New guy here.
> Couple questions/comments.
> 1. The texas guy spent 20k on a test gun but charges 150 to test? Is this correct.
> 2. I have some experience in the lending business from another life, I had a freind call me last week to do a lead test on a house he's buying requested by the mortgage company prior to close, is it just me or does that throw up a red flag for those that want to buy older homes?
> 3. If we are going to be responsible for inspecting past coatings for dangers, shouldnt we charge accordingly.



Buyers have 10 days to get a lead inspection done, the sellers have to sign an affidavit stating if there is a known lead issue. Part of RRP requires that the records of any RRP work must be disclosed.
From the rule:

_§ 745.100 Purpose.

top
This subpart implements the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d, which impose certain requirements on the sale or lease of target housing. Under this subpart, a seller or lessor of target housing shall disclose to the purchaser or lessee the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards; provide available records and reports; provide the purchaser or lessee with a lead hazard information pamphlet; give purchasers a 10-day opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection; and attach specific disclosure and warning language to the sales or leasing contract before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target housing._

As far as charging, I agree. Dean will probably be along tomorrow to answer for himself, but I believe the $150 he mentioned was for doing a simple check for a HO who was working with a painting contractor. I'd imagine he charges more for other types of testing.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

If you buy a new $20,000 dollar truck for your business, would you add $2000 dollars to your next 10 jobs to pay it off? I doubt it. You would never get any work. Just because your investment is expensive does not mean your product has to be. It will just take longer to get your return back. After that it's all gravy 

Pat


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

After 134 inspections it's all profit. If you don't have to have it recalibrated.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

CPFSam said:


> New guy here.
> Couple questions/comments.
> 1. The texas guy spent 20k on a test gun but charges 150 to test? Is this correct.
> 2. I have some experience in the lending business from another life, I had a freind call me last week to do a lead test on a house he's buying requested by the mortgage company prior to close, is it just me or does that throw up a red flag for those that want to buy older homes?
> 3. If we are going to be responsible for inspecting past coatings for dangers, shouldnt we charge accordingly.


On #1, I would respond more, but in #2, you mention you having to do a lead test, so I guess you're an inspector. I will say, remember ... I am not doing a whole house inspection for this price.

On #2. Probably going through government assisted finance. They require inspections.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

maybe make a fake ray gun,,,and just scam people with it. this is pure profit.


----------



## CPFSam (Nov 8, 2010)

PatsPainting said:


> If you buy a new $20,000 dollar truck for your business, would you add $2000 dollars to your next 10 jobs to pay it off? I doubt it. You would never get any work. Just because your investment is expensive does not mean your product has to be. It will just take longer to get your return back. After that it's all gravy
> 
> Pat


 
But that isnt the business model of a painting contractor. For instance, instead of a truck lets say a new airless, 4k. We go out and contract a shopping center for say 40k, get a 20% down payment upon pressure washing then go pay for the airless with the cash.
Now if I want a new truck i go out and dig up 2 shopping centers to do, collect my deposit then finish the jobs, THEN go buy my truck.
This is why the Paint Contracting business is the best there is.:yes:


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

CPFSam said:


> But that isnt the business model of a painting contractor. For instance, instead of a truck lets say a new airless, 4k. We go out and contract a shopping center for say 40k, get a 20% down payment upon pressure washing then go pay for the airless with the cash.
> Now if I want a new truck i go out and dig up 2 shopping centers to do, collect my deposit then finish the jobs, THEN go buy my truck.
> This is why the Paint Contracting business is the best there is.:yes:


When do you collect money to eat?:whistling2:


----------



## CPFSam (Nov 8, 2010)

Do the math.


----------



## PatsPainting (Mar 4, 2010)

So I guess the key to being successful in your painting business is to paint a few shopping centers 

Pat


----------



## y.painting (Jul 19, 2009)

CPFSam said:


> Sorry guys dont want to rattle anything I just dont see the ROI for a 20k test gun at 150 per pop...


Large grocery chains make pennies on an average item, but they spend millions to build the store and purchase inventory. But those pennies add up after you sell your millionth zucchini.

Not saying this is the situation crcna is in, but blanket statements like the above don't have to be true if the model is volume driven to make up for the small avg sale.


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

CPFSam said:


> Do the math.


I was just having some fun with you. :notworthy:


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

the real key to making money with the ray gun is to scare people.

tell the home owners their kids will be retarded, their neighbors will sue them, and they might be investigated.

tell the contractors they will be fined more than they make in several years, loose their van and tools, and be on the recieving end of a body cavity search.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

CPFSam said:


> Do the math.


You need to expand your view on ROI. In general, if you can recoup the price on major equipment within 3 years ... you're doing fine. 

Purchasing a paint sprayer with money you get from a deposit is wonderful. Purchasing a new hand sander with deposit money is wonderful too. 

Where you really would use a ROI calculation though, would be if you bought a bucket truck to do those commercial buildings. 

You wouldn't buy a rent house with the expectation that you are going to pay it off with the deposit your renter is going to give you. You calculate the ROI to determine if it is a good return on investment over the years ... not over a day.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

High Fibre,

You would be a good manager in a lead mine. You could encourage other folks to go mine the lead, without taking precautions based on your word that nothing will happen to them.


----------



## PaulRoselli (Nov 2, 2010)

*RRP - wish there were a better way*

I agree. The RRP rule is a royal pain in the you know where. But the rule is here to stay. OK Full disclosure here - I've worked with folks that do the training for lead awareness, lead hazards and the RRP rule. I think the information alone is terrific. Who wants to get sick - no fun - whether its from lead, asbestos, mold, stuff in wood fiber, paint, varnish, yaddy, yaddy, yadda. There are enough hazards out there already that we are dealing with everyday. Besides, all we want to do is work and make a living, pay the bills, be happy and do better for our kids. Makes sense to me. But the rule is here to stay. And the training, the on-site practices and the reporting is not all that terrible. So take issue with me if you want but I've taken training and have gotten licensing all my working life - from insurance to workers comp reporting, to upgrading my skills, to applying for loans, grants and bidding on jobs till my eyes hurt. Everything under the sun. Check out the on-line training at EPAExpressTraining.com. The on-line and hands-on training is $149 - total. You can do the on-line at home...and if you are in one of the approved states, we might be able to come to you to do the hands-on. Simple....get it done and out of the way and move on.


----------



## daren (Jul 5, 2008)

I think you are missing the point. Or at least my point. It's the further intrusion of the government into our lives that I have a problem with. We already know how to do our jobs. You are right, none of us want to get sick. That's why we take precautions against it. We have been doing it without anyone telling us to do it. Now I'm supposed to pay to do it.


----------



## johnthepainter (Apr 1, 2008)

dean, you are sooooo wrong.

i have been ratting out people who dont follow rrp, turning them in, reporting them,,the whole shebang.

i am certified.

i follow all the regulations following rrp.

how you come up with your wacky stuff about me sending people into a lead mine is rather suspect.

ive been working lead safe longer than rrp has been around,,,,,in fact i take precautions rrp doesnt even cover.

the sky isnt falling.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

I stand corrected then.


----------

