# July 6



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Just a reminder that ...

1. Opt-out disappears.
2. Records have to be given to homeowner.
3. Comment period ends on clearance testing and commercial going on RRP.

http://rrpcompliance.com/news/renovation-repair-and-painting-rule-changes-in-july/


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

Is this going to require 3rd party testing after the job is done?


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Got an e-mail today from the company that did my RRP training. I skim read it.... First I herd about it.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Third party Dust Sampling is already part of HUD. 
The proposed rule in part 

_"Specifically, EPA
is proposing to require dust wipe testing
after many renovations covered by the
RRP rule. For a subset of jobs involving
demolition or removal of plaster
through destructive means or the
disturbance of paint using machines
designed to remove paint through high-
speed operation, such as power sanders
or abrasive blasters, this proposal would
also require the renovation firm to
demonstrate, through dust wipe testing,
that dust-lead levels remaining in the
work area are below regulatory levels."
_
Read more....


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

So is that a yes that there is going to need to be 3rd party testing. If that is true it is dumb. There will not be any way to do this thing legally and be affordable. I am not talking about making a living because there will be people who can afford it and one would just have to market to them but I have concern for the average person or even middle upper income that wants to remodel a house and it would not be possible. 

my house is built before 78 and I was wanting to replace the windows but I will have to do it myself now because it would not be possible for me to afford to do it legally via contractor. Just another example of the government costing jobs because I would have hired it out but now I can not.

Thats is my fear is that most people will no longer be able to afford to keep a house up legally.

That is my rant for the week. I just do not see this ending well.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

Jacob,

No 3rd party testing (clearance) as of yet for RRP. The EPA is considering it, but nothing has been decided. If they decide to do it, I think it will be only on certain work. Not all work.

The only "official" changes (July 6th) is the opt-out going away and giving homeowners a copy of some records.


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

All this couldn't have been at a worse time. Yeah I know, negativity can't solve anything but you have bad economy, taxes raising, illegal aliens taking work, lowballers doing their thing.. no compliant people, no insurance having folks.. then you have government agencies lobbing their crap on us too. Tired of all this BS.


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

Homeowners should be subject to a fine if they are made aware of the RRP rules, then hire a non-certified contractor to do the work. That way we could educate the clients during an estimate and they would be less likely to hire some uncertified yahoo.


----------



## LA Painter (Jul 28, 2009)

StefanC said:


> Homeowners should be subject to a fine if they are made aware of the RRP rules, then hire a non-certified contractor to do the work. That way we could educate the clients during an estimate and they would be less likely to hire some uncertified yahoo.


Bingo


----------



## 6126 (May 9, 2010)

StefanC said:


> Homeowners should be subject to a fine if they are made aware of the RRP rules, then hire a non-certified contractor to do the work. That way we could educate the clients during an estimate and they would be less likely to hire some uncertified yahoo.


Agreed.


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

They would never go after the innocent ho. I went to a PDCA meeting, the had a representative from the California State Licensing Board. I questioned them about making HO responsible for knowingly hiring unlicensed contractors. With a smirk on her face she said "We're not going to go after home owners" I understand if the HO was completely unaware. Although they should have the responsibility of knowing. But the ones that know and choose them due to price. Make em pay a huge azz fine if caught. Then maybe they would consider the legitimate contractor, If they were looking at a possible fine.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

A good explanation of the July 6 changes.

As far as HO's being held accountable, how well does that work with Licensing
But you could mention that an uncertified firm could be fined, unable to finish the job, and have to use the HO deposit to pay the fines?
Right!


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

feck.


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

RCP said:


> A good explanation of the July 6 changes.
> 
> As far as HO's being held accountable, how well does that work with Licensing
> But you could mention that an uncertified firm could be fined, unable to finish the job, and have to use the HO deposit to pay the fines?
> Right!


And when the homeowner found out that you, the guy that informed them of the RRP regs, just made it mandatory for the contractor to charge 25-50% extra, they might be a bit pissed and go with a different certified contractor.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

The comment period for Clearance Verification has been extended for 30 days.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...y-LRRP-ClearanceNPRM-Reopening_2010-07-02.pdf


----------



## Mr.Moss (Aug 30, 2010)

It'll take me some time to catch up to the rest of the forum and read everything, but this particular subject struck me as the most important topic I've read so far. I was completely unaware of this entire EPA legal issue on the 1st of April 2010. At the time that I happened to catch the story on the news (a brief mention of it on April 20, 2010) that caught me and many other painters and contractors off guard. I understand and agree with people being accountable for placing children in danger. Getting the funds to properly execute a paint job however has proven to be a challenge. I have seen no painters in my area follow the lead laws and I for one refuse to do anything illegal. Therefore I am missing out on the low bid, non compliant, work being done in my area. It's financially devastating and frustrating. I agree that the home owner should be forced to comply with the lead based laws along with the rest of America! 

I have not looked into where exactly the fine money goes after the fines have been charged to those that do not comply, but I also feel strongly that there should be a portion of the fines taken from non compliant painters evenly distributed to the law abiding painters in the area to compensate for the economy, and their accountability in doing the right thing. You know, like an incentive program to encourage people to comply rather than slap them on the wrist. If business owners were aware that they were funding their compliant competition there would most definitely be less of a need for EPA funded agents looking out for non compliant painters.


----------

