# EPA fines 35 companies for RRP violations



## Gough

http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/lead-renovation-repair-and-painting-rule-february-2014


----------



## Brian C

wow, you guys really take lead poisoning seriously. We have minimal regulations down here but it will get more regulated eventually.


----------



## PatsPainting

> Failure to Obtain Firm Certification. The United States alleges that Midwest College Painters violated the RRP Rule by failing to obtain firm certification from EPA prior to performing, or offering to perform, renovation activities in housing constructed prior to 1978.
> Failure to Provide a Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet to the Property Owners. The United States alleges that Midwest College Painters violated the RRP Rule by failing to provide a copy of the “Renovate Right” pamphlet to the property owner prior to commencing renovation activities.
> Failure to Establish and Maintain Records. The Unites States alleges that Midwest College Painters violated the RRP Rule by failing to establish and maintain records certifying that a certified renovator was assigned to the project, provided on-the-job training to individuals used on the project, and directed these individuals performing the renovation to comply with the work practice standards required by the RRP rule
> Failure to Comply with Work Practice Standards. The United States alleges that Midwest College Painters violated the RRP Rule by failing to take steps to contain paint dust from renovation work as required by the RRP Rule.





> *Civil Penalty*
> 
> Midwest College Painters will pay a civil penalty of $ 500. Midwest College Painter’s penalty was based in large part on its ability to pay.


That will teach em..

Pat


----------



## Gough

It was interesting to see the range of fines. At least the EPA recognizes that it can't get blood from a turnip.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Painting Done Right didn't do it right lol. I know of 2 companies that are not listed that were fined.


----------



## Gough

cdpainting said:


> Painting Done Right didn't do it right lol. I know of 2 companies that are not listed that were fined.


I think that is the summary of the EPA's results in 2013. Were the companies that you know about in MA? Don't they have have their own version of RRP?


----------



## epretot

Civil Penalty
HarenLaughlin will pay a civil penalty of $2,786 and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $24,500.

So, this company was asked to perform an environmental project as part of their penalty? The EPA has non-compliant companies performing work for them? 

AM I understanding this correctly?


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Gough said:


> I think that is the summary of the EPA's results in 2013. Were the companies that you know about in MA? Don't they have have their own version of RRP?


One home was in MA but the flipper was from Vegas, according to the Inspector he didn't bother getting certified or licensed in either state.

The other company was from NH. and got popped in NH.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

epretot said:


> Civil Penalty
> HarenLaughlin will pay a civil penalty of $2,786 and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $24,500.
> 
> So, this company was asked to perform an environmental project as part of their penalty? The EPA has non-compliant companies performing work for them?
> 
> AM I understanding this correctly?


I was wondering the same. I didn't read the whole story as to exactly what they got popped for.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> Civil Penalty
> HarenLaughlin will pay a civil penalty of $2,786 and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $24,500.
> 
> So, this company was asked to perform an environmental project as part of their penalty? The EPA has non-compliant companies performing work for them?
> 
> AM I understanding this correctly?


No, you're not. It means they have to clean up their own mess. The "valued at" part means that they're doing environmental remediation work on site without getting paid for it, but that the work would cost an estimated $24,500. You can bet that the EPA will be testing the site when they're done.

It's the modern version of having to pay $50 and pick up the garbage in the snow.


----------



## epretot

*s*



Gough said:


> No, you're not. It means they have to clean up their own mess. The "valued at" part means that they're doing environmental remediation work on site without getting paid for it, but that the work would cost an estimated $24,500. You can bet that the EPA will be testing the site when they're done.
> 
> It's the modern version of having to pay $50 and pick up the garbage in the snow.


This doesn't make sense to me. If the EPA is worried about health, they would simply levee the max fine. They could use the money to hire a qualified contractor to complete the work properly. 

They realize they can't get the money, so they allow the company to continue with more oversight. 

The large fine could essentially run these companies out of business. However, this creates political ramifications for killing jobs.

Meanwhile, the public will continue to drink chlorinated and fluoride contaminated water on a daily basis.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> This doesn't make sense to me. If the EPA is worried about health, they would simply levee the max fine. They could use the money to hire a qualified contractor to complete the work properly.
> 
> They realize they can't get the money, so they allow the company to continue with more oversight.
> 
> The large fine could essentially run these companies out of business. However, this creates political ramifications for killing jobs.


So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It does make sense to me, they have a chance to make up for the mistakes they made.


----------



## Damon T

PatsPainting said:


> That will teach em..
> 
> Pat


$500 ?! That's a pathetic little fine! Why did I bother to go through all the certifications again?


----------



## epretot

Gough said:


> So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
> 
> It does make sense to me, they have a chance to make up for the mistakes they made.


Don't ge me wrong. I'm alright with the EPA giving these guys a chance to "make it right". 

I'm just calling them out because it's not about health. If it were, the penalty would be severe. It's simply not.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> Don't ge me wrong. I'm alright with the EPA giving these guys a chance to "make it right".
> 
> I'm just calling them out because it's not just about health. If it were, the penalty would be severe. It's simply not.


I added the word in red to reinforce the political reality that you mentioned earlier.

Not severe? How painful would it be for your company to have to do $24k worth of unpaid work? 

To me, this is a win for the EPA. They came up with a nuanced solution, which is unusual for a governmental agency.


----------



## epretot

Gough said:


> I added the word in red to reinforce the political reality that you mentioned earlier.
> 
> Not severe? How painful would it be for your company to have to do $24k worth of unpaid work?
> 
> To me, this is a win for the EPA. They came up with a nuanced solution, which is unusual for a governmental agency.


I've donated more than that (in painting) to charity. 

I think we are not that far apart on this. I agree that it is a clever solution. Definitely out of the box for a government agency. 

I'm frustrated with regard to the propaganda of the dangers of lead. We all know the dangers of lead. Yet the EPA post billboards of babies drinking paint in an effort to drive home the point.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, we have daily contaminants that pose a greater threat than lead. This is why I get frustrated with the EPA's position and RRP.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> I've donated more than that (in painting) to charity.
> 
> I think we are not that far apart on this. I agree that it is a clever solution. Definitely out of the box for a government agency.
> 
> I'm frustrated with regard to the propaganda of the dangers of lead. We all know the dangers of lead. Yet the EPA post billboards of babies drinking paint in an effort to drive home the point.
> 
> As I mentioned in the earlier post, we have daily contaminants that pose a greater threat than lead. This is why I get frustrated with the EPA's position and RRP.


I think it helps to put the whole RRP think in perspective. The trades had a chance to avoid RRP even coming up, but we blew it. For a number of years before RRP was even considered, there was an informational pamphlet that we were all supposed to (as in, required by law) hand out to clients when we worked in older homes. It also listed work practices that we should follow. Of the painters that I know, our company was the only one who ever did that.

It's my understanding that RRP was developed in response to the near-total level of non-compliance with the earlier rules.


----------



## RCP

Gough said:


> It's my understanding that RRP was developed in response to the near-total level of non-compliance with the earlier rules.


Exactly! 
This is an interesting read...


----------



## PatsPainting

RCP said:


> Exactly!
> This is an interesting read...


That's a great summery of this whole thing.

Pat


----------



## epretot

It's my understanding that RRP was developed in response to the near-total level of non-compliance with the earlier rules.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't aware of this. But now I know who to direct my dissatisfaction towards.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> It's my understanding that RRP was developed in response to the near-total level of non-compliance with the earlier rules.


I wasn't aware of this. But now I know who to direct my dissatisfaction towards.[/QUOTE]

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
-Walt Kelly


The attempt to lay the blame for this on any one person strikes me as disingenuous and self-serving. As an industry, we all played a role in this.


----------



## Baldwin0022

I'm certified, but I can't for the life if me figure out where if get the pamphlets at. The EPA website has nothing that I can find, does anyone know where they can be ordered so I can actually have the ability to give them to clients?


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Baldwin0022 said:


> I'm certified, but I can't for the life if me figure out where if get the pamphlets at. The EPA website has nothing that I can find, does anyone know where they can be ordered so I can actually have the ability to give them to clients?


Ask your local BM or SW about them. Around here SW has a bunch on hand, the BM store we usually have to ask them to get them. If memory serves me right if you get them through your local state they cost $5.00, not sure if that is each or for a stack of them.


----------



## CApainter

epretot said:


> Civil Penalty
> HarenLaughlin will pay a civil penalty of $2,786 and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $24,500.
> 
> So, this company was asked to perform an environmental project as part of their penalty? *The EPA has non-compliant companies performing work for them? *
> 
> AM I understanding this correctly?


Under the RRP rules as I understand them, a person can remove lead from a targeted facility if it is not for compensation. Like Gough suggests, its a win win situation for the EPA in terms of fines and remediating the lead problem.


----------



## RCP

Baldwin0022 said:


> I'm certified, but I can't for the life if me figure out where if get the pamphlets at. The EPA website has nothing that I can find, does anyone know where they can be ordered so I can actually have the ability to give them to clients?


You can download them here.
You can also get them at you paint store, at least I know SW carries them. Just make sure it is the new version, without the opt out page in the back.

You can also order them here.


----------



## epretot

CApainter said:


> Under the RRP rules as I understand them, a person can remove lead from a targeted facility if it is not for compensation. Like Gough suggests, its a win win situation for the EPA in terms of fines and remediating the lead problem.


So, one can produce a contract showing "zero dollars" in the payment terms section of a contract thereby avoiding all penalties and having to perform RRP practices.

Good to know! Great loop hole. 

I'm being facetious. But I wonder if that would work in a pinch. Of course that would be a fraudulent contract.


----------



## Gough

CApainter said:


> Under the RRP rules as I understand them, a person can remove lead from a targeted facility if it is not for compensation. Like Gough suggests, its a win win situation for the EPA in terms of fines and remediating the lead problem.


I'm not sure how the notion of dealing with LBP for no charge got connected with my comment about the EPA's unusual approach to that particular situation.

I think the EPA would see through the proposed workaround of doing the PBP prep for 0$ by the same firm who then paints the project for an inflated rate.


----------



## slinger58

Gough said:


> I'm not sure how the notion of dealing with LBP for no charge got connected with my comment about the EPA's unusual approach to that particular situation.
> 
> I think the EPA would see through the proposed workaround of doing the PBP prep for 0$ by the same firm who then paints the project for an inflated rate.


Since when does reality have anything to do with Federal law or bureaucratic regulations?


----------



## chrisn

slinger58 said:


> Since when does reality have anything to do with Federal law or bureaucratic regulations?


 
really:blink:


----------



## Roamer

RCP said:


> You can download them here.


We just send our RRP clients that link. Then we have them sign our Lead Addendum that states that they have read the online brochure and understand our list of precautions.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Roamer said:


> We just send our RRP clients that link. Then we have them sign our Lead Addendum that states that they have read the online brochure and understand our list of precautions.


I didn't think this worked or was accepted. What about the neighbors your supposed to give these to as well? What do you do about that?


----------



## Gough

cdpainting said:


> I didn't think this worked or was accepted. What about the neighbors your supposed to give these to as well? What do you do about that?


Is the requirement to notify neighbors a MA thing?


----------



## Roamer

The only notice we have to give to neighbors as I understand is that we need to post warning signs around the job site.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Gough said:


> Is the requirement to notify neighbors a MA thing?


Yeah we have to give the pamphlets to the houses directly next door and have them sign, I also hit the houses across the street and behind just to cover my bases.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Roamer said:


> The only notice we have to give to neighbors as I understand is that we need to post warning signs around the job site.


I forget some times MA is doing it much different with some things than the rest of the country.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

I do the same when in NH as well, they fall under the EPA rules, I'm not exactly sure what that part of the rule is. NH says since I am licensed in MA I don't need to get the EPA version for their state.


----------



## Gough

cdpainting said:


> I do the same when in NH as well, they fall under the EPA rules, I'm not exactly sure what that part of the rule is. NH says since I am licensed in MA I don't need to get the EPA version for their state.


I don't know about the EPA version versus MA's, but I know there are other state versus federal regulations like that where the state version is required to be equal or stricter than the federal one. For instance, I think that's the case with those states that have their own occupational health and safety rules. 

NH may figure that, if you're following the MA rules, you're good to go.


----------



## Gough

cdpainting said:


> I forget some times MA is doing it much different with some things than the rest of the country.


In so MANY ways:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Gough said:


> I don't know about the EPA version versus MA's, but I know there are other state versus federal regulations like that where the state version is required to be equal or stricter than the federal one. For instance, I think that's the case with those states that have their own occupational health and safety rules.
> 
> NH may figure that, if you're following the MA rules, you're good to go.


They need to come up with the same regulations in every state. Some of us can work in 2-3 states and they all have different rules. I am not sure but ME follows the Fed rule.


----------



## Gough

cdpainting said:


> They need to come up with the same regulations in every state. Some of us can work in 2-3 states and they all have different rules. I am not sure but ME follows the Fed rule.


I'm glad YOU follows the Fed rule:jester:

But seriously, these states have their own set of rules: Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

We stopped working in WA because we got tired of dealing with their own version of OSHA. I imagine their version of RRP would be a similar hassle.


----------



## daArch

What's really the pissa is that you need to be certified in each state you work if those states are administrating their own RRP , apparently no reciprocation.

You can drive in all states with one license, be legally married in all states with one license, but NOT repair, renovate, or paint in all states with one certification.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Gough said:


> I'm glad YOU follows the Fed rule:jester:
> 
> But seriously, these states have their own set of rules: Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
> Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
> 
> We stopped working in WA because we got tired of dealing with their own version of OSHA. I imagine their version of RRP would be a similar hassle.


I asked last summer when we did a lead job in NH. If I needed to get licensed there i would have passed on that job. And that would have sucked since we got a $500 tip and a bunch of referrals.



daArch said:


> What's really the pissa is that you need to be certified in each state you work if those states are administrating their own RRP , apparently no reciprocation..


I do prefer each state running it but again lets come up with one standard so we can go to any state and do the work. 

It's almost like Stripped Bass fishing, MA and NH are different sizes, MA and CT and different sizes. I say 28" + is the perfect keeper size.


----------



## daArch

cdpainting said:


> I asked last summer when we did a lead job in NH. If I needed to get licensed there i would have passed on that job. And that would have sucked since we got a $500 tip and a bunch of referrals.



Have they changed the rules again? Where you do NOT need to be trained and certified in BOTH MA and NH ?

Last time IEE spammed me, they were still spouting off about running MA and NH certification programs.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

daArch said:


> Have they changed the rules again? Where you do NOT need to be trained and certified in BOTH MA and NH ?
> 
> Last time IEE spammed me, they were still spouting off about running MA and NH certification programs.


What I was told was since the MA laws were stricter than NH EPA laws I didn't need to get certified or licensed. This was last summer. They may have changed it I'm not sure.

Even since it was some one I knew that we painted for they were already at odds with the town of Epping over their land and part of the Exeter river so I did all my checking, we did have to get our HIC license in NH Though.


----------



## daArch

cdpainting said:


> What I was told was since the MA laws were stricter than NH EPA laws I didn't need to get certified or licensed. This was last summer. They may have changed it I'm not sure.
> 
> Even since it was some one I knew that we painted for they were already at odds with the town of Epping over their land and part of the Exeter river so I did all my checking, we did have to get our HIC license in NH Though.


If you were told that by an informed and legitimate authority, go with it. I am just surprised that MA certification and registration is valid for states that are still run by the EPA (Am I correct that the EPA still manages NH, RI, ME ??) 

I am not keeping up with the nuances since I do not disturb those six s.f.


----------



## RCP

Your EPA RRP Training Certification is good in all states. States that have adopted the program, (choosing to collect the fees and administer the program) may have stricter regs above the EPA. They require that you also get Firm Certification, basically just registering your company with the state and proving you are RRP Certified.
Mass does have one of the "more robust" programs.


----------



## daArch

RCP said:


> Your EPA RRP Training Certification is good in all states. States that have adopted the program, (choosing to collect the fees and administer the program) may have stricter regs above the EPA. They require that you also get Firm Certification, basically just registering your company with the state and proving you are RRP Certified.
> Mass does have one of the "more robust" programs.


I guess this statement fairly well sums it up

"Firms that work in both authorized (gray) and EPA-managed (blue) states may need to be certified by both EPA and the authorized state."


----------



## Roamer

My understanding is that no matter how strict your state certification may be you still need to have the EPA certification to perform the RRP legally. If your state administers their own program than you have to meet their certification requirements, as well.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Section VI Certification and Licensing Reciprocity Between EPA and DLS

http://www.leadsmarttraining.com/Portals/175336/docs/comparison%20of%20epa%20and%20ma%20rrp.pdf


----------



## Epoxy Pro

I for some reason can not find the daily lead form for MA. I am trying to print some more out. I have some from last summer but need to print more. I am finding every thing else lead related except those forms. None on the DOL or DOH sections where I found them last summer.


----------



## Jmayspaint

Lowes Home Centers was fined $500,000 today and required to take step to ensure there instillation contractors follow RRP regulations. 

This is the largest ever fine for RRP violation.

http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/lowes-home-centers-llc-settlement


----------



## Zman828

Compliance is not always met but I think it is important to have regulations in place or things can get out of control


----------



## B-n-L Enterprises

epretot said:


> Meanwhile, the public will continue to drink chlorinated and fluoride contaminated water on a daily basis.



Finally, the most intelligent comment in this thread as the crooked EPA allows these and other harmful (to human health & the environment) practices everyday as long as you are either one of them of paying to play the game as the EPA like the FDA is headed by private sector corporate big wigs.

Sadly most will not understand your message as they think chlorinated and fluoridated water is a good thing. 
But food for thought, where was the EPA before we needed to chlorinate water?


----------



## B-n-L Enterprises

Gough said:


> I added the word in red to reinforce the political reality that you mentioned earlier.
> 
> Not severe? How painful would it be for your company to have to do $24k worth of unpaid work?
> 
> To me, this is a win for the EPA. They came up with a nuanced solution, which is unusual for a governmental agency.


Not really, the government only has trouble coming up with solutions when the plan or idea it to help us. But to screw us, they have ALL the solutions and answers.


----------



## B-n-L Enterprises

epretot said:


> I've donated more than that (in painting) to charity.
> 
> I think we are not that far apart on this. I agree that it is a clever solution. Definitely out of the box for a government agency.
> 
> I'm frustrated with regard to the propaganda of the dangers of lead. We all know the dangers of lead. Yet the EPA post billboards of babies drinking paint in an effort to drive home the point.
> 
> As I mentioned in the earlier post, we have daily contaminants that pose a greater threat than lead. This is why I get frustrated with the EPA's position and RRP.


Another very thoughtful comment and 100% correct. 
I say the same thing when propaganda goes out about cigarette smoking when we have millions of these boxes we drive around on a daily basis called automobiles, and its exhaust can kill you in an enclosed space by just one vehicle. Just imagine what a life time of breathing in little by little everyday can do to you.


----------



## B-n-L Enterprises

epretot said:


> So, one can produce a contract showing "zero dollars" in the payment terms section of a contract thereby avoiding all penalties and having to perform RRP practices.
> 
> Good to know! Great loop hole.
> 
> I'm being facetious. But I wonder if that would work in a pinch. Of course that would be a fraudulent contract.


Or just have no contract and get paid under the table.


----------



## Roamer

If you get paid for the work whether under the table or above you need to follow the RRP.

The example of car exhaust is ironic. Since car exhaust is strictly monitored and enforced by the EPA. Cars are required to annually or bi-annually to pass an emissions standard in order to register the vehicle. Gasoline has been reformulated repeatedly to meet new standards for pollution control enforced by, you guessed it, the EPA.

The EPA is not out to get you. We've known that lead was bad for us for nearly a hundred years and it took about that long for America to institute these new regulations. France, Belgium and Austria banned lead in their paint as early as 1909. America followed their lead 69 years later.


----------



## B-n-L Enterprises

Roamer said:


> If you get paid for the work whether under the table or above you need to follow the RRP.
> 
> The example of car exhaust is ironic. Since car exhaust is strictly monitored and enforced by the EPA. Cars are required to annually or bi-annually to pass an emissions standard in order to register the vehicle. Gasoline has been reformulated repeatedly to meet new standards for pollution control enforced by, you guessed it, the EPA.
> 
> The EPA is not out to get you. We've known that lead was bad for us for nearly a hundred years and it took about that long for America to institute these new regulations. France, Belgium and Austria banned lead in their paint as early as 1909. America followed their lead 69 years later.


Lol, the EPA not out to get us? That is a joke. 
The same EPA said that cows crap used as fertilizer was harmful due to the levels of nitrogen. Lol, this is the way we have been farming for millions of years before the EPA came about in 1971 and way before the United States of America. And before the use of synthetic fertilizers. 

Lol, automobile exhaust is harmful to you no matter the formulation, and no matter what the EPA does. What you are speaking is brainwash. 
You can not see automobile exhaust, but that does not mean it is not harmful even though I support the use of them. I was comparing the lunacy of the EPA and or the government in general. 

And there is a ton of painters here who used lead paint back in the day, I as one who think it not harmful to the extent the EPA says and or compare to the contaminants they allow on a daily basis. 
There are a ton of painters on here, or their fathers who have painted with lead paint and have not had any issues what so ever and they were exposed on a daily basis to lead paint when wet. 

Will you be saying the same thing about oil based finishes in the next few years? Even though oil based provides the most superior protection to wood as latex, and lead offers superior protection to metal as oil does to wood? 

And you dont need to conform to the RRP. 
As a real estate investor told me, if you rent the painters tools and knowledge to paint, instead of the painter, you can avoid all those regulations as I paint many places that were built prior to 1955. Legal loophole. 

There is no problem when it comes to kids eating lead paint chips as there is problems to people doing synthetic drugs. Lead paint chips are safer than these drugs people are doing. And as a kid, did you ever eat paint chips? Regardless if it was lead or not.


----------



## Roamer

> Lol, automobile exhaust is harmful to you no matter the formulation, and no matter what the EPA does. What you are speaking is brainwash.
> You can not see automobile exhaust, but that does not mean it is not harmful even though I support the use of them. I was comparing the lunacy of the EPA and or the government in general.


At no point did I ever say that car exhaust is not harmful. However, it is inarguable that car exhaust is not cleaner than that of cars from even just 30 years ago. That is what EPA regulations have done. Car exhaust pollutes less than before is all that I was pointing out which is a direct result of EPA regulations.

Btw, the EPA is a government agency. It is not controlled by the president. The current RRP regulations were first set into motion when George H. Bush was president but were enacted in 2010 during President Obama's time in office.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

B-n-L Enterprises said:


> Lol, the EPA not out to get us? That is a joke.
> The same EPA said that cows crap used as fertilizer was harmful due to the levels of nitrogen. Lol, this is the way we have been farming for millions of years before the EPA came about in 1971 and way before the United States of America. And before the use of synthetic fertilizers.
> 
> Lol, automobile exhaust is harmful to you no matter the formulation, and no matter what the EPA does. What you are speaking is brainwash.
> You can not see automobile exhaust, but that does not mean it is not harmful even though I support the use of them. I was comparing the lunacy of the EPA and or the government in general.
> 
> And there is a ton of painters here who used lead paint back in the day, I as one who think it not harmful to the extent the EPA says and or compare to the contaminants they allow on a daily basis.
> There are a ton of painters on here, or their fathers who have painted with lead paint and have not had any issues what so ever and they were exposed on a daily basis to lead paint when wet.
> 
> Will you be saying the same thing about oil based finishes in the next few years? Even though oil based provides the most superior protection to wood as latex, and lead offers superior protection to metal as oil does to wood?
> 
> And you dont need to conform to the RRP.
> As a real estate investor told me, if you rent the painters tools and knowledge to paint, instead of the painter, you can avoid all those regulations as I paint many places that were built prior to 1955. Legal loophole.
> 
> There is no problem when it comes to kids eating lead paint chips as there is problems to people doing synthetic drugs. Lead paint chips are safer than these drugs people are doing. And as a kid, did you ever eat paint chips? Regardless if it was lead or not.


Around here that would never work. We have inspectors around here daily. 

2 ways around lead paint.

1)sign a waiver if your area allows waivers.

2) being a relative of the HO, the relative must live at that address, and yes the inspector will ask for your drivers license as proof, don't want to show him, fine he will shut you down and give you a nice fine.

People like you really really piss me off. We have spent a few grand to make sure we do it right. Then some one like you comes along. The rules will get stricter and stricter until every one complies.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Also some states are already starting the process every contractor will need to be lead licensed no matter what.


----------



## stelzerpaintinginc.

cdpainting said:


> Also some states are already starting the process every contractor will need to be lead licensed no matter what.


It might take a while, but eventually, I think EVERY state will require it. When that happens, maybe one set of rules for all states could be made so contractors wouldn't need to pay additional fees for working in multiple states.

Wait a minute, that'd be far to efficient and cost-effective. Nevermind.


----------



## Bender

cdpainting said:


> Also some states are already starting the process every contractor will need to be lead licensed no matter what.


Yep.
It will be right up there with OSHA's 'Don't stand on a bucket' and '100% tie off over 4 feet' rules.


----------



## thinkpainting/nick

It's no wonder we survived years ago .. Hopefully in 2015 contactors will have to pay more fees and higher taxes I know in my state they never saw a fee or a tax they didn't like. After all contractors are all rakeing in the dough ?? Lol.


----------



## Bender

cdpainting said:


> People like you really really piss me off. We have spent a few grand to make sure we do it right. Then some one like you comes along. The rules will get stricter and stricter until every one complies.


You tell em Dave
Guys like that piss me off too. Employing people, and and supporting families, and contributing to the GDP of America. Its like hes thumbing his nose at an overbearing and ignorant government agency!

Shame on you citizen 19848754


----------



## PremierPaintingMa

Bender said:


> You tell em Dave
> Guys like that piss me off too. Employing people, and and supporting families, and contributing to the GDP of America. Its like hes thumbing his nose at an overbearing and ignorant government agency!
> 
> Shame on you citizen 19848754


Bender! We are really hurting in MASS inspectors all over the place, that's why i have been avoiding working with lead, I been lucky i was solid booked for the past three years for that I can avoid working with lead paint.
I have to give cdpainting a big credit it is not easy in MASS.


----------

