Jump to content

EPA and upcoming painting regulations


Steve_Mack_CT

Recommended Posts

Four or five issues into Hemmings Classic Car and I am thinking I may have misjudged this editorial group. They may not cover pre-war cars heavily enough for my liking (that seems to be changing) and they may write silly things about CCCA acceptance but editor Lentinello earned my respect this month. Those of you who subscribe no doubt saw the editorial on the EPA and upcoming regulations around painting processes and materials. Here Lentinello tells it like it is - The EPA and simillar agencies do not care one bit about the hobby, and only organized opposition to this sort of foolish and restrictive legislation will stop it. Regulations like this rarely include any consideration for a hobbyist, homeowner, etc. He is 100% right.

Don't generally do your own paint work? Me neither, but I am concerned as our rights continue to get chipped away at , which I think is the biggest threat to our hobby today (there was a thread on this a couple months ago.)

I know this is covered in the Legislation forum, but I hope this gets more than the 100 or so hits the topic has over there. It is astounding, but the way things work today, that "public feedback" now consists of loading the proposed law on a website no average member of the public will visit. This and an ever increasing number of politicians who do not understand or care about this hobby add up to trouble. Forget hot rods vs. restorations, imagine bringing your lawn furniture to the local paint shop because you cannot get a can of Rustoleum?? Think that is far fetched - I don't. I hope other major national clubs & pubs take notice and perhaps give these issues more coverage as these sorts of infringements become more common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met Richard at the POCI National Meet in Gaithersburg MD and found him to be an engaging and well-read guy. He was editor of High Performance Pontiac at that time. HCC is in good hands with him at the helm.

The trouble with EPA is it's accountable to no one. A rogue agency, if you will, that has been able to railroad its agenda thru with no oversight. And that's the way the greenies want it.

I won't say the agency hasn't done some good, but bottom line, how far do we allow it to go in its zeal before it totally cripples US industry? If they had just stuck to industry, but now they want to regulate private citizens in everything too. Waiting for the day they attempt to outlaw farting...

We had an excellent class at work "Systematic Approach to Industrial Operations". One thing the instructor stressed was that you could create enough regulations and boundaries to where you couldn't do <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span>.

'Course, were I an EPA wonk, I'd be churning out as much regulation as I could too- job security!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The trouble with EPA is it's accountable to no one. A rogue agency, if you will, that has been able to railroad its agenda thru with no oversight. And that's the way the greenies want it.

</div></div>

If "the greenies" were doing what they wanted, it would make sense. This doesn't.

For those who didn't read what I wrote on this subject in the other thread:

<span style="color: #006600"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know the EPA recently effectively banned hobbyists spray painting their cars with toxics, ie. paint. Read Classic Car February '08 Richard Lentinello's column and you'll see they will make it illegal to OWN paint unless you are a certified pro. Sounds like R12 and the refridgerant hoohaa again.

So with that type of warped logic it's for sure at sometime in the future they'll outlaw toxic gasoline and restrict its use to specially licensed individuals.

</div></div>

It's not warped logic. It makes perfect sense.

Everyone is warned not to vote for the toadies of special interests and unions to hold office, so we all dutifully vote in unison for the toadies of corporate America instead. <span style="font-weight: bold">You can da-- sure bet that the puppets of Greenpeace haven't been making the decisions at EPA for the last 6 years!</span> So now a vital service (painting cars, restored and otherwise) is now a process that requires a $100,000 buy-in (for the mandatory spray booth) and a fairly complex compliance program after that.

Now, <span style="font-style: italic">just who do you think that favors in the marketplace....?</span> Hmmmm.... confused.giffrown.gifmad.gif

It's clunker laws all over again. It's amazing what you can accomplish from inside a sheep costume. mad.gif</span>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not living in the US i can't comment on the regulations over there , but reading what has been said the regulations refer to toxics, do they bar all hobby painting or just the use of toxic paint. as a retired professional car painter i think i can state that the two pot paints that are catylised with a isosyanate hardener should never ever be used by a untrained person without a spraybooth built to handle it . not because of the enviroment but because of the damage it does to your health . i am speaking from experiance i worked for a body shop in the late 80's who did not have all the right safety equipment to handle that type of paint , my health now suffers because of that .Isosyanate is a accumulative poison that builds up in your body and can't be removed . once it gets to a certan level its goodbye, my own modern car now needs some paint work done , i will send it out to some one else to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lentinello's right--our hobby is gradually being taken away from us. The beaurocrats are falling in line behind the scare-mongers...

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ADDED: I did not mean to sound cavalier about safety--and after reading a few of the followup comments here, I feel I needed to add this comment. (I almost feel it superfluous to have to say this but...) Please be aware that I do not risk my own or anyone else's health or safety in pursuit of my antique auto restoration hobby--nor do I condone anyone else doing so...blah, blah, blah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn by this issue. I totally agree that there is too much regulation of almost everything in our lives, and a lot of what affects our hobby is driven by the profits motives of large lobbyist-friendly corporations. I think it would be silly to require certification to buy a can of Krylon, although I find it hard to believe the above mentioned corporations and lobbyists will not find a way around that. When it comes to painting cars with catalyzed paint in your garage, I have a problem. When I was young and stupid I painted a whole lot of cars with lacquer and enamel in my attached garage with my wife and kids on the other side of the door and my neighbor's kids right outside. Now that I am older (but probably still stupid) I regret exposing those people to the toxic materials and hope their effects will not haunt my own health. With the heightened toxicity of today's paints I think anyone who uses them in such a way that others are exposed is incredibly thoughtless and irresponsible. Hopefully tightened regulations will increase the availability of spray booths for rent so hobbyists can still do their own painting if they want to without putting others in danger. I know this may not be a popular view but that is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

Yours is the perfect argument for more information, not regulation. It did not take regulation for you to see the folly of exposing yourself and others to toxins. As more information is available, the market, if left alone, would provide the services needed: e.g. more rental spray booths.

Liberty does not come without cost.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 58srgreat

STEVE,

I just received an e-mail from RICHARD,editor of HCC.He did have some GOOD news to report.Apparently SEMA was in part looking after OUR interests.A LAST MINUTE provision will allow HOBBYISTS to paint up to TWO cars per YEAR.Richard said he will have more information in his next editorial.We will still have a fight on our hands as this still will not resolve the issue of wether or not a HOBBYIST will still be able to purchase AUTO paint after 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, why does the government and these stupid agencies and congress waste time on this crap?! How many people paint their cars in their garage anyway? Even if everyone in the U.S. painted a car in their garage it would not even equal the amount of Hydro Carbons and Carbon monoxide that Al Gore put out flying his private plane around advertising his little movie! Why don't these agencies get some common sense and Congress needs to pay attention to more urgent matters, such as Iraq, the deficit, social programs (that work! Not the pork barrel phot ops that they put out), and inflation, which is forcing people out of homes and making it where people have to work long hours and not see their kids like parents used to be able to in the 60's and before. No, instead our tax dollars and their attention is going to whether Grand Pap McCoy can paint his 1918 Chalmers in his garage or not!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Even if everyone in the U.S. painted a car in their garage it would not even equal the amount of Hydro Carbons and Carbon monoxide that Al Gore put out flying his private plane around advertising his little movie! </div></div>

This statement isn't even remotely true. Painting cars emits <span style="text-decoration: underline">tons</span> of VOCs to the air every day, sending some of us to the hospital every day. The people who have to deal with these matters for us are not morons. It takes decades of study to understand the quantities and consequences involved.

That said, as my previous post points out they are forced to work with and for politicians. It's because of that that stuff like this happens.

The hobbiest exemption conceeded proves that they're not the henious demigods that some would like to portray them as. They knew all along how tiny hobbiest contributions are to overall problem. I seriously doubt that they didn't consider this problem in the first place, and decided to teach their political overlords a lesson by letting them have what they asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting about the limit of two cars per year. I wonder how many government employees and how much paperwork it will take to keep track of that. Probably a couple more bucks increase in the tax bill, or maybe they will tax the paint a couple of hundred percent.

This might be a solution, but not a cheap one, I bet. We all better get this projects completed next year, or so. I am sure even the profesional painters will see an increase in cost just for the regulations.

My opinion only.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if everyone in the U.S. painted a car in their garage it would not even equal the amount of Hydro Carbons and Carbon monoxide that Al Gore put out flying his private plane around advertising his little movie!

'This statement isn't even remotely true.'

The thing is, look at all the candidates in the 2008 primaries, whether it is Hillary, Giluiani, Thompson, Obama, etc. how many of these 'Hydro Carbons' are emitted by these candidates running in the primary, in comparison to grandpap McCoy painting his Chalmers in the garage! I would never paint my own car, because I do not have the tools and most of all, I do not have the skills! It would be a mess!

History has proven that the more beaucracy created the less efficient a government becomes and the more YOUR tax dollars are wasted on useless and pointless legislation and elimination of rights. Therefore, instead of say, helping the nations poor, building up infrastructure, they rather go after Joe Shmo painting his '63 Apache and fine him, therefore, preventing him to use that money and stimulate the economy. Instead of going after Joe Schmo they should go after the big companies which have for years ignored enviromental regulations because the $ that they are fined they, consider as just a cost of buisness and it does not affect them.

Dave@Moon I feel your pain, in regards to bad air quality, I live in L.A. and believe me, I know what bad air is! (city busses spew all sorts of crap!) I also agree that people are not 'morons' but, they listen to what brings in more money, power and beurocracy. Their science is only a few years old in the grand scheme of things and it would take hundreds to determine what is truly going on and compare readings. My grandmother is 87 years old, born in 1920 and she remembers both Hot, Cold, wet and dry winters, the world goes in cycles, like the ice age or any other time in History, that is just the way the world is. Back in the 1970's the scientific 'elite' said in many public publications such as the L.A Times and Time magazine,etc. aid that we would have another Ice Age by 1984!, 'Global Cooling' they called it, now it is 'Global Warming' because the cooling thing did not work out! Al Gore, for example has millions invested in the alternate energy industry, so, as any business man would, he is pushing his business. Meanwhile he is flying around in private jets, having several mansions that use more energy in a day then we do in a year in our homes! And he is not even there!

The thing is, is that when they open the door to more regululation, people take advantage and ad more and more regulation and restrict our rights more and more when it comes to our rights as hobbiests and the powers that be still get away with breaking the laws. Government is not the answer to all of our problems, I believe, that if you are dedicated to the Enviroment and this 'green' agenda, then DON'T paint your car DON'T drive your car DONT fly in a plane, GO back to candles and 16th century style living, RIDE your bike to work through the snow and sleet and rain. But, people like Al Gore should not act like they are committed to the enviroment when they truly are not and want to stuff their own pockets! It is NOT up to the government to increase ridiculous legislation, it is like a parent punishing their child, it is one thing if it is for security or safety or whatever but, it is another thing to completly control all of our lives, do they not have faith that we will do the right thing? They are humans like us right? What makes these beurocracies think that they know better than us? Before you know it they will limit our classic car mileage and what we can do and what we cannot in regards to our cars.

I believe in our government and the American Way. I believe that government can help people when they are dedicated to helping people (the 'New Deal') and not stuffing their own pockets with endless investigation, legislation, and fining of Joe Schmo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Lets hear from the pros on these new regulations:

http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Proposed-EPA-paint-regulations-reflect-current-bod/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/462507

To summarize it... the Automotive Service Association (ASA) is ok with the new regulations.

2. SEMA is on our side. http://www.semasan.com

3. Listen to a pro - Our very own Elmo39 said: "paints that are catylised with a isosyanate hardener <span style="font-weight: bold">should never ever be used</span> by a untrained person without a spraybooth built to handle it. Not because of the enviroment but <span style="font-weight: bold">because of the damage it does to your health.</span>"

-----

Rambling about politicians in planes, science on this only being a few years old, and global warming is either way off the subject or just plain wrong.

This regulation is a good compromise - it PROTECTS OUR HEALTH, and it still lets the hobbyist stupid enough to want to expose themselves to harmful substances do so. I just feel sorry for the guy's neighbors.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that I do not know if you are a student of science, but, the scientific method and scientific study take many years to be accurate on a situation, which requires the passage of time to be correct you cannot just look at a microcasm of time 30 years and even 100, you must look at hundreds and even thousands of years in order to make an accurate and correct estimate of any situation (ex. looking at 1 quarter finacial reports will not give you the full pic. you must look at the year or even a few years.), especially the warming issue,etc. Which is at the core of why they are making this legislation. There has been legislation in the past which has been proposed, such as taking cars older than a certain age off the road, and here in California they now want to start smoging older vehicles (1972 and later instead of 77) which, cannot possibly pass, possibly starting down the road of controlling the sale and driveability of older vehicles. As to my 'rambling on'(disrespectful terminology to a fellow classic car lover) as well as me being on my 'soap box' (I did not know that soap boxes existed online!) about politicians flying around in planes I was attempting to make a point about the hypocritical nature of people making these laws. As to the health hazzard point, that is true that some paints are dangerous, but, it is not up to the government to order us what paint to use, but, rather warn us and leave it up to the consumer or prevent the companies from producing these toxins. As to the point about listening to the 'pros' on this situation if everyone jumped off a bridge would you? and 30 years ago the 'pros' spoke of a global cooling occurring and the next ice age coming about. My point is that it is not up to the government to control every iota of our lives, it is up to the American people to decide what they want and what they buy and it is up to the government to decide if they want to shut down these business' who create this stuff, but, they will not because it will prevent tax dollars from coming in, and they rather punish Grand Pap McCoy from painting his Stanley Steamer and collect even more tax money from us.

As for sources here they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling (global cooling)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm (al gore's energy usage)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

(MIT Professor on Global Warming and it's origins)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter, I agree that common sense and compromise is always the right approach when dealing with legislation that can impact the hobby. Also, unsafe chemicals of any type really need to be regulated, but within reason - Welding and disposing of waste chemicals are two examples of potentially dangerous or environmentally damaging activities. Training and common sense go a long way here. One would hope 99% of the public handles these activities ok, and we do not have to pay for the 1% bone head factor.

58srgreat's update post is good news. My original post was not intended to be inflamatory or overly political - I hope I worded it ok - I tried to avoid "come fall vote for xx if you want to change this" and focus on the need to react to these issues in an organized manner. That said, there are certainly plenty in government indifferent at best to this hobby as Lentinello points out. This actually illustrates the challenge a club like AACA faces - just when is it the right time to take a stand on these issues? Do we rely solely on SEMA for this? In CT we have the CT Council of Car Clubs that helps track local legislation - but not on the Federal level.

I personally would like to see more of this type of coverage from the national clubs I belong to (esp. AACA) but I also realize the reasons this is difficult. It could be devisive and not the "fun" or interesting material people may look forward to when getting their magazine. I just believe it will become more of a necessity over time. That, besides the specific paint issue, was the reason for my initial post - kind of a club suggestion, if you will, the reason I posted on the general forum and not in the legislative forum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peter Gariepy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. Lets hear from the pros on these new regulations:

http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Proposed-EPA-paint-regulations-reflect-current-bod/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/462507

To summarize it... the Automotive Service Association (ASA) is ok with the new regulations.

2. SEMA is on our side. http://www.semasan.com

3. Listen to a pro - Our very own Elmo39 said: "paints that are catylised with a isosyanate hardener <span style="font-weight: bold">should never ever be used</span> by a untrained person without a spraybooth built to handle it. Not because of the enviroment but <span style="font-weight: bold">because of the damage it does to your health.</span>"

</div></div>

Given the scope and depth of the <span style="font-style: italic">Auto Body Repair News</span> 10/4/2007 piece, it should've mead mention of the hobbiest exemption if it existed in the (then still proposed) regulations. With the regs adopted and then revised only a few weeks later to include the hobbiest exemption, it leads me to believe that the exemption was a pre-ordained item by the people who were charged with making this mess. They had to have been prepared with discovery and wording already in anticipation of this problem (that their bosses apparently didn't anticipate).

It is terribly frustrating for the staff of the EPA right now. It's really hard to work for people who don't want to you to do well.

Also as best as I can tell none of the pages in the SEMA web site have been updated since these regs were proposed in September. I'm sure SEMA has been active on our part, but the web site doesn't reflect that as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, I was just on the site after seeing Peter's post and I agree it does not look to be to current. All the more reason we need more of these issues covered in the national magazines, where people go for the latest information, I hit this forum almost daily but have only been to the SEMA site a handful of times. Our local club gets state updates as we have a designated person to check that out - my point is clubs can do a great service to membership by tracking at least the hot Federal activity.

I have been out of Brit cars for a few years - does VTR do anything along these lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...does VTR do anything along these lines? </div></div>

Not to my knowledge. I think it would be tough for a marque club to be much more than an information source for it's members in a situation like this, and not a particularly timely one at that unfortunately.

One thread I look forward to every month is SEMA's monthly posting of it's Driving Force Newsletter here in the Leg. Forum. As best I can remember this reg change wasn't mentioned in any of them either. The reg change likely may have been viewed all along as applying only to professional shops by SEMA. I hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope some of you guys didn't misunderstand me i do care about the enviroment we all have to . coming from New Zealand where the ozone hole is bigger than anywhere else in the world i have to, but my post was not about the political side of things but merely to express my concern for the old car hobbyist using paint that (not might)but will harm them ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

re: A LAST MINUTE provision in the bill will allow hobbyists to paint up to TWO cars per year.

Can someone please provide more information or a link related to this last minute two car provision.

Thanks

Bill

Who has just declared his 49 JD crawler tractor done and is anxious to start cleaning and sanding and painting on something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Either I have missed something and don't know whats going on, or this hobby has a HUGE problem. Other than the Hemmings editorial, I have not seen any facts about the EPA paint regulation. I heard here that the regulation had been favorably amended for hobbiests, but I have not been shown the facts, the EPA regulations. I have looked at Hemmings website, SEMA web site and searched the web and I can not find an update. I have asked here twice and noone has been able to respond with the facts.

The regulation of paint for home hobby use will have a significant impact on this hobby. I'm trying to stay informed, but we need better access to information about what is going on.

Bill Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...