Thread: No More "DIYer Paint Jobs" after 2007

Tweet

Ya better read this it seems that the EPA doesn't want us to paint our projects anymore

Excellent link, joined SEMA and contacted my congress critters.

That has been coming for a long time.They are afraid of the enviro. hazards and want to cut out the DIY'ers.As was mentioned,the refrigerant R-12 was phased out,almost completely,but there is still some around.Everyone in the HVAC field complained about the certification requirement so the industry made it dum-as-mud simple to pass it. The automotive paint industry is already finding alternative products to sell to the public, they couldn't survive if the only people they could sell to had to be liscensed and certified to use their products. And there would be a new market/industry created by someone to meet the demand if the Fed's. come down to hard on current products.As you already know the issocyanates and other products will become hard to buy and/or eliminated. Just a guess here,but I would suspect that eventially the industry will react to the demand ( $$$ talks ) but the best products on the market will require liscense and certification AND,,,,LOTS MORE MONEY TO BUY. But that will hurt the low cost production shops. So I wonder what the PPG's and other bigboys are planning to put out .

just a little caveat for the R12 thing... the big ban came up just as the patent came up for renual... amazing co-incidence or what? The new R-12 replacements: HOTSHOT... a mix of R12 and R22... now if R12 is bad, just how the hell can it get better with a mix of 22? Also.. refrigerant is heavier than air.. if you find someone passed out and you suspect refrigerant poisoning, you should turn him upside down so the refrigerant can drain from his lungs
( after evacuating him from the enclosed space of course)..

SO.. if the refrigerant is heavier than air, just how the hell is it being found in the upper atmosphere...

inquiring minds want to know...

Good point, NTF. SEMA fights very hard to preserve the rights of us Hot Rodders. Money to support them IMO is money well spent!!!!!

and on the R12 thing, guess who said it was bad for us, Duponts own scientist & Dupont also just happen to own the patent on R12, seems odd all of a suden it was BADDDD for us. amazing what LOBBIEST can do for u w/the correct amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....joe

Just to add a small amount of balance to the discussion I'll start by saying I'm a big supporter of SEMA and it's vigilence in trying to support the hobbyist as well as the business side of the hobby. Second, I do some painting at home too so have a vested interest in continuing to have some freedom in that arena.

That being said, I read some of the commentary on the linked site and see a lot of b.s., though it's understandable coming from people who don't know what they're talking about, so only see their perception. And this isn't intended to be a criticism of them, it's to point out what issues and perceptions are involved so that if you choose to get involved you can approach it in an informed fashion which will help in fighting for a rational rather than a reactive solution.

The first thing that made me laugh was the comment that body shop owners wanted to force the hobbyist into coming to them for a paint job. Having been one of those evil conspirators I'll tell you that when I had my shop you couldn't pay me enough to paint your car complete. It was too much of a disruption of my production flow. Now, there are probably some shops out there that would think that way, but they are not the leading, or most prominent (representation wise) in the industry.

As one of those posters mentioned, it is an expensive proposition (both in time and money, which in a business is really the same thing) to be a properly maintained shop from an environmental perspective. Also, in the strictest interpretation of the current laws, the shop owner is responsible for the hazardous material from cradle to grave (I'll be keeping my documentation and shipping manifests until the day I die). In a technical sense the laws as they exist are nearly unworkable, the only thing that allows the industry to operate is that enforcement to the letter can't be done. And therein lies the rub. What happens is that enforcement is very subjective and spotty. When one shop is "disciplined" the operator expresses indignation because he knows there are hundreds (thousands?) of other shops doing the same thing and they're not being punished. It's the luck (bad) of the draw thing.

I was involved in a review of enforcement/risk policies some ten years ago and saw some interesting info. While the jobbers were very reluctant to give us exact figures, we were able to get enough info to do some extrapolations. Our best info indicated that the licensed shops were responsible for 55-60% of the refinish materials purchases in Western Washington. It may vary in other parts of the country, but it's probably reasonably representative. That means that 40-45% of the "hazardous" material is un-regulated. If you look at the individual hobbyist comments, they only see the world from their personal 1 gallon, or two quart, whatever, point of view. But from the other side, the cumulative effect is close to half the product sold is not under scrutiny. If you put yourself in the place of the guy who is saddled with a lifelong legal responsibility, and the associated costs of meeting regulations, you might say "if it's so important to control this stuff, why is only my half of the problem getting 100% of the attention/punishment potential?" Therein lies a greater reason for the shops to push their agenda, rather than the quirky notion they want to force all the hobbyists to their door.

If push comes to shove, I would prefer to see some kind of program that puts some responsibility on the hobbyist to demonstrate that they aren't being gross polutors (again keep in mind that you may think you're only pouring a quart of solvent down the hole, but if all hobbyists do it, it's a big cumulative thing). Maybe a reasonable compromise is for the hobbyist to pass some sort of knowledge test to get a "minimal" use catagory license and be required to return a realistic amount of waste material to the same jobber they bought the original refinish material from to demonstrate they aren't generating the amount of polutants the politicians and environmental whackos think.

My concern in this is we lose reasonable freedom to misinformation and resultant misapplication of regulation. Just to give you an example from a volatile political issue in another venue. Something near 500 toddlers die per year by drowning in a few inches of water left in unattended 5 gallon plastic pails. Less than twenty children a year are killed by accidental discharge of firearms. Which one of those two gets the most focus? Rational or reactive?

Hi Bob,

Good perspective, good analogies. And perhaps that is the answer - some basic demonstration of knowledge, and a means of disposing of excess/waste materials. Sounds a lot like my taking my drain oils to NAPA for recycling - they won't take a drum of it, but will take a "hobbyist" type quantity.

Thanks for the insight. And you're right about the shops not wanting to do total repaints, and especially color changes. A friend with a shop made exactly your point, plus a little. In addition to interrupting the production flow, he likes insurance work because he knows he'll get paid, the jobs are manageable, and the checks clear.

guess I'll have to at least buy my paint 2007, car should be done by then. . could always buy your paint from a body shop that will sell you the paint under the counter, or a paint store that will sell stuff under the counter.

It also seems that there is no link, or quotes or anything from the EPA leaving that thread on moparts a possible gossip thread, also being that the thread starter has 468 posts and registered oct '03, might not be the most reliable source.

Just one group of tree huggers crying about body shops and wanting restrictions. Not even close to being a law. So, how many "paint police" would it take from stopping Joe Blow from painting his own car. Not saying it could never happen, just that it would be unlikely. I guess I wouldn't have a problem about having to pass a test of some sort before I was allowed to buy the products. People working with pesticides and fertilizers have had to do it for a number of years now.

Just another case of Professional Do Gooders getting involved with an issue they know absolutely nothing about,. These types need to get a life, and quit interferring with everyone else's !!!!!

Originally posted by Matt167

It also seems that there is no link, or quotes or anything from the EPA leaving that thread on moparts a possible gossip thread, also being that the thread starter has 468 posts and registered oct '03, might not be the most reliable source.

at the bottom of the 1st post was this link that had the info on it

http://www.abrn.com/abrn/article/art....jsp?id=196423

That's not the only thing... 06 starts the new chopper law by EPA and Harley Davidson... It's true too not just some rumor. The chopper one is that you can only own one custom in your lifetime and cant sell it until you have owned it for over 5 years. Harley Davidson is helping EPA with it and sponsoring it. I lost all respect for HD now because of it and so has a lot of others. Not a lot of people know about it but go to ANY chopper forum and look at the EPA links...
Pretty soon they will ban hot rods and we will have to run new motors and everything. I wouldn't doubt that in 10 years they start doing the same thing they are doing with custom choppers to hot rods.

Just some rambling comments. As to Bob's data on only 50% of paint use by licensed shops, I find it hard to believe that over 40% of the rest of the market is due to DIY types. Maybe DIY is 5% but maybe the rest is use by shops that do some painting but are not high volume body shops? Then there are moon-light painters who have a garage somewhere and paint on the side but they are body specialists during the day? If that is so the new regulations will effect them more than the DIY folks. Yes indeed SEMA needs to counter balance the EPA folks but as for the R12 situation it has to do with whether the chlorocarbon bond breaks off a -Cl easily to form the Cl-O molecule; that is what damages the ozone layer. So it is possible to still use other refrigerants based on whether they release Cl less easily into the atmosphere. The purpose of changing the refrigerant is to reduce the amount of Cl-O formed, so there are other compounds that can be used as refrigerants with less production of Cl-O. The paint restriction will not effect me since I am learning that there is no hope that I can do my own paint job so I am at the mercy of the local shops.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Ok , Suppose this things does come to pass. What does one have to do to be legit. Could it be as simple as a test as Dave pointed out ( hopefully) ? If so
What then , would the EPA then show up at your door to see if your shop is compliant ? What all is involved in being compliant ? Thanks Darin

Uncle Bob did a post awhile back on what it takes for compliance, scary list of things to be done!!!!!!