injdinjn

Teh EPA is proposing restricting auto painting to licensed body shops only.
They will read comments from auto hobbists, I suggest you write.

Here is a reply we received with a contact for responding.

Thank you for your November 8, 2005, email about the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)’s upcoming efforts to reduce toxic emissions
from autobody refinishing activities. I appreciate you taking the time
to share your concerns about how our environmental rules may
potentially
impact you as a hobbyist working on your car or restoring vehicles.

The EPA office for which I work is responsible for developing
regulations to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals listed in
the
Clean Air Act as hazardous air pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires
EPA to reduce exposure to hazardous air pollutants because these
chemicals are known, or suspected, to cause cancer or other serious
health effects, such as birth defects. Our research has shown that the
air toxics released from autobody refinishing, such as benzene, lead,
and xylene, come from surface coating operations.

As part of our efforts to develop information to support any action we
may take, we are actively requesting input from all potentially
affected
parties. We have received information from industry trade associations
and are interested in hearing from hobbyists about how to best develop
this rule. We expect to propose a rule in August 2007. The final rule
would be issued by August 2008, and go into effect in August 2011.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish emission limits for those
kinds of facilities that, although individually small, collectively
emit
hazardous air pollutants that may pose significant health risk to the
public. Auto refinishing shops fall into this category. There are an
estimated 80,000 shops across the nation. Additionally, we must
consider the emissions attributable to auto refinishing by hobbyists.
Unlike most auto refinishing shops, many hobbyists paint vehicles in
residential neighborhoods, as opposed to in industrial areas.

In conducting our initial research on emissions from auto refinishing,
we have discovered that there are a wide variety of pollution control
technologies and techniques being applied in autobody shops and among
hobbyists. For example, we recognize that paint booths are effective
at
reducing the amount of air pollution released into the air and that
many
shops are using this equipment today. Based on discussions, electronic
mail messages, and letters from hobbyists, the pollution control
measures and equipment we are considering making part of a future
proposed rule already are being employed by many hobbyists.

One option we are considering for future proposed regulations is point
of purchase restrictions. To help inform our future decision, we are
examining different elements of point of purchase restrictions in
various states and communities. If we select point of purchase
restrictions, people who want to purchase refinish materials would need
to show that they have been certified/licensed in safe use of
refinishing products. This certification/licensing is similar to what
is required of hunters and fisherman (i.e., they must obtain a
license.)
We are considering recertification every five years. Let me emphasize
that we are still in the early stages of developing such criteria for
certification. We welcome your input and participation in developing
this rule. None of the measures that EPA is considering would prohibit
a certified individual from purchasing refinishing materials or working
with these materials.

Please feel free to contact me for further information or to share your
thoughts and opinions. I can be contacted through email at
teal.kim@epa.gov, telephone at (919) 541-5580, or mail comments to my
attention at U.S. EPA (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your comments.

Sincerely,

Kim R. Teal
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS/ESD/CCPG
C539-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMAIL: teal.kim@epa.gov
DIRECT: (919) 541-5580
FAX: (919) 541-5689

firebirdjosh

iTrader: (1)

I'm not sure what to say. That is awful and price for a paint job will increase I bet, but if the chemicals are that hazardous then I support their decision. I'd like to see some numbers, studies, etc.

Toehead

They should focus on more important issues, such as the smoke belching out of unregulated diesel truck rigs. The problem is, the EPA is a government office, and like all the rest, scared of biting the hand that feeds it. However, they have no problem with tackling the little guy. At the moment, small 2 stroke engines are on the chopping block. These engines are much less prevalent then others that pollute, and only used for short bursts. However, they are the little guy on the playground and the EPA has come to steal their lunch money.

injdinjn

I have painted 4 or 5 cars most using acrylics and the most recent using urthane base/clear coats.

The acrylic enamals have emissions because they dry slow and allow the paint to flow out (get smooth). The laquers were made to dry fast and then color sand and buff for a real deep gloss. I could spray either one without a mask.

The urthanes require a very good mask and a bunny suit is recommended. They dry very fast and leave a lousy finish, lots of fish eyes. And its a hard paint, very hard to color sand and buff. It also peels off like scotch tape.

Why a urthane is OK with the EPA when its more toxic than acrylics and acrylic laquers are not OK is beyond me.

I guess its like my old truck, with all smog items in place it gets 7mpg, moving the timing from zero (emissions setting) to 6deg it gets 14mpg. So how does something pollute less using twice as much fuel???????????

KEVIN G.

Then you're doing something wrong. They are the best finish available today. VERY durable, better holdout, and a higher gloss finish overall.
Yes the old enamels and lacquers are more forgiving as far as conditions are concered, but very poor quality and durability.
I would guess the issue here is, getting the contaminants out of the hands of the local yokel that is probably dumping the **** in his back yard when he's done.
This goes against what the paint manufacturers want, though. They would rather sell to the masses.
There is probably a coalition of bodyshops spearheading this, I bet, although I haven't read of this in any trade magazines.
It's always been a little crazy, IMHO, There is factual evidence that dry cleaners produce more toxins into the environment than a legally-run compliant bodyshop.
I'm kind of on the fence here, I would like to still be able to paint parts and even my car in my garage if I want... BUT the flipside is, why do I have to purchase a $80,000.00 booth for my shop, have thinner recyclers, 3 sets of filters before it reaches the outside...document all the comings and goings of my hazardous waste with the E.P.A., If any swinging dick on the planet can go out and spray a car??

novadk13

looks like rattle cans for me then

crazycrocket

Can someone explain how paint shops are any less polluting? I live in Canada and this does not effect me (until our government follows yours) but I do not see how paint shops pollute any less. The local shop in my town sprays this in their booth (which isn't one of those high tech filtered ones) and then in summer time will even leave parts on racks in their yard in the sun to help them dry quicker. Is this shop not releasing vapours into the air the same as if everyone were doing it themselves? Instead you are just concentrating this, its all political and its why so many people are sick of their governments, yet we have been made such pets its impossible to change the government that is apparently there for our benifit.

KEVIN G.

Ideally, The shop IS producing less waste, by mixing only what they need and dumping less. Ideally, they are use more efficient guns, that transfer more material to the panel. Hopefully they are filtering the air going out of the booth, at least once. They are SUPPOSED to be using a vendor to dispose of the materials left behind. AND recording it with the E.P.A.

injdinjn

KevinG
I do not know your expertise in Auto paints.
I do know this;
My cousin, as a hobby, has rebuilt numerous cars all of which were first place show winners and one featured Hot Rod mag. I have only painted a handfull of cars. My cousin and I determined that we would never use urthanes again - they are crap. Even with discussions with a body shop owner friend of mine the final finish required extensive color sanding and buffing.
If they are so durable, why do I own a still shiny original factory painted 1973 Ford truck, and the paint on my 86 Grand Prix went to hell in less than 10 years.
And it wasn't the brand of urthane, My cousin was using DuPont at same time I was using Sherwin Williams.

The EPA wants paints that release no fumes and dry instantly. Any paint that dries fast, even latex vs enamal house paint, DOES NOT flow out and leaves a rough finish. With a spray gun its fisheyes, with house trim paint and a brush its brush strokes.

Sorry, but I will take acrylic enamal or laquer over this new $hit any day and so will my body shop friend.

You are right about one thing, they are the best paint available today in the Los Angeles area because you CANNOT buy anything else, but thats the only reason why.

firebirdjosh

iTrader: (1)

No offense, but if you can't spray Dupont paint then you shouldn't ever go near a gun. How much more basic can it get: sand, spray, let dry. Even without wetsanding or buffing my clear coat looked absolutely flawless.

KEVIN G.

It was not meant as a cut-down, It was as simple as the statement. Somewhere your process is breaking down. Urethane paints DO NOT fisheye unless a contaminant is introduced. They do not dry "too fast" . The 73 is probably a well taken care-of..vehicle. Your 86 was in all probability Dispersion Lacquer, which blows your whole theory. It may be basecoat, but I doubt it, Gm did fiddle with Lacquer in the mid-eigthies again.
Now, do urethanes require re-training in spraying techniques? YES, resoundingly YES! I came on board just as urethanes were introduced, I had sprayed enamels and lacquers, BUT, as I was professionally trained in basecoat/clearcoat, It became even more apparrent that this was the future. I have sprayed hundreds, if not thousands of vehicles since. Yes, I have had problems, yes sometimes things occur, but I can fix anything that happens the very next day, if not in the booth at that moment.
Painting vehicles has now become a science, you need to learn that science, once you do, you will see what I mean. They are more more user friendly, providing the user knows the system. Mix ratios must be followed, environment MUST be observed. (temperature and humidity). The user/painter must become the machine that creates the desired outcome.
Paints that are designed to dry fast, are not for the EPA's wishes, they are for the end-user's convenience. The more paint jobs I can produce in a day's time, the happier my customer is. The happier the insurance company is, (because I am expediting their customer's repair.) The quicker I can get the next job in the door and do the whole process all over again. Which, in turn makes me more money. The days of telling joe customer, "Hey, come back in a month when your enamel job dies out, and I'll re-buff the entire job for you." are gone. The job looks the same a month from now, as the day it left my shop.

mdricken

ah your hard earned money at work. aint it great?

I want to know how exactly they are going to police this. Painting is mostly done inside. What are they gonna do send out the paint police to go snooping inside everybody's garage???

What a bunch of bull ****.

johnnyq5021

policing it would not be an issue....I imagine they would require you to get a license to even be able to by the paint.....just like they did with building permits...i have to get a building permit if i want to build a dog house....if this goes through it will probably end up the same way.....i bet these epa guys dont drive suvs in the northern winter....lmao

crazycrocket

You stated it perfectly. Like we all know though many shops fo take shortcuts and do make mistakes that lead to wasted product. I don't know what it is like in the states but I'm glad here in Canada we don't have to put up with teh same things you guys do. Although I suppose its probably on its way.

johnnyq5021

i worked in an un-named fibergalss shop and i know we did not follow the rules.....we used a lot of acetone and instead of putting the old in the barrel we were supposed to our boss maybe us put it in 5 gallon buckets and set it outside to evaporate.....and trust me we used a lot of acetone

injdinjn

Thats exactly what they propose, just like R-12, you will need a license to buy paint.

mdricken

Well I sent her a glowing email on my feelings on this issue.

Hope you guys do the same.


So in other words they honestly dont give a rip about the environment and are only concerned about pushing their agendas.

After you take the silly paint class you are going to go home and paint how you want anyway. Who is going to say, "oh I want a great looking fender, but I think I'll compromise the quality of it and do what is best for the environment". Right.

KEVIN G.

LOL, since when does ANY government body actually CARE about ANYTHING OTHER than money??!!!

injdinjn

That I totally agree with you on.

Plus it creates a new bureauracy to employ more people to do nothing but get fatter. More commonly known as welfare to work programs.

Guest

Wow, that was a mouthful.

First, I think he is totally correct, although he meant to say orange peel, not fish eye. Urethane paint, sold HERE, is crap. Its not worth a dime. Nobody here likes it. There's a reason for that. Its hard to spray. It dries too fast. It doesnt flow out, at all. Its like spraying powder that at some point acts like paint. I put my hand in front of the gun and sprayed it and had a handful of dust. Totally dry, and that was with the slowest drying reducer available. All in all, its a PITA to work with. Whats better than that? Its the only automotive refinish product you can buy HERE, nothing else is available for purchase. Doesnt matter where you go, DuPont, Sherwin-Williams, PPG (who left many moons ago), BASF, its all the same junk. I'm 99.9% sure what you'd be buying in MI or what another guy I know buys in OH is absolutely nothing like what is sold in southern CA. Nothing. I'll send you a pint of our finest, and you can bang your own head on the wall trying to paint it with any sort of better than average results. Even the guy down the street, who does $$$$$$ custom work says HIS paint guys hate it. Its not my dad, its not me, my dads cousin, the guy down the street, my dads paint friend, its anyone that uses the urethane sold here. Trust me, you do not want this stuff. Its horrid. It does peel off in strips, I witnessed it myself. Prep from cleaner to mix ratio, product line, all followed to the letter and you could peel the urethane right off the primer like it was a sticker. You want to blame somebody, blame Sherwin Williams. Its their product painted by their recommendations. It never adhered, just gave the impression it did. Then blame the SCAQMD, who is behind the whole mess of what we are allowed to buy here.

The 73. lol. That thing has spent 80% or better of its life outside in the sun. Its been on camping trips, lounging in the desert. Its been to the lake. Its been in the ocean far enough to get water into the doors. It spent years as a work truck. Its been through sandstorms, rainstorms, mud, you name it... its been there. Sure its been taken care of otherwise, but the paint I must say has done quite well. I guess in 1972 when they sprayed enamel it was some pretty good stuff. No, its not lacquer. Lacquer shows obvious evidence from sun damage, and the only spots the truck has that are areas that were repaired in 1974 and a later date I'm not aware of.

The 86 was sprayed with enamel base-clear. I think part of the reason it was bad was it was thin to begin with. It never did shine that well, especially on areas the factory machines didnt get adequate coverage. I think the rest was based on what we all know about the peeling clearcoats of the 80's, the paints were just not very good around that time.

I've sprayed a handful of cars myself. I heard all sorts of great things about urethane and I feel like an idiot for ever having recommended it. I've hit the 1-Day Paint+Body single stage enamel on my 86TA harder with objects and not chipped the paint (and trust me, they tipped the can) and the urethane on my dads 86 chips just as easy if not easier. Totally disappointed. The orange peel was impossible to deal with. The only resolution path was to colorsand it later. I dont even know how many test sprays were made and the only time I saw the orange peel get down to a reasonable level, the paint was running down the part. Thats what urethane is like here. I would NEVER use it again.

I have a can of acrylic enamel purchased out of state (couldnt get it here anyway) that I'll be using on my next project. I'm not brazen enough to risk spraying urethane again after the last experience and all the wonderful input from other people around here that are frustrated with it. Maybe if I purchased from out of state I might think about it, but then again... no thanks.

And hey INJDINJN... how'd that panel on Pablo's car look? Did I mention that was urethane? Thats the stuff I bought back in 1995 or whatever it was for Allen's truck. Did you see any orange peel? And I wasnt even trying to do a good job. Think the stuff on your car is comparable?

KenV

Holy crap, I thought it was me. Sanded properly, to and around the edges. Primed, sanded, sealed and painted with the slowest reducer I could get (first paint job and I asked for the most idiot-proof chems), and it still peels like a stinker in places, currently the fender edges at the engine bay. Heck, I took my sweet time on the roof. It still had orange peel. It pissed me off to the point that I probably won't do another car while I live in Kali.

This thread was a real eye-opener. My thanks go to everyone who is giving input on this one...

K

KEVIN G.

I guess i don't know where "HERE" is...
It must be..."under my car"
I am assuming you mean California, and although I know it's a whole different animal out there, I can't imagine for all the high-end shops, that EVERYONE is having trouble...again, I dont know, just guessing.
I have sprayed some "california rule" clears, and although they are heavier, (higher solids) I don't recall them being too difficult to spray. Your temperature WILL have a lot to do with it though, and not only a slow reducer is in order, but a slow or all-over hardener. (From what I recall, most don't even call for reducers in your state, do they?)
Again, I don't have all the facts on your situation, I am just offering some help.

injdinjn

Pablo's fender looked great. Had my GP come out that good I wouldn't have had to spend so much time color sanding and buffing.
I used up about $100 worth of paint products testing the base/clear coats trying diff things and nothing worked, my cousin used up almost that much in his quest for a decent finish.

The worst part about buying any chemical products in So Cal is that they don't or can't tell you this is a "specific area" product and the results may (WILL) be less desirable than expected.

Oh, and due to all the regs layed on the paint shops, paint jobs cost about double here. Some shops are moving to Tijuana due to the EPA regs like the rest of any EPA regulated industry/business.
Labor costs plus the leather tanning and dying regs sent ACME boots to Mexico.