# The Dustless Painting Movement



## parodi

The purpose of the RPP is not to persecute painting contractors. It really IS (or was) about protecting the general public and workers from the danger of flying lead dust. Yes, OK, it is also a money grab by the federal government now but basically it started as a way to protect the public and workers.

However if there is no dust there is no danger. Painters who do not create dust are clearly exempt (as well as painters who only make a little dust as in the 6 ft rule interior and the 20 sf exterior) as can be found in every piece of EPA literature on the law.

Last Tuesday at my local Bergen County Mastercraftsman organization we hosted XIM. You probably have seen some of their interesting stuff like Peel Bond which can be applied up to 30 mil thick to smooth out, recondition and restore horrible, crazed and cracking old paint. There is an even thicker variant called Trim Magic which goes on way thick.

I brought up to the rep that there may be a way to paint an interior or exterior using many of XIM's products whereby new tech and new techniques could yield a quality paint job without one speck of dust being created and therefore all the RRP expense, liability issues, record keeping issues, asss pain, insurance overhead, et.cetera all simply go away if your new way of painting produces no dust. 

For some reason this comment made the rep uncomfortable. He said that XIM in no way claims any of their products are encapsulating coatings. I don't think he got what I was suggesting. It not about encapsulation, it is about dust creation and I think XIM is sitting on a gold mine because of all those products they have which could negate the RRP if used with a zero dust intent.

My own house is horribly crazed in sections.... 1930's southern pine clapboard with about 8 coats of oil paint on it. I am working on XIM to get me some Peel Bond to this site prontissimo and I will shoot a youtube vid to kick off Part I of the new Dustless Painting Movement.


----------



## aaron61

I have used Trim Magic many times it does a pretty good job.But on exteriors you still need to remove the loose & peeling paint before applying.It would definetly cut down on sanding but we never sand anything(exterior) anyway!


----------



## vermontpainter

aaron61 said:


> we never sand anything(exterior) anyway!


Seriously?


----------



## RCP

Jim, you have some good points and I look forward to your article. 
I think there will be lots of new ideas on how to work safer and cleaner.

We had a discussion recently on RRP "workarounds" that talked about it, there are still so many questions and not enough documentation to really do anything but follow the rule. 

Do you feel that if you follow the "dustfree" that you do not have to be certified or that you just don't have to follow RRP Rules?


----------



## WisePainter

parodi said:


> The purpose of the RPP is not to persecute painting contractors. It really IS (or was) about protecting the general public and workers from the danger of flying lead dust. Yes, OK, it is also a money grab by the federal government now but basically it started as a way to protect the public and workers.
> 
> However if there is no dust there is no danger. Painters who do not create dust are clearly exempt (as well as painters who only make a little dust as in the 6 ft rule interior and the 20 sf exterior) as can be found in every piece of EPA literature on the law.
> 
> Last Tuesday at my local Bergen County Mastercraftsman organization we hosted XIM. You probably have seen some of their interesting stuff like Peel Bond which can be applied up to 30 mil thick to smooth out, recondition and restore horrible, crazed and cracking old paint. There is an even thicker variant called Trim Magic which goes on way thick.
> 
> I brought up to the rep that there may be a way to paint an interior or exterior using many of XIM's products whereby new tech and new techniques could yield a quality paint job without one speck of dust being created and therefore all the RRP expense, liability issues, record keeping issues, asss pain, insurance overhead, et.cetera all simply go away if your new way of painting produces no dust.
> 
> For some reason this comment made the rep uncomfortable. He said that XIM in way claims any of their products are encapsulating coatings. I don't think he got what I was suggesting. It not about encapsulation, it is about dust creation and I think XIM is sitting on a gold mine because of all those products they have which could negate the RRP if used with a zero dust intent.
> 
> My own house is horribly crazed in sections.... 1930's southern pine clapboard with about 8 coats of oil paint on it. I am working on XIM to get me some Peel Bond to this site prontissimo and I will shoot a youtube vid to kick off Part I of the new Dustless Painting Movement.


Bergen County is where my Father owned his painting business...

Anywho I will have to investigate this exterior products, because even newer homes suffer terrible paint werk.


----------



## Robert carl

*Those XIM products DO work!*

Sure you still have to scrape loose/peeling surfaces but the "fill" propertys of XIM products sure do help get rid of the "acne scar" look. I find with a combination peelbond and trim magic it's pretty cool what can be done.


----------



## parodi

RCP said:


> Jim, you have some good points and I look forward to your article.
> I think there will be lots of new ideas on how to work safer and cleaner.
> 
> We had a discussion recently on RRP "workarounds" that talked about it, there are still so many questions and not enough documentation to really do anything but follow the rule.
> 
> Do you feel that if you follow the "dustfree" that you do not have to be certified or that you just don't have to follow RRP Rules?


When I lived in Germany in the 1970's I remember drinking with an automotive apprentice who told me that in their training they were not allowed to use (or even possess) a hammer in working on cars. The philosophy was that if you had to hammer something to loosen or to fit...well it just was not what a good mechanic does. 

With paint apprenticeships there could rapidly come a day when sandpaper was not allowed in the kit bag when working on pre-78 houses and that sandpaper was generally frowned upon when dustless lead safe practices with state of the art materials was the proper way to go. So the VW mechanic is simply taught never to bang on things and the painter never to sand things (or raise any type of paint dust) in older homes. It could happen.
*
ALL lead paint rules stem from sanding, scraping, burning, hammering and other disturbances to paint which produce dust or fumes, so to answer your questions, if painters were taught never to do anything but** clean*, fill and coat they would not have to comply with RRP generally speaking.* (The asterisk here is the "cleaning" where the powerwashing of deteriorated paint may overstep the line and may require containment.)

If a dustless standard was developed, painters would not have to notify owners with the booklet that needs to be signed. Job sites would require no containment. They would not need lead insurance upgrades. There would be no need to invest in HEPA equipment or have people move out of their houses during work. And the cost of a paint job (might possibly?) cost even less than doing it the old way. So if an ASTM standard for dustless painting were instituted, those adhering to it would not need to take RRP course or be lead certified. 

This may sound radical to some but consider that up to now the EPA has *warned us* and *threatened us* but they have never *helped us* find a workaround to these very strict rules. They have spend 95% of the time drawing up restrictions but scant little time on allowances or innovations to suggest. Once we find out that we actually can do that (invent and innovate) and stay within the law it will probably be the painters who write the book on dustless practices.


----------



## RCP

That would be great! The painters could show the rest of the trades how it's done!


----------



## Msargent

HAAAA never sand funny. Thats like a painter who doesnt use a brush


----------



## nEighter

JFC. This is what I was talking about in the h/o prep thread. A different way to approach this situation. Parodi good luck man and keep us posted.


----------



## chrisn

parodi said:


> When I lived in Germany in the 1970's I remember drinking with an automotive apprentice who told me that in their training they were not allowed to use (or even possess) a hammer in working on cars. The philosophy was that if you had to hammer something to loosen or to fit...well it just was not what a good mechanic does.
> 
> With paint apprenticeships there could rapidly come a day when sandpaper was not allowed in the kit bag when working on pre-78 houses and that sandpaper was generally frowned upon when dustless lead safe practices with state of the art materials was the proper way to go. So the VW mechanic is simply taught never to bang on things and the painter never to sand things (or raise any type of paint dust) in older homes. It could happen.
> 
> *ALL lead paint rules stem from sanding, scraping, burning, hammering and other disturbances to paint which produce dust or fumes, so to answer your questions, if painters were taught never to do anything but** clean*, fill and coat they would not have to comply with RRP generally speaking.* (The asterisk here is the "cleaning" where the powerwashing of deteriorated paint may overstep the line and may require containment.)
> 
> If a dustless standard was developed, painters would not have to notify owners with the booklet that needs to be signed. Job sites would require no containment. They would not need lead insurance upgrades. There would be no need to invest in HEPA equipment or have people move out of their houses during work. And the cost of a paint job (might possibly?) cost even less than doing it the old way. So if an ASTM standard for dustless painting were instituted, those adhering to it would not need to take RRP course or be lead certified.
> 
> This may sound radical to some but consider that up to now the EPA has *warned us* and *threatened us* but they have never *helped us* find a workaround to these very strict rules. They have spend 95% of the time drawing up restrictions but scant little time on allowances or innovations to suggest. Once we find out that we actually can do that (invent and innovate) and stay within the law it will probably be the painters who write the book on dustless practices.


 
The sooner the better:yes:


----------



## parodi

nEighter said:


> JFC. This is what I was talking about in the h/o prep thread. A different way to approach this situation. Parodi good luck man and keep us posted.


Thanks. I think every problem can be approached in a different way. For instance, let's suppose you do a bid for a 1920 house. Plaster in two downstairs ceilings are sagging a bit and showing watermarks with efflorescence. Each room's ceiling is requiring more than than 6 square feet of repair. How exactly do you knock out the old plaster with 10 coats of paint on it without raising one mote of dust. The answer is.....you don't. You learn the following way of doing it and you make more money with this special skill than you would have plastering and painting the old way:

http://www.owenscorning.com/around/sound/products/pdfs/Solserene.pdf


----------



## jacob33

I never sand exteriors either. If they are in that bad of shape the person most likely can not afford it plus it is terrible work. Luckily my town has a lot of people who like to keep houses up so they get painted very often.


----------



## Paintuh4Life

All my work is in older home. More and more, I've been integrating the use of multi-layer strippers, particularly Smartstrip. I just did some window sills (in a kids bedroom) that were in very bad shape. I just brushed it on (very heavy) covered it with plastic and let it "dwell" over night. Came back the next day, scraped all the paint off (with very little effort) rinsed them off, let them dry. This whole process did not take much more time than scraping, filling, and sanding these sills would normally have taken. Plus, the H/O will never have to worry about the old paint on those surfaces again. And, zero dust. I like this method very much.


----------



## vermontpainter

parodi said:


> it will probably be the painters who write the book on dustless practices.


Not likely. The painters cant come to a consensus on anything. Even non critical matters like whites, footwear, plastic and caulking. Matters of more importance, no chance. Its just easier to be reactive and complain than to try to make any kind of industry impact. :jester:


----------



## DeanV

I am seriously considering washing trim, priming with XIM (no sanding) and topcoating with acrylic on all old oil trim jobs. Downside, if there is a dents and damage to fill, you may still be over the 6 sq. ft. of sanding. Wet sanding does not really work well for small trim repairs.


----------



## parodi

DeanV said:


> I am seriously considering washing trim, priming with XIM (no sanding) and topcoating with acrylic on all old oil trim jobs. Downside, if there is a dents and damage to fill, you may still be over the 6 sq. ft. of sanding. Wet sanding does not really work well for small trim repairs.


There are many different patching materials that don't have to be sanded to be smoothed, you can rub them with a wet sponge. I would rather sand but it is not an absolute necessity.


----------



## parodi

vermontpainter said:


> Not likely. The painters cant come to a consensus on anything. Even non critical matters like whites, footwear, plastic and caulking. Matters of more importance, no chance. Its just easier to be reactive and complain than to try to make any kind of industry impact. :jester:


Well I can tell you one thing....it won't be the EPA. 

BTW, painters don't need to be in consensus on this either. There can be several different ways to do a particular chore without raising dust. Sometimes it isn't necessity being the mother of invention either, often it is plain laziness.

I've come up with some of my best innovations when I really was too tired or didn't have the inclination to do it the old fashioned way. I think the paint roller was invented this way....the guy who invented it probably was sick of swinging a 6" brush to do ceilings. The roller extension was invented by an even lazier guy.


----------



## mblosik

*I too want a sandless alternative*

parodi--
i had huge paint chips peeling on my overhead garage door frame. no mold underneath or anything like that. 
i didn't scrape. 
i didn't sand.
i applied XIM Peel Bond (good thick coat)
i let it dry for a week.
for s and giggles, i applied duct tape and pulled........
nothing came off with the duct tape. 
i am now compelled to apply the topcoat and see what happens long term.


----------



## CApainter

If the concern of a lead hazard (in excess of 600 ppm) is measured on SURFACE coatings only, why is there any need to circumvent proper paint practices when most coatings, if not all, have since been top coated with a non lead containing acrylic or oil based paint? 

The extra time and material needed to "encapsulate" an unlikely suspect coating seems to be a waste of time and material.

As I understand it, repaints that have an existing LATEX coating, (most likely non lead), can be washed and coated with very little sanding required.

If you are dealing with something more severe in terms of repairing lead exposed substrates, or lead containing SURFACE coatings, then you'd be obligated to perform the work according to the standards set forth by OSHA, and now RRP.

Unless you like to grind the sh!t out of everything, I still don't understand the reason to lower the preparation standards in order to avoid the law.


----------



## parodi

CApainter said:


> If the concern of a lead hazard (in excess of 600 ppm) is measured on SURFACE coatings only, why is there any need to circumvent proper paint practices when most coatings, if not all, have since been top coated with a non lead containing acrylic or oil based paint?
> 
> The extra time and material needed to "encapsulate" an unlikely suspect coating seems to be a waste of time and material.
> 
> As I understand it, repaints that have an existing LATEX coating, (most likely non lead), can be washed and coated with very little sanding required.
> 
> If you are dealing with something more severe in terms of repairing lead exposed substrates, or lead containing SURFACE coatings, then you'd be obligated to perform the work according to the standards set forth by OSHA, and now RRP.
> 
> Unless you like to grind the sh!t out of everything, I still don't understand the reason to lower the preparation standards in order to avoid the law.


You are using way too much common sense. We are talking about the federal government here. Every piece of EPA literature I have read up until now says that when you enter a building that was built before 1978 you must assume that the paint on the wall is lead paint. This is despite the common sense impulse which says the walls and trim were likely painted by 1990 with some sort of latex, then again by 2000 and then again by 2010 so that light sanding should not be even be an issue because there are multiple non-lead-containing coats. But it is an issue because the EPA has said it is an issue, not because it is really an issue.

Now you (or the owner) can have the paint tested by a certified paint tester to find out if the paint actually in fact is lead paint , but that brings up other issues which have been dealt with here in many threads.


----------



## KLaw

parodi said:


> You are using way too much common sense. We are talking about the federal government here. Every piece of EPA literature I have read up until now says that when you enter a building that was built before 1978 you must assume that the paint on the wall is lead paint. This is despite the common sense impulse which says the walls and trim were likely painted by 1990 with some sort of latex, then again by 2000 and then again by 2010 so that light sanding should not be even be an issue because there are multiple non-lead-containing coats. But it is an issue because the EPA has said it is an issue, not because it is really an issue.
> 
> Now you (or the owner) can have the paint tested by a certified paint tester to find out if the paint actually in fact is lead paint , but that brings up other issues which have been dealt with here in many threads.


Hey Parodi: I like your thinking. This is similar to N8's post about a workaround. Thanks for sharing your vision.

These are all viable options. Appreciate the input and you need to post more often.:thumbsup:


----------



## johnthepainter

wash
encapsulate
mudwork
wet sand
spot prime
paint

no surfaces were disturbed.

when life rains lemons,,,,


----------



## NEPS.US

just do it illegally


----------



## DeanV

Paintuh4Life said:


> All my work is in older home. More and more, I've been integrating the use of multi-layer strippers, particularly Smartstrip. I just did some window sills (in a kids bedroom) that were in very bad shape. I just brushed it on (very heavy) covered it with plastic and let it "dwell" over night. Came back the next day, scraped all the paint off (with very little effort) rinsed them off, let them dry. This whole process did not take much more time than scraping, filling, and sanding these sills would normally have taken. Plus, the H/O will never have to worry about the old paint on those surfaces again. And, zero dust. I like this method very much.



Just remember, that from the EPA perspective, unless you are lead abatement trained, the surface is still considered contaminated with lead paint and rules need to be followed. The EPA was very clear that they consider complete removal impossible and RRP does not certify us to remediate lead paint. Different training and certification required.


----------



## Paintuh4Life

DeanV said:


> Just remember, that from the EPA perspective, unless you are lead abatement trained, the surface is still considered contaminated with lead paint and rules need to be followed. The EPA was very clear that they consider complete removal impossible and RRP does not certify us to remediate lead paint. Different training and certification required.


No argument there, I am definitely disturbing lead paint, but it was under 6 square feet, so I was complying with the rule, and at the same time, not subjecting the kid's bedroom to any dust at all. 

The instructor at my RRP class made it very clear to us that we were not in abatement training, but they don't have a problem with us using environmentally friendly strippers. 

-Jim


----------



## MaizeandBluePainter

*dust free work*

I don't think you have to encapsulate the lead paint. Chances are, it's already buried under about 20 coats of latex. 

I think you could patch a wall and wet-sand the patches, even if the top coat were lead paint, because you wouldn't have disturbed any paint. Same goes for washing the wall. Sanding is the issue.

I think as soon as kids come into the picture, you want zero dust inside the house--for your protection as well as theirs.


----------



## ddoran1000

*dan the painter*

thats not true if you test for lead you must go clear down to the first layer. If you dont test for lead you must work as if lead were preasent and comply with the mandated laws.


----------



## BrushJockey

This works. I have done/ am doing lots of RRP jobs with interior plaster repair. Even if I set up containment, this makes it so much easier. I also bring out the porter cable sander for bigger jobs, but it doen't capture as much as the hand sanders . Sometimes there is no dust on the tape.


----------

