I have an older house, built in 1957. This is old enough that there just might be some lead paint a few layers down.
Interior is painted wood and drywall, no ovbious flaking or peeling. Exterior is wood and ACB tiles. The ACB is in excellent shape, but the wood is peeling.
Any recommendations for products or methods to encapsulate the possible lead-containing paint?
(If you don’t KNOW, don’t guess!)
When deck posts exceed what the prescriptive code tables allow, it's time to consult a structural engineer for post sizing and possible bracing.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
Do a lead test first, worry about the rest after you know.
Do a lead test first. If you've a positive and you're worried, get the outside powerwashed and repainted. If your interior is not flaking, you've no problem unless you've a 6yr old or younger who might chew thru the walls. You can cover up with drywall 1/2 to encapsulate if you're worried. Check with EPA.
I will note here that the EPA tells you to NOT powerwash such surfaces. It appears that the only 'approved' means of removing suspect paint are mechanical (with integral vacuum), or using paint stripper.
Indeed, it appears that the EPA would prefer you remove and replace the entire material that has lead paint on its' face.
You can always enclose walls with another layer of drywall.
The paint on encapsulation products are relatively cheap, but aren't necessarily a good way to go. If the paint is in good condition, then it doesn't present a risk. At friction surfaces (door and window jambs, for example) the dust generated by normal use can be hazard, but encapsulants also wear, so the most effective way to deal with those areas is removal of the lead paint or replacement of the parts. Outside, you can cover the paint with aluminum, replace the parts, or remove the lead paint. Obviously, this can get expensive.
But, as others have mentioned, do some testing. Testing with the "pens" will tell you if there is lead in the paint, but if you're really concerned, you might want to have some one do some dust wipe samples to determine if the windows and doors are generating a significant amount of lead dust. You may want to consider that lead exposure through household sources isn't typically a problem for adults--so the amount of money and effort you put into lead abatement may depend on whether young children live in or are frequent visitors to the house.
First of all , DON'T test for lead, if you do you will have to divulge that info later down the road when you sell the home, If you haven't tested you can honestly answer "I don't know" , testing opens up a whole can of "liability worms". Just assume you have lead and act accordingly.
DON't call the EPA, check into the RRP regs. through your state regulator for contractors, ALL contractors who disturb more than 12 sq. ft. of painted surface(interior or exterior) are required to know the regs. for containment and abatement, encapsulation may not be an option now.
BTW, what are ACB tiles, I've not heard that term before( or I don't remember)?
Geoff
"ACB" stands for "Asbestos
"ACB" stands for "Asbestos Cement Board." Asbestos was commonly used as the fiber in various cement-based sheet goods. In one common form, it was made in 12x24x 1/4" thick tiles, textured to resemble wood shakes, and used for siding.
The tiles are waterproof, will not support mold, insect proof, and fire proof. They are also somewhat brittle, especially as they age. They have a somewhat open-pore surface that makes them hold paint extremely well - though it's still common to find houses from the 40's that have never been painted.
The asbestos in them is not an issue, unless the tiles are cut or crushed in some manner that creates dust. Disposing of large amounts does require special handling.
New tiles are available that do not contain the asbestos fibers. They are somewhat expensive: about $7.50 each.
"ACB"
Thanks reno, If I have heard the term before it eludes me, Ironic since my dwelling, all 3 floors of an 1840'S era Victorian house is sided with what I call CFB(cement fiber board/siding), and I don't recall any other name for it,at least not in the New England area, that I have heard. The siding was installed in the 20's or 30's to the best of my knowledge.
Pretty good chance that the siding is Asbestos containing, but, as you point out, not an issue until disturbed.
Unfortunatley the paint is not adhereing as well as it should to this siding, I think a few to many layers of paint and maybe a lack of proper prep/maintanence have combined to cause a fair amount of peeling paint.
Geoff
See our lead-safe remodeling center
https://www.finehomebuilding.com/pages/guide-to-lead-safety.asp
Article collection, in-depth special reports, how-to videos, and many links to important information.
Dan
Remember that OSHA also has requirements
It would pay everyone who is a pro to pay particular attention to the OSHA requirements for lead work.
We went through the HUD/EPA training. The work methods required by it, will force you into an OSHA compliance issue if you don't read and understand the OSHA requirments.
The sealing of the work area, puts you into stringent monitoring, and personal protective equipment issues.
I heartily recommend that anyone who intends to do a project involving lead paint mitigation, or even work on older houses, (removing the trim from an interior window, or reglazing one are OSHA issues), contact OSHA and ask them for a training session before you get fined.
Maybe, Taunton shold look at doing an article on the OSHA requirements, and how they compare/interface with the EPA/HUD requirements.
The two videos on how to execute a lead-safe remodeling project incorporate OSHA requirements with the EPR rule. Also, one of the podcasts on that page features some dialog about OSHA, though it does not go deep.
Dan
A very nice link, and much appreciated.
I note that some of the downloads are free, while others are not. That's only fair - Taunton is a publishing house, after all.
Otherwise, I note the absolute absence of any recommendations for 'encapsulating' materials. Even a general internet search has found me only endless links, double-talk, and marketing come-ons, completely devoid of any mention of any specific product. While there are references to an EPA 'standard,' I have not learned even the proper name of this standard, let alone been able to read it.
A similar issue applies to the issue of HEPA vacuums.
For my own circumstance, the issue is somewhat moot. The surfaces in question will ultimately be replaced, for reasons having nothing to do with whatever paint is on them.
The advice one party gave - to deliberately preserve my ignorance - is beneath contempt. That such deceit is common in property transactions does not make it right, any more than the popular violation of any law is a defense.
And violating the law you are; disclosure laws -as well as supporting case law- hold you accountable for what you 'should' have known; it is not necessary to 'prove' that someone 'knew' anything.
Take all the umbridge you want, but here's what you said:
"First of all , DON'T test for lead, if you do you will have to divulge that info later down the road when you sell the home, If you haven't tested you can honestly answer "I don't know" , testing opens up a whole can of "liability worms".
That is exactly the sort of advice that makes lawyers giggle- and plan on buying a nicer car. The various statutes and case law are pretty explicit about what you are 'presumed' to know. There's simply no excuse for ignorance - real or pretended.
Just as critical is the matter of credibility- and one who plays games with the truth lacks credibility from the beginning. (My personal favorite is the soldier who claimed he joined for the benefits, that no one ever told him he might be asked to go to war!) The term, the concept, is 'liability' ... not 'lie ability.'
There are reasons I did not call you out by name, but made an indirect reference to 'some parties.' On reason was that it wasn't necessary to identify you then; another is the sad fact that I hear this sort of hogwash bandied about by all manner of parlor philosophers.
It's not a matter of 'enjoying the banter.' Men have gone to prison, had their lives destroyed, following such irresponsible 'advice.' I have yet to find any instance of someone standing forth and saying "Your honor, I was the guy who gave the accused the advice that you're going to hold against him." Sunshine soldiers and summer patriots, indeed.
In starting the thread, I specifically asked for responses from those in the KNOW, not those who want to guess. Encapsulation is clearly allowed as a method .... my request was for specific sources, specific experiences.
Getting back on track ... the project may not be moot after all. It's very possible that insurance requirements will want this place painted NOW, and the siding replaced at a later date. The issue is very much alive. However it happens, this particular paint job may be too severely weathered for encapsulation, and my next order could very well be for a paint shaver. If so, the repainting - of siding that will be replaced in a few years no matter what - will consume about $2000 - money that could be better used elsewhere in this remodel. I can't speak for anyone else - but that's real money to me. It's also something to consider the next time we want to legislate an 'ideal' solution to what, in this instance, are trace amounts of the problem paint (Only the original primer tested positive- not any of the multiple top coats).
Just as critical is the matter of credibility- and one who plays games with the truth lacks credibility from the beginning.
Then why did you leave out the last line of my paragraph? convenience? I specifically said to" ASSUME you have lead and ACT accordingly". That is good advice. There is no intent to deceive, but as a home owner I have no obligation to say I have lead paint if in-fact I have not tested for it. The smart thing for the homeowner to do is to treat the property as if it did contain lead until they learn otherwise, at which time they are liable to disclose such, prior to a sale.
The RRP prohibits a contractor from testing for lead without written authorization from the homeowner, I wonder why?, because that action(testing) is a liability against the homeowner and that is an actionable cause against the contractor.
The various statutes and case law are pretty explicit about what you are 'presumed' to know.
Then please enlighten us specifically on the case law regarding lead paint and what the presumptions are regarding disclosure>
There's simply no excuse for ignorance - real or pretended.
If your need to test for the presence of lead then one can hardly be held accountable by a presumption if they honestly don't know, and they won't know until they test. This isn't a faulty leach field whose effluence one is turning a blind eye to.
My understanding of the original law allowing encapsulation was that it was a short-term option available to homeowners/ landlords and contractors, to protect children from the paint flakes that are common on older homes and which more likely than not,may contain lead. My understanding of the RRP is that encapsulation is not an option anymore, you must remove.
Why would you be required to paint the siding if the paint is in fact intact(as you posted previously) let alone, lead free(other than the primer, which is not exposed)?
Weren't you going to remove the trim anyway?
It's also something to consider the next time we want to legislate an 'ideal' solution to what, in this instance, are trace amounts of the problem paint (Only the original primer tested positive- not any of the multiple top coats).
I wholeheartedly agree.
Geoff