On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:39:44 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| You're assuming that

| I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,

| then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?

|

| I guess that's part of what the EPA is worried about,

| because otherwise they wouldn't care what you did with houses

| that have old lead paint on the exterior.



Yes. I don't really have a problem with the law. Any

contractor with any sense wanted to be careful about

lead exposure before the law came into effect, and they

still want to now. In general I think the law is about as

reasonable as it can be, but it is bureaucratic, and that

has its limitations.

Following the law is not necessarilly the same thing as

being careful about lead exposure.



Rather than looking at me as a contractor who's trying

to skirt the requirements, I'd invite you to look at it from

your own point of view. The job I'm on right now involves

interior painting. There could be lead underneath. I don't

know. I know there's none in the top layers because I

painted it myself, 12 years ago. The paint is in good shape

with almost no loose bits. I can stay under the 6 sq. ft. per

room limit on scraping, but not if I sand the woodwork.

I could perhaps get by without much sanding, maybe just

relying on TSP washing, since the trim is a low sheen. Or I

could use toxic methylene chloride sanding liquid and a fumy

oil-base underbody if I'm worried about adhesion. Of course,

that would also add to the cost of the job. And it's not

especially healthy.



Now, imagine you're the customer. You've got a contractor

you like and trust. You want him to repaint the interior.

There's almost no peeling at all. He tells you, "Sorry, but

with this new law it's going to be a lot more expensive.

I have to wrap all furniture and HEPA vacuum all surfaces

every day." You and he both know that there's no risk of

actually being exposed to lead. (You might even know for

certain that the house has never had anything but latex

paint.) But none of that matters. Neither you nor your

contractor has the legal right to make a decision...

That's what most of my jobs are like. That's what I was

using the opt-out form for.



Next month I need to do repairs and restain on a deck

that I built myself. It's on a condo roof. The front half of

the condo building is 1800s. The back half, where my

customer is, was added in 1983. So I know there's no lead

in the condo or on the deck. But according to the law that

doesn't matter. The house was built before 1979. But if

I work on one of the decks in the other condo building,

(there are 2 on the property) which was entirely built in

1983, then I'm in the clear. Same condos. Same wood.

Same dates. Same builder. One is subject to deleading-type

protocols and the other isn't.

A job last month was in an old stone water pump building

that was converted to high-end condos about 5 years ago.

Every surface inside is new, but the building isn't. So, again,

I'd need to cover the whole room in plastic if I want to just,

say, change door frame moldings.



What if you were those customers? You'd be paying

extra costs pointlessly. I'm grateful this topic came up

because I need to stay legal, and I'm grateful to you for

your research, but it is a very awkward scenario for me,

and for people who want work done at a reasonable cost.

A bureaucratic solution is limited by the fact that it can

only operate by the letter of the law and doesn't allow for

common sense.


I was never arguing how reasonable the law was, only what it
says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm
on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,
so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie
take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.