Lead paint in brick mould and sill

[squyntz1]

I have a 100+ year old building. They still have the original wood windows. The lead from the paint has been absorbed into the sill and brick mould.

From a safety stand point, would it be safer to have the installer do a full frame replacement? He would be following lead safe practices of the frame and window removal.

Or is a replacement insert install just as safe in terms of mitigating the lead dust by wrapping the brick mould and sill?

I have already had a sales person come out to push replacement inserts, as he seemed to be confident that the insert and wrapping would sufficiently contain the lead dust.

I ask this question since I have young children who regularly like to look outside the windows and a wife who regulary opens them when the weather permits.

[HomeSealed]

Either way will be safe. With a full tear-out you get removal of the lead, and with a replacement you essentially get encapsulation. Both are approved methods. The real key is using safe practices during the installation, as the dust and debris during the demo is the point at which there is the most risk involved. A certified lead-safe renovation company (and a certified installer) will take the necessary steps to mitigate this risk, and in fact, this certification is a federal requirement to work on your home in that capacity.

[squyntz1]

If the paint on the brick mould and sill are peeling/flaking heaving already with signs of wood rot. Does it make more sense to have that stuff ripped out versus having it wrapped?

[HomeSealed]

peeling/flaking doesnt matter. If the wood is soft, then yes, it should be replaced. That said, you are talking about the brickmold and sill nose. These are exterior "trim pieces" and not a structural part of the window, so a full tearout is not necessary to rectify that. In fact, a high percentage of replacement style installs include some exterior wood replacement.

[squyntz1]

Thank you for your quick responses. This gives me some good points to consider before I make a decision.

Ideally I'd like to go with a full frame installation, but since the okna 800 and starmarks don't have a nailing flange for ease of installation, I am leaning more towards the okna 5500.

I have read on this forum that it is possible to do a full frame install with the 800 or starmark. It'd be great if I could see pictures of this actually being done on a full brick opening.

[TheWindowNerd]

Besides removing the lead and rotted wood the full frame install allows you to maintain or gain visible glass, your window sills will be ~ 2" deeper, it also allows for low expasion foam between the RO and window frame, also you could update the style of interior trim at this time. OK, now the down side: cost, The install may take a day longer, and the interior casing will be replaced and typically does not include final paint to the casing.
I like the full frame the best, i do both just as easily, so it is a matter of meeting my customers desires.

[HomeSealed]

Not sure if you caught it in the other thread, but the 800 and starmark can be ordered/installed with a snap-in fin. An integral fin is nice, but a snap-in can be done effectively as well. That said, more often than not, the fins are knocked off in retro-fit brick/stone installs anyway.

[masterext]

An interior install is fine . Keep in mind the installer does NOT remove lead, he just contains it .
It's a very basic process.

[Windows on Washington]

+1

Just easier to contain via outside install.

[toddinmn]

A full frame would be a permanent solution with no future monitoring required.
Inserts are safe but would require future monitoring of caulk joints, though this should be done anyways. RRP rules would have to be engaged if remodeling or replacing disturbing windows in future as well.
Installing inserts and wrapping would be "enclosure" an approved abatement method.
The installer DOES remove lead,disturbs lead, contains lead, disposes lead, cleans for lead,notifys for lead and documents it all.
Who did the testing or asumption of lead?
Usually lead will be on the exterior side of the window and the jambs as well if they were painted.
I would not assume the installer is going to do a good job of containing/cleaning of lead because of certification. Have seen many charge big money and do crappy clean-up/containment.

[squyntz1]

A full frame would be a permanent solution with no future monitoring required.
Inserts are safe but would require future monitoring of caulk joints, though this should be done anyways. RRP rules would have to be engaged if remodeling or replacing disturbing windows in future as well.
Installing inserts and wrapping would be "enclosure" an approved abatement method.
The installer DOES remove lead,disturbs lead, contains lead, disposes lead, cleans for lead,notifys for lead and documents it all.
Who did the testing or asumption of lead?
Usually lead will be on the exterior side of the window and the jambs as well if they were painted.
I would not assume the installer is going to do a good job of containing/cleaning of lead because of certification. Have seen many charge big money and do crappy clean-up/containment.

Illinois Department of Health performed the lead tests. I have been cited, therefore I am required to have the lead issue with the windows dealt with in the proper manner.

You make a good point about future monitoring of the caulk joints if an insert installation is performed. I am thinking that I would rather just have a full window installation performed to not have to deal with that.

[HomeSealed]

It would certainly get rid of more of the hazard, however I would not make my decision solely based on that. While Todd's points have validity, I would not place nearly as much weight on them. A quality trim job will encapsulate that lead hazard very effectively for the following reasons:
-Lead only becomes a hazard when it is disturbed. That means paint chips and more importantly the dust during renovating, not when sitting idle under cladding.
-A good trim job does not leave large gaps where such debris could escape. The joints should be nice and tight if not overlapped prior to caulking.
- Caulk may require maintenance every so often (few and far between for the good stuff), but even then, it does not vaporize. It can harden and crack, and that's about it.

I'd also point out that if you have lead paint on your windows, you likely have it on other surfaces as well from walls to siding, which ironically surround the window opening.

Please don't take my comments as inferring that this method is superior, but the risks can certainly be overblown. Most state health departments recognize it as a valid and effective solution. Ultimately, my recommendation would be to choose replacements vs tearout based on the other differences, but certainly your peace of mind is a worthy consideration.

[Window4U (IL)]

If I'm not mistaken, I've been to this home so I thought I'd give you pros a few more details.
Its 100+ year old original windows in a Chicago 2 flat. Windows are about 34 x 75. Probably balloon framed, 10 foot ceilings, thick very old plaster, non-insulated walls, weight boxes, beautiful original wood stained trim. Exterior 2 1/2" casing butts to the brick.

[HomeSealed]

If I'm not mistaken, I've been to this home so I thought I'd give you pros a few more details.
Its 100+ year old original windows in a Chicago 2 flat. Windows are about 34 x 75. Probably balloon framed, 10 foot ceilings, thick very old plaster, non-insulated walls, weight boxes, beautiful original wood stained trim. Exterior 2 1/2" casing butts to the brick.

If that is the case, I'm going replacements all the way, 100 out of 100 times. You DO NOT want to disturb that beautiful interior woodwork first and foremost. The new windows will not fit the same way, and even IF the woodwork can be reused, there is a serious chance of damage. Secondly, with a brick exterior and existing weight pockets, you'll essentially need to build a new buck frame anyway, so much if not all of any glass area that would be gained by a full tear-out will be negated (not that you need it on that size window anyway). I'm confident that if you were to ask 100 window installers, maybe even throw in some building inspectors, probably 90-95% or better will recommend replacements... Did I mention that 100 yr old plaster gets pretty brittle?...and I don't mean like little chunks falling off, I mean where square ft pieces fall out where there were existing cracks.
I'll be honest here, I generally do not even offer full tear-outs in this scenario (which I encounter regularly just up the highway in Milwaukee), as the drawbacks and possible problems outweigh any benefits 10-1... The possible lead risk of such a project is exponentially larger as well
I hope that you don't take this as a shameless plug for Dave, but now his recommendation of replacements makes perfect sense, and IMHO he is the one here that has your best interest in mind.

[TheWindowNerd]

Not seeing all the details I still like the fullframe full tear.
I would defer to Dave on any site present issues, HE IS THE MAN.

I have a project over on the pricey sid e of Philly where I would rather do a insert install because of the stone, palster, and 13" window sill. They rejected the insert s and are going full tear/full frame which will give the nicest finished project, just means I might have to pull out what little hair I have left on my head.

TheWindowNerd.com