NBSIR 73-242

Pilot Demonstration of Lead

Based Paint Hazard Elimination

Methods

Report on Field Study No. 1

T. H. Boone, T. R. Ray, W. G. Street

Center for Building Tectinology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D. C. 20410

NBSIR 73-242

PILOT DEMONSTRATION OF LEAD

BASED PAINT HAZARD ELIMINATION

METHODS

Report on Field Study No. 1

T. H. Boone, T. R. Ray, W. G. Street

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D. C. 20410

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent. Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard W. Roberts, Director

Contents

Page

Abstract iv

SI Conversion Units v

1. Introduction 1

2. General Descriptions 2

2.1. Dwelling Unit 2

2.2. Materials and Application ^

2.3. Contractor 15

3. Implementation of Deleading Methods 17

3.1. Preparation and Pre-Treatment of Surfaces 17

3.2. Refinishing of Surfaces 19

A. Observations and Comments 19

4.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods 19

4.2. Reduction of Lead Based Paint Hazard 22

5. Cost Analysis 25

6. References 30

i
List of Tables

Page

1. Description and Conditions of Original Surfaces. Pilot

Demonstration 5

2. Preparation and Pre-Treatment of Surfaces. Pilot

Demonstration 18

3. Description of Re-Finished Surfaces. Pilot Demonstration ... 20

4. Comparison of Lead Content on Typical Surfaces Before and

After Deleading 24

5. Cost Analysis and Work-Rate Data for Pilot Demonstration

Unit No. 1 26

6. Comparison of Surface Re-Finishing Costs 28

7. Summary of Re-Finished Areas for Pilot Demonstration

Unit No. 1 29

ii
List of Figures

Page

1. Pilot demonstration. One-bedroom corner apartment

on first floor of a two story masonry structure at

716 Langston Terrace, N.E., Washington, D.C 3

2. Floor Plan - Pilot Demonstration 3

3. Measuring lead content in painted surfaces with Portable

X-Ray Fluorescence Instrument 6

4. Scraping of old paint loosened by chemical paint remover

on exterior door 7

5. Plaster wall in kitchen during removal of old paint. Note

the good condition of ceiling paint over concrete 7

6. Metal window frame and section of left steam pipe after

removal of paint before buffing with steel wool 8

7. Plaster wall in kitchen after removal of old paint and

plaster repair in lower corner 8

8. Living room walls in original condition. Window frames

have been painted with 1 coat rust inhibitive primer .... 10

9. Final appearance of living room after lead hazard

elimination. See figure 8 for condition before and

during preparation 13

10. Re-finished plaster walls, shelving and metal window

in kitchen 14

11. Re-finished wood exterior door, screen door and frame .... 14

12. Re-finished plaster walls, metal window and concrete

ceiling in kitchen 16

13. Metal steam pipes in kitchen coated with 1 coat rust

inhibitive primer and 1 coat heat resistant aluminum

paint 16

iii
PILOT DEMONSTRATION OF LEAD BASED PAINT

HAZARD ELIMINATION METHODS

- . Report on Field Study No. 1

by

T. H. Boone, T. R. Ray, W. G. Street

ABSTRACT

This report describes the elimination of the potential ingestion

hazard of lead bearing paints in a one bedroom apartment using materials

and procedures that are undergoing laboratory and field evaluation by the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . Paint removal was used to eliminate

the hazard from some surfaces and two nonhazardous membrane type coverings

were installed as barrier materials over the residual leaded paint on

other surfaces. The preparation and refinishing of the interior surfaces

are described and work rates and cost data are presented.

This pilot demonstration is the first of a series of studies that

will be used to determine the merits of various lead based paint hazard

elimination methods when applied to actual housing conditions.

Final recommendations for further use of materials and systems, described in this report, are not presented due to the preliminary nature

of this work. The completion of the projected series of demonstrations

and the long term evaluation of the in-use performance of the materials

and systems will be required before final recommendations can be m.ade.

Key Words: Cost analysis; hazard elimination; housing; lead based paint;

materials; surface preparation; surface refinishing

iv
SI Conversion Units

The conversion factors and units contained in this report are in

accordance with the International System of Units (abbreviated SI for

Systeme International d 'Unites). The SI was defined and given official

status by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures which met

in Paris in October 1960. For assistance in converting U.S. customary

units to SI units, see ASTM E 380, ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide,

available from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race

Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. The conversion factors for the units

found in this Standard are as follows:

Length

1 in = 0.0254* meter

1 ft = 0.3048* meter

1 mil = 0.001* in

Area

1 in^ = 6.4516* x

10"'^ meter^

1 ft = 0.9290 meter^

Volume

1 in^ = 1.638 X 10"^ meter^

1 liter = 1.000* x 10~^ meter"^

Mass

1 grain = 6.479 x 10 ^ kilogram

-2

1 ounce-mass (avoirdupois) = 2.834 x 10 kilogram

1 pound-mass (avoirdupois) = 0.4535 kilogram

Pressure or Stress (Force/Area)

1 inch of mercury (60°F) = 3376 newton/meter^

2 2 1 pound-force/inch (psi) = 6894 newton/meter

* Exactly

V
Energy

1 inch-pound-force (in-lbf) = 0.1130 joule

Plane Angle

-2

1 degree (angle) = 1.745 x 10 radian

Power

1 watt = 1.000* X lO'' erg/second

Temperature

°C = 5/9 (Temperature - 32)

* Exactly

vi
Pilot Demonstration of Lead Based Paint Hazard Elimination Methods

Report of Field Study No. 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Lead poisoning resulting from the ingestion of lead based paint is

a serious illness and is now recognized as a m.ajor pediatric disease [1]*.

In January 1971, Congress enacted the "Lead Based Paint Poisoning

Prevention Act" (PL 91-695) to provide federal assistance to help eliminate this disease. Title III of this Act gives the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HIT)) responsibility for demonstrating methods

that can be used to make leaded paint inaccessible to children.

The Center for Building Technology (CBT) of the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) is currently under an interagency agreement with HUD to

provide technical support and research on the lead based paint poisoning

problem. One of CBT's tasks is to demonstrate methods for the elimination of the lead paint poisoning hazard in existing dwelling units

either by removal of the lead based paint or by providing a serviceable

nonhazardous barrier to the existing paint.

The first pilot demonstration, under the direction of CBT's Lead

Based Paint Poisoning Project was carried out in Washington, D.C.

A specification was prepared and a contract awarded for the implementation of the following six hazard elimination methods:

a. Repainting of ceiling and closet surfaces which contain lead

based paint.

* Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at the end of

the paper.

1
b. Installing metal covers over painted radiators.

c. Removal of lead based paint from walls, doors, trim, exposed

steam pipes and windows by means of chemical paint removers and

scraping, followed by repair where necessary and repainting.

d. Complete removal and replacement of wood base molding covered

with lead based paint.

e. Covering of wall surfaces, coated with lead based paint, with

adhesive bonded, gypsum impregnated, jute fabric membrane.

f. Covering of painted wall surfaces and wood trim containing lead,

with adhesive bonded, fabric reinforced, vinyl coated membrane.

Final recommendations for further use of materials and systems,

described in this report, are not presented due to the preliminary nature

of this work. The completion of the projected series of demonstrations

and the long term evaluation of the In-use performance of the materials

and systems, will be required before such recommendations can be made.

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS

2.1. DWELLING UNIT

The dwelling unit selected for this field demonstration was an

unoccupied one-bedroom corner apartment on the first floor of a twostory masonry structure which is part of a row of similar units. The

unit, 716 Langston Terrace, is located near the intersection of

21st and G Streets, N.E., Washington, D.C. The Langston Terrace

multi-family complex was constructed in 1937 and is now maintained by

the National Capital Housing Authority (NCHA) . Figure 1 is a photograph

of the unit's exterior and figure 2 is a sketch of the floor plan.
>^

(U

a

O

C o c o o

•H 4-J OJ

i-i

d

H

<n 0)

5-1

C

+j 4J

O

O

!-i J-J CO 02 cn o Cu bC B O C

0) CO

er

4-J hJ

J-J 03 O rH

u

.H o

•iH o o d

FL, 4-1 E CO o o c o o 0) o

-Hu iH 4J

U-J ;=! 5n

(U QJ 4-J

C

S-i +JO •H 1 cn J=

bC 0) i-i S-i CD •H •H 4-1 CO o •+-1 w IS 3
Table 1 lists the surface materials; the conditions of the surfaces

and the lead content present in each surface recorded in milligrams per

2 square centimeter (mg/cm ) as measured with a portable X-ray fluorescence

(XRF) instrument. A photograph of this instrument in use is presented

in figure 3. Rasberry [2] reported on a number of portable XRF lead

detectors and Spurgeon [3] thoroughly investigated the model used in

this demonstration.

2.2. MATERIALS AND APPLICATION

A. Water Wash Type Paint Remover ; A paint remover was applied by

brush to the old paint on kitchen walls, all window frames, all exterior

and interior doors and exposed steam pipes. The loosened paint was

scraped off with a wide bladed putty knife and water washed with sponges

and rags. This procedure was repeated as necessary to remove the

multiple layers of paint until plaster, wood or metal was exposed.

Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 are photographs taken during various phases of

this surface preparation work.

Steel wool was used on the metal sills and frames of the windows

and steam pipes after scraping.

The paint remover contained methylene chloride, mineral spirits,

methanol and triethyl ammonium phosphate. Methylene chloride and

methanol are hazardous when they are ingested or their vapors are

inhaled. Paint removers of this type are considered "flammable".

4
XPF READINGS

fmg/cm^) y

AREA MATF.RTi^T.S COPJDITTONS Range

V'alls Painted plaster Generally good: some loose and bulging plaster under windows

and behind radiator.

0.] to ] .P 1.2

Ceiling Painted concrete Cood -- -

Floor Asphalt tile Severely indented and cracked

Doors

Painted wood exterior door

Cracked paint inside, cracked

and weathered nalnt outside 9.f to 30.2 10'. n c

a.C

Painted wood ex- terior screen door Cracked paint inside, peeling i.n to S.2

Mv: Windows Painted metal

casement Cracked paint, rusted O.i to 1.3 n.9

Molding

Painted wood Cood n.P to ] 1 .

3

Closet Painted olaster

and wood shelves Good —

Rad iaCor Painted metal Paint chipped and pee] in g, rusted

^team

Pipes Painted metal

Paint chipped and peeling,

rus ted

Walls Painted plaster

Peeling paint, cracked loose bulging plaster n. o to i 3.0

Ceiling Painted concrete Cood

Floor Linoleum Severely indented and worn '—-

X

Windows Painted metal

casement Cracked paint, rusted 1.7 to 1.1 n.o

Base Molding Painted wood Good n.9 to l.s l.i

Cabinets Painted wood Good

Radiator

.

Painted metal

Paint chipped and peeling, rusted -- -- Steam

Pipes Painted metal

Paint chipped and peeling, rusted

Walls Painted plaster

Generally good, some loose and bulging plaster behind

radi ator 1 .P to '' .1-

Ceil ing Painted concrete Generally good, some peeling

paint

Floor Asphalt tile Severely indented and cracked -- -

Doors Painted vjood Good f.3 to 7.n C

CC

u. V.'indow Painted metal

casement Cracked paint, rusted n.f> to 1.1 0.0

Base Molding Painted wood Good f . « to 1

.

n.9

Closet

Painted plaster

walls , unfinished

concrete floor Good n.R to ] .s 1 .1

Radiators

,

Painted metal

Paint chipped and peeling, rusted - -

Sceain Pires Painted metalPaint chipped and peelln<^, rusted

Walls

Painted plaster

except for Ceramic

vail tile 20 in. above tub Fair, sli'^-iit peeling paint at four locations 1 .f^ to ;.o ] .fi .

c

Ceiling

Painted concrete

with small painted wood utility drop ceiling box. Good

a. Floor Ceramic tile Good -

Door Painted vooH Gooc^ f-.? to f- . 3

Window

Painted metal casement Cracked paint, rusted i^. n to ^ n. G

Str-aTL Pipe Painted metal

Paint chipped anH peeling, rusted

Walls Painted plaster Good 1 .'^ to ?.i 1.0

Ceiling Paintef^ concrete Good <

Floor Asphal t ti]

e

Fai r - --

HAL Closet Painted wood door GooH .? to (• A

Base Molding Painted wood Good 1^ . 0 r 0 1.1 1 .n Table 1. Description and Conditions of Orijinal Surfaces. Pilot Demonstration

3^/ — XRF Readings not taken.

5
Figure 3. Measuring lead content in painted surfaces

with Portable X-Ray Fluorescent instrument.

6
Figure 4. Scraping of old paint loosened by

chemical paint remover on exterior door

.

Figure 5. Plaster wall in kitchen during removal

of old paint. Note the good condition of ceiling

paint over concrete.

7
wool. . of paxnt before buffing with steel

Figure 7. Plaster wall in kitchen after removal of old paint and plaster repair in lower corner.

8
Although the hazards involved in the use of solvent-type paint

removers usually limit their use to small areas, the use of this system

was justified for the treatment of large areas of this dwelling unit

since it was unoccupied, well ventilated, and no open flames were used.

B. Prefinished Covering Materials ; Two covering products were

used to provide both a barrier over leaded paints and a final finish,

on the wall surfaces in the living room, bedroom, hallway and bathroom.

These painted plaster wall surfaces required no preparation

before applying the adhesives and the prefinished covering materials.

Loose paint and plaster under the windows in the living room and bedroom

were removed and damaged areas were patched and smoothed. Figure 8

shows the living room walls prior to application of the covering material.

A wall covering system consisting of jute fabric impregnated with

uncrystallized gypsum was applied with a water-base adhesive in a wallpaper manner over the walls in the living room, bedroom and hallway.

The NBS laboratory evaluations of this covering system indicated

that it would have good adhesion characteristics on walls in normally dry

areas and could be used to bridge minor voids in the walls being covered.

Also, the fire related properties were considered acceptable when the

system is used over non-combustible substrates such as plaster. Although

the membrane is considered acceptable with regard to impact resistance,

properties such as abrasion and scratch resistance and washability are

less than acceptable based on laboratory evaluations. The textured

nature of the product, however, tends to conceal these latter types of

damages. The surface can be coated with paints after installation, if

desired. The use of the jute fabric impregnated gypsum membrane was

9
Figure 8. Living room walls in original condition.

Window frames have been painted with 1 coat rust

inhibitive primer.

10
considered justifiable for covering noncombustible smooth surface substrates in normally dry areas. This material used in conjunction with

a high strength adhesive, was chosen because of laboratory tests which

indicated its ability to resist mechanical abuse such as scratch, puncture and impact. The good bonding of this system to painted surfaces

will help to keep the covering in place as a barrier to the leaded paint

beneath it.

The bathroom wall surfaces, including the horizontal wood trim

four feet above the finish floor, were covered with a fabric reinforced, vinyl coated membrane applied with a mildew-resistant adhesive.

This vinyl wall covering was stated by the manufacturer to meet the

requirements of Federal Specification CCC-VJ-A08, Type I, Class 2

material.

The laboratory evaluations of this type of covering indicated that

this material is potentially acceptable for use in bathrooms if the

adhesive selected is moisture resistant and the underlying substrate is

smooth, clean and sound.

The three steam radiators in this demonstration unit presented a

particular problem. They were covered with many layers of old paint

that could not be reached without disconnnecting pipes and moving each

unit away from the wall. The old pipe connection unions were in such

condition that breaking the union could lead to major pipe replacement

and refitting. The solution chosen for this condition was to first

11
cover the walls behind the radiators with asbestos cement board and thus

prevent continued flaking of plaster and paint and then to cover the

radiators with factory pre-finished metal radiator enclosures. The small

openings at the floor and on the face of the cover should prevent access

to the remaining lead paint on the radiators as can be seen in figure 9.

C. Paints : Paint coatings containing not more than 0.5% of lead

by residual weight were chosen to refinish those walls, metal work and

woodwork where the old paint was removed. Undercoat primers for plaster

and wood were specified.

A rust inhibitive primer was selected for all metal work before application of the finish coat, which was a high heat resistant paint intended for exposed steam pipes. This system of coatings along with

weather resistant paint for the exterior doors should provide tight

painted surfaces for a reasonable period of time under normal usage.

The surfaces from which the lead based paint was removed as described in the previous section A, Water Wash Paint Remover, were repainted as follows. [The percent lead by weight in the applied paint,

is presented in parentheses.].

1. Kitchen walls, interior wood doors, and shelves, as shown

in figure 10.

1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat (0.005% lead)

' ' 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel (0.25% lead)

2. Exterior door, exterior screen door and frames, as shown

in figure 11.

1 coat oil base exterior primer (0.38% lead)

1 coat oil base gloss exterior paint (0.38% lead)

12
I •H c

e o

•H •H iH +J

Q) •H o X)c c

QJ O o

O CO O •H C N U

rt CO )-i CO u X. O >J

cd 4-1 CO

QJ n OCO oa (U a. )-i cd rH a. u

tH 1-1 3 &o

CO <u 60 c

4J •H •H

•H 14-1 fn CO 3

(U 13 e (U o CO o C

CT\ u CO 00 c 0) u c o l-i •H •H O

> 4-J U-l •H •H CO .H C ^
Figure 10. Re-finished plaster walls, shelving and metal

window in kitchen.

Figure 11. Re-finished wood exterior door, screen

door and frame.

14
3. Windows and interior metal door frames, as shown in

figure 12.

1 coat rust inhibitive primer (0.002% lead)

1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel (0.25% lead)

4. Metal steam pipes, as shown in figure 13.

1 coat rust inhibitive primer (0.002% lead)

1 coat aluminum oil base paint (0.001% lead)

The ceiling surfaces and closet walls from which the tightly adhering original paint was not removed, were covered as follows:

1 coat vinyl latex flat paint (0.003% lead)

D. Wood Base Molding ; New wood base molding was used to cover and

hold down the bottom edges of the newly installed wall covering.

The replacement wood base molding was painted as follows:

1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat (0.005% lead)

1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel (0.25% lead)

2.3. CONTRACTOR

All work, with the exception of the installation of new floor tiles

was performed by one contractor. This union contractor had previous

experience with all of the materials specified and had refinished old

dwelling units.

The contractor was asked to provide:

a. Information on difficulties encountered in material use, unsuitable materials or delays due to job conditions and the reasons

for such problems.

15
Figure 12. Re-finished plaster walls, metal

window and concrete ceiling in kitchen.

Figure 13. Metal steam pipes in kitchen coated

with 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat

heat resistant aluminum paint.

16
b. Type of skills used In performing the work.

c. Recommendations as to types of materials and/or variations in

application for similar future work.

d. Cost breakdowns for the work.

A summary of the contractors responses to items a., b., and c. above

are given in section 4.1. of this report.

The cost analysis presented in detail in section 5 of this report

is based only in part on information provided by the contractor in

response to item d., above. The cost collection formats provided to

the contractor to assist him in preparing cost breakdowns required a

far more careful surveillance of the job than the contractor carried out.

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF DELEADING METHODS

3.1. PREPARATION AND PRE-TREATMENT OF SURFACES

The preparation and pre-treatment work done on surfaces and

the applicable x-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements made after the

removal of the old paint and prior to refinishing are presented in

table 2.

The removal of leaded paint by means of chemical solvents and scraping was used in several areas of the dwelling unit that presented accessible hazards. This system was used to remove several layers of old

leaded paint from plaster surfaces in the kitchen where there were large

areas of blistered and peeling paint which would have been easily accessible to a young child.

17
XRF READ II (mg/cm^ AREA WORK DONE Range Aver.

Walls

Slight repair of plaster under windows. Old paint not removed 0.1 to 1.8 1.2

Ceiling Mo repair, old paint not removed —

Floor None -

s

o Doors Old paint removed v/ith remover and scraping OM

> Windows

Old paint removed with remover , scraping and steel wool n.n to i.n n.6

Base molding Comple t e ly removed —

Closet No repair. Old paint not removed —

Radiators Loose peeling paint removed

Pipes

Old paint removed with paint remover, scraping and steel wool —

Walls Old paint removed with remover and scraping V . ^ CO ^-.D 2.0

Ce il inp No repair, old paint not removed -

Floor None

Windows

Old paint removed with remover, scraping and steel

U.M LO U./

KITC Molding Completely rem.oved -

Cabinets No repair, old paint not removed

Radiators Loose, peeling paint removed

Pipes

Old paint removed with remover, scraping and steel wool

Walls

Slight repair of plaster under window. Old paint

not removed 1.0 to 2.

A

1.9

Ceiling; Small crack repaired, old paint not removed -

Floor None

Doors Old paint removed with remover and scraping ——

—

BEDROC Window

Old paint removed with remover , scraping and steel wool 0.0 to 0.8

Molding Completely removed - -

Closet No repair , old paint not removed —

Radiators Loose, peeling paint removed. --

1 Pipes steel wool. ~

Walls

Slight repair of plaster in few locations. Old paint not removed 1.0 to 2.0 1.8

Ceiling No repair, old paint not removed 1.0 tn 2.0 1.8

o

None -

<

Door Old paint removed with remover and scraping — —

CO

Window

Old paint removed v.'ith remover , scraping and steel wool 0.0 to 0.6 0.3 Steam Old paint removed wi th remover , scraping and steel wool —

Walls No repair, old paint not removed 1.5 to 2.1 1.9

Ceiling No repair, old paint not removed --

LWAY Floor None - _

HAL Old paint removed with remover and scraping --

Closet No repair, old paint not removed —

Base Molding Complete] y removed

Table 2. Preparation and Pre-Treatmenc of Surfaces. Pilot Demonstration

1/ — XRF readings not taken.

18
Other surfaces, readily accessible to children, which were coated

with tightly adhering lead based paint were also selected for paint removal by chemical softening and scraping. These areas included interior

and exterior doors, window frames, etc. which were within the reach of

children and of a chewable configuration.

3.2. REFINISHING OF SURFACES

The final refinishing materials used on each surface and the applicable x-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements made after completion of the

refinishing work are shown in table 3. The negative readings recorded in

table 3 are valid and result from a combination of factors associated with

calibration and standardization of the XRF instrument according to the manufacturer's recommendation. The negative readings can be adjusted to true

positive values by comparison with standardization curves [3]. This was

not done for this work because of small corrections involved and the fact

that the negative readings indicated the absence or extremely small presence

of lead, believed to be below the level of 1 mg/cm , which was our primary

concern. It is recommended that future measurements be corrected according

to a standardization curve for the particular instrument.

4. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

4.1. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF METHODS

A* Lead Paint Removal : The water wash paint removal system worked

satisfactorily (although it was quite time consuming) on the metal sills

and frames of the casement windows. Some ineffectiveness of the liquid

paint remover was noted because of rapid evaporation of solvents caused

by heat in the steam pipe.

The removal of the old lead based paint from the damaged, loose and

spot repaired plaster walls in the kitchen was time consuming and

19
RFADTNCS

(mg/cm'^) ±'

AREA MATERIALS USED Range Aver.

Walls Covered with iute fabric/gypsum membrane -0.4 to 0.5 -0.:

Celling Painted 1 coat flat latex paint — —

Floor New asphalt tile installed by NCHA

2: Painted 1 coat oil base exterior primer. Door 7.4 to 6.? 4.1 0n Doors and 1 coat oil base gloss exterior paint Screen 3.9 to 4.3 "4.1

VING

Ri

Windows

Painted 1 coat rust inhihitive primer, and 1 alkyd semi-gloss enamelcoat -0.5 to 0.1 -0.2

Base Molding

New wood molding painted 1 coat alkyd enamel

coat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel under0.7 to 1 .1 1.0

Closet Painted 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel -- -

Radiators Metal radiator cover/baked enamel finished -0.9 to -0. L ^ -0.5 Steam

Pipes

1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat aluminum

oil base paint on pipes

Walls Covered with iute fabric/gypsum membrane -1.5 to 0.3 -0.5

Ceiling Painted 1 coat flat latex paint — —

Floor New asphalt tile installed by NCHA

s:0 Doors

Painted 1 coat alkyd enarae] undercoat and J coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel 2.4 to 3.6 3.1 0&

ta Window

Painted 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel -0.6 to -0.2 -0.4

Base MoldingNew wood molding painted 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel

-0.1 to 1.3 0.7

Closet Painted 1 coat flat latex paint — —

Radiator Metal radiator cover/baked enamel finish -0.9 to 0.1 -0.5 Steam 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat aluminum

oil base paint on pipes

Walls Resurfaces with white coat plaster, 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat, and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss ename] -1.2 to 3.2 0.6

Ceiling Painted 1 coat flat latex paint

Floor New asphalt tile installed by NCHA z

w Door —

r

KITCH Windows

Painted 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel

-0.6 to 0.5 0.1

Base Molding

New wood molding painted 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss ename] 0.5 to 1.3 1.7

Cabinets Painted 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel

Radiator Metal radiator cover/baked enamel finish -0.9 to 0.1 -0.5 Steam

Pipes

1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat aluminum

oil base paint on pipes

Walls Covered with vinyl membrane 0.6 to 2.4 1.4

Ceiling Painted 1 coat flat latex paint § Floor None

BATHRC Door Painted 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel 2.4 to 3.6 3.1

Window

Painted 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel -0.2 to 0.5 0.2

Steam

Pipe Painted 1 coat rust inhibitive primer and 1 coat aluminum oil base paint

Walls Covered with iute fabric/gypsum membrane -0.3 to 0.0 -0.1

Ceiling Painted 1 coat flat latex paint

Floor New asphalt tile by NCHA

1ALLWA1 Door

Painted 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel 2.4 to 3.6 3.1

Closet Painted 1 coat flat latex paint

Base Molding

New wood molding painted 1 coat alkyd enamel undercoat and 1 coat alkyd semi-gloss enamel 0.1 to 0.3 0.2

Table 3. Description of Re-Finished Surfaces. j3..r. Demonstration

1_/ — XRF readings not taken.

20
created additional problems. Much of the plaster was loosened from the

wall or was badly scratched by the scraping operation which followed the

paint remover application (as can be seen in figures 5, 6, and 7).

Preparation of the kitchen walls with a white coat of plaster was

required prior to painting.

On the basis of his experience the contractor stated his opinion

that:

1. Chemical paint removers excel on smooth, hard, (I.e. metal)

painted surfaces in stripping thoroughness, saving in worker time and

effort as compared to blow-torch removal techniques;

2. In the case of the kitchen plaster walls, time and labor costs

could have been reduced by just removing the loose paint, repairing

damaged areas, and covering with medium to heavy-weight vinyl wall

covering, and;

3. Another alternative for cost reduction would have been to apply

gypsum dry wall with adhesive over the cleaned and scraped kitchen

plaster wall. When ready to receive paint, he estimated that this

method could have been applied at an approximate cost $.50 per square

foot as compared with $1.42 per square foot for paint removal and

plastering.

B. Replacement Systems : Although no direct cost comparison data

were available, the contractor believed that the lightweight interior

doors could have been replaced with new doors and painted at a lower cost

then removing paint and repainting the old doors. In contrast, he felt

that complete replacement and painting of interior door frames, heavy

exterior doors, and windows and window frames would have increased costs.

21
As an alternative to wood baseboard replacement and painting he

suggested that a less expensive treatment would have been to install a

vinyl molding after removal of the old wooden baseboards.

C. Prefinished Covering Materials : Work including: minor repairs

made on the painted plaster walls in the living room, bedroom, bathroom

and hallway; adhesive application and placing of the covering was accomplished effectively by two skilled wallpaper hangers in one day.

The workers stated that the gypsum impregnated jute fabric material

was easy to handle and to apply. The final appearance of the covered

walls is considered quite attractive.

D. Repainting Systems : The appearance of repainted surfaces was

dependent on the degree of surface preparation. Well prepared metal sills

and frames of the windows took on a like-new appearance after painting.

Painting of the exterior wood doors and kitchen plaster walls, however,

did not hide surface irregularities which remained after surface preparation.

A. 2. REDUCTION OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD

One quantitative measure of the effectiveness of a lead based paint

hazard elimination system is the decrease of the lead content resulting

from the implementation of the particular method. Obviously this criterior does not apply to covering systems where the original lead paint

is not removed from the surface. The effectiveness of covering systems

will depend on their performance, their resistance to puncture and wear,

and their tight adherence to the lead containing surface over a period

of time.

22
Table 4 presents a comparison of the lead contents measured by the

2 portable XRF in mg/cm on typical surfaces in the pilot dwelling

unit. It is interesting to note that lower lead levels were measured

for every surface treated including those that were covered with membrane

type systems. Since the lead containing paint was not removed from the

living room, bedroom, bathroom, and hallway wall surfaces it is believed

that this reduction was caused by attenuation of the x-rays by the

covering material. This reduction is particularly noticeable on areas

covered with the gypsum impregnated, jute fabric membrane.

Fairly substantial reductions in lead content were observed on the

2 2 kitchen walls (3.0 mg/cm to 0.6 mg/cm ) and metal window frames (0.9

2 2 mg/cm to 0.2 mg/cm or less) from which the original lead based paint

was removed. In these cases the original paint had been applied to hard,

impervious surfaces. Application of the paint remover followed by

scraping and washing removed virtually all of the old leaded paint. By

contrast, it can be noted that the reduction of lead content on both exterior and Interior wooden doors was measurably less than for the kitchen

walls, and metal window frames. This difference was probably caused by

the old leaded paint which penetrated into the porous wood fibers and

was not leached out by the paint lemover solvent and scrape operation.

These results suggest that where maximum removal of the lead paint

hazard on wooden surfaces is desired, complete replacement may be the

preferred solution. It can be argued, however, that lead pigments absorbed into wood fibers do not present a serious hazard especially when

a tightly adhered non-leaded finish coat of paint is applied over them

since the residual leaded paint is virtually inaccessible to a child.

23
head Content 1 Average XRF Readings 1 (mg/cm^)

Surface Preparation and/or Refinlshing

of Surface

Before

Preparation

and / or Ref Inishing

After

Ref inishing

INTERIOR

Living

Room Walls

Slight plaster repaired - old paint not removed

Covered with jute fabric /gypsum 1.2 -0.1

Base Molding

Installed new wood base molding. One coat alkyd enamel primer, one coat alkyd enamel 1.3 1 .0

Vv'indows Old paint removed. One coat rust inhibitor primer, one coat alkyd enamel 0.9 - .02

Bedroom

Walls

Slight plaster repaired - old paint not removed

Covered with jute fabric /gypsum 1.9 -0.5

Base Molding

Installed new wood base molding. One coat alkyd enamel primer, one coat alkyd enamel 1.9 0.7

Windows

Old paint removed. One coat rust inhibitor primer, one coat alkyd enamel 0.9 -0.4

Door

Old paint removed. One coat alkyd enamel

primer, one coat alkyd enamel 6.8 3.1

Kitchen

Walls

Old paint removed. Re-surfaced with white coat plaster. One coat alkyd enamel primer, one

coat alkyd enamel 3.0 0.6

Base Molding

Installed new wood base molding. One coat alkyd enamel primer, one coat alkyd enamel 1.4 0.7

Windows

Old paint removed. One coat rust inhibitor primer, one coat alkyd enamel 0.9 0.1

Bathroom

Walls

Plaster repaired. Old paint not removed.

Covered with vinyl membrane 1.8 1.4

Window

Old paint removed. One coat rust inhibitor primer, one coat alkyd enamel 0.9 0,2

Door

Old paint removed. One coat alkyd enamel

primer, one coat alkyd enamel 6.3 3.1

Hallway

Walls

No repair. Old paint not removed. Covered

with jute fabric/gypsum 1.9 -0,1

Base Molding

Installed new wood base molding. One coat alkyd enamel primer, one coat alkyd enamel 1.0 0,2

Closet

Door

Old paint removed. One coat alkyd enamel

primer, one coat alkyd enamel 6.3 3.1

EXTERIOR

Front Door

Old paint removed. One coat oil base exterior

primer, one coat oil base exterior paint 10.0 4.1

Front Screen

Door Same as Front Door 4.6 4.1

Table 4. Comparison of Lead Content on Typical Surfaces Before and After Deleading

24
5. COST ANALYSIS

The labor and material costs and work rate data for the dwelling

unit for both preparation and refinishing work done on the kitchen walls,

windows and doors, and the wood base molding are presented in table 5.

Because little or no surface preparation was required on the ceilings

before the application of the one coat of paint, and, on the living room,

hallway, bedroom and bathroom walls before application of the membrane

coverings, only data on refinishing those surfaces is provided. The

information is based on a cost breakdown provided by the contractor,

verification of material costs by the distributor, and spot checks on

material usage and man-hours by the NBS Lead Based Paint Poisoning

Project staff.

The labor furnished for the job consisted of one painter, one

painter's helper and two wallpaper hangers. Two additional supporting

personnel, carried by overhead costs, were an estimator-timekeeper and

a clerk. The labor rate used in table 5 is based on an average hourly

rate per man of $11.71 and includes profit, overhead. Federal Insurance

Contributions (FICA) , Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) , and insurance

and welfare fund.

Slightly more than 50% of the 20 man-days spent on this unit was

utilized in removing paint from the kitchen walls, six windows, and six

doors, and is reflected in the cost of surface preparation shown in

table 5.

25
iH

X 1 iH 1 O J-I CO U O 0)

X ^ X 4-1 <U TD CO C CO 4-J ^( C -H r-f 5: 3 O CO

<U 3 C 4-) QJ CD

O

4J CO

g S l-H OL

CO iH M-(

O CO <u x: (U

CO QJ o c g CO }-i rH g iH (U • CO -iH p. e CL, CO QJ iH C C g

O

C

g 4-1 CU Q) -H •H o <U CO CO > Uh C • o O >H g

H

H XI 4-) Q)

X

a

g I-H

X •H

CO dJ Qi CO OJ 0) a) (U CO ^1 1 > o -u > I—i

JH • g 4J P< o a CO o X CO CO >-. > g o e xi Q) CU C rH tJC o

<U

C CO i-H <U

u

O

u J-i CO CO rH 4-J o I—i

,n CO rH CO •H rH

4-1 . 4-1 4-1 4J rH rH C X) -a C CO X to X uh CO •H (U C •H O o c c CO C ;s

CO 1-J CO CO CJ

O -H CO 4-1 Uh -H

a. -H

a

M (0 CO rH

CO 4-1 (U •H <U 4-J

O 0) 0) f=^

X IX CO XI c X CO CO o 4-1 > C

I—1 CJ

O '—1 c r-1 CO

O 3 O •H

C S-i CJ

O 3 ,—1

j>

Ij '

1—t

CM o o rH CO

CO CT

O rH

O r-H rH c c o E-> </> M ^ (U y-j 1 r-f CO in o ^-J 4-J C CM c CO O CO CO rH rH & W g

M-t

C 1—1 o o rH CO

•H CO CN , [ ,—j

x: 3 4-) C/3 w V3 o o o o o o cr

•H

H </>

C

•H

l4-( 4-1 0) 4-1 Pi • ro <] o c c CO

0)

U 03

u CO o c;

•+-1 CO S

>-i 3

CO c; CO 0^

5-1 1—i

iH o CN CO o cr O CO hJ </> ^ i-i

,i<i 0) 4-1 1 CT^ en o 1 1 1 !-( 4-1 C i-H O CO O" CO S ci^ to B

4-1 c m o CM

•H co cr o 00 3 4J M 1 1 1 cO w^i o 1—1

CS&

4-J • o o o iH cr rH I-H CO 1 1 1 4J CO

CJ CO ^ o o CO 2 </>

i-i

>-l CNl CNI o cr m in ^ tn 1 1 1 CO \ rH o o

hJ </>

to rH

CO CO « rH

g c CO CO 4J to &0 CO « g CO o e ^ 0) (U C 4.) CO O 13 o

(U CO o CO > •H OJ c o CO u O iH U r-\ •H 13 OJ rH CO •H M rH Si rH M 4-1 iH C O 0) J2 O CO .H •H O > X rH 4-1 rH

•H CO •HO CO

O OJO (U rH •H CU CO CO CO !^ & u :s M s o u W PC PQ <Xc

CO

•HMHO

!-i O- oX

CO(U

>H

OJ>o

inoC

CO

!-i 3

toC

•H6^Xc3

iw

(U

>H

CO 4H

rH

(U

;3

!h3O

CO

(U XI3

rHUC

CJ

QJp.

CO

OJ

^4Ic

(0e

•HX

rHoa

Q)

CO

CO pqoo o

•Hco

COu

4-1 COcoe

OJ Q

4J 4-1 UH o

rH

•H

C Pu •HrH 5-1 O

</> 14H c CO •H 4-1 CO X Q

QJ 4J QJ c 4-1 OJ CO

CO

QJ 1 ^-1 IX UO

OJ & U

CO

Xc

CO to

4-1 CO to X •H

to

QJ >^

4-1 iH

CO CO U1 uo toou Xc

CO

4-1m

COO QJ

CJ rH,o

W) Cll c EH

26
It is also interesting to note in table 5 that the labor cost

incurred for paint removal from the kitchen walls is higher than for

interior windows and doors. This seemingly inconsistent result is

attributed to the additional labor required to patch, replaster, and

smooth the wall surfaces, an operation not required for the interior

windows (except for one sill) and doors. The total cost per square

foot for the various methods of flat surface preparation and refinishing ranked as follows (from highest cost to lowest cost)

1. Paint removal and repainting of kitchen walls.

2. Paint removal and repainting interior windows, doors, cabinets

and shelves.

3. Installation of vinyl wall covering in bathroom with considerable trimming required.

A. Installation of jute fabric/gypsum membrane covering on flat

surfaces

.

5. Repainting only over existing painted ceiling.

Table 6 presents a comparison of the total refinishing costs as

derived from the cost data submitted by the contractor with costs that

would be estimated using Means — . As can be noted from the last two

columns of this table, total costs for the various refinishing methods

are in good agreement

.

A summary of the refinished areas in the dwelling unit is provided

in table 7.

V "Building Construction Data - 1973 Edition", published by Robert S.

Means Company, Inc.

27
co

•H

4J •H

•a

toCO

COe

•H

4-1 cn w

X)

(U

4-1 COd

(St (U

i-i

>-l PCU CU B

CO S •H

•H •H

>^ e c a Ci •H

CD }^ iH tH I—1

I—1

Pu (U f2j 01 <U >^ > e e B e o

CO CO CO CO o C C o

CD CU (U CU •H rH

rH

4J Jo Cjfl CO

CO CO CO CO CO

C 15

O

O

OO <4H -H o o O a }-l rH

CU (U

0) CU 4-1 > c c 3 O •H o o o o 'T) o > • (U CO O 4-1 4-) -H !S M-i CO • CO G c rH e -H 4J 4-j cr CM i—l <4H •H 14-1 cn -H CO • • •

4-1 (U o c ^ • CO p:i a

•HrH

cn 4-1

a

•H <4-l in tH in

C

tH c rH • •H

CO •H 4-1 • • • * o

4-1 >+-( cn cn 4-1 'CJ O <u O (U CU H +JC

4-1 CU •H CO m CU Hi o u A S-i cx

CO 4-J •H 14-4

K

00

Q) CO i-i . . cu cr o O in CO CO

4-1 CO • • CO

CO ^ CU CO s U

CO

CU>

4J o 4J rHl >+-l CO iH 00 rH O o cr rH o rH CO o o ^ CO . • LtH CO bO

</> c m •H CM+ rHo eo CO

CO o rH CU

}-l rH 'O CO rH •T} cO (U cC S CO CU CO :s 4J PQ

CU :s <u PQ rH CO 4J CO rH B M c CO bO « CO o •1—)

O

CU P3 CJ o O

•H c >-l <: IS o t3 •H rH X.

4-1

O rH > rj 4-1 •rl O O •H CO CO [2 hJ cr; PQ ^1

a

CO

4-) COO

CJ)bOa

•H^CO •H

Pi •HMH

CU

p:^

CUO

CO MHd

C/2o

CO •H

>H

CO

I-O

(U rH

,P

CO H

28
Table 7. Summary of Refinished Areas for

Pilot Demonstration Unit No. 1

Sq ft

I. Painting

A. One coat vinyl latex

1. Living room ceiling 150

2. Bedroom ceiling 1^0

3. Kitchen ceiling 80

4. Bathroom ceiling 40

5. Hall ceiling 40

6. Closets

a. Bedroom (walls and ceiling) 110

b. Hall (walls, ceiling and floor) 155

Total (one coat) 715

B. One coat enamel finish

1. Bedroom closet shelving 15

2. Hall closet shelving 15^ Total (one coat) 30

C. One coat enamel undercoat and one coat enamel finish —

1. Kitchen walls 355

2. Kitchen wall cabinets 90

3. Bathroom cabinet 15

4. Doors (wood doors with metal frames) 330

5. Windows (steel casement) 120

Total (one coat) 910

Total (two coats) 1820

II . Wall Coverings

A. Vinyl

1. Bathroom 122

B. Jute fabric/gypsum

1. Living room 181

2. Bedroom 303

3. Hall 128

Total 734

\l In addition to the following, 160 linear feet of wood baseboard (3"

high) received one coat enamel undercoat and one coat enamel finish.
REFERENCES

Gilsinn, J., "Estimates of the Nature and Extent of Lead Paint

Poisoning in the United States", National Bureau of Standards

Technical Note 7A6, (December 1972).

Rasberry, S. D., "Investigation of Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

Analyzers for Determining Lead on Painted Surfaces", Applied

Spectroscopy, Volume 27, Number 2, 102, (1973).

Spurgeon, J. C, "Response Characteristics of a Portable X-Ray

Fluorescence Lead Detector: Detection of Lead in Paint", National

Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR 73-231.

30
FORM r«DJ-l >••« \i-'it U.S. DEPT. OF C OM M

.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

U n Lie A 1 lUiN UK Khl UKl

NBSIR 73-242

No.

3, Recipient's Accession No»

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. Publication Date

Pilot Demonstration of Lead Based Paint Hazard Elimination

Methods. Report on Field Study No. 1

6. Performing Organization Code

Thomas H. Boone, Theodore R. Ray, William G. Street

8. Performing Organization

NBSIR 73-242

9. PERFOR.MLNG ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ST.ANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/'Work Unit No,

4608400

11, Contract/Grant No.

IAA-H-34-71

12, Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

Office of Policy Developm.ent and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

VJashington, D.C. 20410

13, Type of Report & Period

Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) This report describes the elimination of the hazard of lead bearing paints

i-n a onp. h?.drnom apartment usine materials and procedures that are undergoing

laboratory and field evaluation by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . Paint

removal was used to eliminate the hazard from some surfaces and two nonhazardous

membrane type coverings were installed as barrier materials over the residual

leaded paint on other surfaces. The preparation and refinishing of the interior

surfaces are described and work rates and cost data are presented.

This pilot demonstration is the first of a series of studies that will be

used to detemnine the merits of various lead based paint hazard elimination methods

when applied to actual housing conditions.

Final recommendations for further use of materials and systems, described in

this report, are not presented due to the prelim.inary nature of this work. The

com.pletion of the projected series of demonstrations and the long term evaluation

of the in-use performance of the materials and systems will be required before

final recommendations can be made.

17. KEY U'ORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons)

Cost analysis; hazard elimination; lead based paint ;. housing; lead based paint;

materials; surface preparation; surface refinishing

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

[xl UNLIMITED.

UNCLASSIFIED

1 1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC teii^-PTI