NBSIR 74-438

Pilot Demonstration of Lead Based

Paint Hazard Elimination Methods

Report on Field Study No. 2

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

December 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington. D. C. 20410

NBSIR 74-438

PILOT DEMONSTRATION OF LEAD BASED

PAINT HAZARD ELIMINATION METHODS

Report on Field Study No. 2

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

December 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 ^ i

SI Conversion Units . ii

1. Introduction 1

2. General Description 1

2.1. Dwelling Unit 1

2.2. Materials and Application 4

2.3. Contractor • • 11

3. Reduction of Lead Base Paint Hazard 11

4. Cost Analysis 12

5. Observations and Comments 12

6. References 20

List of Tables

Page

1. Comparison of Lead Content on Exterior Surfaces Before and

After Paint Removal 5

2. Surface Refinishing Data Submitted by the Contractor 13

3. Accumulated Labor Cost Submitted by the Contractor 13

4. Accumulated Material Costs Submitted by the Contractor 14

5. Summary of Paint Removal and Repainting Costs 15

ABSTRACT

This report describes the removal of lead based paint from exterior sur- faces of a single family attached house using alkaline/solvent thixotropic

liquid paint removers followed by a high-pressure/low-volume water spray.

The extent of the reduction of the lead based paint hazard, the cost of

the process and the observed problems and merits of this water wash paint re- moval system are presented.

Key Words: Cost analysis; housing; lead based paint; lead poisoning; surface

preparation; surface refinishing; water wash paint removal.

i
SI Conversion Units

The conversion factors and units contained in this report are in accord- ance with the Internation 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^ = 6.45.6* x lO"^ 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)

2 1 inch of mercury (60''F) = 3376 newton/meter

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

Energy

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

Plane Angle

_ 2 1 degree (angle) = 1.745 x 10 radian

Power

7

1 watt = 1.000* X 10 erg/second

Temperature . °C = 5/9 (Temperature °F - 32)

Exactly

ii
Pilot Demonstration of Lead Based Paint Hazard Elimination Methods

Report on Field Study No. 2

1. INTRODUCTION

Lead poisoning resulting from the ingestion of lead based paint is a serious illness and is recognized as a major 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

(HUD) 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.

This second pilot demonstration, under the direction of CBT's Lead Based

Paint Poisoning Project, was carried out in Washington, D.C. The first pilot

demonstration under this project was also conducted in Washington, D.C. and

is reported in reference [2].

A specification was prepared and a contract awarded for the implementation of a exterior paint removal system consisting of the following processes:

a. The spray or brush application of a biodegradable remover solvent.

b. Rinsing with a high-pressure low-volume water spray.

c. Clean-up and disposal of the residue resulting from the above

operations.

d. Repainting of deleaded exterior surfaces with a lead free paint

(not more than 0.5% lead in the total paint solids).

Operational characteristics of this exterior paint removal system, which

are considered of interest to potential users, are described in this report.

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

.2.1. DWELLING UNIT

A single family attached unit at 1727 Massachusetts Avenue, S.E., owned

and maintained by the National Capital Housing Authority (NCHA) , was selected

for a field demonstration of the removal of lead base paint from exterior

surfaces. The dwelling is a two story brick residence, with basement, which

was reportedly erected in the 1930's. The front includes an open wood con- structed porch with hand railings and painted concrete steps. The rear ex- terior consists of an sunken entrance to basement area, screened-in first

floor wood porch, wood steps, and a second floor porch enclosed with metal

siding. Figures 1 and 2 show the unit's front and rear exteriors respectively. The interior wall and door surfaces of the back screened porch are shown

in figure 3.

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

paper

.

1
Figure 1. Front porch of pilot demonstration dwelling unit at the start of

the paint removal process.

Figure 2. Back screened porch, enclosed

second floor porch and basement area way

of pilot demonstration dwelling unit before removal of paint.

2
Figure 3. Interior wall and door of

back screened porch before removal of

paint.

Figure 4. Application of paint reirover on painted wood surfaces with spray

equipment

.

3
The specific surface areas that were deleaded are listed in table 1. The lead content present in each original painted surface was recorded in

milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm^) as measured with a portable x-ray

fluorescence (XRF) instrument [3,4].

2.2. MATERIALS AND APPLICATION

A. Water Wash Paint Removal : Alkaline/solvent thixotropic liquid paint

removers were applied to all front and rear exterior painted surfaces listed

in table 1. Three removers, which were supplied by one manufacturer, varied

in removal strength and consistency. The removers were applied by brush or spray gun depending upon their viscosity and the accessibility of the surfaces.

Less consistent materials were applied by spray equipment while removers of

paste-like viscosity were applied by brush on some vertical and overhead

surfaces. Figures 4, 5 and 6 are photographs taken during the paint remover

application phase.

After allowing an appropriate remover dwell time (time remover remained

on surface) which varied from about 20 minutes up to 5 hours (figures 7 and 8 show reaction of paint after remover dwell time of about 30 minutes), the

coated surface was sprayed with water at high-pressure (1800 psi) and lowvolume (5.5 gallons per minute). Figures 9 and 10 show this water spray

operation. During the removal of the softened paint, using high pressure

water with a 15° spray pattern, it was observed that the bare wood surfaces

were being splintered. Increasing the water spray pattern to about 40° re- duced this undesirable effect to a minimum. This paint removal procedure

was repeated as necessary until all of the paint layers had been removed from

the surfaces and the bare substrate was exposed.

All rough surfaces were hand sanded to a smooth texture. At certain

points where paint had accumulated in heavy quantities as a result of multiple past repainting (such as at the base of the verticals on the front porch

railing) , it was necessary to manually remove the remaining softened paint

residue. Figures 11 and 12 show the front porch railing on which accumulated

softened paint residue can be seen at the bottom of the verticals. After

completion of the paint removal process, all surfaces were allowed to dry

thoroughly.

B. Paints : Paint coatings containing not more than 0.51 of lead in

their nonvolatile solids were chosen to refinish wood surfaces where the old

paint was removed. Exterior wood trim and surfaces (listed in table 1) ex- cept porch floors were repainted as follows: [The percent lead in the non- volatile component of the applied paint is presented in parentheses.]

one coat - white alkyd undercoat, (0.006% lead) one coat - white alkyd exterior finish, (0.014% lead)

Porch floors were repainted as follows:

two coats - 2 component epoxy; clear catalyst (0.000% lead) grav epoxv

(0.009% lead)

Both the white alkyd primer and finish paint described above were supplied by the same manufacturer.

4
Table 1 Comparison of Lead Content on Exterior Surfaces

Before and After Paint Removal

{1727 Massachusetts Avenue, S.E.)

Front Porch Area

Observed XRF Readings of

Lead Content (mg/cm^)

Before After After

r a in L Do -1 r» -f- r d mL tVCpd XJl L -Lll^ Location Removal Removal Operat ions

Ceiling Beam - North 12.2 1.7 1.0

Ceiling Beam - East 13.3 0.0 0.3

nU . 4H

o . o 0 4 1 . 0 Railings - North (bottom) 17 .3 0.2 o!6

l\clX±J.ilgb Xvcxbi. \^X-Op^ nu f)

. u Railings - East (bottom) 15.5 0.0 0.5

Railings - West (top) 16.2 0.2 0.6

Railings - West (bottom) 14.5 0.0 0.6

Wall Rail Post - East 22.4 4.8 3.6

Wall fiCiXJ. Rail I\ci±i Pnc:i- iUjC _ Wpct lyCoL 1 R J 0 . o 2 .

3

Front Railing Short Post 11 .1 0.0 0.5

7 u . o 0.9

Window - Frame 5.2 0.9 0^8

Ceiling 19.4 3.1 3.7

Floor 3.4 0.3 0,4

Floor Beam - North 15.1 0.3 0.9

Floor Beam - East 11.6 0.5 0.5

Floor Beam - West 13.3 0.6 1.0

Concrete Steps 3.7 0.4 *

Wood Lattice - North 1.8 0.8 1.2

Wood Lattice - East 2.4 0.9 0.5

Wood Lattice - West 1.7 0.4 0.4

Front Door 4.5 1.1 0.8

Front Door - Frame 4.7 0.5 0.4

Front Door - Step 2.7 0.6 0.7

Back Porch Area (1st Floor Level)

Walls - East 8.1 2.1 0.7

Walls - South 6.2 0.3 0.6

Walls - West 8.2 1.3 0.8

* Determination made not to re-paint exposed concrete steps.

5
Table 1 (continued)

Back Porch Area (Is t F loo r Level)

Observed XRF Readings of

Lead Content (mg/cm2)

Before After After

Paint Paint Repa int ing

Locat i on Removal Remova

1

Operat ions

Window - Frame (Kitchen) 4 . 5 0,. 5 0. 7 Door - Kitchen (Outside) 9 .4 0,. 6 0. 8 Door - Frame (Kitchen, Outside) 12 .4 0,, 2 0. 7 Door - Dininc? Room fOut'^idp^ 10 . 6 0,. 0 0. 2 Door - Frame (To Dining Rm . , Outside) 9 .8 0.. 5 0. 6 Wall - Porch, South (Outside) 17 .6 1,, 7 0. 6 Floor - Porch 1 . 6 0

,

, 6 0

.

7 Floor - Porch Beam (Outside) 2 . 9 0 ,, 5 0. 6 Walls - North 2 .7 0., 0 0. 5 Wa lis - East 5 . 0 0.. c 0. 5 Column - Center (Wood) 12 < ^ 0 .A 0. 3 Window - Frame 3 . 8 0. 6 0. 4 Door - Basement (Outside) 5 . 7 0. 0 0. 5 Door - Basement Frame (Outside) 5 . 2 0. 9 0. 5 Down Spout and Gutter 6 . 1 0. 9 0. 1

6
Figure 5. Application of paint remover

on painted concrete stairs with spray

equipment

.

Figure 6. Application of paint remover

on painted wood railing by brush.

7
Figure 7. Appearance

of paint on vrood

column after 30 minutes

dwell time of paint

remover

.

Figure 8. Appearance

of paint on wood siding

and trim on first floor

and basement areas and

on metal siding below

second floor windows

after 30 minutes dwell

time of paint remover.

8
s

Figure 9. Flushing off old paint with

high pressure water spray after treatment with paint remover.

Figure 10. Flushing off old paint with

high pressure water spray after treatment with paint remover. Note water

overspray onto adjoining porch.

9
Figure 11. Porch rails after application of three coats of paint remover and

water spray flush. Hand scraping was necessary to completely remove paint

from the base of railings.

Figure 12. Porch post

during water flush

operation. Note warpage of post base caused

by water soakage during

paint removal.

10
2.3. CONTRACTOR

The contractor was experienced in carrying out the process of spray application of biodegradable remover - solvents followed by a high-pressure lowvolume water spray rinse. However, all of his previous jobs had involved

the removal of paint, coatings and other materials from masonry. This con- tract was apparently the first opportunity to use this process to remove multiple layers of paint from wood surfaces on residential dwel]ings.

3. REDUCTION OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD

A portable x-ray fluorescence lead detector (XRF) of the type described

in reference [3] , was used to survey the lead content in the painted surfaces

of the exterior front and rear porches of the dwelling unit. All surfaces

which showed an average lead content of 1.0 mg/cm^, or more, were deleaded by

the water wash removal technique.

A survey of the lead content in the interior painted surfaces of this

home had revealed lead content levels too low to warrant consideration for

deleading (less than 1.0 mg/cm^) . Since high lead content levels were observed on the exterior porch surfaces, it was decided that this dwelling

would be appropriate for a field demonstration. It appeared that the water

rinse removal technique would apply.

One quantitative measure of the effectiveness of a lead based paint

hazard elimination technique is the decrease in lead content resulting from

implementation of the particular technique. Table 1 presents a summary of

the average XRF lead content measured at various exterior locations before

paint removal, after paint removal using the water wash technique, and after

repainting with nonleaded paint. When the "before paint removal" lead content

readings are compared with the "after removal" readings it is apparent that

a significant reduction of the lead content was achieved in virtually every

case. Some of the "after paint removal" lead content readings are higher

than expected but these cases are attributed to one of the following factors:

1. Although all measurements were made on w^hat appeared as bare, clean

wood, some of the original leaded paint has penetrated into the subsurface wood pores and could not be completely removed by the

solvent and water rinse.

2. Certain areas (such as the wall rail posts on the front porch) were reported to contain lead shields on their back side to provide

separation from the front brick wall. These lead shields were not

removed by the water wash technique and could have caused the higher

readings noted for such locations.

Another complete lead survey using the XRF instrument was conducted after

the repainting operations were completed. The data from that inspection is

presented in the third column of table 1. In general, XRF lead content readings tended to approximate those obtained for the "after paint removal"

survey. Since chemcial analysis indicated that the new paints used for re- finishing were unleaded, differences between readings for the two conditions

are probably due to the following:

1. The lead detector head was placed in approximately the same, but not

the exact, spot for each survey. Variations in the lead content of

the cleaned bare wood could account for some of the differences noted.

2. The basic accuracy of the XRF instrument (approximately + C . 5 mg/cm*^)

leads to average readings ivhich can vary over a wider range tLan

most of the differences noted in columns 2 and 3 of table 1.

11
4. COST ANALYSIS

An essential part of the work carried out by the contractor was the

collection and reporting of cost/time data, the materials costs and the skills

needed. Tables 2, 3, and 4 present the data provided by the contractor.

Table 2 lists the types and quantities of materials used, surface areas

involved, labor rates and time used. The listing under operations includes

trim work such as windows, window frames, doors, door frames, railings, beams,

etc., and flat work such as walls and floors. Tables 3 and 4 contain the accum- ulated labor and material costs, for the paint removal process and repainting.

A summary of the paint removal and repainting costs based on dollars per

square foot are presented in table 5. The information is based on an analysis of tables 2, 3, and 4, verification of material costs by distributors,

and spot checks on material usage and man hours by the NBS Lead Based Paint

Poisoning Project staff.

5. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

The high-pressure low-volume water wash paint removal system employed by

the contractor was satisfactory in that it removed layers of paint on accessible surfaces at a faster rate than would be achieved by hand application of

solvents and hand scraping the softened paint.

The contract specification for this water wash paint removal system included precautionary instructions regarding removal and/or containment of

residue materials from the process. In spite of these instructions the

following problems were observed during the removal operations:

1. Before the contractor used protective plastic coverings, slight

breezes caused blow-over of the paint remover spray causing softening and damage to painted surfaces of adjoining property fsee figure

10).

2. The contractor failed to pick up water rinse which contained old

lead paint particles and paint remover chemicals. This contaminated

water was allowed to soak into the back and front yards, run off

into the gutter and, under certain circumstances, splash onto

adjoining property or yards (see figures 13 and 14),

3. Adjacent unpainted surfaces of brick, glass, and screens became very

dirty due to the water flushing operation. The brick and glass was later satisfactorily cleaned, but the screening on the back porch

had to be replaced.

4. Because there were multiple layers of old paint on most wood surfaces,

it was necessary to repeat the remover application followed by water

rinsing 3 or 4 times. This procedure caused warpage, swelling,

buckling, and splintering of some wood surfaces. Sanding, recaulking, renailing and in some areas additional coats of paint were re- quired to make the final appearance acceptable as shown in figures

14,15,16, and 17

.

Additional problems that became apparent during this demonstration were:

1. Although the spray equipment and paint remover chemicals are generally available, only one contractor in the Washington area is apparently equipped to carry out this deleading process.
2. Weather elements, such as temperature and wind, contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the chemical reaction between the

solvents and the old lead paint as well as the nature of protection

needed for adjoining areas which are not being deleaded.

In general, it is the judgment of the NBS Lead Paint Poisoning Project

staff that this water wash paint removal system is appropriate for old paint

removal from external masonry, or metal surfaces and marginally effective on wood surfaces. Under no circumstances, however, should this system be used

unless satisfactory techniques are devised to collect hazardous runoff

materials

.

13
Table 2 Surface Refinishing Data Submitted by the Contractor

Operat ion

Materials

Surface

Area

Worked

Sq. Ft.

(Approx .

)

Labor

Type Quantity ManHours

Rate

$/Hr.

PAINTING OF:

1. Front and Rear

of House

White Primer

Paint

5 gal. 1610 10

16

4.50

4. 00

2. Front and Rear

of House

White Finish

Paint

7 gal. 1610 11

24

4.50

4.00

3. Front and Rear

Porch Deck

Deck Paint (2

Component Epoxy) 2 gal.

260 3 4 .50

Note: Time shown includes travel to and from shop, as well as set-up time

. and touch-up ^•

Table 3 Accumulated Labor Costs Submitted by the Contractor

Labor Skill

Hourly Wage Rate Total

Hours

on the

Job (2)

Total

Cost ($)

for the

Job

Base

Rate(l)

Ins

.

Benefits

1. Paint Remover

Appl icator

4. 50 .90 24 129. 60

2. High Pressure

Water Sprayer

4.50 . 90 38 205 .20

3. Paint Sprayer 4.50 . 90 24 129.60

4. Paint Remover

Applicator's Assistant

4.00 .80 16 76.80

5. High Pressure ' 4.00 .80

Sprayer's Assistant

47 228 . 00

6. Paint Sprayer's 4.00

Ass istant

.80 40 192 .00

Subtotal for Labor 189 961 .20

(1) The contractor did not employ apprentices on this job. It is felt that

although regular contractor crews were employed at $4.00 or more per

hour, unskilled labor at $3.00 per hour or less could have been used.

(2) Actual payroll hours for the removal and repainting only are reported.

14
Table 4 Accumulated Materials Costs Submitted by the Contractor

Quantity

Purchased

Unit

Price

Tax Total

Price

1

.

Polyethylene 2 rolls 14 . 50 29.00

2. White Primer Paint 5 gallons 8.33 41.65

3. White Finish Paint 7 gallons 9.55 66.85

4. Epoxy Deck Paint 2 gallons 15.00 . 7 0 30.70

5. Remover No. 1* co gal Ions 8.73 43.65

6. Remover No. 2* 20 gallons 6 . 54 130.80

7. Rencver No. 3* 3 gallons o . 0 o

8. Painters Caulk 2 tubes .84 1.68

9. Caulking Gun 1 each 1.18 1.18

10. Masking Tape 2 rolls 1.80 3.60

11. Paint Thinner 1 gallon .74 .89

* Subtc

withe

)tal for Mate]

)ut Remover Mj

'•ials - - - iterials

-> 175.55

Overhead 331 Overhead > 58 .51

Sub Total 234.06

Profit 50_l_ Profit - > 117.03

* Other Additions

Remover Materials

> 200.19

Total Material Cost for Job > 551 . 28

*No overhead or profit percentages added to remover products. Totals

reflect added percentages only on materials purchased outside.

15
(I) e

0) 0 o 0) o ^ 4-" p; P! o o H c o o H

08 • p P 4-> •p

0) p: <D

M p; PI > •H •H > U > •H H o o oi 03 O (1) o 03 03 & e p. p. !3h P<

0)

>H J=i fH fH fH Xi o me IS 4-' Xo 4-i me is

>-» •H

d p. p: •H p: *H fH •H •H <D • H fH •H

o3 03 03 S Ph PL, 10 Ph

4-* 4-* 4-* 4-* 4-* t3 OS o3 OS OS o3 CO i—l O O , j o Q O

(J ^ o o O o

rHi

H • • 03 +-* CJ" +-> oo •H

+J CO (/) IX, o 4-» (Nl O O \ • . PL, • o 1—1 -oe- rH • +-< • 4J

li. Ph

4-> r-1 U (Nl • rH

(D •!-> D" •H • O -H O o o o

E-H

QU -to-

(Nl r-- • LO

rH I—1

Pi t—I

+J LO • • H • • O o ,-J +-> o

LO

H -fee- PL,

a <Ni CTt •H I—1 cr^-J o rH O

•P (-> to ii< •H • c \ o O ,-1 4->

O

•H Ph

0) LO LO

Labo $/Sq Ft oo oo

$/Lin

Ft. oo

r—1 • • LO LO vO

»^ p; LO

n +-> CO PL, •H D O \ o o p o

.—1

lO

H -tae- P-, 05>O r—1

iH e 1 CJ" 4-1 rH iH p; iH

4-> CO tin •H

03 \ O

O Ft o

t-J H ^ . (N! O CT'-P PI o, 43 CO PL, o! \ o o

•H

Ft. o /—\

4-) o LO

Ph fH vO CO tn

r-l o CXI t3 LO ,—s

rH o /—\

05 P! • 03 cr t-( 0) o3 • 4-> ^ X CO PL, X 4-> CO X tin o O Ph p; O X fH O fH e CO fH • O aoo u Ph • U p; fH fH &, cr H -H Ph-H o < rH o < CO o o 03 fH <^rJ

a, a,

U Di

H

c4

i-H

frt Q

P5^Oo

fn

cO rHOP

^3

<U t3

03

4-' >^

•H iH

LtH PI o O

f-. PL,

M

p;

o\= •H O 4-1 LO PI •H

o3 03

PlH (U

p: fc3

fH

-xi

O

03 Mh

4-" Ti to

<L> o > u O

rH

o\° 03 • H

fH

(1) 03 4-' 03

<U s

rHU 4-> c

(/) 05

<U

f-. Wi

•HH

LH P

PI

!DCO 03 (U Ph

CDp / 16
Figure 13. Liquid residue which caused

damage to grass and bushes.

17
Figure 14. Front porch of pilot demonstration after removal of old paint and

repainting. Note loss of foliage on bushes. The damaged grass sod was re- moved and replaced with new sod.

Figure 15. Front porch post and railing

after removal of old paint and repainting.

18
Figure 16. Back screened porch,

enclosed second floor porch and basement

area way of pilot demonstration after

removal of old paint and repainting.

Figure 17. Interior view of wall and

door of screened porch after removal

of old paint and repainting.

19
6. REFERENCES

1. Gilsinn, J., "Estimates of the Nature and Extent o£ Lead Paint Poisoning

in the United States", National Bureau o£ Standards Technical Note 746,

December, 1972.

2. Boone, T. H. , Ray, T. R. , and Street, W. G., "Pilot Demonstration of

Lead Based Paint Hazard Elimination Methods, Report on Field Study No. 1",

National Bureau of Standards Report, NBSIR 73-242, June 1973.

3. Spurgeon, Joe C, "Response Characteristics of a Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Lead Detector: Detection of Lead in Paint", National Bureau of

Standards Report, NBSIR 73-231, June 1973.

4. Paabo, Maya, "Analytical Methods for the Detection of Toxic Elements in

Dry Paint Matrices -- A Literature Survey", National Bureau of Standards

Report, NBSIR 73-251, p. 18, July 1973.

20
NBS-114A (r<t;v. 7-73)

U.S. DtPT. OF C&MM. 1, 1>I Hl.K A l OK KI I'OR r NO. 2. (.ov'l Ai-ii-s.sion BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA No. SHEET NBSIR 74-438

3. Ri-i- ipii nt 's .\v-cf ssion No.

A. Ti I I. r A\n SI HI ri i.i. Pilot Demonstration of Lead Based Paint Hazard Elimination

Report on Field Study No. 2

5, Piihlii .It ion Date December 1973

6. I'crforiiiiiip Org.mi/.uion C od<

7. All riI()I((.S» Thomas H. Roonp, Theodore R. Rav , William G. Street8. Pcrforminj; Organ. Riport No. NBSIR 74-438

9. i'i;ki-okmi.\(. ()K(,an'i/a riDN \a.mi-: ami AnbKi .s.s NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DtrARTMtNT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. I'r,.,. , I, r,.-,k Work lam No. 4608400

11. ^' -on t r .1 c I . Cif.int No. IAA-H-34-71

12. Spiin.sorinp Org.iiilz.uion N.imc anj ( oniplct<. Addrtss (Street, City. State, ZIP)

Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Typi- of Report & Period

j Covered 1 Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

j 15. suppi.i;mi:ntary notls

16. ABST R.ACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most signilicant information. If document includea a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention il here.)

This report describes the removal of lead base paint from exterior surfaces of a single family attached house using alkaline /solvent thixotropic liquid paint re- movers followed by a high-pressure /low-volume water spray.

The extent of the reduction of the lead based paint hazard, the cost of the

process and the observed problems and merits of this water wash paint removal

system are presented.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) ^ i Cost analysis; housing; lead based paint; lead poisoning; surface preparation;

surface refinishing; water wash paint removal.

18, AVAILAIilLITY ^1 Unlimited

f

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to N'Tl.'^

[ ' Order I-'rom Sup. of Doc., D'..S. Covernmcnt Printing Office

U'a.shinKton, D.C. 20102. SD ( ..t. No. C.H ^ Order I- rom National Technical Inform. n ion Service (NIl.Si Springfield, Virgiin.i J 2 1 "> 1

19. SECl/HITV CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF pagf:s

23

20. SFi UlU 1 N ( LASS

(1 ItIS PAGE)

IINCLASSH lEP

22. Pri^e

. ^, uscoMM.nc 2<fO*^-p ' *

<11

I
1