Document x56vqE8rjED7DZNy1Z4MNqLzg

Secretary Jack Kemp has stated that he would like to see recent regulations ex tended to all housing. What is the threat? Lead paint, even if it is intact, poses a threat to the health of all those occupy ing a property. Although children may be at greatest risk--with potentially irreversible damage to the nervous sys tem, combined with learning disabil ities--adults are also affected. Symp toms in adults include high blood pressure, damage to reproductive sys tems, pain in the joints, and inability to concentrate. Lead adversely affects nearly every organ system in the body. Yet according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study conducted in 1986, 52 per cent of the country's residential units contain lead-based paint (LBP). Abating Lead-Based Paint by David E. Jacobs espite notable improvements in (Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis Dthe past few decades, lead poi ease Registry), have greatly heightened soning remains among the top public awareness of this widespread ten epidemics in the country todayp.roblem. Lead-based paints in housing built be In addition, a marked increase in fore 1980 remain the most concentrated court cases upholding tort liability has and widely dispersed form of lead. driven current efforts to abate lead Children, as well as those in the home paint in privately owned buildings. Al remodeling and construction indus though federal regulations do not ap tries, are at high risk from exposure to ply to privately financed or even Sec this pervasive poison. tion 8 housing, several recent awards of Although the use of lead in paints has over $100,000 for lead-related illnesses been outlawed in the United States have prompted concerned building since 1977, the recent publication of sev owners and managers to look more eral government reports, such as Lead- closely at the risks in their properties. Based Paint: Interim Guidelines for Hazard Several states, including Massachu Identification and Abatement in Public and setts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Minne Indian Housing (HUD) and The Nature sota, and Connecticut, have imple and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in mented state regulations requiring lead the United States: A Report to Congress paint abatement. In addition, HUD Detecting lead-based paint Several types of testing procedures are currently used to detect the presence of lead-based paint. The simplest and eas iest to perform is a spot chemical test using sodium sulfide. Although this technique is permissible under Mas sachusetts law, it is not generally con sidered reliable and is not permitted by HUD. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) detectors may be used on site to pinpoint the presence of LBP by its characteristic radiation. A similar X-ray technique may be used with non-portable, more accurate equipment in a lab. The cost of on-site testing can be be tween $400 and $1,000, depending on the size of the house, but the on-site tests are often highly inaccurate. In part, this is the result of misuse of the portable equipment, which should be partially remedied by new HUD guide lines which specify exactly how the portable XRFs are to be used and what their limitations are. Laboratory XRF testing is much more accurate and has lower detection limits. It is slightly more costly, ranging from $4 to $10 per sample tested. Every sur face in a building with a different paint ing history needs to be tested separate ly if accurate readings on LBP are to be achieved. A fourth method for testing for LBP is atomic absorption testing, which is JPM also done by analyzing paint samples in a laboratory. Inconclusive XRF test results need to be confirmed by this method. Atomic absorption testing costs between $15 and $40 per sample. This test is highly accurate, but may be skewed by incorrect sampling meth ods. Because atomic absorption testing detects the presence of lead by compar ing minuscule weight differences be tween lead and non-lead paints, sam ples that inadvertently contain some drywall (or other substrate) as well as paint may produce incorrect results. Substrate refers to the wall or surface underneath the paint. Failure to in clude all layers of paint in the sample can also lead to errors (for example, red lead paint has often been used as a primer on metal surfaces). Accurate sampling is vital for all types of testing. Woodwork, trim, and even different walls in the same room may all have been painted at different times, using different paints. Thus each must be tested. Because multifamily prop erties are more likely to have used con tract painters, painting histories are more likely to be consistent with each unit. However, care should be taken to test all appropriate surfaces. While the HUD Guidelines state that there are no peer-reviewed Quality Control/Quality Assurance procedures for lab XRF, the technique shows prom ise, as inclusion of substrate materials is not a problem. However, one drawback is that it is destructive; repainting and repair of sampled areas is necessary. Further research on this question is now in progress at Georgia Tech. One way to help control testing costs is to train building personnel in safe methods for taking paint samples for laboratory analysis. When removing paint samples, building personnel must be properly equipped with pro tective clothing and properly fitted HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters. In addition, areas tested must be thoroughly cleaned using HEPA vac uums and phosphate detergent to re move all traces of paint dust. Finally, blood lead levels should be taken in ac cordance with a medical surveillance program to help ensure that those do ing the sampling are not poisoned. Federal guidelines for public housing units prescribe 0.5 percent by weight, or 1.0 milligrams of lead per square cen timeter of surface area, as the threshold for determining whether abatement is needed. Abatement options There are three basic techniques for removing LBP: removal (either on- or off-site), encapsulation, and replace ment. In most cases, actual abatement work will encompass a combination of all three. Several techniques may be used to re move paint at the property, including blistering paint off with a heat gun and scraping with chemical paint remover. Grinding of painted surfaces with a HEPA-filtered tool is also permitted. Open flame burning of LBP is not permitted because high temperatures may produce toxic lead fumes. Electric heat guns must also be kept at lower settings to avoid this problem. Like wise, care must be taken to ensure that chemical strippers do not contain methylene chloride, a cancer-causing substance, and are handled safely. Fbr example, the caustic paste used in some stripper must not contact the skin or eyes. Emergency eyewash and shower stations should always be present if these substances are used. If building pieces are removed and stripped off site, they may be dipped in chemical strippers. However, those doing the stripping must be notified of the presence of lead and monitored to ensure that adequate cleaning of the wood is done after paint has been re moved. HUD is currently engaged in research efforts to estimate the relative cost of each removal technique. Workers using any of these methods must wear HEPA filters and protective clothing to avoid contact with lead paint dust raised during removal. In addition, abated areas must be repeat edly cleaned with HEPA vacuums and washed with tri-sodium phosphate detergents to remove all traces of dust. While phosphate detergents are now banned for laundry use in many areas, they are usually available in hardware stores for limited use in lead-based paint abatement. Another option--one which pro duces less dust, but possibly higher costs--is encapsulation. Painting over lead paint does not constitute encap sulation. This technique was found to be ineffective by HUD, as the new paint covering the LBP tended to deteriorate after only a short time, exposing the lead hazard again. Encapsulation is accomplished by covering all LBP surfaces with wall board, wood, fiberglass, or other rigid, durable barrier systems. The best encapsulants have both good adhesion and cohesion. Ideally, they, should be physically fastened to the substrate. While encapsulation is an effective protection if it is completely sealed, the lead paint is still in the building and must be managed and maintained. This involves inspections at least once a year. In addition, there is the risk of disturbing the paint during some later renovation. However, encapsulation is effective for entire walls and exteriors. Replacement is the third LBP abate ment option. It is the most expensive, but also the simplest and least hazard ous. Replacement is almost certainly the best option for windows, doors, balustrades, trim, and other easily re placed components. While replace ment generates some lead dust, it is much less severe than removal. And because the lead is gone, it is also su perior to encapsulation. Regardless of the abatement method used, the allowed limit of LBP dust after abatement is 200 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area on floors. These fine dust particles--each microgram the size of one-millionth of a nickel coin--are often invisible to the naked eye. Because of these strict limits, cleanup efforts are the most critical part of the any abatement effort. Traditional forms of abatement have been known to re sult in lead poisoning of residents and workers, due largely to inadequate cleanup measures. Containment of the work area and extensive use of plastic sheeting to protect all surfaces not scheduled for abatement make cleanup much easer and increase the likelihood of passing final clearance testing. Other LBP abatement considerations Regardless of the abatement option selected, care must be taken in selecting a removal contractor and in disposing of any waste from the project. Current- March/Aprii 1991 33 T ly, many asbestos abatement contrac tors are expanding their operations to include LBP abatement. While some of the techniques, such as protective clothing and HEPA vacuums, are simi lar, experience in asbestos removal is no guarantee that a contractor under stands LBP removal. Nor is there much to assist the build ing owner or manager in making a choice. Although a few states, such as Massachusetts and Maryland, are con sidering certification programs for LBP abatement contractors, none currently exist at the national level. And while a few universities, such as Georgia Tech in Atlanta and Tufts in Massachusetts, offer training in this area, only a rela tively few contractors have received instruction. As with any contractor, checking references and business experience re mains the best option in making a choice. However, be certain that a low price does not reflect inadequate safety procedures. It is also important to note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may bring lead-based paint abatement un der general industry regulation. OSHA can also conduct inspections of worker safety procedures. Owners and managers must also be aware of their post-removal responsi bilities for lead-containing debris. Dis posal of the materials, including paint chips, mops, water, HEPA filters, and strippers, is regulated by the EPA. While only paint chips and strippers are likely to qualify as hazardous waste, all debris must be tested to determine the proper disposal technique. In conclusion While only a few building owners and managers are currently legally bound to remove lead-based paint from their properties, the trend in both legislation and tort liability indicates that this situ ation is already changing. An even more compelling reason for abatement is the tremendous risk posed by lead paint, especially to children. Lead paint is much more widespread than asbestos; at least 17 percent of all children in the United States are affect ed. The insidious loss of learning skills and intelligence means that we are sacrificing one of our most valuable resources--our intellectual abilities. We have successfully controlled lead in gasoline, in food, and in general indus try. We must do the same for existing lead-based paint. David E. Jacobs, CIH, is an environmental re search scientist with the Environmental Sci ence and Technology Laboratory at Georgia Tech Research I nstitute at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. He has completed over 300 industrial hygiene studies of various industrial industries. He is a director of the Georgia Public Employee Hazardous Chemi cal Training and Technical Assistance Pro gram and is a principal author of the Georgia Department of Labor Regulations on Chemi cal Hazard Communications. Mr. Jacobs provided comments on drafts of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Guidelines and helped to developed a model training curricu lum on lead-based paint for HUD, EPA, and Batelle Institute. He currently directs the na tion's largest and longest running training course on lead-based paint detection and abatement. He holds an M.S. degree in tech nology and science policy from Georgia Tech. Before. 00001 .oo/ioo^g-******- Dottaratn.99S.oo_ :'\ r * 1* ,, JCta Q. Cutf mi ,Jiny Qsqpsrv Of U3 (tain ST. , Aqy town n **oaciDi' i: t e e z zs b?o>: *W3-.5B7flq o Seconds Later. The best way to solve your check writing problems is to start with a blank sheet of paper. Introducing a family of MICR laser PCs,3X/AS400 and 3270 computers. Starting with a blank sheet of safety paper,AC0M MICR printers turn out completed checks and stubs. In seconds, wttonA'rv'fc. they print the MICR line, the name of the bank, your company's name and logo, the signature, plus any variable Information. Simultaneously write checks Because ACOM MICR printers use blank stock,you can write checks from multiple accounts at the same time. There's no need to switch stock every time you switch accounts. Greater security. All critical data, including the MICR font and signature, is contained in a font cartridge that you can easily store in a safe place, it sure beats the hassle of storing boxes of pre-printed checks. Remote check processing. You can take secure information ____ from your host, and ispagtspirmimie. download it to a u .mm'.i*,'*'. remote site to produce completed checks. It's both convenient and secure. You can use your ACOM MICR printer for other applications besides check writing.Word processing packages like DisplayWrite/36 -3 and Office 400 are fully supported. These printers handle data processing, bar ucsm codes and forms, too. 20pagrspermna(t 100,000/rao, datyQtle. Service by Dennison. Nationwide service for ACOM printers is provided by Dennison Data Systems, | a Fortune 500 company that's | been in the service business for over 50 years. I Let ACOM solve your check writing problems. Call (800) 347-3638. in California, call (213) 498-3638. ACOM #1 in page printer technology. For more data, circle no. 101 on card. 34 Journal of Property Management