&EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
EPA 747-R95-004
April 1995
Report on the National
Survey of Lead-Based
Paint in Housing
Appendix I:
Design and Methodology
-------
REPORT ON THE NATIONAL SURVEY
OF LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
Appendix I: Design and Methodology
This work was conducted under
HUD Contract Number HC-5848 and
EPA Contract Numbers 68-D2-0139, 68-D9-0174, and 68-D3-0011.
June, 1995
-------
The material in this document has been subject to Agency technical and policy review and approved for
publication as an EPA report. The views expressed by individual authors, however, are their own and
do not necessarily reflect hose of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names,
products, or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA
approval, endorsement, or recommendation.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.1.1 Prior Surveys and Their Limitations 1-1
1.1.2 Lead in Surface Dust and Soil 1-4
1.1.3 Pathways Between Paint Lead and Blood Lead 1-5
1.2 Reports Based on the National Survey 1-5
2 THE RESEARCH DESIGN FOR THE NATIONAL SURVEY 2-1
2.1 Objectives and Data Requirements 2-1
2.2 Research Design 2-1
2.2.1 Overview of the Research Design 2-2
2.2.2 Sample Design and Selection 2-4
2.2.3 Data Collection Protocols 2-5
2.2.4 Paint, Dust and Soil Samples 2-6
3 SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION 3-1
3.1 Target Population 3-1
3.2 Sample Design: Selection of Counties 3-2
3.3 Multi-stage Sample: Differences Between Private and
Public Sampling Procedures 3-5
3.4 Within - County Private Housing Sample Selection 3--S
3.5 Within - County Public Housing Sample Selection. 3-13
3.6 Sampling Within the Dwelling Unit 3-15
3.7 Dust and Soil Sampling 3-20
4 DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS 4-1
4.1 Data Requirements 4-1
4.2 Household Questionnaire 4-2
4.3 Housing Unit Inspection Protocol 4-2
4.4 Paint, Dust, and Soil Sampling Protocols 4-3
5 FIELD OPERATIONS 5-1
5.1 Objectives 5-1
5.2 Field Period 5-1
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
5.3 Private Housing Frame Development 5-1
5.3.1 Listing 5-1
5.3.2 Screening 5-2
5.4 Public Housing Frame Development 5-3
5.5 Field Data Collection 5-4
5.5.1 Telephone Interviews 5-4
5.5.2 Housing Unit Inspections 5-5
5.6 Field Technicians'Duties 5-9
5.7 Laboratory Analysis of Dust and Soil 5-10
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN 6-1
6.1 Measures to Enhance Response Rates 6-1
6.2 Quality Assurance for Questionnaire Data 6-2
6.3 Quality Assurance for Home Inspection Data 6-2
6.4 Quality Assurance for Environmental Samples 6-3
6.4.1 Quality Assurance for MAP/XRF Data 6-3
6.4.2 Quality Assurance for Dust and Soil Samples
(Field and Laboratory) 6-4
6.5 Software Quality Assurance for Data Preparation and
Analysis 6-5
6.6 Calculation of Sample Weights 6-6
7 LEAD-BASED PAINT DATABASE 7-1
List of Appendices
Appendix Page
A Soil and Dust Sampling Protocols A-l
B Survey Materials B-l
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Tables
Table Page
1-1 Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint in Housing by Year of
Construction Based Upon Prior Surveys 1-3
3-1 National Distribution of Dwelling Units Built Before 1980 3-4
3-2 Sample Design Planned for National Survey of Lead-Based
Paint in Housing 3-4
3-3 Distribution of Completed Inspections by Construction Year
and Dwelling Unit Type 3-10
3-4 Development of Private Housing Sample from Screening
Through Completed Inspection as a Percent of the Prior Stage 3-12
3-5 Distribution of Environmental Samples 3-17
5-1 Methodology for Estimating Areas of Painted Components 5-8
7-1 Sources of Data hi Analytical Data Files 7-2
7-2 Coefficients for XRF Bias Adjustments 7-9
List of Figures
3-1 Multistage Sample Design 3-6
3-2 Development of the Private Housing Sample: Yield by
Sample Stages 3-11
IV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing was conducted under the sponsorship of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide basic data for comprehensive and workable
plans for the prompt and cost-effective abatement of lead-based paint hazards in private and public
housing. The comprehensive and workable plans (CWPs) were required by the Lead-Based Paint
Poisoning Prevention Act (LPPPA), as amended by Section 566 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987.1 The CWP for private housing was issued to Congress in December, 1990?
The CWP for public housing is being prepared for future issuance.
This report is Appendix I of the Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing. It
presents a detailed description of the design and methodology of the survey, including research design,
survey sample design, data collection protocols, quality assurance, and data preparation.
1.1 Background
This section presents the background for the National Survey. It briefly describes the data available
prior to the National Survey on the estimated extent of lead-based paint hazards in the United States.
1.1.1 Prior Surveys and Their Limitations
There were four notable surveys of lead-based paint in housing that preceded the National Survey.
Three municipal surveys were conducted in the mid-1970s, and one national survey of public housing was
carried out in the 1980s.
The Washington, DC, survey, conducted in 1973 by the National Bureau of Standards (now the
National Institute of Standards and Technology JNIST]) had a sample of 233 housing units (of which 115
were inspected) representing the city of Washington.3 This survey also acted as HDD-sponsored field test
for a Pittsburgh survey conducted a year later.
The Pittsburgh survey, conducted in 1974 and 1975 by the Allegheny County (PA) Health
Department for the National Bureau of Standards under HUD sponsorship, is by far the largest study of its
type ever conducted. The survey completed inspections in approximately 3,300 housing units out of a
sample of 4,000 units that represented the entire Pittsburgh urban area.4
Amendment in Section 566 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-242).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (1990), Comprehensive and "Workable
Plan for the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing: Report to Congress.
Hall, William; and Ayers, Tyrone (1974), Survey Plans and Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies: Results of a Pre-Survey for the
Magnitude and Extent of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard in Housing (NBSIR 74-426), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards.
4
Shier, Douglas R.; and Hall, William G. (1977), Analysis of Housing Data Collected in a Lead-Based Paint Survey in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Parts I and H (NBSIR 77-1250 and 77-1293), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
1-1
-------
The Phoenix survey, conducted in 1976 by the Arizona Department of Health Services, had a
sample of 268 units and conducted inspections of 146. The sample represented a single Phoenix census
tract that was chosen because of a high number of both pre-1940 units and children under five years old.
5
The fourth survey was part of a national study of the modernization needs of public housing. It was
conducted in 1984-1985. Two hundred and sixty-two public housing units (apartments) plus associated
common areas (i.e., hallways, playgrounds) were inspected in 131 public housing projects in 34 cities. The
34 cities haH community lead-poisoning prevention programs tW provided for the inspections. The
results of the study were projected onto the national stock of public housing.
The reported percentage of housing units in the samples found to contain lead-based paint are
summarized for these four studies in Table 1-1.
Limitations of Previous Surveys
As a basis for calculating national estimates of the number of housing units with lead-based paint,
analyzing other lead hazards in housing, and estimating the cost of abatement, these prior surveys are
limited.
Sample Limitation. Because of the limited geographic coverage of most of the surveys, there is no
way of knowing the extent to which the findings are representative of housing throughout the nation.
Wide Divergence in Estimates of Homes with Lead. As reported in Table 1-1, the prior surveys'
estimates for the percentage of homes with lead varied immensely. For housing built prior to 1940, the
range was 71 to 100 percent; for homes built between 1940 and 1959, the range was 64 to 92 percent; and
for units built between 1960 and 1977, the range was 48 to 76 percent. The wide ranges of these
percentages underscore the need for a systematic national survey to generate estimates sufficiently reliable
for analysis and policy development
Differences in Estimates of Unsound Paint Conditions. The ATSDR report estimated that there
were 1,972,000 housing units with lead-based paint in an "unsound" condition. This figure provided an
indicator of the number of units in which the risk of exposure to lead from paint was greatest. It was based
on data from the 1983 American Housing Survey, which reported on peeling paint, cracked plaster, and
holes in walls. Peeling paint was the indicator selected to represent unsound condition. To calculate the
estimate, ATSDR multiplied the estimated number of units with lead-based paint in each of the three
periods of construction by a single average percentage of units with peeling paint for all housing in the
nation, regardless of year of construction. This method appears to have resulted in an underestimate. The
prevalence of peeling paint, according to the 1983 American Housing Survey, was 8.7 percent in pre-1940
housing, 4.3 percent in housing built between 1940 and 1959, and 1.8 percent in housing built between
1960 and 1979. If these percentages had been used in the ATSDR model, the estimated number of housing
units with lead-based paint and peeling paint would have been 2,574,000 instead of 1,972,000.
Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health, Bureau of Sanitation (1976), 'Lead-Based Paint: Report of
Findings to the State Legislature" (mimeo).
6
A project is a public housing development consisting of one or more buildings in the same neighborhood.
Wallace, James £. (1986), The Cost of Lead-Based Paint Abatement in Public Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1
PREVALENCE OF LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
BY YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION BASED UPON PRIOR SURVEYS
Survey
Pittsburgh
All Housing
Public Housing
Washington, DC
Phoenix
Public Housing (1)
Year of Construction
pre-1940
Percent of
units w/LBP
88%
71
100
100
81
Units in
Sample
2,525
76
63
124
99
1940-1959
Percent of
units w/LBP
74%
79
92
85
64
Units in
Sample
178
117
24
22
96
1960-1977
Percent of
units w/LBP
61%
60
76
NA
48
Units in
Sample
27
63
17
NA
52
(1) This survey, part of the Modernization Needs Study, used different year-of-construction
intervals than the other surveys. The prevalence of 81 percent is for public housing built prior
to 1950, and the prevalence of 64 percent is for the period 1950-1959.
1-3
-------
Measurement Imprecision. The portable X-ray fluorescence analyzers used in all of the surveys
were subsequently found by NIST to have been highly imprecise at the 1.0 mg/cm2 (milligram per square
centimeter) level. Paint with a loading of lead greater than this level is defined as lead-based paint under
the Federal standard.
Lack of Dust and Soil Lead Data. The prior surveys also lack some of the information needed to
analyze lead hazards in housing and estimate the cost of abatement. They provide no information on the
prevalence of lead in house dust and in exterior soil, yet these are two sources identified in the research
literature as important pathways of lead, including lead-based paint. Therefore, the studies cannot be used
to analyze the prevalence of lead in dust and soil, or the association between lead-based paint and lead in
dust and soil. The prior surveys also provide limited information on the number and dimensions of the
surfaces containing lead-based paint within housing units. Such information can be estimated, but such a
procedure increases the error in calculating the costs of abatement. Cost estimates are legislatively
required for public housing and are desirable in developing policies for private housing.
1.1.2 Lead in Surface Dust and Soil
A large number of studies published during the past two decades have indicated an association
between lead dust and childhood blood lead. Three studies established the apparent importance of lead dust
as a pathway for lead-based paint. In 1980, based on data from a study in Rochester, New York, Chamey
and colleagues concluded that, although several factors accounted for childhood lead poisoning, dust lead
and hand lead (lead that clings to fingers and hands) were strongly correlated with blood lead, and that
interior dust lead should be taken into account in attempting to reduce lead hazards in residential
environments.9
In 1983, based on a HUD-funded study in Baltimore, Chamey and colleagues analyzed whether dust
control measures, in addition to treatment of potential lead-based paint hazards, would lower blood lead
levels. The investigators concluded that their results showed "that a focused dust-control program can
reduce blood lead levels more than standard lead removal in the home."10
Bellinger and colleagues (1986) enrolled 249 metropolitan Boston children with low-to-moderate
blood lead levels at one month of age and collected data semiannually on blood lead levels, environmental
lead (water, air, dust, paint, and breast milk/formula), sociodemographic factors, home environment and
care-giving style, behavior (especially mouthing), and development. Environmental lead and mouthing
behavior were significantly associated with blood lead, but home environment/care giving, child
development, and sociodemographic characteristics were not. Although refinishing and month of sample
selection were significant, dust lead was the most important environmental variable. The investigators
concluded that "the most promising approach for achieving community-wide reductions in children's blood
lead levels is reduction of the amount of lead in the proximate environment."11
McKnight, Mary £.; Byrd, Eric W.; Roberts, Willard £.; and Lageigren, Eric S. (December 1989), Methods for Measuring Lead
Concentrations in Paint films (NISTIR 89-4209), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
9
Chamey, E.; Sayre, I.; and Coulter, M. (February 1980), 'Increased Lead Absorption in Inner City Children: Where Does the Lead Come
From?', Pediatrics, 65(2).
Chamey, E.; Kessler, B; Farfel, M.; and Jackson, D. (1983), 'Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Controlled Trial of the Effect of Dust-
Control Measures on Blood Lead Levels,' New England Journal of Medicine 309(18):1089-1093.
Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Rabinowitz, M.; Needleman, H.; and Waternaux, C. (1986), 'Correlates of Low-Level Lead Exposure in
Urban Children at 2 Years of Age,' Pediatrics 77(6):826-833.
1-4
-------
1.1.3 Pathways Between Paint Lead and Blood Lead
Bornschein and colleagues (1985)12 at the University of Cincinnati studied the relationship between
children's blood lead levels and measures of the extent of lead-based paint in dwelling units. They found
that lead in paint does not directly impact blood lead levels, but it does impact them through the pathways:
Lead-based paint hazard index > dust lead > blood lead, and
Lead-based paint hazard index > dust lead > hand lead > blood lead.
In addition, it should be noted that exterior surface scraping of dust lead derives, in part, from paint
lead. Bornschein, et al. reported a correlation of .30, with a significance at p<.001, between these two
variables. The conclusion is that, except for children with an abnormal craving to eat substances not fit for
food, or pica, dust is the major immediate source of lead for children, and that lead-based paint is a
primary contributor to dust lead.
Analysis of Effects of Housing Condition. In an early paper from the Cincinnati study, Clark and
colleagues found evidence that the condition of the paint affects the level of the hazard, because defective
paint provides chips that are more accessible for direct ingestion and can readily contaminate dust
circulating in a house.13 Mean blood lead levels for residents of housing in poor condition were
dramatically higher (approaching 35 ug/dl for children reaching 18 months of age) than those for housing
in good repair. This study suggested the importance of "unsoundness" as a marker for lead poisoning
hazard.
Isotope Ratio Analysis. Two studies have conducted isotopic analyses of lead in children's blood
and environmental lead and made inferences about the sources of the blood lead.14 Yaffe and colleagues
examined 12 children with blood lead levels above 30 ug/dl.15 The lead in their blood resembled the lead in
paint from exterior walls and the soils in adjacent areas where they played. Yaffe's data suggest that the
soil lead came from the paint lead and that the soil lead was the proximate cause of the blood lead.
1.2 Reports Based on the National Survey
Reports on the National Survey included two HUD reports to Congress, the Comprehensive and
Workable Plan (CWP) for Private Housing16 and the Comprehensive and Workable Plan (CWP) for
Bomschein, R.L; Hammond, P.D.; Dietrich, K.N.; Succop, P.A.; Krafft, ICM,; Clark, C.S.; Pearson, D,; and Que Hee, S.S. (1985),
The Cincinnati Prospective Study of Low-Level Lead Exposure and Its Effect on Child Development Protocol and Status Report,"
Environmental Research 38:4-18.
Clark, C.S.; Bornschein, ILL.; Succop, P.; Que Hee, S.S.; Hammond, P. D.; and Peace B. (1985), "Condition and Type of Housing as
an Indicator of Potential Environmental Lead Exposure and Pediatric Blood Lead Levels," Environmental Research 38:46-53.
These analyses exploited the feet that lead obtained from different sources differs in isotopic composition.
Yaffe, Yechiam; Flessel, Peter C.; Wesolowski, Jerome J.; Del Rosario, Aurora; Guirguis, Guirguis N.; Matias, Violeta; Degarmo,
Thomas E.; rniem.ii, Gordon C.; Gramlich, John W.; and Kelly, William R. (July/August 1983), "Identification of Lead Sources in
California Children Using the Stable Isotope Ratio Technique," Archives of Environmental Health 38(4):237-245.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, (1990), Comprehensive and Workable
Plan for the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing: Report to Congress.
1-5
-------
Public Housing (forthcoming), and Midwest Research Institute's report, Analysis of Soil and Dust Samples
for Lead (Pb) Final Report. These are briefly described below.
Comprehensive and Workable Plan for Private Housing
The Comprehensive and Workable Plan (CWP) for private housing contained extensive statistical
data on lead-based paint in private housing. Among other findings, it reported fh?f lead-based paint is
widespread in private housing. A large majority of the homes built before 1980 have lead-based paint.
Homes with children under age seven are just as likely to have lead-based paint as those without small
children. However, relatively few homes have conditions that pose priority hazards. The CWP included
data on the characteristics of the housing unit and the household occupying it. As found in prior studies,
lead-based paint is found more often in prewar housing units than in those built since 1940. Unlike
previous findings, though, no correlation was found between the prevalence of lead-based paint and the
income of the household.
In agreement with prior research, the survey found an association between lead-based paint and the
presence of high levels of lead in dust and soil. The chance of a home having high dust lead levels is about
twice as large if the home has high levels of interior lead-based paint than if it does not. The CWP
supports the pathway models that cite soil outside the building to be another direct source of childhood lead
exposure and an indirect source of lead dust in the home. The chance of this occurring is at least four to
five times greater if the house has exterior lead-based paint than if it does not.
The statistical findings of the National Survey are included in Appendix n of the present report.
In addition to statistical findings, the CWP presented the results of a literature search on the history
of lead-based paint use, effects of lead exposure, and prior studies of lead-based paint in housing, including
prevalence of childhood lead exposure, prevalence of lead-based paint in housing, and sources and
pathways of lead. The CWP also analyzed the cost and other issues related to testing and abating lead-
based paint, such as testing technology, industry capacity, and methods of abatement. As part of a
program review, the CWP considered representative city and state programs, private abatement activity,
and current HUD regulations.
The recommendations contained in the comprehensive plan proposed as a result of the CWP's
findings included: updating the HUD lead-based paint regulations; the provision of public information by
various means; further research on testing, abatement, and health effects of paint lead; and soil lead
abatement. Other recommendations covered: developing local programs with a training component;
providing information and exchange; and monitoring, evaluating, and reporting. The CWP also reviewed
current HUD and Health and Human Services (HHS) programs which could provide financial resources for
private housing lead-abatement programs.
The CWP for Public Housing is being developed and will be available at a later date.
Analysis of Soil and Dust Samples for Lead
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through an Ihteragency Agreement with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was given the task of providing analytical support
to HUD for the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing.
17Spurlin, Dr. S. et al., Midwest Research Institute Report: Anafysi* tfSM and Dust Svnpte for I*ad (Pb). May 1991.
1-6
-------
Midwest Research Institute (MRI), as the prime contractor to EPA's Office of Toxic Substances
(EPA/OTS), Field Studies Branch, was given the task of providing appropriate analytical protocols and
carrying out the analysis of the dust and soil samples collected by Westat as part of the National Survey.
The Midwest Research Institute also was charged with monitoring the quality of the results from the
subcontractor laboratories used to conduct the analyses. A subsequent task was added to the initial work
assignment to evaluate several systems and select a sample collection system that could be used to
sample lead in household dust. The evaluation and results of this procedure were incorporated into the field
protocol in the national survey.
The Midwest Research Institute's report, Analysis of Soil and Dust Samples for Lead (Pb),
discusses the pretest survey, the dust and soil sampling procedures, the selection of laboratories, the sample
system, and the sample analysis. It describes the quality assurance program, including quality
control results and their assessment Quality control charts from the analytical laboratories are included, as
is a discussion of the quality control results for the National Survey.
1-7
-------
2. THE RESEARCH DESIGN FOR THE NATIONAL SURVEY
2.1 Objectives and Data Requirements
The objectives of the National Survey were based on Section 302 of the Lead-Based Paint Poison
Prevention Act of 1971, as amended. The research requirements set forth in that Act were to provide:
An estimate of the amount, characteristics, and regional distribution of housing in the United
States t^at contains lead-based paint hazards at differing levels of contamination.
A comprehensive and workable plan for the cost-effective inspection and abatement of public
housing..., including an estimate of the total cost of abatement.
A comprehensive and workable plan, including any recommendations for changes in
legislation, for the prompt and cost-effective inspection and abatement of privately-owned
single family and multi-family housing, including housing assisted under Section 8 of the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937.
To attain these objectives, the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing was designed to
obtain data for estimating:
The number of dwelling units in the United States with interior and exterior lead-based paint,
by year built, type of housing, level of lead loading, and census region.
The number of multi-family (private and public) residences with lead-based paint in common
areas, by year built, level of lead loading, and census region.
The extent of surface area of lead-based paint in order to estimate national abatement costs in
public and privately owned housing.
The prevalence of paint in unsound condition.
The prevalence of lead in dust in dwelling units and in soil around the perimeter of residential
structures.
The characteristics of housing with varying levels of lead hazard and examine possible
priorities for abatement.
The information was needed to support a number of research questions. These included the analyses
of: the relationship among sources and pathways of lead in the residential environment; the characteristics
of housing with varying hazard levels; and the costs, effectiveness and benefits of alternative strategies of
reducing lead-based paint hazards. Information also was needed to identify the dimensions of each of these
issues.
2.2 Research Design
This section presents a brief overview of the research design for the National Survey. The final
research design was the culmination of a systematic process involving several rounds of planning testing,
and revision, with participation from a number of agencies, experts, and contractors.
2-1
-------
As part of this design process, HUD and EPA developed a Memo of Understanding to enable HUD
to draw upon EPA's experience and perspective in environmental health hazards. HUD and EPA brought
together the Interagency Task Force on the National Survey to enable this sharing. The Task Force
participants included scientists, statisticians, lawyers, and other professionals actively involved in lead
issues. Agencies and organisations represented in the Task Force included HUD, EPA, Centers for Disease
Control, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
After a Task Force review, HUD was asked to respond to questions and concerns raised dealing
with technical, statistical, policy, and funding matters. In each case, HUD and the survey team investigated
and developed a response to each comment or question. As a result, in many cases, accommodations and
changes were made that improved the research design.
The final design components as they were ultimately implemented are summarized in Sections 2.2.2
through 2.2.5.
2.2.1 Overview of the Research Design
The sample design was multi-tiered. It was structured to support the development of national
estimates based on inspections of 400 households. The use of cluster sampling techniques in combination
with efficient in-home procedures minimized the per-household costs and allowed for the inspection of a
sufficient number of households to form reliable national estimates. The data collection protocols and
survey methodology combined field interview activities, dwelling unit inspection, physical sample
collection, and in-field materials testing.
The major components of the research design were:
Sample design and selection.
Data collection protocols.
Survey methodology and operations.
Methods to measure lead loadings and concentrations in paint, dust, and soil samples.
Quality assurance plan.
As previously noted, the objectives of the Survey were to obtain data to produce statistically reliable
national estimates of a number of dimensions of lead-paint hazards. Thus, the research design had to
accommodate methods for collecting data from a statistically valid national sample that would support
analytical findings on the following: the number of private and public dwelling units with lead-based paint;
totals of surface area of lead-based paint; prevalence of lead in dust and soil in or around dwelling units;
paint condition; levels of lead hazard; characteristics of the household residents and structural
characteristics of dwelling units with lead-based paint; and costs of abating the lead in these units.
The survey sample design began with the stratification of housing units into privately owned and
publicly owned units. The design for private housing used a stratified random sample of 300 dwelling units
developed through multistage area probability sampling The design for public housing combined area
probability sampling with sampling from lists of public housing projects to produce a sample of 100 public
housing units. These sample sizes were affordable and provided the statistical precision needed for the
2-2
-------
national estimates required by Congress. The sampling plan stipulated the eligibility criteria for housing to
be included in the survey sample, such as cut-off for age of construction (pre-1980) and type and usage of
dwelling unit. For a complete list of criteria, refer to Section 3.3.
The methods designed to construct the sample frames and draw the sample involved a variety of
methodologies at different stages of selection, including generation of initial sampling data from 1980
Census Bureau information, field listing and screening of housing units, telephone screening of sampled
private units and public projects, and dividing the final sample into categories, or strata comprising private
single and multi-family units and public units. Each methodology was stratified into one of three dwelling-
age categories. The incorporation of age strata, or the categorization of housing stock by decades(s) of
construction (see Section 3.4) into the design was based on differences in historical patterns in the use of
lead-based paint. Age strata also were needed to analyze the associations between age of structure, paint
condition, and the condition of the substrate, which is the construction material underlying the paint. Also
analyzed were the lead loadings in dust, and lead concentration in soil. Refer to Section 5.7 for details on
dust loadings and soil lead concentration.
The sample frame was constructed by selecting a sample of 30 counties designated as the Primary
Sampling Unit that was used for both the private and public housing samples. For the private housing
sample, five census blocks were selected in each county. A census block is a block or group of adjacent
blocks in an urban area, or a Census enumeration district or group of adjacent enumeration districts in a
rural area. Using detailed maps and listing forms, field interviewers traveled to the census blocks and
developed lists of all housing units within each census block. A sample of the listed dwelling units was
selected for further in-person screening interviews to determine the units' eligibility for the survey (in terms
of their type and age) and to collect residents' names and phone numbers.
Telephone interviewers subsequently contacted residents of sampled eligible private units to
administer a questionnaire about the household members, the dwelling unit and the structure. Interviewers
also elicited inventories of rooms and scheduled on-site visits by field data collection teams.
For public housing units, however, the sample frame was constructed from HUD's national list of
public housing units. Telephone contact was made with public housing administrators to update the lists,
sample dwelling units, and collect structural data about the units.
The data collected in the field consisted of observational recording and structural measurements of
randomly selected rooms and architectural components of the unit. Further observations and measurements
covered the exterior of the structure, and common areas in multi-family structures. The design called for
the collection of environmental samples related to these areas, and a data collection system mat would
permit the tracking and tying together of all data collected for each unit. The environmental samples were
designed to measure the lead loading of sampled painted surfaces inside and outside the unit. Samples also
were needed to measure the lead loading of interior dust and concentration of exterior soil at locations in
and around the unit. Hence, the design spelled out the number and type of architectural components and
locations around the unit that should be selected for measurement, observation, and sample collection.
The design also established the data collection methodologies for obtaining the data: telephone
interviews and in-person interviews for household information and some structural data; observation and/or
measurement for the rest of the structural and architectural data; in-situ, non-destructive readings of lead
loadings on sampled paint surfaces using X-ray fluorescence devices; collecting dust samples using surface
vacuuming/canister filter techniques; and taking soil core samples from selected ground areas outside the
unit.
The survey design created the specifications for other necessary elements such as personnel
qualifications and training protocols, protocols for collecting the environmental samples, and the chain-of-
2-3
-------
custody protocols for ihe samples and associated data. The design addressed other areas of quality
assurance, such as field operations and laboratory analysis.
This research design reflects an explicit boundary of the survey. All audiences of the National
Survey results should be aware it was never the survey's objective that the testing of sampled paint surfaces
within homes be sufficient to prove or disprove whether a lead hazard existed in a specific home, or had the
potential for hazard. The data collection was designed to provide the supporting basis for national
estimates, not to determine definitively whether a particular house had lead-based paint present.
The statistical sample was specifically designed to permit the development of valid national
prevalence estimates, even with limited data on any particular dwelling Given ihe ratio of sampled surfaces
to the total number of painted surfaces in a home, it is readily conceivable that lead-based paint could be
present in a given home but not detected as part of a statistically based sampling procedure. Conversely,
the testing protocol could have produced a very high lead reading where there was, in feet, no current
hazard. That is, lead-based paint was present, but was totally enclosed.
To create extensive lead tests designed to say with certainty whether a lead hazard existed in each
unit was beyond the scope of the survey and would have substantially increased cost and effort levels. Past
experience has shown that the more burden placed on a survey's respondents, the more refusals that can
result. There is generally a direct relationship between the length and intrusiveness of a data collection
effort and the rate at which sample respondents decline to participate either beforehand or as a breakoff
during the actual collection. Consequently, the increased time and effort spent in each unit can actually
reduce the quality of the overall survey data, rather increase quality as might be expected from increased
effort.
In the remainder of this report, each of the key components and individual elements of this design is
presented in its appropriate section.
2.2.2 Sample Design and Selection
The sample design was the result of compromise between funding availability and the research
objectives. The target of 400 dwelling units was affordable and provided the statistical accuracy needed to
develop national estimates upon which government policy could be based. The sample selection followed a
multi-stage design with the following stages:
Private Housing. A six-stage design was developed for private housing that consisted of four steps
to select the housing units and two stages for selecting environmental sampling locations inside and outside
the units:
Selecting 30 counties, stratified by Census Region and climate zone.
Selecting five census blocks per sampled county as the source for a screening sample of
dwelling units.
Selecting a sample of listed dwelling units in each block for in-person screening.
Selecting a stratified random sample of approximately ten dwelling units from the screened
dwelling units of each sampled county (an average of two units per census block).
Selecting interior rooms and exterior walls from which to collect data and samples.
2-4
-------
Selecting the specific locations and types of construction materials in rooms, on walls, and
outside the unit for sample collection.
This design produced a sample of 300 privately owned units. The 300 units were apportioned
among six strata, described in full in Section 3.3. These strata were based on grouping by three
construction age categories and single/muto-family dwelling-types. Following selection of a dwelling unit,
two additional sampling stages covered within-unit (unit level) sampling for collecting observational and
measurement data, and environmental samples, for selected architectural components/locations of the unit
and surrounding area. These stages of sampling are described below in Sections 3.7 and 3.8. The interior
and exterior architectural components such as doors, molding, cabinets, radiators, etc. were grouped into
strata according to postulated similarity of function and similarity of painting history.
Public Housing. The public housing sample was drawn from these same 30 counties, but
subsequent selection procedures varied somewhat. Lists of eligible (i.e., family units built prior to 19SO)
public housing projects were developed. The list frame provided a source for a stratified random sample of
100 public housing units in the sampled counties. The 100 units were apportioned among three public
dwelling-unit age strata, described in full in Section 3.4. There was no attempt to limit PHA housing
projects to the census blocks selected for the private housing sample. However, the within-unit sampling
procedures were the same.
2.23 Data Collection Protocols
The survey design included a within-dwelling unit sampling plan so that when findings from all
dwelling units were amassed in a single database, the resulting estimates of the percentage of homes with
lead-based paint at different levels would be reliable. After the dwelling units were selected in the sample,
a telephone interview was conducted to collect basic household data and to develop a full inventory of
household rooms. For private housing, the interview was done with the resident. For public housing, the
architectural information was collected from the PHA administrative contact. The household data was
collected at a later time, during the on-site housing unit inspection.
A set of customized field data collection forms were then pre-printed for each household, reflecting
the random selection, from the completed inventory, of one wet room and one dry room for the unit. A wet
room has plumbing while a dry room does not. The forms also contained a scheme for the inspection team
to choose particular architectural components from among all the possible components in the selected
rooms, exterior wall, and common areas. This scheme was based on the previous assignment of a random
priority to each possible component for each sampling location in each dwelling unit. The dwelling-unit
inspection protocol called for the field team to verify the information on the form and do an inventory of
architectural features by component and substrate material. The in-home inspection team only had to
identify which surfaces were present and painted, and the form would tell them which of these to test
The dwelling unit inspection protocol also called for the inspection team to take measurements of the
architectural components, to be used for deriving the national estimates of total surface area of lead-based
paint. To develop the criteria for priority lead hazards, the team also recorded observational data on the
condition of the paint and the substrate material.
The design established similar protocols for the exterior of all sampled units and for adjacent
hallways and common rooms of multi-family dwellings.
The same within-unit sampling plan was employed for both private and public housing.
2-5
-------
Finally, the data collection protocols laid out systematic specifications for the number, locations, and
sample collection/field measurement of environmental samples of paint dust and soil associated with each
dwelling unit.
2.2.4 Paint, Dust and Soil Samples
The research design specified the collection of three types of environmental samples for each
dwelling unit: paint measurements, interior dust samples, and exterior soil samples. The locations where
various types of samples would be collected included:
One wet room and one dry room, both randomly selected (paint measurements and dust
samples).
One other nonrandom, standard location within the units (dust sample).
Any location within the unit for a purposive (see below for definition) paint test; one exterior
wall of the building (paint measurements).
The adjacent common hallway and main entry way for multi-family dwellings (paint
measurements and dust samples).
A randomly selected common room for multi-family dwellings (paint and dust samples).
Soil around the building.
Playground equipment (paint measurements) and playground soil.
The final location satisfies the survey's focus on the effects of lead on children. For more detail on
identifying and choosing the environmental samples, refer to Section 3.7.
Paint Samples. The design called for collecting the data on paint-lead loadings using an in-situ, non-
destructive protocol. It specifically eliminated the alternative, which entailed collecting paint scrapings
from several locations in the unit and submitting them for laboratory analysis using Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy. The chosen protocol was to take readings of paint surfaces using MAP/XRF technology.
MAP/XRPs were selected for the paint-lead data collection, since they were deemed capable of
taking readings of lead loadings on the premises, in a nondestructive manner, and with sufficient precision
and reliability for the analytical objectives of the survey. The selection of the MAP/XRF was based on
MIST studies that indicated that the 'spectrum reading" MAP/XRF results were more accurate and precise
than the previously-used "direct" reading MAP/XRF technology. Extensive pre-field, in-field, and post-
field experiments were enacted to collect additional MAP/XRF readings to help in the evaluation of the
MAP/XRF readings.
The protocol for measuring paint-lead loading with the MAP/XRF specified a single reading of 60-
second duration using a 40 millicurie cobalt source. For each component to be tested, the protocol
provided for the technician to use individual discretion in choosing a convenient and safe spot that was
accessible, there was no person on the other side of the wall, and where there was no electrical wiring or
pipes with leaded joints in the wall).
The protocol for selecting the locations to be tested used a combination of random, standard and
purposive selection of locations and of architectural components within locations. For purposes of this
report purposive selection involves the intentional selection of area most likely to have lead paint. The
2-6
-------
protocol called for the field team to identify painted surfaces and their substrate material, in order to place
them in the architectural component strata determined by the sample design.
Identification and Measurement of Painted Areas. The paint sampling protocol also required the
field team to identify, classify and measure the area of major painted components, such as walls and
ceilings. The identification/classification protocols established standard rules for dealing with classifying
and recording measurements for single components with more than one substrate (e.g., both wood and
plastic baseboards). For sampled components with multiple discrete occurrences (e.g., 3 windows), the
protocols called for the field team to classify and measure all of them, then choose which one to test at their
discretion, all other factors being the same. In order to limit the amount of time spent in the dwelling unit,
the protocol settled on a procedure to measure only the length of certain types of components (such as
baseboards) and count other types (such as doors and windows), then apply standard parameters for widths
or areas during the analysis stage.
Dust Samples. The dust collection protocol established fixed locations in the unit as a whole, in
individual sampled rooms, and in multi-family housing common areas for the collection of dust samples.
All dust samples were collected using portable vacuums. For floors, the collection technique was
vacuuming of dust from a four-square-foot floor area, using a template to define the vacuumed area. For
window sills/stools or window wells18, the protocol defined a sample as the accumulation resulting from
continuous vacuuming until "enough" dust was collected (or until all window sills/stool or all window wells
in a sampled room had been vacuumed). A cumulative area measurement of all vacuumed areas was then
recorded for the sample.
Soil Samples. The soil collection protocol established three standard locations around the building
exterior, and three more from any common play areas.
The collection technique involved using a corer to take samples from the soil. The protocol defined
a sample as a blended composite of three cores taken at twenty-inch intervals from each sample location.
The protocol also addressed the depth of the core and the amount of each core to use for the sample.
The soil collection protocol also set up rules for types of areas to avoid (such as depressions
collecting runoff from other areas) and how to handle typical urban situations where there may be a
scarcity of locations suitable for soil sampling.
The decisions for the locations for dust and soil samples were designed to correspond with the
pathway models being tested.
For all three types of environmental samples, the protocols prescribed the standardized techniques
for using the sampling equipment during the actual collection (for both accuracy and purity of sample), as
well as proper handling between samples and between visits. They delineated the guidelines for handling
and cleaning the collection devices during and between each sampling activity. For these samples,
protocols also put in place measures to prevent cross-contamination from outside the sampled unit, from
the field technicians, or from one sample to the next. The protocols addressed the handling, storage,
protection, and shipment of the collected samples. Copies of the dust and soil sampling protocols are found
in Appendix A of this document. The protocols are documented in the Field Manual.
18 The window sill is the building component forming the bottom of a window opening. The window stool is the flat, horizontal molding
fitted over the sill, on the window ulterior, between jambs. The window well is the horizontal area of the sill that comes in contact with the
bottom rail of the operating sash when closed.
2-7
-------
3. SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION
This section presents a detailed description of the sample design of the National Survey. The
survey design was based on a multi-stage, stratified random sample. Private and public housing were
sampled, using somewhat different methodologies. This section covers both.
3.1 Target Population
Private Housing Population
Except for the categories listed below, the study population consisted of all housing in the
United States constructed before 1980. Newer houses were presumed to be lead-free because, in 1978,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of lead-based paint to consumers and the use
of such paint in residences.
Certain other categories of housing were also excluded from the study:
Housing used exclusively by the elderly or handicapped, e.g., housing in which the
minimum age of residents is 50 and no children are allowed to reside.19
Housing for the elderly insured under Section 231 of the National Housing Act.
Group quarters such as nursing homes or dormitories.
Vacation homes.
Homes in Alaska and Hawaii.
Military housing.
Unoccupied housing.
Thus, along with housing constructed after 1979, these categories were all defined as out-of-
scope and thereby ineligible for the survey. All other private housing formed the population eligible
for the survey. Approximately 77 million units were in the target population.
Public Housing Population
The survey was limited to public housing owned and assisted by public housing authorities.
There are other forms of housing subsidies, notably Section 8, which were not considered eligible.
Only public housing projects were included. Single-family dwellings, such as scattered-site public
housing, were excluded. The sample frame included only housing eligible for assistance under the
Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP).
19
Housing for the elderly is exempt from the provisions of Section 302 of the Lead-Based Faint Poisoning Prevention Act.
3-1
-------
Additional exclusion criteria are as follows:
Projects that were no longer active in the public housing program.
Projects that completed construction hi 1980 or later.
Projects or units designated as elderly housing.
Projects where the proportion of elderly units is 90% or more.
All of these categories were defined as out-of-scope and therefore, ineligible for the survey. All
other public housing formed the population eligible for the survey.
The following criteria were used to define elderly housing for the purpose of the sample frame:
Units hi a project or building formally designated for elderly use under HUD procedures
for the public housing program. (The designation may have occurred at the inception of
the project or at a later date.)
Units for which elderly have preference in tenant selection as approved by HUD.
Units with less than one bedroom.
3.2 Sample Design : Selection of Counties
A sample of 30 counties was selected from the approximately 3,000 counties hi the United
States. The counties were stratified by climate and census region and selected with probability
proportional to size. The size measure was the 1980 population.
In order to optimize the Congressionally required estimates, a design stratified on dwelling unit
age and type was constructed. Privately owned dwelling units were grouped into:
Two types of housing:
Privately owned single-family houses, defined as having one to four dwelling units.
Privately owned multi-family houses, defined as having five or more dwelling
units.
Three age categories designated by construction date:
Built between 1960 and 1979.
Built between 1940 and 1959.
Built before 1940.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1 displays the national distribution of occupied privately owned housing by construction
year and housing type. The private dwelling units were allocated across the strata using statistical
optimality criteria. The basic sample design is laid out in Table 3-2.20
Public housing was grouped into three age categories of construction date:
Built between 1960 and 1979.
Bunt between 1950 and 1959.
Built before 1950.
A sampling frame is the source from which sample units are selected. Two data sources were
used to compile the county-level information for the initial sampling frame:
For private housing - Bureau of the Census tape "1980 STF3C - National Data",
containing information for each county or county-equivalent hi the contiguous United
States.
For public housing - A HUD file, where each record described a public housing project.
The number of private single family and multi-family dwelling units in each county was
obtained from the Census tape. Furthermore, the distribution of private dwelling units by year-interval
of construction (pre-1940, 1940-1959, and 1960-1979) was estimated for each county. These intervals
defined the age-strata for private housing; they permitted roughly equal distributions of the housing
population, given mat the source data were not broken down below the decade level, and the
desirability of separating pre- and post-World War n housing stock. Under the assumption of
independence of housing type and age, their joint distribution was estimated for each county and for all
counties combined. The desired sample size of 300 private dwelling units was distributed among the
six strata (two housing types multiplied by three age intervals) proportional to the national experience,
with a slight oversampling of multi-family units.
Public housing information on the HUD file was summarized in the following manner. The
number of non-elderly dwelling units by year-interval of construction completion (pre-1950, 1950-
1959, and 1960-1979) was tabulated for each county and for all counties. These intervals are the three
strata for public housing. Note that the two older age strata for public housing used 1950 as the
dividing boundary, while the same strata for private housing used 1940. This was done because almost
no public housing was constructed prior to 1940. For the cumulative data, the approximately four
percent of the dwelling units with missing date of construction were distributed proportionally over the
three intervals. The sample size of 100 public housing units (plus 10 more for attrition) was then
distributed over the three intervals proportional to the national experience. Using these data, the
sampling rate was constructed for the three public housing domains.
It was estimated that this design would result in estimates of percentages having confidence intervals no wider than ±. 7 percent for private
single-family housing and no wider than +. 12 percent for private multi-family housing.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF
DWELLING UNITS BUILT BEFORE 1980
Number of Pre-1980 Dwelling Units (000)
Type
Privately Owned- Occupied
Single Family
Muttifamfly
Sub-Total
All Public, Family Units
Total
Construction Year
1960-1979
29,137
6,548
35,685
1960-1979
182
35,867
1940-1959
18,782
1,690
20,472
1950-1959
278
20,750
pre-1940
18,499
2,521
21,020
pre-1950
346
21^66
Total
66,418
10,759
77,177
Total
807
77,984
Source: 1987 American Housing Survey.
TABLE 3-2
SAMPLE DESIGN PLANNED FOR
NATIONAL SURVEY OF LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
Surrey Design
Type
Privately Owned- Occupied
Single Family
MuWfflmily
Sub-Total
AH Public, Family Units
Total
Construction Year
1960-1979
104
34
138
1960-1979
49
187
1940-1959
63
21
84
1950-1959
21
105
pre-1940
59
19
78
pre-1950
30
108
Total
226
74
300
Total
100
400
3-4
-------
A dichotomous climate severity variable was created for each state based on the classification
system of the American Housing Survey (Hadden and Leger, 1988)21 anticipating that maintenance of a
structure including painting would differ by climate severity. Those states with a mild climate rating
by Census geographic region are:
Northeast:
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
North Central:
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio
South:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas
West:
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon
The remaining states had a severe climate rating.
When the two county-level files (one containing information on private housing and the other on
public housing) were merged, an indicator of public housing availability was created to differentiate
those counties with a Public Housing Authority from those without one. A composite size measure
mat reflected numbers of units in each of the nine strata of interest (three dwelling ages multiplied by
three dwelling types) was also constructed at this point. The resulting file was then sorted by several
characteristics: public housing indicator, Census region, climate rating, State, and size measure.
Thirty counties were then selected via a probability minimum replacement (PMR) selection scheme
(Chromy 1979, Williams and Chromy 1980).22
3.3 Multi-stage Sample: Differences Between Private and Public Sampling Procedures
To carry out the sample design, a multi-stage area probability sample was drawn according to
the stages outlined below. The first four stages pertain to the selection of dwelling units and the last
two pertain to selecting locations and architectural components within each unit. Certain aspects of the
initial frame development and operational sampling procedures were different for the private and public
strata of the sample. Where differences occurred, the comparable stages for private and public
sampling are presented in parallel columns. Figure 3-1 is a summary display of the multi-stage
outline. The details of each stage follow.
21Hadden, L. and M. Leger (1988). Codebook for die Annual Housing Survey Database. Project Report by Abt Associates under HUD
Contract No. HC-5740.
22Chromy, JJH. (1979). "Sequential Sample Selection Methods," Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Williams, R. and J.
R. Chromy (1980). "SAS Sample Selection Macros," Presented at 1980 SAS Users Group Annual Conference, San Antonio.
3-5
-------
FIGURE 3-1 MULTISTAGE SAMPLE DESIGN
Select Counties
Private
Public
Select Census Blocks
Extract and Update
Frame of Projects
List Housing Units
Select Projects for
Sample
Select and
Screen Housing Units
Select Housing Units
Select Units and
Conduct Telephone
Interviews with
Occupants
Telephone Interview
with Project Managers
Inspect Housing Unit for
LBP, Select Rooms and
Components
3-6
-------
Stage_1. A stratified sample of 30 counties was selected with probability proportional to
size as described in Section 3.2.
PRIVATE HOUSING SAMPLE
Stage 2. Within each sampled comity,
five census blocks were selected. Lists
were developed of every housing unit
within each census block.
PUBLIC HOUSING SAMPLE
Stages 2/3. Within each
sampled county, lists of Public
Housing Authority (PHA)
housing projects, and numbers
and types of units in projects,
were developed from lists
supplied by HUD.
Stage 3. A sample of the listed dwelling
units was selected for in-person
screening visits to determine the type
and age of the units, to establish
eligibility for the Survey. An average
of 20 units were screened per census block.
Stage 4. From the approximately 11
eligible units in each sample census block,
two (plus backups) were randomly selected
inclusion, resulting in a total target sample
of 300 households.
Telephone interviews were conducted
with residents of the sampled units
to collect preliminary information
needed to plans and carry out the
within-unit subsampling in stage 5
Stage 4. From the final
corrected list frame, a stratified
random sample of 110 projects
was drawn, and one unit was
drawn within each project. 110
units were chosen to yield the
desired sample size of 100,
after expected attrition for out-
of-scope, refusals, etc.
Telephone interviews were
conducted with project
administrators of the sampled
units to collect preliminary
information for subsampling
within units.
Stage 5. Two rooms were selected at random for testing in each sampled dwelling
unit. One was a random selection from among the dry rooms and the other from
among the wet rooms.
One exterior wall of the dwelling unit was similarly selected, inventoried for
architectural components, and assessed; several components from within these
groups were selected at random for paint testing.
Stage 6. All components (architectural features) in the wet and dry rooms and on
the exterior wall were inventoried, grouped into one of four component categories,
and assessed for paint history. A random sample of one or two surfaces from each
of the four groups was selected for paint lead testing.
3-7
-------
Dust sampling was done in three rooms/locations within the unit, and in two common-entry
locations where applicable. Soil sampling was done in three locations outside the building. Paint and
dust sampling were done using the same sampling rules in one randomly selected common area of
multifamily dwellings. Purposive paint and soil samples were taken from any common playground
area.
This multi-stage design was chosen over other approaches because it efficiently and
economically satisfied major operational requirements of the study. The objectives and design of the
study required in-person visits to the sampled dwelling units. The clustering of homes allowed those
visits to be conducted much more economically. Also, a survey sample requires a sampling frame,
i.e., a list of all dwelling units eligible for the survey. For private housing, no such list exists
nationally, or even hi many localities. In light of time and cost constraints, the required number of
lists was minimized by using the multi-stage area probability sample for the private housing. A
geographic grouping of the sampled homes was deemed to be operationally efficient and statistically
acceptable. Also, tying the development of the public housing list frame to the same counties as used
for the private housing extended the efficiency of the clustering of the whole survey operation. The
following sections provide the details and rationale for the design.
It should be noted that the cost of efficiencies of clustering come with a price. Because homes
hi the same neighborhood tend to be more alike than homes hi different neighborhoods, the precision
of estimates calculated from a clustered sample is less than the precision from a single random sample.
As a rule, clustering is used when the expected cost savings outweighs the expected precision loss. It
was anticipated that this clustered design of 400 homes would result in sampling errors of two to six
percentage points for estimates of percentages.
3.4 Within - County Private Housing Sample Selection
Census Block Sampling
With each of the 30 sampled counties, five census blocks were selected using systematic random
selection. To ensure that the full spectrum of income levels would be represented hi the sample, a
measure of wealth was computed for each census block. The measure of wealth was created from a
weighted average of the value of owner-occupied housing and the rent of renter-occupied housing. The
blocks were sorted by this wealth measure and every nth block was selected, where n was chosen to be
one-fifth of the number of blocks hi the county. Thus, one census block was selected from the poorest
fifth of the census blocks hi the county, one census block was selected from the second poorest fifth,
and so on, up to the richest fifth.
Developing the Private Sample Frame
Field interviewers were sent to each of the 150 census blocks hi the 30 counties to list every
dwelling unit hi the census block. This process created a frame for the sampling of dwelling units.
The interviewers listed 27,833 dwelling units, an average of 186 per census block ranging from 0 to
2,467 housing units.
Selecting the Screening Sample
Samples of dwelling units were selected from the lists using systematic random sampling
procedures. Every /rth dwelling unit in the list was selected where n was chosen to result hi a fixed
sample size for the census block. At this stage, approximately 3,000 units, or ten times the desired
3-8
-------
final sample size of 300 was selected, to allow for attrition due to out-of-scope units, refusals to
participate, and other losses.
Screening of Dwelling Units Sampled from Segment Lists
The sampled dwelling units were visited by a field interviewer, who conducted a brief screening
interview with an adult occupant. The objective of the screening interview was to determine if the
dwelling unit was eligible for the survey and, if so, to which of the six age/type strata it belonged.
Screening was attempted on 2,978 dwelling units, an average of 20 per census block. Fifty-four
percent of these dwelling units were determined to be eligible for the survey.
Sampling of Eligible Units
A sample of dwelling units was randomly selected from the eligible homes according to the
survey design in a manner that maintained the sample design structure (in terms of housing type and
construction date) and ensured that all eligible census blocks were represented in the sample. To allow
for attrition (refusals, unable to contact, etc.), the initial sample size was inflated by about 50 percent,
to 447 units. For 403 of these units, a reserve or backup unit was selected from the same county and
design stratum. The backup was telephoned only if the primary unit failed to yield an appointment for
an inspection visit, or canceled after making the appointment.
Telephone Interviews with Sampled Screened Units
Household interviews were conducted by telephone with the sampled homes (and backups when
necessary) to collect detailed information about the dwelling unit and the rooms in the dwelling unit to
be used for within-unit sampling. Additional data concerning the occupants (i.e., occupation, hobbies,
age, income) were collected. Appointments were made to visit the dwelling unit. Ultimately, 607
units were contacted by telephone. Appointments were made with 55 percent of the dwelling units for
a total of 332 appointments.
Private Housing Unit Sample Substitution Plan
In-field substitution of dwelling units was not allowed in the private housing design. In cases
where a respondent was unable or refused to keep an appointment, the field interviewer reported this
immediately to the field manager The backup sample for the dwelling unit in question was then
contacted by the telephone staff to conduct the Household Interview and schedule an appointment for
the inspection team while they were still hi the county.
Final Sample Size
Inspection visits were completed in 284 private dwelling units, 86 percent of the 332
appointments. Table 3-3 displays the distribution of the completed inspections across the six design
strata. Figure 3-2 displays the development of the private housing sample and includes a yield by
sample stages. Table 3-4 displays the development of the sample from screening through completed
inspection as a percent of units at the prior stage.
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-3
DISTRIBUTION OF COMPLETED INSPECTIONS
BY CONSTRUCTION YEAR AND DWELLING UNIT TYPE
Completed Inspection Visits
Type
Privately Owned- Occupied
Single Famfly
Mnltifamfly
Sub-Total
AD Public, Famfly Units
Total
Construction Year
1960-1979
94
26
120
1960-1979
30
150
1940-1959
72
15
87
1950-1959
24
111
pre-1940
61
16
77
pre-1950
43
120
Total
227
57
284
Total
97
381
3-10
-------
FIGURE 3-2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIVATE HOUSING SAMPLE:
YIELD BY SAMPLE STAGES
Sample 30 Counties
Sample 150 Census
Blocks per County
List AU Dweffing Units (DUs)
in Sampled Census Blocks:
27,833 DUs Listed
186 DUs/Census Block, average
Select Sample for Screening
2,978 DUs Screened
20 DUs/Census Block, average
Completed and Passed
1,622 DUs
54% of Screeners
Select Sample for
Telephone Interviews:
447 DUs in Primary Sample
403 DUs in Reserve
Telephone Calls Made to
607 DUs
(All primaries phis 160 reserves)
Appointment Made to Visit
332 DUs
55% of DUs Called
Never at Home
666 DUs
22%
Refused
222 DUs
7%
Not Eligible
201 DUs
7%
Vacant
75 DUs
3%
Other
192 DUs
6%
Never Answered Phone
67 DUs
11 %
Refused
115 DUs
19%
Other
93 DUs
15 %
Tnspfrfion Completed
284 DUs
86% of Appts.
Refused
30 DUs
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-4
DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE HOUSING SAMPLE
FROM SCREENING THROUGH COMPLETED INSPECTION
AS A PERCENT OF THE PRIOR STAGE
a. Passed Screener -Pet of Population
Type
Single Family
Miiljifamily
All
Construction Year
1960-1979
1.5%
2.0%
1.6%
1940-1959
2.6%
33%
2.6%
nre-1940
2.4%
3.3%
2.5%
An
2.0%
2.5%
2.1%
b. Primary Phone Sample -Pet of Passed Screener
Type
Single Family
Multifamily
All
Construction Year
1960-1979
36%
35%
36%
1940-1959
20%
56%
23%
pre-1940
21%
34%
23%
All
25%
39%
28%
c. Total Phone Sample -Pet of Passed Screener
Type
Single Family
Multifamily
An
Construction Year
1960-1979
46%
44%
46%
1940-1959
31%
71%
35%
pre-1940
28%
49%
31%
All
35%
51%
37%
d. Appointments - Pet of Total Phone Sample
Type
Single Famfly
Multifamily
All
Construction Year
1960-1979
56%
59%
57%
1940-1959
54%
41%
51%
pre-1940
59%
45%
55%
All
56%
50%
55%
e. Completed Inspections- Pet of Appointments
Type
Single Family
MllmfiHTmy
Total
Construction Year
1960-1979
84%
74%
82%
1940-1959
90%
94%
91%
pre-1940
86%
89%
87%
All
86%
83%
86%
3-12
-------
3.5 Within - County Public Housing Sample Selection
The selection process for public housing units followed a different path than that for private
housing. The public housing plan was designed to utilize existing records (HUD's computerized
listing of PHA properties) and resources (HUD regional and PHA staff). It is generally more efficient
to create a sample frame from existing records and lists than to develop a frame by collecting new data,
as in the case of the private housing sample. The availability, accuracy and comprehensiveness of
existing list sources are factors in deciding whether to use existing lists as the starting point for the
sample frame.
Public Housing Frame Development
The frame for the public housing sample was developed from a data file, provided by HUD, that
contained information on each public housing project in the nation. The file contained 10,140 records
of projects with a total of 933,573 family units. Of these, 7,483 projects, with 796,656 family units,
were reported to have been built before 1980.
All records on the file that described public housing projects in any of the 30 sampled counties
were extracted. The extract included presumably out-of-scope projects, such as projects reported to
have been built after 1979, or to have no family units. There were 793 records of projects, with
186,210 family units, on the extract.
To ensure that the frame data was as current and accurate as possible, all PHAs hi the 30
counties were contacted to verify and update the following data for each project hi the extract:
existence, name, location, construction date, and number of family units. The verification effort also
sought to identify any in-scope projects hi the PHAs' inventory that were not on the extract from
HUD's records. If so, these projects were added to the frame. Projects were in-scope if they were
built before 1980 and had one or more family units.
After adding newly identified projects and eliminating out-of-scope or non-existent projects and
units, the final sampling frame had 636 records of projects containing 205,565 family units. Three of
the 30 counties had no in-scope public housing units. An additional eight counties each had less man
500 in-scope units. The three largest counties accounted for 111,363 in-scope units.
Sampling of Projects and Dwelling Units from Lists
After the PHA housing inventory list was verified and corrected, it was divided into the three
age strata. Each stratum was sorted by county. The public housing sample was designed to be equally
probable within age strata. That is, all units hi the same age stratum had the same probability of
selection, although units in different age strata had different selection probabilities. In order to sample
public housing family units with equal probability within age strata, projects were sampled with
probability proportional to their sizes. The measure of size was the number of family units in the
project. Units within projects were then sampled with equal probability. One dwelling unit within
each sampled project was randomly selected for inclusion hi the study. Because of past practices hi
public housing projects, painting history is likely to be very similar for all units at the same public
housing project location. Thus, the sampling plan specified that no more than one unit from a specific
project could be selected as a primary sample.
To allow for attrition, 110 projects were selected, with the goal of achieving the target sample
size of 100. During the course of the field work, it was discovered that eight projects that had
previously been reported as in-scope, and had been selected into the sample, were in fact out-of-scope.
3-13
-------
The reasons included: the project didn't exist, a project was listed twice under different names, and
there were no pre-1980 family units hi the project. These eight projects were in four different counties
and contained 2,519 units.
Telephone Interviews with PHAs to Sample Units from Selected Projects
Thus, after selection of the 110 projects, the next sampling stage randomly selected one unit
from each project, as follows. A telephone representative contacted each PHA with a sampled project
and determined how units within the project were numbered or listed. The interviewer used whatever
listing was available or convenient for establishing a clear sequence of all units in the project as a
serial list numbered 1 through N, where N was the total number of units in the project. (For instance,
if the units were numbered 1-A through 1-F, 2-A through 2-F, etc., 1-A might become unit number 1,
1-B unit number 2, ... 1-F unit number 6, 2-A unit number 7, etc.) The telephone representative
guided the PHA representative in assigning the serial numbers and counting through the list to the
randomly selected dwelling unit. (For the previous example, if random number 9 were assigned for
the sampled unit hi that project, counting to the 9th unit would identify 2-C as the sampled unit.) This
dwelling unit became the sampled unit for that project.
Public Housing Unit Sample Substitution Plan
Frequently no one from the survey team or the PHA spoke directly with the unit resident prior
to the visit. Substitutions for sampled units were occasionally necessary due to the unsuitability of the
unit (e.g., the unit was under renovation, the building was inaccessible due to construction). An on-
site substitution plan was established which allowed a visit to a substitute unit which was in the same
building and had a similar floor plan and paint history. The field staff followed five sampling
substitution rules:
If the sampled public housing unit was not available, select the unit immediately above
the sampled unit.
If mere was no such unit or it was unavailable for any reason, select the unit immediately
below the sampled unit.
If there was no such unit or it was unavailable for any reason, select the unit to the right
of the sampled unit.
If there was no such unit or it was unavailable for any reason, select the unit to the left of
the sampled unit.
If all these options were exhausted, the PHA should designate a unit that could be entered
for inspection.
final Sample Size
In addition to the eight projects discovered to be out-of-scope, there was one refusal and four
cases of canceled or incomplete inspection visits. The final public housing sample thus consisted of 97
completed inspection visits completed out of 110 initially sampled units.
3-14
-------
3.6 Sampling Within the Dwelling Unit
The within-unit sampling plan was an integral part of the multi-stage design. As mentioned in
Section 2.2.1, the research design specifically adopted a sampling approach that was meant to yield
national estimates, not to perform extensive lead testing of specific units. This design resulted in part
from resource limitations and from the need to minimize respondent burden during the unit inspection.
These considerations led to the within-unit sampling plan described in this section. This plan
employed a stratified approach of random, fixed, and purposive selection of rooms, locations,
architectural features in and around the unit which would be the target of environmental samples and
measurements. This design met the goals of controlling the number of observations per unit,
producing data for national estimates, and permitting a link to current understanding of the typical
applications of lead-based paint in the home and pathway models for the dispersion of lead between the
home and die environment.
The sample design called for the same within-unit sampling procedures to be used for both
private and public housing. The within-unit procedures cover all sampling that took place at the unit
level. The final design of random, fixed, and purposive selections for locations, architectural
components, and types of environmental samples/measurements can be described in terms of the
following stages and categories.
Rooms/Locations
In the first stage of within-unit sampling, rooms or other locations were selected as follows.
Room or Location Environmental Sample
Interior of unit: 1 wet room and 1 dry room (paint and dust)
Interior of unit: main entry way (dust)
Exterior of building: 1 wall (paint)
1 common area room* (paint and dust)
Outside unit/inside building:
Common hallway adjacent to unit* (paint and dust)
Common hallway inside main entrance to building* (paint and dust)
Outside building:
Surrounding ground (soil)
Play area* (paint and soil)
* If present (multi-family only)
From among all rooms in a household, one wet room and one dry room were selected at random
based on information obtained in the telephone household interview. Previous studies indicated that
rooms with plumbing fixtures (e.g., bathrooms, kitchens) had a higher likelihood of having lead-based
paint In terms of the number of rooms and the square footage of paint therein, though, wet rooms
were outnumbered by dry rooms. The stratification by wet and dry helped ensure adequate coverage
of both types of rooms.
3-15
-------
Architectural Components
At the next stage of within-unit sampling, all possible painted surfaces were categorized into
four strata of architectural components. This stage applied to sampled rooms (wet, dry, and common)
and to the sampled exterior wall, and was used exclusively for collecting paint-related data. It
employed the following pre-determined list of:
Room Component Strata:
Walls, ceiling, and floor.
Components made of metal substrates (e.g., metal molding, window frames, door frames,
radiators).
Components made of nonmetal substrates (e.g., wood door and window systems, wood
molding).
Other (e.g., built-in shelves, cabinets, fireplace, etc.).
Exterior Wall Component Strata:
Wall.
Components made of metal substrates (e.g., metal trim, window frames, door frames,
railings, columns).
Components made of nonmetal substrates (e.g., wood trim, window frames, door frames,
railings, columns).
Other (e.g., porch, stairs, etc.).
For the components in strata 2 and 3, the critical distinction was the substrate. For rooms, all
components in the room were part of the sample frame. For the exterior wall, only the components
attached to that one wall were part of the sample frame.
One painted component was selected from each of the four strata, with a fifth randomly selected
from among all four strata. (After random selection of one exterior wall, the wall itself was a unique
stratum, with a certain selection as a sampled component.)
These strata were constructed to help ensure a representation of the occurrence of lead-based
paint on these different, common building materials. Each of the substrate materials was anticipated to
have a potentially different frequency of usage for lead-based paint, and different characteristics of
usage. The four strata were designed to group components likely to have similar painting histories.
This approach met the design goal of ensuring equal representation of the four strata. The
stratification of painted surfaces into these four component groups helped ensure adequate coverage for
each type of substrate material, with minimal MAP/XRF tests.
3-16
-------
Environmental Sample Selection
The combination of the room/location sampling and the architectural component sampling
determined the final selection and distribution of environmental samples collected and physical
measurements taken. The distribution of the samples is presented in Table 3-5.
TABLE 3-5
DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES
Unit Interior
Wet Room
Dry Room
Entry Way
Purposive, Anywhere hi Unit
Building Common Areas*
Common Hallway
Common Main Entrance
Common Room/Area
Building Exterior
Wall
Purposive, Anywhere on Wall
Outside Surrounding Area
Entry Way
Drip Line
Remote Location
Play Equipment*
Play Area
Paint Dust
5 3
5 3
1
1-2
1 1
1 1
5 3
5
1-2
1-8
Soil
1
1
1
3
: If present; for multi-family only
3-17
-------
The following outline presents brief descriptions of the types of selection criteria for these
samples:
1. Random sampling
10 paint samples: 2 rooms sampled. For each room
Subsampling of 1 architectural component from each of the 4 groups of
ulterior components per room, plus a 5th selection: 1 component randomly
selected from 1 of the four groups.
Measurements and counts of all painted components in each room.
5 paint samples: 1 exterior wall sampled. For the wall:
Wall selected as 1 component; subsampling of 1 architectural component
from each of the other 3 groups of exterior components, plus a 5th
selection: 1 component randomly selected from 1 of the four groups.
Measurements and counts of all painted components on the wall.
5 paint samples: 1 common room sampled, if present (multi-family housing only).
For the room:
Subsampling of 1 architectural component from each of the 4 groups of
interior components, plus a 5th selection: 1 component randomly selected
from 1 of the four groups.
Measurements and counts of all painted components in each room.
2. Standard location sampling
2 paint samples: wall outside unit in common hallway and wall inside common
front door of building (multi-family housing only).
1 paint sample for each type of outside play equipment, if present (multi-family
housing only). Up to 8 samples taken.
1 dust sample inside unit entry way.
2 dust samples: outside unit in common hallway and inside common front door of
building (multi-family housing only).
1 soil sample outside front entry way of building and 1 soil sample at remote
location.
3 soil samples in play area, if present (multi-family housing only).
3-18
-------
3. Fixed locations within randomly selected areas
6 dust samples: 3 dust samples (floor, window sills, and window wells) within
each of the 2 randomly sampled rooms.
3 dust samples (floor, window sills, window wells) within sampled common room,
if present (multi-family housing only).
1 soil sample from drip line, or collection point for run-off from a painted exterior
wall of randomly sampled exterior wall.
4. Purposive (field technician to search for surfaces most likely to have lead based paint)
Up to 2 paint samples of any components anywhere in unit.
Up to 2 paint samples of any components anywhere on exterior of building.
Sampling Procedures
In order to minimize delays and complexities in the field operations, the actual sampling of the
wet and dry room and the sampling of five components (within the four component strata) was
conducted prior to the site visit based on the room inventory obtained during the telephone Household
Interview. The random sampling of the exterior wall and of its components and the assignment of the
random priority to potential common rooms their components also was prepared ahead of time.
The wet/dry room selection was a simple random pick based on numbers drawn from a random
numbers table. The sampling of components within strata was more complex. The forms used to
collect data in the field listed all possible architectural components within a stratum. For each housing
unit the following sampling approach was used. Based on a random sampling algorithm, each
component within each component stratum was assigned a random rank order ranging from 1 through
n (n = the number of component types in the stratum). The field data collection forms for each unit
were then individually produced with this randomly selected rank ordering of components within
strata. The field staff used each unit's custom form to determine the component that had been ranked
as "1" in its stratum. If that (e.g., ceiling) was painted and accessible, it was tested. If the component
was not present, was unpainted, or was inaccessible, the form specified what other component should
be substituted (the component numbered "2"). Every component was assigned a number specifying its
rank in the substitution order.
The same approach was used for component sampling on the exterior wall and for common
room sampling hi multi-family housing.
Because random techniques were used to sample painted surfaces, there was concern that some
lead-based paint hi the home might go undetected. In order to minimize the probability of missing
lead-based paint hi a home, technicians were instructed to look for and test painted surfaces in the
dwelling unit deemed likely to contain lead. The technicians' selections were based on then*
knowledge of past painting practices and experience with testing paint for lead. If the first test failed
to find lead, a second selected surface was tested. Due to practical constraints, the technicians
sometimes were limited to searching for lead-based paint in areas of the dwelling unit entered during
the course of the inspection and did not wander throughout the dwelling unit looking for lead-based
paint. A similar set of one or two purposive samples was taken for the exterior wall.
3-19
-------
3.7 Dust and Soil Sampling
Dust and soil sampling were conducted at pre-established locations that paralleled key points in
several lead dust pathway models. These locations, the rationales for dust and soil sampling, and the
number of samples were as follows:
Dust samples:
Floor of wet room (1) and dry room (1).
The floor is a collection sink for dust; children come into direct contact with it when
crawling or playing.
Window sills/stools of wet room (1) and dry room (1).
Window wells of wet room (1) and dry room (1).
The windows are boundaries between the ulterior of the unit and exterior sources of
environmental lead; the wells are collection sinks for dust; the abrasion of
opening/closing windows causes paint dust to collect on horizontal window components.
Inside most frequently used entry to dwelling unit (1).
Outside unit in common hallway (1) and inside common front door of building (1) for
multi-family housing only.
Entry ways and common heavy traffic areas are more likely to collect deposits of soil
tracked in from outside the building.
Common room floor (1), window sills/stools (1), and window well (1) for multi-family
housing only.
Soil samples:
Near front entry way to structure (1).
The entry way is a proximate source of exterior soil lead that could be tracked into the
interior.
At drip line of sampled exterior wall for building roof (1).
Remote location halfway between dwelling unit and property line (1).
The remote location provided data on the background contribution of environmental
sources of lead not associated with the unit or building itself.
Play area if present (3) for multi-family housing only.
Play areas are likely sources of exposure for children.
3-20
-------
4. DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS
4.1 Data Requirements
The information collected was needed to support a number of research questions, as discussed in
Section 2. Information covered the percent of housing with lead-based paint hazards and analyses of: the
characteristics of housing with varying hazard levels; costs, the effectiveness and benefits of alternative
strategies of reducing lead-based paint hazards; and the relationship among sources and pathways of lead in
the residential environment. Information also covered identification of the dimensions of each of these
issues.
In order to obtain data that would support these analyses and the more detailed questions described
in Section 2.1, the project team developed the following list of required data items for each household in the
survey. The following list covers the data collected by the main survey (after constructing the sample
frame):
1. Information about all household members, including demographic data (age, sex, race),
income, and occupation and personal activities linked to lead exposure;
2. Financial information about the dwelling unit (market value or monthly rent, ownership
status);
3. Structural information about the unit (age, HVAC systems, number and types of rooms);
4. Identification and measurements of interior and exterior painted surfaces, by architectural
component;
5. Identifications of substrate materials of painted surfaces;
6. Identification of condition of paint and substrates;
7. Identification of exterior structural condition;
8. Measurements of lead loadings in paint;
9. Measurements of lead loadings in interior surface dust;
10. Measurements of lead concentration in exterior soil; and
11. Determination of other potential proximate sources of lead from multi-family housing
common rooms, passageways, and play areas.
In order to collect this data at the level of detail required by the sampling and analysis plans, three
primary data collection methods were created: a household questionnaire, a dwelling unit inspection, and a
battery of paint, dust, and soil samples.
4-1
-------
4.2 Household Questionnaire
Data items 1,2, and 3 were collected by a telephone interview with an adult resident of the sampled
dwelling unit The data collection instrument entitled the "Household Questionnaire" accomplished the
following:
Collected information on the construction age of the unit by decade;
Identified public housing units (scattered site projects) that entered the private housing
sample;
Collected information on household demographics, jobs and hobbies related to lead (e.g., oil
refinery work or furniture stripping) and income in broad ranges; and
Performed a comprehensive room inventory that described each room and determined if the
room had plumbing and if any renovations had recently been performed.
This method was used for the private housing sample. (A copy of the questionnaire is included in
Appendix B of this document). A variation on this method was used for the public housing sample. The
structural and room inventory data were collected in a telephone interview and conducted with a
representative of the cognizant Public Housing Authority. However, the information about the household
residents was collected in the field using an in-person interview that took place at the time of the housing
unit inspection.
4.3 Housing Unit Inspection Protocol
The remaining data items (4 through 11) required in-person visits to the sampled housing units. The
field protocol was divided into two major types of data collection that were performed during a single visit
to each sampled dwelling unit. The first was a Housing Unit Inspection, which consisted of the
observation, inventory, measurement, and recording of data about sampled rooms, architectural
components, construction materials, and condition of painted surfaces inside the unit, on the exterior of the
building, and in common areas of multi-family housing. The second type was the collection of
environmental samples.
To minimize the length of the visit, and to assign tasks to field personnel with appropriate skills,
inspection visits were conducted by two-person field teams. Each team consisted of one field interviewer to
administer questionnaires, fill out observational data forms, and administer sampling and operations
records. A second field technician conducted the collection of physical samples and readings.
The Housing Unit Inspection required the interviewer to conduct the following data collection tasks:
Obtain the resident's consent to the inspection, using an informed consent and waiver form
(Appendix B),
Administer a brief questionnaire to confirm several of the questions from the telephone
interview;
Complete a battery of interior and exterior observation and inventory forms which fulfilled
several data collection functions:
4-2
-------
Explicitly identify or guide the interviewer in identifying sampled rooms and
architectural components;
Create an inventory of painted components;
Record measurements and counts of inventoried components;
Identify each component's substrate material;
Record the condition of the paint and the substrate; and
Serve as the data collection form for the MAP/XRF readings of sampled painted
components, taken according to the Paint Sampling Protocol.
Assist the field technician by identifying sample locations and maintaining the logs and
administrative records pertaining to paint, dust, and soil sampling.
4.4 Faint, Dust, and Soil Sampling Protocols
The paint sampling protocol employed on-site readings of lead loading using a MAP/XRF device.
Dust and soil protocols involved collection of physical samples and their transmittal to a laboratory for
analysis of lead content.
Paint Sampling
Components were selected for testing, as described in Section 3.6.
The lead-based paint testing was accomplished by using the MAP-3 portable spectrum analyzer
device manufactured by Scitec, Inc. that estimated the lead content of the paint.23 The MAP/XRF was
equipped with a 40-miUicurie Cos? source, a scanner, a display console, and carrying case. The protocol
called for the technician to place the MAP/XRF's scanner against the sampled component, hold it stationary
and flat against the surface throughout a 60-second reading, then record the reading from the MAP/XRF's
console.
The paint sampling protocol also specified procedures for assuring accuracy of readings, or
permitting post facto adjustments for instrument variability. These included the one-minute stationary
reading of each paint sample; the use of a full intensity radiation source; the recording of standard ^ead'ngs
before and after the field period as well as at the beginning and end of each day, guidelines on the regular
replacement of the battery power source; and shipping and storage guidelines to protect the instrument.
Selection of MAP/XRF Equipment
There were two primary rationales for choosing the MAP/XRF to test for lead in paint. The
spectrum analyzer MAP/XRFs were used in preference over the direct reading XRF because the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) determined that they were more accurate and more precise
^Consideration was given to scraping samples of paint for laboratory analysis. Laboratory analysis is more precise and accurate than in situ XRF.
However, it requires damaging painted surfaces in peoples' homes, ft was felt that the gain in measurement precision and accuracy would be more
than oflset by effects of a very large refusal rate.
4-3
-------
than the direct-reading XRFs used in earlier surveys.24.25 The spectrum analyzer XRF was used in
preference to taking paint scraping samples because the survey was conducted in occupied dwellings where
it was not feasible to take scrapings for laboratory analysis.
Dust Sampling
The dust sampling protocol involved the collection of an array of samples, described in Sections 3.6
and 3.7, at locations inside and outside the unit.
The dust collection protocol employed a portable vacuum pump fitted with a length of Tygon tubing,
a 37-mm mixed cellulose ester membrane filter cassette (0.8 um pore size) connected to the other end of the
tubing, and an angle-cut Teflon collection nozzle inserted over the filter cassette. For samples of floor dust,
the protocol specified laying down a template that outlined an area of one square foot. The technician
vacuumed the area in overlapping passes, first left to right over the entire area and then top and bottom.
Care was taken to hold the nozzle level to the surface and to move the nozzle at a steady rate. Next, the
template was moved over one foot and the process repeated until four square feet were HEPA vacuumed.
This protocol required about four minutes.
For areas which could not accommodate the template, such as window wells, the entire area was
HEPA vacuumed and dimensions of the area were recorded.
Throughout these procedures the technician was careful to hold the nozzle upright and not allow
dust to ^11 out of the cassette. The vacuum pump was continuously running throughout the vacuuming of
the entire sample area to help ensure that dust did not escape from the cassette. The technician changed the
cassette and nozzle after each sample. Nozzles were washed at the end of the day and reused the next day.
When finished with one sample, the technician detached the dust filter cassette from the tubing and
inserted plugs in each end of the cassette. Tape was wrapped around the long axis of the cassette covering
both plugs. The technician placed the cassette and a preprinted sample ID label in a small plastic bag,
sealed the bag, and gave it to the interviewer to insert that bag into a second bag. The interviewer would
then affix a second preprinted adhesive ID label to the outer bag. (See Appendix A of this document for
the full detail on the protocol prepared by MRI)
Soil Sampling
The soil sampling protocol called for the field technicians to employ a soil corer with plunger to
collect soil and expel the sample into a plastic bag. The corer was inserted into the ground and removed.
The sample plug was expelled from the corer into a plastic bag. For each sampled location, the technician
drew three soil plugs from the ground, the first as close as possible to the targeted sample site, and the other
two 20 inches to either side of the first. The protocol defined the soil sample for each statistically sampled
location as the blended composite of the three soil plugs. Hence, all three were expelled from the corer into
the same plastic bag. When this was done, a preprinted identification label was placed in the plastic bag,
which was then sealed and placed in a second bag affixed with an adhesive ID label. After each composite
sample was drawn, the technician cleaned the corer before collecting the next sample. (See Appendix A for
the full detail on the protocol prepared by MRI.)
24
McKnigbt, Mary E.; Byrd, W. Eric; Roberts, Willard E. (May 1990), Measuring Lead Concentrations in Paint Using a Portable Spectrum
Analyzer X-Ray Fluorescence Device (NISTTR W90-650), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
25
McKnigbt Mary E.; Byrd, W. Eric; Roberts, Willard E. and Lagergren, Eric S. (December 1989), Methods for Measuring Lead Concentration in
Paint films (NISTIR 89-4209), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
4-4
-------
For dust and soil samples, the protocols prescribed detailed procedures and techniques for cleaning
of equipment, anti-contamination measures, and physical handling before, during, and after sampling,
These were designed to assure collection of full, accurate samples, free of contamination.
To insure against sample loss and assure valid unking of analytical results with statistical sampling
data, the protocols for paint, dust, and soil also prescribed the procedures for sample logging, labeling,
double-checking, and transmission of chain-of-custody forms to all parties.
4-5
-------
5. FIELD OPERATIONS
This chapter presents the field procedures employed in the National Survey. Included are
descriptions of field operations for listing and screening activities used for private housing frame
development; housing unit inspection; using the MAP/XRF and other field technicians1 duties, field
interviewing and using of survey instruments; and conducting the laboratory analysis. This section
incorporates brief discussions of two activities integral to field operations that were conducted by telephone
from the field operations headquarters. The first is the verification and final sampling of the public housing
list sample. They are presented because they closely parallel the private housing frame development, which
depended heavily on field activity. This activity also was combined with the scheduling and coordination
activities of the in-field public housing inspections. The second is the telephone interviewer of sampled
private units, which was tightly bound to the field effort. Interviewers scheduled the visits of the field team
for household inspections. Interviewers also carried out the room inventory. The inventory was initially
designed as a field activity, but was ultimately carried out as a field preparation activity to make the in-
field household inspection more efficient. Copies of all data collection forms and related field materials are
included in Appendix B of this document.
5.1 Objectives
The objective of the national survey field operations was to implement the data collection phase
according to the overall research design and the specific data collection protocols designed for the Survey.
Operationally, the objective required the training of field staff in the data collection procedures and
protocols, placing them into the field to collect the data. It also required managing the field operations and
controlling the processes of collecting, transmitting, and managing the data. For environmental samples,
field operations personnel bad to execute strict quality control and chain-of-custody procedures in
collecting and transmitting the samples. This ensured that further laboratory analyses could be performed
on dust, soil and paint and provide meaningful results for incorporation into the overall analysis. The
ultimate objective of the field operations was, therefore, the collection and processing of accurate and
statistically valid data and physical samples from the dwelling units in the 30 sampled counties, which
could support the national estimates required by the research objective.
5.2 Field Period
The field period for the national survey extended from November, 1989, to March, 1990. Listers,
screeners, field interviewers, and field technicians were trained in November. Listing activity began that
same month and field screening of dwelling units began in December. The final screenings briefly
overlapped the start of the inspection visits in January, 1990. Field activities were completed in March,
1990.
Private Housing Frame Development
53.1 Listing
After random selection of five census blocks from each of the sampled counties, maps of the selected
census blocks were prepared. Two copies of each census block map were forwarded to the Field Director,
who reviewed the maps and resolved any problems. A Listing Folder was prepared for each census block
and sent to the designated field interviewer. The Listing Folder included two copies of the census block
5-1
-------
map with the perimeter outlined in yellow, and a supply of blank dwelling unit main listing sheets (two-ply
non-carbon duplicates).
For listing, the field interviewers prepared a route list of streets to cover the census block, and then
traveled every street to record every dwelling unit When listing was completed, the interviewer returned
one copy of each map and one copy of the completed listing sheets to the Field Director, who reviewed the
listing materials and resolved any irregularities.
All listing was conducted using standard survey research listing methodology, augmented by project-
specific protocols.
5.3.2 Screening
A systematic random sample of listed dwelling units was selected for each census block from the
completed listing sheets. The target sample sizes ranged from 24 to 40 housing units per census block,
depending on the number of dwelling units in the block. These were the estimated numbers of screening
interviews required to obtain two completed inspections per census block, based on assumptions regarding
the eligibility and response rates.
The sampled units were assigned identification numbers (IDs), which were entered into a
computerized dwelling unit tracking system. Street address, city, state and ZIP code were also entered.
Screener Packets were prepared for each county that included the materials which a field interviewer
needed to screen all the dwelling units in the county. The Screener Packet included:
250 blank Screener Questionnaires;
Label affixed to back of Screener Questionnaires containing unit ID and address;
250 HUD Letters of Introduction;
Photocopy of Listing Sheets with sampled households indicated; and
Complete list of units sampled from the county.
The survey contractor issued approximately 7,500 screener instruments in 30 Screener Packets,
corresponding to the 30 counties.
The screening task involved going to the designated homes and initiating contact with a resident over
the age of 18. The interviewer briefly introduced the study and obtained agreement to ask a few questions
about the home, e.g., age of home, single or multiple dwelling unit, own or rent. If no one over 18 was
home, the interviewer queried as to the best time to return. If no one was home, the interviewer left a note
saying he/she had been there and would return at a later time. A HUD letter introducing the survey was
also left.
At the conclusion of efforts to visit to each unit, the interviewer entered a final result code on each
Screening Questionnaire (e.g., result code P9 = completed screener, P10 = not eligible). After screening
efforts had been performed for each unit, the interviewer returned all completed screener instruments to the
Field Director, along with complete contact records for all units.
After a review, all information from the screener was entered into the dwelling unit tracking system
and the screeners were filed. After the screening was completed, the tracking system database was used to
5-2
-------
identify all in-scope units, which formed the frame for the final selection of the dwelling units to be
inspected. Nationally, screening interviews were attempted with 2,978 dwelling units; 1,622 dwelling units
were eligible for inspection.
5.4 Public Housing Frame Development
The development of the sample frame for public housing followed the steps outlined below, for each
of the 30 counties:
Generated a computer listing of PHA inventory.
Contacted the HUD field staff designated to assist the survey and obtained name/number of a
PHA. staff member to verify and correct the inventory.
Contacted PHA and determined a strategy for verifying inventory.
Conducted inventory verification and correction.
Submitted the corrections for updating the computer file.
Drew a sample of projects and selected a dwelling unit within project, and
Contacted PHA to (1) determine the address of sample selections, (2) conduct the room
inventory portion of Household Interview, and (3) set appointments for inspection.
Initial PHA Housing Tape. HUD's Public Housing Enumeration tape contains a national public
housing authority inventory. The data includes the name, address, administering agency, program, size,
age and other information for each public housing complex in the nation. A list of 793 public housing
projects in the 30 sampled counties was extracted from the master list The data was not guaranteed to be
current, fully accurate, or complete.
Verification of PHA Housing Inventory. The next step was to verify and update the list of
housing projects. The survey staff contacted HUD field representatives assigned to assist the survey. The
HUD field representative provided the names and telephone numbers of knowledgeable PHA staff members
at all PHAs in the 30 counties comprising sampled counties. When there were multiple PHAs present in a
county, the representative provided contact names for all PHAs.
Telephone representatives called the PHA staff contact persons, introduced the study, and
determined the best method for verifying the inventory of housing in that PHA. The data items verified
were:
Projects still in inventory.
Number of family units.
Number of elderly units.
Date of construction completion of project, and
5-3
-------
Any additional projects in the inventory? If yes, the above information was requested and
recorded for the additional projects.
Telephone interviewers paid special attention to distinguish the year construction was completed
from the year the building became part of the PHA inventory. Sometimes buildings are acquired by a PHA
long after construction. The construction completion date, not the acquisition date, determined the potential
painting history of the building.
All changes (additions, deletions, corrections) in the PHA inventory were noted on an Inventory
Verification Form. The list of projects, as updated with the changes, formed the sample frame for the
public housing sample.
5.5 Field Data Collection
5.5.1 Telephone Interviews
For both the private and public housing sample, telephone contact was made with responsible
individuals at the sampled units to collect household information and schedule appointments for on-site
inspection. Although the approaches for the two samples were similar, there were some methodological
differences.
Private Housing Interviews
The information collected in the screening interviews and entered into the tracking system was
designed to facilitate re-contacting by telephone the residents of the units hi the sample. This telephone
contact was used to conduct the Household Interview (using the Private Housing Questionnaire described in
Section 4.2), schedule an appointment for the on-site inspection and offer a $50 incentive to participate in
the survey.
The packets were transferred to survey contractor's telephone center, where telephone interviewers
administered the Private Housing Questionnaire and then proceeded to operational tasks, including
scheduling an appointment for the inspection. Telephone interviewers used calling protocols that entailed
using project-specific scripts and standard interviewing procedures for telephone manners, callback
procedures, and call result reporting and coding. At the conclusion of calling, the interviewers forwarded
questionnaires and appointment schedules to the Field Director in preparation for the site visits.
Critical data items from the telephone survey, such as the call result code and appointment
information for the home visit, were entered into the tracking system.
Public Housing Interviews
The telephone interviewer re-contacted each PHA in order to identify the sampled dwelling units,
conduct the Household Interview and schedule visits. As described in Section 3.5, the telephone
interviewer carried out the unit sampling at this point. He/she discussed with the PHA representative how
the units were numbered. Using each project's list of units, the telephone interviewer instructed the PHA
staff contact to count through the list to the nth dwelling unit. This unit was selected for inclusion in the
sample.
At this point, the exact address of the sampled unit was determined. The telephone interviewer went
on to conduct the Household Interview with the PHA staff contact. The Private Housing Questionnaire
5-4
-------
was modified for the public housing interview, since the interview was conducted with the PHA staff, not
the unit residents. (If the PHA contact person was not familiar with the dwelling unit, the telephone
interviewer asked for referral to a person who was familiar.) These questions verified certain data herns
already obtained from the computerized public housing inventory (e.g., year of construction completion).
In addition, the telephone interviewer conducted the room inventory. As with the private housing sample,
this inventory was used to perform the within-unit sampling in advance of the on-she inspection. Questions
concerning household residents were not asked at this time; these questions were administered to the
residents themselves, during the dwelling unit visit. A PHA representative took care of contacting the
dwelling unit residents and obtaining their cooperation for the study.
5.5.2 Housing Unit Inspections
The inspection protocol was the same for bom private and public housing. Inspection teams
conducted inspections in 284 privately owned and 97 public housing units, for a total sample size of 381
dwelling units. The inspection visits were performed by a two-person team: a field interviewer who
interviewed the occupant, and collected and recorded the within-unit architectural sampling and
observational information within each dwelling unit; and a technician who performed the MAP/XRF testing
and collected the dust and soil samples. A description of procedures observed for in-house inspections
follows.
Preparation of Field Teams. Technicians and interviewers were brought to the survey contractor's
headquarters for a four-day training session. The training covered all aspects of the home visit plus
detailed training on the use of the MAP/XRF and the procedures for collecting dust and soil samples. An
additional half-day training session was conducted for dust sampling.
Field Materials. Each technician was equipped with equipment and supplies that had been tested for
lead contamination. The technician's equipment/supplies inventory included:
Clipboard
Picture ID badge
Pens
Scitec MAP/XRF scanner, console, and carrying case
Unpowdered gloves
Paper slippers
HEPA Vacuum pump and attachments (5-foot length of Tygon tubing, 25-foot length of tubing,
nozzles)
Dust sample cassettes
Template for vacuuming
Masking tape (to affix template if necessary)
Soil sample corer
Alcohol-free wet wipes
Bottle brush
Flashlight
Putty knife
Brick hammer
Trowel
Extension cord (25-foot)
Electric plug adapter
Ladder (3-foot)
Personal dosimeter (portable device used to measure cumulative exposure to radiation)
5-5
-------
Interviewer's equipment/supplies included the following materials:
Clipboard
Pens
Calculator
Picture ID badge
Identification tags for all equipment
Large and small plastic bags
Notepaper with project logo
Self-stick removable notes
Tape measure (30-foot)
Overnight delivery shipping materials
HUD letters of introduction
Dwelling-unit Inspection Packets
Preparation for Visit In preparation for the in-house visit, an Inspection Packet was assembled at
the field management office located at the survey contractor's headquarters. The packet contained all the
forms and information needed by the interviewer/technician team to conduct the inspection. Among other
items, the packets included a copy of the Household Questionnaire conducted by telephone, customized
forms for recording MAP/XKF results, and logs to record dust and soil sampling. Copies of the forms can
be found in Appendix 8 of this document. Packet customization included putting the household
identification number on each form, designating what components should be tested in each sampled room of
the unit, and inserting adhesive identification labels for application to each dust and soil sample container.
A fully prepared packet included:
Copy of Telephone Household Interview (Form 5);
Informed Consent Release and Waiver Letter (Form 6);
Dwelling Unit Form customized for specific dwelling unit (Form 13);
Interior Observation Form customized for sampled dry room (Form 15);
Interior Observation Form customized for sampled wet room (Form 15);
Exterior Observation Form customized for sampled wall (Form 17);
Soil/Dust Sample Log (Form 19);
Common Area Inventory (Form 25)*;
Common Area Observation Form (Form 27)*;
Common Area Collection Form (Form 29)*;
Control Log (Form 35);
Request for Results Form (Form 64), with business reply envelope; and
5-6
-------
$50 incentive check made out to resident and blank receipt acknowledgment form.
* Multi-family housing only
The packets were shipped to the interviewer via overnight delivery service. Typically, the set of
packets for a county was waiting for the interviewer at the hotel upon his or her arrival in the county.
Housing Unit Inspections. The day before each inspection, the interviewer called the resident to
confirm the appointment recorded on the copy of the telephone Household Interview. If necessary, the
interviewer rescheduled while in the field. A PHA representative confirmed the public housing
appointments, and usually escorted the inspection team to the public housing units and waited for them to
complete the inspection and sampling. When the inspection team arrived at an address, the interviewer
noted which wall of the structure faced the street named in the address of the unit. That was designated as
wall 1. Going clockwise, the remaining three walls were numbered 2,3, and 4. The same rule was applied
to interior walls. This numbering was used in conjunction with the Observation Forms for within-unit
sampling of walls. This was the only aspect of statistical sampling that the inspection team needed to
conduct in the field.
After entering the home, the team introduced themselves and the study to the dwelling unit occupant.
Before entering, the team members put on paper slippers to avoid cross-contamination. The technician
began the dust sampling after the interviewer obtained the resident's signed consent. The interviewer
proceeded to identify and quantify all painted components, identify the substrate material, and identify the
condition of the paint and substrate in the sampled wet and dry rooms.
Quantification of painted surfaces was accomplished in different ways on different architectural
components. For example, painted ceilings were quantified by measuring and recording their length and
width in the field and deriving the area during data analysis. Trim was quantified by recording the length
while the analysis plan assumed a standard, average width. Doors and windows were quantified by
recording the number of each in the field and assuming an average surface area for each. Table 5-1 details
the field measurements and analytical estimation methodology for each component.
After the inventory was completed, the interviewer showed the technician what surfaces had been
selected for testing with the MAP/XRF. The technician took the necessary readings and the interviewer
recorded the results on the appropriate form.
The team then moved outside the dwelling unit to do the MAP/XRF test of the exterior walls and to
collect the soil samples. At this point, multi-family dwellings, common rooms were inspected. If present,
common rooms such as a m?il room, laundry room, community room, etc., were inventoried. One was
randomly selected and inspected according to the same protocol used for the wet and dry rooms. If present,
playgrounds were inspected. Each type of playground equipment was quantified, described, and a
convenient painted surface was chosen for MAP/XRF testing. A "type" of playground equipment was, for
example, one or more slides that appeared to be produced by the same manufacturer, were installed at the
same time, and shared a common painting history.
At the conclusion of all testing, the interviewer paid the $50 respondent incentive by check, to both
private and public housing respondents.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-1
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING AREAS OF PAINTED COMPONENTS
Component
Interior
Wall
Ceiling, floor
Baseboard trim
Stair trim
Door trim
Window sills
Window trim
Crown, molding
Doors
Window casing
Air/heat vents
Radiators
Shelves
Cabinets
Fireplace
Closets
Exterior
Wall
Window sills
Window trim
Soffit and Fascia
Door trim
Doors
Columns
Railings
Porch
Balcony
Stairs
Data Recorded in Survey
Length, height;#doorways
^windows, #fireplaces/other
"holes*
Length, width
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Number of doors
Number of windows
Number of vents
Number of radiators
Length
Number of cabinets
Number of fireplaces
Number of closets
Length, height
Length
Length
Length
Length
Number of doors
Number of columns
Length
Length
Number of balconies
Number of steps
Methodology for Estimating Painted Area
Multiply; subtract 19 sq ft/doorway, 13 sq ft/
window, and 16 sq ft per fireplace/other "hole".
Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 10 niches. Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 7 inches. Multiply.
Assume 17 sq ft per door.
Assume 5 sq ft per window.
Assume 1 sq ft per vent
Assume 8 sq ft per radiator.
Assume width = 12 inches. Multiply.
Assume 625 sq ft per cabinet.
Assume 16 sq ft per fireplace.
Assume 19 sq ft per closet.
Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 4 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 20 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 6 inches. Multiply.
Assume 21 sq ft per door.
Assume 20 sq ft per column.
Assume width = 10 inches. Multiply.
Assume width = 5 feet Multiply.
Assume 24 sq ft per balcony.
Assume 4 sq ft per step. Multiply.
5-8
-------
5.6 Field Technicians' Duties
The field technician's primary duty was carrying out the paint, dust, and soil sampling, as described
in the protocols. He was also responsible for the transportation, storage, handling and security of the
sampling equipment This included the assembly/disassembly of the MAP/XRF and HEP A vacuum
equipment at each inspection. The technician also was responsible for cleaning the dust and soil collection
equipment while following the strict survey protocols, that prevented sample contamination This
responsibility applied to cleaning between samples, between inspection visits, and before the start of each
day, as prescribed by each appropriate protocol. Finally, the technician performed daily MAP/XRF
readings of shims, in fulfillment of the protocols for checking the variability over time in each MAP/XRF
device's calibration.
As a safety precaution, the technician carried a radiation meter and wore two radiation dosimeters.
He was responsible for monitoring these devices, as well as the dosimeter worn by the interviewer.
Painted Surface Sampling
The Interior, Exterior, and Common Room Observation Forms were constructed to follow the four
strata of architectural components detailed in Section 3.6. In each inspected room, the customized form
guided the interviewer in inventorying all architectural components and identifying the randomly selected
ones. The interviewer measured and assessed all existing painted components, and identified the sampled
ones for the technician to test with the MAP/XRF. All sampled painted components on the sampled
exterior wall were subjected to MAP/XRF testing, using the same protocols as the interior tests. The field
technician then proceeded to perform the MAP/XRF tests on any sampled common room components and
playground equipment identified by the field interviewer while following the inspection, observation, and
sampling protocol for multi-family dwellings.
The paint sampling required the technician to make purposive MAP/XRF tests on one or two
interior and exterior components which he judged as having a high likelihood of lead-based paint. (See
Section 3.6.) Field experience showed that requests to wander about looking for lead-based paint were not
always well received by the dwelling unit occupant. In these cases, teams were instructed to limit then-
search to either sampled room or areas/rooms entered while passing to and from the sampled rooms.
Dust Sampling
The field technician collected samples of dust by vacuuming in three locations in each sampled
room: the floor, a window sill/stool, and a window well. He collected another dust sample from the floor
near the most-used entrance to the dwelling unit. Two dust samples were taken from an interior common
hall (if it existed) one just outside the sampled dwelling unit and one just inside the main entrance to the
building. The technician followed the dust sampling protocol, as described in Section 4.4 and Appendix A
of this document.
Soil Sampling
The field technician took soil samples at the specified locations. Three exterior soil samples were
collected at the drip hue along the sampled exterior wall, at a remote location away from the building, and
at the most-used entrance to the dwelling unit. Each sample was a composite, consisting of three plugs of
soil drawn from the ground at 20-inch intervals at the sampled location, and then blended. If present, three
soil samples also were taken from the playgrounds. The soil sampling protocols followed by the field
technician were described fully in Section 4.4 and Appendix A of this document.
5-9
-------
5.7 Laboratory Analysis of Dust and Soil
The laboratory contractor logged in the dust and soil samples upon receipt from the field and
followed testing protocols documented in the Dust and Soil Samples Analysis report cited in Section 1.2.
The samples were sent to a laboratory to be analyzed for their lead content. The laboratory analyzed the
dust by graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) spectroscopy and the soil by inductively coupled
plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). The test results were reported to the laboratory
contractor and the survey contractor on computer diskette. Following federal guidelines, dust loading was
reported as the amount of lead vacuumed per square foot of surface (fig/ft2),26 usually measured in
micrograms. Soil lead concentration was reported as the amount of lead per gram of soil (ug/g), usually
measured in micrograms which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm). As discussed in the federal
guidelines, dust lead loadings and soil lead concentrations are not comparable units of measurement. It is
notpossible to convert from ug/fl2 to ng/g in any consistently reliable way.
26U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Lead-based Faint Interim Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Abatement in Public
and Indian Housing," Federal Register, 55 (April 18):14557-14789.
5-10
-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
Quality assurance was an integral component of the study design and execution. This chapter
describes the quality assurance procedures employed in each phase of the National Survey of Lead-Based
Paint in Housing. Many QA procedures related to the collection and handling of survey data, such as
measures to enhance participation of sample members, cross-checking of records, careful chains-of-
custody, and independent re-keying of data. Other measures were instituted to help evaluate the new
technologies and protocols utilized in the survey. A significant example of the first group was the
verification of the PHA housing inventories; of the second group, extensive MAP/XRF baseline reading
tests.
For all aspects of data collection, the principal source of quality assurance was the utilization of
detailed, well-planned, and tested protocols for all methods of data collection. Designing workable and
easily followed field procedures for implementing these protocols was the next step in this process. These
procedures cover all aspects of telephone and in-person interviewing, in-field observation, measuring and
recording physical data, collecting environmental samples, handling equipment, and handling and storing
samples. Next, the thorough training of the interviewers and field staff in all data collection instruments
and procedures, field operations procedures, and environmental sampling protocols was critical to the
assurance of quality. For both training and operations, it was essential to have comprehensive and
comprehensible documentation of these procedures and protocols for staff use during the survey. Finally,
ongoing communication between the field and headquarters, between the survey contractor and the
laboratory contractor, and among the various functional groups responsible for each stage of the survey
was rigorously maintained to assure the quality of all information collected.
The following sections document specific quality assurance steps taken in the survey. Since the
verification of the Public Housing frame was discussed in detail in Section 5.4, it will not be discussed
further in this Chapter.
6.1 Measures to Enhance Response Rates
In the national survey, as any survey, maximizing response rates is critical to minimi Ting bias and
maintaining the representativeness of the data Maintaining participation at the point of the home
inspections was particularly important because of the investment of effort that was required to reach that
point. Fallback options in case of refusals were limited. Choices available were simply to do without the
inspection, try to reschedule with a backup unit during the remaining time the team was in the county, or go
to the expense of sending another team back to the county when a backup inspection could be scheduled.
For private housing, efforts to ensure participation began with in-person visits to homes for
screening purposes. In addition to the personal contact initiated by the interviewer, a letter from HUD
explaining the survey and verifying its legitimacy was left with the dwelling unit respondent
After dwelling units were selected from among the eligible dwelling units, telephone calls were
placed to the residents. The interviewers were trained to explain the survey and answer any questions or
concerns the resident might have. One indicator of the success of the household interviewing effort was the
interviewers' ability to gain the residents' confidence in the survey and their cooperation in providing
detailed room inventories.
The telephone interviewer scheduled appointments for inspections to occur five to ten days after the
phone call. Inspections were scheduled at times convenient to the respondents, resulting in some early
evening and weekend inspections. Minimizing the delay between the call and the inspection reduced the
6-1
-------
opportunity for the respondents to reconsider their agreement to participate. The residents were informed
at the time of this call that they would receive a $50 incentive for allowing the home inspection.
One day in advance of the inspection, the field interviewer called each dwelling unit to confirm the
designated time of the inspection. Some minor rescheduling was done by the field interviewers during these
calls.
6.2 Quality Assurance for Questionnaire Data
Training and Documentation. Telephone and field interviewers received extensive training in the
content and administration of the various questionnaires used in the survey. Complete documentation of all
data items and administration procedures was prepared for the training and retained as a reference by the
interviewers during data collection.
Verification and Monitoring. The Field Director verified the work of the field interviewers by
contacting participants after receiving the completed instruments. Telephone interviewers were regularly
monitored for correct administration of the questionnaire.
Dwelling Unit ID. The dwelling unit identification number was designed to minimize error in data
collection and processing and to allow easy recognition by data handlers. The first two positions of all IDs
indicated the county (01-30). The third position was the assigned census block number (1 through 5 for
private housing, 6 for public housing). The fourth and fifth positions were the sequence number of the
dwelling unit within the census block (01, 02, ...). The sixth and seventh positions were computer-
generated control digits.
6.3 Quality Assurance for Home Inspection Data
Customized Forms and Dwelling Unit Packets. Laser-printed customized forms were used for
each dwelling unit room inspection. The form used, for example, to collect field measurements in the wet
room included a preprinted ID, room identification information, and specific sampling procedures for that
room. The dwelling unit packet contained only forms suitable for the dwelling unit, e.g., forms to collect
samples in common areas were only included for multi-family settings. Adhesive labels preprinted with the
9-digit test sample number were included for all dust and soil samples.
Telephone Verification. Field supervisors from field operations headquarters contacted a number
of inspected dwelling units to verify that the team had been there and acted appropriately.
800 Number. The survey contractor maintain^ a 24-hour 800-number to receive calls from
interviewers and participants throughout the field period. In addition, the interviewers had the direct home
and work telephone number for the Field Director. Her home phone was equipped with an answering
machine and the work phone was backed up by a receptionist. Every effort was made to ensure that survey
staff were available to take interviewer calls during inspections. This created the ability to provide rapid,
centralized resolution of field problems.
6-2
-------
6.4. Quality Assurance for Environmental Samples
6.4.1 Quality Assurance for MAP/XRF Data
Extensive quality assurance procedures were developed for use of the MAP/XRF in the national
survey for a number of reasons. MAP/XRFs were a relatively untested technology for the detection of lead
in paint, given the requirements of the National Survey. For example, Federal regulations define paint as
lead-based if lead content is 1.0 mg/cm2 or higher. The MAP/XRF was traditionally used to detect higher
loadings, such as might occur in a mining environment. Furthermore, mining substrates affected the field
measurements in a different way than common residential building material housing substrates. Second,
the MAP/XRF has software that interprets the spectrum reading and generates a single reading. This
software was developed shortly before the start of the survey field period. Thus, its evaluation and testing
prior to the field period were limited. There were some indications that the equipment would perform better
than other brands, based on testing by NIST, but there was still some uncertainty. These concerns led to
the establishment of rigorous before, after, and in-field procedures to track the performance of each
MAP/XRF used.
Training. The field technicians were trained by the MAP/XRF manufacturer in the correct use,
and maintenance of the MAP/XRF.
Baseline Validation Measurements. A detailed protocol was established to produce a baseline of
64 readings of different lead loadings on different substrate materials for each MAP/XRF used in the study.
The testing helped establish that each MAP/XRF was ready to be used in the field.
Eight standards were developed to conduct the baseline validation measurements. A standard
consisted of a small (3" x 4") plastic sheet (called a shim) painted with paint containing a known level of
lead and placed tightly on a piece of background material (called a substrate). The shims used in the
national survey were made by NIST. There were four substrates of interest (common dwelling unit
building materials): wood, drywall, steel, and cement. All substrates used in the construction of standards
had a smooth surface that allows the shim to be tightly and evenly affixed.
Two different shims were used. One shim contained 0.6 mg/cm2 of lead, the other 2.99 mg/cm2.
The four substrates and two shims were layered to make eight test standards:
1 . 0.6 mg/cm2 shim on wood substrate
2. 2.99 mg/cm2 shim on wood substrate
3. 0.6 mg/cm2 shim on steel substrate
4. 2.99 mg/cm2 shim on steel substrate
5. 0.6 mg/cm.2 shim on drywall substrate
6. 2.99 mg/cm2 shim on drywall substrate
7. 0.6 mg/cm2 shim on cement substrate
8. 2.99 mg/cm.2 shim on cement substrate
A set of these eight standards was assigned to each of the eight MAP/XRFs used in the study. All
readings conducted with a specific MAP/XRF used only one set of standards.
6-3
-------
Preparation of the MAP/XRF. Each MAP/XRF was delivered by the manufacturer with a fresh
Co57 source and fresh batteries. Upon receipt from the manufacturer, each MAP/XRF console was
initialized with the serial number of the MAP/XRF reader. Batteries were checked. The radiation detector
was placed near the MAP/XRF during initial operation to establish that there was no radiation leakage.
Conduct of 64 Pre-Field Baseline Field Measurements and Data Transfer. The quality
assurance test technician performed eight 60-second readings on each of the eight standards. The
MAP/XRF readings were recorded on the XRF Baseline Reading Form.
Conduct of 64 Post-Field Close-out Field Measurements . The above procedures were repeated in
full when an MAP/XRF was retired from the field, and before it was returned to the manufacturer.
In-Field Readings. In a scaled-down procedure, one reading was taken on each standard (for a total
of eight readings) every day that the MAP/XRF was in the field and in use. This practice had the
additional benefit of helping detect machine drift and malfunction. Technicians were instructed to call their
supervisor if readings varied from original baseline readings by over 30 percent. The MAP/XRFs were
designed so that they could be calibrated only by the manufacturer. Field technicians could not calibrate
the devices. The procedure also helped detect if batteries had become low and needed replacement.
In-field MAP/XRF Quality Assurance Procedures. In addition to the MAP/XRF quality control
procedures described above, technicians were instructed to observe the development of the spectrum on the
MAP/XRF console display. An experienced technician could tell by the spectrum display if a MAP/XRF
was acting irregularly. Additionally, technicians installed fresh batteries in the MAP/XRF after arriving in
each county. The technicians were instructed to handle equipment gently and to store it within a specified
temperature range.
Calibration of MAP/XRF. It is not possible to perform in-field calibration of the MAP/XRF as
was possible with direct read MAP/XRFs. The only remedy available in the case of a mis-calibrated XRF
was to return the MAP/XRF to the manufacturer for repair. This occurred once.
The in-field QA readings were not used by the technicians to adjust this field measurement. Rather,
the raw field measurements were recorded. During the data analysis, the QA readings were used to develop
recalibrated measurements. This analysis is described in Appendix H, Chapter 3.
6.4.2 Quality Assurance for Dust and Soil Samples (Field and Laboratory)
Field Quality Assurance Measures
Dust and Soil Sampling Protocol. The protocols used in the national survey were carefully
designed and pretested. Once the protocols were finalized, the survey contractor prepared detailed
instructions for the identification of, and administrative controls for, handling the samples. During the
actual data collection phase, the field technicians followed procedures provided by the laboratory
contractor. The four-day training session for the field teams held at the survey contractor's headquarters
ensured comprehensive instruction and practice in the protocols, as well as consistent understanding and
application of them by all the team members. A video was made of the training so additional or
replacement inspectors could be trained at a later date with equal thoroughness and consistency.
Sample Custody Procedures. All samples were labeled with pre-printed labels using a standard
numbering scheme. For example, the dust sample taken inside the main entry to the unit was always
number 61. This helped minimize recording and handling error. The labeling of each sample by the field
technician was checked by the field interviewer. All samples were carefully logged as they were collected.
All were accompanied by a separate transmittal sheet (chain-of-custody form) whenever they were shipped.
6-4
-------
Copies of logs and transmittal sheets were submitted to the Field Director for entry into the tracking
system. The survey contractor and laboratory contractor devised a joint system for test sample custody to
ensure the integrity and location of all samples at all points in time. All contractors and testing laboratories
utilized the survey contractor's sample numbering system, which was designed to accommodate the
inconspicuous numbering of control samples inserted by the laboratory contractor.
Prevention of Contamination of Dwelling Units and Samples. There was concern that the
inspection team might bring lead into the home. Of even greater concern was the possibility that the team
members would introduce dust from a consistent non-dwelling unit source, e.g., the floor of their car. A
number of measures were employed to help minimize this problem. Each team member put paper slippers
over bis or her shoes before entering the dwelling unit Team members wore rubber gloves during the
inspection. The technician discarded his gloves after he took each dust and soil sample, replacing them
with new ones. He replaced the dust sampling vacuum nozzle with a clean one after collecting each
sample. He cleaned the corer, inside and out, after each soil sample.
Quality Assurance for field Equipment and Supplies. Efforts were taken to ensure that the
equipment or supplies themselves did not introduce lead contamination. Wet wipes used to clean soil
sampling equipment were tested for lead. Shavings from the soil sampling equipment, including the painted
handle, were tested. Particular caution was observed in testing supplies that technicians were expected to
purchase while in the field, e.g., wet wipes, plastic bags, etc. Several brands of plastic bags and wet wipes
were tested to ensure that commonly available brands would not introduce any lead contamination.
Laboratory Quality Assurance Measures
Quality Control Samples. In coordination with the survey contractor, the laboratory contractor
systematically introduced spikes and control samples among the soil and dust samples from each dwelling
unit. To prevent detection of the control sample by laboratory technicians, the survey contractor prepared
a mid-sequence sample ID label for each batch of field samples from a single dwelling unit. This label was
sent along with the unit's samples to the laboratory contractor, who affixed it to a control sample that was
transmitted to the lab along with rest of the samples.
Intra-Laboratory Quality Assurance. Techniques included analytical replicates, instrument
performance testing, and the use of quality control samples. Careful sample custody procedures were
observed throughout the survey. Details are provided in MRI's Dust and Soil Analysis Report.
6.5 Software Quality Assurance for Data Preparation and Analysis
100 Percent Verification of Keyed Data. All data that required key entry were subject to 100
percent re-keying. Any discrepancies uncovered in this process were immediately investigated and
resolved. The re-keyed data was again subjected to 100 percent re-keying to ensure that errors were not
introduced during the course of making the correction. The keyed data included the responses on the
household questionnaire, the household data collected during the site visit, the painted surface inventory
from each sampled interior room, exterior wall, common area room, and playground. Dimensions of
vacuumed areas were keyed, as were ID numbers for each dust and soil sample collected.
The complete data base resulted from the merger of the household questionnaire data (telephone),
additional household and painted surface data, plus test results that were provided on diskette from
laboratories. The data and test results were submitted to computerized range and logic checks. All
discrepancies and out of range values (e.g., no wet room data or extreme field measurements for sampled
component) were investigated and resolved. The system developed to verify data remained stable and no
systematic problems were encountered.
6-5
-------
Bar Code IDs. To minimize key entry error, ID labels on soil and dust samples were printed as bar
codes. The testing laboratories passed a bar code reader over the label to pick up the ID number. The bar
code incorporated a "check digit" to help assure the accuracy of the bar code reader.
6.6 Calculation of Sample Weights
This section presents a description of the calculation of the sampling weights. In a complex survey
it is necessary to apply sampling weights to each completed case.27 A dwelling unit's sampling weight is,
roughly, the number of pre-1980 dwelling units nationwide represented by the inspected unit. Sampling
weights were calculated independently for public and private housing, using similar methodology.
Sampling weights were calculated in this survey for two major reasons.
First, there was disproportionate sampling in the six design strata; multi-family dwelling units were
sampled at about twice the rate as single family units (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Weights were therefore
necessary to produce unbiased estimates. These initial weights are the ratios of the numbers in
corresponding cells in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
Second, the initial weights were often adjusted to balance differences in nonresponse and
noncoverage. There were significant differences in the response rates in identifiable groups of this sample.
Specifically, homes with children under age seven were over represented in the private housing sample.
While these homes represent 18 percent of the nation, they represent 32 percent of the private housing
sample. In addition, the regional distribution of the sample is disproportionate. The South is over
represented while the West and Northeast were underrepresented. The private housing weights were
therefore adjusted so that the estimated numbers of dwelling units with children under age seven would
agree with the estimate in the 1987 American Housing Survey (AHS) (13,912,000 units), and so that the
estimated numbers of dwelling units in each of the four census regions also would agree with the AHS's
estimates. These two adjustments were not necessary for public housing sampling weights. However, the
public housing weights were adjusted so that the estimated number of family housing units in each of the
three construction year strata would agree with HUD's counts.
2*7
Ksh, L. (1965), Survey Sampling, (New York: John WUey and Sons), Chapter 11.
6-6
-------
7. LEAD-BASED PAINT DATABASE
This chapter provides a general description of the analytical data files developed and used for the
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing. More detailed documentation, including file layouts and
definitions of all variables may be found in the Westat report, Documentation of Analytical Data Files.
These analytical data files have been used in the preparation of the Comprehensive and Workable Plan for
the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing: Report to Congress. They have also
been used in the analysis of the survey data as reported. The nine analytical data files are:
Occupant File
Interior Components File
Exterior Components File
Soil/Dust File
Common Areas File
Dwelling File
MAP/XRF Maximum File
Reading File
Soil/Dust/Paint (SDP) Files
These analytical data files were developed from information recorded on the data collection forms
and the telephone questionnaire. The eight forms used in the survey are:
DU Form Dwelling unit form. Contains data on dwelling unit
occupant, and the purposive MAP/XRF data
Interior Observation Form Contains data on the painted component, substrate, and
MAP/XRF data for interior surfaces
Exterior Observation Form Contains data on the painted component, substrate and
MAP/XRF data for exterior surfaces
Common Area Contains data on the painted component, substrate, and
Observation Form MAP/XRF data for common area surfaces
Common Area Collection Contains data on playground equipment, common hall,
Form and MAP/XRF data
Common Area Inventory Contains inventory data on types/existences of common
Form areas in muM family buildings
Soil/Dust Sampling Log Contains data on soil/dust sampling (area sampled,
sample location)
Telephone Questionnaire Contains data on dwelling, occupant, and interior
rooms
Copies of the blank data collection forms are provided in Appendix B of this document. Table 7-1
provides a cross reference of the analytical data files and the data collection forms from which data were
extracted.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
SOURCES OF DATA IN ANALYTICAL DATA FILES
Data Collection Form
(Source of Data)
DU (Dwelling Unit)
Interior Observation
Exterior Observation
Common Area Observation
Common Area Collection
Common Area Inventory
Soil/Dust Sampling Log
Telephone Questionnaire
Analytical Data File
Common
Occupant Interior Exterior Soil/Dust Areas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dwelling
X
X
X
Reading
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Soil/Dust
Paint
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Occupant File
One data record was developed for each dwelling unit occupant. It contains information on the
occupant's age, sex, and race. These data were derived from the Telephone Questionnaire Form for private
housing, and from the back of the Dwelling Unit Form for public housing.
Interior Component File
The interior rooms were classified as either a wet room or a dry room according to the presence or
absence of plumbing in the room. One wet room and one dry room were randomly selected. All painted
surfaces in each of the two rooms were identified and quantified; the substrate surfaces identified, the
condition of the paint and substrate surfaces noted. Quantification of the painted surfaces by the inspection
team was accomplished in different ways for different architectural components. For example, ceilings
were quantified by recording their length and width, and walls by their length and height. Trim was
recorded by length. Components such as doors, windows, fireplaces, and closets were quantified by their
number.
If a room was a kitchen, bathroom, laundry, or utility room then it was classified as a wet room,
otherwise it was classified as a dry room. If the room type could not be determined, then it was classified
as a dry room.
There was one record for each painted architectural component in an interior room. These data were
obtained from the Interior Observation Form. There was a total of 29 different architectural components
possible for an interior room, including such items as ceiling, wall (separate components for each of four
walls), metal window trim, nonmetal crown molding, and fireplace. Components which could not be
assigned to one of the 29 categories were placed in an "other" category. There can be up to 60 records of
this type for a single dwelling unit.
One complex derived variable in this file is COMP_QTY, the computed area of the painted surface
for the architectural component. The following calculations were performed to obtain this variable using
the raw data collected for the interior room. The basic unit of measurement is the foot.
Architectural Method for
Component Calculation of' COMP OTY1
Air/heat vents Calculate area as number of air/heat vents multiplied by
representative area for such systems of 1 square foot
Baseboard trim Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
Cabinets Calculate area as number of cabinets multiplied by
representative area of 6.25 square feet
Ceiling Calculate total area as product of length and width
Closets Calculate area as number of closets multiplied by
representative area of 19 square feet
Crown molding Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such molding of 7/12 foot (7 niches)
Door systems Calculate area as number of door systems multiplied by
representative area for such systems of 17 square feet
Door trim Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
Fireplaces Calculate area as number of fireplaces multiplied by
representative area of 16 square feet
7-3
-------
(continued:)
Architectural
Cc
Floor
Other
Radiators
Shelf
Stair trim
Wall
Window sill
Window system
Window trim
Method for
Calculation of' COMP
Calculate total area as product of length and width
The area of this undefined architectural component is
set equal to recorded value for component, assuming a
unit area of 1 square foot or width of 1 foot
Calculate area as number of radiators multiplied by
representative area of 8 square feet
Calculate area as length of shelf multiplied by
representative width of 1 foot
Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 5/6 foot (10 inches)
Calculate total area of wall from product of recorded
height and width, then subtract 19 square feet for each
doorway in the wall, 13 square feet for each window,
and 16 square feet for each fireplace
Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such sills of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
This item refers to the casing around the window.
Calculate area as number of window systems multiplied
by representative area of 5 square feet
Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
The substrate category variable (SUB_CAT) takes on one of four code values depending upon the
identified architectural component:
= 1 for walls, ceiling, or floor
= 2 for metal substrate surfaces
= 3 for nonmetal substrate surfaces
= 4 for shelves, cabinets, fireplaces, closets, and "other1 components
There are 0,1, or 2 nonmissing field measurements for each of the above four values of SUB_CAT
in each inspected dwelling unit. For each value of SUB_CAT (each architectural component stratum)
within a room, the average of the nonmissing values was computed. This average was then applied to each
component in the room with the same SUB_CAT value (i.e., in the same stratum) that had no recorded field
measurement. This imputation was repeated for all interior rooms and exterior walls in the sample. The
following is a hypothetical example of this procedure:
MAP/XRF data as read for a wet room in a single hypothetical dwelling unit:
-------
Component
Walls, ceiling, floor:
Non-metal substrate:
Surface
Walll
Wall 2
WallS
Wall 4
Ceiling
Baseboard trim
Door trim
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
SUB CAT
(missing)
1.0
(missing)
0.8
(missing)
2.3
(missing)
MAP/XRF data
The average value for the SUB_CAT=1 data in this room is 0.9, and the average for the
SUB_CAT=3 is 2.3. The imputation procedure then yields the following data set for this wet room
example:
Surface
SUB CAT
Walls, ceiling, floor
Non-metal substrate:
Walll
Wall 2
WallS
Wall 4
Ceilin
Baseboard trim
Door trim
1
1
1
1
1
n 3
3
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
2.3
2.3
(imputed)
(imputed)
(imputed)
(imputed)
The variable XRF_VALU indicates whether the corresponding XRF data value is actual
(XRF_VALU=1) or imputed (XRF_VALU=2).
This data file contains both raw MAP/XRF field measurements, and recalibrated MAP/XRF
measurements adjusted for bias by surface component, as described in Appendix H, Chapter 3 of this
report. It is strongly recommended that the recalibrated MAP/XRF measurements be used in any analysis
work.
Exterior Component File
Quantification of the exterior component painted surfaces by the inspection team was accomplished
in different ways for different architectural components. For example, walls were quantified by recording
their length and height, and trim was recorded by length. Components such as doors, columns, and
balconies were quantified by their number.
There is one record for each painted architectural component These data were obtained from the
Exterior Observation Form. There is a total of 21 different architectural components possible for a unit
exterior, including such items as wall, metal window trim, nonmetal column, and porch. There is one
additional category "other" for components which can not be assigned to one of the 21 categories. There
can be up to 21 records for the exterior components for a dwelling unit.
One complex derived variable in this file is COMP_QTY, the computed area of the painted surface
for the architectural component The following calculations were performed to obtain this variable using
the raw data collected for the exterior components. The basic unit of measurement is the foot.
7-5
-------
Architectural Method for
Component Calculation of COMP OTY1
Balcony Calculate area as number of balconies multiplied by
representative area for balconies of 24 square feet
Column Calculate area as number of columns multiplied by
representative area for columns of 20 square feet
Door systems Calculate area as number of door systems multiplied by
representative area for such systems of 21 square feet
Door trim Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 1/2 foot (6 inches)
Other The area of this undefined architectural component is
set equal to recorded value for component, assuming a
unit area of 1 square foot or width of 1 foot
Porch Calculate area as number of porches multiplied by
representative area for such systems of 5 square feet
Railing Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of railing of 5/6 foot (10 inches)
Soffit/fascia Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such systems of 5/3 foot (20 inches)
Stairs Calculate area as number of steps multiplied by
representative area for such systems of 4 square feet
Wall Calculate total area of wall from product of recorded
height and width
Window sill Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such sills of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
Window trim Calculate area as length multiplied by representative
width of such trim of 1/3 foot (4 inches)
The substrate category variable (SU6_CAT) takes on one of four code values depending upon the
identified architectural component:
= 1 for walls
= 2 for metal substrate surfaces
= 3 for nonmetal substrate surfaces
= 4 for porch, balcony, stairs, and 'other1 components
There are 0,1, or 2 nonmissing field measurements for each of the above four values of STJB_CAT
in each inspected dwelling unit. An imputation procedure was used to develop field measurements for
components which had no direct field measurements. This procedure is discussed in detail in the preceding
section.
This data file contains both raw MAP/XRF field measurements, and recalibrated MAP/XRF
measurements for bias by surface component. It is recommended that the recalibrated MAP/XRF
measurements be used in any analysis work
Soil/Dust File
There is one record for each soil and each dust sample taken. Data in this file were derived from the
soil/dust sampling log and match-merged with the lab data file.
7-6
-------
Common Area File
There are three types of common areas in the multi-family buildings: common room, common hall,
and playground. The common room category includes laundry room, mail room, and similar types rooms.
A common room was examined using the same protocol as for a dry or wet room within a dwelling unit.
The common hall category indicates a hallway adjacent to the entrance to an apartment. The playground
category includes playground equipment outside of the apartment building.
There is one record for each painted architectural component. These data were obtained from the
Common Area Observation Form, the Common Area Inventory Form, and the Common Area Collection
Form. For a common room, there is a total of 29 different architectural components possible, including
such items as ceiling, wall (separate components for each of four walls), metal window trim, nonmetal
crown molding, and fireplace. There is one additional category "other" for components which cannot be
assigned to one of the 29 categories.
One complex derived variable in this file is COMP_QTY, the computed area of the painted surface
for the architectural component. Calculations are performed to obtain this variable using the raw data
collected for the common areas. The basic unit of measurement is the "foot" for common room
components. Refer to the previous section "Interior Component File" for definitions of COMP_QTY if the
common area is a 'room'. For the two other types of common areas, the following definitions are used:
For playgrounds, COMP_QTY = number of pieces of equipment
For common hall, COMP_QTY = 1
For an adjacent hallway (COMPON=51) and the EXISTS variable = "1", then the variable
COMP_QTY is computed assuming an average of 80 square feet of painted hallway walls and ceiling per
apartment (floors are not usually painted).
If PUBLIC=0 (private housing) Then COMP QTY=80*CI6NEW
If PUBLIC=1 (public housing) Then COMPjQTY=80*FAMILYU
otherwise COMP_QTY=0
The variable CI6NEW is the number of dwelling units in building for private housing. The variable
FAMILYU is the number of family units in a public housing unit
The substrate category variable (SUB_CAT) takes on one of six code values depending upon the
identified architectural component:
= 1 for walls, ceiling, or floor in a common area room
= 2 for metal substrate surfaces in a common area room
= 3 for nonmetal substrate surfaces in a common area room
= 4 for shelves, cabinets, fireplaces, closets, and 'other* components in a common area room
= 5 for playground equipment
= 6 for common hall
For common area rooms, there are 0, 1, or 2 nonmissing field measurements for each of the above
values of SUB_CAT (1, 2, 3 or 4) in each inspected dwelling unit. An imputation procedure was used to
develop XRF measurements for components which had no field measurements.
7-7
-------
For common area halls and playgrounds, the imputation procedure was not needed. For these areas,
XRF_VALU=1 for nonmissing field measurements, and MAP/XRF_VALU=2 for missing MAP/XRF field
measurements.
This data file contains both raw MAP/XRF field measurements, and MAP/XRF measurements
recalibrated for bias by surface component. It is recommended that the recalibrated MAP/XRF
measurements be used in any analysis work.
Dwelling File
This data file contained one set of data for each dwelling unit. The records were developed from the
Telephone Interview Questionnaire and the Dwelling Unit Form. Because certain fields contained were
meant only for renters, this data file contained some variables only pertinent to renters. Similarly, variables
related to market value of the dwelling unit only contain data if the occupant was the dwelling unit owner.
There also are variables identifying the age and race of the youngest occupant of the dwelling unit. They
were obtained from data in the Dwelling Unit Form.
MAP/XRF Maximum File
This data file contained one record of corrected MAP/XRF measurements for each dwelling unit.
There were two MAP/XRF type variables in this data file. One type contains the maximum
corrected measurement (i.e., corrected measurement) by location (exterior, interior, common area,
playground, and entire dwelling unit). The other type was a corrected MAP/XRF measurement for the
entire dwelling unit adjusted for MAP/XRF bias and incomplete sampling in a dwelling unit.
Reading File
This data file contained one set of data for each painted architectural component. They contained
interior, exterior, and common area data and represent a convenient composite data set of information from
the interior, exterior, and common area data files. The reading files also contained the purposive
MAP/XRF data obtained from the interior and exterior surfaces of the dwelling unit.
Soil/Dust/Paint File
This data file contained one record for each dwelling unit. The data set contained separate variables
for the dust on the wet and dry room floors, on window sills, and in window wells. There also are variables
for the estimated area of intact and nonintact (damaged or peeling) paint in the rooms and on exterior walls.
Some of the variables are quantitives while others are flags, e.g., denote the presence or absence of lead-
based paint in die wet room.
Certain variables were assigned a minimum value of 0.025. That is, if the value was less than
0.025, then it was set to 0.025. The variables thus adjusted are DSTWTjxx and MAP/XRF_xxx, where
xx and xxx denote suffixes defining sample location (e.g., 'WS1 for window sill and 'DRY1 for dry room).
This adjustment was made before the natural logarithm of the variable was taken. Therefore, the minimum
natural logarithm for these variables is ln(0.025) or -3.6889.
XRF Adjustments to Eliminate Substrate and Instrument Bias
The recalibrated XRF measurements were obtained from the field measurements using the
methodology described in Appendix n, Chapter 3. Four equations were used to correct the field
7-8
-------
measurements for substrate bias and for the specific MAP/XRF machine used. The four substrates are:
wood, steel, drywall, and concrete. The equations have the form:
XKFA = constant + XRFCoeFXRF + DateCoef*daysince
where
XRFA is the recalibrated measurement (mg/sq cm)
XRF is the field measurement (mg/sq cm)
daysince is the number of days from 2/2/90 (the date of beginning of data collection) to the date
that the measurement was taken
Values of'constant1, 'XRFCoef, and 'DateCoef are listed in Table 7-2 for the different MAP/XRF
machines and for the four substrates.
TABLE 7-2
COEFFICIENTS FOR XRF BIAS ADJUSTMENTS
Serial
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
32
34
35
36
37
38
Substrate
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Constant
0.57926289
-0.94722461
-2.38953999
-1.02852647
-0.92737469
-2.88539502
-0.98324686
-0.31665053
0.57728690
0.51080053
0.57764705
0.57789670
0.23897089
0.58492849
0.42144247
0.09328605
0.54396423
0.56782847
0.54346480
0.56921937
0.54754401
0.57533900
0.55145354
0.56350756
0.56839751
0.57154194
0.57302341
0.16940757
0.23107495
0.58393402
XRFCoef
0.61607564
1.07477134
1.98292590
1.05800227
1.23514212
2.00489039
1.12735849
1.33451777
0.67478026
0.77666059
0.68420416
0.69770523
0.88792570
0.70808139
0.75301015
1.46462396
1.66475841
1.41289116
1.73049289
1.55457732
2.25471698
1.15860912
1.48596447
0.86731876
0.93887384
0.82130029
0.80144343
0.82195767
0.91864190
0.75480287
DateCoef
0.00060991
0.00106402
0.00196310
0.00104742
0.00122279
0.00198484
0.00111608
0.00132117
0.00066803
0.00076889
0.00067736
0.00069073
0.00087905
0.00070100
0.00074548
0.00144998
0.00164811
0.00139876
0.00171319
0.00153903
0.00223217
0.00114702
0.00147110
0.00085865
0.00092949
0.00081309
0.00079343
0.00081374
0.00090946
0.00074725
7-9
-------
(continued:)
Serial Substrate Constant XRFCoef DateCoef
39 3 0.33891181 0.79428126 0.00078634
41 3 -0.31529249 1.49587482 0.00148092
The four substrate categories used in the bias adjustments are determined from the observed
substrate as follows:
Observed Substrate Substrate for Bias Adjustment
"PLASTER" DRYWALL
"GYPSUM (DRYWALL)" DRYWALL
"CONCRETE BLOCK" CONCRETE
"CONCRETE CAST" CONCRETE
"CONCRETE, PRECAST" CONCRETE
"BRICK" CONCRETE
'WOOD PANELING" WOOD
"WOOD, SMOOTH" WOOD
'WOOD, ROUGH" WOOD
"WALLPAPER" DRYWALL
"OIL CLOTH" DRYWALL
"CERAMIC TELE" DRYWALL
"METAL, SMOOTH" STEEL
"METAL, ROUGH" STEEL
"WAINSCOT" STEEL
"STONE" CONCRETE
"VINYL SIDING" WOOD
"ALUMINUM SIDING" STEEL
"SHINGLE, WOOD" WOOD
"SHINGLE, ASBESTOS" DRYWALL
"STUCCO" CONCRETE
"CEILING TILE" DRYWALL
"LINOLEUM" WOOD
"FIBERGLASS" WOOD
Paint Damage
The amount of paint damage (as a percentage) was estimated from recorded categories for paint
condition on architectural components as follows:
Recorded Estimated
Paint Condition Code Paint damage percent
"1" (All paint intact) 0
"2" (Up to 10 percent not intact) 5
"3" (10-25% not intact) 17.5
"4" (Over 25% not intact) 35
"5" (Wallpaper) 0
"6" (No paint) 0
"9" (Not ascertained) 0
7-10
-------
APPENDIX A
SOIL AND DUST SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
-------
SOIL AND DUST SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
The following protocols were established by MRI Laboratories in January 1990 as
documented in the MRI final report titled Analysis of Soil and Dust Samples for use in the
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing. The first protocol concerns dust sampling
procedures. The second concerns soil sampling. These protocols provided detailed instruction for
Survey inspectors. In addition to written instructions, MRI provided in-person training for the
inspectors.
Household Dust Protocol
The following protocol is for the sampling of household dust for lead (Pb). This protocol is
intended to allow for the sampling of a representative sample of surface dust on most surfaces
including heavy carpet. The dust thus collected will be used for the determination of the surface
loading of Pb in households.
Sampling Equipment
1. Pump - Gast rotary-vane vacuum pump operated at approximately 16L/min. with the
sample cassette attached.
2. Sample Cassette - Gelman GN-4, 37mm, mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filter cassettes
(O.Sum pore size) connected to the vacuum pump via thick walled Tygon tubing.
3. Pick-up Nozzle - Teflon pick-up nozzle ("Blue Nozzle") designed and supplied by
MRI.
4. Template -1 Sq.Ft. template for defining the sampling area. Alternately, an area can
be sampled and then measured to determine the actual sample area. This number is
very important because surface loading of lead can only be determined if the sampling
area is known.
5. Miscellaneous equipment - Tape to seal and mark the cassettes, a small screwdriver
for prying loose jammed cassettes, a marking pen, 1-qt and 1-gal ziplock plastic bags,
plastic trash bag, vinyl gloves (powderless), sampling data forms, sampling traceability
forms, shoe covers, steel measuring tape.
Sampling Procedures
1. Place your shoe covers on when entering the front door to prevent contamination of
sampling areas.
2.
Place the template over the area of interest or define the area to be sampled in some
fashion (e.g., a window sill top surface).
3. Holding the nozzle with the open cassette upright, turn on the pump.
4. Vacuum the area of interest in overlapping passes first left to right over the entire
area and then front to back over the entire area. Care should be taken to hold the
nozzle level to the surface and move the nozzle at a steady rate. If the nozzle becomes
stuck, twist loose and continue. Do not turn off pump.
A-l
-------
5. Jurn the nozzle back upright and then turn off the pump.
6. Continue holding the nozzle upright and remove the cassette gently being careful not
to allow dust to spill from the cassette.
7. Place the top back on the cassette and insert the colored plugs back into the small
holes on the cassette.
8. Tape the cassette over the long axis being certain to tape down both small plugs in the
process.
9. Label the cassette and bag with additional label for shipment.
10. If multiple areas are being done with a single cassette, do not turn off the vacuum
between areas but hold the cassette upright as you move from one area to the other.
Also note that you should change nozzles when you change cassettes to collect a new sample.
Soil Sampling Protocol
The following is for the sampling of soil for lead. This protocol is intended to allow for the
sampling of a representative sample of soil around the dwelling unit
Sampling Equipment
Corer
Lab Approved Wet Wipes
Latex Gloves
Plastic Sampling Bags
Sampling Data Forms
Sampling Traceability Forms
Plastic Trash Bags
Sampling Procedures
The technician will always wear the latex gloves when taking soil samples.
The technician will change gloves after each composite soil sample is taken.
It is important that the technician always use the wet-wipes that are approved
by MRI labs.
When using wet-wipes, always wipe in one direction.
Never reuse a wipe unless the contaminated or dirty side of the wipe is folded
to the inside.
A-2
-------
Clean hands (gloves) with a wipe before and after the decontamination process.
Hie technician will insert core into ground approximately 10 centimeters.
The technician will put the three core sub-samples in a plastic bag (one
composite sample) and hand it to the team leader who will double bag the
sample, and attach the label to the inside bag.
The technician will clean the core with a baby wipe after each composite soil
sample is taken.
The technician will note the location of the sample, and make remarks
regarding exceptions to normal procedures on the Sampling Data Forms.
If soil samples cannot be taken as outlined in the procedures, use the following
guidelines: If there is soil within twenty-five (25) feet of the sampled building,
take a soil sample at the location and treat it as a remote sample.
Below are the procedures to follow to insure that the equipment is decontaminated.
After each composite soil sample is taken, the technician will
Clean hands (gloves) with wipe,
Clean the plunger,
Wad a wet-wipe into the sample tube, starting in the bore and using the plunger to
push the wipe through the tube,
Remove the wipe from the tube, if the wipe is dirty, repeat the second and third steps
and continue until the wipe comes out of the plunger clean,
Clean the external part of the bore with a wipe, and
Clean hands (gloves) with wet-wipe and dispose of gloves in plastic trash bag.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY MATERIALS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SEGMENT MAP B-l
EXAMPLE OF A STETCH MAP B-2
LISTING ROUTE FORM B-3
MAIN LISTING SHEET B-4
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FORM B-5
INTRODUCTION LETTER, VERSION 1 B-6
INTRODUCTION LETTER, VERSION 2 B-7
SCREENER B-8
CONTACT RECORD B-ll
PRIVATE HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE B-12
IN-PERSON CONTACT RECORD B-19
INFORMED CONSENT RELEASE AND WAIVER B-20
RECEIPT B-22
DWELLING UNIT FORM B-23
INTERIOR OBSERVATION FORM B-25
EXTERIOR OBSERVATION FORM B-26
SOIL AND DUST SAMPLING LOG B-27
COMMON AREA INVENTORY B-29
COMMON AREA OBSERVATION FORM B-30
COMMON AREA COLLECTION FORM B-31
CONTACT RECORD B-32
LETTER REQUESTING RESULTS B-33
TRANSMTITAL FORM B-34
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SAMPLE LABELS FOR SOIL AND DUST B-35
SURVEY MATERIALS CHECKLIST B-36
XRF VALIDATION FORM B-37
VALID CODES B-38
-------
o.
0"7
GOOt»ii-_
HDHBER OF DO'S,,
VI
£,C
S22HEHT RUBBER,
J?^L
-------
o.
Vrtj-v *_>^u- ^. i^._
NUMBER OF DU'S_
a/
i MUHH&K
^
B-2
-------
LISTING ROOTE FORM
Page of
Seg
List All Streets in
the Order Traveled
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
fir
o *
Beginning
Intersection
V
Ending
Intersection
B-3
-------
Listed by:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL SURVEY OF LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
MAIN LISTING SHEET
Page_
PSU *:
Segment f:
o?
pages
MAILING INFORMATION FOR SEGMENT
Name of City, Township, etc.:
Zip Code:
()
OfflM
Us*
Only
(b)
Unt
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
0
9
0
1
2
3
4
s
8
7
8
0
0
(c)
StfMtNanw
W
HOUM
t
()
Apt.
*
«
DeicflpHofi or Location
f
OCR.
Qtra.
i/i
f
1
(h)
Remirkt
-------
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
AND GENERAL COMMENTS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
GENERAL COMMENTS
B-5
-------
INTRODUCTION LETTER. VERSIC
^rcirc 0F THE ASSIST*""! SECPETABv
=00 POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
November 29, 1989
Dear Resident:
I would lite your help in an important national study. The United
States DeoartnEnt of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is conducting a
survey of'homes throughout the Nation to examine them for the possible
presence of lead in paint, dust, and soil. Unsafe levels of lead are
associated with nany debilitating diseases, particularly in children and
unborn babies. Public health officials know the dangers of lead
poisonina but not the extent of the problem in our hones. Congress
mandated "this study of hones across America to learn just how widespread
the problem of lead-based paint is in our country.
Your home nay be randomly selected from among all hones in America
for inclusion in this survey. HUD has asJoed Westat, Inc., a large
statistical survey company, to conduct the survey. This Westat
interviewer wants to ask you a few questions about your hone. If you are
selected for the survey, Westat will schedule an appoinonent for the
interviewer and a technician to visit your home again. They will measure
painted surfaces for lead and will collect small samples of dust and soil
from your home. We don't know if any measurable amounts of lead will be
found. The data for your home will be combined with data for many other
homes across the Nation to estimate the extent of lead in American homes.
Your information is totally confidential and will never be associated
with you individually. If you wish, you personally may obtain the
recoros of your test results.
Your voluntary cooperation in this survey is essential. Please take
the time to cooperate with the survey staff in their questions and
testing needs. All survey staff carry picture identification authorized
by HUD.
Thank you for helping in this effort to reduce the problem of lead
poisoning in our country. If you have any questions or concerns that the
interviewer is unable to answer, please call Westat's National Field
Director at 1-800-937-8284 or call HUD at 1-202-755-4370. (The HUD
number is not toll free.)
Very sincerely yours,
Ronald J. Morony, P.E.
Director of Innovative Technology
Office of Research
B-6
-------
~
'~ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20410
/ INTRODUCTION LETTER. VERSION 2
November 24, 1989
Dear Resident:
I would lite your help in a study of importance to our Nation. The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is conducting a
survey of homes throughout the Nation to examine them for the possible
presence of lead in paint, dust, and soil. Unsafe levels of lead are
associated with many debilitating diseases, particularly in children and
unborn babies. Public health officials know the dangers of lead
poisoning but not the extent of the problem in the environment. Congress
mandated this study of homes across America to learn just how widespread
the problem of lead-based paint is in our country.
Your home has been randomly selected from among all heroes in America
for inclusion in this survey. The Department has asked Westat, Inc., a
large statistical survey company, to conduct the survey. A Westat
interviewer wants to visit you to ask you a few questions about your
horns. In addition, a technician will measure selected painted surfaces
for lead, and will collect small samples of dust from your home and soil
iron the outside. The survey team does not know if any measurable
amounts of lead will be found. The results for your home will be
combined with the results for many other homes across the Nation to
estimate the extent of lead in American homes. Your test results are
totally confidential and will never be associated with you individually.
If you wish, you personally may obtain the records of your test results.
Your voluntary cooperation in this survey is essential. This study
is very important to the public health of this country. Please take the
lime to cooperate with the survey interviewer and technician in their
questions and testing needs. All survey staff carry picture
identification authorized by HUD.
Thank you for helping in this effort to reduce the problem of lead
poisoning in our country. If you have any questions or concerns that the
int&rviewer is unable to answer, please call Westat*s National Field
Director at 1-800-937-8284 or call HUD at 1-202-755-4370.
Very sincerely yours,
Ronald J.*MDrony, PT
Director of Innovative Technology
Office of Research
B-7
-------
OMB 2528-10372
Expirw August 31.1990
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL SURVEY OF
LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
Assurance of Confidentiality
The intormanon you provide will be used tor research purposes only. Your answers will be kept strictly
confidential and protected from disetosyfe_as specified by the privacy Act of 1974 and as required by law. The
informanon you provide will never be identified witti you or your family.
B-8
-------
51. Interviewer Verify that the OU address *
ttat on tne label on back of questionnaire.
1 Yes. address same
2 Not same (Cornet HO)
[Hand respondent HUD tetter) Hello, my name is _ . lam
witriWestat. Wesat is assisting the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) with a national housing survey
to coUect information about lead-based paint in
S9. Would you say the building s_.
1 Lett than 10 yean, old (Code P10: end)
2 10 to 29 years old
3 30 to 49 years old
4 At least SO years old or older
8 Don't know
housing. I would like to ask you a lew quesoons about your
house.
S2.
SI
S4.
Is this house/apartment primarily a residence or
business?
1 Business (Code P10: end)
2 Residence
Is this a year-round residence or is it a vacanon home?
1 Year-round residence
2 Vacation home (Code P10: end)
How marry apartments/dwelling units are in this
building?
LJ_I_I_I (S6)
Enter number
9998 Don't know
S5. Would you say that there are...
Q«f\ 1.
oiu. ir
uerview
1
2
3
4
e
1980- present
1960-1979
1940-1959
Prior to 1940
Dorrtknow
S11. Do you own or rant?
1 Own(S13)
2 Rent (S13)
S12. Interviewer: Is this an owner-occupied single family
home?
1 Yes (GotoSIS)
2 No
S13. Is this a condominium or cooperative?
1
2
No (Go to S15) if own, then go to S16; if
rentgotoSl4
4 or fewer units
5 units or more
S14.
S£. Interviewer Unit count B~
1 to 4 units
5 or more units
If your home is selected for the full survey, we will want
to visit and take dust and soil samples from common
areas. We will need to contact the management
company or owners' assooaocTi about visiting in those
areas. Who should we contact?
Name:
57. When was this building/home constructed?
LIIII (W1980 or later, code P10: end)
(If before 1980. S10)
9998 Don't know
Address:
SS. Was it constructed in...
1 1980 to present (Code
2 1960-1979 (S10)
3 1940-1959 (S10)
4 Prior to 1940 (S10)
8 Don't know
Telephone:
area code
B-9
-------
S15. Interviewer Circle the correct code:
1 PubBdyownad
2 Privately owned
S16. Are there any children 6 years or younger living in this
building/home?
1 Yes (S19)
2 No
8 Don't know
S17. Are there any rules or regulations prohibiting children
from living in this budding orrwghboiliood?
1 Yes
2 No (S19)
B Don't know
S1B. Do the rules prohibit adutts under the age of 50 from
living in this building or neignbomood?
1 Yes (Code P10; end)
2 No
B Don't know
S19. If we need to call again, who should we contact?
Name:
Telephone:
Homo:
area cooe
Other
areacooe
S20. When would be a good time to contact
(above named person)?
Days/Dates:
Times:
Thank tne respondent tor time and parfinparq
B-10
-------
OMB * 2528-0137:35
Contact Record
ID
Interviewer Initials
Respondent:.
Address:_
CONTACT RECORD
Date
Time
Result
code
Con
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
In-Peraon Result Codes
P1 No one home
P2 - Vacant
P3 - Would not answer aoor
P4 - Refusal
PS No aOult home
pg . Language problem
P7 - Breakotf/Friendly/Revisit
P8 « Breakoff/Friendry
P9 « Comoieted saeener/inspecnon
P10 - Not eligible
P11 - Other
Telephone Result Codes
T1 Ring, no answer
T2 - Wrong number
T3 - Language problem
T4 - Callback needed
T5 Refusal to allow inspection
T6 - Appointment rescheduled
i f m Appointment confirmed/
call completed successfully
TB Other
B-ll
-------
HUD NATIONAL SURVEY OF
LEAD-BASED PAINT IN HOUSING
PRIVATE HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
LABEL
INTRODUCTION:
May 1 speak to (
(Screener Respondent)
My name is (_
j. I'm calling from Westat in Rockvflle. Maryland on behatf
of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. You may remember on _
(Date of Screener)
a Westat interviewer spoke with you or someone in your household concerning a national survey on lead-based
paint in housing. Do you remember that visit and the letter from HUD explaining the survey?
Have I reached (
If Respondent Does Not Remember Visit Or Letter
)at(
(Telephone Nurnoerj
(Address)
J?
TELEPHONE NUMBER CORRECT.,
ADDRESS CORRECT
.. YES
NO
.. YES
NO (TERMINATE
SHOW TO
SUPERVISOR)
If Respondent Remembers Visit And/or Letter
Your home was selected to be pan of this survey. At this time I have a few questions I would like to ask you. Let
me assure you that your answers wil be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will be combined
in statistical form with similar information from across the country. WhBe your participation is voluntary, your
cooperation is very important to the success of the survey.
E Or COMnODfTUIJTY
TIM IntarmMon you
at
yourtantty. Your
mis
by law. TIM miminauon you
«uoy or raourad by INT,
m BUB >unwy vi
B-I2
-------
Him Begun
AM/PM
I woutd Wke to verify one question from the interview to make sure we rBcadodtheWomaitoncorTBCfly?
1. How many u.i«tt«g UTOOT in thgfauJdmo?
1.
2.
When was this buioTiig constructed?
Nicrar
DenttoK
i_!_LJ_!
DOIIT KNOW
3.
Was &
4. Would you say this building
19BOtOp"°^
1STO-197B
1950-1959
1QdA.1QAp
1920*1939
1Q1Qnroariior
nnuTK-unw
1 (End interview)
2 (5)
a rs>
A fg)
5 (5)
6 (5)
7 (5)
8
Lass than 10 years old.
10 to 19 years old
20 to 29 years old
30 to 39 years old
40 to 49 years old
50 to 59 yean old
60 to 69 years old.
At least 70 years old.
DONT KNOW
01 (End interview)
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
98
I have a few other questions I would like to ask.
How many stones are in the bidding, including the basement?
greatest number of stones on top of each other.)
(If split level, count the
Number of Stones
6. Does this building have central air conditioning?
Yes
No
.... 1 (8)
_ 2
B-13
-------
7. Does this bufldlng have forced hot air heat?
Yes.
No.
8. How many people live in this household?
Number
9. For each person, please tell me their age and sex?
1
2
S«K
Raca
11.
12.
Sex
Ag.
Rao*
10. Would you piease tell me the race or ethnic background of (ask person no. 1; then person
no. 2: etc.) Is he/she.
READ UST AND ENTER CODE F OH RACE/ETHNIC BACKGROUND
01. AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE
02. ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
03. BLACK/AFRO AMERICAN (NON-HISPANIC)
04. WHITE (NON-HISPANIC)
05. HISPANIC
06. OTHER
97. REFUSED
CHECKPOINT
DOES NUIBSER OF PEOPLE IN 08 EQUAL THE NUMBER
LISTED IN 09? IN NO. RECONCILE.
B-14
-------
tt. In the test six months, or less if you have recently moved to this address, have you or
anyone in your household worked at any of the following jobs?
READ LIST. AT THE FIRST YES ANSWER, CIRCLE 1 AND GO TO
NEXT QUESTION.
Paint removal Including scraping Chamtaai plant work
and sanding Glass work
Building Demolition tad Simttar wort
Welding Foundry wort
Plumbing 00 Refinery work
Sandblasting Battery Manufacturing Plant work
Autobodyworfc Other Lead-Retatod Industry work
Salvage (La^ baltarias/nidiatora
Yas 1
No 2
DONTKNOW 8
12. In the last sac months, or iess if you have recently moved to this address, have you or
anyone in your household participated in any of the following activities?
HEAD LIST. AT THE FIRST YES ANSWER. CIRCLE 1 AND GO TO
NEXT QUESTION.
Removed paint from furniture in the house
Palmed cars
Painted bicycles
Soldered pipes
Soldered electronic parts
Worked with stained glass
Painted pictures with artists' paint
Removed paint sanded or painted any pan of the house
13. Do you own or rent?
Yes 1
No 2
DONTKNOW 8
Own 1 (16)
Rent 2
B-15
-------
14. What is the total monthly rent?
Ooflan
DONTKNOW
15. Which of the follcwmgcategonea best describes yc
-------
19. We need now to create a list of the rooms in your harm. A« I read the tet please tall me if sucha
room exists, and If the room has ptumtotng. Also If the room has been added since the house or
budding wn eonsBusad.
ROOM NAME AND DESCRIPTION
'";* -
^
v.x>.-.v s x
nOOHl'1
1. Partor/Sitting/Livino Room
2. D«/R«/F«niV/FI«*«^Gr«Room
3. Den/Rec/Farreiy/Ftorida/GreBRoom
4. Breakfast Room
5. Kitchen
6. Dining Room
7. Bathroom (Specify)
8. Bathroom (Specify)
9. Bathroom (Specify)
10. Bedroom (Specify)
1 1 . Bedroom (Specify)
12. Bedroom (Specify)
13. Bedroom (Specrfy)
14. Study/Office
15. Laundry/Utility Room
16. Other Room (Specrfy)
17. Other 3oom (Specify)
18. Other Room (Specify)
19. Other Room (Specify)
'Ov>>5\ "-5 y^
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
r "^tlTV.
-V ~ - s-tfes~
;r4e^-it
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
V>J\ v -.
"Ifflffu:
$$*
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v TOSfi^^^
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
n?N"
s"w
^X**''"
t?No-
19a. Have any of these rooms bf»eo added since the original construction date?
'Addition: 1. Toultvi
2. Cotncmooof pottti or pnge into eactOKd roan wtiieta a uicd for living piinxK.
B-17
-------
srJon section of the survey.
The room inventory ends the i
A two member Westat team wffl visit your home to measure the paMad surfaces and take dust samples
in two randorrtyseiecaad rooms inside the house. The team w* also measure parted surfaces and tak»
soil samples outside. Westatwilgive you «ty defers (SSOOO) to help compensate for your time and any
inconvenience.
At this time we wouU Oka to make an appoMment tor the vist to your home. We are scheduling the
visits beginning .
(Inspection Date)
What day and time wodd be convenient for you?
DATE
TIME
AM/PM
TRANSFER APPOINTMENT TIME TO BACK
COVER
Time Ended
AM/PM
B-18
-------
OMB # 25284137:35
Control Log and
In-Person Contact Record
ID
Interviewer Initials
Respondent:.
Address:
CONTACT RECORD
Date
Time
Result
code
Comments
6.
7.
B.
In-Person Result Codes
P1 = No one home
P2 = Vacant
P3 = Would not answer door
P4 - Refusal
PS *= No adult home
P6 = Language problem
P7 = Breakoff/Friendly/Revisit
P8 = Breakoff/Friendly
P9 «= Completed screener/inspection
P10= Not eligible
P11 - Other
Telephone Result Codes
T1 = Ring, no answer
T2 = Wrong number
T3= Language problem
T4* Callback needed
T5-= Refusal to allow inspection
T6«= Appointment rescheduled
T7= Appointment confirmed/
call completed successfully
TB-= Other
B-19
-------
WAIVER
OMB #2528-0137:6
10:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing
INFORMED CONSENT RELEASE AND WAIVER FOR RESIDENT
Westat, inc. is conducting a nationwide study to assess the presence of lead in painted surfaces
and dust and soil of dwellings in the United States. This study is being conducted for the U.S Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help develop a strategy to reduce the nsk of lead-based
paints in homes.
Your home has been randomly selected for possible participation in this study. Your participation
in the study is entirely voluntary. You may refuse at any time to allow the employees to perform the tests.
The information gathered about your home and information about this study will be provided via certified
mail to you free of charge. All information wfll be handled in confidence. Other than information provided
to you about your dwelling, information will be reported only as group statistics and not by name or
address. You may call (800) 937-8284 in regard to this study, its results, or your particular dwelling. You
will be provided with a HUD pamphlet with information regarding lead-based paint in dwellings.
I/WE consent to have my/our dwelling entered by representatives of Westat to measure the
existence and amount of lead, if any. in the paint present on the interior surfaces, walls, doors, moldings.
floors, baseboards and attached fixtures, such as cabinets and bookcases; in interior dust; and to have
exterior surfaces, including the soil surrounding the dwelling, sampled.
I/WE understand that neither HUD nor Westat nor their agents will perform any abatement or
correcting activities upon my dwelling.
This statement does not operate to remove responsibility from Westat or its employees or agents
for negligence while present during the sampling study.
WITNESS MY/OUR HAND this day of . 19 .
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE COMPLETELY
BEFORE SIGNING
Witness:
B-20
-------
OMB #2528-0137:6 WAIVER
ID:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing
INFORMED CONSENT RELEASE AND WAIVER FOR OWNER/MANAGER
Westat, Inc. is conducting a nationwide study to assess the presence of lead in painted surfaces
and dust and soil of dwellings in the United States. This study is being conducted for the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help develop a strategy to reduce the risk of lead-based
paints in homes.
Your building has been randomly selected for possible participation in this study. Your
participation in the study is entirely voluntary. You may refuse at any time to allow the employees to
perform the tests. The information gathered about your building and information about this study will be
provided via certified mail to you and the resident tenant free of charge. All information will be handled in
confidence. Other than information provided to you and your resident tenant about their dwelling,
information will be reported only as group statistics and not by name or address. You may call (800) 937-
8284 in regard to this study, its results, or your particular building. You will be provided with a HUD
pamphlet with information regarding lead-based paint in dwellings.
I/WE consent to have my/our owned building entered by representatives of Westat to measure the
existence and amount of lead, if any. in the paint present on the interior surfaces, walls, doors, moldings.
floors, baseboards and attached fixtures, such as cabinets and bookcases: in interior dust; and to have
exterior surfaces, including the soil surrounding the building, sampled under the described procedures.
I/WE understand that neither HUD nor Westat nor their employees nor agents will perform any
abatement or correcting activities upon my building.
This statement does not operate to remove responsibility from Westat or its employees or agents
for negligence while present during the sampling study.
WITNESS MY/OUR HAND and SEAL this day of , 19 .
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE COMPLETELY
BEFORE SIGNING
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
Witness:
B-21
-------
OMB *2S28-0137:9 RECEIPT
ID:
LLS. Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint m Housing
PARTICIPANT RECEIPT
I, . hereby acknowledge the receipt of $50JOO from Westat.
Inc. acknowledging my participation in this research project. The payment is based on my dwelling being
sampled for lead in the paint soil, and dust.
Participant's Signature
Representative
Date
B-22
-------
OMB 25280137:13
23-25
Backup Exterior Wall: (Proceed counter clockwise from sampled wall)
Interviewer Initials/Name
/ 13. Actual Time In:
Technician Initials/Name
17. Time Out:
XRF INFORMATION: «. XRF Serial Number
20-22 XRF Verification Time/XRF#: Before Insp:
time
After Insp:
time
DU Form
ID:
1.
2.
3.
6-7.
e.
10.
11.
12.
Address:
Appointment Date/Time:^
Rescheduled for
Date
Sampled Dry Room:
Backup Dry Room:
Sampled Wet Room:
Backup Wet Room
Sampled Exterior Wall:
(MM/DD/YY)
Room*
Room*
Room*
Room*
Wall*
Time
Name
Name
Name
Name
(Enter wall #)
first #
last*
PURPOSIVE XRF READING
Reading
26. Interior 1
27. Interior 2
». Exterior 1
29. Exterior 2
A B
Room #/Wall #
c
Component
D
Substrate
E
XRF*
F
XRF Reading
FLOATING XRF READING: Selected strata:
(wall/metal/non-metal/shelf)
so. Dry Room: XRF#:_
31. Wet Room: XRF#:
B-23
-------
OU32 in the last six months, (or fewer if you have recently moved to this area) have you or anyone in your household worked
at any of the jobs on card A?
Yes
No
Don't Know..
.... 1
_.. 2
_.. 8
Paint removal including
scraping and sanding
Welding
Oil Refinery work
Salvage (Le., batteries/
radiators
Building Demolition
Foundry work
Sandblasting
Auto body work
Chemical Plant work
Glass work
Lead Smelter work
Plumbing
Battery Manufacturing Plant work
Other Lead-Related Industry work
DU33 In the last six months, (or fewer if you have recently moved to this area) have you or anyone in your household done
any of the following activities listed on Card B at home?
Yes
No....
Don't Know
1
2
8
Removed paint from furniture Soldered electronic parts
Painted cars Worked with stained glass
Painted bicydes Painted pictures with artists' paint
Removed paint, sanded or painted Soldered pipes
any pan of the house
DU34 How many people live in this household?
|_|_| (P-vacant)
Number
DU35 For each person, please tell me their age and sex?
Would you please tell me the race or ethic background of (ask person no. 1; then person no. 2; etc.) Is
he/she...
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sex
Age
Race
7.
8.
g.
10.
11.
12.
Sex
Age
Race
READ UST AND ENTER CODE f OR RACE/ETHIC BACKGROUND
01. AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE
02. ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
03. BLACK/AFRO AMERICAN (NON-HISPANIC)
04. WHITE (NON-HISPANIC)
05. HISPANIC
06. OTHER
97. REFUSED
B-24
-------
1,2. Room*/Type:
3. What floor is room on (vis a vis buBding): Basement _B Attic-A Level*-.
4. If thisis-adry room, is a wet room hmeoiateiy adjacent? Yes...1 No.~2
Component
6 Wall 11 D W F
7Wall«2D W F
8.Wal!f3D W F
9.Wall*4D W F
10.Ceiling
11. Floor
A. Exist/
Painted
YPNPN
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
B C
Dimensions/
Quantity
t
t
t
i
t
»
D
Sub-
Code
E F
Condition
Paint
Substrate
G
Access
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
H
Select
Code
4
6
1
5
2
3
I
XRF
*
J
XRF
Reading
Metal Substrate
12. Baseboard trim
13. Stair tnm
14. Door trim
15. Window sills
16. Window trim
17. Crown molding
18. Door systems
13. Window systems
20. Air /heat vents
21. Radiators
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
*
1
1
1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
s
7
10
9
6
B
1
3
2
4
Non-Metal Substrates
22.BaseDoardtnm
23. Stair trim
24. Door tnm
25. Window sills
26. Window trim
27. Crown molding
28. Door systems
29. Window systems
3D. Air /heat vents
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
*
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
5
8
7
1
2
E
9
4
3
Shelves /Other
31. Shelves
32. Cabinets
33. Fireplace
34. Closet
35. Other (Specify)
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1- 2 3
ft
1
1
1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
5
1
3
2
4
B-25
-------
ID:
1. Wall*
2. Building conoTtions: T=UTrue, F*2=False
T F
a) 1 2 Roof, gutters, downspouts: Roof missing parts of weathering surtaccs, or has holes or eiacits. Guttere or downspouts broken.
b) 1 2 Chimney: Masonry cracked, bricks or coping loose or missing. Obviously out of plumb and not stable.
c) 1 2 Walls and siding: Obvious large cracks or notes in masonry or plaster, requiring nwe than routine painting.
Siding has boards or shingles broken or missing. Obviously out of piumb or with bulges and not stable.
d) 1 2 Windows and doors: Two or more windows or doors broken, missing, or boarded up.
e) 1 2 Porch or steps: Major elements broken, missing, or out of plumb.
f) 1 2 Foundation: Foundation has major, visible cracks, missing material. Structure leans or is visibly unsound.
Component
A. Exist/
Painted
YP NP N
B C
Dimensions/
Quantity
D
Sub-
Code
E F
Condition
Paint
Substrate
G
Access
Y N
H
Select
Code
I
XRF
1
J
XRF
Reading
Wall Strata
3. Wall
1 2 3
1 2
i
Metal Substrate
4. Window sills
5. Window trim
6. Soffit and facia
7. Door trim
8. Door systems, sub #1
9. Door systems, sub <2
10. Columns
11. Railings
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
*
1
1
ft
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
5
1
4
3
E
7
6
2
Non-Metal Substrates
12. Window sills
13. Window trim
14. Soffit and facia
liDoortnm
16. Door systems, sub 11
17. Door systems, sub 12
18. Columns
19. Railings
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
I
t
f
ft
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
4
E
B
2
1
3
5
7
Porches/Other
20. Porch
21. Balcony
22. Stairs
23. Other (Specify)
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
*
1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
2
3
4
1
B-26
-------
OMB *2528-0137:19
Soil/Dust sampling
ID:
INTERIOR OUST SAMPLES
Location
i. Inside entry
a. Floor of diy room
a. Roer of WK room
4. Site wet room
A. Wells w8t room
e. SflJs dry room
7. Wells dry room
i Hall adj. to
sampled DU
9. Common entryway
A
Carpet
Yet No
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
B
YM No
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
c
Samp* no.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0
ATM
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
In. ft.
In. ft.
In. ft.
In. ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES
DWELLING UNIT SOIL SAMPLES
Location
10. Front entryway
to structure
11. Drip line
12. Remote
A
Sample No.
81
82
83
wmiMiioim
Location of drip line of tested painted surface and remote soil samples:
RECREATION/PLAY AREA SOIL SAMPLES
A
Location
13.
14.
IS.
t
Sample No.
84
85
86
Cn.mm- -..i
wm i ii 1 101 iu>
B-27
-------
OMB #2528-0137:19
£Oii/uusi sampling
ID:
COMMON ROOM DUST SAMPLES
Loctton
i. Floor
2. Window sill
a. Window *»
A
Carpet
Y« No
1 2
1 2
1 2
B
fttf^W WVMtt
toouaide
Y«s No
1 2
1 2
1 2
c
Sampl* no.
70
71
72
D
ATM
sq.ft.
In. ft.
In. ft.
B-28
-------
OMB #2528-0137:25
COMMON AREA INVENTORY
ID: _____
1. Permission to test: Not needed...! Provided...2 Denied...3
2. In what year was this building built?
3. Is this a single family unit? Yes...l No...2
4. Does the complex have any of the following common areas?
For each "Yes, Exists", ask for the number of each. Then use the
Select Code to pick the area to be sampled. Circle the Select Code
for the selected area. For each sampled area, determine if it is
located in a separate building and if access is possible (i.e., the
room is not locked). Lastly, determine how many DU's utilize the
selected area.
* 5. Area
(1) Laundry room
(2) Indoor stairwell
(3) Outdoor stairwell
(4) Clubhouse/Community rm
(5) Office
(6) Lobby
(7) Daycare
(8) Public bathroom
(9) Common mailbox area
(10) other (Specify)
(11) Other (Specify)
A
Exists?
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
B
If "Yes"
How Many?
C
Select
Code
4
5
8
2
6
7
3
10
11
1
9
D
Separate
Bldg?
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
E
Is Area
Accessible?
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
6. How many dwelling units utilize the selected area?
Put an asterisk (*) next to the name of the selected area, e.g., * office.
B-29
-------
U Areaf/Name:
3. Whatfioorisroomon(visavisbuiding): Basement_B Attic-A Level*.
4. If this is a dry room, is a wet room immedateiy adjacent? YES-1 N0~2
6.Walll1 D W F
7.Walll2D W F
8. Wall 13 D W F
9.Wallf4D W F
10-Cfiiling
11. Floor
A. Exist/
Painted
YPNPN
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
B C
Dimensions/
Quantity
t
t
*
t
D
Sub-
Code
E F
Condition
Paint
Substrate
G
Access
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
H
Select
Code
4
6
2
5
3
1
I
XRF
*
j
XRF
Reading
Metal Substrate
12. Baseboard tnm
13. Stair trim
14. Door trim
15. Window sills
16. Window tnm
17. Crown molding
18. Door systems
19. Window systems
20. Air /heat vents
21. Radiators
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
*
*
*
t
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
2
4
6
5
1
7
8
3
10
9
Non-Metal Substrates
22.Baseooardtnm
23. Stair tnm
24. Door tnm
25. Window sills
26. Window tnm
27. Crown molding
28. Door systems
29. Window systems
30. Air /heat vents
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
f
t
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
i
3
5
2
9
7
6
8
4
Shelves /Other
31. Shelves
32. Cabinets
33. Fireplace
34. Closet
35. Other (Soecify)
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
ft
1
1
1
1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
4
5
2
3
1
B-30
-------
OMB #2528-013729
Common Area Collection Form
ID: (HO generated)
Identify types of recreation/play equipment. Record what the component is (e.g., slide, swings), how many there
are, what they are made of, what condition the paint and substrate are In. Indicate accessibility. Perform XRF
readings then record XRF # and reading.
PLAY EQUIPMENT
A
Equipment
Type
i.
2.
3.
4.
i.
6.
7.
B.
B
Quantity
c
Substrate
Code
D
Paint
Condition
E
Substrate
Condition
F
Access
Y N
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
G
XRF
#
H
XRF
Reading
Complete items below describing the condition of the walls in the common hall. Record XRF # and XRF
readings.
COMMON HALL
Location
e.
Hallway adj.
to sampled DU
10.
Just inside
front door
to building
A
Paint?
Y N
1 2
1 2
e
Substrate
c
Paint
Condition
0
Substrate
Condition
E
Access
Y N
1 2
1 2
F
XRF
#
G
XRF
Reading
B-31
-------
OMB # 2528-0137:35
Control Log and
In-Person Contact Record
ID
Interviewer Initials
Respondent:.
Address:
CONTACT RECORD
Date
Time
Result
code
Comments
2.
7.
8.
9.
In-P-rrson Result Codes
P1 - No one home
P2 - Vacant
P3 « Would not answer door
P4 - Refusal
PS - No adult home
P6 « Language problem
P7 - Breakoff/Friendly/Revistt
P8 = Breakoff/Friendly
PS = Completed screener/inspection
P10 « Not eligible
P11 * Other
Telephone Result Codes
T1 = Ring, no answer
T2«= Wrong number
T3 = Language problem
T4- Callback needed
T5«= Refusal to allow inspection
T6- Appointment rescheduled
T7- Appointment confirmed/
call completed successfully
T8- Other
B-32
-------
OMB 2528-1037:64 Letter Requesting Results
TO: Ms. Frankie Robinson
Westat Field Director
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
My home was inspected as pan of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Study of Lead-Based Paint in Housing. I wish to receive a copy of the results of the
inspection. I understand that these results alone will neither confirm nor deny if lead poses a
hazard in my home.
The ID number associated with my inspection results is:
The person and address to whom I wish the results sent:
Name:
Address:
Daytime Telephone: (
The inspection results based on this survey will be available approximately 12 weeks after the
date of inspection.
Signature of Respondent Date
B-33
-------
OMB #2528-0137^1
Trxnsfnittsi Form
ID:
In cas* this transmittal package
is lost, please return to:
Ms. Frankie Robinson
1650 Research Boulevard
Rodcvffle, MD 20850
or call: 1-800-937-8284
D"
D
r |r««f>»r4»lc
Bg
Q Inspection docmnc
["^ Sa»m}f>;
etc.
ID NUMBERS
COMMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sentbv:
Date:
B-34
-------
PSO « 28
SEG - 4
DO « 01
PSU - 28
SEG - 4
DO - 01
SAMPLE LABELS FOR SOIL AND DUST
PSU - 28
SEG 4
DO - 01
DOST
DUST
SOIL
284010661
284010667
284010662
284010668
284010682
284010663
284010669
284010683
284010664
284010670
284010684
284010665
284010671
284010685
284010666
284010672
284010686
B-35
-------
OMB #25280137:39 Survey Materials Checklist
Interviewer's Responsibility/Need (# following required at each Inspection)
Clipboard (1)
Pens (2)
Calculator (4-function) (1)
Personal ID badge (Westat issued) (1 for interviewer)
Identification tags on all items (4)
Large baggies (Ziploc 1 gal. freezer) (4)
Small baggies (Ziploc sandwich) (30)
Note paper
Post-its (1 pad)
Tape measure (Sears Craftsman 30') (1)
Technician's Responsibility/Need
Clipboard (1)
Personal ID badge (Westat issued) (1 for technician)
Pens (2)
ScitecXRF(l)
Unpowdered gloves (10)
Paper booties (1)
Vacuum pump and attachments (1)
tubing (one 5 ft., one 25 ft.)
nozzle (9)
Vacuum cassettes (9)
Template (1)
Masking tape (1 roll)
Corer(1)
Baby wipes (J&J, alcohol free) (5)
Bottle brush (1)
Flashlight (1)
Putty knife (1)
Brick hammer (Sears Craftsman 9-6546) (1)
Trowel (Sears 71-85510) (1)
Extension cord (one 25 feet)
Electric plug adapter (Sears Levton 9-83815)
Udder (3 ft.)
Decimeter, personal (1-3)
B-36
-------
OMB 2528413723
XRF Validation Form
ID:
1. Sdtec MAP serial*:,
2. Technicians initials/Name:.
3,4. Time:
5. Date:
Substrate
6. Wood
7. Wood
8. Steel
9. Steel
10. Drywall
11. Drywall
12. Concrete
13. Concrete
Shims Lead
Concentration
mg/cm2
0.6
2.99
0.6
2J99
0.6
233
0.6
2.99
Reading
mg/cm2
B
Baseline
mg/cm2
Dffierence
mg/cm2
B-37
-------
Sub Codes (Substrates)
20 Plaster
21 Gypsum (dry wall)
22 Concrete block
23 Concrete (cast)
24 Concrete, Precast
25 Brick
26 Wood paneling
27 Wood smooth
28 Wood rough
29 Wall paper
30 OH doth
31 Ceramic tile
32 Metal smooth
33 Metal rough
34 Wainscor
35 Stone
36 Vinyl siding
37 Aluminum siding
38 Shingle, wood
39 Shingle, asbestos
40 Stucco
41 Ceiling tile
42 Linoleum floor covering
Paint Condition Codes
1 All paint intact
2 Up to 10% not intact
3 10% to 25% not intact
4 Over 25% not intact
5 Wallpaper
6 No paint
Substrate Condition Codes
1 Satisfactory
2 Needs repair
3 Needs replacement
Exists/Painted
1 YP:Yes. exists and is painted
and/or wallpapered
2 NPrYes. exists but not painted
3 N:No. does not exist
D . W,
D # of doors, doorways, dosets
W # of windows, pass thrus
F # of fireplaces, large attached wall
covers (e&, book shelves with back
built in)
Playground Equipment
1 Swings
2 Slides
3 Jungle gym
4 Meny-go-round
5 Horses on springs
6 Sandbox
Wall/Ceiling/Floor Codes
1 Wall facing street named in address
2 Moving counter dockwise from
Wall 1. the next wall
3 Moving counter dockwise from
Wall 2, the next wall
4 Moving counter dockwise from
Wall 3, the next wall
5 Orfling
6 Floor
Component Codes
1 Wall#l
2 Wall #2
3 Wall #3
4 Wall #4
5 Ceiling
6 Floor
7 Baseboard trim
8 Stair trim
9 Door trim
10 Window sills
11 Window trim
12 Crown molding
13 Chair rail
14 Air/heat vents
15 Radiators
16 Interior doors
17 Downspouts
18 Shelves
19 Facia
20 Exterior doors
21 Exterior door systems
22 Wood siding
B-38
------- |