EPA/600/R-01/055
October 2001
Field Demonstration of
Lead-Based Paint Removal and
Inorganic Stabilization Technologies
by
Environmental Quality Management, Inc.
1310 Kemper Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240
Contract No. DACW88-97-D-0017
Project Officer
Vincent F. Hock
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
2902 Newmark Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61821
Project Officer
Alva Edwards-Daniels
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Disclaimer
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL) under Contract No. DACW88-97-D-0017 to Environmental Quality
Management, Inc. It has been subjected to USACERL's and EPA's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as a USACERL and
EPA document.
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or
promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official
endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings of this
report are not to be construed as an official Department of Army or U.S. EPA position,
unless so designated by other authorized documents.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks
in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing
risks from pollution that threatens human health and the environment. The focus of the
Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for
prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and
community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research
and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Abstract
Today the most widespread source of lead exposure in the environment of U.S.
children is lead-based paint that was applied to residential buildings before 1978.
Exposure to lead in paint can come from the paint chips themselves, from dust caused
by abrasion on friction surfaces, or from chalking of exterior paint. A study was
conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of a wet abrasive blasting technology to
remove lead-based paint from exterior wood siding and brick substrates, and the
effectiveness of two Best Demonstrated Available Technologies (BOAT) to stabilize the
resultant blasting media (coal slag and mineral sand) paint debris to reduce the
leachable lead content. The average lead loading of the paint coating on the wood and
brick substrates was 6.9 and 51.9 mg/cm2, respectively. The effectiveness of the lead-
based paint removal technology was determined using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
spectrum analyzer (L&K shell). The XRF measurements were corroborated by analysis
of substrate samples using inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy
(ICP-AES). The effectiveness of the technologies to stabilize the debris was evaluated
through the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Aerodynamic particle
size distributions of lead particulate generated during paint removal were measured
using a multi-stage personal cascade impactor. Personal and area air samples were
collected to evaluate the potential of the wet abrasive blasting technology to generate
exposure levels of lead above the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 ug/m3,
8 hour time-weighted average.
Wet abrasive blasting effectively removed the lead-based paint coating from both
the wood and brick substrates to below the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Guideline (1 mg/cm2) with minimal or no damage to the underlying
substrates (p<0.0001). The mean area air levels of lead-containing particulate
generated during paint removal were significantly below the PEL (p<0.001), whereas
the mean personal breathing zone lead levels were approximately three times higher
than the PEL. Neither of the two stabilization technologies consistently stabilized the
abrasive media paint debris to achieve a leachable lead content below the RCRA
regulatory threshold (< 5 mg/L).
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. submitted this document to the U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories and the U.S. EPA's Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, in partial
fulfillment of Contract No. DACW88-97-D-0017. This report covers the period of April 1
through June 15, 1998, and work was completed as of December 30, 1998.
iv
-------
Contents
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables ix
Acknowledgments xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Objective 2
Chapter 2 Conclusions and Recommendations 3
Conclusions 3
Recommendations 4
Chapter 3 Study Design and Methods 5
Study Design 5
Technologies Evaluated 6
Data Collection Approach 10
Preparation of Worker Safety Plans 12
Site Preparation 12
Sampling and Analytical Methods 13
Statistical Methods 19
Chapter 4 Quality Assurance 21
Sample Chain of Custody 21
Sample Analysis 21
Chapter 5 Results and Discussion 25
Effectiveness of Paint Removal 25
Characterization of Abrasive Media Paint Debris 29
Air Measurements 33
Lead Particulate Aerodynamic Particle Size Distribution 35
Chapter 6 Cost Analysis 38
-------
Contents (continued)
Appendices
A Laboratory Control Samples 41
B XRF Measurements of Lead on Wood and Brick Before Paint Removal Using
a Niton Model 703-A (Variable-Time Mode, "Combined Lead Reading") .... 61
C XRF Measurements of Lead on Wood and Brick After Paint Removal Using
a Niton Model 703-A (Variable-Time Mode, "Combined Lead Leading") .... 63
D Lead Content of Dry Paint Film Sampled Before Paint Removal by
ICP-AES 70
E Lead Content on Wood and Brick Substrates After Paint Removal by
ICP-AES 71
F TCLP for Lead in Abrasive Media Debris from Removal of Lead-Based Paint
from Wood 73
G TCLP for Lead in Abrasive Media Debris from Removal of Lead-Based Paint
from Brick 74
H Personal and Area Air Concentrations of Lead Measured During Removal
of Lead-Based Paint from Wood and Brick Substrate 75
I Particle Size Distribution of Lead Particulate Measured Using a Cascade
Impactor on Operator During Paint Removal from Brick 77
References 78
VI
-------
Figures
1 Differential Lead Particle Size Distribution During Wet Abrasive Blasting
of Brick 36
2 Lead Particulate Size Distribution Cumulative Probably Plot 37
VII
-------
Tables
1 Study Design for Lead-Based Paint Removal from Brick and Wood 5
2 Summary of Sampling Design for Environmental Measurements 7
3 Environmental Sampling Strategy Matrix 8
4 Cascade Impactor Model 298 Cut-Points at 2 Lpm 17
5 Summary of Laboratory QA/QC Analyses by Sample Set and Matrix 23
6 Descriptive Statistics forXRF Measurements (K&L Shell Combined) Collected
Before and After Paint Removal on Exterior Wood Siding 25
7 Descriptive Statistics forXRF Measurements (K&L Shell Combined) Collected
Before and After Paint Removal on Exterior Brick 26
8 Effectiveness of Paint Removal from Exterior Wood Siding and Brick 26
9 Lead Concentrations in Paint and on Wood Measured by ICP-AES and XRF
(K&L Shell Combined) 27
10 Lead Concentrations in Paint and on Brick Measured by ICP-AES and XRF
(K&L) Shell Combined 28
11 Average Paint Removal Rates from Wood and Brick Substrates 29
12 Descriptive Statistics for Leachable Lead (TCLP) Measured in Coal Slag Paint
Debris from Wood Substrate 30
13 Characterization of Coal Slag Paint Debris from Wood Substrates 30
14 Leachable Lead Levels in Re-sampled Debris from Abrasive Blasting of
Wood Substrates 31
VIM
-------
Tables (continued)
15 Leachable Lead Levels in Abrasive Media Paint Debris from Wood
Substrates Treated with Additional Blastox® or PreTox 2000 31
16 Descriptive Statistics for Leachable Lead (TCLP) Measured in Mineral
Sand Paint Debris from Brick Substrates 32
17 Characterization of Mineral Sand Paint Debris from Brick Substrates 32
18 Descriptive Statistics for Personal Zone and Area Air Concentrations of Lead
Measured During Removal of Paint from Wood 34
19 Descriptive Statistics for Personal Zone and Area Air Concentrations of Lead
Measured During Removal of Paint from Brick 34
20 Comparison of Personal and Area Air Concentrations to OSHA PEL 35
21 Cost Analysis for Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Wood Substrate 39
22 Cost Analysis for Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Brick Substrate 40
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared for the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories (USACERL) and U.S. EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in fulfillment of Contract No. DACW88-97-D-0017. Mr.
Vincent F. Hock served as the USACERL Project Officer and Ms. Alva Edwards-Daniels
served as the EPA Project Officer. The administrative efforts of Roger C. Wilmoth of
EPA's NRMRL are greatly appreciated. Special thanks are offered to Patrick J. Clark
and Alva Edwards-Daniels of EPA's NRMRL for their technical guidance and tireless
efforts in assisting with conducting the field portion of this study. We acknowledge the
following persons for conducting the technical review of this report: Patrick J. Clark and
John Burckle of EPA's NRMRL and John T. Hinton, Jr. of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Louisville District.
This study could not have been completed without the assistance and
cooperation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District and Elgin
Community College in Elgin, Illinois. Greatly appreciated are the administrative efforts
of John T. Hinton, Jr. of the Louisville District for facilitating the use of the wood
buildings at Lock and Dam #12. We are also greatly appreciative of the administrative
efforts of Paul A. Dawson and Don Bauman for facilitating use of the building at the
Fountain Square Campus of Elgin Community College. We also appreciate the
coordination efforts of Sandra Mattson and Frank McNamara of Mattson Associates for
coordinating the use of the building at Elgin Community College.
The field portion of this study was primarily conducted by John R. Kominsky and
Brian A. Spears of Environmental Quality Management, Inc. (EQ), and Patrick J. Clark
and Alva Edwards-Daniels of EPA's NRMRL. Secondary field support was provided by
Susan A. Drozdz and Vincent F. Hock of USACERL.
We also acknowledge the suppliers of the technologies including Keizer
Technologies of Americas, Inc. for providing the Torbo® Wet Abrasive Blasting System;
TDJ Group, Inc. for providing the Blastox® abrasive additive; and NexTec, Inc., for
providing the PreTox 2000 Fast Dry surface preparation coating lead-stabilizer.
This document was written by John R. Kominsky, CIH, CSP, CHMM of
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. The abatement technology cost analysis was
prepared by Vincent F. Hock and Susan A. Drozdz of USACERL. The laboratory
control sample charts were prepared by Chris Gibson of DataChem Laboratories.
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Today the most widespread source of lead exposure in the environment of U.S.
children is lead-based paint that was applied to residential buildings before the 1978
ban on residential leaded paint by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Lead
was a major ingredient in most interior and exterior oil paints prior to 1960, with some
paints containing as much as 50 percent lead in dry weight. Lead was widely used as
pigment because its different forms could produce a wide variety of colors, and it
improved the physical properties of the paint. Exposure to lead in paint can come from
the paint chips themselves, from dust caused by abrasion of paint on friction surfaces,
or from chalking of exterior paint. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) estimates that 83 percent of pre-1980 residential housing
structures contain some lead-based paint.1 The likelihood, extent, and concentration of
lead-based paint vary with the age of the building.
The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of 1971, as amended by the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, established 1.0 milligram of lead
per square centimeter of surface area (mg/cm2) as the federal threshold requiring
abatement of lead-based paint on architectural components in public and Indian
housing developments nationwide. The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (commonly referred to as "Title X") mandated the evaluation and
reduction of lead-based paint hazards in the nation's existing housing. Title X also
established 0.5 percent lead by weight as an alternative to the 1.0 mg/cm2 threshold.
An U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study2 found that a level of 1.0 mg/cm2
was roughly equivalent to 1.0 percent by weight and a level of 0.5 percent by weight
was roughly equivalent to 0.5 mg/cm2.
The management of wastes generated from lead-based paint abatement
activities are governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 and provisions contained in 40 CFR Parts 260-268. RCRA classifies any waste
that leaches 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of lead or more (as determined by a Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure3) a hazardous waste. The leachability of lead is
affected by various factors, including speciation of the metal, pH of the leachate, particle
size, acid flux through the waste, and time of contact with the leachant. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a list of Best Demonstrated
-------
Available Technologies (BOAT) for the inorganic stabilization of hazardous wastes
including lead-containing wastes.4 Stabilization includes those techniques that limit the
solubility of hazardous constituents in the waste.4 Much of the inorganic stabilization
that occurs in the United States is based on the chemistry of lime or ordinary Portland
cement.
EPA is sponsoring a program aimed toward the reduction of lead emissions in
the environment from demolition and renovation projects in commercial buildings,
nonindustrial structures, and residential dwellings. As part of this program, the U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) and EPA's National
Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) conducted this study to evaluate a
paint removal technology combined with two lead-based paint waste stabilization
technologies.
Objective
The overall objective of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a wet
abrasive blasting technology combined with an inorganic-based stabilization technology
to remove lead-based paint from exterior substrates (wood and brick) and to generate a
non-hazardous waste for disposal. The specific objectives of this study are:
° Evaluate the effectiveness of wet abrasive blasting (Torbo®) with an
abrasive lead-stabilizer additive (Blastox®) and wet abrasive blasting
(Torbo®) on a surface preparation coating lead-stabilizer (PreTox 2000
Fast Dry) to remove lead-based paint from exterior brick and wood
substrates to achieve a lead loading (i.e., mass of lead in a given surface
area on the substrate) of <1 mg/cm2.
° Evaluate the effectiveness of an abrasive additive (Blastox®) and surface
preparation coating (PreTox 2000 Fast Dry) to stabilize the lead in paint
abrasive media waste to reduce the leachable lead to below the RCRA
regulatory threshold of 5 mg/L.
° Evaluate the potential for each technology combination (e.g., Torbo® with
Blastox®) to generate airborne lead particulate levels in excess of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible
Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ug/m3, 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
° Develop estimates of the cost of lead-based paint removal and disposal
using these technologies.
-------
Chapter 2
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
1. Wet abrasive blasting effectively removed the lead-based paint from both exterior
wood siding and brick masonry with minimal or no damage to the underlying
substrates (only light sanding of the wood was required prior to painting or tuck
pointing of the mortar joints). The residual lead levels were significantly below
the HUD Guideline of 1 mg/cm2 (p<0.0001). The average paint removal rates
were 76.4 and 119.8 ft2/hr on wood and brick, respectively.
2. The lead concentrations determined by ICP-AES analysis and determined by
XRF measurements before paint removal on wood were not significantly different
(p=0.1055); however, these determinations before paint removal on brick were
significantly different (p=0.0001). The lead concentrations determined by ICP-
AES analysis and determined by XRF measurements after paint removal on
wood were significantly different (p=0.0331); however, these determinations after
paint removal on brick were not significantly different (p=0.5504).
3. The wet abrasive slurry-mixture appears to reduce the fugitive emissions of lead-
containing particulate, which serves to enhance the level of environmental
protection as well as worker health and safety. The mean area air levels of lead-
containing particulate generated during paint removal were significantly below the
OSHA PEL of 50 ug/m3 (p<0.001), whereas the mean personal breathing zone
levels of lead were approximately three times higher than the PEL. The personal
breathing zone levels of lead did not vary significantly with substrate (p=0.6396);
the area samples showed higher levels of lead during removal of paint from brick
than for paint removal from wood (p=0.0463).
4. Neither of the two stabilization technologies (Blastox® and PreTox 2000)
consistently stabilized the abrasive media lead-based paint waste to reduce the
leachable lead content. The 80 percent upper confidence interval for the mean
leachable lead concentration in the debris consistently exceeded the RCRA
regulatory threshold (5 mg/L). Failure of the technologies to stabilize the lead
most likely was due to an inadequate chemical stabilizer-abrasive blend ratio or
-------
insufficient application mil thickness of the pre-paint removal coating treatment in
the case of Blastox® and PreTox 2000, respectively.
Recommendations
1. Although wet abrasive blasting reduces fugitive emissions of lead-containing
particulate generated during removal of paint film from exterior wood or brick
masonry, it should be conducted in at least a Class 4 Containment System as
specified in SSPC Guide 6, "Guide for Containing Debris Generated During Paint
Removal Operations."3 Air monitoring should be conducted at the perimeter work
area to determine the extent that lead-containing particulate are escaping from
the work area.
2. To maximize the performance of these technologies the user should understand
the various factors that may affect the effectiveness of the product to reduce the
leachable lead content of the debris. Included are paint film lead content, paint
film thickness, paint film condition, type of substrate (e.g., wood, brick, metal),
variant particle size, and other potentially significant factors.
PreTox 2000-The user of this technology should follow the application
optimization procedure specified in the technical guidance provided by the
manufacturer. This will ensure that the optimum mil thickness application rate of
PreTox 2000 is applied to the lead-based paint coating to be abated.
B/asfox®-Subsequent to completing this study, the manufacturer of Blastox®
revised their technical guidance regarding the proper blend ratios of abrasive to
chemical-stabilizer. The user of this technology should verify that the blend ratio
provided by the material supplier is consistent with the recommended blend ratio
for a given lead-based paint coating to be abated.
3. Due to the inability of these technologies to consistently reduce the leachable
lead content in the abrasive media paint debris during this demonstration, all
debris should be tested by TCLP prior to disposal. The sampling strategy should
be consistent with Chapter 9 "Sampling Plan" of SW-846 "Test Methods of
Environmental Testing of Solid Wastes."8
-------
Chapter 3
Study Design and Methods
Study Design
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a wet abrasive blasting technology
(Torbo®) combined with two inorganic-based stabilization technologies (Blastox® and
PreTox 2000 Fast Dry) to remove lead-based paint from exterior substrates (brick and
wood) and to generate a non-hazardous waste for disposal. Each technology
combination (e.g., Torbo® with PreTox 2000 Fast Dry) was demonstrated on the two
substrates (brick and wood) to yield two treatments. Each treatment was replicated
three times to yield six experiments per technology combination. The study design is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Study Design for Lead-Based Paint Removal from Brick and Wood
Substrate
Brick
Wood
Total
Number of Experiments
Torbo® with Blastox®
3
3
6
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
3
3
6
Total
6
6
12
Brick - A single building wall (approximately 28' H x 157' L) was used as the
exterior painted brick substrate. This expanse of wall reportedly had the same
construction and painting history. The lead loading (i.e., mass of lead in a given surface
area on the substrate) on the brick ranged from 1.5 to 15.2 mg/cm2 (average 6.9
mg/cm2, std. dev. 3.2 mg/cm2) using a NITON Model 703-A X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
spectrum analyzer (K & L Shell Combined). The masonry wall was divided into six
areas that ranged from 556 to 756 ft2 (average 627 ft2). The differences in surface area
are due to the presence of varying numbers of windows on the wall; the respective
areas were subtracted from each of the test areas. Each technology combination was
assigned at random to the six test areas.
-------
Wood - Five buildings (two houses and three storage buildings with 4-inch
poplar wood siding) were used as the exterior painted wood substrate. The buildings
were located on the same property, had an identical architectural design, and reportedly
had similar painting histories. The lead loading on the wood siding ranged from 13.1 to
51.9 mg/cm2 (average 33.3 mg/cm2, std. dev. = 10.1 mg/cm2) using a NITON Model
703-A XRF spectrum analyzer (K & L Shell Combined).
Two test areas were selected from one of the two houses, and one test area was
selected from each of the remaining four buildings (i.e., one house and three storage
sheds), yielding a total of six test areas. The six test areas ranged from 294 to 431 ft2
(average 363 ft2). The technology combinations were randomly assigned to the test
areas, but assignments were controlled to ensure that each technology combination
was tested on a house.
Table 2 presents a summary of the sampling design for the environmental
measurements. Table 3 presents a summary of the environmental sampling strategy.
Technologies Evaluated
Torbo® Wet Abrasive Blasting System
The Torbo® Wet Abrasive System is manufactured by Keizer Technologies of
Americas, Inc. in Euless, Texas. The system uses conventional blasting abrasives
mixed with water (80% abrasive to 20% water) in a pressure vessel. During this study,
mineral slag was used to remove the paint from the brick and coal slag (Black Beauty®)
was used to remove the paint from the wood.
The system combines the abrasive media and water to create a slurry-mixture
that is fed to a blast nozzle much like a conventional blasting system. In concept, each
particle of the abrasive is encased in a thin layer of water. It utilizes this coating to both
reduce the heat generated by friction and form a cohesive bond for the dust created by
the blasting process that reduces the fugitive particulate emissions.
Water pressure (175 psi) from a system piston pump forces the slurry-mixture
from the vessel to a compressor-generated airstream (185 cfm minimum flow rate),
where it is accelerated toward the blasting nozzle. The blast media consumption (0.01-
0.23 cfm) and water consumption (0.03 - 0.42 gal/min) are both adjustable during
operation. The paint coating is removed by the kinetic energy and mechanical abrasion
of the blast media striking the surface. After the abrasive blasting of the brick or wood
substrates was completed, power water rinsing (60 psi for wood and 95 psi for brick
substrates) was performed on the surface to ensure that all of the abrasive-mixture was
removed. The rinse option used approximately 5 gallons of water per minute. The
water expended during the rinse cycle either evaporated or was absorbed by the
abrasive on the polyethylene sheeting ground cover to form a sludge.
-------
Table 2. Summary of Sampling Design for Environmental Measurements
Technology
Combination
Torbo® with
Blastox®
Torbo® with
PreTox 2000
Fast Dry
Substrate
Exterior
Wood
Siding
Exterior
Brick
Exterior
Wood
Siding
Exterior
Brick
Environmental Data to be Collected
Paint Removal Effectiveness
0 XRFa: pre/post removal
0 ICP-AESb: paint chip/bare
substrate chip: pre/post
removal
0 Visual surface evaluations:
post removal
0 XRF: pre/post removal
0 ICP-AES: paint chip/bare
substrate chip: pre/post
removal
0 Visual surface evaluations:
post removal
0 XRF: pre/post removal
0 ICP-AES: paint chip/bare
substrate chip: pre/post
removal
0 Visual surface evaluations:
post removal
0 XRF: pre/post removal
0 ICP-AES: paint chip/bare
substrate chip: pre/post
removal
0 Visual surface evaluations:
post removal
Work Area Contamination
0 Air lead: during removal
0 Air lead particle size: during removal
0 Blasting debris: post removal
0 Air lead: during removal
0 Air lead particle size: during removal
0 Blasting debris: post removal
0 Air lead: during removal
0 Air lead particle size: during removal
0 Blasting debris: post removal
0 Air lead: during removal
0 Air lead particle size: during removal
0 Blasting debris: post removal
Site Control
0 Area air lead: during
removal
0 Soil lead: pre/post removal
0 Area air lead: during
removal
0 Soil lead: pre/post removal
0 Area air lead: during
removal
0 Soil lead: pre/post removal
0 Area air lead: during
removal
0 Soil lead: pre/post removal
Denotes X-ray fluorescence.
Denotes inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy.
-------
Table 3. Environmental Sampling Strategy Matrix
Technology
Combination
Torbo® with
Blastox®
Torbo® with
PreTox 2000
Fast Dry
Substrate
Exterior Wood Siding
or
Exterior Brick
Exterior Wood Siding
or
Exterior Brick
Experiments per
Substrate per
Technology
Combination
3
3
Sample Type
XRF
Air Lead
Air Lead Particle Size
Soil
Paint Chip/Bare Substrate Chip'
Blasting Debris
XRF
Air Lead3
Air Lead Particle Sizeb
Soil
Paint Chip/Substrate Chip'
Blasting Debris
No. of
Samples per
Experiment
5/25b
1-2/2-6c
1d
1 pair8
3/5'
2
5/25b
1-2/2-6c
1d
1 pair8
3/5'
2
No. of Samples Collected
per Substrate per
Technology Combination3
15/75
3-6/6-18
1
3 pair
9/15
6
15/75
3-6/6-18
1
3 pair
9/15
6
00
Excludes QA/QC samples.
Includes five measurements before and 25 measurements after application of a paint removal technology.
One to two personal samples were collected on the technology operator and/or helper. Two to six area air samples were collected depending
on the site configuration.
Personal sample was collected on the technology operator.
Pair refers to one 3-part composite sample before and one 3-part composite sample after application of a paint removal technology.
A1 %" x 1 %" paint chip sample was collected before and a 1 %" x 1 %" bare substrate chip sample was collected after application of a technology.
-------
Blastox®
Blastox® is manufactured by TDJ Group Inc. in Gary, Illinois. Blastox®, an
abrasive additive, is a di- and tri-calcium silicate-based material similar in chemical
composition to Type I cement. Typically, for lead-based paint removal, it is added at a
20-25 weight percent ratio to the non-recyclable blasting media such as mineral sand or
coal slag. For this study, the supplier of the abrasive reportedly premixed the Blastox®
additive at a 20 and 15 percent weight ratio to the abrasive (mineral sand or coal slag)
for paint removal from the wood and brick substrates, respectively.
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study5concluded that Blastox® stabilizes lead-
containing paint blast media wastes (i.e., reduces the leachability of lead) by a series of
simultaneous reactions that result in an encapsulated lead silicate compound, which is
insoluble at all pH levels. The first reaction is a pH adjustment that simultaneously
stabilizes the lead by adjusting the pH range (8.0-11.5) where there is limited
leachability for lead. Secondly, the chemical form of the lead is changed from a lead
oxide, carbonate, or hydroxide, to a lead silicate, which is insoluble. A U.S. EPA study6
concluded that Blastox® appears to stabilize the lead through an immobilization
mechanism, rather than by chemical reaction of lead oxide, to form a lead silicate.
Lastly, hydration reactions encapsulate the waste into a cementitious material, which
limits the gravitational flow of water through the waste.
PreTox 2000 Fast Dry
PreTox 2000 Fast Dry (hereafter referred to as PreTox 2000) is manufactured by
NexTec, Inc. in Dubuque, Iowa. PreTox 2000 is a cementitious paint-like mixture (i.e.,
treatment layer) designed to be applied to lead-based paint surfaces and allowed to
cure and adhere to the paint coating; it then is removed in conjunction with the
underlying lead-based paint coating using abrasive blasting or other standard
techniques. PreTox 2000 is composed of materials from the compounds of sodium and
potassium silicates, sodium and potassium phosphate, and calcium silicate, iron and
aluminum sulfates, and an alkali metal salt.7 It also contains toluene, acetone, and
VM&P naptha as carrier solvents. Typically, PreTox 2000 is designed to be applied to a
10- to 60-mil (wet) thickness depending on substrate and paint condition; the average
application is 40-mil (wet) thickness. For this study, the manufacturer's representative
used an airless sprayer to apply PreTox 2000 to a surface of 40 mil (wet) thickness.
The manufacturer reports that the PreTox 2000 system stabilizes the lead
through two mechanisms. The first mechanism is chemical stabilization through pH
adjustment, which instantaneously stabilizes the lead by adjusting the pH range (8.0-
11.5) where there is limited leachability for lead. The second is chemical fixation that
changes the soluble ionic form of lead to an insoluble metallic form. Test data provided
by NexTec, Inc. showed that PreTox 2000 successfully stabilized lead-based paint
debris, yielding a leachable lead content of <5 mg/L using both the TCLP and Multiple
Extraction Procedure (MEP).
-------
Data Collection Approach
Study Objective 1
The first study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of wet abrasive
blasting with an abrasive lead-stabilizer additive (Blastox®) and wet abrasive blasting on
a lead-stabilizing surface preparation coating (Torbo®) to remove lead-based paint from
exterior wood and brick substrates to a lead loading of<1 mg/cm2.
An effective removal technology is one that can render the substrate as "free of
lead-based paint," defined as a lead loading of <1 mg/cm2. In addition, the technology
must remove the lead-based paint down to the "bare" wood or brick substrate with
minimal or no damage to the underlying substrate. Therefore, a measure of
effectiveness must include an assessment of lead removal and abated surface
condition. Both of these measures were included to achieve this objective.
One difficulty in comparing the effectiveness of these technologies under real
world conditions was that they could not each be applied to the same surface area.
Thus, a surface cannot receive a lead-based paint abatement treatment more than
once. Under ideal conditions, comparisons of different technologies would best be
conducted on the same surfaces. Since abatement can only be done once, however,
different surfaces were selected for removal by each technology. The approach for this
study was to minimize the potential differences between these surfaces selected for
removal by each technology. To minimize these potential differences, a single expanse
of painted brick wall was selected with the same painting history and five buildings (two
houses and three storage sheds) on the same property with wood siding having similar
architectural characteristics and painting histories.
The study approach to achieve Study Objective 1 included the following:
Lead-based paint removal effectiveness was evaluated by measuring the
lead loading before and after application of each technology using multiple
lead in paint measurements on the substrates (wood or brick) with an X-
ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer.
The surface condition was assessed by observing the physical
appearance of the abated surfaces. A set of standardized terminology
(such as lifted or feathered wood grain or pitted wood surface; spalled
brick; or dislodged mortar from joints) was used for assessing the
condition of the surfaces.
The effects of changing operational parameters were minimized by
attempting to hold operational parameters constant between the different
experimental replicates for each technology. In addition, the
abrasive/Blastox® blend was premixed by the supplier of the abrasives; the
PreTox 2000 surface coating preparation was applied by the same
10
-------
manufacturer's representative; and the same two Torbo® employees
(operator and helper) conducted the wet abrasive blasting.
Study Objective 2
The second study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the abrasive
lead-stabilizer additive (Blastox®) and the surface preparation coating (PreTox 2000) to
stabilize the lead in paint abrasive media waste to below the RCRA regulatory
threshold of 5 mg/L in leachate.
The study approach to achieve Study Objective 2 included the following:
The effectiveness of Blastox® and PreTox 2000 to stabilize the lead in
residual paint abrasive media waste was evaluated by collecting samples
of abrasive media debris after each technology. The leachable lead
content of the waste was determined by TCLP.3
Study Objective 3
The third study objective was to evaluate the potential for each technology
combination (e.g., Torbo® with Blastox®J to generate airborne lead particulate above the
OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 pg/m3, 8-hour time weighted average
(TWA).
The study approach to achieve Study Objective 3 included the following:
The assessment of airborne lead particulate generated within the
breathing zone of both the technology operator and a helper was
performed by collecting personal air samples from the workers during
application of each technology combination. The samples were collected
and analyzed in accordance with NIOSH Method 7300.
Study Objective 4
The fourth study objective was to develop comparative estimates of the cost of
paint removal and disposal using the two technology combinations.
The study approach to achieve Study Objective 4 included the following:
The cost estimates that were developed consisted of five components: (1)
direct labor cost of lead-based paint abatement; (2) indirect labor cost of
lead-based paint abatement (i.e., equipment related to the technology and
associated materials, consumables, and utilities); (3) indirect materials
cost (i.e., polyethylene sheeting, tape, and materials to construct each
work area containment, disposable protective clothing, respiratory
protection, and associated support materials); (4) environmental testing for
worker safety and waste characterization; and (5) transportation and
disposal of waste. The estimated costs are reported for each technology
11
-------
combination and each substrate (wood and masonry) on a per-square-
foot-basis.
Preparation of Worker Safety Plans
Prior to commencement of the work, the following documents were submitted for
approval by the USACERL Contracting Officer's Representative:
° Hazard Communication Program
° Lead Paint Removal/Abatement Plan
° Respirator Protection Program
° Waste Collection and Disposal Plan
° Worker Protection Plan
Approval was granted on all of these referenced documents prior to the
commencement of the technology demonstration. All work was performed in
accordance with guidelines contained in these documents.
Site Preparation
The potential environmental hazards from removal of lead-based paint coatings
are reduced by minimizing or eliminating the airborne particulate, and by containing and
collecting the debris. Hence, the purpose of containment is to prevent or minimize the
debris generated during removal of the lead-based paint coating from the substrate from
entering the environment (air, soil, or water) and to facilitate the controlled collection of
the debris for disposal. The level and type of containment needed is dependent on
various considerations such as size, elevation, and location of the structure, and the
surface preparation (i.e., paint removal) method used.
Wood - The initial containment that was constructed for removal of the lead-
based paint coating from the wood siding was consistent with an SSPC-Guide 6 Class
2A design8 - i.e., air impenetrable walls and ceiling, fully sealed joints, partially sealed
entryway, forced airflow mechanical ventilation, and water impermeable floors.
Because of the lack of visibility inside the containment due to the high relative humidity
levels generated during wet abrasive blasting, however, the containment was reduced
to water-impermeable ground cover consisting of 10-mil nylon-reinforced flame-resistant
polyethylene sheeting. (A limited evaluation of the Torbo® wet abrasive blasting system
by the Department of the Navy under open blasting conditions showed that the fugitive
airborne lead-particulate emissions were consistently below the OSHA PEL.) The
polyethylene sheeting was fastened to the base of the building to prevent further
contamination of the soil. The outer edge of the polyethylene was weighted. The spent
abrasive and paint debris was removed from the ground cover using brooms and
shovels. The materials were placed in 55-gallon open-top DOT-approved drums.
Brick - The containment for the removal of the lead-based paint coating from the
brick consisted of an SSPC-Guide 6 Type B2 air penetrable woven polypropylene
opacity screen (85% opacity) weighing 0.75 oz/ft2. The air was able to pass through the
12
-------
containment material. The screen (35-ft by 50-ft) was draped over the side of the
building at each of the test areas. The perimeter of the screen was anchored to the roof
of the building using 50-pound bags of sand. The ground was covered with water-
impermeable ground cover consisting of 10-mil nylon-reinforced flame-resistant
polyethylene sheeting. The polyethylene sheeting was fastened to the base of the
building to prevent further contamination of the soil. The outer edge of the polyethylene
was weighted with sandbags. The spent abrasive and paint debris was removed from
the ground cover using brooms and shovels. The materials were placed in 55-gallon
open-top DOT-approved drums.
Sampling and Analytical Methods
Thickness of Dry Paint Film
Locations selected to measure the paint film thickness were representative of the
paint over the entire area of the building wall to be abated. Because of the relatively
large surface areas (average of 495 ft2 per test panel), five measurements of the paint
film thickness were made for each of the 12 test panels, yielding a total of 60
measurements. The thickness measurements were made at the approximate center
point of each equally dimensioned grid square of a six-part grid system created over
each test panel.
The measurement of dry film thickness of the paint was made using ASTM
Method D 4138-88.9 This in-field method measures the dry film thickness of coating
films by microscopical observation of precision-cut angular grooves in the coating film.
The range of thickness measurement is 0 to 50 mils (0 to 1.3 mm).
Lead in Dry Paint Film
Lead in paint measurements (XRF and ICP-AES) were made before paint
removal to establish the lead loading on the test panel. The measurements were made
at approximately the same five locations as the paint film thickness measurements. The
measurements were made in accordance with Chapter 7 "Lead-Based Paint Inspection"
(1997 Revision) of the HUD Guidelines.10
XRF Measurements
A NITON XRF Spectrum Analyzer (Model 703-A) running software Version 5.1
was used to determine the lead loading on the brick and wood substrates. The
instrument was operated in the variable-time paint test mode "K & L + Spectra" using
the "Combined Lead Reading" with the instrument display of a 95% confident (2-sigma)
positive or negative determination versus the threshold-level (1 mg/cm2) as the stopping
point of the measurement. There is no inconclusive classification when using the
threshold for this instrument running software version 5.1.11 Results are classified as
positive (i.e., > 1.0 mg/cm2), if greater than or equal to the threshold, or negative (i.e., <
1.0 mg/cm2) if less than the threshold. The instrument reads until a 95% confident
reading of "Positive" or "Negative" versus the threshold (1 mg/cm2) is achieved.
13
-------
The Depth Index displayed by the instrument was also recorded with each
measurement. The Depth Index is a numerical indication of the amount of non-leaded
paint covering the lead detected by the instrument. A Depth Index less than 1.5
indicates lead very near the surface layer of paint. A Depth Index between 1.5 and 4.0
indicates moderately covered lead. A Depth Index greater than 4 indicates deeply
buried lead.
In addition to the manufacturer's recommended warmup and quality control
procedures, the XRF instrument operator performed the calibration check readings in
accordance with the HUD Guidelines.10 The calibration checks were taken using the
Red (1.02 mg/cm2) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard
Reference Material (SRM No. 2579) paint film. In all cases, the instrument displayed a
value between the calibration check limits (0.9 to 1.2 mg/cm2) specified in the
Performance Characteristic Sheet11 and indicated Surface Lead. Because all of the
lead loadings measured in the paint film before paint removal exceed the calibration
standard, the corresponding measurements should be interpreted as approximate or
minimum values.
In order to minimize the contribution of variability originating from the XRF
instrument and operator during the measurement process, the same XRF instrument
and operator were used for all XRF measurements.
Paint Chip Sampling
A paint chip sample for ICP-AES analysis was obtained at approximately the
same location as three of the five XRF measurements. Each sample was obtained from
a 1%-inch by 1%-inch (approximately 3.17-cm by 3.17-cm) square area. The outline of
the sample area was marked with an indelible ink pen. One edge of a 5-inch by 7-inch
aluminum tray was taped immediately below the sample area and formed to
accommodate complete collection of the sample.
Ideally, the goal was to remove aN layers of paint equally, but none of the
substrate. However, inclusion of small amounts of substrate material in the paint
sample would result in minimal error because the primary unit of measure is mass to
area (mg/cm2). That is, the entire sample was extracted by the laboratory, and mass of
lead present was divided by the area of sample. A new 1%-inch-wide wood chisel was
used to remove the paint film sample from the wood siding. The sample was removed
by shaving the paint film surface in a direction parallel to the grain of the wood. To
facilitate collection of the paint film sample from the brick, a heat gun was used to soften
the paint before removal to minimize the amount of substrate in the sample. The
sample area was heated until it became soft and supple. The paint was scraped off the
substrate with a clean 1 %-inch-wide metal paint scraper. All paint was removed from
wood and brick to bare substrate. The exact dimensions (to the nearest millimeter) of
the sample collection area were recorded. The paint sample was transferred from the
aluminum tray into a labeled centrifuge tube with screw cap for shipment to the
14
-------
laboratory. The hard-shelled container was used to facilitate analysis of the entire
sample.
The samples were prepared for analysis in accordance with EPA SW-846
Method 3050 and analyzed by ICP-AES in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 6010.
The analytical limit of detection was reported as 5 ug/sample.
Lead on Bare Substrate
Lead on bare substrate measurements (XRF and ICP-AES) were made after
paint removal to establish the residual lead loading in the test area. The six wood siding
test areas and the six brick wall test areas were each equally dimensioned into 25 areas
(i.e., grid squares). The measurements were made at the approximate center point of
each grid square. An XRF measurement was made in each of the 25 grid squares. A
bare substrate sample for ICP-AES analysis was collected from five of the 25 squares;
the test locations were randomly selected.
XRF Measurements on Bare Substrate
A Niton XRF Spectrum Analyzer (Model 703-A) was used to determine the lead
loading on the substrate after paint removal.
Bare Substrate Chip
Bare substrate chip samples for ICP-AES analysis were collected to verify the
lead loading on the test area determined by the XRF Spectrum Analyzer. The samples
were obtained from a 1%-inch by 1%-inch (approximately 3.17 cm by 3.17 cm) square
area. The outline of the sample area was marked with an indelible ink pen. One edge
of an aluminum tray was taped immediately below the sample area and formed to
accommodate complete collection of the sample.
A sharp 1%-inch-wide wood chisel and hammer were used to remove the sample
of wood substrate. The sample was removed by shaving the wood surface in a
direction parallel to the grain of the wood. A new 1 %-inch brick chisel and hammer
were used to scrape/chip the brick surface to obtain the substrate sample. The depth of
each sample was approximately < 2 millimeters. The exact dimensions (to the nearest
millimeter) of the sample collection area were recorded. The substrate sample was
then transferred from the aluminum collection tray into a labeled centrifuge tube with
screw cap for shipment to the laboratory. The hard-shelled container was used to
facilitate analysis of the entire sample.
The samples were prepared for analysis in accordance with EPA SW-846
Method 3050 and analyzed by ICP-AES in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 6010.
The analytical limit of detection was reported as 5 ug/sample.
15
-------
Lead in Airborne Particulate
Personal Breathing Zone Samples
Personal breathing zone samples were collected on the technology operator and
helper during each technology demonstration, i.e., each worker wore a personal
sampling pump with the filter assembly positioned in the workers' breathing zone area.
The sampling assembly was worn by each worker for the duration of the technology
demonstration. The samples were collected on closed-face, 37-mm-diameter, 0.8-um
pore size mixed-cellulose-ester (MCE) membrane filters contained in a three-piece
cassette. The filter assembly was attached to a constant-flow, battery-powered vacuum
pump operating at a flow rate of approximately 2 liters per minute. The sampling pumps
were calibrated with a precision rotameter both immediately before and after sampling.
The precision rotameter is a secondary standard, and thus was calibrated with a
primary airflow standard (a bubble tube) before, at the midpoint, and after each field
demonstration (i.e., wood and brick substrates) study.
The samples were collected and prepared for analysis by ICP-AES in
accordance with NIOSH Method 7300. The analytical limit of detection was reported as
0.2 ug/sample.
Area Air Samples
During each technology demonstration, area air samples were collected to
determine the extent of lead-particulate emissions from the site. The samples were
collected during the same period as the personal breathing zone samples. The
samples were collected on closed-face, 37-mm-diameter, 0.8-um pore size MCE
membrane filters contained in a three-piece cassette positioned on tripods at a height of
4 to 5 feet. The filter assembly was attached to an electric-powered vacuum pump
operating at a flow rate of approximately 5 liters per minute. The sampling pumps were
calibrated as described for the personal breathing zone samples.
The samples were collected and prepared for analysis by ICP-AES in
accordance with NIOSH Method 7300. The analytical limit of detection was reported as
0.2 ug/sample.
Lead Particulate Aerodynamic Particle Size Distribution
An eight-stage Marple Personal Cascade Impactor (Model 298) was used to
determine the aerodynamic particle size distribution of the lead particulate generated by
the technology. The cascade impactor physically separates particles by size. Table 4
presents the experimentally determined cut-points at the design flow rate of 2 liters/min
(Lpm).12 The collection substrates for Stages 1 through 8 consisted of
34-mm-diameter slotted-mylar substrates. The backup filter consisted of a 34-mm-
diameter, 5-um polyvinyl chloride filter.
16
-------
Table 4. Cascade Impactor Model 298 Cut-Points at 2 Lpm
Impactor Stage No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup Filter
Cut-Point3 Dp (um)
21
15
10
6.0
3.5
2.0
0.9
0.5
0.00
a Aerodynamic equivalent particle-size diameter for spherical
particles of unit mass density in air at 25° C and 1 atm.
The personal sampler was worn by the technology operator for the duration of
the technology demonstration, i.e., during the period of paint removal. The sampler was
attached to a constant-flow, battery-powered vacuum pump operating at a flowrate of 2
liters per minute. The sampling pumps were calibrated as described for the personal
breathing zone samples.
The samples were collected and prepared for analysis by ICP-AES in
accordance with NIOSH Method 7300. The analytical limit of detection was reported as
0.2 ug/sample.
Characterization of Abrasive Media Paint Debris
Representative samples of the abrasive media paint debris (spent abrasive,
stabilization product, paint chips/particles) were collected to determine whether the
material generated from a technology combination was a RCRA (40 CFR Part 261)
hazardous waste based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The
TCLP is designed to simulate the leaching a waste will undergo in a sanitary landfill. If
the leachable lead concentration is equal to or greater than 5 mg/L, the material is a
hazardous waste. The samples were extracted in accordance with EPA SW-846
Method 1311, digested in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 3015, and analyzed in
accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 6010.
17
-------
Wood Substrate
Initially, six and nine representative samples were obtained from the abrasive
media paint debris generated from the Torbo®-Blastox® and Torbo®-PreTox 2000
technology combination demonstrations, respectively. That is, two and three samples,
respectively, were collected during each of the three replicate demonstrations. Each of
these samples consisted of four subsamples that represented a "W" pattern of the
abrasive media paint debris that had deposited on the ground cover around the
structure.
Re-sampling of Debris from Wood Substrates
Due to a concern that this sampling strategy may not have yielded representative
samples of the debris, the material which was subsequently deposited in 55-gallon
drums for disposal was re-sampled. The re-sampling involved removing a 5-gallon
container of the Torbo®- Blastox® generated debris from each of four 55-gallon drums;
re-sampling was done in the same manner for the Torbo®-PreTox 2000 generated
debris. The material from one of the 5-gallon containers was deposited on a hard-flat
surface and thoroughly mixed using a shovel. The pile was then divided into four
quarters with a shovel. A subsample was then collected from each quarter and
combined as a single sample. This procedure was repeated for each 5-gallon
container, yielding a total of four samples for each technology combination.
In addition to the re-sampling of the debris, three 5-gallon containers were
obtained from the Torbo®-Blastox® generated debris and three from the Torbo®-PreTox
2000 generated debris and then treated with additional amounts of Blastox® or PreTox
2000. The debris was treated with additional amounts of the stabilization products to
achieve the optimal blend ratio or mil application thickness, respectively. Additional
amounts of dry Blastox® were added to achieve a blend ratio of 30 percent. Additional
amounts of dry PreTox 2000 were added to simulate a 60 wet mil application thickness.
Retrospectively, these turned out to be the formulations that the respective
manufacturers should have used for the demonstration involving the wood substrates.
Representatives from both TDJ Group, Inc. (Blastox®) and NexTex, Inc. (PreTox
2000) participated in selection of the debris for re-testing, mixing of the debris with and
without the additional amounts of the stabilization products, and sampling of the debris.
Brick Substrate
Six representative samples were obtained of the abrasive media paint debris
generated from the Torbo®-Blastox® technology combination demonstrations, and six
were obtained from the Torbo®-PreTox 2000 technology combination demonstrations.
Prior to collecting the samples, the resultant abrasive media paint debris that had
deposited on the ground cover was culled into a large pile. The pile was thoroughly
mixed and divided into four quarters with shovel. A subsample was then collected from
each quarter and combined as a single sample. This procedure was repeated for a
second sample.
18
-------
Statistical Methods
All comparisons of two sample means were made using a standard two-sample t-
test. If the distributional assumption of normality was not reasonable, then the
corresponding nonparametric distribution-free method was used (i.e., Wilcoxon Rank
Sum Test). All one-sample comparisons to a regulatory action level (1 mg/cm2) were
made using a standard one-tailed t-test. Again, if the distributional assumption of
normality was not reasonable, then the corresponding nonparametric method was used
(i.e., Signed Rank Test). All of these statistical comparisons were made at the 0.05
level of significance.
The upper limit of the 80 percent confidence interval for the mean concentration
of leachable lead in the abrasive media paint debris was calculated to determine if the
material was a RCRA hazardous waste.13 If the mean concentration of leachable lead
plus the 80 percent confidence interval is greater than the regulatory threshold (5 mg/L),
the material was considered to be a hazardous waste.
Calculation of 8-hour Time-Weighted Average
The personal breathing zone concentrations of airborne lead were converted to
an 8-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) exposure concentration using the
following formula:
E = (CJa + CJb +.... + CJJ/8 hours
where: E is the equivalent exposure for the working shift
C is the concentration (ug/m3) during any period of time T
T is the duration (hours) of the exposure at concentration C.
The 8-hr TWA concentrations associated with the measured airborne levels of
lead were calculated assuming zero exposure beyond that which was measured during
technology application. That is, the 8-hr TWAs were calculated by multiplying the
sample duration (hours) by the measured concentration of lead (ug/m3) and dividing the
product by 8 hours. It should be noted that this approach yielded 8-hr TWA exposure
concentrations that most likely would be lower than the exposure measured for a worker
using the technology during an actual abatement project due to the longer exposure
period.
19
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance
Sample Chain of Custody
During the study, sample chain-of-custody procedures were an integral part of
both the sampling and analytical activities and were followed for all samples collected
for laboratory analysis. The final custody procedures documented each sample from
the time of its collection until its receipt by the analytical laboratory. Internal laboratory
records then documented the custody of the sample through its final disposition.
Standard sample chain-of-custody procedures were used. Each sample was
labeled with a unique project identification number that was recorded on a sample data
sheet along with other information such as sampling date, location of the sample, size of
the sample (volume or area), sampling flow rate, sampling start/stop time, and
conditions (environmental and operational) of sampling.
Sample Analysis
Specific quality assurance procedures were followed including those pertaining to
the analysis of field blank samples, laboratory method blanks, laboratory control
samples, and replicate sample analysis.
Field Blank Samples
Afield blank sample is a non-exposed sample of the medium being used for
testing (e.g., mixed cellulose ester membrane filter) that is analyzed for lead as an
assessment of potential lead contamination resulting from field collection and sample
transport activities. The field blanks were limited to the air samples. The field blank
samples for the air samples were collected by removing the colored plugs from both the
top and bottom sides of the cassette for approximately 15 to 30 seconds and then
replacing the plugs. The seven field blank samples did not show detectable levels of
lead at a detection limit of 0.2 ug/sample.
Laboratory Control Samples
Laboratory control samples (i.e., matrix spiked with known concentration of lead)
were analyzed for each sample matrix (e.g., paint chip, wood chip, brick substrate,
mixed cellulose ester filter, etc.). Each laboratory control sample (LCS) consisted of
each matrix spiked with a certified reference material. The LCS spiking material
references and the corresponding matrix were: paint chips - MIST Standard Reference
20
-------
Material 2589, air sampling filters - Fisher Scientific Lot # 973670-24, TCLP extracts -
High Purity Standards Lot# 726120, and soil - Environmental Resource Associates
Inorganic Trace Metals Lot # 235. The laboratory control samples were analyzed with
each sample set processed to verify that the accuracy and bias of the analytical process
were within control limits.
The analytical data generated with the laboratory control samples fall within the
specified laboratory control limits; hence, were generated while the laboratory was in
control. Table 5 presents a summary of the laboratory control sample results.
Appendix A contains the individual laboratory control sample results and the
corresponding control charts.
Replicate Sample Analysis
Replicate sample analyses were performed on the field samples to determine the
precision of the analytical method on each matrix (e.g., abrasive media debris, wood,
brick, paint, etc.). A replicate analysis was defined in this study as a second analysis of
the digestate. The precision of the analysis was estimated by the relative percent
difference (RPD). The acceptance criteria for replicate analysis was <20 percent.14'15
All replicate analyses of the samples were <20 percent. Table 5 presents a summary of
the replicate sample analysis results.
Method Blanks
A method blank sample was analyzed with each batch of samples to document
any contamination resulting from the analytical process. The acceptance criteria were
that the concentration of lead in the method blank should not be higher than the method
detection limit. All method blanks showed non-detectable concentrations of lead. Table
5 presents a summary of the method blank sample results.
21
-------
Table 5. Summary of Laboratory QA/QC Analyses by Sample Set and Matrix
Date
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
5/1/98
5/1/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/30/98
4/30/98
5/7/98
5/7/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
Sample
Set ID
98-S-2526
98-S-2526
98-S-2526
98-S-2528
98-S-2528
98-S-2530
98-S-2530
98-S-2530
98-S-2432
98-S-2432
98-S-2746
98-S-2746
98-S-3452
98-S-3452
Matrix
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
TCLP Extract
TCLP Extract
Wood Chip
Wood Chip
Wood Chip
Paint Chip
Paint Chip
Wood Chip
Wood Chip
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
Method
Blank
NDb
ND
-
ND
-
ND
ND
-
ND
-
ND
-
ND
Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)
% Recovery
LCS1
98
101
-
90
-
97
101
-
102
-
100
-
104
LCS 2
99
101
-
97
-
98
100
-
102
-
102
-
105
LCS RPDa
1.2
0.0
-
7.9
-
0.3
1.2
-
0.2
-
2.3
-
1.0
Replicate Sample Analysis
|jg/sample or ppm
Replicate 1
98
35
10
3.7
32
3000
970
5200
200000
400000
1500
43
0.3
Replicate 2
98
35
10
3.8
30
3100
960
5100
190000
400000
1500
41
<0.2
Replicate
RPD
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
6.5
3.3
1.0
1.9
5.1
0.0
0.0
4.8
NAC
CO
(continued)
-------
Table 5 (continued)
Date
6/12/98
6/22/98
6/22/98
6/22/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
7/8/98
7/8/98
7/2/98
7/2/98
7/2/98
Sample
Set ID
98-S-3453
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-3455
98-S-3455
98-S-3455
98-S-3455
98-S-3457
98-S-3457
98-S-3802
98-S-3802
98-S-3802
Matrix
Paint Chip
Brick Chip
Brick Chip
Brick Chip
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
MCE Filter
TCLP Extract
TCLP Extract
TCLP Extract
TCLP Extract
TCLP Extract
Method
Blank
ND
ND
ND
-
ND
ND
ND
-
ND
-
ND
ND
-
Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)
% Recovery
LCS1
97
103
96
-
101
101
100
-
96
-
91
88
-
LCS 2
98
103
95
-
101
98
100
-
109
-
90
88
-
LCS RPDa
0.5
0.2
0.1
-
0.0
3.4
0.3
-
13.1
1.0
1.2
-
Replicate Sample Analysis
|jg/sample or ppm
Replicate 1
3500
30
150
46
13
5.1
68
160
2
76
21
1.7
7
Replicate 2
3500
30
150
46
13
5.1
69
160
2
75
21
1.7
7
Replicate
RPD
0.0
0/0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
b Denotes relative percent difference.
Denotes none detected.
Denotes not applicable.
Both samples should contain concentrations of analyte above the detection limit.
-------
Chapter 5
Results and Discussion
Effectiveness of Paint Removal
XRF Measurements Before and After Paint Removal
Tables 6 and 7 present descriptive statistics for the XRF measurements obtained
before and after paint removal on wood and brick substrates, respectively, for each
technology combination. The descriptive statistics include the number of samples,
arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum lead
concentrations. Appendix B presents the individual XRF measurements on wood and
brick substrates before paint removal. Appendix C presents the individual XRF
measurements on wood and brick substrates after paint removal.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for XRF Measurements (K & L Shell Combined)
Collected Before and After Paint Removal on Exterior Wood Siding
Technology
Combination
Lead Concentration (mg/cm2)
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Before Paint Removal
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
15
15
36.9
29.7
9.52
9.66
15.5
13.1
51.9
41.4
After Paint Removal
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
75
75
0.24
0.16
0.22
0.16
0
0
1.1
0.70
A one-tailed t-test was used to determine whether the mean lead concentration
after paint removal was significantly less than 1 mg/cm2 both by substrate (i.e., wood
and brick) and overall for each technology combination. In every case, both by
substrate and overall, the results show that both Torbo®-Blastox® and Torbo®-PreTox
2000 reduced lead concentrations on wood and brick to a level significantly below 1
mg/cm2. Table 8 presents the results of the t-test comparisons.
24
-------
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for XRF Measurements (K & L Shell Combined)
Collected Before and After Paint Removal on Exterior Brick
Technology
Combination
Lead Concentration (mg/cm2)
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Before Paint Removal
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
15
15
5.59
8.18
1.78
3.71
1.5
3.9
9.7
15.2
After Paint Removal
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
75
75
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.14
0
0
0.4
1.1
Table 8. Effectiveness of Paint Removal from Exterior Wood Siding and Brick
Technology Combination
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
Substrate
Wood
Brick
Wood
Brick
Site
1
2
5
Overall
2
4
6
Overall
3
4
6
Overall
1
3
5
Overall
N
25
25
25
75
25
25
25
75
25
25
26
76
25
25
25
75
Mean (mg/cm2)
0.10
0.37
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.16
0.07
0.09
0.16
0.11
t statistic
-40.2
-16.9
-14.9
-30.0
-57.6
-44.0
-52.7
-86.2
-26.9
-23.7
-29.8
-46.2
-55.1
-64.6
-19.4
-54.0
p-value
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
25
-------
The one-tailed t-test requires a distributional assumption that the data be
normally distributed. Although the XRF data (Appendix C) were not reasonably
described by a normal distribution, the results of the t-tests were so highly significant
(«0.0001) that a violation of this distributional assumption is not consequential.
However, these data were also analyzed using a non-parametric Sign Rank Test which
does not require that the data follow a normal distribution (i.e., a distribution-free
method). The results of the Signed Rank Tests were also highly significant and agreed
with the respective parametric t-test in every case.
Comparison of XRF Measurements and ICP-AES Analysis
Tables 9 and 10 present descriptive statistics for the XRF measurements
obtained before and after paint removal on wood and brick substrates, respectively, for
each technology combination. The descriptive statistics include the number of samples,
arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and minimum and maximum lead
concentrations. Appendix D presents the individual ICP-AES sample analyses on wood
and brick substrates before paint removal. Appendix E presents the individual ICP-AES
sample analyses on wood and brick substrates after paint removal. The individual
sample concentrations are presented as both mg/cm2 and ug/g.
The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to compare lead concentrations
measured by XRF and ICP-AES on the wood and brick substrates both before and after
paint removal. The Wilcoxon test does not require the distributional assumption of
normality. The lead concentrations determined by ICP-AES and XRF measurements
before paint removal on wood were not significantly different (p=0.1055); however, the
measurements before paint removal on brick were significantly different (p=0.0001).
The lead concentrations determined by ICP-AES and XRF measurements after paint
removal on wood were significantly different (p=0.0331); however, the measurements
after paint removal on brick were not significantly different (p=0.5504).
Table 9. Lead Concentrations in Paint and on Wood Measured by ICP-AES and
XRF (K & L Shell Combined)
Method of
Measurement
Lead Concentration (mg/cm2)
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Before Paint Removal
ICP-AES
XRF (L & K Shell)
18
30
28.2
33.3
12.8
10.1
9.1
13.1
51.6
51.9
After Paint Removal
ICP-AES
XRF (L & K Shell)
30
150
0.37
0.20
0.50
0.20
0.01
0
2.68
1.10
26
-------
Table 10. Lead Concentrations in Paint and on Brick Measured by ICP-AES and
XRF (K & L Shell Combined)
Method of
Measurement
Lead Concentration (mg/cm2)
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Before Paint Removal
ICP-AES
XRF (L & K Shell)
18
30
2.93
6.89
2.11
3.15
0.20
1.5
9.1
15.2
After Paint Removal
ICP-AES
XRF (L & K Shell)
30
150
0.20
0.13
0.30
0.12
0.005
0
1.39
1.10
Condition of Abated Surface
The physical appearance of the abated wood and brick substrates was assessed
by visual examination to determine the extent of damage and degree of repair required
prior to painting of the surface. The wood surfaces were examined to determine
whether the woodgrain was lifted or feathered, the edges of the boards were rounded,
or the surface was pitted or grooved, as well as the general evenness of the surface.
The brick surfaces were examined to determine whether the surface was spalled and
the extent that the mortar in the joints was dislodged.
Wood Surfaces
Overall, there did not appear to be a noticeable difference in the appearance of
the abated wood substrate between the two technology combinations. Both technology
combinations effectively removed the paint coating to bare substrate with minimal
damage to the underlying substrate. Overall, <10 percent of the surfaces were slightly
grooved or pitted; none of the surfaces displayed lifted or feathered woodgrain. Thus,
the resultant substrate would require light sanding prior to painting. An evaluation was
not conducted to measure the potential exposures to airborne lead during this activity.
Hence, users of this technology should be cautioned that sanding of the abated
substrate could result in elevated exposures to lead particulate. In the absence of
actual exposure monitoring data, appropriate respiratory protection and personal
protective clothing should be worn.
It should be noted that the initial wet abrasive blasting of the wood siding at Site
1 resulted in rounding of the edges of the boards. This apparently was due to the
sharpness of the coal slag particles. Hence, mineral sand or other abrasive media
would have been a more appropriate material.
27
-------
Brick Surfaces
Overall, there did not appear to be a noticeable difference in the appearance of
the abated brick substrate between the two technology combinations. Both technology
combinations effectively removed the paint coating to bare substrate with no apparent
damage to the underlying substrate (i.e., the surface was not spalled). Overall,
approximately 25 percent of the mortar joints may require tuck pointing. A mineral sand
abrasive was used for these demonstrations.
Paint Removal Rates
Table 11 presents the paint removal rates for wood and brick substrates for both
technology combinations. The removal rates represent the average of the three
replicate demonstrations per technology combination per substrate. The higher removal
rates from brick may be attributed to the removal from a single expanse of wall versus
the multiple wood wall surfaces, as well as the time required to exercise more care not
to damage the softer wood substrate.
Table 11. Average Paint Removal Rates from Wood and Brick Substrates
Technology Combination
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
Overall
Torbo® with Blastox®
Torbo® with PreTox 2000
Overall
Substrate
Wood
Brick
Paint Removal
(ft2)
354.3
370.1
362.2
646.3
609.3
627.8
Removal Time
(Hours)
4.26
5.23
4.74
5.45
5.02
5.24
Removal Rate
(ft2/hr)
83.2
70.8
76.4
118.6
121.4
119.8
Characterization of Abrasive Media Paint Debris
Coal Slag Paint Debris from Wood Substrate
Table 12 presents descriptive statistics for the TCLP analysis of coal slag paint
debris from wet abrasive blasting of the wood siding. The descriptive statistics include
the number of samples, arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and the minimum and
maximum lead concentrations. Appendix F presents the individual TCLP sample
results.
The 80 percent confidence interval was used to determine whether the mean
leachable lead level in the coal slag paint debris was significantly greater than the
RCRA regulatory threshold of 5 mg/L. If the upper limit of the 80 percent confidence
interval for the mean is > 5 mg/L, the material is considered to be a RCRA hazardous
waste. Table 13 presents the mean leachable lead levels and corresponding upper
confidence limits for the abrasive paint debris by site and overall for both technology
28
-------
combinations. Overall, the abrasive paint debris from both technology combinations
was determined to be a hazardous waste. If examined on a site-by-site basis, the
debris is also determined to be a hazardous waste. Another field demonstration of the
Torbo®-Blastox® technology combination showed similar lead stabilization results.16
The mean leachable lead levels in abrasive media debris generated from the
removal of paint from wood by the two technology combinations were compared by
using a standard two-sample t-test. The mean leachable lead level in the debris
generated from the Torbo®-Blastox® combination (21.3 mg/L) was not significantly
different (p=0.4459) from the mean leachable lead level in the debris generated from the
Torbo®-PreTox 2000 combination (14.8 mg/L).
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for Leachable Lead (TCLP) Measured in Coal
Slag Paint Debris from Wood Substrates
Technology
Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
Leachable Lead Concentration (mg/L)
N
6
9
Mean
21.3
14.8
Std. Dev.
17.6
14.1
Minimum
3.7
0.3
Maximum
52.0
37.0
Table 13. Characterization of Coal Slag Paint Debris from Wood Substrates
Technology
Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox
2000
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Site
1
2
5
Overall
3
4
6
Overall
N
2
2
2
6
3
3
3
9
Leachable Lead Level
Mean (mg/L)
12.4
15.5
36.0
21.3
7.7
29.7
7.1
14.8
80% UCL for Mean
39.0
47.9
85.2
31.9
20.2
39.2
17.5
21.4
The debris was re-sampled due to a concern that the initial sampling data (Table
13) may not have been representative of the true concentration of leachable lead in the
coal slag paint debris. The sampling strategy was consistent with the ASTM Quartering
29
-------
Method.17 Table 14 presents the mean leachable lead levels and corresponding upper
confidence limits for the abrasive paint debris for both technology combinations.
Appendix F presents the individual TCLP sample results. The mean leachable lead
levels from the initial sampling (Table 13) were compared to those from the re-sampling
(Table 14) using a standard two-sample t-test. The initial mean leachable lead level in
the debris generated from the Torbo®-Blastox® combination (21.3 mg/L) was not
significantly different (p=0.2721) from the mean leachable lead level in the re-sampled
debris (12.5 mg/L). Similarly, the initial mean leachable lead level in the debris
generated from the Torbo®-PreTox 2000 combination (14.8 mg/L) was not significantly
different (p=0.7742) from the mean leachable lead level in the re-sampled debris (13.0
mg/L). Hence, these data confirm that the mean leachable lead level determined by the
initial sampling strategy was representative.
Table 14. Leachable Lead Levels in Re-sampled Debris from Abrasive Blasting of
Wood Substrates
Technology Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
N
8
8
Mean (mg/L)
12.5
13.0
80% UCL for Mean
18.0
19.0
In addition to the re-sampling of the abrasive media paint debris, the leachable
lead content was also determined for the debris that had been treated with additional
amounts of Blastox® or PreTox 2000 to achieve the blend ratio or simulate the mil
application thickness, respectively, based on the paint film thickness (average 71 mil).
Table 15 presents the mean leachable lead levels and corresponding upper confidence
limits for the treated debris. Appendix F presents the individual TCLP sample results.
The abrasive media paint debris treated with additional amounts of PreTox 2000 were
determined to be a non-hazardous waste (i.e., the 80% UCL (mg/L) was <5 mg/L). The
abrasive media paint debris treated with additional amounts of Blastox®, however,
remained as a hazardous waste (i.e., the 80% UCL ( mg/L) was >5 mg/L).
Table 15. Leachable Lead Levels in Abrasive Media Paint Debris from Wood
Substrates Treated with Additional Blastox® or PreTox 2000
Technology Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
N
2
2
Mean (mg/L)
21.1
0.1
80% UCL for Mean
41.9
NAa
Not applicable. The individual values were all 0.1 mg/L.
30
-------
Mineral Sand Paint Debris from Brick Substrate
Table 16 presents descriptive statistics for the TCLP analysis of mineral sand
paint debris from wet abrasive blasting of the brick wall. The descriptive statistics
include the number of samples, arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and the
minimum and maximum lead concentrations. Appendix G presents the individual TCLP
sample results.
Table 16. Descriptive Statistics for Leachable Lead (TCLP) Measured in Mineral
Sand Paint Debris from Brick Substrates
Technology Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo® -PreTox 2000
Leachable Lead Concentration (mg/L)
N
6
6
Mean
7.8
8.1
Std. Dev.
2.1
9.0
Minimum
3.9
0.2
Maximum
10.0
20.0
Table 17 presents the mean leachable lead levels and corresponding upper
confidence limits for the abrasive paint debris by site and overall for both technology
combinations. Overall, the abrasive paint debris from both technology combinations
was determined to be a hazardous waste. If examined on a site-by-site basis, the
debris is also determined to be a hazardous waste, with one exception. The two
samples collected from debris at Site 1 (Torbo®-Blastox®) showed an 80% UCL of 3.9,
which by itself would not be classified as a hazardous waste.
Table 17. Characterization of Mineral Sand Paint Debris from Brick Substrates
Technology
Combination
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox
2000
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Site
2
4
6
Overall
1
3
5
Overall
N
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
Leachable Lead Level
Mean (mg/L)
1.1
19.5
3.6
8.1
9.4
5.9
8.3
7.8
80% UCL for Mean
3.9
21.0
9.6
13.5
11.4
11.9
9.5
9.1
31
-------
The mean leachable lead levels in abrasive media debris generated from the
removal of paint from brick by the two technology combinations were compared by
using a standard two-sample t-test. The mean leachable lead level in the debris
generated from the Torbo®-Blastox® combination (8.1 mg/L) was not significantly
different (p=0.9555) from the mean leachable lead level in the debris generated from the
Torbo®-PreTox 2000 combination (7.8 mg/L).
Overall, the abrasive media paint debris characterization results (Tables 12-17)
are somewhat surprising. The leachablility of lead is affected by many factors including,
type of lead in paint, resins used in the paint, age of the paint, particle size, and
others.18"19 The manufacturers of the stabilization technologies postulate that the
ineffectiveness of their respective products in this study was due to insufficient product
added or applied to stabilize the concentration of lead present in the paint. The
reason(s) why these stabilization technologies were ineffective under the conditions of
this study is equivocal.
Blastox®-The material supplier provided a 20% and 15% blend ratio of Blastox®
with the coal slag and mineral sand abrasives for use on the wood and brick substrates,
respectively. A 30% and 20% blend ratio of Blastox® with the respective abrasives
would have been preferred by the manufacturer. Hence, the optimum blend ratio was
not used in the demonstration. Mis-communication between the manufacturer and the
abrasive supplier resulted in the incorrect blending ratio of Blastox® with the abrasive.
Subsequently, the manufacturer issued a technical bulletin to minimize the probability of
this blending error occurring in the future.20
PreTox 2000-The manufacturer of PreTox 2000 recommends a 10-40 mil (wet)
thickness application; a 40 mil (wet) thickness was applied to both the wood and brick
substrates. A 60 mil (wet) thickness application for the wood substrates would have
been preferred by the manufacturer. Hence, the optimum application mil thickness was
not used in the demonstration.
Air Measurements
Personal and Area Air Measurements
Tables 18 and 19 present descriptive statistics for the airborne lead
concentrations measured in the personal breathing zone samples collected on the
operator and helper and in the perimeter areas (outside of the containment) during paint
removal from the wood and brick substrates, respectively. The descriptive statistics
include the number of samples, arithmetic mean, the minimum and maximum
concentrations measured during the actual period of sampling, and the same
parameters for the corresponding 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure
concentrations. Appendix H presents individual air sampling results.
32
-------
Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Personal Zone and Area Air Concentrations of
Lead Measured During Removal of Paint from Wood
Technology
Combination
Lead Concentration (|jg/m3)
N
Measured During Sampling Period
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
8-hour TWA
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Personal Breathing Zone Samples
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
3
3
149
94.3
37.0
48.0
230
170
70.9
55.1
25.1
34.5
101.5
86.7
Area Air Samples
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
9
12
39.1
40.2
8.5
9.8
82.0
67.0
OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit
20.5
26.9
5.4
7.6
41.5
52.0
50
Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for Personal Zone and Area Air Concentrations of
Lead Measured During Removal of Paint from Brick
Technology
Combination
Lead Concentration (ug/m3)
N
Measured During Sampling Period
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
8-hour TWA
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Personal Breathing Zone Samples
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
6
6
101
203
38.0
120
170
560
68.4
81.5
20.1
69.1
147.1
100.6
Area Air Samples
Torbo®-Blastox®
Torbo®-PreTox 2000
18
16
30.0
41.3
0.76
1.4
150
130
OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit
21.2
24.9
0.48
0.81
144
79.1
50
A standard one-tailed t-test was used to determine whether mean airborne lead
levels were significantly less than the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 50 ug/m3 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA). The results of the t-tests are presented in Table
20. The mean airborne lead levels measured on area samples during paint removal
from wood and brick were significantly less than the 50 ug/m3 8-hour TWA (p<0.001).
In all cases, the mean airborne lead levels measured by the personal breathing zone
samples were significantly greater than the 50 ug/m3 8-hour TWA.
33
-------
Table 20. Comparisons of Personal and Area Air Concentrations to OSHA PEL
Technology
Combination
Torbo® with
Blastox®
Torbo® with
PreTox 2000
Substrate
Wood
Brick
Wood
Brick
Type of
Sample
Personal
Area
Personal
Area
Personal
Area
Personal
Area
N
3
9
6
18
3
12
6
16
Mean 8-hr TWA
(ug/m3)
70.9
20.5
68.4
21.2
55.1
26.9
81.5
24.9
t statistic
0.8958
-6.40
1.03
-3.36
0.3163
-6.53
5.63
-3.60
p-value
0.7675
0.0001
0.8257
0.0018
0.6091
0.0001
0.9975
0.0013
The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to compare the average personal
breathing zone concentrations of lead-containing particulate measured during paint
removal from the brick (74.6 ug/m3) and wood (63.0 ug/m3) substrates. The personal
breathing zone levels of lead did not vary significantly with substrate (p=0.6396). The
same comparison was performed for the samples collected in the perimeter of the work
area during paint removal from the brick (22.9 ug/m3) and wood (24.2 ug/m3) substrates.
The area samples showed higher levels of lead during removal of paint from wood than
from brick (p=0.0463).
Lead Particulate Aerodynamic Particle Size Distribution
One sample at each of Sites 1 and 2 were collected on the operator using a
multistage cascade impactor during wet abrasive blasting of the brick wall. The brick
was treated with a 40 mil (wet) thickness application of PreTox 2000. Appendix I
presents the individual concentrations of lead measured.
Figure 1 shows the average differential lead particle size distribution for the two
samples. This graph provides the particle mass concentration (AC,) in each particle-size
band versus the geometric mean diameter (GMD,), where GMD, = /D, x DM. The lead
particles generated by the wet abrasive blasting of the surface coating covers a wide-
size spectrum, where the larger particles account for the greatest mass of lead.
34
-------
1000
CO
Oi
100 r
I
a
Q
e>
M>
O
3 10 ;
U
<
0.35
0.67 1.34 2.65 4.58 7.75 12.2
Particle Geometric Mean Diameter (um)
17.7
32.4
Figure 1. Differential Lead Particle Size Distribution During Wet Abrasive Blasting of Brick.
-------
Figure 2 shows the corresponding cumulative particle size distribution for the
lead particles generated during wet abrasive blasting of the surface coating. The lead
particle sizes are approximately lognormally distributed; i.e., a straight line reasonably
fits the data (r2=0.9746). The mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMD) is
approximately 8.3 um. That is, 50% of the mass is represented by particles larger than
the MMD and 50% of the mass is represented by particles smaller than the MMD. The
geometric standard deviation (i.e., measure of the spread of the particle size
distribution) was 3.4. By comparison, a geometric standard deviation of 1 represents a
monodisperse aerosol (all particles are of the same size).
§
CO
73
0)
3
CO
C
CO
10
CO
(D
c
o
•4=
_cO
3
E
^
O
99.99
99.9
99
90
70
50
30 ^
10
0.1
0.01
0.1
1 10
Particle Diameter (um)
100
Figure 2. Lead particle size distribution cumulative probability plot.
36
-------
Chapter 6
Cost Analysis
A cost analysis of the use of Torbo®-Blastox® and Torbo®-PreTox 2000
technology combinations to remove lead-based paint from wood and brick substrates is
based on field data from the actual test demonstrations. The cost analysis is limited to
the determination of present value savings (i.e., in immediate real dollar terms).
Tables 21 and 22 present summary data from the separate cost analyses of the
wood and brick substrates. Different equipment is required for the various structures
(one-story wood structures vs. 28-ft-high brick wall), thereby affecting contractor
overhead and the type of access equipment used. Furthermore, both the amount of
blast media per square foot and the rate of removal (ft2/hour) vary depending on the
type of substrate.
Cost factors presented in the tables are based on actual contractor cost and are
compared to actual government estimates from site-specific lead-based paint
abatement projects. Note that these cost are highly variable and depend on local
conditions; the data in Tables 21 and 22 are intended to be taken as a guide. The term
"capital facilities" refers to the capital investment in the technology (Torbo® blasting
system). Labor is quoted from actual contractor costs or derived from government
estimate sheets. Consumables include the blast media, blast media additive (Blastox®),
surface coating preparation (PreTox 2000), personal protective clothing and equipment,
tarps and covers, and packaging required for disposal as a hazardous or non-
hazardous waste. Environmental testing includes required tests such as air monitoring
(personal and site), XRF testing, and TCLP waste characterization.
37
-------
Table 21. Cost Analysis for Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Wood Substrate
Cost Factors
Capital Facilities3
Equipment Rental"
Labor0
Consumables'1
Environmental Testing6
Subtotal
Removal Rate
Removal Cost
Disposal Costf
Total Cost
Non-Hazardous Disposal
Non-Hazardous Total Cost
Torbo® without
Stabilization
Technology
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$13.62/site hour
$49.00/site hour
$145.76/site hour
83 ft2/hour
$1.76 /ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$2.05/ft2
N/A
N/A
Torbo® with Stabilization Technology
Blastox® (30 %
Blend)
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$13.72/site hour
$49.00/site hour
$145.87/site hour
83 ft2/hour
$1.76 /ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$2.05/ft2
$0.04/ft2 ($35/ton)
$1.80 /ft2
PreTox 2000
(40-mil wet
thickness)
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$14.09/site hour
$49.00/site hour
$146.27/site hour
71 ft2/hour
$2.06/ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$2.35/ft2
$0.04/ft2 ($35/ton)
$2. 10 /ft2
Capital rates of recovery are from actual contractor costs and DEH government cost estimate
detail sheets. Costs for investment are amortized over 7 years for depreciation, and assume a
2000-hour site year.
Includes construction fork lifts for handling of materials, man lifts for site access, and PreTox 2000
spray application equipment (as applicable).
Site personnel labor cost. Labor is quoted from actual contractor costs or derived from
government estimate sheets.
Consumables are based on items used up in the demonstration. Blastox®: 29 (100-lb) bags of
abrasive (coal slag and 20% Blastox® additive) were used resulting in 2.72 Ib of abrasive mixture
per ft2 of surface area blasted. PreTox 2000: 38 (100-lb) bags of abrasive (coal slag) were used
to remove 40-mil (wet) thickness application of PreTox 2000 resulting in 3.42 Ib of abrasive per ft2
of surface area blasted. The application of 40-mil (wet) thickness on 1,112 ft2 required six 5-gallon
containers of PreTox 2000.
Environmental testing includes air monitoring (6 personal and 23 site perimeter), TCLP (12
abrasive media debris), and XRF ($50/site hour).
Actual transportation and disposal costs.
38
-------
Table 22. Cost Analysis for Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Brick Substrate
Cost Factors
Capital Facilities3
Equipment Rental"
Labor0
Consumables'1
Environmental Testing6
Subtotal
Removal Rate
Removal Cost
Disposal Costf
Total Cost
Non-Hazardous Disposal
Non-Hazardous Total Cost
Torbo® without
Stabilization
Technology
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$16.28/sitehour
$49.00/site hour
$148.42/site hour
119ft2/hour
$1.25/ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$1.54/sqft
N/A
N/A
Torbo® with Stabilization Technology
Blastox® (30%
Blend)
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$16.38/sitehour
$49.00/site hour
$148.52/site hour
119ft2/hour
$1 .25/ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$1.54/sqft
$0.04/ft2 ($35/ton)
$1 .29/ft2
PreTox 2000
(40-mil wet
thickness)
$7.14/site hour
$30.00/site hour
$46.00/site hour
$16.75/sitehour
$49.00/site hour
$148.93/site hour
121 ft2/hour
$1 .23/ft2
$0.29/ft2 ($250/ton)
$1.52/sqft
$0.04/ft2 ($35/ton)
$1 .27/ft2
Capital rates of recovery are from actual contractor costs and DEH government cost estimate detail
sheets. Costs for investment are amortized over 7 years for depreciation, and assume a 2000 hour
site year.
Includes construction fork lifts for handling of materials, man lifts for site access, and PreTox 2000
spray application equipment (as applicable).
Site personnel labor cost. Labor is quoted from actual contractor costs or derived from government
estimate sheets.
Consumables are based on items used up in the demonstration. Blastox®: 46 (100-lb) bags of
abrasive (mineral sand and 15% Blastox® additive) were used resulting in 2.33 Ib of abrasive
mixture per ft2 of surface area blasted. PreTox 2000: 46 (100-lb) bags of abrasive (mineral sand)
were used to remove 40 mil (wet) thickness application of PreTox 2000 resulting in 2.56 Ib of
abrasive per ft2 of surface area blasted. The application of 40 mil (wet) thickness on 1,1796 ft2
required ten 5-gallon containers of PreTox 2000.
Environmental testing includes air monitoring (11 personal and 34 site perimeter), TCLP (12
abrasive media debris), and XRF ($50/site hour).
Actual transportation and disposal costs.
39
-------
Appendix A Laboratory Control Samples
Table A-1. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
QC Number
Method Date Found Target % Recovery Mean La LWL UWL UCL
98-8-1877,1876,1880,2081
98-S-1884,1883
98-S-2229,2196,2190,2191,2199
98-S-2220
98-S-2272
98-5-2314,2315
98-8-2313,2319
98-8-2472,2468
98-8-2524,2521,2520
98-8-2439,2440,2441,2442
98-8-2530
98-8-2530
98-8-2530
98-8-2530
98-8-2443/2451 /2447/244G/2445/2444
98-8-2532
98-8-2532
98-S-2627/2656
98-8-2629/26930
98-8-2629/2930
6010 4/8/98 100600 100000 100.60
6010 4/9/98 104100 100000 104.10
6010 4/13/98 99550 100000 99.55
6010 4/14/98 102300 100000 102.30
6010 4/16/98 101600 100000 101.60
6010 4/20/98 99930 100000 99,93
6010 4/21/98 103000 100000 103.00
6010 4/24/98 105302 100000 105.30
6010 4/27/98 101000 100000 101.00
6010 4/27/98 100500 100000 100.50
6010 4/29/98 97150 100000 97.15
6010 4/29/98 97530 100000 97,53
6010 4/29/98 101200 100000 101.20
6010 4/29/98 100000 100000 100.00
6010 4/29/98 96630 100000 96.63
6010 4/30/98 101700 100000 101.70
6010 4/30/98 101500 100000 101.50
6010 5/1/98 91,57 82 111.40
6010 5/1/98 104400 100000 104.40
6010 5/1/98 104400 100000 104.40
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100,25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90,24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100,25 85.23 90.24 110,26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
100.25 85.23 90.24 110.26 115.27
-------
Chart A-1. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
Method: SW-8466010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Paint Chip
120.00 r
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/-2 SD
CL = +/- 3SD
Accuracy
* X * * * * * *
Sample ID
-------
Table A-2. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
QC Number
98-S-2593, 2452, 2450, 2448
98-S-2683/2662/2622/2449
98-S-2737/271 8/2725/2728
98-S-2737/271 8/2725/2728
98-S-2783
98-S-2730/2729/2661/2726
98-S-2746
98-S-2746
98-S-2831/2747
ho 98-S-2720/2723/2824/2834
98-S-2721/2835/2841/2854/2755
98-S-271 9/291 0/2722/2724/2727
98-S-2739
98-S-3053
98-S-2823/3047/3056/3057/3058/3059/3060/3062
98-S-2823/3047/3056/3057/3058/3059/3060/3062
98-S-3048/3049/3055/3061
98-S-3048/3049/3055/3061
98-S-3126
98-S-3131
Method
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
Date
5/4/98
5/5/98
5/6/98
5/6/98
5/6/98
5/6/98
5/7/98
5/7/98
5/8/98
5/11/98
5/13/98
5/14/98
5/14/98
5/18/98
5/19/98
5/19/98
5/20/98
5/20/98
5/20/98
5/20/98
Found
104300
99110
95330
95330
98970
98780
102300
100000
103800
99820
103300
100400
104400
99330
99950
99950
99130
99130
100500
99620
Target
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
% Recovery
104
99
95
95
99
99
102
100
104
100
103
100
104
99
100
100
99
99
101
100
Mean
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
100.17
LCL
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92,
92,
92
92
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
LWL
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
95.20
UWL
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
105.14
UCL
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
107.63
-------
Chart A-2. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
CO
Method: EPA SW-846 6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Paint Chip
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
Cl = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
Sample ID
-------
Table A-3. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
QC Number
98-S-3131
98-S-31 43/31 56/31 57
98-S-3207
98-S-3325
98-S-3221/3263
98-S-3370/3375/3376
98-S-3403
98-S-3416
98-S-3458
98-S-3352/3495/3496/3498
98-S-3451 /3493/3491 /3492/S497/3494
98-S-3534
98-S-3453
98-S-3453
98-S-3313
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-3454/361 0/3611/3612
98-S-3715
98-S-378 1/3783
Method
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
Date
5/20/98
5/25/98
5/26/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/4/98
6/4/98
6/5/98
6/8/98
6/9/98
6/9/98
6/10/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/15/98
6/16/98
6/16/98
6/16/98
6/17/98
6/19/98
Found
99620
105100
100900
102700
99170
100700
99840
105900
103300
103000
98430
105600
98800
97410
102236
102500
102700
99750
99295
100100
Target % Recovery Mean
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100
105
101
103
99
101
100
106
103
103
98
106
99
97
102
103
103
100
99
100
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101.35
101,35
LCL
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
93.98
LWL
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
96.44
96.44
96.44
96.44
96.44
96.44
96
,44
UWL
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
106.27
UCL
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
108.72
-------
Chart A-3. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
Method: EPA Sw-846 6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Paint Chip
Central Line=Mean Recovery
Wl = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
-------
Table A-4. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
QC Number
98-S-4456
98-S-4298/4327/4334/4335/4336/4337/4338/4424
98-S-4329/4300/4276/4330/4331/4332
98-S-4425/4422/4328/4421/4333/4423
98-S-4524
98-S-4588
98-S-4653
98-S-4653
98-S-3453
98-S-3453
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-3454
98-S-4745
98-S-4607/4657/4660/466 1 /4662
98-S-4656/4665/4666
98-S-4619
98-S-4659/4663/4668/4658
98-S-4834/4664/4667/4669/4798
Method
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
6010
Date
7/20/98
7/20/98
7/20/98
7/21/98
7/22/98
7/24/98
7/30/98
7/30/98
7/31/98
7/31/98
7/31/98
7/31/98
7/31/98
7/31/98
8/3/98
8/4/98
8/4/98
8/4/98
8/5/98
8/6/98
Found
100899
99171
97130
96520
101800
82624
101700
101700
97120
97590
95510
95400
97410
97720
99190
98020
97710
100100
96620
101900
Target
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
% Recovery
100.90
99.17
97.13
96.52
101.80
82.62
101.70
101.70
97.12
97.59
95.51
95.40
97.41
97.72
99.19
98.02
97.71
100.10
96.62
101.90
Mean
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
100.32
LCL
85,
85,
85,
85,
85,
85,
85,
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
,14
14
14
14
,14
,14
,14
,14
,14
,14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
LWL
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
90.20
UWL
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
110.44
UCL
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
115.50
-------
Chart A-4. Paint/Bulk Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
Method: EPA SW-846 6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Bulk/Paint
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
Sample ID
-------
Table A-5. TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
00
QC Number
98-S-2275 TCLP
98-S-2257
98-S-2354
98-S-2463
98-S-2398
98-S-2585/2552/2549/2592/2599
98-S-2528
98-S-2528
98-S-2657
98-S-2675
98-S-2800/2786/2752
98-S-2796
98-S-2747
98-S-2747
98-S-2848
98-S-2880/2878/2863/2930
98-S-2850
98-S-2624/2663/2664
98-S-2881
98-S-288 1/2893
Method
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
Date
4/17/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/29/98
5/1/98
5/1/98
5/4/98
5/4/98
5/7/98
5/7/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/12/98
5/13/98
5/13/98
5/14/98
5/14/98
5/14/98
Found
9.79
9.9
9.99
10.1
9.68
0.504
8.96
9.7
8.8
9.53
9.14
0.499
9.56
9.49
0.453
9.64
10.7
10.1
0.543
0.562
Target
10
10
10
10
10
0.5
10
10
10
10
10
0.5
10
10
0.5
10
10
10
0.5
0.5
% Recovery Mean
98
99
100
101
97
101
90
97
88
95
91
100
96
95
91
96
107
101
109
112
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
100.69
LCL
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
78.47
LWL
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
85.87
UWL
115
115
115,
115
115,
115
115
115,
115,
115,
115
115,
115,
115.
115.
115,
115,
115.
115.
115.
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
,51
,51
,51
,51
51
,51
51
51
,51
51
UCL
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
122.92
-------
Chart A-5, TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
CD
Method: EPA SW-846 6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Liquid
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
Sample ID
-------
Table A-6. TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
o
QC Number
98-S-2991/2934
98-S-3145/3172/3188/3189
98-S-3229/3069
98-S-3 146/3220/3253
98-S-3243/3277/3298/3345
98-S-3436/3350/3435
98-S-3513
98-S-3514
98-S-331 5/3353/3363/3566
98-S-2528
98-S-3579/3679
98-S-3624
98-S-3875/3762/3723
98-S-3807/3790/3831 /3772
98-S-3693
98-S-3802
98-S-3802
98-S-3802
98-S-3802
98-S-3457
Method
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
Date
5/19/98
5/27/98
5/28/98
5/29/98
6/3/98
6/8/98
6/10/98
6/11/98
6/12/98
6/12/98
6/16/98
6/18/98
6/24/98
6/26/98
6/30/98
7/2/98
7/2/98
7/2/98
7/2/98
7/8/98
Found
0.473
9.94
0.508
0.558
0.492
0.499
0.489
0.5
0.458
9.02
9.45
11.3
0.491
9.66
0.482
8.96
8.75
9.05
8.86
9.56
Target
0.5
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
10
10
0.5
10
0.5
10
10
10
10
10
% Recovery
95
99
102
112
98
100
98
100
92
90
95
113
98
97
96
90
88
91
89
96
Mean
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
99.39
LCL
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
77.26
LWL
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
84.64
UWL
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
114.14
UCL
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
121.51
-------
Chart A-6. TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
Method: EPA SW 846 6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Liquid
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL - /- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
125
Accuracy
Sample ID
-------
Table A-7. TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
QC Number
98-S-3457
98-S-4198
98-S-4145
98-S-4 197/4 154
98-S-4263
98-S-4027/4261
98-S-4309/4596/4605/461 8
98-S-4772/481 8/4853/4888
98-S-4765
98-S-4766
98-S-4869
98-S-5036
98-S-4899/4930
98-S-4900/5086/5087/51 15
98-S-5089/5098/5099/5057
98-S-5345
Method
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
3015/6010
Date
7/8/98
7/8/98
7/9/98
7/10/98
7/13/98
7/13/98
7/30/98
8/7/98
8/11/98
8/11/98
8/11/98
8/13/98
8/17/98
8/19/98
8/19/98
8/25/98
Found
10.92
9.58
9.74
0.521
0.466
0.509
0.497
0.457
0.537
0.537
0.518
9.43
0.48
0.473
9.6
9.69
Target
10
10
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
0.5
0.5
10
10
% Recovery
109
96
97
104
93
102
99
91
107
107
104
94
96
95
96
97
Mean
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
99.37
LCL
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
78.36
LWL
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
85.36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UWL
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
113.37
1
1
13.37
13.37
113.37
1
1
1
1
1
1
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
13.37
UCL
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
120.37
-------
Chart A-7. TCLP Extract Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
CO
Method: EPA SW-846 3015/6010
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Liquid
120
115-
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
Sample ID
-------
Table A-8. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
QC Number
6833
6834
6835
6832
6865
6433
6866
6831
6868
6830
7292
6867
7274
7287
7288
7470
7471
7472
7473
7491
Method
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
Date
4/15/98
4/15/98
4/15/98
4/16/98
4/16/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/21/98
4/22/98
4/23/98
4/23/98
4/24/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
4/29/98
Found
102
98.3
100
101
102
103
103
110
104
104
10.2
106
9.93
9.72
10.7
98.7
99.3
100.6
101
101
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
% Recovery
102
98.3
100
101
102
103
103
110
104
104
102
106
99.3
97.2
107
98.7
99.3
100.6
101
101
Mean
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
101.95
LCL
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
90.09
LWL
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
94.04
UWL
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
109.86
UCL
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
113.81
-------
Chart A-8. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
en
Method: NIOSH 7300
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Filter
115.00
110.00
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
* X * * * K X X X
-------
Table A-9. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
QC Number
7474
7492
7493
7494
7506
7483
7484
7495
7485
7486
7487
7488
7476
7477
7481
7489
7475
7479
7480
7482
Method
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
Date
4/30/98
5/4/98
5/8/98
5/8/98
5/13/98
5/15/98
5/19/98
5/21/98
5/26/98
5/26/98
5/26/98
5/26/98
5/27/98
5/29/98
6/8/98
6/9/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
Found
100
96.6
94.6
96.6
10.7
104.4
98.3
9.79
101
99.8
99.9
105
99.4
101
96.8
98.5
104
105
97.9
104
Target
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
% Recovery
100
96.6
94.6
96.6
107
104.4
98.3
97.9
101
99.8
99.9
105
99.4
101
96.8
98.5
104
105
97.9
104
Mean
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
100.39
LCL
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
90.03
LWL
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
93.48
UWL
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
107.29
UCL
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
110.74
-------
Chart A-9. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
Method: NIOSH 7300
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Filter
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
Accuracy
115.00 T
110.00--
105.00--
100.00
95.00 - -
90.00 11 * *
85.00
* — * — * — * — * — * — x
* — * — * — * — * — * — »;
Sample ID
-------
Table A-10. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
en
oo
QC Number
7490
7594
7657
7659
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7676
7677
7679
7691
7680
7682
7690
7681
7689
7675
Method
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
7300
Date
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/23/98
6/23/98
6/25/98
6/25/98
7/1/98
7/1/98
7/1/98
7/798
7/9/98
7/13/98
Found
101
10.1
101
101
100
99.7
98.9
99.2
101
100
100
96.6
103
105
97.2
97.1
96.8
92.1
106
97.5
Target
100
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
% Recovery
101
101
101
101
100
99.7
98.9
99.2
101
100
100
96.6
103
105
97.2
97.1
96.8
92.1
106
97.5
Mean
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
100.05
LCL
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
90.28
LWL
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
93.54
UWL
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
106.55
UCL
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
109.81
-------
Chart A-10. Air Filter Laboratory Control Samples for Lead
Method: NIOSH 7300
Analyte: Lead
Matrix: Filter
Central Line=Mean Recovery
WL = +/- 2 SD
CL = +/- 3 SD
en
CD
115.00 -r
110.00 i i.
105.00 •
100.00
95.00 -
Accuracy
90.00 ' ' * *
85.00
Sample ID
-------
Appendix B
XRF Measurements of Lead on Wood and Brick Before Paint Removal
Using a Niton Model 703-A (Variable-Time Mode, "Combined Lead Reading")
Date
Site Location Tested
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-C
1-C
2
2
2
2
2
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-C-1
3-C-2
4-A
4-B
4-C
4-D
4-D-1
5-A
5-B
5-C
5-D
5-D-1
6-A
6-B
6-C
6-D
6-D-1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/1 8/98
4/1 8/98
4/1 8/98
4/1 8/98
4/1 8/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/1 8/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
4/18/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Paint Film
Thickness
Technology (mil)
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo/Pre-Tox
Torbo-Pre-Tox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
110
100
70
80
50
80
60
80
90
80
90
70
60
60
70
60
50
60
70
70
70
60
70
70
70
70
50
70
60
70
24
30
25
26
29
14
25
24
27
25
17
26
Lead
(mg/cm2)
29.5
23.1
51.9
42.3
44.5
40.6
42.4
40.5
45.6
41.2
23.9
20.1
32.8
22.7
29.4
13.1
40.9
38.6
38.9
19.0
15.5
33.8
28.6
33.5
40.6
28.9
41.4
18.0
40.2
37.3
8.3
6.3
8.3
4.1
3.9
9.7
7.2
6.2
5.7
6.0
13.2
15.2
Classification
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Depth
Index
3.4
2.5
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.7
3.5
2.9
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.5
5.4
3.8
5.5
3.9
4.7
5.4
5.9
3.9
4.1
5.3
3.9
5.0
4.1
5.4
5.1
6.3
7.2
6.1
4.9
4.7
6.3
4.6
6.8
4.7
5
(continued)
60
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Date
Site Location Tested
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Paint Film
Thickness
Technology (mil)
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
22
20
24
18
17
21
20
18
20
18
19
21
17
26
22
21
24
20
Lead
(mg/cm2)
12.8
12.8
6.7
5.4
5.3
1.5
4.5
3.7
7.4
9.1
4.8
4.4
5.4
6.2
5.5
5.5
6.8
4.7
Classification
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Depth
Index
4.3
4.3
2.4
4.1
4
7.3
6.1
3.7
6
4
3.5
3.3
9.3
4.2
4.9
4.9
4.3
9.8
61
-------
Appendix C
XRF Measurements of Lead on Wood and Brick After Paint Removal
Using a Niton Model 703-A (Variable-Time Mode, "Combined Lead Reading")
Site
Location
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
1-C
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Date Tested
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Technology
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
6.2
3.3
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
1.4
1.1
2.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
2.3
1.8
2.6
(continued)
62
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3-A
3-A
3-A
3-A
3-A
3-B
3-B
3-B
3-B
3-B
3-C
3-C
3-C
3-C
3-C
3-C1
3-C1
3-C1
3-C1
3-C1
3-C2
3-C2
3-C2
3-C2
3-C2
4-A
4-A
4-A
4-A
4-A
4-B
4-B
4-B
4-B
4-B
4-C
4-C
4-C
Date Tested
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Technology
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
1
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.1
2.3
7.5
1.0
1.0
2.6
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
2.7
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.1
1.0
2.9
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
2.1
1.0
2.8
1.9
1.6
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.6
(continued)
63
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
4-C
4-C
4-D
4-D
4-D
4-D
4-D
4-D-1
4-D-1
4-D-1
4-D-1
4-D-1
5-A
5-A
5-A
5-A
5-A
5-B
5-B
5-B
5-B
5-B
5-C
5-C
5-C
5-C
5-C
5-D
5-D
5-D
5-D
5-D
5-D-1
5-D-1
5-D-1
5-D-1
5-D-1
6-A
6-A
6-A
6-A
6-A
6-B
6-B
6-B
Date Tested
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Technology
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
2.1
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.4
4.8
1.0
1.0
2.2
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.0
2.8
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.8
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.8
1.0
7.7
4.9
1.0
6.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
(continued)
64
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
6-B
6-B
6-C
6-C
6-C
6-C
6-C
6-D
6-D
6-D
6-D
6-D
6-D-1
6-D-1
6-D-1
6-D-1
6-D-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Date Tested
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
4/24/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Pre-Tox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Pre-Tox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.1
2.5
1.2
2.9
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.1
2.4
2.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.7
1.0
2.9
5.2
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.1
3.6
2.2
2.5
3.3
1.0
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.1
1.0
2.8
1.3
3.5
(continued)
65
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date Tested
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.5
2.9
1.5
1.8
3.1
2.5
6.5
1.8
1.8
3.1
2.8
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.5
1.9
1.8
1.9
5.7
2.6
1.2
1.0
4.6
2.3
1.6
2.3
1.3
1.8
3.1
1.0
3.5
1.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.4
3.4
1.1
2.3
1.0
(continued)
66
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Date Tested
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
2.6
2.0
3.0
2.8
2.1
3.1
2.1
3.1
1.9
1.2
1.6
7.8
4.7
2.1
1.2
1.7
2.1
3.1
1.4
4.6
2.2
1.5
1.5
2.2
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.0
3.7
1.5
5.7
1.3
2.1
2.6
1.3
1.0
10.0
2.7
2.2
3.8
6.1
2.2
3.7
(continued)
67
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
Site
Location
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Date Tested
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-PreTox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Torbo-Blastox
Lead (mg/cm2)
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
Classification
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Depth
Index
1.0
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.1
1.1
2.7
1.3
2.3
2.9
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.1
4.1
2.7
2.7
1.8
2.4
2.3
1.6
1.3
1.7
2.3
1.6
1.6
2.4
3.5
1.8
68
-------
Appendix D
Lead Content of Dry Paint Film Samples Before Paint Removal by ICP-AES
Lead Content
Site Location
1-A
1-B
1-C
2
2
2
3-A
3-B
3-C
4-A
4-B
4-C
5-A
5-B
5-C
6-A
6-B
6-C
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Date Sampled
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
4/28/98
Sample
Number
1-PC-A-01
1-PC-B-02
1-PC-C-03
2-PC-A-01
2-PC-A-02
2-PC-A-03
3-PC-A-01
3-PC-B-02
3-PC-C-03
4-PC-1-01
4-PC-3-03
4-PC-4-02
5-PC-2-01
5-PC-1-02
5-PC-4-03
6-PC-1-01
6-PC-2-02
6-PC-2-03
PC-PT-1-01
PC-PT-1-02
PC-PT-1-03
PC-B-2-01
PC-B-2-02
PC-B-2-03
PC-PT-3-01
PC-PT-3-02
PC-PT-3-03
PC-B-4-01
PC-B-4-02
PC-B-4-03
PC-PT-5-01
PC-PT-5-02
PC-PT-5-03
PC-B-6-01
PC-B-6-02
PC-B-6-03
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
|jg/g
170,000
180,000
310,000
260,000
260,000
260,000
150,000
150,000
200,000
170,000
230,000
330,000
210,000
140,000
210,000
180,000
280,000
200,000
56,000
62,000
45,000
74,000
20,000
28,000
63,000
130,000
130,000
94,000
4,300
60,000
77,000
24,000
59,000
35,000
29,000
62,000
mg/cm2
19.8
16.9
25.8
34.7
39.7
51.6
23.8
19.8
25.8
11.9
39.7
31.7
34.7
17.9
40.7
13.9
49.6
9.1
2.0
3.2
2.7
3.8
1.3
1.8
3.8
5.9
9.1
0.4
0.2
2.8
4.9
1.7
1.8
3.1
1.5
2.7
69
-------
Appendix E
Lead Content of Wood and Brick Substrates After Paint Removal by ICP-AES
Site
Location
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-C
1-C
2
2
2
2
2
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-C
3-C
4-A
4-B
4-C
4-C
4-C
5-A
5-B
5-C
5-C
5-C
6-A
6-B
6-C
6-C
6-C
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
Date
Sampled
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
Sample
Number
1-BS-A-01
1-BS-B-02
1-BS-C-03
1-BS-C-04
1-BS-C-05
2-BS-A-01
2-BS-A-02
2-BS-A-03
2-BS-A-04
2-BS-A-05
3-BS-A-01
3-BS-A-02
3-BS-A-03
3-BS-C1-04
3-BS-C2-05
4-BS-1-01
4-BS-4-02
4-BS-4-03
4-BS-1-04
4-BS-2-05
5-BS-2-01
5-BS-1-02
5-BS-4-03
5-BS-3-04
5-BS-4-05
6-BS-4-01
6-BS-3-02
6-BS-2-03
6-BS-1-04
6-BS-4-05
BS-PT-1-01
BS-PT-1-02
BS-PT-1-03
BS-PT-1-04
BS-PT-1-05
BS-PT-5-01
BS-PT-5-02
BS-PT-5-03
BS-PT-5-04
BS-PT-5-05
BS-PT-3-01
BS-PT-3-02
BS-PT-3-03
BS-PT-3-04
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Lead
|jg/g
6,000
1,400
5,100
3,900
7,900
7,000
15,000
2,200
490
12,000
2,500
1,300
140
2,700
2,100
2,500
12,000
1,200
2,000
4,600
7,900
920
1,500
860
210
3,100
1,800
2,400
45,000
9000
190
20
290
4,300
220
170
2,300
6,000
63
180
240
88
1,300
250
Content
mg/cm2
0.30
0.08
0.53
0.26
0.38
0.60
0.85
0.28
0.05
0.69
0.21
0.10
0.01
0.27
0.18
0.24
0.76
0.10
0.16
0.39
0.52
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.22
0.07
0.25
2.68
0.61
0.04
0.005
0.05
1.39
0.04
0.04
0.58
0.74
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.36
0.05
(continued)
70
-------
APPENDIX E (continued)
Site
Location
3
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
Date
Sampled
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
Sample
Number
BS-PT-3-05
BS-B-6-01
BS-B-6-02
BS-B-6-03
BS-B-6-04
BS-B-6-05
BS-B-4-01
BS-B-4-02
BS-B-4-03
BS-B-4-04
BS-B-4-05
BS-B-2-01
BS-B-2-02
BS-B-2-03
BS-B-2-04
BS-B-2-05
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Lead
M9/9
1,600
260
320
150
1,400
1,800
130
92
540
450
1,400
2,800
320
490
510
1,300
Content
mg/cm2
0.42
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.30
0.15
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.59
0.28
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.15
71
-------
Appendix F
TCLP for Lead in Abrasive Media Debris from Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Wood
Leachable Lead Extract
Site
Location
1
1
2
2
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3,4,6
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
Date
Sampled
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
6/11/98
Sample Number
1-BD-B-01
1-BD-B-02
2-BD-B-01
2-BD-B-02
5-BD-B-01
5-BD-B-02
3-BD-PT-01
3-BD-PT-02
3-BD-PT-03
4-BD-PT-01
4-BD-PT-02
4-BD-PT-03
6-BD-PT-01
6-BD-PT-02
6-BD-PT-03
D1-PT-WOT-1
D1-PT-WOT-2
D1-PT-WT-1
D2-PT-WOT-1
D2-PT-WOT-2
D2-PT-WT-1
D3-PT-WOT-1
D3-PT-WOT-2
D3-PT-WT-1
D4-PT-WOT-1
D4-PT-WOT-2
D1-B-WOT-1
D1-B-WOT-2
D1-B-WT-1
D2-B-WOT-1
D2-B-WOT-2
D2-B-WT-1
D3-B-WOT-1
D3-B-WOT-2
D3-B-WT-1
D4-B-WOT-1
D4-B-WOT-2
Substrate
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Technology
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
mg/L
3.7
21.0
26.0
4.9
20.0
52.0
1.0
21.0
1.2
37.0
32.0
20.0
3.0
18.0
0.3
21.0
21.0
0.1
26.0
28.0
0.1
1.1
1.5
<0.1
3.4
1.7
24.0
16.0
25.0
29.0
18.0
38.0
<0.1
0.3
0.2
7.0
5.9
pH1
NRa
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
9.85
10.39
11.14
10.49
10.56
11.16
10.42
10.40
11.03
10.18
10.31
10.23
10.35
11.19
10.54
10.56
11.30
11.07
10.77
11.40
10.78
10.35
Solution
pH2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3.77
1.90
9,95
1.94
1.88
2.60
2.01
1.96
2.36
1.91
2.40
1.83
1.88
3.99
1.92
1.85
2.66
1.95
1.81
5.89
2.77
2.19
a NR denotes that the pH of the extract solution was not reported.
72
-------
Appendix G
TCLP for Lead in Abrasive Media Debris from Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Brick
Leachable Lead Extract Solution
Site
Location
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Date
Sampled
6/2/98
6/2/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
Sample
Number
BD-1-PT-1
BD-1-PT-2
BD-2-B-1
BD-2-B-2
BD-3-PT-1
BD-3-PT-2
BD-4-B-1
BD-4-B-2
BD-5-PT-1
BD-5-PT-2
BD-6-B-1
BD-6-B-2
Substrate
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Technology
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
mg/L
0.2
2.0
10.0
8.7
19.0
20.0
7.8
3.9
1.6
5.5
7.9
8.7
pH1
10.30
10.40
10.37
10.38
10.34
10.33
10.66
10.58
10.48
10.47
10.71
10.73
pH2
3.53
7.15
2.11
2.00
2.24
2.33
2.04
1.86
5.54
5.20
2.38
2.32
73
-------
Appendix H
Personal and Area Air Concentrations of Lead Measured During Removal
of Lead-Based Paint from Wood and Brick Substrates
Site
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Date
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/19/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/21/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/20/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
4/22/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
5/29/98
Sample
Number
1-OP-01
1-OA-01
1-OA-02
2-OP-2
2-OA-03
2-OA-04
2-OA-05
3-OP-01
3-OA-01
3-OA-02
3-OA-03
3-OA-04
4-OP-01
4-OA-01
4-OA-02
4-OA-03
4-OA-04
5-OP-01
5-OA-01
5-OA-02
5-OA-03
5-OA-04
6-OP-01
6-OA-01
6-OA-02
6-OA-03
6-OA-04
P-OP-1-01
P-HP-1-02
A-R-1-01
A-R-1-03
A-G-1-01
A-G-1-02
A-G-1-03
P-OP-2-01
P-HP-2-02
A-R-2-01
A-R-2-02
A-R-2-03
A-G-2-01
A-G-2-02
A-G-2-03
Sample
Type Substrate Technology
Personal
Area
Area
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Sample
Period
(Hours)
3
4
4
.53
.05
.08
Sample
Volume
(Liters)
3.83
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
.67
.67
.67
.08
.67
.67
.67
.67
.75
.20
.20
.20
.20
.42
.25
.25
.25
.08
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.67
.95
.80
.80
.77
.75
.63
.33
.37
.08
.10
.12
.03
.05
.07
1
424
486
490
460
440
440
440
490
560
560
560
560
690
744
744
744
744
650
630
630
630
610
650
650
650
650
650
585
488
,492
1492
1
,481
1476
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,440
640
640
,580
,585
,590
,594
,570
,575
Air Level
(ug/m3)
230
82
63
180
41
16
64
170
41
59
63
32
48
19
67
50
9.8
37
10
51
16
8.5
65
38
32
46
26
140
140
8.7
4.7
68
11
90
66
38
1.5
0.76
3.2
77
31
76
8-hr
TWA
(ug/m3)
101
42
32
86
19
7
29
87
24
34
37
19
35
15
52
39
8
25
7
33
11
5
44
26
22
31
18
82
69
5
3
41
7
52
44
21
1
0
2
48
20
48
(continued)
74
-------
APPENDIX H (continued)
Site
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Date
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
5/30/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
5/31/98
Sample
Number
P-OP-3-01
A-R-3-01
A-R-3-03
A-G-3-01
A-G-3-02
A-G-3-03
P-OP-4-01
P-HP-4-02
A-R-4-01
A-R-4-02
A-R-4-03
A-G-4-01
A-G-4-02
A-G-4-03
P-OP-5-01
P-OP-5-02
A-R-5-01
A-R-5-02
A-R-5-03
A-G-5-01
A-G-5-02
A-G-5-03
P-OP-6-01
P-OP-6-02
A-R-6-01
A-R-6-02
A-R-6-03
A-G-6-01
A-G-6-02
A-G-6-03
Sample
Type Substrate Technology
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Personal
Personal
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/PreTox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Torbo/Blastox
Sample
Period
(Hours)
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7
7
77
67
67
42
40
38
10
10
10
12
15
05
02
00
75
75
28
30
32
70
72
75
92
92
85
87
87
68
.7
.7
Sample
Volume
(Liters)
586
1,450
1,450
1,373
1,368
1,362
492
492
1,274
1,279
1,290
1,259
1,248
1,243
683
697
1,642
1,647
1.652
1,772
1,777
1,787
834
838
2,440
2,445
2,445
2,388
2,393
2,393
Air Level
(UQ/m3)
120
4.3
1.4
130
50
120
96
150
1.3
1.1
4.4
21
16
130
120
140
2.6
9.1
3.3
31
16
110
84
170
2
1.6
13
150
9.2
6.3
8-hr
TWA
(UQ/m3)
72
3
1
72
28
66
49
77
1
1
2
11
8
65
86
101
2
6
2
22
11
79
73
147
2
2
13
144
9
6
75
-------
Appendix I
Particle Size Distribution of Lead Participate Measured
Using a Cascade Impactor on Operator During Paint Removal from Brick
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date Sampled
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/2/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
6/1/98
Sample Number
CI-1-1
CI-1-2
CI-1-3
CI-1-4
CI-1-5
CI-1-6
CI-1-7
CI-1-8
CI-1-F
CI-1-1
CI-1-2
CI-1-3
CI-1-4
CI-1-5
CI-1-6
CI-1-7
CI-1-8
CI-1-F
Impactor Stage Air Volume (Liters)
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Final
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Final
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
Lead Level (ug/m3)
45
39
69
1
41
11
2
0.6
0.6
4.6
52
62
27
27
16
2.9
1
0.5
76
-------
References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Report of the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing - Base Report.
EPA747-R-95-003. April 1995.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
A Field Test of Lead-Based Paint Testing Technologies: Technical Report, EPA
747-R-95-002b. May 1995.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, Method 1311. Test Methods of
Environmental Testing Solid Wastes - Physical and Chemical Methods, SW-846
(3rd ed.). November 1986.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Stabilization/Solidification of CERLA and RCRA Wastes. EPA/625/6-89/022.
May 1989.
5. Hock, V., C. Gustafson, D. Cropek, and S. Drozdz. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. Demonstration of
Lead-Based Paint Removal and Chemical Stabilizer Using Blastox. Technical
Report FEAP-TR-96/20. October 1996.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Stabilization of Lead-Based Paint Waste. October 1998 (Draft).
7. U.S. Patent Number 5,674,108. Method for Removing Coatings Which Create
Hazardous Products. October 7, 1997.
8. Steel Structures Painting Council. Guide for Containing Debris Generated During
Paint Removal Operations. SSPC Guide 6. December 11, 1995.
9. American Society of Testing Materials. Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Dry Film Thickness of Protective Coating Systems by Destructive Means.
ASTM Standard Method D 4138 - 88. April 1988.
77
-------
10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Chapter 7: Lead-Based
Paint Inspection (1997 Revision). In: Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing, HUD, Washington, D.C. June 1995.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Performance Characteristic Sheet,
Edition No. 4. Niton Corporation, Models: XL-309, 701-A, 702-A, and 703-A
Spectrum Analyzers. April 17, 1998.
12. Rubow, K. L, V. A. Marple, and J. Olin. A personal cascade impactor: design,
evaluation, and calibration. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48 (6): 532-538 (1987).
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Chapter Nine Sampling Plan. Test Methods of Environmental Testing Solid
Wastes - Physical and Chemical Methods, SW-846 (3rd ed.). November 1986.
14. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Environmental Lead Laboratory
Accreditation Program.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Contract Laboratory Program - Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis,
Document ILM040. 1985.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Field Demonstration of Clean
Technologies for Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Residential Housing Units in
Buffalo, New York. Final Report. September 1996.
17. American Society of Testing Materials. Standard Practice for Reducing Samples
of Aggregate to Testing Size. ASTM Standard Method C 702 - 93. September
15, 1993.
18. Bishop, P. L. 1988. Leaching of inorganic hazardous constituents from
stabilized/solidified hazardous wastes. Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials
5(2): 129-143.
19. Buskowski, J. M., J. H. Boy, X. Zhu, T. D. Race, and K. A. Reinhold.
Immobilization chemistry in Portland cement stabilized paint blast media wastes.
Environmental and Waste Management Issues in the Ceramic Industry II 45: 155-
163. 1994.
20. Technical Bulletin: Determining Proper Blastox® Blend Ratios. TB-007 (Issued
10-98), The TDJ Group Inc., Gary, Illinois 60013.
78
------- |