EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

238802

BUNKER HILL HOUSE DUST PILOTFINAL REMEDIAL EFFECTIVENESS REPORT

TerraGraphiENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,

•mmI U3EPA SP

DEC 2 G 2002LI KLjlufl

Environmental EnglMtrino121 finirth Jacfcson Strut

FAX:

LETTER OF TRANSMnTAL.

Agency Pax Number

Rob HHTIBOT IDEQIDEQ

2Q&434-057620B-78MTO1

Kdthy Jdinson IDEQ

X HBrcStifalmBnX Anggla Chung

Mary Kay VpytiTa

Cami GwiKUuefllX LJfty ZaraaogaX Rlcftart

BwndaiLorrana Wllfla-

Jt Joan Slaupa

USEPAUSEPA

918-541-191*20fl-55a-697*206-553-6511

USEPA 20&553-0»S7

7CI3-603-S133ATSDftEPACH2M HIUCH2U HILLCH2M HILL

-425-453-SOQO

Sharon QuiringX Glftfty DiaricWSwan Hill

^^ Paul H JsrieUX Gr*fl Glafrfi

Pjnharrfe HealthURSUSACE

20^67^197420S-764-«S79

DellvtryMalhod

__ MailMail

HailMan

MailM*i

Mai

Mai

MafHa*

K_ HmtlX Ail projoct partid'panCB

Atfachad p4ea>t fin*

Ct>A ChajnbwHan

flUflAff W/ff HOUM DiuiC Frfcrf FiiM/ RwnMNtJ

AddilkMiar m»*tl9*:

Si an Sf>allngar

rAXTJhX

fycu IWM tKrt*) ti» mniafi *< mw. r<tu* mtViit ri 200402) TWft

III ""

Eni

IBunker Hill House Dost Pilot

I FIDO] Remedial ELrTectiventss Report

I

I

I Boise.

IPrepared by:

I TerraGiaphics Environmental Engineering, Inc.* 121 South Jackson Street

v, Idaho S3S43

For:Department of Environmental Quality

and

IU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I Seattle DistrictSeattle, WA

(206) 764-3265

I• December 2002

I

I

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

0U."

Table of Contents

SECTION 10 INTRODUCTION I1.1 Background I1 2 Previous House 3'jsi Remediation Slucics . . . . 3'.3 House Dust Rer-.ed.JU3n Effcrts 2: lie Bunker Hii: Superfund Site 9! 4 RcvicvrofHoJx: 3JitS*itp;in£ 9

1.4.1 Seasonal Effects 91.4.2 SampLng Methods 101.4.3 Samp!.ng Locaiiors 111.4.4 Stands^ fcr House Dusts 121.4.5 Previous Sampling Methods Er.ployed it the BHSS 12

1.5 Purpose andObcr-.ivcs . 121.6 Project Scope ard Limitations 13

SECTION 20 PROJECT DESIGN 142.1 Cleaning Treatments 14

2.1 -1 Treat-re-: A - HvD Clearing 152.1.2 Treatmr-.: 3 - Commercial Clesring 162.1J Treacner.t C • Spring Ckaa rg 172.1-4 Trcatrrtr.: D - Csrtrol 18

2.2 Sampling Protocols 1822.] VacJLrr, aag 182.2.2 Dust Mat 182.2.3 Baltimore Repcir arjd Maintervsrc* I'BRMj 192.2-4 Duct San-p!irfg 192.2.5 Anic and Basrrner.c Sampling 1922.6HlJDLia«iRisk Ajsessmm- 192.2.7 Indoor -V: Morjicr-.na 20

2.3 Sampling Frec;jer.c> 20

SECTION 3.0 SUMMARY Or HOUSING CHARACTHRJSTICS 213.1 AteofHouics 213.2 Owner vs. Renlcr C>ccijpancy ... 213.3 Ir.tirior Remode..ng 213.4 Ru$5 at Entrances 233 5 Carpel Age 223.6 Carpet Condition 233.7 Carpel Types . . 233 S Number and A^ ?:' ?:sidot$ 243 9 Smciting Halntj 243 !0 DuctVMork 25

Hill Howe OMIT PUct Fmal Remoitiat Efftftiwieu Sepon

3,11 Basements arid Attica 25

SECTION4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 274.1 House Dust Sample Results . . . ' . . , , 27

4,J.I Mai Dusi 27

4.1.2 Vacuum Bag Dust ,, 284.1.3 BRM Dust JO4.1.4 Mat, Vacuum, and BRM Paired Analysis 344.1.5 Attics, Basements, and Ducta . 34

4.2 HL'D Risk Assessment and Dust Wipe Sample Results 354.2.1 HUD Cleaned Houses 354.2.2 Commercially Cleaned Houses 364.2J Control Houses 36

4.3 Air Monitoring Results r . 364.4 Carpet TCLP Waste Characterization 374.5 Dal* Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 37

4.5.1 Vacuum and BRM Data 3g.4.5.2 Dust Mat Data 58

SECTION 5.0 COST AND LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 405.1 Project Design 40

..1,1 House Selection , , , , , ,405.1.2 Sampling and Monitoring 405.1.3 Health and Safety , , 40

5.2 Program Implementation And Contract Mechanisms 405.2.1 HUD Risk Assessor 415.2.2 BUD Cfcancr 425.2.3 Commercial Cleaner r.r 425.2.4 Moving Contractor 435.2.5 Cajpct Supplier and Installer 435.2.6 Spring Cleaner 43

5.3 Ctaming Melhods 445.3.1 HUD Cleaning 445.3.2 Commercial Cleaning 455.3.3 Spring Cleaning 4$5.3.4 Overall Observations 47

5.4 Homeowner/Resident Issues 475.4.1 Participation 4S5.4.2 Relocation 4S5.4.3 Scheduling 4S

5.5 Sampling Logistics 485.6 Project Costs , , 49

ii

II Suiter HHi Howe Dtat PUot Fatal RemetBal Effeftnaw Report

| SECTION 6 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 506.1 Purpose and Objectives 50

1 61 Project Overview 506J Logittkal and Contracting Coniidera'.icns 5364 RnflltS 55

• 6.5 Discussion and Conduaions 58

SECTION 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 61

• SECTION &0 REFERENCES 63

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Biwker NiN House Diai Pilot Fa&i Remedial E§ertm»tu Report

List of TabJc3Section 2.0Table 2.1 AU Data Collected for the House Dust Pilot Project

Section 3.0Table 3,1Table 3.2Table 3.3Table 3. 4Table 3,5Table 3.6Table 3-7Table 3.8

Section 4,0Table 4,la-cTable 4.2Tabk 4.3a-cTable 4.4a-cTabk 4,5 a-eTable 4, iaTable 4 6bTable 4. 7Table 4 .&aTable 4, gbTable 4.9Table 4 10Table 4. 1 1

4.12

Section 5.0Table 5.1

General Housing CharacteristicsCarpet Age (years)Carpet ConditionCarpeL TypesNumber and Age of Residents in Each HouseSmoking Habits of ResidentsNumber and Age of Air GucisBasement and Attic Characteristics

Dust Mat Lead Concentrations and Loading RaicsVacuum Bag Lead ConcentrationsLiving Room DRM Lead Concentrations and LoadingsBedroom BRM Lead Concentrations and LoadingsKitchen BRM Lead Concentrations and Loading?Correlations (Number of Pairs) for Lead Concentrations (mg/kg)Correlations (Number of Pairs) for Dust and Lead LoadingsANQVA Results for BRM Dual Loading by Carpet Condition CategoryConcentrations and Dust and Lead Loadings for Arties, Basements, and Ducts.Dust Extracted frtim Duct Clean! tigsInterior and Exterior Lead Paint HazardsHUD Dust Wipe Lead LoadingsCommercial Dust Wipe Lead LoadingsControl DUST Wipe Lead Loadings

Project Costs * Average Cost/Housetfreatmem

faalrepart. ]V

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

fttll Hfiuse Dtat PitoFinai X*mt&oi E&cto*mu Ktpon

List ofSection 1.0Figure I -1 Bunker Hill Superfimd SueFigare I -2 House Dust L<ad Exposure by City, \988-2001figure 10 Yard Soil and House Duai Lead Exposures and Concentration* far Smehcrviilc,.

1988-2001

S*rtk»4.BFigarc 4-] Box Plots of Mil Lead Concentrttions by TreatmentFigure 4-2 Box Plots of Mil Dual Loading Rate by TreatmentFigure 4*3 Box Plots of Mac Lead Loading Rate by TreatmentFigure 4-4* Line PJot of Mai Lead ConccnuarionsFigure 4-4 b Line Plot of Mac Dust Loading RatesFigure 4-4c Line Plot of Mat Lead Loading RatesFigure 4-5 Box Plots of Vacuum Lead Concentrations by TreatmentFigure 4-6 Line Plot of Vacuum Lead ConcentrationsFigure 4-7 Box Plots of BRM Living Room Lead Concentrations by TrcstracTUFigure 4-8 Box Plots of BUM Living Room Diui Loading by TreatmentFigure 4-9 Box Plots of BRM Living Room Lead Loading by TreatmentFigure 4-10* Line Plot of Living Room BRM Lead ConcentrationsFigure 4- !0b Line Ptol of Living Room BRM Dim LoadingsFigure 4- lOc Line Plot of Living Room BRM Lead LoadingsFigure 4-11 Box Plots of BRM Child's Bedroom Lead Concentration by TreatmentFigure 4-12 Box Plots of BRM Chi id's Bcdrcom Dust Loading by TreatmentFigure 4-lJ Bon Plots of BRM Child's Bedrcom Lead Loading by TreatmentFigure 4-14* Line Plot of Bedroom BRM Lead Concentrations:Figiare 4-14b Line Plot of Bedroom BRM DLJSI Loadi ogsFigwe 4- 14c Line Plot of Bedroom BRM Lead LoadingsFigure 4-15 Box PloU of 9RM Kilchcn L«ad Concentration by TreatmentFigure 4-16 Box Ploia of BRM Kitchen Dust Loading by TreatmentFigwe4-17 Box Plots of BRM Kitchen Lead Loading by TreatmentF)gwc 4-1 Sa Line Plot of Dusi Wipe Loadings for Bedroom Window Well*Figure 4-lSb Line Plot of Dust Wipe Loadings for Bedroom Window SiltsFigure 4-] 9a Line Plot of Dust Wipe Loadings for Living Room Widow WeilsFigure 4- I9b Line Plot of DuM Wipe Loadings for Living Room Window Sills

Bunker Hid House Dust Pilot Finat Rtemedtat Effiscu'r&ais Report

of Appendlcea

Appendix A Screening interview QuestionnaireAppendix B Forms used by the USAGE for Treatments A and BAppendix C Sampling and Participant Consent FormsAppendix D Forms used by the State1 s Consultant Tor Treatment CAppendix £ Project and Field Sampling Work PlansAppend ix F HUD Cleaning Contractor1 s ProtocolAppendix C Commercial Craning ProtocolAppendix H Spring Cleaning ProtocolAppendix I HUD Lead Risk Assessor's Work PlanAppendix J Interim Dala S ummary ReportsAppendix K Dust Mat Line Plots by TreatmentAppendix L Vacuum Bag Line Plols by TreatmentAppendix M Living Room BRM Line Plot* by TrealmenlAppendix N Child's Bedroom BRM Line Plots by TreatmentAppendix O HUDRA Dust Wipe Line Plots by TitadncntAppendU P USAGE' a Indoor Air P^rticulatc MemorandumAppndlxQ TCLF MemorandaAppends B \ 2-Monlh Q A/QC Memoranda and Laboratory Data Sheets

VI

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Stutter Hill Ht>nse Dm* Fitot Fata! Remedial Effecinotcu ReportSection 1.0

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Buokcr Hill Supcrftuid Site (BHSS) is a Twenty-one square mile area surrounding the oldBwtfcer Hill Company lead and zinc smelting complex in Kellogj>, Idaho (Figure 1- 1].Supcdwid activities were initiated under the Comprehensive Environmental ResponseCompensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) following findingi of widespread lead poisoningamong local children. Environmental response, public health intervention, and cleanup activitiesh*vr been underway since the smelter closure in 1981 . Remedial investigation and FeasibilitySnriy (R1/FS) activities began in 1984. A Record of Decision (ROD) for residential sals in ihePopulated Areas was compleccd in 1991, and a ROD encompassing the remainder of the Site wasfBcd m 1992 (Unhcd States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 199 1. 1992).

Ropuose a&ivitiea have included health and environmental investigations, public healthbNcrventiona. emergency removals, and a comprehensive cleanup plan, tmcrim response actionswere prioritized based on: i) environmental media rmrah concentrations; u) presence of youngchildren or prcjmant women; and ui] observed blood lead levels of children. Tbcsr jiesponseXBC89urcs weft implemented to raioKmz? exposure t? contaminated materials duringiavcscigatccy and remedial action activities In 19$ 5. the allied Lead Health IntcrvcnbcnProgram (LHIP) was tnitiaied to minimize lead absorption through health education, parentalawareness, and biological monitoring efforts. The LHIP, sponsored by the Centers for DiseaseControl (CDQ and the Agency for Toxic Substzjices and Disease Registry (ATSDRX isimplemented by the local Panhandle Health District (PHD) under the auspices of the IdahoDepartment of Health and Welfare (IDHW). Removals were undertaken, including the cleanupof area parks, playgrounds, and roadsides in 1936, smelter stabilization efforts from (989 to1993. and hillsides re-vegetation and fugitive dust control efforts from 1990 to 1 992. Beginningin 1 9S9 to current, the Yard Sot) Removal Program removed and replaced contaminated soils inresidential yards of young children at highest risk of lead poisoning. During the entire healthintervenufto and Superfkind cftbrt, a comprehend ve database has been rrupnUined thai relateschildren1? blood kad levels, media contaminant concentrations, environmental expanses, health

and remedial activities on an individual basis.

The pathways and human health effects associated with exposure to heavy victaLs hflvr beenstudied extensively since the early 1970s (ATSDR 1999, TrrraGraphics TOOOa). Over the past 15/ears, morr than 4000 blood lead sample* h*vc been obtained from children living within theBHSS. Analyses of these data in conjunction with the RI/FS effort rebutted in an integrated riskmanagement and BHSS cleanup strategy designed to monitor and minimize children's exposuresas remediation occurred over several y«ars (TenriGrapKics [997).

Page

fllinftw ffill HovseDust Pilot Find Ranedtai

The cleanup strategy adopted in the 1991 Populated Areas ROD was based on site-specificanalysis of the relationship between observed blood lead levels among children andenvironmental media lead concentrations at the Site, Site-wide Remedial Action Objective*(RAQs) art defined in the two RODs. The blood lead RAQs seek, to reduce the incidence 0 Headpoisoning in the community io the fallowing levels;

• less than 5% of children with blood lead levels of 10 rmcro^rams per deciliter (ug/dl) orgreater, and

• TO individual child exceeding 15 L,gAdl (nominally, <1% of population).

These objectives are to be achieved by a strategy that includes:

• remediation of all yards, commercial properties, and rights-of-way (ROWs) that have leadconcentrations greater than 1000 milligrams per kilogram (rng/kg);

• achieving a geometric mean yard soil lead concentration of less than 350 mg/kg for eachcommunity in the site;

• controlling fugitive dust and stabilizing and covering contaminated soils throughout thesite; and

achieving geometric mean interior house dual lead levels for each community of 500mg/kg or less, with DO individual house dust level exceeding 1000 ting/kg.

House dusi has, long been recognized as a primary source of lead intake and subsequentabsorption among children in numerous populations (Lanphear et al. I99B, PUD 1986). Housedusts are the predominant source of exposure for young children at (he BHSS (Yankcl ct a\,1977, TerraGrapKics 20QQa). Previous analyses have suggested that the success of the overallcleanup strategy ultimately depends on reduction of interior house dust lead levels toconcentrations, comparable to post-remedial soils, The Populated Areas ROD states, 'All homeswith house dust lead concentrations equal to or exceeding 1000 ppm lead will have a one timecleaning of residential interiors after completion of site-wide remedial actions- If interior housedust, sampling indicates that house dust lead concentrations exceed a site-wide average of 500ppm lead the need for additional cleaning will be evaluated" (USEPA 1991).

This cleanup strategy was developed in response to studies suggesting that interior dustremediation was not effective in permanently reducing dust lead concentrations prior Cocompletion gf exterior Source controls. Interiors of houses that were completely mrnediaied in1990 were rccenlaminatcd by ouidcor sources within one yew (CH2M HILL 1991). As a result,remediation efforts were directed toward residential yard soils, commercial properties,, and

Page 2

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hill Hwuf Du*t ?rf» JW Kfmn&al E/r&nftittj

fO

ROWs. In the interim, monitoring of blood lead levels and interior dust concentrationscontinued through the LHIP. Parents were counseled regarding house and personal hygiene andwere encouraged lo clean frequently. Access to high efficiency paniculate air (HEP A) vacuumswas provided (or families not having access to vacuum cleaners

Moose dust lead exposures to children participating m the LHIP have decreased considerablysince 1974 when average levels in Smelterville ncaied 1 1 ,000 mg/kg. Since fugitive dust controland jard soil rcrmj»«l efforts were initiated in i 988 and 1969, house dust lead exposures havecontinued «o decrease. In 1933. dust exposure? to children ragged from 1200 mg/kg inSmdierviHe to \ 500 mg/kg in Keilogg and from 300 rag/Jcg to 370 rag/kg, respectively, in 2001(Stt figure 1 -2, Fmchurst, Page, and Wardner have a few number of observations). InSneterviik, geometric mean blood lead levels measured 1 1.6 u,g/dl in 1988 and 2.6 ^g/dl in2002. The Five Year Review conducted for the Populated Areas of die BHSS concluded thaisignificant reductions in both house dust lead concentration? and blood lead levels ha*e occurredat the BHSS since 198$, but thai inferior cleaning should be investigated as a remedial measurethat may be necessary to further reduce dust lead concentrations (TerraCraphics 2000a)_ Thepurpose of tins Pilot ClearuBf Project is to assess the effectiveness of cleaning and samplingmethods and the feasibility of conducting a large-scale intericr dust remediation, followingcomptetxxi of exterior remedial actions.

Correndy. ScoekerviJte is the only community within the Stte where soil remediation iscomplete, ««d soil RAO* have been achieved (Terr&Graphics 1999*, 2QOOb). For thrt reajon,Smehervilk was selected for this dust pitot project. Residential and commercial property andrifhe~o<-«ay sort removal and replacements were completed in 1997 and die cleanup inSmeJterTik was certified as complete in 1998 Intmor dusi data from the 2001 sampling sewociindxaie tha< mean dust lead levels for Smelter, ilk aic slightly higher (530 mg/kg) than the RAOwith 10% of the houses exceeding ] 000 mg/kg (TerraCrophics 2002). These d*to, as well as fromprevious years, indicate that interior kad levels arc ncahng die RAO in SoncltcrvfUe, althoughtke objectives halve not been completely achieved.

1.2 Pravkws Hous* Dust Rdnwcflation Studies

HUD has promulgated lead-based paint aUiicnicnt guidelines (HUD 1995). a review ofbouse dust rexnedi«(ion projects acconjphihcd ai other lead sites suggests there is no universallyaccepted standard methodology for house dust lead abatement or remediuioo. Much of thediftkuHj b implementing permanent and effccrve remediation of house dusts is related to theultimate sources of trie lead in dust. This is beca-jse houses, and particularly carpets and softsurfaces, are reservoirs, for house dust that subsequently serve as common exposure vehicles toyoung children. Effective reduction of house dust lead levels requires control of both thereservoir and those exterior and interior sources contributing lead u> house dust.

Page 3

Hif{ House Dttsr Piiof Finai Rfmedioi f^hftivensss ReportSection 1.0

A brief summary of previous studies and reports of clean-up efforts involving interiorremediation of house dusts applicable or similar to the BHS5 is discussed below. This reviewdoe* not include efforts- relating to sampling mclhodologic&v dust. spccialion and sourceapportionment, or any studies investigating dust / blood lead relationships. However, in moststudies., the critical endpoint is usually the blood lead LeveE rather than the dust lead concentrationor a loading variable. This Li likely because ihe ultimate goal is to reduce exposure to younfcchildren and the sampling methodology for blood lead testing is- fairly straightforward, whilesampling methods for interior house dusts vary widely across studies, making comparisonsdifficult,

A 197B study by Milar and Mushak (1982] cleaned houses of children with blood lead levelsranging from 20 to 58 pft/dl (average of 44 n6^d]); dust lead concentrations ranged from ?70 to7171 mg/kg (average 3000 mg/Vg), Cleaning included vacuuming carpets with a vacuum thathad a beater bar and steam cleaning first with a high-phosphate solution, then 24 hours later withregular sieam cleaning detergem&. Cleaning of bore floors included sweeping and then ei high-phosphate detergent wash and rinse. Ventilation system filters were also replaced. Lead dusLconcentration decreased by 61%, and lead loading decreased by 9 [% for houses cleaned with thehigh-phosphate wash and another wash 24 hours later.

An investigation »t ft site similar to the BHSS was the 1984-1992 investigation by Caldtrclal(1994) at Port Pirie, South Australia, This site has an active lead smelter with significant railtraffic and ore/taUings spills throughout the community due to historical use of tailings and slags.Since 1 984, air le?d concentrations have ranged from 1 -5 u^g/m? to 8 |Ag/m3. Community-wideremedial efforts at the aite during this time consisted of education,, placing soil barricre* replacingsoil that had lead concentrations greater than 3000 nig/kg, planting grass, paving dirt areas,,baghousc improvement,. wgrkcr hygiene control, a taller slack, slag pik covering, surface:watering and vehicle washing SA the smeller, Individual house remedial efforts included exteriorsurface- cleaning, removal of lead-based painted surfaces and replacement, or repainting. Interiordust abatement consoled of lead-based painted surface covering, removal and replacement, orrepainting, vacuuming of ihe ceiling, sealing of cracks,, and cleaning of carpets and furniture.House remedial efforts were based upon the resident child's blood lead level. In general, a 20%reduction of blood lead levels was observed during this program; 42% of Ihc children levied hadblood lead levels >20 fig/dl in 1984; in 1991 J 8% of children reported blood lead levels >20

The 1988-1991 UfiEPAThrcc City Urban Soi! L«ad Abatement Project (USEPA 1993) inCincinnati remediated areas with soil lead concentrations ranging from 300 mg/kg to 800 mg/kg;street dust concentrations were slightly higher Neighborhood-wide remediation includedsweeping of paved surfaces and common area soil abatement. Individual house rtmedialiortincluded vacuuming and wet mopping of floors and replacement of one to three carpets and (wopieces of furniture per house. Conclusions from lh« study indicated that interior dust abatement

Page 4

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HtS! Waiuf Dusi Fitor Final Rtt*tdiaf Efffamtam Report10

may redact Wood tod levels but observed differences were not significant; ao effect was seen onWood lead kveis from io\\ or exterior dust abatement.

From 1989 -1990. Aschengrau st iJ (1994) performed a two-phase study in Boston involvingsoil and interior dust remediation and loose paint stabilisation (Phase I) followed by sculremediation and paint delcading (Phase II). Study house* had soil lead concentrations of >1500mgilcs and loose paint on <3QS of the oterior surface. Soil remediation included removal andreplaceancotof the top6 inches. Interior dust remediation consisted of a one-tune HEP Avacuuming of carpets, wet wiping of wails, wood and window well* and oil wiping of furniture.Paint rcraediatjc* involved HEP A vacuuming and & trisodium phosphate (TSP) wash of loosepaint areas fallowed by painting with primer in Phase t and removal of ail lead-based paintsbeiow 5 feet m height on both interior and exterior surfaces in Phase II. Dusts were sampledosing the SBcfacc-Sprttkr vacuum simpler. Results of the studies indicated that, in general,blood lead declines of 2.IS nfc/dl to 2.7 ng/dl were observed for »oil lead cooccntrattonredoctkMS of 2000 mg/kg but children in houses with high floor dust lead concentrationsreceived slows* no benefit from soil remediation. Another report on this study by Weinman daL (1993) radicated that soil lead concentration reductions led to blood lead declines of 0.8 ug/dlto 1,6 g/dl; soil and dust remediation combined resulted in blood lead decline* of 1.2 (Jg/dJ to1.6 pa/dl. Upon one-year follow up, most houses remained at some levd of reduced lead level*.A reanatysis of the Phase II data by Aschengnu et ai. (1994} indicated ftSal lead ahatement wasmore effectivt %*hen moie interior areas were treated, wnen rcmovaJ and replacement was usedand wben muldpte cleanings »rrr performed Casts for this project averaged $9600 perproperty.

Phase n Rcsufo from the Boston Lead-in-soil Demonstration Project concluded, 'children livingIB aaartmenti with conaistenily elevated floor dost leaJ loading levels derived almost rto benefit&on> the seal abatement,* because thai "eliminated only one of many sources of interior dustlead* (Ascheegrau et al. I ?94|. As a result, many attempts u> remediate house dusts result inonly sfcort-ttrm reductions. Investigators and public hcaJth authonucs ofcen debate whether it ismore practical (considering the results and costs of remediation) to replace or clean carpets andrumrfure in contaminated houses. For example. Ewers et al. (1994) believe an exposure sourcemay be mntroduted after remediation by placing items contaminated prior to kad abatementback in (he boose. Repetitive experiments conducted by Bwtr* et al. suggested that cleaning'chronically C0m*mu»icd" carpels might actually increase lead exposure, whereas cleaning of'acutely conomioaied" caipets may be effective in reducing exposure. Several studies reportedthat defending ts associated with a significant "transient" elt-Miion ofblood lead level in manychildren (Amitai « al. 1987, 1991). In the ease of carpet remediation, not conducting vacuumcleaning foe m sufficient time could increase the *mciunt of the lead dust »l the surface, that is thenoat accessible by children (Ewera ct al 1994. Adgale ct al. 1995).

Page 5

Boater Hill Home Dml Mot firrni ftermdiat ffiectivenesf fteponSection J.fl

Two other pertinent studies were the 1988-1989 study by Langlois et al. (1996) and the I9fi9study by Concord Scientific et al. (1989) at the South RJverdale, Toronto silt. This communityis ihe site of an operational secondary lead smetler Soil remediation occurred during 1988 if thesoil lead concentration was >5QO mg/kg- soil was replaced to a depth of 30 inches. Interior dustremediation occurred in 1989; 1000 houses were cleaned. Ducts were HEPA vacuumed; waits,sills, all horizontal surface*,. moldings, trim, window covering^ bwemcnt ceilings, floors andupholstered furniture were suction (only) vacuumed with exhaust to the exterior duringvacuuming; walls, sills, moldings, trim, floors, carpets and upholstered furniture were washedtwice with a TSP detergent Sampling by the dust vacuum method during the interiorremediation indicated that 50V*450% of the interior house dusts were from exterior soil and thatvacuuming removed 42% of the lead from floors, 16% from horizontal surfaces,, 30% from, ducts;wet washing removed 1% of the lead removed from floors, 7% from carpets, 3% from walls and1% from upholstered furniture. Lead loading decreased from 9 nig/m? ID 4 mg/rcr during thestudy. Dust concentrations and lead loading remained lower at a repeat sampling (bur monthsafter the remediation. Iti general, blood lead levels at the site decreased from 14 ug/dl to 4 fig/dlduring the 1 96 8^ J 992 period; overall Ontario blood lead levels decreased from 12 ug/dl to 4lig/dl during that time-. Analysis indicated that without remediation, blood lead levels wouldhave reached 7 ug/dl in that time period. During the study period, site-wide blood lend levelsdecreased raster than controls.

Another aludy occurred from 1991-1 996 at an active lend smelter site in Trail. British Columbia(Hilts et al. I $95). At that time, smeller emissions averaged 300 kg/day; soil lead concentrationstanged from 700 mg/kg to BOO mg/kg over 1977-1992. Community-based remediation includededucation, ground cover, street cleaning, road dust abatement and paving dirt anew. Individualhouse remediation at the silc included placing of entrance macs, new sandboxes, house cleaningsupplies (vacuums, mop*, buckets, detergent) for vacuuming and wet mopping, and a HEPAvacuuming program of floc-rt every sjx weeks for ten months. Sampling during ihc HEPAvacuuming program was by the DVM method; carpet lead and dust loading were reduced by40%-50% after each cleaning cycle; dust tead concentrations did not change. Lead loadingreturned to pre-cleaning conditions within 2.5 to 3 weeks of cleaning. Carpet age had no effecton lead loading but houses with power nozzle vacuums had lower lead biding. Changes inchildren's blood lead levels during this study showed no significant decrease, although theremediation appears to generally have eliminated the seasonal rise in blood lead levels. Bloodlead correlated positively with pets in (he house, negatively with removal of shoes, and did ngtcorrelate with change in lead loading or dust lead concentration. By 1992, blood lead levels atthe site averaged 10

The 199*2 CLEARS study by Lioy et aJ. (1998) in Jersey City, NJ cleaned houses of childrenwith blood lead levels between 8 Mg/dt and 20 jig/dl with lead-based painl present in the housc-Approximatety 2/3 of the sludy houses received interior cleaning ten dmes over a 9 to 15 monthperiod; the other 1/3 of the houses were cleaned less than ten. times. Cleaning consisted of

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Bunker Hilt Httait Dujr Pilot Final fttt*tdtaf EffetrnaM31 ReportSeaian I.Q

detergent cleaning of floors and smooth surfaces, and HEP A vacuuming of carpets.Homeowners received educational materials and were advised to wet scrape and repaint loosep»u* Resvhs &om wipe sampling indicated tha: lead loading and Lead conecittnukm were 35%and 24%, respectively, lower than the control group; no change in du$t loading was observed.Vacuum sampling indicated that dim loading decreased in the study group, lead concentration

i unchanged, lead loading decreased but was not significantly lower between the groups.

Control and intervention groups were compared by Rhoads et al- (1999), in ihc Jersey City, NJstudy. Thr preseac* oHe-ad-based paint in the house was a necessary criteria for inclusion in Cheooc year ytoAj. Tb« houses in die intervention group wei c cleaned every rwo weeks. Thecleaning protocol included vacuuming of floors and carpets with a KEPA vacuum, mopping ofbare floors with a low phosphorus detergent, and educational seminars. Samples were obtainedby wipe and vacuum sampling- The average blood lead level before the intervention wai 12M0UI for the study children. Results of the stud) indicated that in houses cleaned more thantwenty times, a 34% decease -.n blood Lead level was seen. Dust loading on floors, sills andCftipets gcncratty decreased ifter cleaning

Goulet et al (1996) reports another study in 1990 in St. Jean sur Richelieu, Quebec. This sitehad an active battery plan) that was closed during the study period. Soil lead concentrationsranged from 200 ing/kg to 600 mg/kg and dust lead concentrations averaged 1200 mg/kjj to 2500nag/kg the dust lead background concentration was approximately 163 rag/kg, Coaamumty-widcrcancdtatxRi included paving, street and sidewalk sweeping and education efforts. Soilraneduboa included replacement of all bare soils with 10 cm to 30 cm of new soil replacementof ftii soil* (including graveled/glared areas) if the conetnirKhon was >500 mg/kg. In a lessercorrtamiaatcd area, bare soils were replaced if the concentration was >400 rog/k£ and of all soilsif the concentration was > 1000 ing/kg. Interior remediation included HEP A vacuLming of thedotna in doacts, ccfling. walls, ducts, floors, window iitls, carpets and furniture. Steam cleaningor mopping (twice) of carpets, furniture, floors, and household accessories. Twenty -nine percent(29S) of the children with blood lead levels >20 >ig/dl lived in houses with peeling lead-basedpaints. In genera], blood lead levels decreased from V ug/dl to 5 ^g./dl during the study.

The main god of e study by Parrel ct al. TI99I, I994b) was to evaluate experimental abatementpractices used for lead-based pajnt abatement wiLh the goal of long-term reduction of interiordust frad Icvely All painted surfaces were ireattd by repl«ccmcnl and endosttrr methods, floors-were scakd. stnci occupant anc persona] belonging protection practices from dust duringabatemem were performed. oiTsite disposal of dsbris occurred, and HEPA vacuuming and wetscrubbing altir abatement activjiKs **i performed. Floors, window sills, and window»cre measured for dust lead loading (mg/m*) prc -abatement, post-abatemetK, 6-91 53^ years post-abatement. Results revealed significant ks«i loading reduction post-abatementthrough L5-3.5 years. Floors, window sills and welts wen? \$%, W».and 4% of pre-abaternenitevete, respectivety, at the t SO 5 years sampling (Fartrl rt al. 1994b).

Page?

Bmter MfK HoiLK fJufi Pti& Finot fresne&al EffKtiSection i.O

A seven-month long study by Lanphear ci al. (1996) in Rochester, NY provided lead poisoningand prevention information h cleaning irifbrmalion and supplies t spray bottles, paper towels, and adetergent specifically developed to clean up lead contaminated house dust) to homeowners wherechildren with blood lead levels <25 u.g/dl resided. Cleaning instructions were to clean the entirehouse once every three months,, to clean sills, window wells and nearby floors once per month,and to vacuum carpets once per week. A control group was provided with an informationalbrochure only. No difference was seen in blood lead levels of the TWO groups.

More recent studies involving Lead dust control techniques have focused on dust and leadloadings as an end-point, rather than blood lead levels. A Hoover Self Propelled Vacuum withEmbedded Dirt Finder WAS used to determine iflead loadings, aa measured by a high-volumesurface sampler, was effective in reducing dust, lead, dust mites* bacteria, and1 fungi in carpetsfrom homes and small offices in Seattle and Redmond, Washington. After six to 45minutes/square meter of vacuum ing, lead loadings were reduced by 82% (Roberts cc d. 1999),Houses in Vermont were used in an investigation to determine if walls and ceilings should stillbe included aa part of the HUD guidelines for lead hazard control. The results support potf-intervention cleaning and the current HUD guidelines. Median dust wipe loading resultsincreased by 4 fig/fl1 post-intervention and after the walls had been cleaned, as opposed to dustwipe results that increased by 32 [i£/ftz from walls posl-intervcntion but before they werecleaned (Tohn et al. 2000). Northern New Jersey high-risk homes were part of a randomized,controlled trial where non-HEPA vacuums and low-phosphate solutions were compared tocleanings with a HEPA vacuum and high-phosphate solution. Three surface types from each ofThe houses were cleaned: uncaipcicd floors \vjndow sills, and window troughs. The findingsvaried agros* the surface- types and suggest that using low-phosphate detergents and non4ULPAvacuums is warranted, but further investigation is ncccuary, [n comparisons of high-phctsphate/HEPA vacuum versus low-phosphate/non-HEPA vacuum, larger reductions in leadloadings were observed on window sills and window troughs using the LDw-phosphace/rLOn.-HEPA vacuum, but the high-phosphfltt/HRPA vacuum produced larger reductions on hard floors(Rich el al. 2002).

The majority of the sires involving interior house dust lead contamination from an exteriorsource (i.e.. not exclusively from pointed surfaces) had remedial approaches consistent with thatseen at the BHSS. Exterior soil remediation ptos other exterior techniques such as paving andcreating barriers have been used at nearly every site. Providing educational information aboutlead poisoning and its prevention is also a common approach; the LHIP relies on ft similarstrategy.

The studies generally indicate that interior cleaning temporarily reduces house dust leadconeencreiidn end lead loadings, and at least in some cases, blood lead levels. However, inseveral instances these efforts indicate thai long term house, dust lead reductions are notmaintained as long as ihe source of ihe ccmtaminalion remains present.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ffuntxr Hiil Hovse Dust Pilot Fmat ftmn&rf 50Wf*«aeH ReportStttion 1.0

1.3 House Dust Remediation Efforts at the Bunker Hill Supatrfund Site

The BHSS encoanpasses » larger geographical area and population than any of the sitesmentioned previously The BHSS strategy for addressing house dust contamination was lo mokemaximum effort to minimize exterior soil sources through remediation of residential soils, parks,playgrounds, commercial properties. roadside* and industrial areas throughout the Sue. Thiscleanup w« implemented on the fastest practicable schedule determined in negotiation betweenthe USEPA and the Sice PRPs. At observed in Smeiterville in Figure I-3, this strategy ofreducing exterior sod sources ih*c contribute to interior lead concentrations has been effective inalso decreasing community- wide house dust lead levels. In the meantime, moortoriog of bothchildren's blood tead levels and house dust lead concentration* is conducted through the LHIP,and foflow-up services are offered to those children exhibiting high levels. HEP A vacuum* arcafeo available to the locaJ residents aod individuals am reminded of the Unyur lance of goodpersonal aod household hygiene through education and outreach projjram* imptementtd by thelocal keakfa department.

major investigation of intrrior remediarion at the BHSS was undertaken in 1990. followingthe first year of resident;*] soil cleanup. A pilot interior cleaning study was conducted al sixbouses by removing and replacing the main living area carpets, drapes and one piece ofupnoJstcred funutut (CH2 M HILL 1991) Prior to removal, carpels and furniture were

and rtearo cleaned up to three times. Average lead loading decrea$r during (hecleaning was a*% far carpels and I &% for furniture. Floors were then wet washed after removalof the carpet. Sampling of the removed carpets and furniture indicated thai most of the lead wasfound to the carpet rather than the pad or underlying floor. This investigation indicated thai thecoat ofdeaaing approximately equaled the cost of replacing the materials. Subsequent dust leadmonuonog si these bouses showed that dmt lead concentrations one year taer were swntlmr toboth pre-remediaikm levels and other urt-rcmcdiatcd houses in ihe community.

1.4 Review of House Oust Sampling

1.4.1 Seasonal Effect*Seasonal effects oa house dust lead levels are not clearly understood and may affcd sampling.

al fluctuations in blood lead levels, particularly among children, have beenstudied and v*fl documented (USEPA 1 995, Bannn and Huster 1987, Schdl etal. I997f Hunter1977V However, (he reason for seasonal variations is not clear. Blood lead variations could he aresutt of seasonal fluctuations of lead levels in environmental media, differences in exposurepathways and behaviors, or of altered human physiology (USFPA 1995, Barton and Huster 1937,Schell et aL 1997. Hunter 1977)

A 1979-1983 investigation in Boston of SMtonai variations m blood lead levels also includedenvironmental sampling This investigation reported significant seasonal variations of lead

Page 9

&?nktr Hifi House Due Pilot Final famedrai Effacawneu ReportSection f.O

tevets in air, floor dust,, furniture dust, and window sill dust. The peaks of air, floor and ftimituredual lead, rncgisurts in July were close to June peaks in blood lead levels. The window sill leadlevels peaked in November. Soil and waier lead concemiations were unaffecied by the seasonalvariations- It was suggested thai floor dust and air lead variations could contribute si&but npt totally, to seasonal changes in blood lead levels among young children (USEPAYiin el al. (2000) reported blood ami house dust (floor, window sill, and carpet) peak leadwnccntralions during the summer months, in Jersey City, New Jersey. Conversely, anotherinvestigation observed peaks in bleed lead levels during December to March among poor.pregnant women who received cart at iwo medical facilities in Albany, New York (SchcH el al,1997),

These few investigations focused more on blood Lead levels than on house dust lead variationsdue to seasonal effects. There has been one investigation in northern Idaho focused on seasonaleffects in dust lead levels. Sampling methods used were similar to ihcse at the BHSS Vacuumbags and dust mats wcrt collected from homes in five towns throughout northern Idaho,unaffected by any pasl heavy meml mining activities (Pctrosyan 2000), Results weir difficult 10interpret due to the low number of participating houses and differences between towns.However, addressing cacti of the live towns separately, mat dust and lead loading rates showsignificantly increased loading rates in spring (March-May) for one of the towns (Petrosyan2000). This town had mostly dirt/gravci roads and no paved sidewalks and did have the mostsnow in any of the towns sampled. Two of the towns showed significantly higher vacuum baglead concentrations in the spring (March) and fall (November), with lowest concentrationsobserved in summer (July). However, dust mat concentrations were observed to be highest insummer months (July-September) in one town (Fetrosyan 2000).

Sampling HsthodsThere is no clear consensus regarding, the most appropriate methodology for sampling bousedust Historically, lead concentration in house dust has been, the most common measurement.Generally,, these sampling methodologies collect dust in a solid matrix form by vacuum orsurface wipe techniques and report results [n m&$$ of lead/area. Current efforts arc focusing moreon measurement of lead loading (e.g.,, mg/mj) or loading rates (e.g., rng/m^day). Collectingloading versus concentration measurements greatly affects sampling methodology. To deteraiineeoncejifratiotUn only a sufficient quantity of dust must be collected. However,, to determineloading, dust must be collected from a specific area and/or lime period. No standard oruniversally accepted house dust sampling technique has been developed to assess dusts inside thehou*e, although HUD u^es the dust wipe method for lead p?int dwiance siandai da. There is ageneral consensus, however, ihat the interior of [he house serve* as a reservoir for lead,especially soft surfaces (i.e., carpets and furniture )t and that these media ait most difficult tosample (CH2M HILL 1 99 1 > Adgatc et al. 1 995, Farfel et a|, 2001, Lioy ci al, 2002).

10

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hid Hvw* DusiSactw*

Methods developed to sample house dust vary among researchers. Vacuuming techniques andwipe metfaxh have been studied. Lanphear ct al ( 1 995} compared three dust collection methodsin a sidc-by-Sidc approach The objective? of the study were threefold: \) to statisticallydetermine whether lead loading or concentration was a better predictor of children's blood EcadIcveH, 11) to statistically determine which dust collection method was a better predictor ofchildren's blood k«d levels, and iii) to determine which surface location within the housebe consistently sampled. Lead loading < Mg'fV), as opposed to lead concentration (iJig/g),a 5»gnrftca«rty higher correlation with children's blood lead level*. Of the three methodscompared (wipe, Baltimore repair and maintenance fBRM), and dusi vacuum method (DVM)),the BRM and wipe method* were more highly correlated with children's blood lead levels.

The effectiveness of vacuum dim collection methods depends on many (ac)0rs\ such as vacuumsuction me, carpet type, and l«ad distribution in the carpet. A study to determine relationships

wipe and vacuum collection methods observed difficulties with an in-fine nicer vacuumcoOcction device containing a mixed cellulose ester filter and support pad attached to (he airmover. Sample losses were noted due to the nozzle attract] ng d jst particles to die rim and innersurface, the nozzle visibly poshed paniculate mantr beyond the edges of the sampling KiDptat,sod visible particles and pmin* chip* remained on sample surfaces after vacuuming (Farfel et al.19°4a). Tke same vacuum collection device (as the 3ne discussed in Farfd et al. 1994a) showedthe poorest percent collection efficiency in a study comparing three different vacuumingcollection devices (Dm ct al. 1995). In that same study by Lim et al. (1995 X it was found thattwo of to tfrree vacuum dust col lection- methods (Blue-noTzk and cyclone dust collectors ) hadgreater than (5% collection efficiencies for all smooth and hard surfaces. However, collectionefficiencies for carpeted surfaces were less than *he 8:5% collection efficiency goal. A study byBeroeta] f 1997) confirms the need for on itbrmity and rcproduciWily when sampling for kid inboose dust Ua4cr controlled laboratory conditions, three carpel types and six vacuum cleanerdevices were tested for efficacy using three di flereni soi ! lead concentrations. Mass removalefficiencies **rc greater for high volume vacuum devices than for low volume devices, rangingfrom 50-65% and 4-19%. respectively.

1 .4.3 Sampling LocationA standard protocol for sampling interior dust predictive of childhood blood lead levels has notyet been promulgated, although the USEPA Technical Review Workgroup rw Lead hasMfcrrtifJcd this as a risk assessment priority. Some researchers have investigated differentsampling areas inside the house, but have yet to agree on a standard house dust samplinglocation. LanptoearetaJ (I995) suggests sampling non-carpeted floors and interior window sillsor wudow wells aa standardized sampling locations i using the BRM or wipe methods). Othershave suggested that carpeted floors better represent exposure msidc the house. Kim «ndFergusson (1 993) claim thai carpeted floors maks bcncr sampling surfaces then hard surfacesbecause *e du$» on hai d surfaces car mrvc around easier, creating areas thai may beunrepresentative of the dust lead in the house. In an anaJ/^is of twelve cpidcmiological

Page 11

BiittkOf Hit? House Dtut Pilot Final Rtfrrtdtnf Ejfxtivenxss Report

floor dust lead loading was determined to be the best environmental predictor of children's bloodlead Levels (Lanphear et al, 1998). These studies illustrate how important floor surfaces are tothe sampling of house dust. Floor surfaces representing the area of the house where a childspends most of his/her time, or a composite of those areas (Farfel and Rohde ] 995) will likely bethe most useful for risk assessment pmpcses.

1.4*4 Standard* for HQUBB DuatsThe USEPA to date has not defined a risk-based house dust lead standard. However, they haveadopted the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) post-abatementclearance standards for lead in house dust: 40 (ig/fV for floors, 250 pig/ft2 for interior windowsills* and 400 Mg/fV for window troughs, using [he dust wipe collection method (Federal Register2001 <http://www.epa.go Wlead/leadhaz.hr^>)t The USEPA uses these clearance standards asinterim guidance levels fof residential interior lead dust. However, the clearance standards arenot risk-based and may not be prcieciivc of human health,

1,4.5 Previous Sampling Methods Employed at th? BUSSHouse dusts have been monitored at the Site as part of the Lead Health Intervention Program(LHTP) offered by (he Panhandle Health District (PHD) since 1974. House dust leadconcentrations have been determined for houses site-wide wiih young children by collecting asample from the homeowner's vacuum cleaner bag during (he annual blood lead census inJuly/August as a measure of exposure. Since 1996, bouse duat [cad concentrations have alsobeen sampled by a dust mat sampling technique. This method also measures an index of dustand leadi loading rates at entryways into the houses (mass/area/time). This same dust mattechnique was recently used by Farfct et al. (2001) in pre-1950 and new urban houses.

1.5 Purpose and Objective*

The primary purpose of the House Dust Pilot Project Is to assess the feasibility of instituting aninterior cleaning program in order to achieve and maintain low dust lead levels in the house (i.e.,achieve the dust RAO for the Site), Available funding was insufficient ID support anexperimental design that could comprehensively compare all treatment and sampling techniques.Instead* The project was designed to gather information to assess the long-term effectiveness andefficiency of various levels of cleaning and to identify potential costs and logistical problemsassociated with any comprehensive community-wide cleanup that might be required.

The- main objective of this project is to provide practical observations and baseline data tosupport managers in evaluating certain parameters (i.e., cost effectiveness, lead reduction, andlogistical challenges) associated with implementing interior cleaning ai the BHSS. Thisinformation will be used to as&ist in designing and implementing a large-scale or targetedresponse, If such an effort Is required. That determination will be based on an assessment ofhealth and environmental data to be conducted in conjunction with the 2002 LHI? survey.

Page 12

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HiH ttraai Dial fiiot Final Rsmtcfxtt C0tafr«i*tt Rtport

The foflovriog specific objectives are defined for this project:

• To determine the cost, effort, and effec ri veriest of commercial house cleaningservices versus a complete removal of permanent reservoirs of lead dust inaddition to houte cleaning.

• To determine the rate and magnitude of reconuunination and dust and leadloading.

• To identify logistical, public health and safety, and contracting difficulties thainay be encountered en a large Scale cleaning effort

• To assess sampling techniques for house dust.• To identify other sources of lead exposure in hou&es that could be amenable to

clearing.

1.« Project Scope and Limitation*

Tht$ project revolved the interior denting of 18 houses in Smdlcrville, selected throughprevious sampling and questionnaire results, and confirmed in subsequent interviews. Cleaningwas limited to areas >with potential for exposure (accessible portions of the residence, buiincluding air ducts). Arties, basements and crawl spaces were not cleaned if these areas were nottoed by the resident? in everyday activities (i.e., used for storage, unfinished, etc.)- Fiveadditional control houses in Sraelierville were not cleaned but were sampled using the samemethodologies as the bouses undergoing interior remediation. Lead-based paint was notincluded in the remediation process: however, in assessment of the interior paint was completedby a certified HUD lead risk assessor The remediation was to intended to clean reservoir? ofk*d-cootarama*cd dust from past mining and srrchirg activities.

The project i$ Ecmied to measuring dust kad concentrations and dust and lead loading rales inthe 23 bouse*. Blood lead measurements were not collected as pan of this project. However,familiM wkh young children were encouraged to participate in [he 2000 and 2001 LHfP thairacmton Wood kad levels for the BHSS.

Page 13

Hv! Find fffMfdf£ri gffKHvvntU

SECTION 2,0 PROJECT DESIGN

Smcllerviltc houses that had previously participated in summer house dust surveys were eligibleto participate in the House Dust-Pilot Project. Initially, residences that had exhibited previouslead concentration* greater than 1000 trig/kg wert solicited by explaining the project using Adoor-lo-door approach. However, due to the mobile population and limited number of houses .with high lead concentrations from 1997-2000, this subgroup of Smeltervtlle was quicklyexhausted. Hou$« with previous lead concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg were then added tothe solicitation list. If a resident agreed to participate, a "Screening Interview Questionnaire" wascompleted (Appendix A). After a sufficient number of residents agreed to participate, a meeting(including Slate, EPA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) representatives) was held todetermine if certain characteristics were inappropriate for this project. It was agreed lhat housesor trailers recently built or moved into the area (i.e,+ within, the last 3 years) would not he eligible.

The eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of The cleaning treatments or The ControlGroup. The USACE would then visit the house to gather information for relocation and explainthe details of (he HUD and Commercial cleaning processes, Information furnished andagreements provided to the residents by (he USAGE included Access Agreements, Relocationand Benefits Letter, Information Sheets, Replacement Value Sheet of Disposed Items, FurnitureReplacement Sheet, Moving Instructions and. Checklist, and a Key Release Sheet (Appendix B),The State*! Consultant provided information to Uuc resident regarding the sample* that wodd becollected and secured * signed Participant Consent Form (Appendix C). Some participantsdropped out of the program after they were informed of the assigned treatment and oneparticipant withdrew prior to the cleaning. Cleaning Treatment C (Spring Cleaning) was addedafter the project was initiated,, in order to cover a broad base of professional cleanings and cysts.A second solicitation process was completed to replace the drop-outs and fill the new treatment.By (his. time, the annual summer sampling was completed and the 2000 vacuum bag and dust matresults were uied to solicit ntw houses with lead concentrations greater than 1000 mg/kg and 500nig/kg, The State's Consul tani explained, the detail* of the new cleaning treatment to theresidents assigned to Treatment C and provided them with the Checklist of Cleaning Services tobe completed at ihe house and Access Agreements (Appendix D). They also were provided withInformation regarding sample collection and signed a Participant Consent Form (Appendix C).

Details of the overall project (except for the Spring Cleaning Treatment) can be found in theInterior ffattif Dust Pifot Cfeanirig Work. Pfan (TerraGraphics 2000c), and derails pertaining tothe sampling can be found in the Fie/d Work I'tanjbr the House Dust Pilot Project Inwrior DHSISampling (TerraGraphics 2COOd}. Doth these work plans arc included in Appendix E.

2.1 Cleaning Treatments

ftnairffxr\.wpd PagC 14

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hili tfmat Dusi fiipt Fiaaf Remedial CffeeOntitra ReportSection 2.0

TrcaCwcm Group A (6 houses) received a complete cleaning (including air ducts), with carpetand fununjre replacement as described below. A certified HUD dealing contractor performedihis cleaning Treatment Group B (6 bouses) also received a complete clewing (tncteding airduos), with carpet and soft furniture steam ctear.ing I rather than replacement) as describedbdow. The residents from Treatments A and B were temporarily relocated fix the duration ofthr

Treatment Group C '6 housa) received a one-day cleaning, without air ducts, steam<x using federal oversignr. Two different commercial cleaning contractors were used

fbr Groups B and C. For Croups A and B, an average of two houses per week (one HUD andone Commercial House) were cleaned One House was cleaned per day for Group C, as the goalof this cleaning treatment was to measure the effectiveness of professional cleaning servicescompleted m one day without direct oversight. The entire cleaning process for all boosesocoarrcd dating the month* of September and October. 2000.

The certified HUD Cleaning Contractor provided a cleaning ouiline (Appendix Y\ The HUDckanpg outhnc was used to check the cleaning outline created for Treatment B (Appendix O).Treatment B was modified fbr Treatment C to include one day*a worth of clewing f Appendix H).Separate cleaning methods were developed by Treatment Group tor each of the house elementsdiscussed hi the following

2.1.1 TraatnMnf A - HUD CloningThe cle*ni«f work plan prepared by the USAGE '$ Contracior is in Appendix F iod conuins adcaiicd description of the services performed. All surfaces were cleaned in «n orderly manner.progressing throughout the house from back to front in order to avoid recontammation of rooms«be*dy ckaned. High pho5phi«le solutiotis were used to wet w«$h hard iurik:c5 The followingbriefly samraarizcs the cleaning process.

Carpet*, Wimkr* Coverings and Uphobttrtd Furmrure. The HUD cleaning contradgr removedaad disposed of all rugs, carpels and ixtderlayment early cm the first cleaning day, after all theother rWniturt and personal itemt were moved out by professional movers. Carpet tack scrip andany upholstered furniture being replaced WAS removed and disposed of early on the frrst cleaningday. Toss pillows or blankecs'o>uihs/afghan&, etc that typically lay on the furniture werevacwomed Of washed. Box springs and mattresses were cleaned (vacuumed) by the cleaningcontractor. Mattresses were not replaced because they are not considered to be a repository ofkad dust, since they are usually covered with be-iltng (i t., sheets and blankets). AH windowcoverings were removed and replaced under diction of the cleaning contractor.

Air Ducts: Ducts were cleaned by a sub-contractor under supervision of the clewing contractor»nd tbe USACE 10 assure that ]«J hazards \vere not «accrt»aicd during the cleaning Ductswere cleaned or the first day after furnishings were removed from the house,

Page 15

Bvafar fiiH fionsf Dust Piles Final Rameifiat SgKlPnness Repet-sSection 2.Q

Wails, ceilings, and window Ceilings, light fixtures, and fans were cleaned first, followed bywills and windows. Ceilings and walls were first HEP A vacuumed and then wet washed.Windows were opened and sw>nn windows removed sc ihal the entire window trough and wellarea could be completely cleaned. IF the window was sealed due to painting and not normallyopened, the window was not opened for cleaning, in order to minimize paint breakage and the

Tor repainting.

Appliances, cupboards, and counter lops: The cupboards and closet interior and exterior surfaces\vfi6 cleaned [n ihe same manner as walls, as were countertops. Ail exterior surfaces ofappliances were cleaned; roovcablc appliances were moved in order to clean behind and underthem. Special attention was given to refrigerator coila and undercarriages.

Floors; Floors were cleaned last after the other arras of the room had been cleaned. If the floorwas carpeted, the carpets were removed. If the floors were vinyl or hardwood, the cleaningdescribed En Hard Surfaces QtCuntd.

Attics ami Basements: Attics, basements* and crawl spaces were cleaned only If they were usedas living space by the residents. Determination as to accessibility and whether they were cleaned

made at the time of the prc-clesning interview.

2. 1.2 Treatment B - Commercial CleaningThe cleaning process created for che Commercial Cleaning Treatment is in Appendix G. Alsolocated in Appendix G i* the cleaning checklist used by the USAGE during ihcir oversight of thiscleaning treatment The following briefly summarizes the cleaning.

Carpets. Window Coverings and Upholstered Furniture; All carpets were initially cleaned using& HEP A filter vacuum and then steam cleaned using a high phosphate detergent, followed byHEPA vacuuming sifter they dried. Upholstered furniture was cleaned in the some manner. Boxsprings/mattresses were cleaned (vacuumed) by the cleaning contractor At! window coveringswere removed and dry-cleaned at a local merchant under direction of the cleaning contractor.

Air Ducts: Duels wen? cleaned by a sub-contractor under supervision of the cleaning contractorand the USAGE to assure that lead hazards were not exaccitatcd during the cleaning.were cleaned on the first day before carpet and furniture cleaning.

fiord Surfaces; Hard surfaces (i.e.. bookshelves, Labks, etc.) were cleaned in an grderly manner,progressing throughout the house from back to front in order tn avoid recantaminaLian Of rOOms,already cleaned. A high phosphate solution was used lo wash all hard surfaces.

Walk, ceilings, and windnws: Ceilings, light fixtures, and fans were cleaned first, followed bywails and windows. Ceilings and walls were first HEPA vacuumed and then wcl washed.

Page 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ounltf tlitt Hoait Dtai Piht final Ramdiai Eff9cfr*ntu KrpvrtStctionZO

Wiadows were opened and storm windows removed ao thai the entire window trough and wdlarea could be completely cleaned. If the window was sealed due to painting and not normallyopened, the window ww noi opened for cleaning in order TO minimize paint breakage and theneed for repainting.

Appfiaaces, cupboards, and cvvntertops The cupboard* and closet interior and exterior surfaceswere cleaned in the same manner as walls, as were couniertops. All exterior surfaces ofappliances were cleaned; movable appliances were moved In order to clean behind and underthem. Special attention was given to refrigerator ceils and undercarriages.

floors: Floors were cleaned last after the other areas of the room had been cleaned. If the floorw*s carpeted, cleaning described in the Carpet section occurred. If the flpOrS were vinyl Oxhardwood, the cleaning described in Hard Surfaces occurred.

Attics and Basenenft Attic, basement, and crawl spaces were cleaned only if they were used asbring space by the residents. Determination as to accessibi lity and whether they were cleanedwas dkade al the time of the pre-ckamng interview.

2.1.3 Treatment C - Spring CleaningThe toiicitation for bidi describing the "Spring Cleaning", as well as the detailed cleaningprotocol, is ie Appendix H. Hie Spring Cleaning Treatment is a modified version of theCommercial Qesmng Treatment, intended to be completed in ore day. The cleaning checklistprovided to the deanen and residents 11 contained in Appendix D.

Carpets, Window Covering; and Uphohttrtd Furmturt. All carpels, opbcHstcred furniture, andwindow coverings were vacuumed using a HEPA filter vacuum.

Air Dttcts Air docts were not cleaned u part of this treatment.

Hard Surface*: Hard surfaces vvcre cleaned in an orderly manner, progressing throughout thehouse fmtn back to front in order to avoid reconiamination of rooms already cleaned. Commondeaning bousehokl product were used by the cleaner;.

cvtfmgs, and window Ceiling?, light fixture?, and fans were cleaned first, followed tywalls and windows. Ceilings and walls were either HEPA vacuumed or wet washed Windowsv*oc opeard so that the entire window trough and well ar«a could be completely cleaned. If thewindow was seakd due to punting and not normally opened, the window was not opened forcleaning, in Order to minimize paint breakage and the ntrd for repainting. Storm window? andscreens were HEPA vacuumed and windows washed using common household products.

PagC 17

Banter Hi(t tfcwc Dust Pitof FrW Reorwlial qffettivemss ReportSection 2.0

Appliances, cupboards, and coimtfrtops. Only the exterior surfaces of cupboards and closetswere cleaned in the same manner as walls, as were countertops. All exterior surfaces ofappliances were cleaned; moveable appliances were moved in order to clean behind aad undertficm. Special attention was Divert «o refrigerator coils md undercarriages.

s: Floors were cleaned after the other room areas had been cleaned. If the floor wascarpeted, HEP A vacuuming occurred. If the floors were viny] or Kaiqfwood, HEP A vacuumingor wet washing occurred. Furniture was moved in order to vacuum the floor underneath,

Attics ami Basements: Attic, basement, and crawl spaces were cleaned only if they %vcnt used 33living space by the residents. Determination & to accessibility and whether they were cleanedwas made ac the si me of the pre-cleaning interview.

Treatment D • ControlNo professional cleaning services were provided 10 The participant in the Control

2.2 Sampling Protocols

Fyur sampling techniques were adapted for evaluating the treatment methods in (hi*investigation In addition, a separate methodology was developed to sample the dustduring duct cleaning. Each is briefly discussed in the following sections. A complete descriptionof die sampling protocols used ia included in Appendix E, Final Field Work flan for the HouseOut/ Piiot Preyed, Interior Dust Sampling (TerraGrapbics 2000dl.

2.2.1 Vacuum BagThe vacuum dust sample is intended to represent lead exposure to individuals inside the house.This method has the advantage of being quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive, A vacuumsample was obtained by collecting the disposable bag or ihe entire contents of permanent bags;provided the resident tad not used the vacuum in a car, oufidaare, or at another house since thebag WAS East changed, No sample was collected from vacuum cleaners thai did not meet thiscriterion,

2.2.2 Dust MatA carpeted floor mat far dust collection vras placed at all houses participating in the survey toquantify lead concentration, lead loading rater and dust loading rates. Except for unusualcircumstance^ floor mats were placed just inside the main entry of each house. Instructions wereleft with the resident not to vacuum,, shake or move ihe mat. After approximately three weeks,the mat was retrieved and carefully placed and stored right-side-up in a clean sealed envelope.The mat is vacuumed in a special laboratory to collect the dust retained on the mat. The mass ofdust collected is used 10 determine the dust and lead loading rates (mg dust/ mf/day).

jtitatnport.Htpd Cage IS

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

vtae Ouft />ifof FrW RtfmceA^ QfeCIrvttnUii ReportSection 2.0

2.2.3 Baltimore Repair and Maintenance (BRM)The BRM floor sampling methodology is intended to represent the dust thai has accuonabicd inthe carpel (or hard Aooi) over time. This methodology' was selected to better analyze thecleaning treatments and measure the dust and lead cement in (he carpets. Each room was .separated into a twelve grid system, and three HUT. ben were chosen at random. Three differentone square foot areas from the floor in the kitchen, child's bedroom, and living room wererandomly selected for sampling (EPA 1997). The sample was collected from the middle of eachof the three grids selected If furniture <*&& in the way of the (ample, then another grid waschasm randomly. One sample from each square foo: area was collected sequentially in onesample container for a total of three floor composite samples for each house the living room, achtVf» bedroom. and The kitchen In fnur houses where children did not reside, the masterbedroom was sampled.

2.2.4For the HUD and Commercial Cleaning Treatments, the filter was collected from the cleaningequipment aod sealed in a clean cardboard box immediately after (he professional contractorfinished cleaning the duety The box and filter were iweighcd prior to the cleaning and again afterIhc cleaning, bet before collecting the dust sample in order to dctennine the mass of dostremoved from ihe air ducty A grab sample from the filters represents a general leadconcentration found in Ihc ducts of the house. The purpose of the duct cleaning and samplingwas lo ckmcttiize and remove this potential reservoir of lead dust in the house.

2.2.5 Attic and fiiMmmtt SamplingAntes and bwctrbencs were not part of the cleaning for this pilot project because the Screeningloeivki* Questionnaire indicated several of the amcs and basements were rarely used oraccessed, no problems mih the artk» and basements have bcea indicated m the LH1P, andlog isticai problems associated wtb accessibility and asbestos could have been encountered.

Samples of the attic and basemen* dust provide a general representation of that potential reservoirof [cad. A composite sample was collected only from houses where the attic and/or basementwas not used for living space and accestibte. If ihe attic or basement was used for living space.then ii was Assumed the vacuum bag sample would also represent that living area. No atticsamples were obtained from insulation A modification 10 ibe collcciiOfl method used foranicnbesetnrnt sample* was made. After field sampling began, it was determined that wing theBRM in the attics and basements was more effective than using the camel hair brush as (he workplan specified. Prescribed areas m (he Attic and/or basement were measured and BAM samplingoccurred as described in Section 2.2.3.

2_2.6 HUD L«*d Risk AssessmentA certified HUD kad nsk assessor (HUDRA) was contracted by the USAGE to perform a leadrisk assessment and collect dust wipe samples. ~ne HUDRA's wort plan is located in Appendix1. *t*ere a more detailed description of the samp.ing: ictwitie* i* pfovvded.

Page 19

ffiil Hoax OKI! Pilot Fittat Remedial Cflkctiveneu ReportSection 1.0

2.2.6.1 LeadAccording to HUD, HA risk assessment is an onsilc- investigation of a residential building todetermine the location severity, and nature of Lead-based paint hazards...17 (HUD 1995). Palmcondition WHS assessed and, using a portable x-ray fluorescence fXRF), lead content, in the paintwas determined The purpose of the risk assessment was to identify those houses in the HUD,Commercial, and Control Treatments that may contain lead-paint hazards (i.e.T lead-based paintin deteriorating condition). Most houses built prior to 1970 contain lead-based paint.

2.2.6.2 Dust Wipe SamplingDust wipe sampling determines the mass of lend in dust per square foot of surface area. Dustwipe samples were collected from One- window in the living room and one window in the child'sbedroom (same rooms sampled using the BRM), from both the window sill and window well asdescribed in Appendix J. The dusi wipe is a controlled sampling method, but because windowsare friction, surface areas, samples may be influenced by chalking, chipping, or erosion oflead-bascd paint.

2.2.7 Indoor Air MonitoringThe USAGE provided indoor air monitoring of dual during (he HUD and Commensal CleaningTreatments, This sampling was performed to determine indoor dust levels during the cleaningprocess to monitor heaJth and safety of the workers. MIE DataRAMs were used to continuouslymonitor all of die Treatment A and D houses during the furniture removal, cleaning., and anyconstruction/remodeling operations.

2,3 Sampling Frequency

Sampling w« conducted ai several times during the project including pre- and post cleaning,during cleaning activities, and At six and twelve months following cleaning. Table 2.1summarizes the method^ location, and frequency of sampling in each of the Treatment Groups.Attics and basements were only sampled at the beginning of the project lo measure ihe leadconcentration front known reservoirs of dust/sort. The raiionate for sampling these areas onceww ihtf they are rarely used or inaccessible, and the lead concentralion was assumed to remainthe same over the course of (he project Air duels were only sampled after ihe cleaning becauseof the sampling method. The duct sample was intended to represent dust from deep inside the airduct system (i.e., the reservoir). A different sampling method would have been required had duelsamples been collected during pro-, post-, fi-monlh, and 12-month sampling. However, therationale was that after the ducts were cleaned, the reservoir would have been removed and thedust settling back into the ducL system over the course of the project would not be much differentfrom the other samples eoUccled from that house or exterior sail concentrations- The HUDRA'slead point assessment was also only performed at ihe beginning of the project, assuming thecondition of the painl would nut change considerably over the course of the year.

Page 20

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

fhtnltef HtU HMIK Dust Pilot Final Rem&ol £gfer&v»vii ReportSection 3.0

SECTION XO SUMMARY OF HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

The Scrccwng Interview Quc?nonnajrr? (Appendix A] completed at each participating residenceduring the pet-cleaning interview included questions about the age of the house and the carpet,kagth of residence, frequency of cleaning, condition of carpel and window treatments, number ofpeople living in the house, presence of pets, cic. This section summarizes the character! sties ofall participating bouses dctcnr-ned from the questionnaire and house visit.

3.1 A0* of Houses

Table* 3 I siawname* the general housing characteristics described in Sections 3.1 through 3.4.Of the six boujc? hi the HUD Cleaning Treatment, Ihe oldest w*5 built in 1938 (52 years old atthe time of dcaning)* the newest was built in 1978 (22 years old at the time of cleaning), and theavenge age of the HUD Cleaned houses was 52 years Of the six houses Commercially Cleaned,the oldest was built in 1930 (70 years at the time of cleaning), the newest was brill in 1971 (29years old at the time of cleaning), and the average age of the Commercially Cleaned bouses was57 years. Of* the six Spring Cleaned residences, the oldwt was. built in 1900, the newest WASbwh in 1991 (7 yean old at the time of cleaning), and the average age of the Spring Cleanedbooses was 54 yean old. Of the five houses in Lie Control Treatment, the oldest was built in1930, (he newest wii built in 1976 (24 years old\ and the average age of the Control houses was44 years (Table 3.1). Overall, che oldest house sampled was 100 years old. the newest was 7. andtbe average for ai the houses wu 52 years old.

3.2 Owner vs. R«ntor Occupancy

Five ott of ahe six nouses of both ihe HUD and Commercially Cleaned houses were occupied bythe homeowner, and ( house was occupied by renters (Table 3.1). The Spring Cleaned houseswere evenly split between owners and renters. All five of the Control houses were occupied bythe homeowners.

3.3 Interior Remodeling

Two out of the six hou$e$ in ihe HUD Treatment had experienced some degree of interiorremodding. such as sanding or removing/remodeling of window sHIsfTabte 3.1). Four out of thetil houses in die Commercial Treatment had b«n remodeled on ihe interior One oat of the sixbouses m the Spring Treatment have had some interior remodeling, finally, two out of the fiveControl bouses had interior remodeling (Table 3 I}

21

Bunker RM House Dttsi Piioi Futai Renadial Effecttveitas ftepen

3.4 Ruga at Entrances

The presence of a throw rug Or some form Of dust mat al the entrances to a house generallydecreases the amount of dust and dirt that is brought into the house (TeiraGraphks 200Qa). fiveout of six houses in the HUD Cleaning Treatment had some kind of nig present at one or moreentrances (Table 3.1). Two out of six Commercial Cleaned houses had a nig at one cr man:entrances,, the remaining Jour had a rug at all the entrances. Four out of six of the Spring Cleanedhouses had a nig at one or more entrances, the remaining two had one at all the entrances. Threeout of five Control houses had a rug al one or more entrances, and The remaining two had a rug aiall entrances (Table 3.1).

3.5 Carpet Agt

Table 5.2 summarizes ihc age of the carpets in «ch treatment group. Few of the houses tn theproject had carpet in the kitchen. One HUD Charred house had a 10 year old carpet in thekitchen, iwa Commercial houses had kiichen carpet,, one was five years old, and one was sevenyears old. One or the Spring, Cleaned houses had six month old carpet in the k lichen, and one ofThe Control houses had 20 year old carpet in the kitchen (Table 3,2),

All of the houses had carpeted living rooms {TabEe 3.2). The average age of the living roomcarpet in the HUD Cleaned houses was 9.7 years, the oldest was 20 and the newest was twoyears. The average age of the Living room carpet in the Commercial houses was 6.8 years, theoldest was 20 and the newest was two years. The average age of the living room carpel in theSpring Cleaned houses was 12.3 years,, the oldest was 30 years and the newest was five months,The average- age of the living room carpet in the Control houses was 15.2 years, the oldest was30 and the newest was one year.

houses had carpet fn the dining area (Table 3.2). Twx> of (he Commercial houses had diningroom carpet, one was four years old and the other was seven. One of the Control houses had 20year old carpet in Hie dining room.

All of the, houses except for one Commercial house had carpet in the master bedroom (Table3.2). The average age of die master hedrcom carpet in the HUD Cleaned houses was 1 1.8 years,the oldest was 20 and the newest was two years. The average age of the master bedroom carpelin the Commercial houses was 2.8 years, die oldest was five years and the newest was threemonihs. The average age of the master bedroom carpet in the Spring Cleaned houses was 14,2years, the oldest was 30 and the newest was four year? pld. The average a£e of the masterbedroom carpet in the Control houses was 12.9 years, the oldesl was 20 and ihe newest was tow.

Among the HUD Cleaned houses, thete were six other bedrooms that were carpeted (Table 3.2).The average age of the carpet in a ngn-masier bedroom among ihc HUD Cleaned houses was 10

finalrcport.wpd

Butter Hill Hottst Duft Prtai Final Remedial Efftanenca ReportSection 3.0

ycarc old, the oldest v*as 20 years, and the newesr was two years The average age of the carpetin i non-master bedroom among ttve Commercially Cleaned houses (nine <xhcr bedrooms werepresent in the Commercial category) was 6.3 years old, the oldest was 15 year?, aid the newestwas ODC yew. The average age of the carpel in a non- master bedroom amon$ ihe Spring Cleanedhouses (»e»ea other bedrooms) w«s 14.4 years old, ihe oldest w« 30 years, and the newest wasfour yean. The average age of the carpet in a non-master bedroom among the Control bouses(eight other bedrooms) was 13 7 years old. the oldest was 20 years, and the newest was six years.

One of tie Commercial houses had another room with five year old carpet, and one of the SpringCleaned houses had another room with five year old carpet, as well On average, the

Cleaned houses had the newest carpets of all trrmments.

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

The type of carpet in each of ire rooms was also classified BS either Shag. Berber. Indoor/I outdoor. Sculptured, or Plush. All of the kitchen carpets were classified as Indoor/outdoor. Table™ 3.4 summarizes the types of carpets observed in each ^"-

I

I

I

I

XS Carpet Condition

The cazpcu m the houses were visually inspected by trained technicians pcrfbnniag theScreening Interview. The condition was determined based on the appearance of die carpet (tears,*b»ld spots", stains, etc,)- The concfition codes usrd to chancterizr tSc c»ipet included "GoodCondition', "Slightly dirty. fr«yed» eic", •Modtrtucly dirty, frayed, etc*, and 'Poor Condition*.Table 3.3 summarizes the condition of (he caipets in each treatment.

The average kuchco carper » the HUD Cleaned ard Control houses was ranked as 'ModeratelyDirty*, the average kitchen carpet in the Commercial houses was "Slightly Dirty", and tlwaverage kitchea carpet in the Spring Cleaned houses *as in "Good Condition' (Table 3.3). Theaverage living room carpet in all of the nouses wts ranked as 'Slightly Dirty'. The averagedining room carpet in the Commercial houses was "Slightly Dirty", and the Control house was

Dirty". The average bedroom (both master and other) carpet for thehouses was drtcrwrincd to be 'Slightly Dirty", and the HUD Cleaned,, Spring Cleaned', andControl booses were "Moderately Dirty'. The carpets in the other rooms in die ComrnerciaJ andSpnng Qcancd house were in 'Good Condition".

5.7 Carpet Typo*

The living room carpet in the HUD Cleaned houses was ] 7% Shag. 17% Berber, 33%Sculptured, and 33S Plush. The h'vwg room carpet in the ComrnerciaJ Cteaned houses was 17%ladoorAxjtdooc, 67V« Sculptured, and 17% Plush The living room carpet in the Spring Cleaned

Page 23

Hitt Hotae Dtui Pilot Final R&mediai Effaciiveneu ReponSection 10

houses was 33% Sculptured and 67% Plush. The living room carpet in the Control houses was20% Shftfi, 60% Sculptured, and 20% Plush (Table 3. 4).

Of the two Commercially C leaned houses that had carpet In the dining room, one wasIndoor/outdoor, and the other was Plush, The carpeted dining room in the Control house wasIndoor/oucdoor-

percent of the HUD master bedrooms were Shag, 50% were Sculptured, and 33%were Plush (Table 3,4). Twenty percent of the master bedrooms with carpel in (he Comrncrcia]houses had Shag, 20% were Berber, and 60% were Plush. Sixty percent of the Spring Cleanedmaster bedrooms were Sculptured and 40% were Plush. Twenty percent of the Control housesmaster bedrooms were Sh*g, 40% were Sculpiurtd, and 40% were Plush.

Seventeen percent of the HUD other bedrooms were Shag, ] 7% were Indoorfouufoor, 33% wereSculptured, and 33% wen; Plush (Table 3.4). Eleven percent of the Commercial other bedroomswere Shag, 21% were Indoor/outdoor, 44% were Sculptured* and 22% were Plush. Fourteenpercent of die Spring Cleaned other bedrooms were lndoor/buldaort 43% were Sculptured, and43% were Plush. Thirty -eight percent of the other bedrooms in the Control houses were Shag,1 3% were Berber, 1 3% were Sculplurcol, and 38% wtrt Plush.

The other room in the Commercially Cleaned house was Indoor/outdoor, and the olher room inthe Spring Cleaned house was Berber.

3.8 Nu mber and Age of Resident*

The crjial number of people living in a house has been observed to affect the amount of dustentering a house (TciTaGraptucs 2000ft). The age of the midem* is Also a factor, as childrenmay track more dost into the house due to their play activities outaid*. For the purposes of thisreport, a resident was considered an adult if he or she was 1 S years of a$e or otd&r.

Table 3.5 summarizes the number and age of residents in each house. A total of 14 adults andnine children (average age of 6) lived in the six houses that received the HUD cleaning, 13 adultsand six children (average age of 8) occupied the six Commercial houses, 13 adults and ninechildren (average age of 10) Jived in the Spring Cleaned houses, and 10 adults and eight children(average age of ) I) occupied the five Control houses,

3.9 Smoking Habits

Table 3.6 iummarizes the smoking habits of residents. Four of the six HUD Cleaned houses hadresident* who smoked an average of l_] pacJcs of cigarettes per day. Two of the sixCommercially Cleaned houses had residents who smoked an average of 1 .3 packs per day. Two

Page 24

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Dltn Pilot final femcdiai E^ectrffneii Sepgrt

of che six Spring Cleaned houses had residents wfcc smoked an average of 1.0 pack per dayFOOT of (he five Control house* had residents who smoked an average of LI packs per day.

3.10 Ductwork

If t house had a heating or cooling system involving ducts in the HUD and Commercial CleaningTreatments* tbc ducts were professionally cleaned. Table 3.7 summarizes the centralized heatingand air coodhioniBi ducts in the houses of each Treatment group. Three OBI of six HUD Cleanedhouses have Centralized Heating/Air Conditioning. All of the Commercially Cleaned bouses,two oot of fow Spring Cleaned houses. and three oui of fi « Control houses ted duds.

The avenge age of the ducts in the HUD Cleaned houses is 7.5 years, although ffl one house, theicadcnc was unsure of ihcage (Table 3 7). The resident ai all of the HUD Cleaned housesreported that they never clean the ducts. The average age of the ducts in the Commercially

boo$es h 7 year*. Four out of six participants said they never clean the ducts, while thetwo reported that they cleaned them at an interval of "other*. The choices were: more

than rwo times per year, once a year, never, or other . The average age of the ducts m the SpringCleaned houses is 1 1 8 yean. All of the participants said they cleaned their ducts once a year.The avenge age of" the ducts m *e Contra! houses is 5 years, and one participant was «Kure oftke age. All of the Control participants said they never cleaned the ducts.

3.11 Batstmente and Attics

Ahfcocgh many of ihe houses had either an attic, btaement, or both, these areas were onlycleaned if they were used as living space However, samples erc collected whether (heyreceived a cleaning or not. If i brccmcni or attic is determined to he contributing to high dustlead, the data may help to explain any ^contamination that may be observed.

Tabk 3.t sumjBarizes the baseinent and attic characteristic j. Of the six HUD Cleaned houses,four had accessible basements, and three had accessible attics Only one of these row basement*was «scd for Imag area, while the remaining three were unfinished. Three out of four basementsbad dirt floors. Two of rhe three attics were unfinished, and the remaining one was used for otherpurposes

Of fee sin Commercially Cleaned houses, four had accessible basements, and three hadaccessible actics (Table 3.8X One of (he b&scrncr.cs was unfinished., while the remaining three««re used for storage. One had din floor. One of the three attics was unfinished aid theremaining, two were used Tor other purposes.

Of the six Spring Cleaned hoaxes, one had «n accessible basement, and three had accessible attics(TaWc 3.8). The basement was used for storage. Two of the three attics were unfinished. One

Page 25

Banter Hill Home Out PNfH ftnai Remedial Effectiveness Xepan3.0

was used for storage, and one for other purposes. One of tbe attics was reported as bothunfinished and storage area.

Of the five Control houses,, one had an accessible basement (used as a. living area), and two hadattics. Both attics were used as storage, and 0<tt of them was unfinished as well.

JtttQirrparl.wpd PflgC 26

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Dusl Pttor Fvtai Xtmafa* Ejfictatemcsf ReportSection 4.0

SECTION 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Interim data summary cnetnoi prepaid by the Slate's Consultant were completed after the post-cleaning sampling and the 6-month sampling events for the vacuum, dust maL'BRM,amc/bascmcin, tnd air dun. These dau summary memos are included in Appendix J. Thefollowing sun»nari«s alt data through the 1 2 -month sampling and discusses these remits bysampling method and treatment. A3 discussed in Section 1 5, thij project was not designed tpstatistically test hypotheses, but to gather as much information as possible For decision-makers.Cocsequeacfy, these data we presented graphically, rather than performing rigowwrs statisticalanalysis.

Three additions/modi ficatioro to the sampling plan were added after the project wa& initialed,Oae modification was the sampling of couches from three houses that, upon visual inspection inthe field, yielded inadequate sample volume for :hc kitchen BRM. The couch samples werecoOecied using the described BRM method from the work plan and are discussed hi Section4.1 J 4 (TcnaGtaphics 2000d). The second addition was the collection of carpel samples fromthe HUD Cteaaed houses The carpet samples imderwent the Toxiciry Characteristic LeachingProcedure (TCLP) to characterize waste for the ICP Landfill and arc discussed in Section 4.4.The third modification was ID ;hc collection method used for attic/baiement sampJei. In (he ficW.it was deonniaod that using the BRM in the atucs/basements was more effective than using thecamel hair brash. Attic and basement results are discussed in Section 4, 1 5

4.1 House Dust Sampfe Restiks

4.1.1 UatDuatDost mat dbca are presented in Tables 4. la-c and Figures 4-t through 4-4c. Figures 4-1 through4-3 show box pkrts of the data by treatment, while Figures 4-4a-c show line plots of all data.Appendix K present* Figures 4-4a~c individually by treatment for ease of reading. Box plotsshovr the 5*, 25*, 50", 75*, and 951* perocrrtiles of thr dara as well as any oudiert. Tlic 50"pcrccutilc is represented as the mkkJie line inside the "box", figure 4-4a abo presentsparticipating houses' mat lead conceiriration daca from years prior to this pita project.

The dust mat sampling methodology may not be the best indicator of remedial cfTcctiwness astins sampling methodology reflects the mass of dust and lead entering the hoose and may not beaffected by a octe time cleaning of the home interior. The dusl mat loading rates may also reflectseasonal vanalions (Figures 4-4b and 4-4c). Figures 4-2a-d and Table 4.1b shew tfce highest dusltoading rates were firom the 6-month sampling xvhich took place in spring (Apnl 200 1). The•verage dust loading nir for the Control houses wa; also highest id the Spring at 1899mg/rnj/day oxupartd to summer levels of 651 mj/nr.'day at the time of prc-clcuning sarnplingand 557 mg/rnVday at the lime of 1 2-month sampling (Tahle 4.1b).

Page 27

fiiil Hmrst £J«s< Pitot Final Re«miicii SffKlwrHus Keport

HUD Cleaned Houses. Dusl mats were collected from five of the six HUD Cleaned housesduring the 1 1 -month sampling event. The lead concentration in the mats did not decrease afterthe cleaning, but on average, concentrations were lowest at the time of the ] 2-month sampling(Figure 4- ] a and 4-4a). The average 6-month dust loading raie (S ] S mg/rrrVday ) was highest,while pre- and post-leaning rates remained neaHy equal (Table 4. lb). Figures 4-3a and 4-4cshow the lead loading rfltej were also highest at Hie time of the 6-month sampling (average ofO.S45 mg/nr/day - Table 4. Ic)

Commercially Clewed tfowe$: Oust. macs were Cdllccicd from all six Commercially Cleanedhouses during the 12-month sampling event; however, one sample yielded insufficient volumefor analysis. On average, [he highest mac lead concentrations for the Commercial houses wereobserved at ine time of posl-cleaning and 6-month sampling (Table 4, la and Figure 4-3 b).Excluding the 6-month data outlier from one house in Figures 4-2 b and 4-3h, dust and teadloading rale$i for the Commercial homes showed the least variation throughom the four samplingevents and compared to the other treatments.

Spring Cleaned Houses. Dust mats were collected from five of Ihe si* Spring Cleaned housesduring ihc 1 2-month sampling event; one participant moved away, and the house was empty forboth ihe 6- and 12-month sampling events. The Spring Cleaned houses showed the mostvariation in concentrations and loading rates compared To (he Other treatment (Figure* 4- 1through 4-3 ), Figure 4-1 c shows the mat lead concentration increased after the cleaning. Onaverage, tead concentrations were highest al the peat-cleaning and 12- month sampling (1 130mg/kg and 1365 mg/kg» respectively - Table 4, la). The mat dust and lead loading rates fluctuatedthroughout the sampling events but were highest in spiring at the 6-month sampling (Figures 4-4b

Control Houses, Of the original fivie Control houses, one panicipanl moved away soon after prc-clcaning sampling, leaving four homes, and one house had a different (new) resident after pre-defining sampling. Dust mats were collected from four Control houses with sufficient volumefor Iflhoraiary analysis tor the 6- and 12-month sampling events. These houses were not sampledat post-cleaning, assuming that dust levels would not change substantially in the 3 month timeperiod the cleanings took place, in Figures 4~4a-c for the Control houses, the pre-cleaning resultswere assumed cq be the same for post-cleaning. Control houses, in general, showed little changein lead loading races, except Tor slight increases at the 6-munih sampling event (Figures 4-3b and4-4c). Figure 4~4a show? mat lead concentrations in one Control house had markedly decreasedby the lime of 6- and (2-month

4,1,2 Vacuum Bag DustTable 4.2 and Figures 4-5 through 4-6 present vacuum bag dusL lead concentrations. Appendix Lcontains Figure 4-6 separated into 4 graphs by treatment for ease of reading. Vacuum bay. data

represent the lead concentration found inside a house; however, if the vacuum was usedoutside the house, then the bog was not collected- No vacuum sarnplcs were obtained

Page 2S

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Bunier Hili Home Dtai Pilot Final KoMtdurt tfitcttvenesj ReportSection <i.O

from houses where the resident did not have a vacuum, had a rainbow (wet) vacuum, or had usedthe vacuum outside the house There were more unavailable vacuum bags toward the 6- and 12-month sampling events as participants cither moved away or new residents moved in.

(• gottr&U lead concentrations have decreased in iht city of Smtlterviile, including theparticipating households. Figure 4-6 ihcrws line graphs for the participating households, as wellas their data from previous years prior to the Dust Pilot. Project.

HUD Cleaned Hotati: Vacuum dose was collected from all six HUD Cleaned houses during theSot-month sampling event. However, only four vacuum bag samples wexc collected during the12-mocth sampling event. Figure 4-Sa shows no trend in lead concentrations from vacuum bagsLa the HUD Cleaned houses except at 1 2-rnonths, the least variation was observed. The highestaverage coaceMratioa of 723 trig/kg was observed at the time of the post-cleaning sampling event(Table 4.2)

Ctoned Houses. One participant m the Commercial Treatment had ft rainbowm. and nn samples were collected from this home. At the time of the 12-nwMh sampling,

tfccc more participants had unavailable vacuum bags. In general, there is little variation in thelead concentrations from the Commercial Treatment compared to the other treatments asobserved ia Figures 4.5 and 4-A A slight decrease in average lead concentrations was observedpost-dear ing. The pre-cleaning average was 507 mg/kg, the post-cleaning average was 415nhg/kg. the 6-month average was tower at 378 mg/kg, and the 12-rnontoccrcenrratioru averaged445 me/kg (Tafcte 4.2).

Spring Cleaned Houstr. One resident had a rainbow vacuum and A dnsibusser vacuum, but thedualb»$tCT broke after the pre-cleaning sampling, so e dust junplc was not collected from thatpankapaot for tbc remainder of ihe sampling events. As observed in Figure 4-6 (ot Figure 4-6-L3iat Appendix L), significant decreases in lead concentrations have occurred LA ihe Spring Cleanedhouses since 19tJ, with only slight decreases occurring since the duct pilot cleaning. Theaverage pre-cJeaning concentration for the Spring Cleaned houses was. 598 rng/kg, and the post-cieaniiig average was 471 ing/kg (Table 4.2). As seen in Figure 4-6, there •«**$ one outlier Iskewed the 6-month average, but the 12-month concentration averaged 570 mg/Vg, near pfc-

leveb(Tablc42).

Control Hvaser. One participant had a rainbow (wet) vacuum and dust samples woe notcollected One participani movzd away after ihe prr-cJeaning sampling, so a total of four vacuumsamples were collected at the time of die 6- and 12-monih sampling events. Only ranges arediscussed because there aie only a few vacuum samples fc»i ihe Control houses; the four prc-ckaniag retubs ranged from 224-2200 mg/kg, the three 6-monih results ranged from 910-2100agykg, while the 12-month results ranged from 400-1030 mfc/lcg (Table 4.2), Prconoe»ca<ioos wtre used for i>e post-cleaning ccniL-*nir3Uoa\ in Figure 4-6.

Bunker Hilt House Dam PtiQi Fa&i Rettttdlat Effeaiutness fiejwi

4.1,3 BRM Dust

4,1.3.1 Living Room BRMTables 4.3a-c and Figures 4-7 through 4-1 Qc present all BRM Living Room results. Figures 4-lOa-c are presented In Appendix M separated by treatment tor easy viewing. The BRM samplingmethodology is likety the most appropriate method io determine remedial effectiveness. BRMCarpel samples wen: the most controlled sampling methodology used in iriis project, meaning thesamplers could document, all aspects of the sampling. Whereas, vacuum bag and duat matsample results may be unknowingly influenced by the resident, and da not remain under controlof the sampler.

BRM sampling has not been used at the BHSS prior to this .project, so there are no data fromprevious years to compare or analyze trends, As expected, Lead concenuaiion decreased in theHUD Treatment, as those houses received new carpeting (Figures 4-7a arid 4-IQa). Althoughthere ate only 6 houses per treatment, living room BRM results show (hat the HUD Tteajroemwas mosi effective at reducing lead concentrations and dust and Lead loadings-

HUD CleanttfffovM. The HUD Cleaned houses received new carpet, and while mosi samplesContained a large volume of carpet fibers at the time of post-cleaning sampling, all but onecontained sufficient dust volume for analysis. All six of the living room BRM samples yieldedsufficient volume for laboratory analysis during the 6-monih sampling event. One participantwas never home at the time of the 12-montri sampling, but the five samples collected containedsufficient volume for analysis. The average lead concentration in the living roam carpets was673 mg/kg prc-cleaning, and the avenge new carper post-clearing lead concentration decreasedio 194 ing/kg (Table 4.3&). However, the 6- and ll-monlh average lead concentration^ increasedto near prc-clcaning levels of 670 rag/kg and 720 rag/kg, respectively (Table 4.3a). As seen inFigure 4-10a (or more clearly in Figure 4-lOa-M I), one HUD Cleaned house contained a leadconcentration greater than 1000 rag/kg at the lime of pre-deaninjk decreased by £4% at post-cleaning, and remained below pre-cleaning levels at the 6- and 12-month sampling. This houseremained at about half the pre-cleaning lead concentration for the year after the cleaning.

Figure 4-8a shows dust loading substantially decreased after the cleaning,, but on average, slowlyincreased within the year. Twelve-month dust loading results averaged 10,74 g/mz compared 10pxc-tlcaning levels that averaged 22.33 g/nr (Table 4 Jb). This, same trend is observed in thelead loading for the HUD Treatment, as observed in Figures 4-9a and 4-IQc. However, onehouse had a high lead loading at the time of the 1 2-month sampling, skewing the results. Figure4-9a shows the 50th pcrecnrilc (as the middtc line inside the box) for 1 2-moni)i sampling rearingflic pre-cleaning 50lh

Commercially Cleaned HOUSES: All six houses for every sampling event yielded sufficientvolume for laboratory analysis. On average lead concentrations did not decrease after the

P&gC 30

II•

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

HM Hvtttf Dtni PriM Fatal fam&Baf Effectttntit Repon

dcaning (Figures 4-7}) and 4-10a). Pre-deaning resjfis averaged 409 mg/kg, pow<kaningresults averaged 528 mg/kg, (j-month sampling averaged 483 rngAg, and 12-month samplingresults averaged 440 rag/kg (Table 4.3a).

i

Figure 4-lOb (or Figure 4-IOb-M6 in Appendix VO graphicaJIy shows decreased dust loadings inall bouses after the cleaning. « expected Lead loadings al»> slightly decreased alter thecleaning (Figure 4~l Oc), but increased to or abo^e pre -clearing levels by the time of the 6- and12-mooth sampling events <Figure 4-9baiwJ 4-1 Oc).

Cfautrti Hotats: One participant moved away before the 6-rnonth saanpting event, and noperson moved into chat house afterwards. This resulted in six samples for pre- and post-cleaningand five sample* for 6- and 1 2-month. Two of the six houses had substantially decreased JeadoonccntraiJons after the cleaning, and one of those houses remained at concentrations below pre-cleaning feveH; tae other house is where the participant moved away (Figure 4-10a or seeAppendix M). However, m the one home where kaJ concentrations remained belcw pre-ckaniag levels, these conocntratiows v«re greater than 1000 rng/kg.

Pre> a*d po3t<ka«ing dust loading result j averaged around 1 3 g/rrr, while 6- and 1 2-monthresults avetagerf around [8 g/ra2 (TaHe4.3b). Figures 4-8c and 4-9c show dust as well as leadtarings were KM affected by this cleaning treatment. Figures 4-JOc shows ooe of the six homeswith decreased lead loadings posKkantng; however, this is the house where the participant

away and no samples were coflccted at 6- and 1 2-months,

Fkwer. All four living room BRM samplw from ih« Control booses yielded sufficientsample vofantc for laboratory analysis during thr 6-monlh and 1 2 -month sampling events. Ingeneni, lead couccntratioiis Fluctuated as observed in Figure 4-\Oa (also $e« Appendix M) OTslighdy iecrcascd as observed in Figure 4-7d. Oust and lead loadings generally remained aboutthe same throughout the year. However, the pre-clcaning and 12-month results were highestamong all treatment groups (Table* 4.3b-c).

4.1.X2 ChMtfc Bedroom BRMTables 4.4a-c and Figures 4-! I through 4-i4c show all the BRM child's bedroom data. Figures4-1 1 through 4-]3 show box plots of the dali by creaiment and Figures 4-14a~c sbow line graphsof the data. Apptr*d«N contains Figufe^ 4- J4a-c individually by treatment The bedroom BRMrcsuits agxm support the HUD Treatment aj bring mo&t effective at reducing dust and leadkwdrags.

HUD Cleaned Hotafs- Lead concentrations and dust and lead loadings aU decreased post-ckantng (Figures 4-lla, 4-l2a, and 4- Us/ However, lead concentrations increased by the 6-momh sampling (Figure 4- I4a - also set Appendix NX Pre-cleanjng concentrations averaged513 mg/Xg and 12-raonth concentrauons averaged 486 mg^ (TabJe 4.4a).

page 31

ffiff House Dust Piioi Fiaof Remedial Effectiveness ReportSacitctn 1.Q

Dust loadings significantly decreased after the cleaning, as expected, and remained lowthroughout (he following year (Figure 4-1 2»), Lead loadings also decreased post*deanlng from aprc-cLcaning average of 6,85 mg/m1 to a post-cleaning average of 0.25 mg/m2 and remained lowat about 3 mg/m.z at o> and 1 2-month^ (TabEc 4,4c), Figures 4-1 2a> 4- 1 3 a and *• 1 4b-c. (see also .Appendix N) show that the HUD Treatment was effective at reducing and maintaining dust andlead loadings throughout die year.

Commercially Cleaned Houses: Three of the six Commercially Cleaned houses showed increasesin kad concentrations in the bedroom post-cleaning (Figure 4- 1 4a - or sec Appendix N), two ofthe six houses showed deertaies in lead concentr'aiion po$t-dcaning (Figure 4-14a - or seeAppendix NX and one remained approximately the same throughout the year. The average 12-month lead concentration WHS the highest (1 125 rag/kg) of the sampling events and of (he otherTreatment Groups (Table 4.4a). Dust and lead loadings were both affected by this cleaningtreatment and decreased post-c [caning (Figures 4- 1 2b and 4- 1 3 b), However, lead loadi ngsincreased to about prc-clcaning levels by the 32-month sampling (Figure 4- He - sec alsoAppendix N]L

Spring Cleaned Houses: The Spring Cleaning Treatment did the least to affect lead concentrationand dust and lead loadings (see Figures 4-1 1 c through 4-13c>. As observed in Figures 4-1 4a-c(see also Appendix N), Lead concentrations, dust loadings, and lead loadings in the bedrooms inthis treatment remained nearly equal m each of the five houses throughom the year.

Control Houses; Figure 4-l4a also shows the same trend as the Spring Cleaned houses;concentrations remained nearly equivalent throughout the year. One house did show asubstantial decrease in both dust and lead loadings at the time of the 6-month sampling, Asample was not collected at 12-months as remodeling was underway in this bedroom. Except forthe 12-month results, average BRM lead concentrations were lowest among the TreatmentGroups (Table 4.4a). However, average lead loadings in the Control bedrooms were highest

Treatment Groups, excluding one 12-month outlier m die Commercial TTeaunem (Table

4.1.3.3 KJtenen BRMTables 4.5a-c and Figures 4' 1 5 through 4-17 show all BRM kilchen lead concentrations and dustand lead loadings by treatment, Line graphs were not made for the kitchen samples because toomany contained insufficient sample volume for lead analysis. 11rc BRM sampling technique isnot as effective on hard surfaces in living areas cleaned at certain intervals versus the carpets. Itwas difficult in many cases to vacuum enough sample, even after increasing the square footagevacuumed, Jf the randomly selected square foot to be vacuumed landed on a floor mat theresident normally keeps in the kitchen, chr mat w« vacuumed.

HUD Cleaned Houses'. Only prc-cleaning. and 6-month samples contained enough volume foranalysis. Lead concentrations remained about the same with an average of 767 mg/kg for prc-

PagC 32

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hill Mvusr D*4i ffioi Fhtf Btmedtat Gffectnena3 ReportSeeaon *0

cleaning and an average of 640 mgrtcg for 6-month (Table 4.5a). The HUD Ttcatiaaii was theoory dearting treatment where no samples from ihc post-cleaning contained enough volume forlab*ttly$is(TiguR34-l5 and 4-17). However, t is also the only treatment with no carpeting orfloor rrmi in the kitchens. •

Dost Ujadtpyj decreased post-cleaning and remained below pre-cleaning Levels throughout theyear (Figure 4- lea). Pre-deming dust loadings averaged S 44 g/m2, while post-cleaning levelsdecreased K> an average, of 0.20 g/m1 (Table 4.5 bl. The average lead loading for the 6-monthsampling wss 0.99 mg/m3 ajwJ remained below ihe pr* -cleaning average of 4.49 tng/ht2 (Table

Com*tfrciaffy Charted Motues' Dunng the pest-cleaning sampling event, Cve floors yielded aenough Mrapk for malyiis, m^iiJc only fo jr had a delectable amount of lead. Laid

not decline post-cleaning and remained about the same throughout the year4-1 5b). Dust loadings decreased in the kitchens from an average of t3 14 g/nr pre-

ck«aing to 334 gAn3 post-cleaning (Table 4.5b|. Ho\vtver. dust loadings increased to pre-cteaning levch by the 6- und 1 2 month sampling events (Figure 4- 1 6b)

Spring Cleaned Hwaes Two to three kitchen BRM sainplea from ihc Spring Cleanedyielded sufficient sample volume EOT laboratory analysis from the post -cleaning, 6- and 12-monthsampling events. Lead concentration and dust and lead loadings decreased in the kitchens duringthe post-cteanmg. but all increased to prc-clcanjng Inch by the 6- and 12-mooch samplingevents (Figures 4-t 5 through 4-1 T\.

Control Houses' As observed m the Spring Cleaning Trcaimem, only wo to three samples fromall three sampling events yielded sufficient sample volume for Laboratory analysis. However.these two to three houses vhow decreased dust and lead loadings for ihe 6- and 12-nxxtthtempling events (Figwei 4- 1 6d and 4- 1 7d)

4.1 .X4 Couch 8RMthe project while collecting pre»cleaoing sarrplcs, a few houses appeared by visual

inspccooc of tfae sarapk volume, to yxU ii^ufficient dust for analysis from the kitchen BRMsarapfes, even though five or more square feet were vacuumed Because k was thought lha( thesebouses vMMld be missing a BRM sample, a decision was made in the field to also try to collectdust from the couch. The couch samples were collected in the same manner as the other BRMsamples as described in the field work plan in Appendix E (TerraGraphics 2000d). T*<0 of thedarec couches sampled **rr in ihc HUD Trt-jtmeni and the other w« from the ControlTrcatmcm. The one couch from the Control Trcauncnt exhibited lead concentrations around 200mg/kg throughout the dur itinn of the project The two couches from the HUD Treatment werearound JOOQ mg/kgatthe time of pre-eleaning sampling, One of these couches was 720 tng/kg

-clcanttg sampling (due to some cniscvmrrurucatioru this couch was sampled

Page 3 3

fiiU Housa Dttsi Piioi Final Remedial £$Krfv*ntrr Report

approximate}}1 3 weeks after being moved into the house),, 800 rag/kg at 6-month sampling,back TO near pre-deaning. Levels of 930 mg/kg at the time of the 12-montn sampling. The othercouch contained insufficient sample volume ai the lime of posi-cleamng sampling, was, 720nig^S at 6-month sampling, and 350 mg/kg at 12-month sampling. The lead loading* on bath .the HUD couches remained below pre-deaning. levels. In general,, soft Furniture can also be areservoir of leaded dust, and results follow similar patterns 35 the other BRM results.

4.1.4 Mat, Vacuum, and BRM Paired AnalysisUsing pre-deaning data only, correlations were performed on (he lead concentrations and dusiand lead loadings (for mats, dust and lead loading rales). Table 4.6a shows the Leadconcentration correlations. The highest correlations were observed between the kitchen BRMlead concentration and the Jiving room lead concentration (r=O.S6) and the living room BRMlead concentrations, and ihe vacuum bag lead concentration {1=0,83), as well as the matconcentration and (lie kitchen BRM concentration (r=0.77) and the mat concentration and theliving room concentration (r*0.72). Table 4. fib presents the dust and lead loading (trace)ecrrctafiflns- The most significant dust loadings were between thtf living icom artd child'sbedroom (r=0.68). The only significant lead loadings were between the child's bedroom and theliving room (T=0.50> and the child's bedroom and the kitchen (r=0.57).

Another analysis was performed using the prr-clcaning data only by examining whether thecarpet age or condition classifications used in the Screening Interview Questionnaire (AppendixA) made a difference in lead concentrations or dust and lead loadings Only living room andchild's bedroom BRM pre-deaning data were used, because all these samples were collectedfrom carpels (as opposed to hard floors). The only significant difference observed from thisanalysis was with dujt loading and carpet condition. Table 4.7 shows that the better thecondition Ihe Carpet was in, the lower me dust loading level was. The carpet condition had noeffect on lead loadings (p-valucs > 0.05). The carpet age had no observed effect on BRM lew)concentrations or lead loadings (p-values > 0.05). These results support the current methodsused to categorize the condition of ihe carpet and may be effective in qualitatively determiningdust loading; however, the age of the caipet does not aid in determining lead concentrations (i.e.,,older carpels do not necessarily contain higher lead concentrations).

4.1.5 Attics, Basement*, and DuctsTables 4.8a-b summarize the lead concentration and loading data collected from the attics,basements, and duels- Some houses did not have attics, basements; of ducts, and a few houseshad attics and basements that wcrt not accessible for sampling dut to near winter conditions{e.g.. icy, metal roofs). Because of the few number of samples, result* were not broken out bytreatment. Four attics were sampled tor lead. Three of these samples were collected using theBRM and the other was collected by using a camel half brush to sweep dust into a Whirl pak.Thr average leud concentration m the attics was 6,665 mg/kg (minimum 890 mg/kg, maximum11,600 mg/kg), average dusi loading was 24 g/m2 (minimum 5 g/m], maximum 40 g/nr), and theaverage lead loading was 123 mg/m2 (minimum 36 mg/m1, maximum 272 m^m2) (Table 4.ga).

Jmalreport. rtfhl PflgC 34

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Btwktr fftli timat CHitf Ptfof Final Xemadiof E0tctr*t*caSection 4.0

Seven basements were sampled for kad. One basemeni had nwo samples collected; one toilsajnpk from the crawl space area and then one BR.M dust sample from the cemented floor area.Row basements were sampled with the BRM and che other four were soil samples collected with• deconuorinaicd swinlcsi steel bowl and jpoon The average lend concentration in thebatemento w»2,t J8 rngAg (minimum 128 mg/ig, maximum 6,SSO nigAg), avenge dustloading was 1 1 g/nr (minimum 6 jj/m1. maximum 15 $.'™\\ and ihe average lead loading was 16"nag/m: {mJnkmim 9 rog/m:, maximum I** mg/rr*) (Table 4,8aJ,

Nine bouses had air ducts that weir cleaned, hut only seven y ielded sufficient Honple volume forlead analysis. The average read concentration from the ducts was 3,430 mg/kg, miohnumconcentration was 230 rng/kg. and the maximum concentration was 10,600 mg/kg (Table 4 8a).Table 4.fb sunMrtarizes the amount of dust coUecrcxi during the duct cleaning. Two houses didnot have detectable amounts of dust collected by the duct cleaners. Due u> the size and shape ofthe duct fikere, ifce scale used weighed out to ±0 01 kg The average mass of dust collected fromthe nine bouses that received a duct cleaning was 1 56 grains, ranging from a mmrmurn of <10grains to a maximum of 42C grams.

4,2 HUD Rnfc Asswsment and Du»t Wipe Simple Result*

A HUD risk assessment (RA ) was performed ozt the HUD, Commercial, and Control bouses.This sampling was performed by * certified lead paint risk assessor under contract to theUSAGE, aod (be data presented in this report art bused on those sampling results, as reported bythe USAGE. A kad based paint analysis was performed and dust wipe samples were collectedfrom the window sills and well* of the living room and « child's bedroom (i.c~, the same roomssampled with the BRM). Table 4.9 presents the lead based paint analysis. The rcsuhs werecategorized as to whether a lead paint hazard existed al the time of inspection. A hazard isdefined ts delected lead based paint (j 1 .0 mg lead/cm1) in poor conduioa. If paint is in stableeowfiuon, aa immediate hazard does not exr$t whether or run kad p»mt is detected. Tables 4.10through 4. (2 and Figures 4- ] &• through 4- I9b present the dust wipe data from the four samplingevents. The dotted lines in Figures 4-1 8a through 4-!9b represent the houses with detectedinterior lead-based paint. Appendix O displays Figures 4-1 8a through 4-1 9b by treatment forease of reading For some houses, the HUDRA was unable TO collect post-cleaning dust wipectmplo within 24 hours after the cleaning Spnng Clraned houses did not receive a RA as this

ro was ihe lowest (and least expensive) level of treatment applied tc the houses,

4.2.1 HUD Otan«J Houae*No interior lead paint hazards were observed in the six HUD Cleaned houses (Table 4.9). Onehowc did have detected lead based paint on surfaces hcrr there is friction swh as window anddoor trims. However, five of the six houses have an exterior lead paint hazard (Table 4J>). Oneof Che five bouse? has a detached structure in the yard ihat had lead paint in poor condition;however, a lead paint hazard was not observed or the exterior of this house

35

Swrtiur Hiii Wonw £>«3f Pilot finaf famediai Efffctteneu ReportSection 4.0

Table 4.10 and Figures 4-lBa through 4-19b show that all lead loadings from dust wipesdecreased post-cleaning. All Loadings remained below pre-cleaning Levels by the 6- and 12-month sampling, except for one living room window sill that significant])1 increased at the timeof the 12-month sampling (Figure 4-19b),

4.2.2 Commercially Cleaned HousesFive of the six Commercially Cleaned houses had no observed interior Lead paint hazard (Table4.9). lit line one house widi an interior hazard, only the staJr stringer was identified as havinglead based paint in poor condition- Five of the six houses also had no exterior Lead pami hazard(Table 4,9). It was observed that the one house with an exterior hazard had lead paint in poorcondition only on the cellar windows.

Table 4.11 summarizes the dust wipe sample results for the Commercially Cleaned houses.Again, all window weJh and window sills show decreased loadings at post-cleaning andgenerally tended to remain bHow pit-cleaning levels [hmughoui thr year (Figures 4-1 & through4-t9b>. One extreme level in a child's bedroom window well skewed the average of 16,854ug/ftz {Table 4.11). However, the geometric means from the window wells in the children'sbedrooms show a significant mean dwrea« from pnc- tp post-clearing.

4.2.3 Control House*No interior lead bawd paint hazards were observed in the five Control houses, although onehouse was identified with lead paint on surfaces where friction occurs such as- window and doortrims (Table 4.9). Two of the five houses have exterior lead paint hazards. One house has adetached structure in the yard identified with lead pain! in poor condition, although the exlcriorof the house was not observed to have a Lead paint hazard. One house had lead paint detected on(he exlcrior, but is currently in stable cOndiTlOn.

Table 4, 12 swmm&riaes the dusl wipe data for the Control houses. As observed in Figures 4-1 Eathrough 4-l9b (see also Appendix 0), decreased lead loadings were observed by the 6-monthsampling or remained near pie-cleaning results. Two houses had increased levels at the time ofthe 6-month sampling; however, decreased by the time of the 12-tnonth sampling (sec Figures 4-I Sa and 4-l9a). Because average concentrations also decreased in the Control houses comparedthe other treatments, it is difficult to determine how much levels decreased due to the cleanings.5iit-month Lead levels in the window wdlsand silk may have decreased because the windowswould most likely be closed throughout the winter months.

4,3 Air Monitoring RtiSultB

In general, dust levels were highest during carpel removal, However, the highest BRM carpetconcentration multiplied by the highest air dust level was well below the OS HA standard of 0-05

Page

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HtiJ Home Dust Piiot finpt fe**n£of £jfrctr*n*n fleporfSfctrwi 4.Q

Please aee Appendix P for a complete data summary memo by the USAGE pertaining todie indoor air paniculate results.

4.4 Carp«t TCLP Waste CharactBrizatf on

Prior to ibe removal of carpets m the HUD Cleaned houses, ii was recommended lhat the carpelwaste be characterized for ihe ICP Landfill Carpet samples were collected from the middle ofeach roora & the house, and analyzed for the Toxic iry Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP). The TCLP umpling procedure* and results arc documented in memoranda located inAppeadix Q All carpets in the six houses did not leach any detectable amount of lead. This is

to a previous opportunistic sampling completed m two houses m Kellogg. Carpelsfrom booses in the BHSS should be bcncr characterized if carpet removal were to be

applied ia & large-leak remedial efforl.

4.5 Data Oualltr Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

Appendix R contain* the 12-month QA/QC memorarvdLinns for the Mat, Vacuum, and BRMsaa^llag peHbrmed by the State's Consultant and the laboratory data theets. The QA/QCsummaries for pre- and post- and 6-mdnth sampling events for Mat, Vacnun, and BRM can befb*od in Appeod5x J. Two changes were made to ihe prc-clcaning and 6-nooo& data since thedata sonmiry reports documented ia Appendix J were produced One prt-dcantng living roomBRM sample from the Comxrcrcial Treatment 'ATLS replaced with its duplicate retuh in this finalreport The teak malfunctioned on the original sample' •> bottle and no loading data codd becalculated. The duplicate sampk collected at that house was the same concentration {Le., zerorefative percent difference), so the dust and lead loading from the duplicate sample ^»CTC used inthe find report. The second chanf e wa$ to one 5-month mat lead concentration. Theconcentration was reported as <SO mg/kg; however the true concentration vraa < J 60 rog/kg (i.e.,heHow detection limit) In the 6-month data summary report, half the detection limit was used(40 mg/kg); however, in (his final report, half the true detection limit was used (80 m§/kg). TheQA/QC perfonoed t» the dust wipe samples collect by the HUD RA wa$ uldraaiely the HUDRA's rcsponsibiruy. however, the Sttte' j Consu.tant and ihe USACE reviewed the work andprovided comments to the HUD RA about the quality of those data. Most of the question?pertaiacng to the data were corrected.

Twenty houses in Smelterville were sampled using three distinct sample collection methods for(be 12-oxmth sampling event. Vacuum dust, Mtt dust, and BRM sampter dust were collected.Based on a complete levies of the field duplicates, jundards. LCS, prep Waaks> and labotalotyMS/MS D analyses, the final completeness for lie study was assessed at 96%.

Pag« 37

Bunkff tfili Hatac &uft fitot Final Rffavdiat SffKtivgJKtt KtporiSection 4.Q

4.5.1 Vacuum and BRM DataAll vacuum dusi and BRM dusi samples were subtnined 10 Northern Analytical Laboratories,[tic. for analysis. A total of 89 samples (including QA/QC } were collected from 20 Rrneltervillehouses during this cvcnl Field QA/QC samples consisted of eight field duplicates and sixrinsatc blanks. Four National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards were alsoincluded in the sample train. All samples were banked and recorded on a master log, And chainof custody forms were completed and checked before samples were shipped to the lab. All dust.samples were sieved to -60 mesh at the lab prior to analysis,

A check of field decontamination procedures was. assessed u&ing rinsaie blanks. One laboratorypreparation blank was inserted per batch of samples to ensure no bias was introduced duringsample preparation. Six rinsate blanks were collected during the sampling event. No significantconcentrations of lead were found in the rinsale blanks. No qualifiers were placed on the daiabased on rinsale blank results,

Field duplicates w/ete analyzed to assess field and laboratory variability. A iota! of fourduplicates were collected in the field and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. BRM dustduplicate percent recovery indicated high field variability. No qualifiers were placed on the daiabased on duplicate results.

An external check of laboratory accuracy was assessed using NIST soil standards. All percentrecoveries were within the acceptable range and no qualifiers were placed on the data based OnBRM and vacuum dust standards results.

An internal check of laboratory accuracy was assessed using laboratory control samples (LCS).An aqueous and soil LCS was analyzed for each batch. All LCS results were within acceptablelimits. Laboratory precision was assessed using M S/MSD analyses. All MS/MSDs displayedacceptable RPD values. Lead concentrations in all laboratory prep blanks were below instrumentdetection limits.

4.5.2 Dust Hat DataA toial of 28 dust mat samples (including QA/QC) were collected and analyzed. For the 12-monthsampling cvcnl. All dust mat samples were analyzed lor total [cad by Inland EnvironmentalLaboratories (IEL) in Spokane, Washington, Field QA/QC samples consisted or one standard, 4Held duplicates, and 3 rinsate blanks, All samples were banked and recorded on a master Log,and chain of custody forms were completed and checked before samples were shipped lo the lab.AJl samples were sieved U> -30 mesh at IEL prior to

Laboratory QA/QC was checked eternally by the use otdupKzalc samples in the field and bysubmitting dust mat standards blind to the laboratory far lead analysis. TEL provided a copy oftheir internal QA^QC results for blanks, LCS, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates

38

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hill House Dim Pilot n*a{ Xtmedtat Efffctfrtnaa ReportSection 4.0

(MVMSD). Field and lab variability was assessad uimg duplicawMmpk*- Analysis of dustmat duphcaics indicates relatively high variability which is attributable lo the samplingmethodology.

AJJ external check of l£L 's accuracy was determined using soil standards of known concentrationloaded onto a «ew mat and inserted blind with the field samples. Pre-loaded mats had 10 gramsof a NIST standard containing 432 rng/kg lead. The standards were used to evaluate the dustrecovery ofrtx vacuum, as well as the accuracy of JEL. Decreased (<100%) percent recoverieswere observed on many of ihe NJST standard mat samples. These decrtased percent recoverieswere b'tdy a rcsuh of fiber dilution of vacuum samples or a portion of the standard sticking tothe vinyl surface or vacuum bag surface. However, ihe average percent recoveries by leadconcentration and lead mass were higher than they have been in the previous yean. Noqualifier* were placed on the data ba&ed on NIST standard results

laaeraal checks of lEL'i accuracy were assessed by analyzing one soil and one aqueouslaboratory control sample (LCS) per batch. All results were within ihe specified ttmitt. Internalchecks of laboratory precision at IEL were assessed using MS/MSD analysts. Al! MSAfSDcfisplaycd acceptable RFD vahjes. Other checks of the dan showed that IEL analyzed matwauipto that contained insufficient ample volume They used "non-standard methodology" toran these sampies Due to this, four mat samples from the Home Du« Pilot Project wererejected but were mdkated as insufficient sample volume in the data summaries. All laboratoryblanks were bckrw tic detection

Page 39

/fj'tf //Mfre DHSI Piioi Ftnai Kemfdtai Effectiveness ReportSection 5.0

SECTION 6.0 COST AND LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Project Design

5.1.1 House SelectionMany difficulties arose when soliciting houses for this pilot project. The purpose staled in theROD was to remediate Jious« v^ith interior lead concentrations greater than 1000 mg/kg, tlsingdata from 1996-2000 was useful in identifying potential houses that could require remediation,However, some homes thai had high lead concentrations in past years exhibited lower leadconcentrations at the dine of pre-cleantng sampling, This could be due to the samplingmethodologies, natural variation of house dust lead concentrations, or the effects of personalinfluences, i-e-, the number of people living in, the house, personal hobbies and activities, thenumber of hows spent outside, whether shoes we removed prior to entering, etc. {TerraGraphicsZQGQa,), Also, as a result of the soil remediation program, most homes in SmcllcrviJlc havelower dust lead levels than in previous years, and only a small percentage of houses have high.kad concentrations (>1000 mgv'kg) in recent years, The population is also mobile and data fromprevious years may have been for a different family living in the house at that time. Most peoplewere cooperative, but they nad concerns about the logistics of leaving their house for a certainnumber of dayst leading to some people refusing. Some residents dropped out of the project afterteaming which cleaning treatment they were to receive. One participant asked to be part of theControl Treatment only pnd did not want to be botheiwl with leaving their house for a caning.SmeltcTvillt'a population is small and mobile with seemingly few young children (< <5 years old).As a result, it was difficult to recruit the target population for this piJot projcci,

5.1.2 Sampling and MonitoringAfter the cleaning was complete, sampling was to occur within the next 24 hours before theresidents moved badt into their houses. Sampling efforts were effective using cm-site field crewsin constant contact with the USAGE and coordinated post-sampling efforts well. The HUD riskassessor (HUDKA) was not from the area and wouM fly over to perform the sampling onseparate occasions. The HUDRA had difficulties being on-sii* 24 hows after a cleaning, andtherefore, some houses were not sampled according to protocol.

S.1.J tfaatth and SafetyThe USAGE placed indoor air monitors Tor dust at the HUD and Commercially Cleaned housesduring cleaning activities. Each contractor was responsible for their own health and safety plans.

9.2 Program Implementation and Contract

used in chi* project were elicited by the State of Idaho arid Oteir Representative and bythe USAGE acting for the federal government, USEPA. The Slate's Consultant was responsiblefor recruitment Mid selection of houses, d^ifin of cleaning and sampling protocols, [be Spring

Page 40

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HUl Huuir D*-'i P'iyf F<*&t JUmetHat Cffectimva ReportSection S.Q

Cleaning Contractor (Treatment Q. and report preparation. The USACE was responsible foracquisition and oversight of all ether contracts and ail logistic arrangements with residents andproperty owners for the HUD and Commercially Cleaned homes.

In order 10 obtain the specific services of a HUD Risk Assessor, HUD Cleaner, and CommercialCleaner*, the USAGE and the Stale'* Consultant decided to use a simplified acquisition strategyfor each of the contractor types, rather than using a Prime Contractor to procure the servicesthrough subcontractors. All contracts were fixed price or noi-to-exceed. Individual scopes ofwork were prepared for each: HUD Risk Assessor, HUD Cleaner, Commercial Cleaner, Moving,Contractor, Carpet Supplier and Installer, and Spring Cleaner. Simplified acquisition allows forexpedited procurement through reduction of the rtquireincras for notification ID the contractcoaanuaBTty. For each of the contract types, potential bidders were identified and ciwtacied todetermine their interest in submitting a bid for Ihc work.

$.2.1 HUD Ri»k AsmsorPotential HUD Riik Assessors \«re identified and contacted. The contract was awarded withBate difficulty lo the low bidder, a highly recommended contractor The technical qualificationsof a HUDRA are established by HUD. However, problems encountered wilh this contractorwere rdacco1 to project scheduling and quality centre!

The HUDRA did not perform within the project schedule and eventually became one of the TWOfeelers that impacted ability to meet projcci schedule There were numerous reasons identifiedtncrodiag an already booked schedule, illness, and family emergency. The lesson learned fromthis problem was lo specify equally strict schedule impact penalties for professional service typecontract wort, simiuu- to that used for the other contract*

The other proMern with this contract was that the HUDRA did not fully understand the purposeor scope of the services requested. Seven! times ihc HUDRA fociwcd ON ihe lead psint bsucs,as expected for a risk asseument performed to meet the HUD regulatory requiremenL This is•ot JM upcommon occurrence^ where p professional v,ith a focus on one regulatory requirement is*sfced to peHbnB a service related to jgwther regiiaiory requirement As a rewJt, the HUDRAstirssed tbe importance that lew! paint m*y play in (he overall success in any boose dost

Finally, the scope of the work of the contract required competency in technical quality controlquality assurance (QAjQC). l~hc State's Consultant and the USACE identified rximero«typographical, transcription, and calculation errors in data reporting, sjggcsting little care inoverall quality. Several cycle* of dau review weir required prior to acceptance of the workproducts Generally, simplified procurement reduces the number of contract clauses lhatpenalize contractors for poor performance. The lesson learned from this problem i* to minimizethe use of licnptrfkd procurement when using professional aemccs or to write stricispecifications regarding data quality.

41

Bimter HitI Home Duir Pilot Ftaaf feateiitQi EffetiSvavu Report

Overall, the HUDRA met the project need of collecting dust wipe data. Kaweve^ 3 specific goalof using an independent person with specific training in ibis area was u> obtain ihrir insights andideas on how to better do the cleaning. Little benefit in (his area was obtained due (0 thedifficulties described

5.2.2 HUD CleanerPotential HUD C Leaner& were identified and contacted, A ftcr a reasonable bid period > nocontractors submitted proposals, slating their reasons to be either they were not in the HUDcleaning business or ihcy were not interested. A. list of alt HUD certified contractors withinRegion 1 0 were contacted individually to determine qual Ifications and Interest in b idding. Onlya few certified and interested contractors were identified. The final bid period was closed and thecontract was awarded to the low bidder.

Generally, Lht contract itself wai easily managed, and the Contractor performed with A high levelof technical competence. The two nuiin lessons leajned related u> this contract were a VEU [abilityof qualified counselors in the region and cosis associated wiih. uncertainty. The community ofHUD certified contractors is limited in this region, and a large scale remediation may want tolook at alternative qualification requirements. Also., the Contractor included a targe amount ofcontingency in their bid {although the lowest bid) because they were unsure of the scope of theproject. Methods of addressing this issue may be to better define each residence requirementsand/or use a cost reimbursable contract method ralher than fixed price.

5.2.3 Commercial CleanerPotcntf al Commercial Cleaner; were identified and contacted. The contract was a«wded to thelowest bidder Generally, this contractor was competent and willing to work through arty issues.The main lesson learned related to this contract was the Contractor must not have realized themagnitude of the wirk involved, The Contractor mirked long hours to meet the requirements ofthe contract, probably incurring costs well beyond the contract amount.

The Commercial Contractor was over-cleaning at the beginning of Ihe project. Theyvacuuming shoes in closets until directed that this would not be required. At one of thehouses, the Contractor carried furniture OUT of the house and cleaned it on the front yard, thencarried ft back in IP Iher house without wiping ii off. They were directed that furniture must bewiped off prior to iccntcring the house. After the carpet was cleaned, the contractor also felt Thatas long as they "wiped" their shoes off, they could walk on the "clean" carpet. They did nol wantto follow the policy of rearing "booties" after the carpeting had been cleaned. The purpose ofthis requirement was to minimize (racking of dual until after the post-cleaning sampling wascompleted. They were directed that all personnel must continue to wear the booties inside untilafter the post-cleaning sampling occurred,

Although [he Contractor worked long hours, an 8 hour day might have sufficed, k was explainedto them that the objective was to remove Ihe dust, but the Commercial cleaner, accustomed to

Page 42

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

H,U Housf Dx*t film Frnoi

cleaning houses for a living, seemed (o think that u was a typ:cal cleaning project. ftdifficult to make il clear (hat the porposc was to remove dust, and not ID clean grime Generally,it was a learning process, but the Contractors did m«k: the required adjustments throughout (heproject, sometimes much to their chagrin.

5.2.4 Moving ContractorPottvtial Mo-ring Companies were identified and contacted Due to the small scope of the effort,the USAGE was able to sole source to the only local moving contractor. A larger scale projectmight require more rigid procurement requirements. however, there might be more logisticalissues using a non-local moving contractor Also, residents may fee! uneasy if the contents oftheir house were being moved out-of-town, aJbeii temporarily. Generally, moving went quickly.wrtaoct incident, and this contractor was competent and easy to schedule.

5.2.5 Carp* Supplier and fnrtaflerPotential Carpet Suppliers and Installers were identified and contacted. The contract wasawarded to the lowest bidder. The main lesson learned was related to an incident with diepreparation of the floor in one house for carpet and linoleum. After the house had been cleanedby the HUD Cleaner, the carpet layer came into the house and sanded and prepared the floor forcarpel and linoleum. Upon entry, the floor was covered in sawdust. Although not technically alead loading issoe, this required a re-cleaning of surfaces to assure homeowner* the cleanlinessstandard they were expecting. Anaryii j of this problem revealed that the people involved did notoodcrstand tibe purpose of the work being perforotd. A person who rulty understands thepurpose of die work shodd be prcscit on-*itc dvnng all work or at key times. To accomplishthis, a meeting should be held with all primes and potentially with all subcontractors to clearlycommunicate the project objectives.

&2.C Spring CleanerA modiSed version of the Commercial Cleaning conrracf was prepared after the HUD andCoanroeictai cleaning? began. Other local, professional cleaning contractors, beside? the onealready cowracwd for the Commercial Cleaning, were contacted and provided with a scope ofwork and solicitation for bids. Three contractors provided bids The lowest bidder declined thecontract after deliberations with both owners. The next lowest bidder was awarded the contract.This was a not-to-excced type contract and worked wcN for different size houses.

In general, the Contractor completed cleaning each hciwjc in one day with titlk oversight. Theproblems encountered with this type of cleaning were related lo thoroughness. Although theContractor «*$ provided cjiimatcs of squirt footage and the number of rooms in each house andabo visaed the houses prior to cleaning, the smaller houses were completed accofdiog to thescope of work, while there seemed to be monc difficulty with completing the larger houses inlime. The Contractor always sent one (cam of two people to dean each house, and not necessarilythe same mo people. Because (he residents were not moved out of the house for the day (theywere oaly asked to be absent as much as possibieX (.me became critical when the families would

Page 43

Bunko- Hill Houxe Dust Pilot final fiemrtfiat £$Ktrvfr*35 KtfHTt

want to eat dinner arid the Contractor was still in the house completing the cleaning. Someon the scope of work may hive been missed due 10 time con&trwnts, in (he larger houses wherethere was mdre to clean.

5.3 Cleaning Methods

6.3.1 HUD CleaningThe HUD Cleaned bouses were easier to clean than the Commercial houses, The houses wereemptied of all household belongings. The HUD cleaner had several questions at the beginning ofthe project:

I . Do they clean the dint and grime or just clean for dust?2. Do they itinove ihe baseboard molding or would the carpet contractor be- responsible

for that? The scope of wqrfc addressed preparing the floor for die carpet conductor bindid not address the baseboard molding.

3. Who would move appliances in the kitchens for carpeting and/or flooring replacement?4. Who was responsible for structural damage discovered during the cleaning process?5. Who would dean the furniture when it was returned from storage?

These questions and/Or concerns were addressed at the first house. With the cooperation of HieHUD Contractor and ihe Moving, Contractor, everything was agreed upon and the procedure wasestablished These procedural adjustments added litile time because the Moving Contnuswrwould bring the furniture off die truck and place it on plastic where the HUD Contractor wouldclean the furniture. Then the Moving Contractor would bring it bock into the houst. Oneproblem with this process was the weather; on rwo occasions it rained. The Moving Contractorallowed die HUD Contractor to come into the truck,, as a courtesy to dean the furniture when itwas raining. However, there may be some liability issues that would have to be worked throughif Lhi$ process were to pccur.

The HUD Contractor worked between an JJ- LQ hours/day. They typically started at 7:00 a-m.worked until 5:00 pjn.> with an hour lunch break. The cleaning was usually Accomplished m twodays. Jf problems arose, then more than Two days would be needed. For example* one houseneeded a water healer replaced because it leaked and the flooring in the master bedroom,. Laundryarea and hallway was saturated and new carpeting could not be installed until the flooring wasreplaced. This delayed the cleaning by two days and created extra expenses.

The Duel Cleaning Contractor WMS a subcontruMpr to the HUD Cleancry There wereinstances when they wert ncn available when needed which caused a delay in (he cleaning.However, they did their hest to accommodate,

The Moving Contractor was Che easiest to schedule because they were local anil always availablewhen needed. Oversight could be kept to a minimum for the moving contractor as all chat wasnecessary was to open the house, perform inventor/ control while loading the truck, and to secure

Page 44

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

U\tl ih*s* Ova Prtot Fi

the property. Upon return cf household goods, oversight wouJd only be neoe$$ary'again.

Problems encountered for this cleaning treatmen: were with wallpaper as it could only beTacuurncd* and not wet washed. Aho> paperboard ceilings, especially in trailers, could notbe wet wa&hcd, just vacuumed.

ftrrffrmtmiatrtmr OvcrMght for the HUD ConU^ctor rould be kept * 9 minimum if theosed again. A representative would Only nerd TO be al the bouse a few times a

day to resolve problems and'or questions. A representative would need to be present TO open thehouse in tfce morning and to secure the house in (he evening.

The HUD Contractor recommended disposing of box springs and inattieases to be cooatsteniwith the Xka of disposing of all cfoth furnishings in the house. Although sheets, mattress coven•d UaActs are <m the bedi, not everyone cleans the maitrejses and box springs often. TheHUD CoorncKK also recommended Che HUDRA sample mchm 8 houis of the cleaning, beforea»rOti«g ebe is done in the house. If the post cleaning dust wipe samples had been collectedsooner, ihe issue of where the carpet installer could \wrk may net have arose. However, Uiecarpet cleaner would either have to cletn after ihcy were done or require die HUD Qeancr tocone back imo (he house with their vacuums and re-clean.

The carpet msutkrs did not work full days, sometimes they only worked 5-6 hour days. If theyhad worked full eight hour days, m a couple of instances, they may have been able to install thecarpet in one d*J instead of two.

5.3.2 Commercial CleaningThe Commercial houses were a little more difficult to clean than the HUD Cleaned bousesbecause all the household furnishings remained in the homes. Several had waterbcds that had tobe drained, moved, uvd refilled The Commercial Contractor had veveral questions at thtbegia»ag of the project

1. Can windows be opened during cleaning0

2. Do tbry dean crawl spaces'3

3. Do they -wet wipe the wallpapered walls and ceilings?4. What happens if the drapes fall apart during the cleaning*' Several houses had

drapes that were in need of replacing. However, all drapes were cleaned and replacedwithout incident.

5 Can blrnds and small furniture be taken outside to clean?

These Questions aad/or concerns were addressed at tht beginning. However, the CommcrciaiClearer had to be reminded several times that the purpose of the project was to eliminate leaddust, and not to clean dirt, grime, wall markings, etc. fn $omc cases at (he befrnning, they'over cleaning" to the extent of vacuuming shoes. This was corrected inuncdiattiy.

Page 45

Bunter Ht!t House Dtu/ Pitcx Final Remedial EfftcttveiKSS Report

The Commercial Cleaning Contractor worked between 12-H hour days. They had two cleaningcrews; one from 7:00 a_m. 10 4:00 p.m. and the second gne from 4:00 p.m. to 10 or J I :QO p,m,One of the problems with this contractor was that moot of the employees had full time jobs andwere doing this as a side job- If ihc contractor had a dedicated crew, a typical 8-10 hour daywould have sufficed. In a few instances, the oontraclor was late lo the site, not prepared, and hadto leave the site Do gather supplies This delayed ihe cleaning,

Problems encountered with this cleaning treatment were again with wallpaper This could onlybe vacuumed and not wet washed. And again, as with the HUD Treatment, paperboard ceilings,especially in trailers, could not be wet washed, just vacuumed. In one case, a house had aninordinate amount o/ storage boxes. The moving company was hired to take these boxes out inOrder clean the house. The hexes wert wiped off upon return.

Walcrbeds were a problem because if they leaked there may be mold issues- In one case, awatcrbcd was extremely old and leaking. Maid was found as well as a nail; the liner was alsowet, When the bed was reassembled, the liner WHS still leaking. Fortunately, the CommercialCleaner was able to repair the liner, however, the Liner would had to have been replaced if theywere unable to repair it,

Liability was also an. issue. For example, in one of the houses., valuable jewelry was found In a.drawer, and needed to be inventoried. Also, in several of the properties, drug paraphernalia wa*found. This created health and safety and ILabiHty concerns for the contractors.

Recommendations; More oversight for the Commercial Cleanings arc necessary than HUDCleanings because personal Items and property arc still in ihc house. Existing damages andvaluables would need to be documented as well as any damage to the property. A commercialcleaning of this type would be easier if personal items (i.e., clothes, knick-knacks,, books, etc.)were moved out of the house prior to any cleaning. Curtains,, drapes, and throw nigs in dueCommercial Cleaned properties should be looked at on a case by case basis. In some instances, itwould have been easier to dispose of these items and reimburse the homeowner. There was ahigh possibility that these items would be destroyed during dry deaning. However, no damageswere incurred.

6.3.3 Spring CleaningThis treatment was easiest in terms of oversight because there was no moving or relocatinginvolved. The small amount of oversight by the State's Consultant was for liability issues due tocontractual reasons, rather than oversight for the cleaning process, although* the cleaningchecklist was reviewed with the cleaners at the end of the day. The cleaning occurred in one <S-10 hour day.

The main problem encountered with this cleaning treatment was thoroughness. It was difficult inan eight hour work day for two people lo complete a large housc^c1'. more than 3 bedroom S, I

Page 46

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HiH Heu:e Dust Pilot Fitroi KfftaSal Effccaoeittn Report

bathroom, 1 family room, and s kitchen). Although iomc Families were abk 10 leave the housefor most of an S hour work day, it was m disturbance for tr* families when they arrived home andthe cleaners were alii I there. Vice versa, the cleaners would try lo finish more quickly when ihefamilies arrived back to the house and mosi likely were no* as thorough. There was one reportedinstance where the resident walked put the clcar.tr? in one of the rooms and heard themdiscussing thai they would net clean the picture cr (he wall in order to hurry up and finish.

tecommemteiota The amount of time it takes to clean a house, even at the lowest level,depends on the size of the house Without a taiger crew, it is not recommended 10 clean in oneday for a large-scale effort. It would be advisable to have more of ait Oversight rote TO make suretbc ctcaniof is being performed properly H may not be necessary 10 be present all day, but atleast for loroe time in the morning and few times throughout the day lo keep tabs on the progress

thnrnnjaai n

6.3.4 Overall ObservationsAi the begtnniag of the project, a meeting with all the contractors and subcontractor* should havebet* hdd- The scope and purpose of the project needs to be made clear, and comraoors andtytxontractors should be introduced and made aware of each persons role. Sometimes therewere too many oversight representatives in the house at one tune. This ii expected for a pilotproject, brt a M-scate effort should only need ose knowledgeable ovcrsitfx represeitfiiive at thehoo^e. Schedules should *tart on W4rekdayi, and cleaning wly authorized on the weekend whenfinishing a rcskkacc. Local, on-sito contactor? '•^crr more accessible than cootractors from out-of-town, and in a fall-scale effort, contractors should be local and/or accessible. AU thereadeaces were videotaped before any cleaning or moving began and would be highlyrecofwnecded fix a Full-scale project, h might aJsc be prudent to videotape the rWmture as it isbrought out of the house because it could appear 10 be okay, but once lifted and moved, mayexhibit unseen damage This would add a day to l>e acTud move but woald abo be proof ofcondition of property in case of damage claim. Lead-based paint causing a lead-hazard should beremediated prior to any house interiof being cleaned in order to prevent reconcaminadarL

5.4 MomeowrwrfRoBidBnt Issues

Unusual expectations were discovered with die residents of the HUD aod Commercially Cleanedboancv Some partictpams were order the impression that, their house was going to be polished.The USAGE explained at th« urwe of the pre-clcaning interview that the purpose wu to deandust. The marks on the will were rux going to be scrubbed, the bath rub rings would still bethere, etc. If a cleaning checklist of what was to happen at the house was provided to thepartkipaDt. their expectations may not have been as nigh The cleaning checklist far the SpringCleaning was provided to the participant at the time of the pr=-c leaning interview and reviewedand explained to the resident, and no unusual expectations uoerr encountered.

Page 47

Surttdr fJifj tfouie Quit Pilot fifipl Rfiatdiai Effecfivmeff Rfpgrt

Section 3.0

A post-cleaning qucsTionnaire was. mailed ro the participants afterwards in order to identifyproblems and overall satisfaction. Theft wcrt some complaints from each of the ihrcc cleaningtreatments. For the HUD and Commercial Cleaning Treatments, the complaints were about thewalls. The homeowners complained that the walls wnv streaked after the cleaning. Sneakingof greasy walls or smoke stained walls vras a concern from the beginning. These Issues wereresolved by having the cleaners either go back to the house and re-clean to the satisfaction of thehomeowner, or an estimate for painting was obtained from the homeowner and compensationwas provided. In one HUD Cleaned house, the homeowner also complained thai the carpetingwas not replaced with equal quality carpeting as the original, and that it was not installedproperly. A meeting was held between the homeowner, the USACE, and the Contractor- It wasdetermined, the carpet was lhat selected by die homeowner, bui miiallmion was defective.Consequently , the decision was made to allow the owner to select another carpel and il wasreinstalled. The main complaint with the Spring Cleaning was with thoroughness. An incidentwas noted where the homeowner passed by a room and overheard the cleaners discussing thatthey wcic not going to clean certain jirms in the room in order to finish quickly. This wagdiscouraging to the homeowner, as they knew their walls and wait-hangings were to either bevacuumed or wet- washed. One other participant in the Spring Cleaning felt the cleaners were notvexy thorough because their desk and tabletop were not cleaned.

5.4.1 ParticipationMost people seemed willing to participate; however, when they wen: told which cleaningtreatment they were to receive, some dropped oui upon learning they did not receive the HUDCleaning. Participation was not as difficult for the Spring Cleaning because st that lintcv onlyone cleaning treatment was being offered. If interior remediation were to occur site- wide, onecleaning treatment would be selected and residents would nol drop out due to expectations for adifferent cleaning treatment.

5.4.2 RelocationRelocation issues arose in houses thai had renters, f n one case, the homeowner also happened laown a hotel in the area and would not allow cither the HUD or Commercial Cleaning because theresidents were not being relocated to his holcl, Most relocation efforts went smoothly,

6.4.3 SchedulingScheduling difficulties arise when a participant decided to drop-out after they had beenscheduled. The back-up list of homes was small and used early in the project, filling that spotlook another solicitation effort, and would slow the schedule down yr cause a week's worth of nowork for the cleaning

5,$ Sampling Logistic?

Pre- and post-cleaning sampling needs to be well coordinated with (he progress of the cleanings.The USAGE would call the State's Consultant when the cleaning waa over and

Page 48

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Bunktf Hill H'Mtw Dtal fit of Find Kem*tpf £fftct»**rf*Section 5.0

sampling was initiated within 24-hours of the cleaning. The HUDRA was sometime*uoBvatlairic and some of the post-clewing dust -wipe samples were not collected within a 24-hourperiod after the cleaning. On-aitc, local contractors were mosi accessible and easier to coordinatepost-cleaning sampling.

5.6 Project Costs

Table 5.1 shows many of the COSTS incurred by each cleaning treatment. The Spring Cleaningcost aod avenge of $832 OO/housc, the Commercial Cleaning cost an average of $4543.0Q/house,and the HUD Cleaning coat $9&33.0(Vhou3c. There were added cost* to the HUD Treatment, forcarpet/furniture replacement at $ 1512. (HVhouse However, this average cost aho included sometime spent oa> moving household items (i.e., heating stove) or repair of already damaged property.The iatttaJ HUD risk asaestment and dust wipe sampling (pfe-deanirtg sampling only) costSUgO.OG/houae. Relocation cosu were minimal; much of the cost was associated with hotelrental rates as participants were onty allotted 52 OO/day per family member for ntcab and other

expenses. Oversight costs for the USAGE were not individually tracked and arcactual cost per house. The Slate's Consultant oversight costi were minimal

because they «*re run tasked for continuous oversight Oversight for the Spring CkaningTreaonoH was more for liability issues as the purpose of that treatment was to have minimalfedenitaaie orcnighr. Total ovcrnghr costs ranged from S3?2.00/hou»e for the Spring CleaningTreaonenl » SI3.035.0(Vhouse for the HUD and Commercial Treatments. Total costs per housepet treatment (ao< including sampling costs) ranged from 51164.00 for the Spring CleaningTreatment to $26,323.00 for the HUD Treatment

Page 49

Banter tiifi House DusiPtia Find Rtmedat EJfKtlvenesi Report

SECTION 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Purpose and Objectives

Purpase of the Investigation: The ROD Tor the BHSS requires that, following completion of theresidential soils remedy, the need for additional interior dust cleanup be assessed and appropriatesampling and cleaning protocols be developed. The purpose of die House Dust Pilot Project wasthreefold: i) to develop information to assess the long-cerm effectiveness and efficiency ofvarious levels of cleaning, Ji) to assess sampling and measurement techniques that could be usedin implementing an interior cleanup program, and iii) (a identify potential costs and logisticalproblems associated with any comprehensive community-wide Interior dust cleanup that mightbe required.

Stitdy Objectives: Available resources and the small number of homes thai exhibit high dust leadconcentrations limited the number of houses chat could be cleaned. Because there ait numerousfactors that influence house dusl, remedial effectiveness^ and measurement techniques; rigorousStatistical design and comparative analysis of cleaning and mea&Lrtfnent techniques wereprecluded. As a result, the overall goal of (his investigation was ro obtain and present pnjcricalobservations regarding the implementation and thoroughness of cleaning techniques andquantitative measurements of pre- and posr-cleantng exposure indices. Specific objectives wereto i) determine the cos*, effort, and effectiveness of commercial house cleaning services vert us acomplete removal of permanent reservoirs of lead dust from the home; ii) assess the rate andmagnitude of eecontamination and dust and lead loading; iii) identify logistical, public health andsafety, and contracting difficulties that may be encountered in a large scale cleaning effort; iv)assess sampling techniques for house dust; and v) identify other sources of lead exposure inhouses that could be amenable to cleaning.

6.2 Project Overview

ffotat Seiettiva; A total of 23 housetolds in Stnelcervillc participated in the project. Homeswere selected from those that had previously participated in house dust surveys, based on a cn?wsection of demographic and housing characteristics and house dusl lead concentrations.Difficulties were encountered wich pre-ckanirtg lead levels and soliciting homes with youngchildren. Few homes in the community have had high dust Lead levels in recent years and theeligibility criteria was lowered from I COO mg/kg 10 500 m&ftg lead in dust to recruit a sufficientnumber of homes. Some houses that were selected for cleaning based on Klgh leadconcentrations in past years exhibited Low lead levels in pre-cleaning samples- BecauseSmeltervillc's population is small and mobile with few young children (< 6 yean old), itdifficult to recruit young families for the pilot project.

fn»trepon.»iKt Page 50

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Htft Hotue Dutr Pifot Final **»**«/ Effmtovtca ReportSection 6.0

Alter a resident agreed to participate and the screening process was complete, bousesrandomly assigned to the various treatment groups. After learning which cleaning treatment eachparticipant w» to receive, one rrsident dropped out or the study. This residence MAS replacedusing ooe of the Control houses. Another p*rtjcipant dropped oui of the study soon after prt-ckanmg sampling occurred, and this home wu also replace*! with another Control house. Oneresident thai had previously declined to have the house cleaned, agreed to serve as a substituteControl home. One resident moved away after the post-cleaning, and the home was vacant for the6-tnd 12-onontn sampling, resulting in no data available for that house far those two samplingevents. Two participants moved away before 12-month sampling occurred; however, newresidents moved in «n<J allowed the sampling to take plucc. Different fsnuhr dynamics, however,may have impacted subsequent sampling events to some degree.

H+me Gtovcferbticr: A questionnaire addressing hasic housing and resident characteristicswas completed foe each house during the screening process The characteristics of theparticipating residents and their houses were reasonably simitar among the treatment groups.Most of the residences were older homes. The average yew of construction for the HUD,CoanmerctaJ and Spring Cleaned houses was 1 9^8. 1943 and 1946. respectively. The averagejeor of construction for the Control Treatment was 1956. The majoncy of bouses in each groupwere owner occupied and about half were recently remodeled. The typical carpet in alltreatments was characterized as slightly to moderately dirty or frayed The average age of livingroom carpet* ie the HUD, Commercially, and Spring Cleaned houses was 1 0, 7 and 1 2 years,rcspcctrvcfy. Cotttrol carpets averaged 15 years old. Carpet types ranged from iariootfoutdoor tosculptured and plush. The Commercially Cleaned houses averaged one child, while the other

treatments and Control houses Averaged two children per household. A total of 14participating households reported having central- zrd healing/air conditioning ducts. There werea total of 1 0 basements and 1 1 attics. However, the number of basement and attics easilyaccessible in near winter conditions for sampling was 7 basements and 4

CUmmtmg M*tk*4s tod Cvfts; Three levels of cleaning end a no action Control Treatment wereincluded. Six houses were cleaned by a HUD ceruficd cleaning contractor, six wereconprehenshpety cleaned by a Commercial Cleaner; six houses received a typical SpringCleaning by a different commercial cleaning service, and five houses served as Controls. HUDCleaned houses received a thorough cleaning (inclcd i r»g air duett) and new carpet and softrormahJnga at an average cost $9831.00 per house. Commercially Cleaned houses received athorough cleaning (including air ducts) and steam clearing of carpers and soft furnishings andcost M average of $4548 00 per house Residents were relocated to a local hotel for 2-5 days forboth the HUD and comprehensive Commercial Cleaning procedures. Spring Cleaned houseswere cleaned as thoroughly as possible in a single day by a commercial cttStd service andrereived 1x3 $4e«m deaning or duci cleaning. Regents from the Spring Cleaning Treatment

not relocated and the average cost was 5832.00 per house

Page 51

Banter Hit! HQU&. Qtat

Sampling and Monitoring; The houses [hat were cJeaned were sampled prior to and within 24hours following the- completion of the cleaning activities, and ai o-mpnths and 12-months afterthe cleaning activities. Control houses were sampled during the pro-cleaning sampling eventtime frame, and at 6-monrhs and l2-month&. Four sampling methods were used including dustmat, vacuum bag, BRM (a specialized vacuum sampling deviceX and dust wipes. Eachia briefly described in the following paragraphs-

Vacuum Saittpilag: Samples have been collected from residents' home vacuumiit the DHSS since 1974. Although this methodology is largely uncontrolled and subject lo theindividual bias of each user these data have proven useful in monitoring exposures in thecommunity. The sample is collected directly from the vacuum cleaner or the bag is collected andreplaced, If the gutter indicates the vacuum has been used outside the home, no sample iscollected. This sampling methodology is useful in determining a general lead concentrationinside the house, is logistically easy, inexpensive, and is comparable la the many years of housedwtt samples collected ai the BH5S.

Dust bfot Sampling: A carpeted floor mat for dust collection was placed at all houses to quantifylead concentration. dust loading raic, and lead loading rates- Except for unusual circumstances,floor mats were placed jusl inside the main entry of each house. Homeowners are instructed notto clean the mat and it was retrieved from the home after approximately three weeks. Thesample is collected by vacuum in a laboratory. Of the techniques used, dust mats are mostinfluenced by exterior sources. The dust mat technique may not be the mosl suitable fordetermining the efrectivcnes* of an interior remediation because it is most influenced by dust and

ing tracked into the house.

&RM Sampling; The 3RM method measures dusL and lead loading by vacuuming a prescribedfloor irce- HUM samples were collected in the kitchens, living rooms, and one child's bedroomai each home, Most kitchens had vinyl flooring* while all living rooms and bedrooms werecarpeted. Each room was separated into a twelve grid system and three different one square footareas from (he floor in each of the rooms were randomly selected far sampling. One compositesample from the three grids was collected sequentially in one sample container for a toes] of threefloor composite samples tor each home: due living room, a child hs bedroom,, and the kitchen.The BRM sampling technique directly monitors remedial effectiveness w opposed to the vacuumbag or dust mar sampling techniques because the sample is collected directly from the Floor,before and immediately after the cleaning, by a trained technician.

HUD Oust Wipe Sampling; Dust wipe samples were collected from one window in [he livingroom and one vrindosv in the chiEd's bedroom (the same rooms sampled using the BRM), fromboth the window sill and window well. Ttw dust wipe is a controlled sampling method intendedto reflect cleaning effectiveness and rate of recoRfamination. However, because windows are

52

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

DttH Pilot Final Kemtdtal Effectn

fbctioa surface areas, dust wipe samp ling may be infl aenced by chalking, chipping or erosion ofkad -based paint.

Atr &*ct StmptiJtf: For the HUD and Commercial Treatments, the filters were collected fromcleaning ctjmprnent and sealed in a box immediately After the professional contractor finishedcleaning the ducts. The box and filter were weighed pnor to the cleaning and af^in after thecleaning A grab samptc from the filters was collected lo represent the general leadcoocencraaon found n the ducts of the house. Both lead concentration and the trass of dustremoved from the duct work was determined. The ducts were not sampled at chc 6- and 12-

sampling interval.

*m4 Acscmrvr Sooiptfitg: Attics and basements were sampled, where possible, using theBRM method by measuring prescribed areas to be vacuumed. Samples of the attic and basementdos< provide a general representation of the lead concenuabon. A simple was only collectedfrom mocscs where the amc and/or basement was not used Fur living space aod accessible to thesampler. If the attk or basement is used for living space, then it is assumed the vacuum bagsample will also represent that living area Attics and basements were each sampled once at thetine of pro- or post -cleaning sampling, depending On availability

6.3 Logi8t»cai anej Contracting Conftidarrfon*

Several lessees were ksracd regarding coruracting mechanisms, conracfc* cootroU dcaoingmefcodi, aod bomeownet/rwi<tew relations. Both cost and logistical problems were related to thecomplexity, mT*sivencsj and Irvd of effort reqvtrrd by the s&mphng, n$k assessment andckanrng treairoent protocols.

; RccrunoKnt «ind scheduling problems were cnconmcrcd doe to &variety of reasons, most often associated with changing family situations andAx homeenvironment conditions. The "backup" list of houses «vas exhausted early during the screeningphase and farther solKJutton vras retired. Scheduling waa difficult as some par&cipatxsdropped out, moved, or had difficulties unrelated to the study that required rescheduling. Someprobtems *efc experienced with homeowner expectations in the HUD and Commercial Cleaningprotocols. Although the USAGE cxpiajncd at the pro-cleaning interview thai the purpose was todean dust and not scrub off marking* or repaint, some participants were under the impressionthai ihcir house was going 10 be polished and repaired. In the Spring Clearing protocol, acleaning checklist was provided. rrvicwc<j and explained to the homeowncx/resdeot at the pre-ckaning interview and no unimiaJ expectations were encountered. RetocatkM issues occurred inhouses that had renters fn one case, the homeowner aiso owned a hotel in the am and refusedto participate because the renters were not being relocated to (hat particular hotel. However,most rctocatioa efforts went smoothly.

Btulfaf Hill ttatift Duff Pilat finpt famtfJifJ CJfcclivfncft Report

Contractors: The main lesson learned was that local, on-slie contractors were more accessiblethan contractors from out-of-town. For example, the HUD risk assessor's on-sitc- availabilityimpacted the project schedule because this consultant Lived out-of-town. This problem, could beresolved by specifying equally strict schedule impact penalties for professional service typecontract work, similar to thai used for the other contracts. Due to the small scope of [he effort,ihc USAGE was able to sole source CD The only local moving contractor. This contractor was (heeasiest ID schedule because they were local and always available when needed. The knowledgegained from this project strongly supports the use of local contractors or establishing arequirement for a consistent cm-site presence. Generally,, simplified procurement reduces thenumber of contract clauses (hat penalize contractors For poor performance-

HUD CJtattittg Contract! The two main lessons learned relating to the HUD Cleaning contractwere the lack of availability of qualified contractors in the region and coats associated withuncertainty. The HUD Cleaning was. logistics] Ly easier than the Commercial Cleaning becauseall personal belongings Vk'trt- removed, and a process between the HUD Contractor and theMoving Contractor was established. The wcalhcr became a factor in this process because as themoving contractor brought the furniture back. It would be wiped clean prior to entering thehouse, and if it was raining it nude this process difficult. The Duct Cleaning Contractor was asubcontractor to the HUD Cleaners, and was also reported as being difficult to schedule due toavailability. Problems encountered for all the cleaning treatments were with wallpaper as itcould only be vacuumed. 9n4 not wet washed. Also, papcrbaard ceilings could nor be wetwashed, only vacuumcd-

ComtrtercM Cleaning Contract.' For the Commercial Cleaning contractor,, it was difficult tomake it clear that ihe purpose was to remove dust, and not To clean grime. The CommerciallyCleaned houses were a little more difficult to clean than the HUD Cleaned houses because all thefurnishings remained in the homes. Several had waterbeds that had w> be drained, moved, andrefilled. Liability was an issue because valuables were left in the residences. Also, in several ofthe properties drug paraphernalia was found. This created health and safety and liabilityconcerns for the contractor*.

Spring Cleaning Contract: The Spring Cleaning contract was a not-to-exceed contract, asopposed to a fixed price used with the HUD and Commercial Cleaning Treairncnis. The SpringCleaning Treatment was logUtically easiest in term* of oversight because there was no moving orrelocating, involved. The small amount of oversight exercised was for liability issues due tocontractual reasons. However, because this was a not-lo-cxcccd contract, larger homes went ndas thoroughly cleaned as smaJEcr homes.

Costs: The average cost per house for the HUD Cleaning, including carpet/furniture replacementand the initial HUD risk assessment, was £! Z.825. Commercial Cleaning including this initialHUDRA averaged I602fl/hou$e. Spring Cleaning services were J8j2/huusc. Relocation costs

Page 54

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Bunker Hit! Home Dmi ?r/«* fauJ Reme&al Effttfnenea ReportSection 6.0

wert minimal; much of ihe cose was associated with hotel rental rates as participants were onlyallotted 52-OOAiay per family member for meals and olhcr incidental expenitt. Total oversightcoats ranged from $332/house for Spring Cleaning to St3.G35'house foe Commercial and HUDCleaner* Total costs per Sous* per treatment (not including sampling costs) ranged from Si 1 64for Spring Qcwmg to S26.323 for the HUD Cleaning.

$.4

S**tpiing : Several of the house* *«err selected because high (i.e., > 500lead concentrations (from the vacuum bag and/or the dust mstl were observed in previous years'sampling However, pre-cleaning sampling indicated that lead level $ are more reflective of a.

in time and can vary (rcm previous results. Pre-c Leaning mean lead coocedtrations andd«st and kad loadings were similar across treatments, and were representative of the city ofSmetoervtUe as a whole. The geometric mean vacuum dust lead concentration for Smelterville in2000 was 479 rng/kg, compered IO the overt]! prt-cleaAing geometric mean for Dust Pilot hou$e$of 498 rug/kg. Tbc geometric mean mat kad concentration for Smeltcrvilk in 2000 was 591Kg/kg, compared to 617 mg/'kg for DUJ( Pilot houses The geometric mean dost loading rate forS(*eUerrilfe u 2000 and the pre-deaning dust matj placed at Dust Pilot houses weir both 486ng/mVday. The geometric mean lead loading rale for Smelicrville in 2000 was 0.287•ig/ntVday, compared to 0.346 mg/m:^day for Dust Pilot pre-cleaning macs. Lead concentrationsfax* aC die accessible at^cs, basements, and ducts \vcre hi^h, with Bvecagca for jtl] houses of6,665 mgrtig. 2,138 mg/Vg, and 3,430 mgrtcg, respectively.

ait DO rtsidem»al BRM data frow the BHSS with which to compait resuUs. However, theDRM kad concentrations were highly correlgted vnth bolh vacuum bag and dust mat kadcoacemrations Trie correlation coefficient (r) benveen the vacuum bag and livitrg room BRM isOJH (p<0.000 1 >, vacuum bag and kitchen BRM is 07! (p=0, 00 14); vacuum bag and bedroomBRM ts OJ5 (p=0 01 17). The correlation coefficient bemeen the dust mat and living roomBRM LsO.72 (p=Q 0003); dust mat and kitchen BRM is 0 77 (p*0.0003), dust mat and bedroomBRM is 0.50 (p=0 015). BRM dust and lead loadings were not significantly correlatedmat loading rales.

fytt C2fMmtg Sampling: Lead concentrations Trom the vacuum btgs and dust matsaroSar K> pec-cleaning levels and showed no consistent panern. However, lead concentrationsfrom the BRM living rooms and bedrooms decreased in the HUD Cleaned houses, but showedoo oomi stern partern for the CotiunertiaJ 1 y and Spnng C leaned houses . As expected, the amountOf diisi from carpeted floor? was reduced in all houses by the HUD and Commercial Treatmentspos^cteaning (as sampled vuiih the BRM and dusl wipe) The du^t and kad loadings, in theSpring Cleaning Treatment showed no consign fwitcrn. The kitchen floors yielded the kasldott posl-ckaning, likely due !o the hard flooring. ^H ji.x kitctwn BRM samples in the HUDTreatment yielded insufficient sample %'olume for laboratory analysis. Dust loading in the

W^ryurr^ PftgC 55

Sunfer Kill Houm DMI Pitt* f-'\n<rt Remedial EffKitveattt

carpeted rooms decreased by a higher percentage in the HUD and Commercially Cleanedcompared to the Spring Cleaned houses.

Six-month Swnpfwg: No consistent pattern was observed for lead concentrations in vacuumbajjs and dusi mats. Lead concentrations- in BRM living rooms and bedrooms also showed noconsistent pattern for the Commercial and Spring Cleaned houses. However, the BRMconcentrations in the HUD Cleaned houses either began to increase or reached levels near orexceeding pre-cleaning concentrations. Although, BRM dust and lead Loadings were increasing,.these generally had npr reached pre-cleaning levels in the HTJD Cleaned houses In TheCommercially Cleaned houses, BRM dust and lead loadings cither increased to prc-clcaninglevels or increased from post-cleaning levels, HUD dust wipe loadings from the window wellsremained about the same as post-cleaning levels. However, dust wipe loadings in window sillsshowed no consistent pattern. Dust and lead loading rates from the dust mars generally increasedat the time of 6-month sampling (which occurred in the Spring), and may suggest a seasonaleffect.

Twelve-month Sampling: Twelve-month results were similar to pre-cleaning and community-wide levels for 2001. The 2001 geometric itiean Lead concentration in vacuum gleaners forSmeliervilk was 530 mg/kg, while the geometric rown from the Dust Pilot houses was 503mg/kg. The geometric mean dust mat lead concentration for the city of SmeltervilLe in 2001 was564 mg/kg, while the geometric mean from the four treatment groups was 560 mg/kg. Thegeometric mean dust loading rale for Smclicrville in 2001 was 570 mg/mVday,. and the meanfrom the four treatments was 377 mg/mj/day, The 2001 Smcltcmllc lead loading rate mean was0.24 mg/mVday, and the mean from the four treatment groups was 0.28 mg/rrr/day.

HUD Cleaning Resutti: The lead concentration in floor mat dust did not decrease after thecleaning. Doth mat dust and lead loading raies. were highest at (he time of the 6-month samplingwhich occurred in Spring, Prc-, post-, and 12-month sampling occurred En late summer/early fallresulting in nearly equal loading rates between the pre- and post-cleaning and 12-monthsampling. Little variation in the vacuum bag lead concentrations was observed. However,average concentrations were lower by the 6-month and 12-month sampling.

As expected because of new carpet, BFLV1 lead concentration*, lead and dust loadings wertsubstantially reduced between prc- and post-cleaning in houses where concentrations wereinitially greater than 500 mg/kg. However, in most HUD Cleaned houses concentrations andloadings increased lo near prc-cleaning levels by the 12-month sampling. One HUD Cleanedhome with 9 relatively high BRM living room prr-clearung lead concentration, remained M lowlevels (<1000 mg/kg) through the 12-month sampling period. Although the BRM is difficult louse on frequently cleaned bard surfaces such as the kitchen,, it is important to note thai all post-cleanmg kitchen samples contained insufficient sample volume for laboratory analysis. Thesefloors, however, did not contain any area rugs and were not carpeted.

56

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Btmltfr H<U Hotat Dbur P^ot Final R&mt4ot Ljfeemmtu RapanSection f.Q

No interior lead paint hazards were otoefved. in the six HUD Cleaned houses; however, five of[be six booses bad on exterior lead ptini Hazard Lend loadings from ckisi wipes decreasedbetween pre- and post-cleaning. All loadings (except for one living room window 51!!) remainedbelow pie-cleaning levels by the 6- and 1 2-month sampling.

Ofoautg Results Mat lead concentrations fluctuated in four of the sixhowever. average mat concentrations increased during the post-cleaning and 6-monOi sampling'events. Excluding one home with increased 6-month Joodings, dust and lead loading races for theCommercially Cleaned houses showed the least variaucn during the four sampling eventscompered Co the other treatments. In geneul, there \vas httle variation in vacuum bag leadcooocatnckxts from the Conimen;i«| Treatment compared to (he other treatments.

BRM lead caacettratians did not decrease greatly after the cleaning, but dust and lead loadingsgenerally decreased in all bouses after the cleaning. Most of the dujt and lead loading* increasedlo near pre-cJcwung levels by the 6- and 12-monih sampling events, however, in twg of the sixbedrooms, dost and lead loadings remained at least 40% below pre>cleaning levels. Two of thesix kitchen samples did not contain sufficient sample volume- for lab analysis post-cleaning; theother foor kitchens in the Commercial Treatment contained area rugs and one w« csrpctrd, asOpposed to the HUD Cleaned kitchens.

One Commercially Cleaned house bad an interior lead paint hazard and one bouse hud anexterior lead paint hazard Atl window wells and window sills showed decreased dust wipeloading? post-ctearmig and generally remained below prr-clraning IcveU throughout the year.

Sprimg Cbttft&rg Reitttis: The ma: concentration.*, ar.ct dj&t and lead toading rates showed themost variation tn the Spring Cleaned houses compared lo ibc other treatments with levelsfluctuating throcghcat ihe sampling events. Win the exception of one outlier hi the 6-monthdata, vacuum bag lead concentrations did not vary greatly. One oCthr six nooses bad decreasedBRM living room lead concentration* after the cleaning and remained at concentrations belowpre-deaning kvcis; however, these levels remained above 1000 mg/kg. Overall leadconcentrations, dust loadings, ind lead loadings in trie Spring Cleaning Treatment remainedabout the same ia each of the houses throughout :he year This treatment bad little effect on dustaod lead loadings.

Coatrvi ffomsc Results: Higher mat dust and lesd loading rales were observed m the Conirolhouses at the 6 -month sampling, indicating a pos^ibie seasonal effect due lo more mud beingtracked into the hoose because of spring weather conditions. Average vacuum bag leadconcentrations were highest among the Control houses compared u> the three cleaningtrcaunencs* concentratioru. However, few samples fi.c , 3-4 samples per sampling event) wereavailable for cowiparison. Lead concentrations m one Ccrrrol house were high, but they asked tonot be included in any of the cleaning treatments. However, their Jevets decreased at the rime of

f^tr^^^i Page 57

fiuntrr ffiH ftotue Diui Pilot F>naf Remedial Effeftivenau ReportSection S.O

6- and 12-month sampling. The measurable decrease may be due to ihc participant's repeatedcleaning. This participant expressed concern About the high levels of lead in the home and wasinformed that repeated cleaning with a steam cleaner may help to reduce levels in Che carpets,while the remainder- of the house should be thoroughly

In general, BRM carpet, lead concentrations fluctuated in the Control houses similar to those- inthe Spring Cleaned houses. Dust and lead loadings generally remained about ihr same levelsthroughout the yew- No interior lead paint hazards were observed in ihc Control houses;however, two of the five houses had an exterior lead paint hazard,

6+5 Diecucaion and Conclusions

Cleaning Methods* Jtate of Recontaminatioit ontf Long-term Effectiveness: Generally) interiordust Lead concentrations in Dust Pilot houses reflected those of the community. This wasobserved with respect to prc-dcaning, and 12-month levels, for all treatments and for the vacuumbag, dust mat, and BRM sampling methods. In recent years, only a few houses in the communityexceed the 1000 mg/tg du$L lead «mcentraTion criteria (by vacuum bag sampling), and nodefinitive pattern is evident for houses exhibiting ihc higher levels. Houses with highconcentrations in one year may show lower levels, in following years, with or withoutintervention. General (tends in dust lead levels for Smetterville indicate interior dust leadconcentrations arc reflective of outdoor soil

Oust and lead loadings measured inside the houses by the BRM methodology showedreductions in post-cleaning results for the HUD carpet replacement houses and modest reductionsfor the Commercial Cleaning. Little change in dust lead concentration or loading' was noted inthe Spring Cleaned houses. Dim and lead loading reductions in most of ihe HUD Cleaned housesextended to the 6-month sampling. However, by 1 2 -months, these loadings had returned to nearpre -cleaning levels in living rooms and wert similar ID the other treatments. Dust lead loadingsin the HUD bedrooms remained below pre-c leaning levels throughout the year. BRM dust andlead loadings m the living rooms and bedrooms in the Commercially Cleaned houses increasedto prc-dcaning levels by 6-inon(h&. Dust wipe samples in HUD and Commercially Cleanedhouses generally showed reductions in window sill and window well loadings that persistedthrough the 12-monlli sampling.

The results from dust macs placed at the entryways co the houses showed little change withrespect to cleaning method. Lead ooncenirations were similar to (he greater community Acrossall treatments, except for the 1 2-month Spring Treatment samples. Mat dust and lead loadingralca tended to increase at the 6-montb sampling, perhaps indicating a seasonal effect associatedwith wet spring conditions tracking more dirt and mud into the homes.

»fHi Page 58

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hill H&ust Dusi Pifot Finai Remedial Effectiveness ftepon

la summary, as measured by BRM and dust wipe Campling methodologies, the HUD cleaning(and to a lesser extent ihc aggressive Commercial cleaning), wai> effective in reducing leadloadings in the short-term for residents with initial high lead concentrations. Except for vacuumbegs, lead concentration* measured by ill methods did pot substantially differ from the ControlGroup or those observed throughout the community. One Control house continuous!/ exhibitedhigh vacuum bag teveb. Dust mat loading rales indicate that ihe movement of dust and lead intothe house was largely unaffected by the cleaning. Results from all the sampling methods (exceptdust wipe) indicate that dust and lead loadings/levels had relumed to (or for HUD BRM resultswere approaching) prc-clcaning levels within one year. Achieving long-term reductions throughinterior cleaning would require a sustained effbr by either the HUD carpet replacement ami/orcomprehensive Conrnicnnd cleaning protocols Intervention and more Frequent cleaning cuttyttiM be necessary to produce long-term, effective reductions

SmtHpExg MenWA, Havtrd Identification. Hotae Selection, and Effrcirmnx Heasaffi: Eachof the sampling methods provide useful information reflective of different demcott of the housedust lead exposure pathway. The BRM and dust wipe sampling methods ire most controlled and

pic- and post-cleaning reductions in loading in Areas where young childrenulody exposed. These techniques also showed the effect was not persistent with icspect to floorloading* fix the Commercial ami Spring Cleaning methods, but showed reductions up to 12-racwths fcr window wipes (etcept two HUD Irving room sills). Mai dust and vacuum bagsampling are not as useful in evaluating cleaning effectivenesr Dust lead concentrations did notchange except for BRM samples collected from new carpet* Because mat dun likdy reflectsmaterial' being ttackcd into the bouses from Outdoor sources, this sampling methodology is usefulia asaessiBg the continuing contribution of outdoor and entryway sources to the bowse. Vacuumhag sampfjng continues to show the actual material being managed in the bouse by the resident.When oocopaccd to typical kvcl» throughout (he community, these samples can be used toidentify houses with atypical lead tources.

As a result, the BRM and wipe techniques arc likely the most appropriate for measuring interiorloading and current exposure in a house. The dust mar technique is likely the best indicator ofconanuiag outdoor sovrec contribution to dust lead in the house, and the vacuum bag remains thesimplest •aervention tool. Which sampling method most appropriate for kieatifymg houses thatmay require i«4ertor cleaning remains unresolved. The BRM technique is cumbersome andwould be expensive to implement on • community-wide scale. Dust mats arc easier tonnptemera bar have a substantial labor requirement to distribute and recover the mat and tocollect the sample by vacuuming. The dusi wipe technique is easier to impkmettt (hao «he BRM,bwt the results could be easily influenced by chalking ind/or chipping paint The vacuum bag is(be simplest, bat least controlled sampling method, and dependent on homeowner habits. It isnot dear what level measured by any of these techniques represents a risk-besed action criteria,although the ROD cites 1 000 mg/kg based on hisicric studies jsing the vacuum bag technique.House* were screened for this, study using vacuum bag and dust mat results, but pre-deanmg

Page 59

Birnter ftll/ H/fuft Dial Fifa Fimtf fltwerftof Ejfcttrvrfitvs Rrporl

measurements showed that homes with high levels in previous years sometimes showed lowerresults in subsequent samples anJ by different sampling techniques.

Other Exposure Sourcts: Attics, basements, air ducts, and crawl spaces are all potenuaJcontribuiort 10 lead in house dust and exposure sources to children* Although there is noindication these BIT current, active pathways. Similarly, sir. ducta weir a reservoir asconcentrations were high and an average of 156 grams of dust were removed. Most basementswere not cemented and were unused. However, a few houses contained cemented floors En thebasement and were used for storage and shop work. These types of basements may be amenableto cleaning, but arc also exposed to the dust and dirt under die house because of exposed crawlspaces. The dust and dirt under these houses could he potential contributors to lead in dim thai istracked into the house and potential exposure sources if accessible by children or pets. Soilremoval in dirt basements and crawl spaces is likely infeasible and sealing accesses may be thepreferred remedy, if required. Attics are also reservoirs of Leaded dust, bui would also be difficultto clean if insulated because of asbestos.

Logifthalt Coititattttal, and Safety Cottcffns: Local certified HUD Clewing contractorservices were difficult to obtain in the area. However, in future remedial efforts of this type localcommercial cleaners could be used wiih appropriate supplemental training, These contractorswere sufficiently competent to clean the houses. The USAGE believes the KLfD cleaners over-bid, and the Commercial cleaners under-bid the project under fixed price contracts. The Springcleaners worked under a not-to-exceed contract. A not-to-exceed or cost reimbursable contractwould likely be preferable in future efforts due to the varying size and complexity of differenthouses. Schedule difficulties arose when either a contractor was unable to schedule time or if aparticipant, dropped out The main Logistical lesson learned was thai on-site, local contractorsworked well and were easiest to schedule. No worker hazards were identified by indoor airmonitoring. Except in houses where the belongings were removed, hazards associated with drugparaphernalia were a concern.

Recruitment for the study was difficult. Criteria for participation was towered, to obtain asufficient number ofhomes. ITiii resulted in some homes being cleaned ai dusr leadconcentrations less than that indicated in the ROD, although these homes had exhibited highJewels in previous years. If future interior remedial efforts were to occur at the EJHSS, moreresidents might be willing uj participate if there was one established cleaning process. Thiswould reduce residents unwilling to participate due Co not receiving the cleaning treatment theydesired.

finoirffHirt.wpd PagC 60

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Sunktr Hrtl Mow OlfJl P'fa F*»of Xtm*(£ol Eftctrmmfi ReportSe&ivn to

SECTION 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Samping Methodologies and Hazard Identification

• The findings of the house duit pilot project should be re-evaluated in conjunction withother BHSS yard soil, nghis-of-swy (ROW), house dust, and blood lead data in order todetermine the appropriateness of the house diwi RAO* established in the ROD-

• The dosi mat is the mo«t Appropriate sampling methodology to employ in assessing themovement of lead into ihe home from exterior sources.

• Toe BRM is the most appropriate sampling methodology to apply in assessing remedialeffectiveness and the reservoir of tad duit on soft surfaces within the borne. But theBRM method is useful when sampling attics or basements where dust has accumulated onhard surfaces such aj cement or joists.

• The vacuum bag sampling technique is the simplest and easiest method to employ andshould be continued to be used u an intervention tool.

Contracting and Logistics

The prtrjecl manager should be on-site during All work, if possible, or * key times. Aninitial (netting should be held wmh all primes and all subcontractors to de&Hycojnrmmicate (he project objectives Schedules should start on weekdays, and cleaning on(he wcckcad should only be avtboriTicd whcr finishing a residence.

• [n genera], for contracting with cleaning contractors, a cost reimbursable or aot-io-exceedcontract method would work better than ftx:e<i price.

• The HVJD ConmcLOr recommended disposing of box springs and mattresses to beconsis*** wkh the idea of disposing of all cloth furnishings in the house. The HUDContractor ftlio recommcrvied the HUD R.A $ajnplc within srt least I hours of theelevuag, before any further action is taken in the house.

• Curtains, drapes, and throw rugs in the Commercially Cleaned hones should be looked atOD B case by case basis In some instances, it would have been easier 10 dispose of theseitems and reimburse the homeowner.

• Ah* ducts should be cleaned by a professional service and furnace filters changed often.Ceanenced basements with exposed crawl spaces that are occasionally used may need 10be remodeled to seal dirt under die house and ihcn cleaned with the rest of the house.

Page 61

Bunter ffiil fftiajf &un fitot Fittaf Remediat Egtctive»ea Repori7.0

Instead of high-phosphate cleaners prone BO degrading (he environment, especially in awater system, a phosphate-free, biodegfadabLc cleaner should be used DO reduceenvironmental

A larger scale project might require more rigid procurement requirement

The use of local > on-site contractor is strongly recommended. Contract procurementshould either require use of local contractors or establishment of a contract requirement Costore house furnishings locally within a specified distance.

Lead paint hazards should be remediated prior to any interior cleaning in order to preventLQ lead-based paint

Cleaning Tachnlquee and Remedial

• The HUD Cleaning method is the most effective as it removes the soft surface reservoirsfrom ihe home and requires thorough cleaning prior to reinstalling new carpers. Thismethod is expensive, cumbersome and requires substantial oversight. Because Loadingsand concentrations were approaching typical community Levels after 12-months. it shouldbe considered for applications to reduce extreme exposure in individual situations.

• Unless the application of HUD Cleaning involves paint abatement, HUD certification andtraining may not be required. Specialized protocols and training of local commercialcleaners with appropriate oversight would likely be sufficient tc irnplemem interior dustcleaning.

• The Commercial Cleaning method also shows short-term effectiveness in reducing leadloading in soft reservoirs. However, the effect is less than that achieved initially with theHUD Cleaning and it should be considered commensuraie with cost. As this effect is alsotransient and loading and concentrations, rerun to typical community levels by 1 2-nionths, the applicability of this technique should be evaluated accordingly.

• The Spring C leaning method did not effectively reduce lead in soft surface reservoirs.However, this technique likely had positive effects in reducing access to dust in the shortterm. It should be considered as an appropriate intervention method for individualsneeding housekeeping assistance.

' For the public residing in the BHSS, the results of this pilot project continue to supportfrequent cleaning,, mopping, vacuuming, and steam cleaning of the house to reduce dustexposure. All the cleaning techniques used in this pilot project either remove e reservoirof lead (i.e.. duel cleaning, carpet removal) or help to break the dust exposure pathway toyoung chitdren,

62

III

II

Bunker Hiti Hetrw jOnjr Ptfai Flmf HtmeAat Effectiveness Report

SECTION ft.O REFERENCES

Adgaie, J., C. W«sel, Y. Wang, G. Rhca<a and P. Lioy. 1995- "Lead in House Dust:• Relationships between Exposure Metrics," Environmental Reievrch, vol. 70 p. 134-147.

Agency fix Toxic Substances and Disewe Rcgiscy (ATSDRV 1999. Toxicologicei Profile for• Liad. Jdy 1999.

Amitai. Y^ J Grief, M. Brown, R Gerstik, N. Kahn, ard P. Cochrane. J987. "Htzards of' Homes of Children with Lead Poisoning." AJDC, voL 141. p, 751-760.

Anatai, Y^ M. Brown, J- Gratf, and E Cosgtove. 1991. "Residential DeLeading: Effects on theBtood Lead Lcrels of Lead-Pottoned Children." Pediatrics, vol. £8 no. 5. p. 893-897.

Asefcengraw, A«», Akxa Bciscr, Dwid Bellinger, Donne Copenhafer. ond Michad1994. Tk* [mpact of Soil Lead Abatement on Urtan Children's Blood Lead Levels:Phase II Result from the Boston Lead-ln-Spi] Demonstration Project" f/iwcwmrnfa/Rtuorch, vol. 67 p. 125-148.

Bern. B., M. van Biaun, I. voo Luukm, J. Hamme], and R, Korus. 1997. ^Evaluation of SixVacomn Techniques for Sampling Lead-Conlaminat«i Carpeted Surface*. Advances in£n»iiui«iej*a/ Rtitf*^, vol. 1 no. 3. p 333 344

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

* Ewers, Lynda., Scott Clartc. William Mcruath, Paid Succop, and Roben Bornschein, ] 994."Ckanmp of Lead in Household Carpet and Floor Dust." Amtrican fn<histri&t Hygiene

I Association, vo] 55 p. 650-657

I

Cakfcr, Ian, Edward J. Maywnl «d Jane S Heysvorth. ] 994. "Pon Piric Lead AbaieaientProgram, 1992." Errrircrrattnial Gtockemh(ry and Health, vol 16 p. 137-145.

CH2M HilL 1991. Fiitai Hovat Dust Rtmetfiaiivn Rf port for iht Bunktr HtR CEACLA SittPofH&xtdArtas R1FS BHPA-HDR-F~RO-OS2091. Prepared for the Idaho Departmentof Keahh and Welfare, Boise, ID. May 1991

Coococd Scientific Corporation, Gore, and Storre. 1 9S9. South Riverdole Lead f tdotilonProgram— House thtst Clcaning and Demonstration. Final Reporl by Concord ScientificCorporation and Core & Skxrk Limited, in conjunction with the South RrvodakCommunity Health Centre, to the City of Toronto Department of Public Kcahfa. May

Bim&O- Hill ffttOfDtitl PJol final tertftfftfJ EffoLtrvifreir Report

Farft], MR. and J.L Chisolm, Jr. 1991 , "An Evaluation of Experimental Practices forAbatement of Residential Lead-Based Fainl: Repair on a Pilot Project." £nvtroninentaiResearch^ w[. 55 p. 199-212,

f artel, M. R_, P.S.J, L«s, C.A. Rhode, B.S. Lira, D, Baanon, and JJ. Chisoim, Jr. I994a."Comparison ofchf Wipe and a Vacuum Collection Method for the Derertniniitian <jf

in Residential Dusts." Environmental Rt&urc:ht vol, 65 p. 291 -3

Farfcl, M. IL. J.J. Chisolm, Jr., and C. A. Rhode. 1994b. MThe Longcr-Tcim Effectiveness ofResidential Lead Paint Abatement." Environmental Research, VQ], 66 p. 217-221-

Farfcl, M.R.,, and C.A. Rohdc. 1995, "Dctctmiiwlion of Environmental Lead, Using Compositingof House Dust Samples.'* Jn Lead Poisoning: Exposure, Abatement, Regulation. Eds:Bieen, J.J., and Stroup, CEL1 Lewis Publisher, I995t Chapter 26, p. 231-235.

Fariel M.R.T A.O. Orlova> P.5.J. Lees, C. Bowens R. Elias, PJ. Ashley, and J.J. Chisolm, Jr.2001. L>Comparison of Two floor Mat Lead Dust Collection Methods and TheirApplication in Pre-1950 and New Urban Houses." Environ. Sd- Techno!., vol. 35 no. 10p, 2078-2083,

Federal Register. 2001 , <W CFR Part 745 Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead;Final Rule (Volume 66. Number 4). January 5, 2001 .

Goulet, Lise., and Alain Messier. ] 996. "Results of a Lead Decontamination Program. "Archiws of Environmental Health, vol.5 1 .no. I . p.68-72.

Hilts, Sleven, Clydft Hartzman, and Stephen Marion. 1 995. "A ConuoJled TriaJ of the Effect ofHEP A Vacuuming on Childhood Lead Exposure." Canadian Journal of Public Health,vol86no. 5. p. 34S-3SO.

Kinu N., and J, f ergusam 1993, "Concentrations and Sources of Cadmium. Copper, Lead, andZinc in House Dust in Christctiurck New Zealand." The Science cfthe TotalEnvironment, voL 138. p. 1-21.

LangLois, Peier, Lesbia Smiih, Scott Fleming Richard Gould, Vivek Goel, and Brian Gibson.1996 LlBloOd L«d Ltvels in Toronto Children and Abatement of Lead-ContaminatedSoil and House DusL" Archives of Environmenlal Health, vol. SI no. I. p. fiS-72.

Lanphe&r, B., M. Edmond> D. Jacobs, M, Weilzman, M. Tanner, N. Winter, B. Yaldif, and S.Eberly- 1 995. "A Side-by*Stde Comparison of Dust Collection Methods for SamplingLead-Contaminated House Dust.11 Envirvpmtniat Research, vt>\ 6%. p. 1 14-123.

i*prf Page 64

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Bunker Hitt Hvuse Dtat P\lot final XewdM ££frth«»MH ReportStcuott&.0

Lanphear. Bruce P , Nancy Winter, Leslie Apetz. Shirley Eberly, and Michael Wchzman. 1996.-A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Dust Control on Children's Blood Lead Levels."

s, vol.98 M> 1 p. 35-40.

Lanpfeear. B P., T. D. Mane, J. Rogers, R. P. Clicbier, B Deitz, R. L. Bomschem, P. Succop,. JCMahai&y. 5 Dixofl. W. Galke, M. Rabinowliz, M Farfd, C. Rohde, J. Schwartz, P.Ashley, and D. E. Jacobs 1998. 'The Contribution of Lead-Contaminated House andResidential Soil lo Children1* Blood Lead Levels " EnviriHtnt*ni6l Research, Section A,voL79 p. 51-68.

Lim, B^, J.G. Schwembergcr. P. Constint, and K, Bauer. 1 995. "V»cvwnDost far Lad Analysis." In Lead Poisoning Exposure, Abatement, Regulations. Eds,:fireen. JJ.. and Stroup, C R., Lewis Publisher, Chapter 24, p. 20 KM 5.

Lioy, P J^ L. Yiin, J. Adgate, C. Wetsel and G. G. Rhoads. 1 99S. "Tbe EflectivcBcss of a HomeClttniDf Intervention Strategy in Reducng Potential Dust and Lead Exposures." / ofExposure AMfyste and Environmental tpidtmtotogy, vol. 8 p. 17-35

Lioy. PJ^ N.C G Fi«n»o. and J.R Ktllette 2002. "Dusi; A Metric for U« m Residential andBuilding Exposure Assessment and Source Characterization." Environ. Health Pcrspccf.,voLHOno. IOp.969-9«3.

Nfihr, CR_, and P. Muihak. 19S2. "Lead Contaminated House Dtat: Hazard, Measurement andDecootoOMnatioo." In: Lead Absorption in Children. J Chilsom and D. O'Hara, editt>rs.

Urban A Schwaraenberg, p. 143-152.

Paohawfle Health District. 1986 KtUogg Revlslvd- !981 CMdhood Bbwl U<*d o*dReport. May 1986

Pcfrosyap, Vardubi. 2000. Lead Contamination and Exposure hsues in the United States andArmenia. A lhcsi» prcscnlcd in pftrtial fulTillmcnt of the requirements IDT Ike Degree ofMaster of Science, University of Idaho May 2000.

Rhoaob, George G., Adhennc S Ennger, Clifford P. Weuel. Timodiy J. Barley, Karen DenardGoUman. John Adgatc, and Paul J. Lioy 1999. "The Effect of Dosl Lead Control onBJood Lead in Toddlers: A Randomized Trial " Pediatrics, vol. 103 no. 3. p. 55T-555.

RJch, D.Q., GO RJioads, I M Yiin, J Zhang. Z. Bii, J.L Adgate, P.J. AsWcr, and PJ. Lioy."Comparison of Homt Lead Dwy Reduction Techniques on Hard Surfaces; The NewJersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial," Environ Health Ptrspect.t vol. 110no. 9 p.

Page 65

Ifonter Hllf Haute Dial Pflvt frmi AcmeJiaf EffiKitventst Rppfrt

Roberts, J.W., W.S. Clifford, G. Glass, P-G. Hammer 1999. ^Reducing Dust, Lead, Dust Mites,Bacteria,, and Fungi in Caipcts by Vacuuming." Arch. Environ. Cantmtt TOXKO!., vol. 36p. 477-4*4.

SchriJ, L., A, Stark, M. Gomez, and W, G/attan. 1997. "Blood Lead Levels, by Year andSeason, among Poor Pregnant Women" Archives of Environmental Health, vol. 52 no.4. p. 286-291

TcnraGraphics. Envirtmmeniat Engineering, Ine, 1997, Summaiy of Lead Health Interveticion andSource Removal Efforts ] 985- 1996, October 1 997,

TerraGraphJcs Environmental Engineering,. Inc. 1999a. 1 997 Interior House Dust andScneltervtlk Rights of Way Datt Summary Report. Prepared for: Idaho Department ofHealth and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality Boise, Idaho. April

TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. T999b. 1998 Kellogg and Smeltervitle Rights ofWay Data Summary Report. May 1999.

TccmGiaphies Environmental Engineering, Inc. 2000a. Final 1 999 Five Year Review Report.April 2000.

TnraGraphics Environmental EngintrHng, fnc. 2000b, DRAFT 1999 Annual SwnmQry*BloodLeod Absorption and Exposwz Survey. April M, 2000,

TertaGraphics Environmental Engineering,, Inc. 2000c. final /nfentar House Dust PilotCleaning Work Plan. Prepared for Idaho Department of EtiMironmental Quality. August2000.

TerraGraptiics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 2000d. Final Field Work Ptan for ihe HouseDost Pilot Project Interior Dusf Sampling. Prepared for Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality. August 2000.

TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 2002. Final 2001 fnteriar Huuse Dust DataR&pttrf. Seprember Z002.

, E , S. DJXAJI, R. Rupp, and S. CJark. 2000. "A Pi Jot Study Examining Changes in DusfLead Loading on Walls and Ceilings after Lead Hazard Control Interventions." Environ.Heafiff Perspett., vot. 108 no. 5 p, 453-456.

U,S, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1 995 and 1997 updates.r the EvaiuQiian and Control of Lead -Based Paint Hazards in Housing.

66

II Bunker Hrti House Dur Pilot final Remedial Effeeirmtaa Report

Section &.Q

I US tnviroMBcntal Protection Agency (EPA). 1991 . Retard of Decision - Banker Htti Mutingart Metaillirgicpl Complex. Res idtnrtat Soil; Qperabi* Una, Shajhotte ComrOy, Idaho.August 1991

| U.S. Eavironmemal Protection Agency (EPA) ] 99:. Record of Decision - Bunker HHland MetaHurgKal Complex, Shoshone Cowy, Idaho. September 1992-

I U.S. Enriromnental Protection Agency (EPA). 1 993. Urban Soil Lead Abatement DemonstrationPrefect Volumt IV: Cincinnati Report.

m U.S. Envirocmtnul Protection Agency (E?A). 1997. Should You H&H the Air Ducts in YourHan* Chaned? Indoor Environments Division, Office of Air and Radialkm.

™ Weitzmm, Mtcbad. Ann Atcheagrau, David Bellinger, Ronald Jones. Julie She*-H*mlin, AkxtBctjJcr. 1 993- "Lc*<i-ConiaminatAd Sor. Atwiement and Uitan doWrtn's Blood Lc*d

I Levels." Journal qfthe American Medical Association, vol. 269 DO. 13- p. I647-H554.

Yiin, L.. G. Rhoacb, and P Lioy 2000. "Seasonal Influences on Childhood Lead Exposure.1'I £wirwi ffeatth Ptrspcct.. *oL 108 no. 2 p. 1 77-1 82.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I _ _. j5vfr.port.prf Page 67

I

o-r

(my l

ram BNM

bionwntb

UrCkiof(mg

X X

X t

« .

ICLF

fdJ P«!M

Krtim Ho«tn Ktlall Mflpt

Trrvc Oimt«3 u««n «u> »nv'M Vtng pr ., po^r-. ft-mor*i, and 1 J-*nor<h»: 2 from Uie HUD rua&nent and 1 hc*n UE Cortrd TrejInMrt

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3,1 General Housing Characteristics

^ ;.v ••'• • -:'i:.'.r ?:. % : ;.v 8$$&&-x4*r

Number of HousesVE AH BUILT

AvenugMedianMinimumMasimiun

OWN/RENTOwnRent

INTERIOR REMODELING'YesNo

HOUSE REMODELING"Y«No

RUGS AT ENTRANCESAt NoneAl One to SomeAt All

REMOVING SHOESY«NoSntnedmB

^^BKfD^^j;*«

]y4*134019381978

51

24

13

I50

132

£$&MM£ttOAil'<j6

194319181930mi

51

41

33

014.

150

PMBNT^.^h •'. ':0; •&i?t 5Kjsnj|s»^

6

1V4^

1945]QQO]9?3

33

f3

4J

041

1

40

is^ckvi-" •.•••••' y:-;-JviflBOWpCBO^i':

5

Ittt1954mQ1976

5f>

23

32

932

050

Interior remodeling refers to painting the Lalcrior nf the house, sanding ar rcmavingfrenioddinj;Tfindcnv jit);

** HouEe HinodcLi^g irferi ID renxxlclinf the houser installing neu cacpcl/ftinunLre

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3.2 Carpet Age (years)

-,^^^M-m:.;?**.--.: -\'s - - . ' : . tir- iMffiMMKfjr^ '-' s^:^^.'/ *^t^-^HTni« }(CQMWKH€M«b ^dWBDIGE) rH^OHOTlOL

KIT CHE*W»a*ti of Kxthe*5 *«h Carpet

AveoecMafcmMmtmraMftsanan

!100

-.-

i63635.C7.5

10.5---

120.0

---

LIVmCROQMH*d«fte* of Livinft Room wUli Carpet

AweaecMc*a*MMMKUI

MaxMoara

e9 77.020200

MNINGROOfl*Nnfccr afDirae ROOOB ***. Carpet

Av«eattMedumMmna

MA5TO BEMOOMK^wba- of M«Kf P*oV»«rn with CtrpeJ

A*cngrMerftnftteuamMaxiaMtD

OTHER IEMUX)MMwcber OthCf Be*oo«ii wttb Caron

Awnge

0-•-•

668A.32.020.0

2*J5.54.07.0

611]980.430.6

515.210.01.0

30.0

0--f

•

1».o

-.•

611 J125J.W200

i212.5035.0

6I4J10.04.0300

5U.9n.&4.020.0

6ion

Medrt* i TOMH»»»» i 2 0MnaMW> 20.0

V635,01.0li.O

DTBE1HOOM 'SbnberWOUicrEtoamwilliCaipct 0

A*o»iCMerfa*KQninHOMmMKM '

13 0

-»

•

7144tft.O4.0300

150--•

It13.714.06.020.0

0•

---

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ta bit 3.3 Carpel Condition

{.:]£;•:;: ^i.::^:-::"'x-^y;^v.:^.'h^;r %?* *f!f !- • "*: ir. ! " " •?". " • ' . ' "•• •/"£$ .. j;KITCHENsluiriberof Kiccti*ns with Ciapa

AverageMnimmnMl ffluni

,rvisc ROOMNumber of Living flaams with Cupd

AverageMini •mumMaximum

DEN INC ROOMNumber of Dining ROOCTB wilh Carpel

AverageMini momMaximum

MASTER BEDROOMNumber of Mower Bedrooms widi Carjjct

AveiugcMinimumMaximum

OTHER BEDROOM•lumber of Other Bedrooms wilh Carpel

AvengeMinimumMaximum

)TH1R ROOMSlumber of Other Roams with Carpel

AverageMinimumMaximum

=!.:"• Jl i i.'-'xS-':.!•&-".^-%£VSfi>".: '••'•

\WodfiKh1 Dutv

--

6Slighliv DinvGood CondidortPour Condition

0--•

6ModwAieLy DinyGood ConditionPoorCondiliori

6Modwwelv DtavSliEhur DirtyPoorCordJiioo

0---

*i>* ' :=: "tREAT

1SlighUv DutyGood ConditionSligfiiLyDuTy

6

SligtiilyDIrn'GaOd ConditionMndnaicly Dirty

2Sligbuy DinySli&tnH DirtvSiighclv Dirty

5Slightly DirtyGoadCandLtinnModerately Dinv

9SlinhtlvDirtvGoadCondiOonModeraceJv Dinv

lGood Condlwoti

--

nmaw-' h iii &.i::"":SPHIIfS •'• •

iGaad Condition

-'

6Slightly DinvGoad ConditionPoor Condition

Q--•

3Modcnlclv DirtvGood ConditionPOGY Condition

7Maderalelv DirtyGood ConditionPoor Cotton

1CnOOd Ccm4iliori

--

•J-::£-#[i^"-H-J'...,i'

"::::€OflTflftJL'M

IModeralclv Dirh

- •-

5Jjllgbilv DlirvGaud. CandilionPDorCoodilloTi

1Moderately DLrrv

.-

5Moderatrlv DiitvSligtitlv DinyM<Mten(&]> Dirtv

3ModciaEeK DirtvModeratrfy DinyM<xl«ra«!y DlflV

n•--

Carpet wndiwn codes wen:: L) B«jd oondrtinfu 1) slig^Uy diny, frayed, «c 13) rooderaitly (Wny, fnayed.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3.4 Carpet Types

^wvriK*v^OTCHENtonbcr at Kitchcws wiOi Carpet

[MkKKAMMfcMT

, *"^.;->i::.^ - l NTRKimtflKr^T-f^r^- ' :-^:::^

•.+ - BUU' Mi ^OMMXttCiA \ x-i STHBie )rife H^UtTROK -

117%

1icxrtt,

j100%

1[W%

JV1PGROOM'•aba of Living Room wlift Cjfpci

SK*Mi Mrh^oocftMdoorSc«lpraredMtt*

ttnrtCROO*fanta of DiMt« Roans with Cftrpet

(adoottaMdootPWsfc

617%

17%-

33%J3%

r>

-

-

17%

67H17%

0-.

4 ASTER BCOKOOMN«*ber of Maow B*d*oo*c «Kh CvpA

SlMff*- >. --ueiucjSculpturedPkBk

6

n%-

50%33%

I

50%50%

6

--.

33V467%

0--

i20%--

60%20%

1100%

S10%20%*0%

-

rrHOtvi iiooMhnto of OUttf BeJiouas mtfi df»ei

Sh*«IXjtK/

lTrtrwf««h1»TrSc«ip«redPlus*

6J7N

-17%

31%11%

911%.

27%44%22%

5.

»

60%40%

s20%

-40%40%

7-

•

U%43%43%

S38%13%-

U%33%

OTHEBROOMNwvker of Otter Roon»$ wjck Ctrod

BcrtxjtndOQB%ma«

0.-

I-

:oo%

1100%

-

0--

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3.5 Number and Age af Resident! in Each

: • • ,.j. .. - ' > • t ssy .e f- .1 '• J-r:*%5.f*&*-:• .• :•. \t . \ fy .**:•• * .. . -•£. ..?•>

..- -,'•• \v- '...:•' t.sT-l,v>-v;<:'*.>.ji4 jmbcr of H« JKS

>'L! »iHUi>W^ fe lJJEATWHWPyvJ-^-r-juv^ JT-"^.':-' ." .--v•ifSOflW:

6

COMMERCIAL;$

.-/i' SPRING;-;1; j

6r PQNTKDj;- ;;

yADULTS PER HOUSEMumbtrrfAduht*

AvengeMinimamMaximum

14214

i]214

13223

10ii4

CHILDREN PER HOUSENumber of Children"

AvpBgetvjinim |imMaximum

CHILDREN AGENumber of Children**

AvfiBft Age Cycare]Vllrumum Aftc (yean)Maximum Age (yean)

9203

96

0.413

6

1

02

&fl

0.615

92

0

4

9

10

2

IS

B

2

0

3

B]]0.815

4An idult w considend (»be wiy person tB yaais « dldor."A child was considered to IK wy per»H younger Uian IS years old.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3.4 Smoking Htbitt or Resident*

KTOim OF FACKS MR PAYl.l 10 1.103 0.5 0.5 0.320 20 1.5 2.0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Tiblt 3.7 Number and Ag* of Air Ducts

CENTRALIZED UKATIF«<« i AIR CODITIONumber of Houses

Yestic,

DUCT AGE [YEARS)

Number of HomesAvcntft 7.5 7.0 IL.ft 5.0Median 7.5 5.8 u.a 3.0

Minimum 75 0.3 7.5 2.5Maximum rs 20.0 16.0 7.5

DUCT CLEANINGNumber of Houses

More ihar [WB limes a yeirOne time a ycaiNewrOtber

V)nc resident did not know (he age of [he ducts, MI only 2 responses cnuld be used.1 Both responses ucic the same.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3,8 Basement »n<j AUk Characteristic)

Dtn floorLWsastod

ATTICAnic$

Lnriw.Otter 1 I

residents rup*uded la roare ihui one ctnkc (LC . SDIDC bAscmects were unfinished with a din

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4.1 a Dust Mat aid Loading Rates

• ;: - .rj:r-':m=-*"*" K^">-'»*$1S£5!ftf

PRE-CLEJUNINC

NofPfA.

PfotlS

W

MID

Mix

&vKa|iSid. D**Gtaneirte >l**n

NOT-CLEANINGNafNANafISNMJaMaiAvtnerStd. DwvGf oust™ MHP

SIX-MONTH

NMia

Max

Avmge

Sld.Dev

Ceoaetrie Mr«

TWELVE-MONTH

NofNA

NofIS

N

MJB

MBA

Aver*geStd. DevGf rattrk Mian

;' HyU" J t«mertW ;spriJiE* .1 ic troi*ir ^^^^Qpi i,. ^ : .

.i3

233IHO£244g|6*S

-24

460|L4Q

{WS

JOS

797

m

&

3002MOklOS92SS70

I23

262711106127467

.15

264

mo67S30033S

-24

2 SO34MQF3J5M77L<WI

B

&

2102400

16659S2737

.

1$

2671330iOfr

471403

.

.6

]9S«061224133J

--6

4001980mo6(4971

J

5

200

1700fiS6

J4370*

I

1

4

19229101364ILTQ

914

.

.5

24 !=

232ft

JWX)

833729

--------

3

4

540

750

ttoLOO

£94

]

,

4

43J

730607

136595

NX - n J B|f4ic9ifein<i umpk •MlKdol

'On; ffliti^lt uvai.x.ti*r blftrt -ii: SoMBAMB. Hlftflfag

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4.1& Dux Mar Lead CtouccDtrttigns and Londiag Rotes

• v:l *."•" '-'

'.'•• •;;r"''":'" '<rftE-CLCANING

Ht(t5N

Mi*MaxfcMnfc

S- teM*.fOST-CLEANINC

NMta

Mn-iniMjifeADcv

SIX-MONTHN«TKA

N

rwp>-* ^ • CpmmpTchl ^J «pitag*>

:.^<:^ 'D

.6

l3J1124

X»

3*5

6

)$1213497440

305

-

6

*ta ' 349Mn | 1939\ttra0iSid. OrrCi<»itjU Wii*

P*HtS

SI 8

$«684

:K 5Mta : 143MM 22)9Avtncr 466StADrr B94&MM** .Mo* J93

"Control-

t ai le tnjpni'Mi -;' -r

J

'

6

*7idi]394

176

653

1064

252

129

-

6

19$41611012

1044

SOI

6

63D

269Smi914

914

«117

SB6

392

S

1

5

22«

4122203917M

1231

1

5107 | 461057

J9014 J

29?

JOM90«

1249400

.s

261

1372

6Sl449

547

-

----

1

4IJ2922911199452IS56

1

4164

t!9357291474

J) • tpk MliMK fM M

iiiif* ottr teftne iMe SIX-IMIII»I um^knf twm.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4.1c DusX Mat Lead Caneeatration? JUtd Laddtag

• ^•r^r.A-a^f^ftad

*..^;V*V«SK^

N*rL5NMin

Mmi

Awi|tSU.DEVCnn«tric Mwa

POST-CLEAtVING

n 4p n *

n or ISpf

MinM*TAvtrJErSri-DivCtnnclric Mn»

51X-WONTHPf nffiANoflS

ftMia

MMI

Avcrj|tSuLDcvCnrnftrk MM*

TWELVt. MONTHN al>A.NdfLS

N

MinMilAvrflftSld.DwCtonrtrk Miaa

- HUD'« r.'

^rT-.'

sO.Li5C.Oft*0.4^J0.4090,3^7

2

4

ft.1730.3MD.5(Baua0.4-?]

--6

ft.niL.912o.iflift.70fifl.iW

i2S

0.0681.40(50.416O.U90«7

!Cotiifierd*L-% '•*_»'» /3&**"1 J -i ?W"-^JIM! LaMing RUM

1..s

O.OSJOJ700.191Cu07lO.J7B

J

4

o.as?OJ91OJ2L0.1 51O.I 74

--

6OJOLILU«2JS8L-1.QSO0.369

-

15

&4K1O.JI7

ft] 97ft157a. us

.Sp^g* ,,x-~rr"f\ 3~,i '»lwtfVfa

-

6OJ7I2J6]

0.921

Q.94Sa. 544

-

40.0473J7DQ.52DQJI:OJ£6

I-5

0.12]^Mt2.4403.] ID0.86S

I

L4

0.0612J*71J161J26SOj&27

Comtral* .i. •_ *-j • •..<r t • - , • • •

-

s.0.192

OL*7SO.*ilOJCU0.39S

•

.

.

.

.

-

-

1

-

40.7441j675I.I5)0.406I.LCU

t-

40.0!>J0.60 (oj-tiOJ]l02SI

•• "tH i

*O"C priicipBi* mnvnl »miv bi n: OK .Su-uanOi uinpln tvcrt.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Tiblt 4.2 VJCUIIMI Big Lead Concentrations

^• '••^-.V/ j;

•"Sr-^O'J'i'^T*

NolNAf<

Mi*HnAvtnfcSttLDrvC«OMctric Mc»tPOST-CLEANING

N«f NAKMM

MM

Avt»C*SM. perC«e*»c(He Me**

SIX-MONTH

KrfNAN

MM

HnAwrifc

OMKtrir MCM

TWELVE-MONTH

H*fWA

N

lfc

MnA*rr»f«

M. OcvCcMHMrir MtM

^Ui *.^-.-^...^

610090)>52313

425

1

i

1701750773

6565)3

-

i

70

670J57

251261

24

410

450

433

432

e^n rj-spiT.fCoiK*hriTtftiofi>(t»fc*fp

i5 6

206 1497*7 : | 100

50T 591

229 309439 514

i ; 1i i 5

264 15t

490 1040415 ! 47191 350

40S 210

i 25 4

300 44

?00 3200

378 , 1029SI 1471

371 374

A 22 4

330 . 190

560 ' IOW

445 : 570

163 3S1

430 469

. fj.Zifjft*-

'i -' • "-

i4

224

Z200

1024950

664

-,

-

--

-

•

2

3

910

21W1537

598

US I

2

3

400

tlJ

JSI747

KA -volafpliRblcAia »n>pU sailiclfd

•On MMicipnt mrred aayr bclaic the !«-

I did nai panUip«tc in Chr Ti

i n | rv t m.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Tabk 4,3a Living Room BRM Lead Concentrations jud Loadings

J : i £i£;?£^*§Mas83S

PRt CLEANINGNofNA

NMin ;.'MatAverage5l(L DevGeometric Mca*

POST-CLEANING

Not ISNMinMnAverageStcLDrvCeoiNtjit M«D

SIX-MONTHNofNANariSNMinMtt

Avenge>td. Dtv

Getfueirfc MeanTWELVE- MONTH

NofNANor isN

MinMaxAverageStd.tovG«i)mclrlc Meai

vflI V^L c D«i;aid^V^pfeuifi t OTltfblV

r! £^3?**?*^

-

«U6

3370

67]4B9487

1S

60360194119]«L

--

630

IfiOQ

670?042*4

1-5

130[940

720702506

-

6194572409117J*fi

,

62609SO$28263476

.-

(51205404S3100425

.

•«

260610440LJ6

42 [

-

6L42

1690

ftSP

S50700

.

{L-W3

32607*245«599

I-

5L60

12QO778407640

I-5

1 BO1260

73*446602

-"

j

197S02Q

1271

2099

J49

,

.

r

'

'--

]-

4190

1100

674

500

523

1

-

4

3901470SOS463720

NA "

rfl Olt T«rtfi*flW!MlI

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

TiMt 4Jb Living Room BRM Lead Concentration* aod

^:Z£':-.-*T~^'S ;HtE [C$*«te*U].

^"^S^f?^^^ /. /l-::^^>fliwdi!5.®!ift";X-i.' r^L£x-PKE-CLEANISC

NcftSN 6Mil 7J5Kn 68 OJAvenga 22. IJ

S*l IWv 24 74

Ce4*»rr1r Han 14 96fOST -CLEAN INC

*• 6Mia 0.7}M*x , 4-715Avenge 23)SMI Dc« 1-74CvMKtricMOTi 1 «J

SIX-MOfTTH

_

6 62 05 6.9475J9 20.17

21 94

11.41

I

l.OS61.37

2J.49

13.13

4.6412.4J

.

6J.JS2I.J3

6.4651$ 11.30

INofNA - - 1NofK -N 6Mia 2.66

63.55

Mas 4029 117?fiAvcrafr 11.49 4291SklDcv 1429 54_54GAMMUkMnn 7J5 14 r7

TWtLVErMONTHNofNA Iy A^fC

N 5 6Mil J.S1 1.97MM 19.56 1 16.22Average 1074 27 to

St40c» 6-1$ -14.72.• •MatttlC HMa%A 9-20 9-77

56.1433.12I8J6911I6j0l

1

.

j6.82

4L.4t27.0012.72IS .22

.

-

--

;-i-4

!».<!245*

19.006.1411.10

1

5 ^ 46.46 4J4>

24. M 49.19IS 16 X>627.35 20^016M 22.16

*A - «cl •ppaVa le trt iwnpk coiawti

1^ — aVI BKlCIBa l JWpi VORt^l X> Xlfl Vftaty^ll

Crnovid «»

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4 ,3« Living Room BRM Lead Concentrations and Loadings

^^$%£gg&••^W^^^^

PREnCLEANINCNofPUNof ISNMinMaxAverxfaStd. DevGeometrk Mean

POST-CLEANINGNof NANoMSNMid

M*iAvtrftgeStd, Dev

Geometric MeanSIX-MONTH

NofNANofISNMiaMaxAverageStd.DvvGeanelrLc Mean

TWELVE-SfONTHPfofNAffoflSIVMil

Mn±AvtrageSUrDCV

Seamelric Mean

^S^ ill ooiSipisiiil ltSprlnE^

i f ^^^C«^S ffi

--6

J.S2I3J3S.D3J.657JS

,

1S

0.0*5

I-J704606*0.24

--

60.2k5.743.021.942.0B

1-5

Q.pO37.94

10,6015,50446

--

61.37

25.187.629.154.41

.

.

0

Q.S9U.47

5,116.912.47

-

-6

LIT67.6616.7925.62€.33

--6

I-D7

48.A111.07L8.704.11

.

-

61.64

2I.9JJI.647.428.70

.

.

6L.-77

2476

10. 9>10,126.77

1-

53.0430.SO35.0012.2110.24

]-S

2.fl*30.3S15.1012,29«.»L

..:vcj»'««i*-'^TT*' ;!.1;

.-5

3-4734.2215.82IJ.TB12.74

-.,,-

.

.•

I.

43.9720.65IIJ57.3S9.46

k-4

67j

3M213.321020»$.<*

NA - mrt ipplicablcAxi ismpCS - inefficient simple vnluma Ibrlcadaniljrsis.*One paLxjpml raved may befarr the fiii-numh jnriplkif tvenl**Qnc houahuJd diJTWlfarlidp*-in Ihc Twdvt'miMlh lunplinj emcni

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4,49 Bcdnwn BRM Lead CooceairatJou ind Loadings

-V~ V^''~v;.r:£ii>>tx^{ /:

N«INA

.'• HUD * " | Commercial '•Spnn€*4;C«itnd*'ip:~f'f ^ :.COT&titiik iJXiiig : :7;vV ;

.N of IS

NIMmmVmm

MnAvffffBft

S«i. DevC«on«(rk Mej§

6 >136

1500543496432

POST-CLEAmiSC

15 5

IZ6 IDS2300 1600J79 i 6BDoil i 624552 461

NofNA ',N«ftS I ! 1N i i 6 , SMM i 30 f 163 ! 60MnA«*r*fcS*LD»vC««M<4r*tMeM

JOO 1770 2140111 *• tU ) 790109 565 137131 \ 664 \ 4J9

SIX-MONTHNofNA - 1NofIS - 1It 6 : S j 4

MM 10 140 ' 170Mn 4SOO ; 1600A»fT«g« I YK1Sal Der 1725[•owctric MVAI 528

748

557

55S

TWELVE-MONTHPCcfNA 1NcflS

* 3MJ* l?0Ho U6GAwersgc : 416

544. D«* 390Caaimlrtc Mw,n 392

-

6

3X1mon:547l015

1700765690535

II4

2401630810

677544

-

5

2091260$70412473

-

-

.

.

-

-

-

•

1.

4

3601200603400S2t

2-

3440ir*no4[7

KH

NA - art

n - inairicienl sai l volume far kid

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1III

Tablr 4.4b Bedroom BRftl Lend Concentrations and Loadings

*?S£&&^n§3S^$38S?PRE-CLtANWC

NofNANor isIN

M<l>MMAvengeStiDevCtotnttrir MeanPOST-CLEANING

Nor NX

NMJnMa*AvengeSttLDtvGeometric Mem

SIX-MONTHNotNANor ISMMi*M»iAvengeS(dL DwGtfrractrir MeartTWELVl MONTHPiolNANoF ISNMiaMuAvenfeStd.DwGflometrir M«n

v .. • i iT-Ti . l f - — r • - f^ '-^\' ' Jr^^^fr" ^ 1 « fc > - • • .

y^^^^pS

-

'

e1.30

53. 8S

19 9 1I9-L8

I2JS2

-

60.73

j.62

1.951.82

1.53

--

61.2&

13.9fi4.94

4.72

3,3t

I-j

2.736,<575.601.695.32

jW^qitofi

-v

(j

3-1272.01

28.36

J2.68

[4.35

-

6MA[7.511.44

1.D24.S3

--

61.87

41.44

lfi.77

19,10s,n

.*6

1.36

63.08

LB.10

24.067.63

®EeiSi33yS'T

-6

o.tw20.SS

9-10

9.293,54

-

60.07

ia.i77J76.74

3.05

1-3

0.22

12.56

fi.47

MSJ.37

].5

0.39

18.41

9.79

7.74

5,51

--

59.9?69.572».*6

23-62Z3.BO

-

.

-----

1-4

7.0(723.21

13.40

a.o&13^69

2.3

B.8J

25.91

14.659.73

12.52

NA -

15- inufficinfl lampJir **luirtt ftf Ittdlflfdvlii.

'Om paj1icip9nl>niv»<d auwxbrfbrt rht Siii-nKhiOilfe^plirti«vtftl'*Ox bnudwlddid net participrtrin I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table <*.4c Bedr«*a BRM Lead ConeeDtratimu ltd

icioA turvk ralunl fcf I

xw*> hfarC OK Si»-nK»rth ing rvrrt

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4J5» Kitchen BRM Lead CancenirAtiqq* and Loadings

."•v:)^pf%£fi:&•-••• V i £$re?£?^§££fc7:

FHK-CLEAN1NGNofNANafISNivLIn

M«Avenge

SliLDnGeometric Mean

NorNAN if ISNWin

M*X

AvengeStd. DcrGeometric MCIQ

SIX-MONTHNofNANofISNMinM»AvengeStd.DwvGeonetrlc Mean

TWELVEMONTHNofVANofISN

Mln

MixAwageSid. IkvGfeonclrlc M«ai

^TOJD ;::.''.-v^>

]-5

1971580767677536

15---••-

•42

801200640792310

I4L

NDNDNDND

ND

CaTm>Bke^clflf:

' ^ M ^ l " > l i ^ ^ I I *

-IJ

J409LS

4K3

24J

431

1

4

1815JS364L30349

--690

I4DD6J3

57fl

403

.15

1«0ceo414

297342

^priflfei;I jXT^PK' 7 ILFM

fc

-

-

£

9713.6063&495*27

42

150250

200

7L194

1

23

160

1800

1020

82}

ti32

1J2

[701040605<L542(1

jpqntnpl*

- ' •"': 1,.:-/'

-l3

L3924801045I2S7362

T

--

.

*-

-

L

1

3

230

830

597

325

311

1

22

170

69043436f342

NA-mLnpplkabltto Jknplt WlktvJ.

LS - iEsuHlcienL s^pla valvn

ND - dbb not ar*\A\a far canfiifantiility pxpa

*0nn pnticiparl mcYfJ vfay bufon Ihi Sii-awnlh smiling cvuiL

*"0nc hDuxchoU did IML participate inlhc TwElvE4nantfauEe|illiigevEni.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

TaJ>l< 4.5b KJlclte* BRM Ltid Concentrations »nd

PRE-CLEAMNG

ftMMMn

S1X-MOXTH

taUS

MMAwn!«LDev

I

51.14

27.111.44H 14

6I 29

47.2213 14

1

50-120 3 1

008

60 14j.ss2 ) 0327071

TW¥LVC-MONTH

A»*v*grStd.Dcv

J

SC.OOll

3.t»0.701.320.10

0,13

3.342.551.94

63 1664.11

17.0923.54

949

6

0224693I2.U17335.04

MA -

S 3 valim far lead uMjjui

61.779025.472494S9

60.10

1.69

0.73

I

5029S233.533.50].M

I

0.00194 W

020

5I IS

J5I8

13.02179

I

4O.J6

Z90

40.]]2,10IJ5

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Kitchen BRM Cimctiilratioas mad

^££^g^£ff^?3^^^55*fi

PR&-CLEAN1HCNofWANof 15NWinMaxAvcn&iSttLDevGeometric Mean

POST-CLEANINGNafNANafISNWin

MaxAverage5ld.DevGeometric M«IHI

Not HANor isNMin

MMAvengeSt&DcrGcOnrtrir Mean

TWELVE-MONTHNofWANor isNMinMuAvertfleStd. DayGeometric Mean

iHUD*fei'T ' T^^~/ • rx. |qqpa>^eijii-|. pBngtf :^ Wp l5SagS?S r

i-5

0.373Z.5S4.495JQ72.45

15----

-r

r

4

^0.16LSI

0.9^1.170.54

]

41

NDNDNDNDND

.15

1.1114.906.096.294.07

-

24

0.6*2.3D1.720.87L.52

m

.

61-137.924.74

2,32392

-I5

Q.B29.364.5S3.77324

*-

60.509JB3.223^262.09

-

42

0.271.37

0-91a.92o.«

I23

0.959.064.794.06

3.37

1

3

2

O.JSJ5-072-ttt3-201.67

-

23

J.7525.00IS 08tt.999.J2

.--.--

-

•

113

0.74

1-9013!0.591.29

121

Q.4S

I.6JL.Q5O.S2o.ss

NA -

K- miuITicioni tamplrvalurrttftf I

ND - dm not Itfliliblr fnr renifUMliiHw futpctMS*0ni paliEJpanE iwvcd may fefarr fl« Sin-mnnlii aiafdin . ennL"Qx kcuiebaliidid nn paniripitc in Ihi TtMtn^mondi iaoiplinj cnni.

Ttble 4.6ft CurrHaiiont (Number of Pain) for Lend Concentration* (mg/kg)

VBCTUIB MstUvln| Room

BRMCblld'f Room

BUMKitchen

BRM

QJ5 (2Q)_*^0.71 (17) •

1.00

0.72(21)

0.50(20)*0.77 (17) *'

1.00

0.35 (??)0.&6(I9)

1.000.54(18) 100

Tabte 4£b CarrclAliotte (Number uf pairs) fur Dust and Ltail

DUST LOADING

m

BRMKJtekn

BRM Room BRM

LE\f> LOADING

oom

BRM BRMM*t

I.O&

II .00

r-O 0.08 (22)' (22) * 1.00

0.03 (2?) -0.16(25) r.oo

0.39 (18} 1.00

0.50 (21)' 1.00

OJSCZO) 0,11(17)

'9RM Loadi

* r

*+

1 fwi)*5t uid mg/m3 farlnd; MJL LoHNng Kausjn ualuaf aig/hi'Ml&y Ibr dual end nyj/mVday Jar lead

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

4,7. ANOVA RtniHs for BUM Dust Loading by Carpet Condition C»t«eory

Geometric MeanGcoroalnc St Der

1I Table 4.Sa CDactiilralirjnj and Dust and

Loadings, for Aitles; RaMments, and Du

1

1

1

1

1

1

: ^' \ . f'.OuGNHf Uon (ncyitj)

NAverage

Standard D«vr

IVIinimnmManinDm

Geometric Mean

DuA loading Cg/B*) .

NAvenge

Standard Dcv.Afllnlnnni

Gtbntttic Mean

UidlMdhia (•)•*•*>

N

Standard Dev.Minimum|Ylnx to if m

Gcoracrrk IMean

'•'.A'liiiS*.-i*" .'" ' " J

46,6ti3£299aw

]],6DD4,42^

3

24

IS5

4017

J1231303d

27284

'itfcnBBta1

..xv. .- :r:^a*

2,138JJ*0

1236.93D1^99

• :- i'. . >"^

4114e\i10

• .•

416992915

| • - 2 ttnipka co'Jwwd **"i fit* same but ncq (i nxVi *WQ'• =2 insufficient JUIIEI|E -VQfcinua forbhauinry leyycij

1*1 MittSlhuirbuvflh SMftpfe and 3 BUM Jirft^B\ rail nmplei ud 4 QRM omplei

1 Table <8b Dust Eih-attid from Ojrt CI«Hings

1

1

1

1

HMiif l

Ham #3

HourtWSHouse rfSNoun «?*House *8*

AVERAGE

Dutfe)

42D340ISO

L L O600.00.0

1361 - HwuJticicntTfliia for rrttnMnrnc l,

f aOe vtta in kg, chc»fone *it SMlpJC we^hr is «tf (1 1 |f>

1

1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4.9 Interior and Exterior Lead Pilot Hazards

:• -. .: ' Interior Paint PbHazard

Eiterior Paint PbHazard ' .

HUD•louse #1

tousc#2tore 43tousc**tousc#540usc#6

1

1*

1

l>

11

2^

2b.E

221

Commercial

*mse*ltoust*2*nue*3tousc*4

House t5iouaef6

loose 11

fausett•kmse#3lOU* *4

House «

t

2*11I1

Control

I'

1E

I

1

]1112'

1

21*11t

I - No Lead Hazard2-Lead Hazard1 Detected lead based point on friction surfaces (windows andinferior doors).* Detected lead based p«nt. but pamt i* currently in staHecondition.' Lead hazard on detached structure* Detected only on stair1 Delected only on exterior

Tabk 4.10 HUD Dust Wi x Lead Loading*

Wmdow Sin% s-.V^-i'-V-v"

NMinMaiAverageSld.DevGeometric Mean

515914920016008192908671

612125570

10296591

3225499560375855384813490

€31.3301158129105

Foflt-ClcaaiogNMinVhxAverage

«one1ric Mean

614596978296520912516

531.32189515937158

34803014175312671367

619.7177S36263

Six-MonthNVlinvlaxAverageltd. Devjeonutric Mean

6196

585632562249

1484435937E47

344527401593

1148

9

6S375

15111827

Twelve-MonthSVlinMaxAverage>td. Devjtometric Mean

4333

3060127B

1219

925

512.91130

49254

277]192013468121217

84.6

211030!73243

11 Table 4.11 CmnereU] Duit Wipe Letd Lorn dings

1

|•

1

1

|•

1

1

1

1

-.-..- • v.w <> fff^^^^m^^&^w^^^ ,i/'..- :. : %£ & 3 £.: *1£t ^^v'^M^JM

** fc -^^ ' - " ^*B*B

Pir-Geaning^ 5 : 6

Mia 134Max 72000Average I6S54

StdLDev 3115*

Grcattcric Mean 2113

7

2375609890170

Pa4f-ClraaittfN 5 . 71

Mi. 3Mn SI9

%V€f9£C 2-2^7

Sti.I>rr 342

CnJiffrk Mcaa 61

$a-M««th

2.11735

277

64428

N 5 5Mia 44 i 91Max 3971 307Arvrage >463StaLDev 1952GoactiSc MCM 279

N 5Mm 39.2Max 3770

85126

IBP;•Jg*^^

!8P^.7-Hpj^ •;;,

iiie^W-^-; --.i:v.:-: ::•:•-.

4

53.3749

403335261

4

6.444.2

181714

435 J342118149

39 72

7 410.8 52J233

Avcrag* J 269 74

St&Dc* 173! 95

466164

201[04

7802692348291

ISO

£

2.4146

27

48

12

81.7

227487523

86

93.331

18

1

1

1

1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table J. 11 Contra] Dual Wipe Ltad Loading*

Pre-ClenmngMMinMaiAverageShLDevGeometric MCBD

Post-CkiDlogNMinMaxAverageStiLDev

GeometricSii-Mouth

NMinMaxAverageStd.DevGeometric Mean

Twelve-MonthNMin

Std<Dev

63490253552877111738

NANANANANANA

4not

6226016792303293937

413909860553838054342

546.1

279339144

NANANANANANA

337.3340156162104

413320816235

"NA - not appHcablti'no samples collected

552S

9269158252 866

NANANANANANA

4no403201020020080606

4SQ.S

625029233263S09

5125417616821640971

NANANANANA

4112

1108403475253

4JI .71210509501277

Table 5.1 Projccl Com - Averafe Coi(/Iloiise/TineAlm*ril

~* '"S'i'.ty *$%?J$;.W>'W.. . - ' . , . . . I . ! - i .&'.• . . . ' I AJ

. ..„ • • • • * . . . . . . i. ' . , 1 - : • . . * •

USAGE OVERSIGHT'

STATE CONSULTANT OVERSIGHT*

TOTAL OVERSIGHT COSTS

CLEANING SERVICES

(•it duel duning)

TOTAL CLEANING COSTS

RELOCATION (including hotel room(s)

and per die/n)

REPLACEMENT/REPAIR (Carpet,

fomilur? and repair of damage/moving

household a.ood»)

H UD RISK ASSESSOR rmitial pre-

cleanmg MRF and wipe s&mpJe inspection -

doe& not indyje poj( cleaning, 6-mcirtth,

and 12-month sampling)

TOTAL COST PER HOUSE

^ 7^WM:^^x^emm $S 13.000.00

$ 3500

5 13,03500

S 9, ID 001 71000

J 9.811.00

$ 463 00

$ 1.51200

$ 1,480.00

S 16,323.00

•WWPWW*:rv^pLEAWNG^

$ 13,00000

S 55.00

$ 13,035.00

$ 1.83800

S 71000S 4,5-18.00

S 24000

$

S 1.480.00

S 19,303.00

P-SPR^G •#,il CtEANTNC,

S

S 3i200

t 332.00

S 8^2 00

S$ RJ200

S

$

S

S 1,164.00

1 USAGE Ovtraiglu tvu roi iiMjIvidailly Intckcd Ho*«ver. avcuga ootti lo jrrangc for clcuiiu , inovc finiillci out,cvjluulc ruidmce for pre jnd post cardilioni, compcnulc Tor fbraiturc, repljcenwiil ofcjupel ind ovenTiglncjloul«i«d /iitd (bund to bo nau irw «v«ai( '> lf> wial rwidoncct H« COM u> liandle Kplaccmaui coiu TorHUD oloiiied boin&i ii officl by the ootl for idilJlionil awrjljlrt time needed in. awnincrrialk SUM COMfilUnt Ovt(t ||M svii inUindMt 101* iWniinal in all

313

INllM

Scito 1:60.400

Terra Graphics

1-1

Bunker HillSuperfund Site

2000

Figure 1-2

House Dust Lend Exposure by City,

1990 1991 1992 1M4 1996 1997 1998 1999 20CO 200J' Based on vacuum tag Je&4conoefiiratJQfii paired utihchildren pnidpaiins in <tif LHff

PtfUIWl-3

Yard Soil ami HOUM Dwt LMd EipMuro tad Coacutrailmi f*r Smcfttrvlll* lHt-3401

2500

2000

1500

u

!1000

19BB 19B9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Community Wide Soil Mean -o- ChJd Bated Yard Soil Exposure -o- Quid Sued House Putt Expomre

35Ctpf

I *"!

| accoj

if Hi 1QD°I5 saj

oi

rwn:

IT

Figure 4-1. Box Plots of Mat Lead Concentrations by Treatment

FIGURE 4-1* HUD

Pm-

•Sfftremiil?-^hrtoibk

11-mnnlh

ttri- bnanlh U-mmlh

noun i-tk COMMERCIAL

s

^

3SUDC

PftU-

FIOUflE 4-1H. CONTROL

%

2COO

1HXD

-1COO

5DO

D

PH- Pud- E-man1h 12-nunlh

Ii

Pkgur* 4-2. Box Pkiti of Mil Duit LOftding RM» by Treatment

mount utt HUD

rt!

PW1UMI 44k. OOMMIRCIAL

Ij 10001

4^!J'£l^•U'NlwKk

LT

l-«ranin

JC

i zOOO

I 1MX>

J1

CONfHDL

Figure 4-3. Box Plots of Mai Lud Loading Rtte by Ttattntnt

FlMRE<4i.HUD HCUHE W*.

i!3 5.

t

Pl»-

£| *VI3 * *

llPra-

Mali:

n*-*'LL-T^'

T J* Promt

Port'

E-lhnlfli 12-n^iMk

B-twHTh 12-maifli

5

_ H

I!

«i_Psjl-

COHTFHJL

?«=11n "

a

6

-"a

(*^_

FIB- ^nrt- <-moo)l

t-mandh 12-tron*

rVgiirt4-4* Unt Plot of Mat U*d Coitctntratfont

4500

4000

Figure 4-4b. LJn* Plot of Mat Qu«t Loading fttle*

4500

FVC- 13-mortlft

PIgur* 4-46. Lift* MM of MM L«id Loidlng

Pn-Sampling tvtnt

FIOUHE44I. HUD

4-5, Hoi Plots of Vacuum Lead Concentrations by Treatment

F1DUNE 4£b. COUIEHEML

S. 2SOO_A

aoco

ICED

*»»

P*a- llmwlh

2&X

• 1OOOE

aoo Swxffl

Fra. PoO- 0-nwttt

Hrto:OiLjiud

ybPtK4(nili

s

1 aoco

1OCD

Pra- PMI-

300O

i ^. ECOO

GOO

o

Pwl- ll^iwrth

Fl()ur* 4-8. Una Plot off Vacuum Lead Concentration*

4000

S5M

3COO

HOC

2000

35oTl 1500

1DQD

900

HUUOComntcrcijlSprtag A

1010 1MO 1001 1002 1003 1M4 Ittft 1M6 1007 1006 1000

Sampling Erent

rnontfi

Figure 4-7. Box Plots or fiRM Uvlnj R«m Ltad Concentration* by TrwOnenl

FKURl *-Tb.

scoc

IfIIJj. Jj Qjc-i ~

PttUREUi. HUD.:i _:.I:N. .M—

SSX3O

^£ 1*31 Jti

•= 1«W

% BODa

Pi*. Pad-

Ouffivi

ITIT,

a|

Jle g

?|*iu

Pra-

PlCUrU4<T<l.

Pre-

*"

Figure 4*8. Bex Plot* at PRM Living Room DuM Lxtfldlng by Traitrrwnl

4-b.MUO

B 4— Owliff*

unsr1""1*•MJ'i^viiJii

TlfflBR

1"

«•i -

E

i

IUU

3B EE «o

•CIA I.

11

RQUNE VM

figure *-9. Box Pl»1* of BRM Living Room Lend Loading by Trcntment

J..

a ^ .|j **I •B *C B5- cj n

s3 !D

«. HUB

Pm- Port- «-— jnlh U-iruiHi

! "iCC f +*jIt "I13 "!

=L.

hW»:

!i

C B

it 10D

P(.*i. Month

Dulua

•K"P«tT*ifc

12-nwrih

••WMM

nCUK 44 4L CWTPKJLWWVWV4- —AVIVAW '.'.V.V..'._ , 'nflinn • %fch-^-.v.v\./^uv*..,"A m-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' \' f.. Jf,_. MFA-.'.." *VA

I s «i(1 H•* ? HII -ISJ :

P>». G-muJh

Figure 4-1 Da. Lin* Plot of Uving Room BRM LM<J Concentration*

2000

1000

200

PtMl- 6-montn 12-monln

Figure 44Qb. Line Plot of Living Room BRM Dust Loadings.

120HUDOCommercitl

Post- 6-morth 12'mnnlh

4-10o, Lint Wot of LMng Room BUM Lrad Loading*

70 —

BO

HilDO

CommercialSpring A

30

Pre- POfll- B-fllftflttl

Stmplkig Ev»m12-nwmti

|1

U

i

9O0D

20OO

4400

asoo

£1 1

z 8 1000

Flgur»4-11, Box Plots of BRM Child's Bedroom Lwd CwiwnirWlon by Treatment

FlSURE 4-1U. HUO FIGURE 4-Hh COMMERCIAL

P»6- Pwi-

FIDURE4-11C-S

1CSSf* Ptiocttilt

IT

1 1.T..*'!|.

12-mpnft

D 5 ZDDO

Fr«-

FlOuM '-ltd.

•4OOQ

_ 3GCC

C

1OO°

Pr*- Pud-

••• M

ilii

0<[Twnh IZ-imrth

Box FleO of BRM ChlKT* Bgdroom Ooft tocdlnQ by Trfctimnt

«-«»*> >i

!

1 10

Pr«- Ml*

, < - \

$

FIDUNf 4-114 CDMTKOL

a

t -

i

O r--^

i *ij -* f -wi

7 V

• 10

* 0

V

1 '

;?y: pn ;:,H .T^J;^ • • •

Pf^k rDt l pontfi 1 • ' nwy lit

JI

31*

f?

Figure 4-13. Box Plata of BRM Child'fl BidroDm Lead Loading by Treatment

*. HUD

•D.

3- "g E£ & 3i

v aJX EII -

1 u 3 10E- 1• «l

•

m „ 4.PtE- Pnit- S-tnontti li-imnin

40

g E

it -«i"si 1.

a

' 11|n l|q.m

n

?i I'-*•• n >

II I. v.-^ LV— I

Pfe PHI- *-n»rth 1««ignlh

FIGURE 4-1V.

a

J" n

PHI-

U- ...

V.--

rfcb:UuAcn

25

Flgutt *-14*. Unt Plot of Btdroom BRU L»»d Conc«ntnttlon»

3000

2500

BUD*CommercialSpring 4Contra!

12-monlh

Figure 4-14b. Llrre Plot of Bedroom BRM Dust

Pia- Pasl- 12-iPOfiWi

Figure 4-14c. Unt Rot of EfooVoom BRM L«ad Lcudfng*

fauocCommercialSpringControl*

d-mon(h 12-mo nth

Figure 4-15. Box Plots of BHM Kildien Lud Co<ic4iTtr4iion by TrulminL

FIGURE -».tl» HUD

" " ~ 3 « »mul

» acoo

^ 1 1SX3

U|B nrt»

i E• D

o

if™0S|.

fi s

Ij ~

D

s

riu: •

A7. . *-

nL?,';

^ ii3 n —Ftfr r^Dl* f HIMtUl IZ'IIMwl

BOU«t,«. Q

, i1 . i 1Prt« rOtfl* BxTKrtri 1 J'ffiWffi

.jjfcpta, _|.

PM»- 12-mpfit*

•nm

Xltchtn

LM

ditatfM

bnsA

fl)

e a

ED

a B

'

™u

0

i:IV!

' ^'•-"•

7 !5^.

Pt»-

•i-r ~~?""

Put- bnxilh 1Z-nn(dh

•

5 TO

O

]

1Cu.

Flgur* 4.1«. BOM Plata o* ffWI KHc*)*n Duel Losing by Trwlmtnl

HUD

FI««E«-1feL WNINCJ

I

!

I00

m

liI

COMMUC1AL

R9UHE *1M. CCDfTWDL

E is

uIs

Flgura 4.17. Box Plcrt* ofBRM Kltchin L«d Loading by Twttmtnt

flCUNE 4-1TJ. HUD RDUIE i-lfe, CGUItfNeiAL

Pr?-

75*Pa«t«ilc

12-TTDfTttl

Pwi- 12-rtttilli

f

Hm-

i

E

Coil- fl-mwQl 12-moriTi

. CDHTMM.

Pre-

P*»ur« 4-IJi. Una Hot of Quit Wlp* LMd Lo*dn0* for ••droom Window

eoooo

70000

tfxHUDRA

Rgura 4-18h Uns Plot of Duit Yttpm Uwd Loading* for Bedroom Window &llla

3DDD

200C

1500

BUDQ

CammcrcialB

1000

12-montn

Flgurt 4*19i. Lin* Plot of Dutt Wlp* Utd Lotding* for Living doom Window Mtalla

45000

4000Q

asooo

1

12-monft

Figure 4-1 flb. Line Pint Of Dutt Wlpa L**t Loadings lor Living Roam Window 3Mft

4WQ

4000

Pr*-Km. ««d HW leprtHiM hdnw tstrit«bC lh* HLDF7A

I pdnl, Eront

IIII

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

The Appendices, as well as the final report, are included on theendoaed CDROM attached to the back cover,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 30

1200 SIXTH AVENUESEATTLE. WA 98101

TARGET SHEET

Tbc foJJotMn? document wa» not imaged.This is due (o the Original being:

Oversized

X CD Rom

Computer Disk

Video Tape

Other:

**A copy of the document may be requested from the Superfimd Records Center.

* Document Information*

Document ID #: 1154443

File#: 10.2.8 VOL 4

Site Name: BHSF

BUNKER HILL HOUSE DUST PILOT FINALREMEDIAL EFFECTIVENESS REPORT