Dixon Sherry L, Wilson Jonathan W, Succop Paul A, Chen Mei, Galke Warren A, Menrath William, Clark C Scott
The National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, Maryland 21044, USA.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2004 Nov;1(11):716-24. doi: 10.1080/15459620490520792.
At the conclusion of most lead hazard control interventions in federally assisted housing built before 1978, a certified clearance examiner must verify that the lead hazard control work was completed as specified and that the area is safe for residents, a process referred to as clearance. This study explores the experience of 14 grantees participating in the Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program in passing clearance. The study also considers how preintervention lead levels (interior dust and paint), building condition/characteristics, and the scope of work influenced initial clearance dust lead loadings and clearance rates. At the initial clearance inspection, 80% of the 2682 dwellings achieved grantee-specific clearance standards on windowsills, window troughs (500 microg/ft2 and 800 microg/ft2, respectively), and floors (80, 100, or 200 microg/ft2 depending on state/local regulations at the dates of clearance in the mid-1990s), with individual grantee success rates ranging from 63 to 100%. Dwellings that failed initial clearance required an average of 1.13 retests to clear. The high level of success at clearance demonstrates that following methods for work site containment, lead hazard control, and cleaning similar to those recommended in the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint in Housing is effective. The most common lead hazard control intervention was window abatement accompanied by the repair or abatement of all other deteriorated lead-based paint (56% of dwellings). An additional 5% of dwellings were fully abated, 29% had lower intensity interventions. Interventions including window replacement are recommended to reduce dust lead loading on windowsills and troughs at clearance, but lower level interventions such as full paint stabilization are just as good at reducing floor dust lead loadings. Whatever lead hazard control activities are selected, the condition of the surfaces of interest should be in good condition at clearance.
在1978年以前建造的联邦援助住房中,大多数铅危害控制干预措施结束时,必须有一名经认证的清场检查员核实铅危害控制工作是否按规定完成,以及该区域对居民来说是否安全,这一过程称为清场。本研究探讨了14个受资助者参与住房和城市发展部(HUD)含铅油漆危害控制资助项目评估时通过清场的经历。该研究还考虑了干预前的铅含量水平(室内灰尘和油漆)、建筑状况/特征以及工作范围如何影响初始清场时灰尘中的铅含量和清场率。在初始清场检查中,2682套住宅中有80%在窗台、窗槽(分别为500微克/平方英尺和800微克/平方英尺)以及地板(根据20世纪90年代中期清场时的州/地方法规,分别为80、100或200微克/平方英尺)方面达到了受资助者特定的清场标准,各个受资助者的成功率在63%至100%之间。初始清场未通过的住宅平均需要1.13次重新检测才能通过。清场时的高成功率表明,遵循类似于HUD《住房含铅油漆评估与控制指南》中推荐的工作场所围堵、铅危害控制和清洁方法是有效的。最常见的铅危害控制干预措施是窗户消减,同时对所有其他劣化的含铅油漆进行修复或消减(占住宅的56%)。另外5%的住宅进行了全面消减,29%的住宅采取了强度较低的干预措施。建议采用包括更换窗户在内的干预措施,以减少清场时窗台和窗槽上的灰尘铅含量,但诸如全面油漆稳定化等较低强度的干预措施在减少地板灰尘铅含量方面同样有效。无论选择何种铅危害控制活动,在清场时,相关表面的状况都应良好。