Re: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0001 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program
Maplewood Township, NJ, enacted a municipal ordinance in 1996 to control
dust from exterior house painting in order to prevent childhood lead poisoning.
(attached) The ordinance has been very successful in achieving its goal. I am
pleased that the Federal EPA is now proposing these rules and of course they are
much more comprehensive than we could accomplish on a local level.
I would like to comment on section D Renovation activities, paragraph 2b
Containing the work area and iii Prohibited activities.
Most house painters now use power equipment to remove exterior lead base
paint as part of surface preparation for repainting. These shavers, grinders and
sanders can generate a large amount of dust and chips. It is impossible that there
will be "no visible dust" as required in 2b. However, if a HEPA vacuum syatem is
used that produces a large airflow, this dust can be greatly minimized. I would
propse that the rules state:
"If power equipment is used to shave, grind or sand exterior lead base paint,
then a HEPA vacuum system that generates an airflow of at least 180 cubic feet
per minute is required. The length of the hose between the work attahment and
the HEPA vacuum shall not exceed fifty feet. Y connectors that allow for two or
more work attachments shall not be permitted. Hose connections shall be tight
and vacuum equipment shall be kept in good working order. HEPA vacuum
systems shall have a disposable bag collector to minimize dust exposure when
the vacuum is emptied."
I base these comments on the ten years of experience with controlling dust
from exterior house painting in Maplewood Township and our local health
department working with many contractors. Reduction of dust protects both
residents and workers. HEPA vacuum equipment that produces an airflow of more
than 180 cubic feet per minute is readily available and cost about $1,200. Smaller
sized vacuums do not adequately capture dust. An exception for using a smaller
sized vacuum could be made if the area sanded is small and the hose is short, but
for large sized areas the larger units are needed.
When these large units are used properly there is still some small amount of
visible dust, but the health hazard is reduced to a minimal level. If the regulations
are so stringent, i.e "no visible dust", that exterior house paint can not be removed
by house painting workers, then people will opt to not do any painting and the
exterior lead paint will continue to chip and produce lead hazards and poison
children.
It should be noted that almost every house that has exterior lead paint has
lead contaminated soil near the house. Thus in post work sampling, the lead in
soil found is not just from the most recent house painting work, but is dust that
has been in the soil possibly for decades.
Attachments:
Comment attachment submitted by Robert D. Roe, Health Officer, Maplewood Health Department
Title: Comment attachment submitted by Robert D. Roe, Health Officer, Maplewood Health Department
Comment submitted by Robert D. Roe, Health Officer, Maplewood Health Department
This is comment on Proposed Rule
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
View Comment
Attachments:
Comment attachment submitted by Robert D. Roe, Health Officer, Maplewood Health Department
Title:
Comment attachment submitted by Robert D. Roe, Health Officer, Maplewood Health Department
Related Comments
View AllPublic Submission Posted: 01/11/2006 ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0276
May 25,2006 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 01/11/2006 ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0277
May 25,2006 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 01/20/2006 ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0280
May 25,2006 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 01/20/2006 ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0281
May 25,2006 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 01/24/2006 ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0283
May 25,2006 11:59 PM ET