This stay does not apply to the federal regulation and limits on lead, however, General Certificates of Conformity (GCC) are not required on children’s products other than painted surfaces and children’s jewelry.  This means that businesses are still required to ensure that their children’s products do not contain any levels of lead above the regulated limit of 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) for all children’s products and 90 PPM for painted surfaces.

Children’s metal jewelry and painted surfaces need to be tested by third-party independent laboratories that utilize specific “destructive” testing methodologies such as ASTM-F963.  Businesses selling children’s products need to ensure that their products to not contain lead and other metals passed certain limit standards set with the CPSIA, but they do not need to have their children’s products certified and tested by third-party laboratories until December 31st, 2011, except for painted products and children’s jewelry.

Businesses big and small now have an additional ten months to begin certification testing which can be very expensive.  Certification testing was set to begin February 11th 2011 and each test can cost potentially hundreds of dollars.

X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing is one such way for businesses to test children’s products to determine if those products contain lead or other potentially regulated heavy metals and limit testing expenses.  XRF analyzers are a non-destructive, often hand-held device that uses X-rays and spectral analysis for positive identification of elements.  Testing costs are typically between $3 and $10 per test.

Essco Safety Check is helping manufactures, importers, retailers, charities and other businesses with helping to identify if lead or other regulated metals are present in consumer products and other items.

Know what is in your environment!

Share

Items found to contain heavy metals

Found in some of the consumer products that were tested was lead, cadmium, antimony and other heavy metals.  The biggest offenders were purses, jewelry and ceramics, of which several of the items could be considered children’s products.  Children’s products are subject to regulations regarding the amount of lead that is permitted in the item.  The legal limit in total content that is permitted in a children’s products is 300 parts per million (PPM), unless it is a painted item, and, that amount of lead permitted is only 90 PPM. 

Essco Safety Check does not know who donated the items, when they were donated, if the items were purchased brand new and then brought immediately to the charity or if these items were purchased ten years ago and now just being donated.  Essco Safety Check has attempted to contact each manufacturer or importer of the items with information that was found about each product.  Of the findings, the readings are from X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers which determine if the heavy metal is present and how much is present in total content.
 
Several name brand items were found to contain lead in including;

Several other purses were found to contain 1000s of PPM of lead, as well as a ceramic mug which appears to have lead in the glaze or ceramic at about 8400 PPM of lead which is 28 times over the legal limit for lead in a children’s product, this ceramic looked designed for a child.

Another example, one brand of jewelry tested appears to contain high quantities of lead in the metal.  In several pins, which according to the company’s compliance officer is not considered a child’s product, was last manufactured in 2005.  Since these products were manufactured before the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was enacted, the law establishing limits of lead in children’s products, this product and other products are not subject to the regulations.  This creates a potential problem because these items are grandfather in.  This jewelry was found to contain lead in the metal ranging from 21.96% to 47.39% and antimony from 8084 PPM to 1.43%.  These are unacceptable amounts.  Even though the compliance officer said the pins were not designed or marketed to children, some people may think otherwise because of the packaging and design. In another piece of jewelry from the same distributor (again packaging appears to target children) was found with 4.69% of lead.

The pin found with 47.39% lead contains 1580 times the legal limit.

These results pose several questions:

1.  What are charities or thrift stores suppose to do to ensure the safety of the products that they donate or sell?  How do we let the public know that these products are not regulated the same as new products?
2.  How is the CPSC going to protect children from potentially harmful items if regulations are only applied to new purchases, yet some newly donated items, are in-fact several years old and thus grandfathered in the regulations?
3.  Why do we have different regulations for different products?  Children’s products, medical devices, ceramics, all have different regulations regarding heavy metals, unless they are designed and marketed to children. 

In discussions with the product manufacturers and importers Essco Safety Check found out that several of the products tested were in-fact several years old and no longer being manufactured.  These products appeared to look new and be in their original packaging.  All companies that Essco Safety Check spoke to were looking into these issues.

Just because there is something potentially harmful in your environment does not mean that it will harm you, however, if you know what is in your environment you can mitigate harm.

Share

In similar testing, Essco Safety Check has also found heavy metals in tile and wallpaper.  On July 13, 2010 Essco Safety Check posted a blog entitled “Warning to homeowners, renovators, and contractors: beware of lead and other heavy metals in tile.”  The State of Washington Department of Commerce Lead Lines Volume 3, Issue 1 October 2010 published (on page 3) Essco Safety Checks findings on tile and our recommendations to contractors and homeowners.

There are currently no federal standards for lead, cadmium or phthalates in home improvement products, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).  Yet there are regulations for lead in children’s products, currently with a total content limit of 300ppm and 90ppm for painted surfaces. 

As long as the tile is not disturbed, or children are directly “licking” the surface of the tile, there should be no direct harm.  However, if the tile is disturbed or children have direct hand-to-mouth or direct mouth contact, there is a potential for harm.

There are new federal regulations regarding lead found in properties older than 1978.  The renovation, repair and painting rule (RRP) went into effect to address lead dust hazards created during renovation of properties older than 1978, this rule only applies to painted surfaces.  Tile, flooring and wallpaper are not considered painted surfaces, but each can potentially possess harmful heavy metals of chemicals.

Healthystuff.org found that more than half of the wallpaper tested contained one or more hazardous chemicals and that 1 in 8 contained cadmium above 100ppm.  Of the vinyl flooring testing, 15% contained one or more hazardous chemicals compared to 8% for non-vinyl flooring.  Healthstuff.org found that linoleum, cork, bamboo and hardwood floorings all tested negative for lead and cadmium.

Lead found in the left tile, cadmium found in the right tile

In similar testing, Essco Safety Check has found tile to contain lead with a total content limit of over 2.4%, testing was done using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer. 

Share

Children playing in a bounce house

In August of 2010, a lawsuit was filed by the office of Attorney General Jerry Brown of California claiming that unsafe levels of lead were being found in bounce houses.  The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) in Oakland, California initiated the suit.  The CEH found levels of lead in the vinyl up to 2.9% or 29,000 parts per million (PPM).  The federal limit for lead in a children’s product is 90 PPM for painted surfaces or 300 PPM for non-painted surfaces.

Recently my company, Essco Safety Check, preformed X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing of vinyl samples of materials that bounce houses are made of, and like CEH, we found lead, however we also found fairly high levels of arsenic and antimony.  The lead levels were found with a high of approximately 11,000 PPM but overall percentages of lead found were lower than that of antimony and arsenic. Lead was found to contain more than 500 PPM in 16.2% of the samples, however, 500 PPM of arsenic was found in 24.3% of the samples and 500 PPM of antimony was found in 86.5% of the samples.

Here are some general numbers of the samples we tested.

Antimony found with more than 1000 PPM in 86.5% of the samples tested
Arsenic found with more than 1000 PPM in 21.6% of the samples tested
Lead found with more than 1000 PPM in 8.1% of the samples tested
Antimony found with more than 5000 PPM in 35.1% of the samples tested
Arsenic found with more than 5000 PPM in 13.5% of the samples tested
Lead found with more than 5000 PPM in 2.7% of the samples tested

I’m not exactly sure why arsenic would be found in the vinyl materials of bounce houses, potentially as a stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) production, however, antimony is potentially used as a fire retardant. 

The CPSC is currently attempting to decide what exactly is the definition of a children’s product, I’m not sure that a bounce home a children’s product.  I’m not even sure that the CPSC knows this answer.  In discussions with several people in the “know” about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), they are not sure if this is a child’s product.

However, in the vinyl materials that were tested, lead, arsenic and antimony were found.  Now I want to stress that all testing done was with an XRF analyzer which tests for total content.  Lead is the only element that has a total content standard within the CPSIA, antimony and arsenic (among other elements) have voluntary soluble standards according to ASTM F963.  The results shown are NOT a soluble reading, but total content. 

Now just because the samples we tested were found to contain lead, antimony and arsenic does not mean that all bounce houses have these elements.  However, the material PVC is known for its ability to leach heavy metals.  All the samples tested were made of PVC. 

In producing PVC a lot of Chlorine (Cl) is used (some estimates say that 40% of the worlds chlorine is used to make PVC) and of course there is Hydrogen (H).  If H & Cl combine, they form Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), to prevent this the PVC manufactures add stabilizers, sometimes they use heavy metals such as lead, or maybe in this case arsenic. 

In a study that Essco Safety Check did with a few local laboratories in 2008 & 2009 lead was detected in PVC material and subjected to a variety of conditions of heat.  Lead was found to accumulate on the surface and leach from the PVC material, the more heat, the more leaching.  I wonder if this could be happening in these materials.

We know that exposure to lead can cause a variety of mental and physical conditions including; learning disabilities, behavioral problems, seizures, coma and even death.

Bounce house

Picture the beautiful summer evening at your towns 4th of July celebration, its 90 degrees and you’re having fun.  Your children want to go play in the bounce houses, children love these activities.  You say go play, have fun, don’t hurt yourself.  Little did you know that the act of playing in these houses could be potentially harmful to your child, all because of what they are made of.

Knowing what is in your environment is important, especially to children and pregnant women. 

Know what’s in your environment and mitigate harm!

Share

As a business owner of an environmental testing and software company, Essco Safety Check, who has been helping parents and businesses “know what is in their environment” since 2007, I have a unique perspective on this situation.  We have performed testing services for moms and dads who are very curious and care about what is in their child’s environment.  We have helped businesses that manufacture and sell their products, know what their products are made with.  We understand the retailer and what concerns them, their customer and the bottom line.  We have helped small business owners trying to sell quality handmade products, or the mom and pop crafter making baby products, trying to supplement their income.  We’ve been involved with children’s advisory safety councils with Washington State, as well as, discussions with the CPSC, EPA and FDA about a variety of environmental issues. 

With all of this insight I wanted to propose a common sense approach to the CPSIA; the definition of children’s products and how to solve this issue, reducing testing expenses, insuring safety, save businesses billions of dollars (also see), while creating jobs and improving lives.

Why do we have so many different regulations for so call “consumer products”?  Why does a child’s product have a different regulation and testing requirements than medical products, ceramics, and personal care items?  Do you know that medical devices, which are not considered consumer products, don’t have to be tested lead?  This includes toothbrushes, dental floss, bulb syringes and surgical tubing.  Do you know that ceramics in the kitchen can contain lead and cadmium and that they are regulated differently than toys? 

Currently, the definition of a “children’s product” as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is, a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.

Are these children's products?

Is a football a child’s product?  What about model trains?  What about Halloween costumes?  What about tooth brushes?  What about bounce homes?  What about ceramics that children eat off of? Do you see where I’m going with this?  There would be a lot of specifics to make this definition accurate.  Is a science kit, which is intended for learning, a child’s product?  If so, then the paperclip in this product needs to be tested for lead, but if a teacher walks into an office supply store and buys paperclips in a box, those don’t need to be tested.   If a lamp has childish embellishments on it, it needs to be tested for lead, but that same lamp without the embellishments doesn’t need to be tested.

Please read and article by Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press and an article by Andrew Martin of the New York Times

Children have access to most, if not all, products in the home that are not considered children’s products, other consumer products and non-consumer products.  Wouldn’t it be easier, more prudent, and to the benefit of everyone’s health if we just said, “we don’t want lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other potentially harmful heavy metals and chemicals in products other than…”?  Is it possible that the constant exposure of these heavy metals is contributing to our decline in academics (math, science and English scores) or to disorders such as autism and ADHD? 

Don’t get me wrong, there are some beneficial usages for lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, but not in toys or other children’s products, or ceramics a child drinks out of or eats off of.   What about a pregnant woman, do we want them to have access and exposure to harmful heavy metals?   I think that all people should want to limit their toxic exposure from these potentially harmful elements we find in our homes or at work.   Why do we find lead in toys, ceramics and jewelry?   We even find lead in protein drinks!  Is it because corporations are trying to save a penny here and a penny there?  Does it make sense that we permit these potentially harmful heavy metals in the consumer products and medical devices used daily by ordinary people, including children and pregnant women?

If we start to think like this, we do not need to define what a children’s product is, and only define what materials or which certain items do not need to be tested for these heavy metals.   If we test products in our environment that we interact with, our children and even our pets interact with, we can reduce potential toxic exposure.  This doesn’t just mean toys!  It should include our schools, daycare centers, what’s in our kitchens, what’s at the hospital and the like.  Wouldn’t you want to live in a home with the least number of potentially harmful items, especially homes with children and pregnant women?

Do you know that the CPSIA requires that all children’s products must be tested by a third party independent accredited laboratory?  These laboratories use a destructive, expensive testing method, typically ICP-MS or AAS to look for lead and other heavy metals.  Typical costs can range from $50 to $300+ per test.  Unfortunately, not all manufactures have to abide by this rule, Mattel applied and was granted the ability to do their own testing in-house (in my opinion, this creates a huge market advantage to them and harms the small business owner).  Other large manufactures/importers have also asked the CPSC to be exempt from having to use a third party independent accredited laboratory and therefore they could control their testing expenses more while be self monitored. 

As far as testing to ensure that products “children’s products” and all other consumer products and non consumer products we interact with don’t have lead we should utilize low cost, accurate, portable technologies to reduce the overall testing expenses. This would create a reasonable testing program for consumer and non-consumer products.

If we started to test all products that citizens use in the home or at work for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals with X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers, a non-destructive, scientifically accurate, low-cost testing system, we could effectively reduce the potential for harm while reducing overall testing costs.  The use of XRF analyzers with appropriate data collection and analysis can become a screening platform to test for heavy metals.  This can help businesses be in compliance with CPSIA regulations, while reducing their testing costs, helping get products to market faster, and putting thousands of people to work, creating small businesses to help other businesses.  Did I mention that if we test all products, we’d reduce our overall toxic exposure?

If a manufacturer has their raw materials or products tested with XRF analyzers and no lead is found, why would you need to do further expensive, destructive testing?  However, if lead or other potentially harmful elements are found, then further testing should occur if the manufacturer wants to use that material in the product they are selling.

If we start to think like this, then we realize that we don’t need to define what a child’s product is, but rather products in general and the materials that they are made of.  I would hope that the surgical tubing a child or pregnant woman uses at a hospital has been tested for lead and other harmful metals and chemicals.  I would hope that the toothbrush a pregnant mom uses is tested as strictly as her child’s toothbrush.  I would hope that coffee cup a child uses for their hot chocolate is tested for heavy metals and that those regulations are as stringent as a children’s product.  I would hope that the soccer field made of field turf is tested for heavy metals and that the levels are below what is for children’s products. 

If we use common sense, reducing the amount of toxic materials in our environment, combined with a low-cost, accurate, screening system, we could reduce testing expenses for businesses, insuring safety, creating jobs and improving lives.

Wouldn’t it be easier to apply one testing standard to the things in our environment, the toys, ceramics, jewelry, housing, paint, pocketbooks, footballs, baby bottles, etc?  Why so many different regulations?  Why do so many companies want to have their products not regulated like a children’s product?  Are they afraid of what may be found in the materials that make up their products?

My version of common sense means that we wouldn’t need to debate what a child’s product actually is, rather, treat all consumer products and like items the same, insuring we don’t have any potentially harmful heavy metals in our homes.  If we decide which materials and what products don’t need to be tested for lead because there is a benefit to the use of lead in that item, we don’t need a definition.  All of this will help to reduce potential toxic exposure to children, pregnant woman and everyone else, don’t forget about the workers making the products, all of this insures safety.  Other benefits include the creation of jobs, businesses helping businesses, the reduction in overall testing costs and improving lives.

What do you think?

Share

The memorandum of June 18th, 2010 did not change requirements that contractors take appropriate steps to keep families and children safe from the dangers of lead poisoning and associated recordkeeping requirements.  The memorandum only extended the time requirements to register and take the required training courses associated with the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.

The EPA has posted training materials at:  www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm.

Renovation Firms have until October 1st, 2010 to be certified with the EPA.  All firms that are not certified by October 1st, 2010, will be subject to penalties for failing to comply with the renovation firm requirements of the RRP rule.

Individual Renovators have until September 30th, 2010 to enroll in a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the final RRP rules.  Individual Renovators have until December 31st, 2010 to complete the required training courses.

Some basic information about the RRP Rule:
Homeowners, apartment owners, government-assisted or public housing, schools and childcare facilities that are older than 1978 that have a contractor disturb a painted surface do to renovation, repair or painting must have the contractor:
 A.  Assume the property contains lead-based paint and follow lead-safe work practices, or
 B.  You or your contractor may also test for lead using a lead test kit.  These kits must be EPA-approved, or
 C.  Hire a certified professional to check for lead-based paint.  These professionals are certified risk assessors or inspectors and can determine if your home has lead or lead hazards.

Essco Safety Check is professional lead-based firm (in Washington State) ready to help contractors, homeowners, childcare facility operators, schools and business with all their RRP lead inspection needs. 

Essco Safety Check has certified lead professionals who will come to your location and provide non-destructive X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing to inspect for lead-based paint.  We will help you save time & money with hassle-free lead inspection services and assist you with all your data storage and EPA testing compliance issues.

Contact Essco Safety Check at http://www.essco-safetycheck.com/services/re.htm for more information or call Seth at 425-749-4136

Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323)

Additional information on EPA RRP compliance can be found here: http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf

Lead-Safe Certified Guide “Renovate Right” can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovaterightbrochure.pdf

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm!

Share

Three years ago I started a business, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (otherwise known as Essco Safety Check) to provide X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing services to moms and dads, to help them know what was in their environment.  XRF analyzers use X-Rays to non-destructively detect heavy metals in virtually anything.  Our handheld XRF analyzers, from Olympus Innov-X, are essentially a hand-held mass spectrometer capable of detecting elements from 15 to 94 on the periodic chart. 

Since 2007, when Essco Safety Check started, we have added testing services that help businesses, industries and government, as well as, developing a sophisticated software platform to collect and analyze environmental data in a cloud-based system.  We have been specifically involved with consumer product testing helping businesses affected by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and contractors, painters, remodelers, home inspector and homeowners affected by the Renovation, Repair & Painting (RRP) Rule, among many other types of XRF testing.

Essco Safety Check has been involved with several national recalls for lead and cadmium and has had many discussions with the CPSC, FDA, EPA, state and local agencies about different environmental issues.  Our testing has found lead and cadmium in toys, ceramics, jewelry, painted surfaces, metal objects, cookware, medical products and more.  We have provided testimony at state hearings, have worked with advocacy groups, provided community testing events and have been on hundreds of job sites.  With all of this experience using XRF analyzers, you would have thought I would have learned never to be surprised what you may find.   Yet, you may be wrong…I may not always be surprised what I find, I may be disgusted.

Recently, Essco Safety Check was contacted to help provide XRF testing of facial creams from Southeast Asia to look for mercury.  My initial concern with this project was that we would not find mercury because levels of mercury would be below our detection capabilities.  The XRF analyzers that we use have detection limitations in the parts per million (PPM) and I suspected that the levels of mercury in the facial creams would be in the parts per billion (PPB).  I was informed that the levels of mercury in some of the suspected facial creams with mercury were greater than one percent. 

1 % = 10,000 (PPM)

After several discussions with the parties involved, samples of six different facial creams (skin whitening creams) were sent to Essco Safety Check’s office.  Testing proceeded and you know what?

I was disgusted. 

In three of the samples that were tested, levels of mercury were detectible, greater than 600 PPM.  Two of the samples were found to contain more than 8,000 PPM and one sample was found to contain over 15,000 PPM or 1.5% mercury.  This is a product that is applied to the face and it has high levels of mercury.

Mercury is banned in skin-bleaching or lightening products, such a product would have words listed on the packaging as “lightening” or “whitening”, if these words are not listed, it is considered a cosmetic.   Eye area cosmetics are permitted to have concentrations of mercury not exceeding 65 PPM if it is used as a preservative, and only if no other preservative is available for use.  All other cosmetics are only permitted trace amounts of mercury, less than 1 PPM.

Essco Safety Check was initially contacted to help determine if certain facial creams had levels of mercury, because people who were using these creams appear to be suffering from mercury poisoning.  Some symptoms of mercury poisoning are; metallic taste, vomiting, difficulty breathing, bad cough, swollen or bleeding gums and if enough mercury is ingested in your blood stream, kidney and brain damage may occur.  Often with modest exposure, there is no oblivious effect.  However, in one extreme recent case in Cambodia a young lady died apparently from a hypersensitive response to mercury in a skin whitener, identified as Bao Dam from Vietnam [1].  The creams Essco Safety Check evaluated were apparently from Vietnam, Thailand and China but they may have been bootlegged and produced anywhere.  Mercury is readily absorbed through the skin in a topical application and mercury can accumulate in the body.

In May of this year, the Chicago Tribune did an investigation of 50 skin-lightening creams by purchasing these facial creams in Chicago stores.  Five of the creams were found to contain amounts mercury greater than 6,000 PPM.   They are:

The FDA did respond to this investigation.

This is just another example of why you would want to know what is in your environment.  XRF testing helps people and businesses know what is in their environment.   We have the potential to help governments with limited regulations learn about product safety and help create regulations that will protect citizens, workers and the environment, while saving time and money.  XRF testing can create jobs and improve people’s lives.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

[1] http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/34119/skin-cream-linked-to-bride-death

Share

Their investigation found lead; in one bounce home that was more than 70 times greater than the legal limit of lead in a child’s product.  They found a lead from a range of 5000 parts per million (PPM) to 29,000 PPM.  The legal limit for lead in children’s products is 90 PPM for painted surfaces and 300 PPM for all other parts of the product.

With all the testing that Essco Safety Check has done, we have tested bounce homes in the past and our findings are very similar to that of CEHs.  The issue with bounce homes is the material that the home is made of.  It is typically made of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and PVC is a substrate that we have found to contain lead more than other typical substrates that children play with.  When PVC is manufactured, a stabilizer is added in production to prevent Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) from forming, unfortunately the manufacturers tend to use lead as a stabilizer.  This stabilizer does not bind well to the PVC molecule and can readily leach from the PVC material.

In some laboratory testing that Essco Safety Check has performed with several accredited laboratories in the Seattle, WA area, we have found that heat can play a factor in to the ability for lead to leach from PVC.  The hotter the temperature that the PVC is exposed to the more likelihood that leaching can occur.  The best thing for children to do after playing in a bounce home is to wash their hands and face, and avoid direct hands to mouth contact while playing in a bounce home.  This is more critical for children under the age of 6, as they are more susceptible to the exposure of lead.

Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause many problems including; learning disabilities, anemia, hypertension, infertility and death among other problems.  Children are more sensitive to lead exposure because of their size (mass) and greater absorption of lead.  It is best to avoid lead exposure as there is no level of lead that is considered safe.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

Share

On April 22, 2010 the EPAs Renovation Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule went into effect to address lead dust hazards created during renovation of properties older than 1978, this rule only applies to painted surfaces.  Tile is not considered a painted surface, but tile can possess lead and other harmful heavy metals.  If tile is disturbed during renovation, dust can be created that can be potentially harmful. 

Renovators and contractors should be advised to use lead safe work practices if they disturb tile, unless they know what the tile is made of. 

Recently I purchased tile from Home Depot and decided to use an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer to look for heavy metals in the tile, I own and operate an environmental testing and software business, Essco Safety Check and am a certified HUD Lead Inspector and Risk Assessor.  Using an XRF analyzer I found lead and cadmium in brand new tiles sold today (June 2010).  One of the tiles showed lead over 3mg/cm2, the regulation limit for lead in paint within the RRP Rule is 1mg/cm2, the other showed cadmium over 600 parts per million, there is no regulation for cadmium in the RRP rule.

Tile found with lead and cadmium

In both cases (in the lead and cadmium tile) I suspect that the heavy metals are in the glaze or the coloring of the tile and not the ceramic.  According to the HUD Guidelines, Chapter 7, Lead-Based Paint is defined as;

Any paint, varnish, shellac, or other coating that contains lead equal to or in excess of 1.0mg/cm2 as measured by an x-ray fluorescence analyzer or laboratory analysis or 0.5 percent by weight by laboratory analysis.

Tile is not considered a painted surface and therefore does not meet the qualifications of lead-based paint, even though it is glazed or painted.

In May 2010 I was contacted by a colleague who is a certified lead inspector, EPA approved renovator and general contractor for 25 years.  While performing an inspection for RRP compliance, he used his XRF analyzer on some floor tile that he was going to replace.  The test results from the XRF analyzer showed lead over 5mg/cm2, he called me to ask what to do? 

My first question was would he disturb the tile during his renovation project, and if so, would dust be created?  He said yes.  I suggested that he use lead safe work practices, but he wanted to know the specifics of the law, so I contacted another colleague from the EPAs Region 10 to ask for help finding the specific regulation with the RRP rule and tile.  She searched on the EPAs website under the RRP FAQs and typed in “tile”, but not one response was found in the frequently asked questions page by the EPA.  What is a contractor suppose to do when they disturb tile?

The approved testing method for the average contractor who is not a lead inspector or risk assessor and who does not have access to an XRF analyzer or inspector with such an instrument is to use approved testing “swab” kits.  These kits will not penetrate tile like a drywall painted wall.  In a sample case with tile I purchased from Home Depot, I used an XRF analyzer on the tile and found lead over the 1.0mg/cm2 but when I tested it with the approved lead “swab” testing kits, no lead was found.  How is this protecting the homeowners, renovators or contractors working on their own renovation projects?  What if there are children that live at this work site?

As I have mentioned, the RRP Rule only applies to homes built before 1978, but I was able to find brand new tiles that have lead and cadmium.  To my knowledge and having several discussions with Washington State Officials and EPA personal, there is currently no regulation regarding heavy metals in tile.  Since tile purchased today can contain heavy metals like lead, it may be found in homes newer than 1978.

Homeowners, renovators and contractors need to be aware that tile purchased today, or tile found in homes (of any age) may contain harmful heavy metals.  If you disturb tile and create dust, you could be creating a potential hazard.  You should make sure you contain and clean up all dust created from disturbing tile.  This is only a cautionary warning; there is no regulatory authority behind this.  I wish only to share knowledge that I have obtained by operating my environmental testing and software business, Essco Safety Check.

Additionally, business owners and workers who disturb tile for installation in properties (i.e. bathroom and shower installation companies) should be aware of this and take precautions when doing preparation work and properly contain and cleanup any dust created.  Don’t forget to consider all OSHA regulations, if any lead is found on the property; during a renovation, remodeling or painting of any property.

I would advise using lead-safe work practices if you disturb tile and create any dust.  Or have your local certified lead inspector or risk assessor use their XRF analyzer to check if the tile you are about to disturb has any harmful heavy metals. 

Contact Bob Angeline Lead-Based Paint Assistant Manager at the Washington State Department of Commerce, at 360-725-2929 for questions about the RRP rule in Washington State or contact Seth Goldberg, Essco Safety Check at 425-749-4136 or info@essco-safetycheck.com if you have any questions or comments about this article.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

Share

Three out of the fifteen drinks tested were found to contain levels of heavy metals above the USP limits for lead, cadmium or arsenic.  These drinks are commonly used by athletes, baby boomers, pregnant women and teenagers.  The proposed limits set by the USP for lead are 10 micrograms per day; the proposed limit for cadmium is 5 micrograms per day; the proposed limit for arsenic is 15 micrograms per day.

One drink was found to contain 16.9 micrograms of arsenic and 5.1 micrograms of cadmium.  Another drink was found to contain all three metals with 13.5 micrograms of lead, 5.6 micrograms of cadmium and 12.2 micrograms of arsenic.  And a third drink was found to contain 12.2 micrograms of lead and 11.2 micrograms of arsenic.  All findings are based on three servings per day and all samples were either purchased in the New York metro area or online.

It appears that the federal government is not protecting the consumer and better regulation or oversight of “consumer products” such as protein shakes, toothbrushes, or baby spoons should be common sense and is needed.  But lack of regulations has cause states to write their own, more strict regulations.  According to this study by Consumer Reports, eight of the fifteen drinks would be required by Proposition 65 (California Law) to have manufacturers notify consumers because of lead content.

This investigation was prompted by Dr. Kathy Burns, a Boston-area Toxicologist and founder of Sciencecorps and Judy Braiman of Empire State Consumer Project.   

To view the report from Consumer Reports, please visit.  To view the press release from Consumer Reports, please visit.

This is just another “consumer product” that is not a consumer product and Essco Safety Check is working to help people and businesses know what is in their environment and mitigate potential harm.

Share