Consuting under the LRRP rule

[Tom Raymond]

I am lead hazard certified for my day job. Today I had one of my regular contractor customers in the store. Most of the time he builds new homes, but between houses he fills his schedule with small remodel projects. He has asked if I, either through my company or my employer, would be interested in performing the testing and documantation required under the LRRP rule as a consultant/contractor.

My questions are:

1. Is anyone else doing lead consulting, and if so is it lucrative enough to justify the additional liability exposure?

2. Should I get the dust sampling certificate before I proceed to offer such a service?

3. Would providing testing materials and on site training to noncertified workers constitute "working on" the building, or create any other potential conflicts with the HI licensing law?

4. Within the LRRP ruling, under 'potentially affected categories and entities', Building Inspection Services are listed (NAICS code 541350). Is anyone familiar enough with the North American Industrial Classification System codes to know if that means us? Should all HI's be lead hazard certified?

One would think that the EPA would be the best source of information regarding this rule, but I can tell you from experience that they have no idea what any of the language in this rule actually means. Anyone at the EPA with a pay grade low enough to have to answer the phone isn't qualified to answer your questions.

Tom

[David Meiland]

Is he trying to avoid having a trained/certified worker on the jobsite? From what I have read, there has to be a trained/certified worker supervising the job, and also training others who work on the job how to follow the rules, and then maintaining all the documentation. Is he suggesting that you would be that person?

The strategy I will probably try is testing/abatement. A consultant with XRF equipment identifies LBP components, if any, and a separate abatement contractor removes them completely. Actual remodeling work following that does not need to be per RRP work practice.

[Tom Raymond]

Yes he wants to contract me to: perform the verification testing, be the certified renovator/supervisor (BTW, not required to be onsite for the whole job), provide the noncertified worker training, verify clean up, and manage the documentation. That's the easy part. My concerns are regarding the liability imposed on every trade as a result of this rule; the protocols suck and will not result in a clean job site while the reporting and documentation requirements forever tie your name to all the lead in the building.

I like your idea better, but unless there is municipal funding involved there will be no abatement work around here.

Tom

[David Meiland]

while the reporting and documentation requirements forever tie your name to all the lead in the building.

That's why I don't want to do RRP, I want to test/abate. It's totally unproven at this point, and I have yet to try to find/hire XRP testing, but I bet in a lot of cases abatement will end up being cheaper or on par with RRP work procedures.

[Tom Raymond]

I just googled the NAICS number referenced in the EPA rule and #4 in my OP. Home Inspectors are indeed affected by this rule.

The NAICS listing: http://www.naics.com/censusfiles/ND541350.HTM#N541350

The EPA Rule: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/LRRP%20Opt ... -04-22.pdf

See page 4 for the specific reference to Home Inspectors.

Tom