Jump to content

Consuting under the LRRP rule


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...