model risk assessment steve m smith (616) 240-3926 [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
MODEL MODEL RISK ASSESSMENTRISK ASSESSMENT
STEVE M SMITHSTEVE M SMITH
(616) 240-3926(616) 240-3926
[email protected]@PEOPLEPC.COMCOM
WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WANTS TO KNOWWANTS TO KNOW
• ““Do I have lead in my house?”Do I have lead in my house?”• ““Where is it?”Where is it?”• ““What do I do now?” What do I do now?” oror “How do I get “How do I get
rid of it”rid of it”
• ““How much is this going to cost!!”How much is this going to cost!!”
CONCLUSIONS
2.1 Report Summary – Lead Based Paint hazards were found at this address. The table below describes the location of these hazards. Significant hazard reduction will occur if existing original windows are replaced. Window troughs tested very high for the presence of lead indicating that these painted windows are contributing to lead dust build-up. The kitchen area tested positive for lead hazards primarily in what remains of the kitchen cabinets. Surprisingly, the kitchen floor and window sill did not indicate lead finding above HUD approved thresholds. The kitchen window trough was not tested as the window would not open. Recent renovation activities at this house do not appear to be a major contributing factor to the lead hazards discovered during this Risk Assessment.
2.2 Table of Lead Based Paint Hazards and Recommended Corrective Action
Room / Component Location of Hazard Level ofseverity
Recommendation Cost stimate
Kitchen Cabinet frames and sides
1 Removal of cabinets and replacement with new cabinets since the majority of the cabinets have already been removed
$3500
Windows Exterior windows 1 Replace older windows with exterior peeling paint
$3400
Exterior wood doors Front and side doors 2 Replace these doors with steel pre-hung units, encapsulate trim
$1500
Garage All painted garage siding
2 Encapsulate or vinyl side garage $1750
Bathtub Tub glazing 3 Do not use abrasives – owner refinishing $0
Play areaPlay area SoilSoil 11 Remove soil and replace with new, uncontaminated soil
$600
TOTAL COSTS $10,750
1 – most severe 2 – very severe 3 - somewhat severe
2.3 Positive XRF Readings
No
InspFl
rSid
eRoom Strc Sub Feat Cnd Clr
Result
Pbc Pbcerroerro
rr
20 SMS 1 B Bath Wall Metal Bathtub Intact White POS 5.01 1.9
42 SMS 1 C Kitchen Door Wood Jamb Fair White POS 3.41 1.03
45 SMS 1 D Kitchen Window Wood Stool Fair White POS 2.28 1.11
46 SMS 1 D Kitchen Window Wood Sash Fair White POS 1.72 0.83
47 SMS 1 D Kitchen Cabinet Wood Door Out Fair White POS 2 1.42
49 SMS AOutside 0
Door Wood Door Intact White POS 7.35 2.53
50 SMS AOutside 0
Window Wood Sash Ext Poor White POS 2.29 0.59
52 SMS DOutside 0
Window Wood Sash Ext Poor White POS 5.4 2.09
53 SMS DOutside 0
Door Wood Door Poor White POS 3.44 1.07
56 SMS AOutside 0
Garage Wood Wall Fair White POS 2.7 0.92
57 SMS BOutside 0
Garage Wood Wall Fair White POS 1.14 0.19
2.4 Dust Wipe Sample Results
Sample Number Room Location Component Area Wiped in sq/ft Pb Concentration in ug/sqft
#1 Room 1 – dining room
Window sill 11 3/8 x 3 1800
#2 Room 1 –dining room
Window trough 9 ½ x 4 1/8 3100
#3 Room 1 –dining room
Floor 16 x 16 1150
#4 kitchen Window sill 11 ¼ x 3 190
#5 kitchen Floor 16 x 16 Below reporting limits
#6 Room 2 – living room
Floor 10 ½ x 10 ½ 21
#7 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Window sill 10 ½ x 3 1/8 Below reporting limits
#8 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Window trough 9 5/8 x 4 6600
#9 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Floor 10 x 8 ¼ 2500
HUD reporting limits – floors, 40 ug/ft2, window sills, 250 ug/ft2, window troughs 400 ug/ft2
2.5 Soil Sample Results
Sample Number Location Results in Parts per Million
#13 Side C – drip line 53
#14 Side B – drip line 99
#15 Side A – drip line 97
#16 Side D - drip line 290
#17 Play area 15,000
Note – lead in soil is considered a hazard at 1200 ppm or greater. Play areas for children at 400 ppm.
KEY ELEMENTS OF AKEY ELEMENTS OF A RISK ASSESSMENTRISK ASSESSMENT
WHAT MICHIGAN WHAT MICHIGAN REGULATIONS REQUIREREGULATIONS REQUIRE
KEY ELEMENTSKEY ELEMENTS
• Date of inspectionDate of inspection• AddressAddress• Date of constructionDate of construction• Name, address, and phone # of ownerName, address, and phone # of owner• Name, signature and cert. # of Risk Name, signature and cert. # of Risk
AssessorAssessor• Testing methods, devices and sampling Testing methods, devices and sampling
procedures employed including quality procedures employed including quality control data and if used serial number of control data and if used serial number of XRF XRF
LEAD HAZARD REMEDIATION PROGRAM
LEAD INSPECTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTFOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
1118 N VermontRoyal Oak , MI 48067
Prepared For:
Mr. and Mrs. Marsh1118 N Vermont
Royal Oak, MI 48067(586) 212-8100
Report Prepared and Submitted by:Steve M. Smith
Certified Lead Inspector / Risk Assessor P – 2309
Michigan Department of Community Health
Lead Hazard Remediation Program3423 N Martin Luther King Blvd
PO Box 30195Lansing, MI 48909
(616) 240-3926Date of Inspection:
May 12, 2004
9.12 LaboratoryDust and soil samples were analyzed by State of Michigan Department of Community Health Trace Metals Laboratory located at 3335 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517-335-9490). The Michigan Department of Community Health Environmental Lead Laboratory participates in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) quality control rounds and is approved by the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP).
9.13 Soil SamplingSoil samples, if deemed appropriate by the Risk Assessor, were collected following HUD guidelines from areas of exposed soil located within the boundaries of the property, such as sandbox, play areas, and foundation drip line. Composite samples from the upper 1/ inch of soil were collected and analyzed by State of Michigan Department of Community Health Trace Metals Laboratory. Results are reported in parts of lead per million parts of sampled soil.
APPENDIX DATA
6.0 RE-EVALUATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULE
All painted components require periodic re-evaluation and monitoring. Re-evaluation typically is scheduled on a bi-annual basis but more frequent re-evaluations may be required depending on site conditions. All painted surfaces must remain in good / intact condition. Painted surfaces that are peeling, cracking, blistering or causing dust from friction or impact must be corrected immediately to prevent hazardous exposure to possible lead based paint sources. All repairs must follow HUD Guidelines for the interim control and abatement of lead based paint hazards.
KEY ELEMENTS CON’TKEY ELEMENTS CON’T
• Specific locations of each painted component Specific locations of each painted component tested – typically part of XRFtested – typically part of XRF
• Name, address and phone of each recognized lab Name, address and phone of each recognized lab conducting analysisconducting analysis
• Results of laboratory analysisResults of laboratory analysis• Description of the location, type and severity of Description of the location, type and severity of
identified lead paint hazardsidentified lead paint hazards• Description of abatement or interim control (or Description of abatement or interim control (or
both) of each identified lead based paint hazardboth) of each identified lead based paint hazard• Recommended maintenance and monitoring Recommended maintenance and monitoring
schedules for encapsulants and enclosures if used schedules for encapsulants and enclosures if used to remediate lead hazardsto remediate lead hazards
• Visual inspection resultsVisual inspection results
VISUAL INSPECTION FORMATVISUAL INSPECTION FORMAT1.Paint Condition Form – Selected Surfaces
Building Component
Location Notes Paint Condition (intact, poor, not present)
Deterioration due to friction or impact?
Deterioration due to moisture?
Location of painted component with visible bite marks
Siding Vinyl siding Intact but chalking No No Na
Exterior trim Wrapped in aluminum
Intact No No Na
Exterior windows Need replacing Poor Friction / weathering
Yes Na
Exterior doors Need replacing Poor Impact Yes Na
Railings NA
Porch floors Front porch Poor Friction Yes Na
Other porch surfaces
NA
Interior doors Most have been replaced
Intact No No Na
Ceilings Ok throughout Intact No No Na
2.4 Dust Wipe Sample Results
Sample Number Room Location Component Area Wiped in sq/ft
Pb Concentration in ug/sqft
#1 Room 1 – dining room
Window sill 11 3/8 x 3 Below reporting limits
#2 Room 1 –dining room
Window trough 9 ½ x 4 1/8 3100
#3 Room 1 –dining room
Floor 16 x 16 Below reporting limits
#4 kitchen Window sill 11 ¼ x 3 190
#5 kitchen Floor 16 x 16 Below reporting limits
#6 Room 2 – living room
Floor 10 ½ x 10 ½ 21
#7 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Window sill 10 ½ x 3 1/8 Below reporting limits
#8 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Window trough 9 5/8 x 4 6600
#9 Room 4 – child’s bedroom
Floor 10 x 8 ¼ Below reporting limits
#10 Stairway to second floor
Tread 10 x 10 3/8 120
#11 Room 5 – upstairs bedroom
Window sill 11 x 2 ½ Below reporting limits
#12 Room 5 – upstairs bedroom
Floor 11 x 8 7/8 Below reporting limits
HUD reporting limits – floors, 40 ug/ft2, window sills, 250 ug/ft2, window troughs 400 ug/ft2
2.2 Table of Lead Based Paint Hazards and Recommended Corrective Action
Room / Component
Location of Hazard
Level of Severit
y
Recommendation Cost Estimate
Kitchen Cabinet frames and sides
1 Removal of cabinets and replacement with new cabinets since the majority of the cabinets have already been removed
$3500
Windows Exterior windows
1 Replace older windows with exterior peeling paint
$3400
Exterior wood doors
Front and side doors
2 Replace these doors with steel pre-hung units, encapsulate trim
$1500
Garage All painted garage siding
2 Encapsulate or vinyl side garage $1750
Bathtub Tub glazing 3 Do not use abrasives – owner refinishing
$0
Play areaPlay area SoilSoil 11 Remove soil and replace with new, uncontaminated soil
$600
TOTAL COSTS $10,750
1 – most severe2 – very severe 3 - somewhat severe
CREATE A RISK CREATE A RISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
TEMPLATETEMPLATE• In my template 60% of the In my template 60% of the
information is routine or simple to information is routine or simple to add – i.e. testing methods, add – i.e. testing methods, certifications, background info, re-certifications, background info, re-evaluation schedules, etc.evaluation schedules, etc.
• 40% is new data that is applied 40% is new data that is applied quickly to pre-designed tables quickly to pre-designed tables NOTE: these tables are also used for NOTE: these tables are also used for the field investigationthe field investigation
BOTTOM LINEBOTTOM LINE
• Cost savings – reduces the time Cost savings – reduces the time needed to produce a Risk Assessmentneeded to produce a Risk Assessment
• Consistency of format in terms of Consistency of format in terms of report datareport data
• Easily modified to incorporate future Easily modified to incorporate future rule changesrule changes
• CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ! !CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ! !