Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Model Lead Based Paint Risk Assessor Practice Test

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment

Prepare for the EPA Model Lead Based Paint Risk Assessor Test. Utilize flashcards and multiple-choice questions, each with hints and explanations. Ensure you are ready for your exam!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


What is a pro of on-site paint removal?

  1. It is always cost-effective

  2. Improves aesthetic appeal

  3. Can be less costly than replacing building components

  4. Requires minimal permits

The correct answer is: Can be less costly than replacing building components

On-site paint removal can indeed be less costly than replacing building components, making it an attractive option for managing lead-based paint hazards. When comparing the costs of removing potentially hazardous paint directly from existing structures versus the expense and labor involved in replacing entire components like windows, doors, or siding, the former often presents a more economical solution. This is particularly true in older buildings where replacement materials may be expensive or hard to source. Furthermore, on-site removal allows for targeted intervention, addressing only the areas that contain lead-based paint rather than undertaking a broader and possibly more expensive replacement project. This method can also save time and minimize disruption on the property, as extensive renovation issues might necessitate additional measures like temporary relocations or extensive cleanups. While other options may present benefits, such as improved aesthetics or permitting concerns, they do not specifically align with the cost effectiveness that on-site paint removal offers in this context.