Hazard Identification and Risk Determination
Two different questions
Hazard identification asks whether a condition meets a defined hazard standard. Risk determination asks what that means for these occupants. Keep the two steps separate: a dust result above the standard identifies a hazard; whether it is a priority depends on who is exposed and how.
Applying the standards
Compare each result to the governing standard set. Dust-lead hazard standards apply to floors, interior sills, and window troughs - each surface has its own value, so never compare a sill result to a floor standard. Bare soil has play-area and non-play-area values. Paint is a hazard when it is LBP and deteriorated (or when it is on a friction, impact, or chewable surface and deteriorating). Water is compared to the applicable drinking-water lead action level. Confirm which standard set applies to the program (risk assessment hazard standards versus post-abatement clearance criteria) before writing conclusions.
Evaluating exposure pathways
Ask three questions for each identified hazard: is there a route (dust on a floor a child crawls on; soil in a bare play area; paint chips within reach of a child with pica)? is there a receptor (a child under 6, a pregnant occupant)? and is there meaningful frequency/duration of contact? A deteriorated component in an unoccupied, sealed area is a lower priority than intact paint on a window a child operates daily.
Ranking
Rank by severity and likelihood: deteriorated LBP plus elevated dust in a child's bedroom outranks a soil reading slightly elevated in an area with no bare-soil access. Write the ranking rationale explicitly and tie each hazard to a recommendation.
Trap to avoid
Avoid comparing a clearance result to a hazard standard, or treating a single elevated wipe as property-wide contamination. Also avoid asserting a hazard exists based on presence of LBP alone without deterioration or a pathway. Rule of thumb: standard exceeded + pathway + susceptible receptor = priority hazard.