Home > Blogs > James Quarello > Connecticut Home Inspection Blog

Radon Retesting, Hamden, CT

By James Quarello

Home Inspector with JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC HOI 394

August 23, 2007 03:28 AM

I was called recently by the listing agent of a home here in Hamden, Connecticut concerning a radon test result conducted in the home by another home inspector. The agent and his client were concerned the test may have been inaccurate because the home was vacant and had been close up for many weeks.

I informed them that this would not be a factor as the radon levels stabilize after a short period. I also pointed out that in the winter homes are closed up and we still test for radon.

I asked some questions about the method of testing, continuous monitor, placement of device, basement. The location of the device, as I discovered during my interview with the seller, was not placed in accordance with EPA testing procedures.

The test was placed in a partially finished basement hallway on a shelf over six feet above the floor and almost against the wall. There was however a finished room right off the hall with a small table that was ideal for placing the device.

Testing devices must be placed in a living space. Halls, bathrooms, kitchens, laundry and mechanical rooms are not suitable locations. Also the device must be at least one foot away from a wall and three feet away from any window.

The retest was performed in the finished rec-room on the table which was placed in the center of the room. The second test results were lower than the first and would be considered more accurate especially with regard to use of the home.

It is extremely important that when a radon test is done that it be placed in the appropriate location. This should be determined by the test technician and the potential homeowners planned use of the home.

Currently in CT there is an eight hour State training program specifically for home inspectors. Inspectors who complete the program and pass the exam are placed on a state trained and approved testing provider list. The inspectors on this list should be the first choice for a radon testing service provider.

The inspector who performed the first test on this home was not on this list. His lack of training was obvious although it would seem he is conscientious because of his choice of testing device. None the less he is not providing his clients with accurate testing results.

Training is absolutely paramount to conducting radon testing correctly. Be sure when you are recommending home inspectors who perform this service they have the necessary training and credentials to perform the testing correctly for your clients.

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC

Comments(24)

Comment

Show All Comments

Sort:

Joseph Hagarty

Main Line Inspections, Inc. - Parkesburg, PA

What was the comparative difference in the readings?

Aug 28, 2007 12:54 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Joseph,

About 1.5 pCi/L lower than the first test.

Aug 28, 2007 07:56 AM

Joseph Hagarty

Main Line Inspections, Inc. - Parkesburg, PA

Results would appear to be comparatively similar and the difference negligible.

Aug 28, 2007 09:16 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Joseph,

I would completely disagree with your conclusion. First the point of this blog is proper testing methods. The first test, as I described in the blog text, was not done correctly for the reasons cited. That means the test results are null and void.

As far as the difference in numbers being negligible that would be relative to the numbers themselves.

The first result was 4.0 pCi/L & the second 2.5pCi/L, a relative difference of over 30%. Obviously since the first result was at the EPA action level and the second well below, this is also significant.

One of the most important testing aspect that must be considered is proper placement of the device with regard to the home and its planned use by the new owners. Testing protocols were established to provide uniform testing procedures that allow reproducibility of results. If all testing providers conduct testing differently, then reproducibility of results becomes extremely difficult. As a consequence test results will vary as will test accuracy.

Aug 28, 2007 10:52 AM

Joseph Hagarty

Main Line Inspections, Inc. - Parkesburg, PA

James,

I am Licensed to conduct Radon testing in the State of Pennsylvania. I agree with your assessment of CRM's as I also use Sun Nuclear equipment with 6-8 monitors deployed on any given day.

I am well aware of the EPA protocols for Radon testing.

You suggest that the 1st test was not valid based upon information that was given to you by the Homeowner. For myself, I would reserve comment as to the validity of any prior test that was performed solely based upon information given and not visually / physically observed.

I would perform the Radon Test following the protocols applicable to my State License and report the findings in accordance with the reporting requirements of my License.

The result is what it is. A 2 day snapshot in time that can be affected by many environmental and mechanical factors. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

A Long Term Test / Assessment is what would be recommended per my PA State Licensing guidelines with a resultant 4.0 pCi/L result.

Aug 28, 2007 03:43 PM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Joseph,

I obviously observed the location of the first test. I asked where it was located, in order to conduct my own test. The information was not colored by the homeowner as they have no knowledge of testing protocols. If the location had been a correct testing area, I would have placed my device in that same location. Since I saw that the first test location was not within the EPA testing parameters, I placed my device in another proper testing location.

As I said the first test does not conform to proper testing protocols and therefore is null and void. The reading is of no consequence if the test was done incorrectly.

I understand you have to abide by your States laws, but if this test had been performed incorrectly in PA would you be required to perform a long term test based on a bad test result?

In my opinion a bad or improper test should not to be relied on for any determination. The next step should be retesting correctly with no consideration of the first test result.

I would also like to add that I think that the fact that PA has licensing for radon testers is great. CT had sought to do the same, but they would not fund the program. So what we have here are many uneducated test providers.

Aug 29, 2007 03:33 AM

Kenneth Miller

Jordan Hill Home Services, LLC - Berkley, MI

Jim,

Good post. Your blog is a perfect example of why consumers need to check on the qualifications and background of their inspectors, and then verify the claimed experience and training.

Aug 29, 2007 04:26 AM

Erby Crofutt

B4 U Close Home Inspections&Radon Testing (www.b4uclose.com) - Lexington, KY

The Central Kentucky Home Inspector, Lexington KY

An appropriate place to put this language from the EPA given the test results listed above:

The EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html , states:

"The average radon concentration in the indoor air of America's homes is about 1.3 pCi/L. It is upon this level that EPA based its estimate of 20,000 radon-related lung cancers a year upon. It is for this simple reason that EPA recommends that Americans consider fixing their homes when the radon level is between 2 pCi/L and 4 pCi/L. "
"Unfortunately, many Americans presume that because the action level is 4 pCi/L, a radon level of less than 4 pCi/L is ‘safe'. This perception is altogether too common in the residential real estate market. In managing any risk, we should be concerned with the greatest risk. For most Americans, their greatest exposure to radon is in their homes; especially in rooms that are below grade (e.g., basements), rooms that are in contact with the ground and those rooms immediately above them."

The EPA's "Home Buyer's & Seller's Guide to Radon" states

"Radon levels less than 4 pCi/L still pose a risk and, in many cases, may be reduced."
"Short-term tests can be used to decide whether to reduce the home's high radon levels. However, the closer the short-term testing result is to 4 pCi/L, the less certainty there is about whether the home's year-round average is above or below that level. Keep in mind that radon levels below 4 pCi/L still pose some risk and that radon levels can be reduced to 2 pCi/L or below in most homes."

Just something to think about when you're reporting results between 2.0 and 4.0!

You won't find me telling them the home doesn't need radon mitigation becasue the level is only 2.5.

Drives me nuts when I see those improper protocols used. But James, I think you're pushing it when you say halls are prohibited (though I agree they are not an optimal location) and six feet high is bad. Perhaps you should also specify that the one foot from the wall applies to exterior walls. Might want to re-read Page 9 of your link.

There's a lot more to location that that listed.

Personally, I use TV Trays that are about 24 inches high and set my Radalink monitor on it when possible.

Excellent topic for discussion.

Aug 29, 2007 04:52 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Erby,

The EPA action level is, as you know, 4.0. During a real estate transaction this is the only number that matters in the scheme of the sale. A client may decide that a mitigation system is something they would like even with a level below 4.0. The difference is the seller will likely not be asked to pay or credit the buyer for the system.

As far as telling anyone the home does or does not need a system I educate them on the 4.0 level. I also give them a copy of the EPA booklet, Home Buyers and Seller's Guide to Radon and tell them to read through it in order to understand their test results.

And by the way the 4.0 level is not an established health standard. No one has actually determined how much or little radon it takes to give you lung cancer. Thus the EPA warning concerning levels under 4.0.

Finally, what I am trying to emphasize here is that a radon test needs to be done correctly. Many times the tests are done incorrectly simply by the testers choice of location. My point has never been to do with the number result as with the procedures to obtain that result.

Aug 29, 2007 05:05 AM

Joseph Hagarty

Main Line Inspections, Inc. - Parkesburg, PA

The placement of the initial detector, as reported, would seem to be compliant.

6 feet above the floor does not negate the test as the protocol deals with a minimum of 20 inches from the floor. Placement on a shelf is proper if the monitor is placed a minimum of 4 inches from side, rear and other objects. The 1 foot is applicable if the shelf is mounted to an exterior wall. Placement at an interior wall does not require the 1 foot placement. The hall being finished and/or unfinished generally is not a factor. Full unfinished basements are tested in PA (accordance with State Licensing protocol) which exceeds the current EPA standard. Unfinished basements do not comparitively test higher than finished basements in areas that we have tested.

Having performed thousands of tests (sometimes placing 2 CRM's in alternative locations for comparison) I have found that the time (season and weather) during the test has more bearing on the result than the physical placement of the monitor (at the floor or ceiling) in the lowest level of the home. Your review of data in your geographic area may vary.

During the test that resulted in a 2.5 reported result, were any of the recorded readings above 4.0 pCi/L?

Aug 29, 2007 06:44 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Joseph,

A hallway is not a living area and not a correct location for a radon test. The six feet was not referred to as a problem, just a statement of location. The device was on a shelf of about the same width as the detector. So using the 4 inch parameter, it was still too close to the wall. I do not test that close to any wall and prefer to have my tester several feet from the wall.

The fact that any areas were finished or unfinished is relative in the determination of where to place the device. Placing a test in a basement hall with a finished room off that hall is bad judgement. No one spends time in a hall, but the rec-room is obviously a much more frequented area where people spend a good deal of time.

About the results on the 2.5 test, there were readings exceeding 4.0. The relevance this has on the EPA average you will have to tell me. Does this constitute some type of action in PA?

Aug 29, 2007 07:30 AM

Joseph Hagarty

Main Line Inspections, Inc. - Parkesburg, PA

"Placing a test in a basement hall with a finished room off that hall is bad judgement. No one spends time in a hall, but the rec-room is obviously a much more frequented area where people spend a good deal of time"

I do not understand why you would consider a Hallway a "Bad judgement" location as opposed to a finished room off of the hall. It is solely your opinion as to which location may be better. Confirmation of your opinion can only be made if all areas are simultaneously tested for comparison of the CRM results.

I disagree with your opinion that the initial test contracted by the Buyer is not valid because your contracted test with the Seller was placed in what you suggest to be a Better location. You should reserve comment on the validity of any prior test that you do not physically observe or conduct.

Aug 29, 2007 08:33 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Joseph,

I can not understand your playing devils advocate. I do not know what you constitute as a good location as compared to a bad test location, but there is definetly a difference.

This is a paragraph from section 2.2 of the EPA document Protocols for Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurements in Homes

The measurements should be made in the lowest level which contains a room that is used regularly. Test areas include family rooms, living rooms, dens, playrooms, and bedrooms. A bedroom on the lower level may be a good choice, because most people generally spend more time in their bedrooms than in any other room in the house (Chapin 1974, Moeller and Underhill 1976, Szalai 1972).

This from section 3.3 in regard to real estate transactions.

EPA recommends that measurements made for a real estate transaction be performed in the lowest level of the home which is currently suitable for occupancy. This means the lowest level that is currently lived-in, or a lower level that is not currently used (such as a basement, which a buyer could use for living space without renovations). Measurements should be made in a room that is used regularly, such as a living room, playroom, den, or bedroom. This includes a basement that can be used as a recreation room, bedroom, or playroom. This provides the buyer with the option of using a lower level of the home as part of the living area, with the knowledge that it has been tested for radon.

You will notice that that it does not mention halls. That would not be an area "used regularly".

This is also from section 2.2

Sound judgment is required as to what space actually constitutes a room. Measurements made in closets, cupboards, sumps, crawl spaces, or nooks within the foundation should not be used as a representative measurement.

You seem to have an issue with my regarding the first test as non-compliant for the reason I did not actually "see" the detector in use in the location.

My information on the location of the detector was derived from asking the homeowner where the first test was placed. I told him that it was important to know so that I could place my test in the same location. So therefore the information on where the detector was placed was not biased by the homeowner as you seem to be implying.

I appreciate your obvious experience and skill in the field of radon testing. I can tell from your responses that you are a conscientious test provider. However I will agree to disagree with your assessment as I too have the back ground and credentials in radon testing.

Aug 29, 2007 09:21 AM

Anonymous

I think Joe's point is that you're trying to make yourself out as a hero for bringing in a result that didn't require a mitigation system.

I don't really see any think wrong with the first test except the four inch distance from the interior wall.

Earlier I asked you to back this up: "Halls, bathrooms, kitchens, laundry and mechanical rooms are not suitable locations." Where does it say no halls.

If I was that buyer I'd be requesting escrow funds for a mitigation system after a long term test.

Your readings over four and the epa average on the first test would make me mighty leary.

Bet the listing agent loved you for it though.

Aug 29, 2007 01:26 PM

#18

Erby Crofutt

B4 U Close Home Inspections&Radon Testing (www.b4uclose.com) - Lexington, KY

The Central Kentucky Home Inspector, Lexington KY

Dang, see what happens when you get half way thru a comment and leave it for a customer call. and then supper. Computer logs you out or something.

I'm surprised the system lets anonymous users leave comments.

Anyway, the entry above is mine.

Aug 29, 2007 01:29 PM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Erby,

I am not trying to make myself out to be a hero as you say and I think you should let Joe speak for himself. The fact that my result was below 4 is not the point here, but everyone seems to want to make it the crux of this debate. Which is exactly why I did not include that information in the blog. It was not relevant to the theme and would have distracted from the point, as we can now see. The point of my blog is the location and methods for radon testing, not the numeric result. Also to bring out the information on CT radon tester provider training.

As far as "backing up" the no halls location, I believe I presented more than enough literature from the EPA that while it does not specify halls, any reasonably intelligent person could determine that a hall would not match the general criteria presented. Quote:

Measurements should be made in a room that is used regularly, such as a living room, playroom, den, or bedroom.

If you feel that a hall fits this description, that's fine. You are qualified to make such judgement calls.

Concerning the buyer or for that matter any buyer here in CT. Funds are generally not escrowed for mitigation systems. If the result is 4.0 or higher, then the seller is almost always asked to correct the problem.

The buyers who had the first test done had opted out of the sale because of the result. The seller felt that the result was skewed because the home had been closed up for several weeks. Read the first paragraph of the blog as this was clearly explained.

Your readings over four and the epa average on the first test would make me mighty leary.

Readings over 4 are common during a test period, as you know, but the EPA AVERAGE is the only number that matters. Why would you be leery? The final EPA result is either over or under 4. Using other testing devices you never see the hourly readings. E-PERMS are perfectly good testing devices, but do not show the hourly readings. I don't follow your logic here, what are you trying to suggest?

"Bet the listing agent loved you for it though"

What are you implying by this remark. My client was the seller and I conducted an accurate and correct test for my client. What does this have to do with the listing agent and myself?

I again do not understand all this debate over this blog. My last question to you and Joe is if you were to conduct this test, where would you put the device?

Your choices in the basement are; the finished rec-room, the hall or the laudry-storage room.

Aug 30, 2007 01:13 AM

Erby Crofutt

B4 U Close Home Inspections&Radon Testing (www.b4uclose.com) - Lexington, KY

The Central Kentucky Home Inspector, Lexington KY

If you would have left it at bringing out information instead of criticizing the other guy for a correct test that probably would've been it. You didn't.

But it's always good to get information out to the public.

In answer to your question, probably the same room you did but closer to an interior wall so it wasn't a trip hazard.

I've done some on opposite sides of the same room (the two interior corners at a proper distance from the wall & other objects, height from the floor, etc) (same atmospheric conditions, hot and sunny) same machine on different days and gotten different results.

Which one was correct???

Aug 30, 2007 04:39 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Erby,

You are such a noble, white horse ridin' kinda guy. I wasn't specifically criticizing a person or company by name, so why all the fuss? The point was "the guy" is untrained and did do the test wrong, IMO. It was a part to the point of the blog. I want people to understand that a guy using a monitor may be less qualified than one using charcoal cannisters. It's all about the proper training and methodology of testing, not the device.

As for your question, both are correct. I have seen this same thing myself. Was it you who said that the test is just a short snap shot in time. We both know the longer the test, the more accurate the result. We however do not have the luxury of time in our business and must rely on the quick, short term result.

Aug 30, 2007 11:15 AM

Erby Crofutt

B4 U Close Home Inspections&Radon Testing (www.b4uclose.com) - Lexington, KY

The Central Kentucky Home Inspector, Lexington KY

And sometimes I'm a "Devil's Advocate" just to spur further communication.

In any case, I'm glad you bring out the fact that training and certifications for radon testing are available and important to those who want to "do it right".

Thanks for bringing that out!

Sep 03, 2007 01:33 AM

James Quarello

JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC - Wallingford, CT

Connecticut Home Inspector

Erby,

Your are welcome and thank you for your comments. I enjoyed the exchange of ideas.

Sep 03, 2007 02:04 AM