Radon test comes back high. Mitigator that comes out to quote tells the realtors “The tester shouldn’t have set it in this basement because it has a dirt and stone floor.”
Who is right in this scenario?
If you are testing by the new ANSI/AARST standards that supersede old EPA regulations in many areas you must use this rule:
3.1.1 A test is to be conducted in the lowest level that could be occupied when quick results are needed. If the lowest level is not finished but could serve as a work area or playroom or additional bedroom at some point in the future, a test is to be conducted in this level of the home.
Key words here are "could be occupied" and "could serve as" and "is to be conducted in this level of the home"
This particular home had stored belongings in the basement along with a work bench even though it wasn't pretty, you could stand up in it.
Aren't we are all on the same team here? We test and mitigate homes for a living. So why challenge this and just quote the job? Makes me wonder if in this scenario the mitigator didn’t “like” the job because it was more work than the standard install.
One more thought to add here: science says radon dissipates by half each level you go up. So this test which came out at 8.0, most likely would have still been at the radon action level if tested on the main floor. The house should be mitigated.
Joined: 04/27/2021 06:04 AM EDT
If the radon test results come back high, it's crucial to mitigate the issue to ensure the health and safety of the occupants. The mitigator should provide a quote for mitigation based on the test results and the specific characteristics of the home, rather than disputing the testing location. If there are concerns about the accuracy of the test results or the suitability of the testing location, it may be necessary to consult with a radon testing expert or regulatory authority for clarification.