• Henri Boyea
    87
    We are working on a measurement/mitigation project for public housing complexes.I found the guidance in the ANSI-AARST standards a bit unclear regarding which Units should be retested post-mitigation; all, or only those mitigated. Shawn Price cleared that up for me and pointed out that per the latest updates, ANSI-AARST advises that all Units be retested. Our Client is balking at this since most Units did not require mitigation. Client says they are interested in meeting the minimum HUD requirements, and if those do not require full clearance testing, that is the way they want to go. As I told the Client, it is my understanding that HUD is now fully behind the ANSI-AARST standards.
    Can anyone here point me to the relevant recommendation from HUD so I can cite it for our Client? Thanks!
  • Shawn Price
    21
    Henri, you can find the HUD MAP Guide here:

    https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/4430GHSGG.pdf

    The Radon section is 9.6.3, which begins on pg 340. The Radon Professional credential language is found in Section 9.6.3.2.B, the standards are listed in 9.6.3.2.D, and OM&M is in 9.6.3.2.I. I hear that OM&M has often been overlooked but is currently being enforced when mitigation systems are installed.

    The clearance testing section of ANSI/AARST MAMF-2017 Rev1-21 is found in Section 7.3.2:
    https://standards.aarst.org/MAMF-2017/26/index.html
  • Henri Boyea
    87
    thanks so much. I wasn't sure where to find the latest HUD revision.
  • Kevin M Stewart
    75
    It also occurs to me that:
    1) a client's resistance with respect to the need, in clearance testing, to retest units that previously tested low is probably common, and therefore
    a) more education to practitioners about these requirements and
    b) advance advice to clients about what they can expect regarding post-mitigation clearance testing
    may be called for;
    and
    2) an explanation to the client of the rationale for the clearance testing requirements may also be helpful. I seem to recall that there were those mitigators who have described cases in large buildings of elevated radon levels that arose after the initial round of mitigation. The issues of
    a) reasons for the appropriateness of full retesting,
    b) rough likelihoods of what clients can expect, and
    c) how further clearance testing is to be carried out if one or more units are found to be elevated after the first or subsequent round of mitigation
    are all things that both professionals and their clients should have clarity about.
  • Kevin M Stewart
    75

    Henri, if you could cite specific aspects where the current standards appear to be unclear and if you have specific recommendations for how that lack of clarity could be remedied, these are always the kinds of things that the standards committees appreciate learning about and want to address. As I'm sure you know, procedures and forms are available here: https://standards.aarst.org/public-review/
  • Henri Boyea
    87
    Thanks. I believe the confusion stemmed from the fact that this project started long ago, before HUD changed it's stance. (There were numerous long delays for COVID, Brownfield issues, etc.)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to the Radon ListServ!

Join Radon ListServ Categories that peak your interests and area of expertise.