We need more pictures to see the whole area. From the limited information noted it may be acceptable because it “can be live able” however, not ideal as there are two factors immediately viewable that could alter a representative test, furnace and stack effect. It is too close to equipment and in the path of potential stack effect occurrence. The whole idea of testing is to get a true representative sample without interference of building mechanics, environmental factors, etc. Other experts may disagree, but I would not test in this location as t would not provide an accurate result because of visual variables that could effect it.

I am enjoying this thread. Fantastic advice.

I had experience with antique radios, clocks, etc. so I am going to comment to this component only as everyone has already provided priceless advice for the other part of this.

I had a customer that had a room filled with around 200 items that did register on the meter. So, to test this theory in more detail we, covered all of them and sealed the covers to the floors and took more readings. Bingo! This was a source. We continued to allow the multiple CRMS to collect data before items were covered and while covered. We forced the radon out of the home with ventilation, tested with radon system on and off. We performed every scenario the homeowner and I could think of to pinpoint and collect as much data as possible. Did I mention the homeowner was a little bit of a science geek too who wanted to learn as much as I did?

We were without a doubt able to attribute an increase in radon levels to those items.

Hi Scott:

I have performed hundreds of Phase I ESA's and the primary reason most don't address this is for the exact reason you stated. According to the ASTM E1527-13 Standard it does recognize Radon as an Environmental Risk according to ASTME1527-13; 13.1.5.12 . Appendix X1; X5.2 However, Radon is excluded from CERCLA. Phase I's are focused around this Act as it was designed primarily to protect innocent land owners and seek compensation from those responsible.

"CERCLA authorizes the federal government to respond to releases of hazardous substances,7 to
seek reimbursement from potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”)8 or to order PRPs to abate releases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may present an “imminent and substantial
endangerment” to the public health or welfare or the environment."

So the inclusion of Radon testing and mitigation is strictly left up to the discretion of the user. Each state has the authority to include it or a bank that is lending can require based on a what is called a Business Environmental Risk (BER).

The additional challenge is Radon is site specific and until it is shown that the diffusion into a structure could have been caused by someone else, most Environmental Consultants shy away from included this as part of a Phase I. In reality, Radon levels can be increased by someone else. For example, I have seen how development of neighboring properties have dramatically increased the radon levels in neighboring homes. When development of vacant land occurs the Karst topography is being altered which in turn alters radon migration pathways.

Finally, I would recommend that this to be included in states that have a Radon Testing and Mitigation Requirement in place for Day Cares and Nursing Homes. They are classified as commercial properties which fall under the customary practice of requiring a Phase I ESA during the purchase process. Radon testing should be included as part of the due diligence process for these types of transactions as the new property owner will have to address it at some point under State requirements.

So, long and short of it is that ideally it should be performed, following the lead of HUD's new requirements. To make this happen however, is going to take time, money and advocacy by the Radon Community to get this in place.