Radon Found: Abate or Ignore?

In My Humble Opinion
1

So I’m this close to closing the deal on my house… and I find out that there’s radon in the basement. The levels came back as averaging a 4.4, and the EPA limit is 4.0 picocuries/l. I did some research on this at the EPA website and they seem pretty convinced that radon is a meaningful cancer risk. Technically, this requires remediation, though seller certainly might try to play hardball and refuse to do anything about it, being so close to the 4.0 threshold. Allegedly these 3 day tests are not very accurate, so she could call bullshit on it. She has to disclose this finding from now on, but she could do a new test and run a fan down there or something, thus coming up with a lower rating.

The question is: what would you do? I am considering getting an estimate on how much remediation would cost, then asking the seller to put that money in escrow pending a 6 month test. That might save her from having to pay for anything, but she might not go for that either. For environmental experts, do you believe this 4.4 pCi/l is a serious health risk to me (a non-smoker), my cats, or my tenant (whose apartment is in the basement)? Short-term or long-term. Would you let something like this be a deal-breaker on a property you loved? Would you go halvies on remediation if that offer was on the table?

I find this whole issue, 3 days before the deadline on this offer, very aggravating and dismaying, quite honestly. :frowning: Any advice appreciated.

2

IMHO, I’d walk. Wouldn’t want to live with the problem. Wouldn’t want to risk difficulties selling the place in later years.

3

Reasons why I don’t want to walk:

–The structural inspection was stupendous. This house is solid as hell, and I picked the most nitpicky bastard inspector in the county.

–I could normally never afford 2,500 square feet on 3+ acres of ideally located land, except that this house was built by the original owner, and as a results of the 1950s sensibility is considered terrifically unfabulous stylistically, which doesn’t bother me at all. It also has an ideally situated rental unit that pays my entire mortgage payment.

–I really, really love it. Don’t tell the seller.

4

Random thought: if I put a gable vent and more soffits in the roof, would that decrease the radon levels? I was planning to do that anyway.

5

Abate, if for no other reason then that someday you may sell this place, and if you do, you’re gonna have to disclose to potential buyers that the basement contains levels of a radioactive gas that the EPA deems unhealthy.

And if they here that before they’ve fallen in love with the place, they’ll walk…

As to if it would be a deal breaker, I’d have to know how much abatement costs–how much money are we talking about?

6

This really depends. My house inspector says it would cost around $1200, UNLESS caulking cracks in the floor and walls and sealing floor drains would fix it (which is entirely possible at this level above the limit), which would be considerably less. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume it’ll be in the $1200 range.

7

Well.

If it was me, Metacom, or, as some would call me “He Who Knows Nothing About Radon,” I would: Buy the house; go to Home Depot the day before closing and stock up on caulk; move in; caulk the cracks; and then make hiring a professional to do testing and possibly full-blown abatement priority 1.

Why? According to this EPA cite, the risk of getting lung cancer from a radon level of 4.4 pCi/L is 2 to 3.5 times greater then normal (for a non-smoker). Given that the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is pretty small to begin with, I’d be comfortable with that, if I knew I could get it fixed relatively quickly…

I’d also try really hard to either pay for the abatement before I closed or at least lower the price by some amount to compensate.

8

Could you say, “I want this place, but it will cost about $1200 to abate the radon, so knock that off the sale price”–?

Seems to me that’s not asking for much, in the scheme of things.

9

I hate to go by Wikipedia but according to them the EU doesn’t recommend action on older houses unless a radon level nearly 4 times that found in this house is present, and in a new house they don’t recommend action until a slightly higher level than that found in this house is discovered.

So it seems the EU isn’t quite as prickly about it as the EPA for whatever reason.

10

I ran into a similar problem with the home I now own. A 48-hour test showed an average of 7.4 picocuries per liter, though the highest reading at one point was around 11. The EPA Action Level of 4.0 picocuries per liter (which is higher than many other countries, including England and Canada) was obviously below the average in the house. By the way, we tested in the basement, which is not a livable area in this home.–the EPA suggests testing only in the livable areas, such as the main floor, rather than in the basement.

The EPA does not recommend using a short-term test as the basis for remediation. Instead, it recommends doing a long-term test. Of course, a real estate transaction does not generally allow for such testing. I was left with a dilemma–pass on an otherwise perfect house or purchase a home with a defect that might lead to health complications down the road. After discussing it with different people, including a Ph.D. chemist, an M.D. who does research in the field, several abatement experts, and even staff at the local and federal EPA, I decided to purchase the home. Why?

First, I live in Ohio, a state with high levels of radon in general, so many, if not most, homes I was likely to purchase in the area would have a problem. Second, radon testing is expected to become more common in real estate transactions in the future, meaning that even if I purchased a home free of radon now, it could turn up later. Third, I was able to negotiate the cost of mitigation into the purchase price–I got a credit for the work, which actually turned out $100 less than expected.

The result is I have a home with average radon levels down to .5 picocuries per liter. In addition, the system has reduced the dampness in basement. I can now tell prospective buyers in the future that there is no problem with radon because it is abated, which is a strong selling point with many buyers, and will likely be even stronger down the road. Because I had the work done now, it’s probably also cheaper than it’s likely to be later.

I have one of the systems, by the way, that uses a fan to draw air from the drain titles and sump area to an over-the-roofline vent. It works wonderfully and quietly, using very little electricity. Caulking and patching holes and cracks alone, I’m told, are unlikely to have any effect, as the radon gas can still seep in through microscopic openings.

The only question I have at this point–one which the so-called experts disagree on–is whether there is a problem with any residue from the radon. In other words, the gas is now kept out, but are there any by-products left in the house from previous radon exposures. Some say “no,” as radon gas naturally dissipates to a harmless state in 4 days; others say there is some residue left from radon daughters, but that it is relatively harmless. As the primary danger from radon is inhaling it, most experts say, it’s the gas that is the biggest problem. Still, I would like a definitive answer, which science seems unprepared to offer at this point, especially if I should take any precautions while cleaning it up.

11

Gassy Man: Thanks for the informative post. My radon test was in the basement, which is a livable area (the tenant lives there, and the living area was the test location). You seem to be recommending a reduction in the price of the house to compensate me for remediating the area. Personally, I’d rather have the seller fix it or cut me a check because lowering the purchase price doesn’t put the cash in my hand, which (after I put out the down payment) is what I’m gonna need. But I guess $1200 more won’t break the bank.

I am also worried that the seller will just flat-out refuse to do anything. I guess I’m trying to prepare myself for what I will do if that happens.

12

Whatever you do, don’t let the seller do the mitigation. Why? He or she has incentive to do it as cheaply as possible; there are different levels of quality to the mitigation work that can be done, and you want to find a reliable contractor. In my area, there are at least two mitigation companies that have been taken to court for doing shoddy work–and, not coincidentally, they’re the cheapest. So, they get most of their business from sellers, who are often only concerned with doing the bare minimum to sell the house. I found a reputable, reliable contractor who did high-quality work but only charged $100 more than the cheapest ones. And, ultimately, the whole thing cost me less than the credit I was originally given by the seller.

Asking for a check up front is not a bad idea, but many sellers would prefer to simply knock off the amount from the purchase price. Think of it as less money to borrow, or simply deduct the amount from the down payment and keep the same mortgage. I know that every penny counts, but if you do this right, you’ll have far fewer, if any, headaches later.

Here’s some other points to remember:

  • If the mitigation system has a fan, it will have to be replaced, usually in about five years. Stow away money for it now so you don’t have to scramble for the money later.

  • The contractor should be licensed or certified in some way. Different states may have different methods or standards, so check with your local or state health department to find out if there is a list of such contractors.

  • The contractor should provide or perform follow-up tests so that you can measure the levels. The better contractors let you conduct the tests so that there is no possibility of their influencing the results.

  • Contractors should explain to you what they plan to do and provide some sort of diagram along with an estimate. Contractors should be insured against injury on the job as well as damage to your house.

  • Check with your home insurance company to find out if there is any sort of discount provided for abatement.

Stay cool in the negotiation stage, especially if this is your first home purchase. Many such buyers often pay too much for their first house. In high-competition real estate markets, that’s to be expected, but even then there may be play in the numbers. Right now, interest rates are low and there are tons of young people trying to snatch up houses, driving up the demand, and the first wave of retiring Baby Boomers are trying to dump their houses to buy condos. Soon, though, there’s going to be a whole bunch more of Baby Boomers wanting to dump their houses, meaning there will be more homes on the market. When interest rates go up–and they will–the housing market will cool off. That house listed at $300,000 today might, six months from now, only command $200,000. So, choose wisely, stick to your guns, and best of luck!

13

Gassy Man: THANK YOU! I just e-mailed my buyer’s agent and told him that I want to be in charge of the abatement, whichever way that happens. Good advice. I will look into certification and will expect the diagrams, explanations, and retestings.

There is a very competitive market here South of Heaven, and it’s SOP to pay above asking for a house (that’s how I got outbid on the first house I wanted). The seller had knocked $7000 off the original asking price already, and she’s putting in a brand new septic system, so I made a full-price off and felt like I was getting a fair shake. It’s a lot of house and land in a desirable location for a reasonable price with a rental unit, so I know I’m getting my money’s worth (my monthly payments including mortgage, insurance, utilities, and taxes - my rental income = less than what I’m paying now in rent!)

I just hope this negotiation doesn’t get ugly and the deal doesn’t go south. I’m so close! But que sera sera, right? It’s out of my hands for the nonce.

Gassy Man, please do stop being a guest and become a regular member! Your advice has been extremely helpful to me. You have fought my ignorance and made me feel better about this situation. I am sending waves of gratitude your way. :slight_smile:

14

That’s very sweet! I am thinking about becoming a member, as this has been a very friendly board. We’ll see. Either way, though, I do wish you all the best in purchasing your home!

15

Personally, for something so close to the EPA guidelines, I’d say screw it. Of course, I’ll admit doing that will mean that you may have to do it when the time comes to sell the house.

The problem I have with most Radon concerns is that it’s usually not something that happens just inside the home. Yes, the relative lack of air transfer in a basement is going to allow the Radon and decay daughters to build up, however because of the relatively short half-life of Radon and Radon decay daughters the actual chain of isotopes has an expected radioactive lifetime on the order of about three days, IIRC.

With that kind of short term exposure, the question suddenly becomes, in my mind, why is it just the house you’re concerned about?

After all, such conditions usually occur in areas where the geologic substrata allows for Radon to come up through the ground, all through the general area. So, spending huge amounts of money to reduce (not eliminate, just reduce) activity in your house for something so close to the limit anyways, when every time you open a window, or head outside, you’re likely to defeat that same remediation concern just doesn’t seem worthwhile.

Just my $0.02.

16

The concern is that Federal law dictates that once the test determines a level above the acceptable limit, abatement is mandatory to obtain a federally backed mortgage.

The same thing happens WRT asbestos, which is not hazardous unless disturbed.

Similarly, lead based paint must be removed, even though it’s not dangerous if undisturbed.

There’s a lot of social engineering that goes on in federally backed mortgages.

17

And I have a SONYMA mortgage, so they may have a requirement like that. I need to investigate that further.

18

I understand. And if the OP doesn’t remediate now, it’s possible that they will have to do it when or if they ever sell. However, since it doesn’t seem to be a factor in their mortgage concerns, I’d still say avoid doing anything about it, now. It may be necessary later down the road, but, as Gassy Man has pointed out, most of the remediation plans require maintenance costs over time, so it’s not simply a matter of spend money now, or spend later.

Also, it’s possible (Unlikely in the extreme given the US electorate’s ignorance of radiation realities but possible.) that such restrictive mandates will be phased out in the future.

So, if it’s necessary for the OP’s mortgage, now, do it. If not, put it off, there are so many things that may happen between now and when it comes time to sell, that it seems unreasonable to spend the money for something that’s not going to have any real effect on the health of the OP’s family.

On preview: I see that the OP isn’t sure whether they have that requirement or not. I think that should be the only factor driving this decision.

19

Further, you’d PREFER a credit rather than having the seller fix it due to disjoint priorities:

The Seller wants it done cheap and fast, you want it done right.

20

My agent is going to offer the seller the 6-month test escrow option. That way, if the radon level evens out over the course of the year, everyone’s happy and no one has to pay for anything. If the radon levels remain too high, then the money’s in escrow and I can pick the contractor. I’m getting two estimates so I will have a real solid idea of the cost.