RAL Inspection Services

[Jim Morrison]

FWIW: Before stumbling onto this thread this morning, I'd never heard of either RAL or Robinson, but my take on it is simple: Robinson made himself look like a kook and RAL was appropriate and professional. I came away with a mildly positive impression of RAL.

I see no need to moderate...or for me to return to this thread for that matter.

Jimmy

[charlieb]

I will second or say Amen to what Michael has experienced with RAL. My experience has not been as deep or as moving as Micheal's but they (RAL) have been God sent.

I've taken an aggressive approach to business. I will take work from almost any company that will send it my way. A few have flopped, I've lost less than 1000 in earned revenue over the last 5 fears but adopting this policy has helped my company remain stable through this shaky economy.

The thing is I've not sought out these businesses. They have found me. I've done nothing except pray. Four family's needs are being taken care of by my little company. Each of us prays and does our job to the best of our abilities. But it is nothing any of us has done that saves us.

Happy Easter everyone.

[mgbinspect]

I have the same philosophy. As soon as the market tanked, I took on relo work. Half a loaf is better than none. While others were howling, I was hammered - working harder to keep the revenue stream flowing, but very few dry spells.

As a matter of fact, I just pulled a check out of the mailbox from one of the big four this morning. Life is good...

Nah, truth be told, Charlie, I know "religion" is off limits, and I have no intention of going down that road, but I think it's OK to admit that for many years, it has been my habit, after hanging up the phone from booking an inspection, to cast my eyes upward and point a finger at the Big One, as I mutter, "Thank you." I'm sure folks driving beside me think I'm crazy or dancing, but I know who keeps my tank full. And, He's a far better general manager than I am. [:-thumbu]

[charlieb]

I'll agree and thank everyone for allowing us to acknowledge our beliefs during what is our holiest time of year.

I'd like to thank everyone who participates in this the TIJ family. I learn from all of you and you have made me a better inspector. It has been a blessing to learn about reflective bubble duct insulation less than a week before I every saw it in the field. You made me look smart. I'm thankful to have followed a thread about showers without a curb last year. I had the information and did not spend hours researching the details. I'm blessed to pick up another Relo company from a recent thread.

All of you add to the richness of my life. Bless you all.

[mwagner]

Per Mr. Robinsons request, I did send him a private email to discuss his concerns. It was his decision to post it to the forum which is fine with me. To date, he has yet to send me any solid information back. Actually I would prefer if this chat stayed on the Inspectors Journal. With the exception of the personal rants against my staff, it has been interesting and could be helpful to RAL in many ways.

Mr. Robinsons concerns about our form requesting to extend a test 12 hours if closed house conditions are not met at the beginning of a test appears to have some teeth and I am looking into the situation with the powers that be. If this statement on our form is inaccurate, which my gut tell me it is, we will modify it immediately. Our goal is and always has been to perform radon tests per proper guidelines with qualified inspectors. I appreciate any opportunity to learn and improve our services. I would venture to say that most if not all inspectors experience learning opportunities from mistakes made. If this or any other part of our form is improved as a result of this discussion, it is well worth the effort.

With that said, I invite any and all members of this forum to review our radon forms at www.ralis.com and provide any feedback to me personally. While I do not believe that our form is the reason Mr. Robinson has posted his questionable opinion of his experience with RAL, I believe every cloud has a silver lining. In fact I believe his approach has displayed a great deal about character, good and bad. If nothing else, this has exposed me to some dedicated, knowledgeable inspectors from around the country and a portal to share experiences that could help all of us improve. For that, I thank him and all of you.

If anyone is interested, RAL did find a great radon inspector in Mr. Robinsons area who was able to meet our needs immediately. We hope to have an opportunity to help grow his business and build a great relationship with him like we have with thousands of others around the country.

I hope to be able to contribute value to this group on further discussions. Happy Easter!!!

Mike Wagner

President

RAL Inspection Services

[RadonFinders]

My intent from the beginning is for your company, Mr. Wagoner, to admit and recognize poor customer relations and a gross failure in your operations. My email sent as an initial reply indicated a pleasant offering to discuss the matter. Additionally, I find you still asking to leverage those in this forum to do what many years ago your company should have already done, be sure you instructed your agents according to best business practices compliant with EPA protocol.

Every single point I made you have confirmed, both in your email to me and your post here. My full intent you have colored by calling it a rant. (Defamatory statement removed by moderator). Further, while hopefully you have many good relationships, you have made no gesture towards me of a positive nature to acknowledge I did bring this to your attention via email to (initials removed). Every statement I made is factual. I never intended nor do I now intend to bring down your company as others have suggested.

From the beginning your company contacted me and left no return telephone number to call. When I found the correct number, I called. (initials removed) sent me an email of the three forms (which admittedly now makes me wonder if the two forms are the same because of the way I was treated. I trust they will be now)

I did as she asked in call, reviewing them and calling her back. We spoke briefly with (name removed) acknowledging she received my email regarding compliance issues and stated she would call me at 2:30 that afternoon. She NEVER called. (integrity issue from my viewpoint because late into next day she did not call either. I finally called her, she did not answer after several calls, so I called back to speak with (Initials removed by moderator) who originally called me.) I was put on hold and when she came back to the phone I was told it was already assigned. (name removed) is most probably a new employee as I was told and (name removed)'s last name may not be the same as one of the adamant posters here, but (name removed) did state in our telephone conversation there was no rush regarding the radon test, which appears inconsistent with actual actions taken by them in assigning the radon test to someone else as stated to me and since they never called me back prior to assigning it either.

Only now, after I took initiative and located this forum and caused enough attention to the problems with their customer service relating to my experience and non-compliance issues relating to their forms and instructions given to their agents, does Mr. Wagoner express an interest in getting everyone else to fix his problem. I was happy to help him as I indicated in my initial email to (name removed) which attacked no one. He is free to post my email I sent her here if he likes.

I think it a cleaner, and safer approach (trying to help RAL here) for RAL to do their own compliance review, instead of attempting to manage or leverage (without paying a consultant fee) the knowledge, skills, and abilities of licensed inspectors.

Mike, I believe your email response to me may have been as you say, "in the heat of the moment" . Your obvious dig at me admitting the assignment of the radon test to another individual and how you plan to help build their business really strong seemed intentional and discriminatory. It also confirmed the facts I stated earlier. It is also interesting that you acted so bold as to state your preference is to keep this thread intact. We should easily have been allies my friend. Even now I hope you understand my intent. No other delivery of my concerns would have brought you here. Mike, I do believe there are indeed other compliance issues related to your forms.

On a separate note, if one of those posting here is indeed related to (name removed), please know no harm or personal attack was ever intended against her; rather a mere statement of the facts from a customer/vendor viewpoint.

I did ask everyone to honor an earlier request which is in the best interest of all, but the obvious posture seems to "smooze" and get others to do your homework for you (memories of my high school maybe - maybe a low blow too, LOL) Anyway, it certainly is now appropriate that everyone review their individual EPA compliance areas.

That seems a positive outcome. The credibility I have always maintained is affirmed also by you, Mike. It is honorable on your part to acknowledge the issues I raised and that you now take action to correct them. It is appreciated. Strange though, we still should somehow become friends. Kinda like the old time bar fights similar to the one depicted in John Wayne's classic, The Quiet Man. The hand is offered.

[mwagner]

Since I am new to this forum, I apologize for not knowing how a discussion gets locked? I would have posted this on the other RAL thread, but this appears to be my only option. Any help or information on how the "lock" works would be appreciated. Please see the other RAL thread for history.

The only legitimate question Mr. Robinson made available to the forum was one involving a guide on the RAL radon form that indicates for the tester to add 12 hours to the end of a short term test if closed house conditions were not met for 12 hours prior to starting the shot-term radon test.

This s not an easy question to research or answer. After discussing the situation with the EPA hotline, several highly regarded professionals in the radon industry and even an individual involved in the creation and interpretation of the EPA guidelines for the EPA as well as teaching on the subject for over 20 years, we have the following response.

The wording on the RAL form is in fact correct depending on the testing device utilized. This RAL instruction was intended for tests being performed with a CRM and not a passive testing device. If testing with a CRM, the EPA did recognize and make an accommodation for this 12 hour extension from the original protocol. This accommodation nor any other minor approved device measurement testing protocol modifications were ever published as the EPA has not issued an updated device measurement testing protocol since 1992-93. You will not find this in any published guide, but it is the fact if you dig deep enough and ask the people who really know. The Buyer & Seller Guides have been updated , but they do not govern device measurement testing protocol.

If using a passive device, it gets more complicated. The bottom line is if the passive testing device is capable of testing for 4 days or more, the test can be started if you add at least 48 hours of closed house condition test time to the original 48 hours equalling a minimum of a 4 day closed house condition test. Some passive devices will not accommodate a test of that length. If that is the case, the test should only be started after the closed house conditions have been met for 12 hours prior to the test. Clear as mud.

Since I recognize that the RAL form could and does go to individuals performing passive tests, our current wording could be misleading. We will make the appropriate changes to these forms to hopefully avoid any confusion on future assignments.

A qualified tester should know if his/her state has unique testing protocols that need to be followed and we consider our instructions as a general guide only. I would be interested in any feedback or constructive differing opinions backed by solid factual information. I always enjoy an opportunity to discuss and debate issues as long as it remains healthy and professional.

Mike Wagner