United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr and Radiation
(6604J)
402-R-93-064
September 1993
EPA's Map of Radon Zones
UTAH
                                         Printed on Recycled p*

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
       EPA'S MAP OF RADON ZONES
                 UTAH
            RADON DIVISION
  OFFICE OF RADIATION AND INDOOR AIR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            SEPTEMBER, 1993

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
       This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS).  Sharon W. White was the EPA project manager. Numerous other people in ORIA
were instrumental in the development of the Map of Radon Zones, including Lisa Ratcliff,
Kirk Maconaughey, R. Thomas Peake, Dave Rowson, and Steve Page.

       EPA would especially like to acknowledge the outstanding effort of the USGS
radon team — Linda Gundersen, Randy  Schumann,  Jim Otton, Doug Owen, Russell
Dubiel, Kendell Dickinson, and Sandra Szarzi — in developing the technical base for the
Map of Radon Zones.

       ORIA  would also like to recognize  the efforts of all the EPA Regional Offices in
coordinating the reviews with the State programs and the Association of American State
Geologists (AASG) for  providing a liaison  with the State geological surveys.  In addition,
appreciation is expressed to all of the State radon programs and geological surveys for their
technical input and review of the Map of Radon Zones.

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
I
              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. OVERVIEW
        II. THE USGS/EPA RADON POTENTIAL
          ASSESSMENTS:INTRODUCTION
     III. REGION 8 GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL
                  SUMMARY
   V. PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL
              ASSESSMENT OF UTAH
      V. EPA'S MAP OF RADON ZONES » UTAH

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
                                     OVERVIEW
       Sections 307 and 309 of the 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA) direct EPA to
identify areas of the United States that have the potential to produce elevated levels of radon.
EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Association of American State Geologists
(AASG) have  worked closely over the past several years to produce  a series of maps and
documents which address these directives. The  EPA Map of Radon Zones is a compilation of
that work  and  fulfills the requirements of sections 307 and 309 of IRAA.  The Map of Radon
Zones identifies, on a county-by-county basis, areas of the  U.S. that have the highest potential
for elevated indoor radon levels (greater than 4  pCi/L).
       The Map of Radon Zones is designed to  assist national, State and local governments
and organizations to target their radon program  activities and resources. It is also intended to
help building code officials determine areas that are the highest priority for adopting radon-
resistant building practices. The Map of Radon  Zones should not be used to determine if
individual homes in any given area need to be tested for radon.  EPA recommends that all
homes be tested for radon, regardless of geographic location  or the zone designation of
the county in  which they are located.
       This document provides background information concerning the development of the
Map of Radon Zones. It explains the purposes of the map, the approach for developing  the
map (including the respective roles of EPA and  USGS), the data sources used, the conclusions
and confidence levels developed  for the prediction of radon potential, and the review process
that was conducted to finalize this effort.

BACKGROUND

       Radon (Rna22) is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas.  It comes from the  natural
decay of uranium that is found in nearly all soils.  It typically moves through the ground to
the air above and into homes and other buildings through cracks and openings in the
foundation.  Any home, school or workplace may  have a radon problem, regardless of
whether it is new or old, well-sealed or drafty, or with or without a basement. Nearly one out
of every 15  homes in  the U.S. is estimated to have elevated annual average levels of indoor
radon.
       Radon first gained national attention in early 1984, when extremely high levels of
indoor radon were found in areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, along the
Reading Prong-physiographic province. EPA established a Radon Program in 1985  to assist
States and homeowners in reducing their risk of lung  cancer from indoor radon.
       Since 1985, EPA and USGS have been working together to continually increase our
understanding of radon sources and the migration dynamics that  cause elevated indoor radon
levels. Early efforts resulted in the  1987  map entitled "Areas with Potentially High  Radon
Levels."  This  map was based on limited geologic information, only because few  indoor radon
measurements  were available at the time.  The development of EPA's Map of Radon Zones
and its technical  foundation, USGS' National Geologic Radon Province Map, has been based
on additional information from six years of the  State/EPA Residential Radon  Surveys,
independent State residential surveys, and continued expansion of geologic and geophysical
information, particularly the data from the National Uranium Resource  Evaluation project.
                                          1-1

-------
 Purpose of the Map of Radon Zones

       EPA's Map of Radon Zones  (Figure I) assigns each of the 3141 counties in the
 United States to one of three zones:

              o      Zone 1 counties have a predicted average indoor screening level > than
                     4 pCi/L

              o      Zone 2 counties have a predicted average screening level > 2 pCi/L and
                     < 4 pCi/L

              o      Zone 3 counties have a predicted average screening level < 2 pCi/L

       The Zone designations were determined by assessing five factors that are known to be
 important indicators of radon potential; indoor radon measurements, geology, aerial
 radioactivity, soil parameters, and foundation types.
       The predictions of average screening levels in each of the Zones is an expression of
 radon potential in the lowest liveable area of a structure.  This map is unable to estimate
 actual  exposures to radon.  EPA recommends methods for testing and fixing individual homes
 based on an estimate of actual exposure to radon.  For more information on testing and fixing
 elevated  radon levels in homes consult these EPA publications: A Citizen's Guide to Radon.
 the Consumer's Guide to Radon Reduction and the Home Buyer's and Seller's Guide to
 Radon.
       EPA believes that States, local governments and other organizations can achieve
 optimal risk reductions by targeting resources and program activities to high radon potential
 areas.  Emphasizing targeted approaches (technical assistance, information and outreach
 efforts, promotion of real estate mandates  and policies and building codes, etc.) in such areas
 addresses the greatest potential  risks first.
       EPA also believes that the use of passive radon control systems in the construction of
new homes in Zone I counties, and the activation of those systems if necessitated by follow-
 up testing,  is a cost effective approach to achieving significant radon  risk  reduction.
       The Map of Radon Zones and its supporting documentation establish no regulatory
 requirements.  Use of this map by State or local  radon programs and  building code officials is
voluntary.  The information presented on the Map of Radon Zones and in the supporting
documentation is not applicable to radon in water.

Development of the Map of Radon Zones

       The technical foundation for the Map of Radon Zones is the USGS Geologic Radon
Province Map. In order to examine the radon potential for the United States, the USGS
began by identifying approximately  360 separate geologic provinces for the U.S.  The
provinces are shown on the USGS Geologic Radon Province Map (Figure 2).  Each  of the
geologic  provinces was evaluated by examining the available data for that area: indoor radon
measurements, geology, aerial radioactivity, soil parameters, and foundation types. As stated
previously, these five factors are considered to be of basic importance in assessing radon
                                           1-2

-------
 Figure 1
                                                EPA   Map   of  Radon  Zones
                                                                                Zone assignation for Puerto Rico is under development.
Guam - Preliminary Zone designation,     ,   m   Tu            ,      .
                                          -< purpose of this map is to assist National, State and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building code.

                 "~~ ****"*"     rhis ™P is »°t M">d«l >° b* "serf to determine if a home in a given lone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found
                                    m oil three zones. All homes should be lasted, regardless of geographic location
                Consult the EPA Map of Radon Zones document (EM-402-B-93-07I) before using this mop.  This document contains information on radon potential variations »ithin counties.
                EPA also recommends that th,s map be supplemented mth any available local data in order to further understand and predict the radon potential of a specific area.

-------
Figure 2
   GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL OF THE UNITED STATES
                            by the U.S. Geological Survey
                                        Continental United States
                                           and Hawaii
                                                 500
                                                                Geologic Radon
                                                                  Potential
                                                                (Predicted Average
                                                               Screening Measurement)

                                                               |   [LOW (<2pCI/L)

                                                               T^m MODiRATE/V AR1ABLE
                                                                  HIGH (>4pCI/L)
                                            Mites
                                                                          6/93

-------
potential and some data are available for each of these factors in every geologic province. The
province boundaries  do not coincide with political borders (county and state) but define areas
of general radon potential.  The five factors were assigned numerical values based on an
assessment of their respective contribution to radon potential, and a confidence level was
assigned to each contributing variable.  The approach used by USGS to estimate the radon
potential for each province is described in Part II of this document.
       EPA subsequently developed the Map of Radon Zones by  extrapolating from the
province level to the county level so that all counties in the U.S. were assigned to one of
three radon zones. EPA  assigned each county to a given zone based on its provincial radon
potential. For example, if a county is located within a geologic province that has a predicted
average screening level greater  than 4 pCi/L, it was assigned  to Zone 1. Likewise, counties
located in provinces  with predicted average screening levels > 2 pCi/L  and < 4 pCi/L, and
less than 2 pCi/L, were assigned to Zones 2 and 3, respectively.
       If the boundaries  of a county fall  in more than one geologic province, the county was
assigned to a zone based on the predicted radon  potential of the province in which  most of
the area lies.  For example, if three different provinces cross through a given county, the
county was assigned to the zone representing the radon potential of the province containing
most of the county's  land area.  (In this case, it  is not technically correct to say that the
predicted average screening level  applies to the  entire county  since the  county falls in
multiple provinces with differing  radon potentials.)
       Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate an example  of how EPA  extrapolated the county zone
designations for Nebraska from the USGS geologic province  map for the State.  As figure 3
shows, USGS has identified 5 geologic provinces for Nebraska, Most of the counties are
extrapolated "straight"  from their  corresponding provinces, but there are counties "partitioned"
by several provinces — for example, Lincoln County.  Although Lincoln county falls in
multiple  provinces, it was assigned to  Zone 3 because most of its area falls in the province
with the  lowest radon potential.
       It is important to note that EPA's extrapolation from the  province level to the
county level  may  mask  significant "highs" and "lows" within specific counties. In other
words, within-county  variations in radon potential are not shown on the Map of Radon
Zones.  EPA recommends that users who may need to address specific within-county
variations in radon potential (e.g., local government officials considering the
implementation of radon-resistant construction codes) consult USGS' Geologic Radon
Province Map and the State chapters provided with this map for more detailed
information, as well as  any  locally available data.

Map Validation

       The Map of Radon  Zones is intended to represent a preliminary assessment of radon
potential for the entire United States.  The factors that are used in this  effort —indoor radon
data, geology, aerial  radioactivity, soils, and foundation type ~ are basic indicators for radon
potential. It is important to note, however, that the map's county zone  designations are not
"statistically valid" predictions due to  the nature of the data available for these 5 factors at the
county level. In order to validate the map in light of this lack of statistical confidence, EPA
conducted a number of analyses.  These analyses have helped EPA to identify the best
situations in which to apply the map, and its limitations.
                                           1-5

-------
Figure 3
                 Geologic  Radon Potential  Provinces  for  Nebraska
         Li nc o1o County

           Ii |l       lioien it t      Lot
Figure 4
         NEBRASKA  •  EPA Map  of  Radon  Zones
        Lincoln County
         ZOBC t    Zone I    Zone 3
                                       1-6

-------
       One such analysis involved comparing county zone designations to indoor radon
measurements from the State/EPA Residential Radon Surveys (SRRS).  Screening averages
for counties with at least 100 measurements were compared to the counties' predicted radon
potential as indicated by the Map of Radon Zones. EPA found that 72% of the county
screening averages were correctly reflected by the appropriate zone designations on the Map.
In all other cases, they only differed by 1 zone.
       Another accuracy analysis used the annual average data from the National Residential
Radon Survey (NRRS). The NRRS indicated that approximately 6 million homes in the
United States have annual averages greater than or equal to 4 pCi/L.  By cross checking the
county location of the approximately 5,700 homes which participated in the survey, their
radon measurements,  and the zone designations for these counties, EPA found that
approximately 3.8 million homes of the 5.4 million homes with radon levels greater than or
equal to 4 pCi/L will be found in counties designated as Zone 1.  A random sampling of an
equal number of counties would have only  found approximately 1.8 million homes greater
than 4 pCi/L.  In other words, this analysis indicated that the map approach is three times
more efficient at identifying high radon areas than random selection of zone designations.
       Together, these analyses show  that the approach EPA used to develop the Map of
Radon Zones is  a reasonable one. In addition, the Agency's confidence is enhanced by results
of the extensive  State review process — the map  generally agrees with the States' knowledge
of and experience in their own jurisdictions. However, the accuracy analyses highlight two
important points: the fact that elevated levels will be found in Zones 2 and 3, and that there
will be significant numbers of homes with lower indoor radon levels in all of the Zones.  For
these reasons,  users of the Map of Radon Zones need to supplement the Map  with locally
available data whenever possible. Although all known "hot spots", i.e., localized areas of
consistently elevated levels, are discussed in the State-
specific chapters, accurately defining the boundaries of the "hot spots" on this  scale of map is
not possible at this time. Also, unknown "hot spots" do exist.
       The Map of Radon Zones is intended to be a starting point for characterizing radon
potential because our knowledge of radon sources and transport is always growing.  Although
this effort represents the best data available at this time, EPA will continue to  study these
parameters and others such as house construction, ventilation features and meteorology factors
in order to better characterize the presence of radon in U.S homes, especially in high risk
areas.  These efforts will eventually assist EPA in refining  and revising the conclusions of the
Map of Radon Zones.  And although this map is most appropriately used as a  targeting tool
by the aforementioned audiences — the Agency encourages all residents to test their homes
for radon, regardless of geographic  location or the zone designation of the county in
which they live. Similarly, the Map of Radon Zones should not to be used in  lieu of
testing during real estate transactions.

Review Process

       The Map of Radon Zones has undergone  extensive review within EPA  and outside the
Agency.  The Association of American State Geologists (AASG) played an integral role in
this review process.  The AASG individual State geologists have reviewed their State-specific
information, the  USGS Geologic Radon Province Map, and other materials for their geologic
content and consistency.
                                          1-7

-------
       In addition to each State geologist providing technical comments, the State radon
offices were asked to comment on their respective States' radon potential evaluations.  In
particular, the States were asked to evaluate the data used to assign their counties to specific
zones, EPA and USGS worked with the States to resolve any issues concerning county zone
designations.  In a few cases, States have requested  changes in county zone designations.  The
requests were  based on additional data from the State on geology, indoor radon
measurements, population, etc.  Upon reviewing the data submitted by the  States, EPA did
make some  changes in zone designations.  These changes, which do not strictly follow the
methodology outlined in  this document, are discussed in the respective State chapters.
       EPA encourages the States and counties to conduct further research and data collection
efforts to  refine the Map of Radon Zones. EPA would like to be kept informed of any
changes the States, counties, or others make to the maps.  Updates and revisions will be
handled in a similar fashion to the way the map was developed.  States should notify EPA of
any proposed changes by forwarding the changes through the Regional EPA offices that are
listed in Part II.  Depending on the amount of new information that is presented, EPA  will
consider updating this map periodically. The State radon programs should initiate proper
notification  of the appropriate State officials when the Map of Radon Zones is released and
when revisions or updates are made by the State or EPA.
                                          1-8

-------
    THE USGS/EPA  RADON  POTENTIAL ASSESSMENTS: AN INTRODUCTION
                                           by
                      Linda C.S. Gimdersen and R, Randall Schumann
                                  U.S. Geological Survey
                                           and
                                    Sharon W. White
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

BACKGROUND

    The Indoor Radon  Abatement Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2661-2671) directed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify areas of the United States that have the
potential to produce harmful levels of indoor radon.  These characterizations were to be based
on both geological data and on indoor radon  levels in homes and other structures.  The EPA
also was directed to develop model  standards and techniques for new building construction
that would provide  adequate prevention  or mitigation of radon entry. As part of an
Interagency Agreement between  the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the USGS
has prepared  radon  potential estimates for the United States. This report is one  of ten
booklets that document this effort.  The purpose and intended use of these reports is to help
identify areas where states  can target their radon program resources, to provide guidance in
selecting the  most appropriate building code options for areas, and to provide general
information on radon and geology for each state for federal, state, and municipal officials
dealing with  radon issues.  These reports are not intended to be used as a substitute for
indoor radon testing, and they cannot and should not be  used to estimate or predict the
indoor radon concentrations of individual homes, building sites, or housing tracts.  Elevated
levels of indoor radon  have been found  in every State, and EPA recommends that all homes
be tested for  indoor radon.
    Booklets detailing  the radon potential assessment for the U.S.  have been developed for
each State. USGS geologists are the authors of the geologic radon potential booklets. Each
booklet consists of several  components,  the first being an overview to the mapping project
(Part I), this introduction to the USGS assessment (Part II), including a general  discussion of
radon (occurrence, transport, etc.), and details concerning the types of data used. The third
component is a summary chapter outlining the general geology and geologic radon potential
of the EPA Region  (Part III).  The fourth component is an individual chapter for each state
(Part IV). Each state chapter discusses the state's specific geographic setting, soils, geologic
setting, geologic radon potential, indoor radon data, and a summary  outlining the radon
potential rankings of geologic areas in the state.  A variety of maps  are presented in each
chapter—geologic, geographic, population, soils, aerial radioactivity, and indoor radon data by
county. Finally, the booklets contain EPA's map of radon zones for each state and an
accompanying description (Part V).
    Because  of constraints  on the scales of maps presented in these reports and  because the
smallest units used  to present the indoor radon data are counties, some generalizations have
been  made in order to estimate  the radon potential of each area.  Variations in  geology, soil
characteristics, climatic factors, homeowner lifestyles, and other factors that influence radon
concentrations can be quite large within any particular geologic area, so  these reports cannot
be used to estimate or  predict the indoor radon  concentrations of individual homes or housing


                                           II-l     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
tracts.  Within any area of a given geologic radon potential ranking, there are likely to be
areas where the radon potential is lower or higher than that assigned to the area as a whole,
especially in larger areas such as the large counties in some western states.
    In each state chapter, references to additional reports related to radon are listed for the
state, and the reader is urged to consult these reports for more detailed information.  In most
cases the best sources of information on radon for specific areas are state and local
departments of health, state departments responsible for nuclear safety or environmental
protection, and U.S. EPA regional offices. More detailed information on state or local
geology may be obtained from the state geological surveys.  Addresses and telephone
numbers of state radon contacts, geological surveys, and EPA regional offices are listed in
Appendix C at the end of this chapter.

RADON GENERATION AND TRANSPORT IN SOILS

    Radon (2MRn) is produced from the radioactive decay of radium (ZMRa), which  is, in turn,
a product of the decay of uranium (238U) (fig.  1). The half-life of 222Rn is 3.825 days. Other
isotopes of radon occur naturally,  but, with the exception of thoron (~°Rn), which occurs  in
concentrations high enough to be of concern in a few localized areas, they are less important
in terms of indoor radon risk because of their extremely short half-lives and less common
occurrence.  In general, the concentration and mobility  of radon in soil are dependent on
several  factors, the most important of which are the soil's radium content and distribution,
porosity, permeability to gas movement, and moisture content.  These characteristics are,  in
turn, determined by the soil's parent-material composition, climate, and the soil's age or
maturity.  If parent-material composition, climate, vegetation, age of the soil, and topography
are known, the physical and chemical properties of a soil in a given area can be predicted.
    As  soils form, they develop distinct layers, or horizons, that are cumulatively called the
soil profile.  The A horizon is a surface or near-surface horizon containing a relative
abundance of organic matter but dominated by mineral  matter.  Some soils contain an E
horizon, directly below the A horizon, that is generally characterized  by loss of clays, iron, or
aluminum, and has a characteristically lighter color than the A  horizon.  The B  horizon
underlies the A or E horizon. Important characteristics of B horizons include accumulation of
clays, iron oxides, calcium carbonate or other soluble salts, and organic matter complexes.  In
drier environments, a horizon may exist within or below the B horizon that is dominated  by
calcium carbonate, often called caliche or calcrete.  This carbonate-cemented horizon is
designated the K horizon in modern soil classification schemes. The C horizon underlies the
B (or K) and is a zone of weathered parent material that does not exhibit characteristics of A
or B horizons;  that is, it is generally not a zone of leaching or  accumulation.  In soils formed
in place from  the underlying bedrock, the C horizon is  a zone of unconsolidated, weathered
bedrock overlying the unweathered bedrock.
    The shape and orientation of soil particles (soil structure) control permeability  and affect
water movement  in the soil.  Soils with blocky or granular structure have roughly equivalent
permeabilities in  the horizontal and vertical directions,  and air  and water can infiltrate the soil
relatively easily.  However, in soils with platy structure, horizontal permeability is much
greater  than vertical permeability, and air and moisture infiltration is  generally slow.   Soils
with prismatic or columnar structure have dominantly vertical permeability.  Platy  and
prismatic structures form in soils with high clay contents. In soils with shrink-swell  clays, air


                                           II-2    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
       Lead-214
        lead.206
        STABLE
                                                                                           Uranlum-238
                                                                                          4.S1 billion years


                                                                                  Protactlnlum-234

                                                                                           Uranlum-234
                                                                                           247,000 years
                                                                     J 80,000 years
                                                           Hadlum-226 fa
                                                            1602 years
Figure 1.  The uranium-238 decay series, showing the half-lives of elements and their modes of decay (after Wanty and
Schoen, 1991). a denotes alpha decay, p denotes beta decay.

-------
 and moisture infiltration rates and depth of wetting may be limited when the cracks in the
 surface soil layers swell shut. Clay-rich B horizons, particularly those with massive or platy
 structure, can form a capping layer that impedes the escape of soil gas to the surface
 (Schumann and others,  1992).  However, the shrinkage of clays can act to open or widen
 cracks upon drying, thus increasing the soil's permeability to gas flow during drier periods.
       Radon transport in soils occurs by  two processes: (1) diffusion and (2) flow (Tanner,
 1964).  Diffusion is the process whereby radon atoms move from areas of higher
 concentration to areas of lower concentration in response to a concentration gradient.  Flow is
 the process by  which soil air moves through soil pores in response to differences in pressure
 within the soil  or between the soil and the atmosphere, carrying the radon atoms along with it.
 Diffusion is the dominant radon transport  process in soils of low permeability, whereas flow
 tends to dominate in highly permeable soils (Sextro and others, 1987).  In low-permeability
 soils, much of  the radon may decay before it is able to enter a building because  its transport
 rate is reduced. Conversely, highly permeable soils, even those that are relatively low in
 radium, such as those derived from some types of glacial deposits, have been associated  with
 high indoor radon levels in Europe and in the northern United States (Akerblom  and others,
 1984; Kunz and others, 1989; Sextro and others, 1987). In areas of karst topography formed
 in carbonate rock (limestone or dolomite)  environments, solution cavities and fissures can
 increase soil permeability at depth by providing additional pathways for gas flow.
    Not all radium contained in soil grains and grain coatings will result in mobile radon
 when the radium decays.  Depending on where the radium is distributed in the soil, many of
 the radon atoms may remain imbedded in  the soil grain containing the parent radium atom, or
 become imbedded in adjacent soil grains.  The portion  of radium that releases radon into the
 pores and fractures of rocks and soils is called the emanating fraction.  When a radium atom
 decays to radon, the energy  generated is strong enough to send the radon atom a distance of
 about 40 nanometers (1 nm  = 10"* meters), or about 2xlO"6 inches—this is known as alpha
 recoil (Tanner,  1980).  Moisture in the soil lessens the chance of a recoiling radon atom
 becoming imbedded in an adjacent grain.  Because water is more dense than air,  a radon atom
 will travel a shorter distance in a water-filled pore than in an air-filled pore, thus increasing
 the likelihood that the radon atom will remain in the pore space. Intermediate moisture  levels
 enhance radon  emanation but do not significantly affect permeability.  However,  high
 moisture levels can significantly decrease the gas permeability of the soil and impede radon
 movement through  the soil.
    Concentrations of radon in soils are generally many times higher than those inside of
 buildings, ranging from tens of pCi/L to more than  100,000 pCi/L, but typically  in the range
 of hundreds to  low thousands of pCi/L. Soil-gas radon concentrations can vary in response to
 variations in climate and weather on hourly, daily, or seasonal time scales.  Schumann and
 others (1992) and Rose and others (1988)  recorded order-of-magnitude variations in soil-gas
 radon concentrations between seasons in Colorado and Pennsylvania. The most important
 factors appear to be (1) soil moisture conditions, which are controlled in large part by
 precipitation; (2) barometric pressure; and (3) temperature.  Washington and Rose (1990)
 suggest that temperature-controlled partitioning of radon between water and gas in soil pores
 also has a significant influence on  the amount  of mobile radon in soil gas.
    Homes in hilly limestone regions of the southern Appalachians were found to have higher
 indoor radon concentrations during the summer than in the winter. A suggested  cause for this
phenomenon involves temperature/pressure-driven flow of radon-laden air from subsurface


                                          II-4    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
solution cavities in the carbonate rock into houses.  As warm air enters solution cavities that
are higher on the hillslope than the homes, it cools and settles, pushing radon-laden air from
lower in the  cave or cavity system into structures on the  hillslope (Gammage and others,
1993).  In contrast, homes built over  caves having openings situated below the level of the
home had higher indoor radon levels  in the winter, caused by cooler outside air entering the
cave, driving radon-laden air into cracks and solution cavities in the rock and  soil, and
ultimately, into homes (Gammage and others, 1993).

RADON ENTRY INTO BUILDINGS

    A driving force (reduced atmospheric pressure in the house relative to the soil, producing
a pressure gradient) and entry points must exist for radon to enter a building from the soil.
The negative pressure caused by furnace combustion, ventilation devices, and the stack effect
(the rising and escape of warm air from the upper floors  of the building,  causing a
temperature and pressure gradient within the  structure) during cold winter months are
common driving forces.  Cracks and other penetrations through building foundations, sump
holes, and slab-to-foundation wall joints are common entry points.
    Radon levels in the basement are generally higher than those on the main  floor or upper
floors of most structures.  Homes with basements generally provide more entry points for
radon, commonly have a more pronounced stack effect, and typically have lower air pressure
relative  to the surrounding soil than nonbasement homes.  The term "nonbasement" applies to
slab-on-grade or crawl space construction.

METHODS AND  SOURCES OF DATA

    The assessments of radon potential in the booklets that follow this  introduction were
made using five main types of data: (1) geologic (lithologic); (2) aerial radiometric; (3) soil
characteristics, including soil moisture, permeability,  and  drainage characteristics; (4) indoor
radon data; and (5) building architecture (specifically, whether homes in each area are built
slab-on-grade or have a basement or crawl space). These five factors were evaluated and
integrated to  produce estimates of radon potential. Field  measurements of soil-gas radon or
soil radioactivity were not used except where such data were available  in existing, published
reports of local field studies. Where applicable, such field studies are described in the
individual state chapters.

GEOLOGIC DATA

    The types and distribution of lithologic units and other geologic features in an
assessment area are of primary importance in determining radon potential.  Rock types that
are most likely to  cause indoor radon problems include carbonaceous black shales, glauconite-
bearing  sandstones, certain kinds of fluvial sandstones and fluvial sediments, phosphorites,
chalk, karst-producing carbonate rocks, certain kinds of glacial deposits, bauxite, uranium-rich
granitic rocks, metamorphie rocks of  granitic composition, silica-rich volcanic rocks, many
sheared  or faulted rocks, some coals,  and certain kinds of contact metamorphosed rocks.
Rock types least likely to cause radon problems include marine quartz  sands, non-
carbonaceous shales and siltstones, certain kinds of clays, silica-poor metamorphie and

                                           II-5     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
 igneous rocks, and basalts.  Exceptions exist within these general lithologic groups because of
 the occurrence of localized uranium deposits, commonly of the hydrothermal type in
 crystalline rocks or the "roll-front"  type in sedimentary rocks.  Uranium and radium are
 commonly sited in heavy minerals, iron-oxide coatings on rock and soil grains, and organic
 materials in soils and sediments.  Less common are uranium associated with phosphate and
 carbonate complexes in rocks and soils, and uranium minerals.
    Although many cases of elevated indoor radon levels can be traced to high radium and
 (or) uranium concentrations in parent rocks, some structural features, most notably faults and
 shear zones, have  been identified as sites of localized uranium concentrations (Deffeyes and
 MacGregor, 1980) and have been associated with some of the highest reported indoor radon
 levels (Gundersen, 1991). The two highest known indoor radon occurrences are associated
 with sheared fault zones in Boyertown, Pennsylvania (Gundersen and others, 1988a; Smith
 and others, 1987), and in Clinton, New Jersey (Henry and others, 1991; Muessig and Bell,
 1988).

 NURE AERIAL RADIOMETRIC DATA

    Aerial radiometric data are used to quantify the radioactivity of rocks and soils.
 Equivalent uranium (eU) data provide an estimate of the surficial concentrations of radon
 parent materials (uranium, radium) in rocks and soils. Equivalent uranium is calculated from
 the counts received by a gamma-ray detector from the 1.76 MeV (mega-electron volts)
 emission energy corresponding to bismuth-214 (2MBi), with the assumption that uranium and
 its decay products are in secular equilibrium. Equivalent uranium is expressed in units of
 parts per million (ppm).  Gamma radioactivity also may be expressed in terms  of a radium
 activity; 3 ppm eU corresponds to approximately  1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g)  of radium-226.
 Although  radon is highly mobile in soil and its concentration is affected by meteorological
 conditions (Kovach, 1945; Klusman  and Jaacks, 1987; Schery and others, 1984; Schumann
 and others, 1992), statistical correlations between  average soil-gas radon concentrations and
 average eU values for  a wide variety of soils have been  documented (Gundersen and others,
 1988a, 1988b; Schumann and Owen, 1988). Aerial radiometric data can provide an estimate
 of radon source strength over a region, but the amount of radon that is able to enter a home
 from the soil is dependent on several local factors, including soil structure, grain size
 distribution, moisture content, and permeability, as well as type of house construction and its
 structural  condition.
    The aerial radiometric data used for these characterizations were collected as part of the
Department of Energy  National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program of the 1970s
and early  1980s.  The purpose of the NURE program was to identify and describe areas in the
United States having potential uranium resources  (U.S. Department of Energy,  1976).  The
NURE aerial radiometric data were collected by aircraft in which a gamma-ray spectrometer
 was mounted, flying approximately  122 m (400 ft) above the ground surface. The equivalent
 uranium maps presented in the state chapters were generated from reprocessed  NURE data in
 which smoothing,  filtering, recalibrating, and matching of adjacent quadrangle data sets were
performed to compensate for background, altitude, calibration, and other types  of errors and
inconsistencies in the original data set (Duval and others, 1989). The data were then gridded
and contoured to produce maps of eU with a pixel size corresponding to approximately 2.5 x
2.5 km (1.6x 1.6  mi).


                                          II-6      Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                  FLICHt  UNE SPACING OF  SURE AERIAL SURVEYS
                     2  KM (1  MILE]
                     5  IK (3  HUES]
                     2  & 5 £X
                 E3  10  KU (6  UlLESj
                     5  i; 10 IV
                     NO  DATA
Hgirc 2. Nominal flightline spacings for NURE aerial gamma-ray surveys covoing the
contiguous United States (fromDuval and others, 1990). Rectangles represent I°x2° quadrangles.

-------
    Figure 2 is an index map of NURE 1° x 2° quadrangles showing the flight-line spacing
 for each quadrangle.  In general, the more closely spaced the flightlines are, the more area
 was covered by the aerial gamma survey, and thus, more detail is available in the data set,
 For an altitude of 400 ft above the ground surface and with primary flightline spacing
 typically between 3 and 6 miles, less than 10 percent of the ground surface of the United
 States was actually measured by the airborne gamma-ray detectors (Duval and others, 1989),
 although some areas had better coverage than others due to the differences in flight-line
 spacing between areas (fig.  2). This suggests that some  localized uranium anomalies may not
 have  been detected by the aerial surveys, but the good correlations of elJ patterns with
 geologic outcrop patterns indicate that, at relatively small scales (approximately 1:1,000,000
 or smaller) the National elJ map (Duval and others, 1989) gives reasonably good estimates  of
 average surface uranium concentrations and thus can assist in the prediction  of radon potential
 of rocks and soils, especially when augmented with additional geologic and soil data.
    The shallow (20-30 cm) depth of investigation of gamma-ray spectrometers, either
 ground-based or  airborne (Duval and others, 1971; Durrance, 1986), suggests that gamma-ray
 data may sometimes underestimate the radon-source strength in soils in which some of the
 radionuclides in the near-surface soil layers have been transported downward through  the soil
 profile.  In such  cases the concentration of radioactive minerals in the A horizon would be
 lower than in the B horizon, where such minerals are typically concentrated. The
 concentration of radionuclides in the C horizon and below may be relatively unaffected by
 surface  solution processes.   Under these conditions the surface gamma-ray signal may indicate
 a lower radon source concentration than actually exists in the deeper soil layers, which are
 most  likely to affect radon levels in structures with basements.  The redistribution of
 radionuclides in soil profiles is dependent on a combination of climatic, geologic,  and
 geochemical  factors.  There is reason to believe that correlations of eU with  actual soil
 radium and uranium concentrations at a depth relevant to radon entry into  structures may be
 regionally variable (Duval,  1989; Schumann  and Gundersen, 1991).  Given sufficient
 understanding of the factors cited  above, these regional differences may be predictable.

 SOIL SURVEY DATA

    Soil surveys  prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation  Service (SCS) provide data on soil
 characteristics, including soil-cover thickness, grain-size  distribution, permeability, shrink-
swell  potential, vegetative cover, generalized groundwater characteristics, and land use. The
reports are available in county formats and State summaries.  The county  reports typically
contain  both  generalized and detailed maps of soils in  the area.
    Because of time and map-scale constraints,  it was  impractical  to examine county  soil
reports for each county in the United States, so more generalized summaries at appropriate
scales were used where available.  For State or regional-scale radon characterizations, soil
maps were compared to geologic maps of the area, and the soil descriptions, shrink-swell
potential,  drainage characteristics, depth to seasonal high water table, permeability, and other
relevant characteristics of each soil group noted. Technical soil terms used in soil surveys are
generally  complex; however, a good summary of soil engineering terms and  the national
distribution of technical soil types is the "Soils" sheet of the National Atlas (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 1987).
                                           II-8     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
    Soil permeability is commonly expressed in SCS soil surveys in terms of the speed, in
inches per hour (in/hr), at which water soaks into the soil, as measured in a  soil percolation
test. Although in/hr are not truly units of permeability, these units are in  widespread use and
are referred to as "permeability" in SCS soil surveys.  The permeabilities listed in the SCS
surveys are for water, but they generally correlate well with gas permeability.  Because data
on gas permeability of soils is extremely limited, data on permeability to water is used as a
substitute  except in cases in which excessive soil moisture is known to exist.  Water in soil
pores inhibits gas transport, so the amount of radon available to a home is effectively reduced
by a high  water table.  Areas likely to have high water tables include river valleys, coastal
areas, and some areas overlain by deposits of glacial origin (for example,  loess).
    Soil permeabilities greater than 6.0 in/hr may be considered high, and permeabilities less
than 0.6 in/hr may be considered low in terms of soil-gas transport.  Soils with low
permeability  may generally be considered to have a lower radon potential than  more
permeable soils with similar radium concentrations. Many well-developed soils contain a
clay-rich B horizon that may impede vertical soil gas transport.  Radon generated below this
horizon cannot readily escape to the surface, so it would instead tend to move laterally,
especially under the influence of a negative pressure exerted by a building.
    Shrink-swell potential is an indicator of the abundance of smectitic (swelling) clays in a
soil. Soils with a high shrink-swell potential may cause building foundations to crack,
creating pathways for radon entry into the structure.  During dry periods, desiccation cracks in
shrink-swell soils provide additional pathways for soil-gas transport and effectively increase
the gas permeability of the soil. Soil  permeability data and  soil profile data thus provide
important  information for regional radon assessments.

INDOOR RADON DATA

    Two major sources of indoor radon data were used.  The first and largest source of data is
from the State/EPA Residential Radon Survey (Ronca-Battista and others, 1988; Dziuban and
others, 1990). Forty-two states completed EPA-sponsored indoor radon surveys between 1986
and 1992  (fig. 3).  The State/EPA Residential Radon Surveys were designed to be
comprehensive and statistically significant at the state level,  and were subjected to high levels
of quality  assurance and control.  The surveys collected screening indoor radon measurements,
defined as 2-7 day measurements using  charcoal canister radon detectors placed in the  lowest
livable area of the home.  The target population for the surveys included owner-occupied
single family, detached housing units  (White and others, 1989), although attached structures
such as duplexes, townhouses, or condominiums were included in some of the surveys if they
met the other criteria and had contact with the ground surface.  Participants  were selected
randomly  from telephone-directory listings.  In total, approximately 60,000 homes were tested
in the State/EPA surveys.
    The second source of indoor radon data comes from residential surveys  that have been
conducted in a specific state or region of the country (e.g. independent state surveys or utility
company surveys).  Several states, including Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Utah, have conducted their own surveys of indoor radon.  The
quality  and design of a state or other  independent survey are discussed and referenced  where
the data are used.
                                           II-9     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                                        STATE/EPA RESIDENTIAL RADON
                                     SURVEY SCREENING MEASUREMENTS
   ^' -1 ll:ip|l^^^i*%>
                               0
                                                                           I
Estimated Percent of Houses with Screening Levels Greater llian 4 pCi/L

                                               20    and  >
 The States of DEJI^NI IJfV JJY, and UT
 h*vc conductcil Iheir own sunwqps. OR &
 SD declined to participate in Ihc SRRS.
                       These results are based on 2-7 day screening
                       measurements in the lowest livable level anu should not
                       be used to estimate annual averages or health risks.
Figure 3. Percent of homes tested in the State/EPA Residential Radon Survey with screening indoor radon levels exceeding 4 pCi/L.

-------
    Data for only those counties with five or more measurements are shown in the indoor
radon maps in the state chapters,  although data for all counties with a nonzero number of
measurements are listed in the indoor radon data tables in each state chapter.  In total, indoor
radon data from more than 100,000 homes nationwide were used in the compilation of these
assessments.  Radon data from State or regional indoor radon surveys, public health
organizations, or other sources are discussed in addition to the primary data sources where
they are available.  Nearly all of the data used in these evaluations represent short-term (2-7
day) screening measurements from the lowest livable space of the homes.  Specific details
concerning the nature and use of indoor radon data sets other than the State/EPA Residential
Radon Survey are discussed in the individual State chapters.

RADON INDEX AND  CONFIDENCE INDEX

    Many of the geologic methods used to evaluate an area for, radon potential require
subjective opinions based  on the professional judgment and experience of the individual
geologist.  The evaluations are nevertheless based on established scientific principles that are
universally applicable to any geographic area or geologic setting. This section describes the
methods  and .conceptual framework used by the  U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate areas for
radon potential based on the five factors discussed in the previous sections.  The scheme is
divided into two basic parts, a Radon Index (RI), used to rank the general radon potential of
the area,  and the Confidence Index (CI), used to express the level of confidence in the
prediction based on the quantity and quality of the data used to make the determination.  This
scheme works best if the areas to be evaluated are delineated by geologically-based
boundaries (geologic provinces) rather than political  ones (state/county boundaries) in which
the geology may vary across the area.
    Radon Index.  Table  1 presents the Radon Index (RI) matrix. The five factors—indoor
radon data, geology, aerial radioactivity, soil parameters, and house foundation type—were
quantitatively  ranked (using a point value of 1, 2, or 3) for their respective contribution to
radon potential in a given area.  At least some data for the 5 factors are consistently  available
for every geologic province.  Because each of these main  factors encompass a wide variety of
complex  and variable components, the. geologists performing the evaluation relied heavily on
their professional judgment and experience in assigning point values to each category and in
determining the  overall  radon potential  ranking.  Background information on these factors is
discussed in more detail in the preceding sections of this introduction.
    Indoor radon was evaluated using unweighted arithmetic means of the indoor radon data
for each  geologic area to be assessed.  Other expressions of indoor radon levels in an area
also could  have  been  used, such as weighted averages or annual averages, but  these types of
data were not consistently available for the entire United States at the time of this writing, or
the schemes were not considered sufficient to provide a means of consistent comparison
across all areas.  For this  report, charcoal-canister screening measurement data from the
State/EPA  Residential Radon Surveys and other carefully  selected sources were used, as
described in the preceding section.  To  maintain consistency, other indoor radon data sets
(vendor,  state, or other data) were not considered in  scoring the indoor radon factor of the
Radon Index if they were not randomly sampled or could not be statistically combined with
the primary indoor radon  data sets.  However, these  additional radon  data sets can provide a
means to further refine  correlations between geologic factors and radon potential, so they are


                                          II-11      Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
TABLE 1.  RADON INDEX MATRIX, "ppm eU" indicates parts per million of equivalent
uranium, as indicated by NURE aerial radiometric data. See text discussion for details.

FACTOR
INDOOR RADON (average)
AERIAL RADIOACTIVITY
GEOLOGY*
SOIL PERMEABILITY
ARCHITECTURE TYPE
INCREASING RADON POTENTIAL ^

POINT VALUE
1
<2pCi/L
< 1.5 ppmeU
negative
low
mostly slab
2
2-4pCi/L
1.5 - 2.5 ppm eU
variable
moderate
mixed
3
>4pCi/L
> 2.5 ppm eU
positive
high
mostly basement
*GEOLOGIC FIELD EVIDENCE (GFE) POINTS: GFE points are assigned in addition to points
   for the "Geology" factor for specific, relevant geologic field studies. See text for details.

   Geologic evidence supporting:    HIGH radon        +2 points
                              MODERATE       +1 point
                              LOW             -2 points
                  No relevant geologic field studies     0 points
SCORING:
            Radon potential catesorv
            LOW
            MODERATE/VARIABLE
            HIGH
                                   Probable average screening
                      Point range	indoor radon for area
                      3-8 points
                      9-11 points
                     12-17 points
           <2pCi/L
           2-4pCi/L
           >4pCi/L
                     POSSIBLE RANGE OF POINTS = 3 to 17
TABLE 2.  CONFIDENCE INDEX MATRIX
                                    INCREASING CONFIDENCE
	 , 	 ^
FACTOR
INDOOR RADON DATA
AERIAL RADIOACTIVITY
GEOLOGIC DATA
SOIL PERMEABILITY
POINT VALUE
1
sparse/no data
questionable/no data
questionable
questionable/no data
2
fair coverage/quality
glacial cover
variable
variable
3
good coverage/quality
no glacial cover
proven geol. model
reliable, abundant
SCORING:
LOW CONFIDENCE
MODERATE CONFIDENCE
HIGH CONFIDENCE
 4-6  points
 7-9  points
10 -12 points
                     POSSIBLE RANGE OF POINTS = 4 to 12
                                     11-12     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
included as supplementary information and are discussed in the individual State chapters.  If
the average screening indoor radon level for an area was less than 2 pCi/L, the indoor radon
factor was assigned 1 point, if it was between 2 and 4 pCi/L, it was scored 2 points, and if
the average screening indoor radon level for an area was greater than 4 pCi/L, the indoor
radon factor was assigned 3 RI points.
    Aerial radioactivity data used in this report are from the equivalent uranium map of the
conterminous United States compiled from NUKE aerial gamma-ray surveys (Duval and
others, 1989).  These data indicate the gamma radioactivity from  approximately the upper 30
cm of rock and soil, expressed in units of ppm equivalent uranium.  An approximate average
value of eU was determined visually for each  area and point values assigned based on
whether the overall eU for the area falls below 1.5  ppm (1 point), between 1.5  and 2.5 ppm
(2 points), or greater than 2.5  ppm (3 points).
    The geology factor is complex and actually incorporates many geologic characteristics.  In
the matrix, "positive" and "negative" refer to the presence or absence and distribution of rock
types known to have high uranium contents and to generate elevated radon in soils or indoors.
Examples of "positive" rock types include granites, black shales, phosphatic rocks, and other
rock types described in the preceding "geologic data" section.  Examples of "negative" rock
types include marine quartz sands and some clays.  The term "variable" indicates that the
geology within the region is variable or that the rock types in the area are known or suspected
to generate elevated radon in some areas but not in others due to  compositional differences,
climatic effects, localizeddistribution of uranium, or other factors.  Geologic information
indicates not only  how much uranium is present in  the rocks and  soils but also  gives clues for
predicting general radon  emanation and mobility characteristics through additional factors
such as structure (notably the  presence of faults or shears)  and geochernical characteristics
(for example, a phosphate-rich sandstone will likely contain more uranium than a sandstone
containing little or no phosphate because the phosphate forms chemical complexes with
uranium).  "Negative", "variable", and "positive" geology were assigned 1, 2, and 3 points,
respectively.
    In cases where additional  reinforcing or contradictory geologic evidence is  available,
Geologic Field Evidence (GFE) points were added to or subtracted from an area's score
(Table 1).  Relevant geologic  field studies are important to enhancing our understanding of
how geologic processes affect radon distribution. In some cases,  geologic models and
supporting field  data reinforced an already  strong (high or low) score; in others, they provided
important contradictory data.  GFE points were applied for geologically-sound evidence that
supports  the prediction (but which may contradict one or more factors) on the basis of known
geologic field  studies in  the area or in areas with geologic and climatic settings similar
enough that they could be applied with full confidence. For example, areas of the Dakotas,
Minnesota, and Iowa that are  covered with Wisconsin-age glacial deposits exhibit a low aerial
radiometric signature and score only one RI point in that category. Howevers data from
geologic field  studies in  North Dakota and Minnesota (Schumann and others, 1991) suggest
that eU is a poor predictor of geologic radon potential in this area because radionuclides have

                                          11-13     Reprinted from USOS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
 been leached from the upper soil layers but are present and possibly even concentrated in
 deeper soil horizons, generating significant soil-gas radon.  This positive supporting field
 evidence adds two GFE points to the score, which helps to counteract the invalid conclusion
 suggested by the radiometric data. No GFE points are awarded if there are no documented
 field studies for the area.
     "Soil permeability" refers to several soil characteristics that influence radon concentration
 and mobility, including soil  type, grain size, structure, soil  moisture, drainage, slope, and
 permeability. In the matrix, "low" refers to permeabilities  less than about 0.6 in/hr; "high"
 corresponds to greater than about 6.0 in/hr, in U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) standard
 soil percolation tests.  The SCS data are for water permeability, which generally correlates
 well with the gas permeability of the soil except when the  soil moisture content is very high.
 Areas with consistently high water tables were thus considered to have low gas permeability.
 "Low, "moderate", and "high" permeability were assigned  1, 2, and 3 points, respectively.
    Architecture type refers  to whether homes in the area have mostly  basements (3 points),
 mostly slab-on-grade construction (1  point), or a mixture of the'two. Split-level and crawl
 space homes fall into  the "mixed" category (2 points).  Architecture information is necessary
 to properly interpret the indoor radon data and produce geologic radon potential categories
 that are consistent with screening indoor radon data.
     The overall  RI for an area is calculated by adding the individual RI scores for the 5
 factors, plus or minus GFE points, if any.  The total RI for an area falls in one of three
 categories—low, moderate or variable, or high. The point ranges for the three categories were
 determined by examining the possible combinations of points for the 5 factors and setting
 rules such that a majority (3  of 5 factors) would determine the final score for the low and
 high categories, with allowances for possible deviation from an ideal score by the other two
 factors.  The moderate/variable category lies between these two ranges.  A  total deviation of 3
 points from the "ideal" score was considered reasonable to  allow for natural variability of
 factors—if two of the five factors are allowed to vary from the "ideal"  for  a category, they
 can differ by a minimum of 2 (1 point different each) and a maximum of 4 points (2 points
 different each).  With "ideal" scores of 5, 10, and 15 points describing  low, moderate, and
 high geologic radon potential, respectively, an ideal low score of 5 points plus 3 points for
 possible variability allows a  maximum of 8 points in the low category.  Similarly, an ideal
 high score of 15  points minus 3  points gives a minimum of 12 points for the high category.
 Note, however, that if both other factors differ by two points from the  "ideal", indicating
 considerable variability in the system, the total point score  would lie in the adjacent (i.e.,
 moderate/variable)  category.
    Confidence Index, Except for architecture type, the same factors were used to establish a
 Confidence Index (CI) for the radon  potential  prediction for each area (Table 2).  Architecture
 type was not included in the confidence index because house construction data are readily and
 reliably available through surveys taken by agencies and industry groups including the
 National Association of Home Builders, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Federal Housing Administration; thus it was not considered necessary

                                           11-14     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
to question the quality or validity of these data.  The other factors were scored on the basis of
the quality and quantity  of the data used to complete the RI matrix.
    Indoor radon data were evaluated based on the distribution and number of data points and
on whether the data were collected by random sa-npling (State/EPA Residential Radon Survey
or other state survey data) or volunteered vendor data (likely to be nonrandom and biased
toward population centers  and/or high indoor radon levels).  The categories listed in the CI
matrix for indoor radon  data ("sparse or no data", "fair coverage or quality", and "good
coverage/quality") indicate the sampling density  and statistical robustness of an indoor radon
data set.  Data from the  State/EPA Residential Radon  Survey and statistically valid state
surveys were typically assigned 3 Confidence Index points unless the data were poorly
distributed or absent in the area evaluated.
    Aerial radioactivity data are available for all but a few areas of the continental  United
States and for part of Alaska.  An evaluation of the quality of the radioactivity data was based
on whether there appeared to be a good correlation between the radioactivity  and the actual
amount of uranium or radium available to generate mobile radon in the rocks and soils of the
area evaluated. In general, the greatest problems with correlations among eU, geology, and
soil-gas or indoor radon  levels were associated with glacial deposits (see the discussion in a
previous section) and typically were assigned a 2-point Confidence Index score.  Correlations
among eU, geology, and radon were generally sound in unglaciated areas and were usually
assigned 3 CI points.  Again, however, radioactivity data in some unglaciated areas may have
been assigned fewer than 3 points, and in glaciated areas may be assigned only one point, if
the data were considered questionable or if coverage was poor.
    To  assign Confidence Index scores for the geologic data factor, rock types and geologic
settings for which a physical-chemical, process-based understanding of radon generation and
mobility exists were regarded as having "proven geologic models" (3 points); a high
confidence could be held for predictions in such areas. Rocks for which the processes are
less well known or for which data are contradictory were regarded as "variable" (2 points),
and those about which little is known  or for which no apparent correlations have been found
were deemed "questionable"  (1 point).
    The soil permeability factor was also scored based on quality and amount  of data. The
three categories for soil permeability in the Confidence Index are similar in concept, and
scored similarly, to those for the geologic data factor.  Soil permeability can be roughly
estimated from grain size and drainage class if data from standard, accepted soil percolation
tests are unavailable; however, the reliability of the data would be lower than if percolation
test figures or other measured permeability data  are available, because an estimate of this type
does not encompass all the factors that affect soil permeability and thus may be inaccurate in
some instances.  Most published soil permeability data are for water; although this is
generally closely related to the air permeability of the soil, there are some instances when it
may provide an incorrect estimate. Examples of areas in which water permeability data may
not accurately reflect air permeability  include areas with consistently high levels of soil
moisture, or clay-rich soils, which would have a low water permeability but may have a

                                           11-15     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
significantly higher air permeability when dry due to shrinkage cracks in the soil.  These
additional factors were applied to the soil permeability factor when assigning the RI score, but
may have less certainty in some cases and thus would be assigned a lower CI score.
    The Radon Index and Confidence Index give a general indication of the relative
contributions of the interrelated geologic factors influencing radon generation and transport in
rocks and soils,  and thus, of the potential for elevated indoor radon levels to occur in a
particular area.  However, because these reports are somewhat generalized to cover relatively
large areas of States, it is highly  recommended that more detailed studies be performed in
local areas of interest,  using the methods and general information in these booklets as a guide.
                                          11-16    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                                REFERENCES CITED

Akerblom, G., Anderson, P., and Clavensjo, B., 1984, Soil gas radon—A source for indoor radon
       daughters: Radiation Protection Dosimetry, ^ "   . 49-54.

Deffeyes, K.S., and MacGregor, I.D,, 1980, World uranium resources: Scientific American,
       v.242, p. 66-76.

Durrance, E.M., 1986, Radioactivity in geology: Principles and applications: New York, N.Y.,
       Wiley and Sons, 441 p.

Duval, J.S., 1989, Radioactivity and some of its applications in geology: Proceedings of the
       symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems
       (SAGEEP), Golden, Colorado, March 13-16,1989: Society of Engineering and Mineral
       Exploration Geophysicists, p.  1-61.

Duval, J.S., Cook, E.G., and Adams, J.A.S., 1971, Circle of investigation of an airborne
       gamma-ray spectrometer: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 76, p. 8466-8470.

Duval, J.S., Jones, WJ., Riggle, F.R.* and Pitkin, J.A., 1989, Equivalent uranium map of
       conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-478,10 p.

Duval, J.S., Reimer, G.M., Schumann, R.R., Owen, D.E., and Otton, J.K., 1990, Soil-gas
       radon compared to aerial and ground gamma-ray measurements at study sites near Greeley
       and Fort Collins, Colorado:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-648,42 p.

Dziuban, J.A., Clifford, M.A., White, S.B., Bergstein, J.W.,  and Alexander, B.V., 1990,
       Residential radon survey of twenty-three States, in Proceedings of the 1990 International
       Symposium on Radon and Radon Reduction Technology, Vol. HI: Preprints: U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency report EPA/600/9-90/W5c, Paper IV-2,17 p.

Gammage, R.B., Wilson, D.L., Saultz, R.J., and Bauer, B.C., 1993, Subtereanean transport of
       radon and elevated indoor radon in hilly karst terranes:  Atmospheric Environment
       (in press).

Gundersen, L.C.S., Reimer, G.M., and Agard, S.S., 1988a, Correlation between geology, radon
       in soil gas, and indoor radon in the Reading Prong, in Marikos, M.A., and Hansman,
       R.H., eds., Geologic causes of natural radionuclide anomalies: Missouri Department of
       Natural Resources Special Publication 4, p. 91-102.

Gundersen, L.C.S, Reimer, G.M., Wiggs, C.R., and Rice, C.A., 1988b, Map showing radon
       potential of rocks and soils in Montgomery County, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey
       Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2043, scale 1:62,500.

Gundersen, Linda C.S., 1991, Radon in sheared metamorphic and igneous rocks, in Gundersen,
       Linda C.S.,  and Richard B. Wanty, eds., Field studies of radon in rocks, soils, and water:
       U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin no. 1971, p. 39-50.
                                         11-17     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Henry, Mitchell E., Kaeding, Margret E., and Monteverde, Donald, 1991, Radon in soil gas and
       gamma-ray activity of rocks and soils at the Mulligan Quany, Clinton, New Jersey, in
       Gundersen, Linda C.S., and Richard B. Wanty, eds., Field studies of radon in rocks,
       soils, and water:  U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin no. 1971, p. 65-75.

Kinsman, R, W,, and Jaacks, J. A., 1987, Environmental influences upon mercury, radon, and
       helium concentrations in soil gases at a site near Denver, Colorado: Journal of
       Geochemical Exploration, v. 27, p. 259-280.

Kovach, E.M., 1945, Meteorological influences upon the radon content of soil gas: Transactions,
       American Geophysical Union, v. 26, p. 241-248.

Kunz, C, Laymon, C.A., and Parker, C., 1989, Gravelly soils and indoor radon, in Osborne,
       M.C., and Harrison, J., eds., Proceedings of the 1988 EPA Symposium on Radon and
       Radon Reduction Technology, Volume 1:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
       EPA/600/9-89/006A, p. 5-75-5-86.

Muessig, K., and Bell, C., 1988, Use of airborne radiometric data to direct testing for elevated
       indoor radon: Northeastern Environmental Science, v. 7, no. 1, p. 45-51.

Ronca-Battista, M., Moon, M., Bergsten, J., White, S.B., Holt,  N., and Alexander, B., 1988,
       Radon-222 concentrations in the United States-Results of sample surveys in five states:
       Radiation Protection Dosimetry, v. 24, p. 307-312.

Rose, A.W., Washington, J.W., and Greeman, D.J., 1988, Variability of radon with depth and
       season in a central Pennsylvania soil developed on limestone: Northeastern Environmental
       Science, v. 7, p. 35-39.

Schery, S.D., Gaeddert, D.H., and Wilkening, M.H., 1984, Factors affecting exhalation of radon
       from a gravely sandy loam: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 89, p. 7299-7309.

Schumann, R.R., and Owen, D.E., 1988, Relationships between  geology, equivalent uranium
       concentration, and radon in soil gas,  Fairfax County, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey
       Open-File Report 88-18,28 p.

Schumann, R.R., and Gundersen, L.C.S., 1991, Regional differences in radon emanation
       coefficients in soils: Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs, v. 23,
       no. 1, p.  125.

Schumann, R.R., Peake, R.T., Schmidt, K.M., and Owen, D.E., 1991, Correlations of soil-gas
       and indoor radon with geology in glacially derived soils of the northern Great Plains, in
       Proceedings of the 1990 International Symposium on Radon and Radon Reduction
       Technology, Volume 2, Symposium Oral Papers: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       report EPA/600/9-91/026b, p. 6-23-6-36.
                                        II-18     Reprinted from TJSGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Schumann, R.R., Owen, D.E., and Asher-Bolinder, S., 1992, Effects of weather and soil
       characteristics on temporal variations in soil-gas radon concentrations, in Gates, A.E., and
       Gundersen, L.C.S., eds., Geologic controls on radon: Geological Society of America
       Special Paper 271, p. 65-72.

Sextro, R.G., Moed, B.A., Nazaroff, W.W., Revzan, K.L., and Nero, A.V., 1987,
       Investigations of soil as a source of indoor radon, in Hopke, P.K., ed., Radon and its
       decay products: American Chemical Society Symposium Series 331, p. 10-29.

Sterling, R., Meixel, G., Shen, L., Labs, K,, and Bligh, T., 1985, Assessment of the energy
       savings potential of building foundations research:  Oak Ridge, Term., U.S. Department of
       Energy Report ORNL/SUB/84-0024/1.

Smith, R.C., H, Reilly, M.A., Rose, A.W., Barnes, J.H., and Berkheiser, S.W., Jr., 1987,
       Radon: a profound case: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 18, p. 1-7.

Tanner, A.B., 1964, Radon migration in the ground: a review, in Adams, J.A.S., and Lowder,
       W.M., eds., The natural radiation environment:  Chicago, HI., University of Chicago
       Press, p. 161-190.

Tanner, A.B., 1980, Radon migration in the ground: a supplementary review, in Gesell, T.F.,
       and Lowder, W.M. (eds), Natural radiation environment HI, Symposium proceedings,
       Houston, Texas, v. 1, p. 5-56.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1987, Principal kinds of soils:  Orders, suborders, and great
       groups: U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the United States of America, sheet
       38077-BE-NA-07M-00, scale 1:7,500,000.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1976, National Uranium Resource Evaluation preliminary report,
       prepared by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Grand Junction,
       Colo.: GJO-11(76).

Wanty, Richard B., and Schoen, Robert, 1991, A review of the chemical processes affecting the
       mobility of radionuclides in natural waters, with applications, in Gundersen, Linda C.S.,
       and Richard B. Wanty, eds., Field studies of radon in rocks, soils, and water: U.S.
       Geological Survey BuEetin no. 1971, p. 183-194.

Washington, J.W., and Rose, A.W., 1990, Regional and temporal relations of radon in soil gas to
       soil temperature and moisture: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 17, p. 829-832.

White, S.B., Bergsten, J.W., Alexander, B.V., and Ronca-Battista, M., 1989, Multi-State
       surveys of indoor 222Rn: Health Physics, v. 57, p. 891-896.
                                         TJ-19     Reprinted from TJSGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                                               APPENDIX  A
                                      GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE
Subdivisions {and their symbols)
Eon or
Eonothtm
Phanerozoie2

Preteroiole "
igi


Archean
(A)

Era or
Erathem
Cenozote *
tea
Mesoroic2
(Md

Paleozoic
trd


Ut»
r*«*rBie*e (23
MICBI»
*w«eje* fVI
£lrtV
*fe*»*eioic IX)
Law
AlttMlftlW)
MlSBM
Arerwtn rV)
Early
Arr*..n
-------
                                    APPENDIX  B
                               GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Units of measure
pCi/L (picocuries per liter)- a unit of measure of radioactivity used to describe radon
concentrations in a volume of air.  One picocurie (10"12 curies) is equal to about 2.2 disintegrations
of radon atoms per minute. A liter is about 1.06 quarts. The average concentration of radon in
U.S. homes measured to date is between 1 and 2 pQ/L.

Bq/m3 (Becquerels per cubic meter)- a metric unit of radioactivity used to describe radon
concentrations in a volume of air.  One becquerel is equal to one radioactive disintegration per
second. One pG/L is equal to 37 Bq/m3.

ppm (parts per million)- a unit of measure of concentration by weight of an element in a
substance, in this case, soil or rock.  One ppm of uranium contained in a ton of rock corresponds
to about 0.03 ounces of uranium. The average concentration of uranium in soils in the United
States is between 1 and 2 ppm.

in/hr (inches per hour)- a unit of measure used by soil scientists and engineers to describe the
permeability of a soil to water flowing through it It is measured by digging a hole 1 foot (12
inches) square and one foot deep, filling it with water, and measuring the time it takes for the water
to drain from the hole.  The drop in height of the water level in the hole, measured in inches, is
then divided by the time (in hours) to determine the permeability. Soils range in permeability from
less than 0,06 in/hr to greater than 20 in/hr, but most soils in the United States have permeabilities
between these two extremes.
Geologic terms and terms related to the study of radon

aerial radiometric, aeroradiometric survey  A survey of radioactivity, usually gamma rays,
taken by an aircraft carrying a gamma-ray spectrometer pointed at the ground surface.

alluvial fan A low, widespread mass of loose rock and soil material, shaped like an open fan
and deposited by a stream at the point where it flows from a narrow mountain valley out onto a
plain or broader valley.  May also form at the junction with larger streams or when the gradient of
the stream abruptly decreases.

alluvium, alluvial General terms referring to unconsolidated detrital material deposited by a
stream or other body of running water.

alpha-track detector A passive radon measurement device consisting of a plastic film that is
sensitive to alpha particles. The film is etched with acid in a laboratory after it is exposed. The
etching reveals scratches, or "tracks", left by the alpha particles resulting from radon decay, which
can then be counted to calculate the radon concentration. Useful for long-term (1-12 months)
radon tests.

amphibolite  A mafic metamorphic rock consisting mainly of pyroxenes and(or) amphibole and
plagioclase.
                                          11-21     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
argillite, argillaceous Terms refening to a rock derived from clay or shale, or any sedimentary
rock containing an appreciable amount of clay-size material, i.e., argillaceous sandstone,

arid Term describing a climate characterized by dryness, or an evaporation rate that exceeds the
amount of precipitation.

basalt A general term for a dark-colored mafic igneous rocks that may be of extrusive origin,
such as volcanic basalt flows, or intrusive origin, such as basalt dikes.

batholith A mass of plutonic  igneous rock that has more than 40 square miles of surface
exposure and no known bottom.

carbonate A sedimentary rock consisting of the carbonate (COa) compounds of calcium,
magnesium, or iron, e.g. limestone and dolomite.

carbonaceous Said of a rock or sediment that is rich in carbon, is coaly, or contains organic
matter.

charcoal canister A passive radon measurement device consisting of a small container of
granulated activated charcoal that is designed to adsorb radon. Useful for short duration (2-7 days)
measurements only. May be referred to as a "screening" test

chert A hard, extremely dense sedimentary rock consisting dominantly of interlocking crystals of
quartz. Crystals are not visible to the naked eye, giving the rock a milky, dull luster. It may be
white or gray but is commonly colored red, black, yellow, blue, pink, brown, or green.

clastic pertaining to a rock or  sediment composed of fragments that are derived from preexisting
rocks or minerals. The most common clastic sedimentary rocks are sandstone and shale.

day A rock containing clay mineral fragments or material of any composition having a diameter
less than 1/256 mm.

day mineral One of a complex and loosely defined group of finely crystalline minerals made up
of water, silicate and aluminum (and a wide variety of other elements). They are formed chiefly by
alteration or weathering of primary silicate minerals. Certain clay minerals are noted for their small
size and ability to absorb substantial amounts of water, causing them to swell. The change in size
that occurs as these clays change between dry and wet is referred to as their "shrink-swdl"
potential.

concretion A hard, compact mass of mineral matter, normally subspherical but commonly
irregular in shape; formed by precipitation from a water solution about a nucleus or center, such as
a leaf, shell,  bone, or fossil, within a sedimentary or fractured rock.

conglomerate A coarse-grained, clastic sedimentary rock composed of rock and mineral
fragments larger than 2 mm, set in a finer-grained matrix of clastic material.

cuesta A hill or ridge with a gentle slope on one side and a steep slope on the other.  The
formation of a cuesta is controlled by the different weathering properties and the structural dip of
me rocks forming the ME or ridge.

daughter product A nuelide  formed by the disintegration of a radioactive precursor or "parent"
atom.
                                          11-22     Reprinted fomUSGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
delta, deltaic Referring to a low, flat, alluvial tract of land having a triangular or fan shape,
located at or near the mouth of a river. It results from the accumulation of sediment deposited by a
river at the point at which the river loses its ability to transport the sediment, commonly where a
river meets a larger body of water such as a lake or ocean.

dike A tabular igneous intrusion of rock, younger than the surrounding rock, that commonly cuts
across the bedding or foliation of the rock it intrudes.

diorite A plutonic igneous rock that is medium in color and contains visible dark minerals that
make up less than 50% of the rock. It also contains abundant sodium plagioclase and minor
quartz.

dolomite A carbonate sedimentary rock of which more than 50% consists of the mineral dolomite
(CaMg(COs)2), and is commonly white, gray, brown, yellow, or pinkish in color.

drainage The manner in which the waters of an area pass, flow off of, or flow into the soil.
Also refers to the water features of an area, such as lakes and rivers, that drain it.

eolian  Pertaining to sediments deposited by the wind.

esker A long, narrow, steep-sided ridge composed of irregular beds of sand and gravel deposited
by streams beneath a glacier and left behind when the ice melted.

evapotranspiration Loss of water from a land area by evaporation from the soil and
transpiration from plants.

extrusive Said of igneous rocks mat have been erupted onto the surface of the Earth.

fault A fracture or zone of fractures in rock or sediment along which there has been movement

fluvial, fluvial  deposit Pertaining to sediment that has been deposited by a river or stream.

foliation A linear feature in a rock defined by both mineralogic and structural characteristics.  It
may. be formed during deformation or metamorphism.

formation A mappable body  of rock having similar characteristics.

glacial deposit Any sediment transported and deposited by a glacier or processes associated
with glaciers, such as glaciofluvial sediments deposited by streams flowing from melting glaciers.

gneiss A rock f ormed by metamorphism in which bands and lenses of minerals of similar
composition alternate with bands arid lenses of different composition, giving the rock a striped or
"foliated" appearance.

granite Broadly applied, any coarsely crystalline, quartz- and feldspar-bearing igneous plutonic
rock. Technically, granites have between 10 and 50% quartz, and alkali feldspar comprises at least
65% of the total feldspar.

gravel An unconsolidated, natural accumulation of rock fragments consisting predominantly of
particles  greater than 2 mm in size.

heavy minerals Mineral grains in sediment or sedimentary rock having higher than average
specific gravity. May form layers and lenses because of wind or water sorting by weight and size
                                          11-23     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
and may be referred to as a "placer deposit" Some heavy minerals are magnetite, garnet, zircon,
monazite, and xenotime.
igneous Said of a rock or mineral that solidified from molten or partly molten rock material. It is
one of the three main classes into which rocks are divided, the others being sedimentary and
metamorphic.
intermontane A term that refers to an area between two mountains or mountain ranges.
intrusion, intrusive  The processes of emplacement or injection of molten rock into pre-existing
rock. Also refers to the rock formed by intrusive processes, such as an "intrusive igneous rock".
kame A low mound, knob, hummock, or short irregular ridge formed by a glacial stream at the
margin of a melting glacier; composed of bedded sand and gravel.
karst terrain A type of topography that is formed on limestone, gypsum and other rocks by
dissolution of the rock by water, forming sinkholes and caves.
lignite A brownish-black coal that is intermediate in coalification between peat and
subbituminous coal.
limestone A carbonate sedimentary rock consisting of more than 50% calcium carbonate,
primarily in the form of the mineral calcite (CaCOs).
lithology The description of rocks in hand specimen and in outcrop on the basis of color,
composition, and grain size.
loam A permeable soil composed of a mixture of relatively equal parts clay, silt, and sand, and
usually containing some organic matter.
loess A fine-grained eolian deposit composed of silt-sized particles generally thought to have
been deposited from windblown dust of Pleistocene age.
mafic Term describing an igneous rock containing more than 50% dark-colored minerals.
marine Term describing sediments deposited in the ocean, or precipitated from ocean waters.
metamorphic Any rock derived from pre-existing rocks by mineralogical, chemical, or structural
changes in response to changes in temperature, pressure, stress, and the chemical environment
PhylMte, schist, ampMbolite, and gneiss are metamorphic rocks.
moraine A mound, ridge, or other distinct accumulation of unsorted, imbedded glacial material,
predominantly til, deposited by the action of glacial ice.
outcrop That part of a geologic formation or structure that appears at the surface of the Earth, as
in "rock outcrop".
percolation test A term used in engineering for a test to determine the water permeability of a
soil. A hole is dug and filled with water and the rate of water level decline is measured.
permeability The capacity of a rock, sediment, or soil to transmit liquid or gas.
phosphate, phosphatic, phosphorite Any rock or sediment containing a significant amount
of phosphate minerals, i.e., minerals containing PO4.

                                          11-24     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
physiographic province A region in which all parts are similar in geologic structure and
climate, which has had a uniform geomorphic history, and whose topography or landforms differ
significantly from adjacent regions.

placer deposit See heavy minerals

residual Formed by weathering of a material in place,

residuum Deposit of residual material.

rhyolite An extrusive igneous rock of volcanic origin, compositionally equivalent to granite.

sandstone A clastic sedimentary rock composed of sand-sized rock and mineral material that is
more or less firmly cemented. Sand particles range from 1/16 to 2 mm in size.

schist A strongly foliated crystalline rock, formed by metamorphism, that can be readily split into
thin flakes or slabs.  Contains mica; minerals are typically aligned.

screening level Result of an indoor radon test taken with a charcoal canister or similar device,
for a short period of time, usually less than seven days. May indicate the potential for an indoor
radon problem but does not indicate annual exposure to radon.

sediment Deposits of rock and mineral particles or fragments originating from material that is
transported by air, water or ice, or that accumulate by natural chemical precipitation or secretion of
organisms.

semiarid Refers to a climate that has slightly more precipitation than an arid climate.

shale A fine-grained sedimentary rock formed from solidification (Hthification) of clay or mud.

shear zone Refers to a roughly linear zone of rock that has been faulted by ductile or non-ductile
processes in which the rock is sheared and both sides are displaced relative to one another.

shrink-swell clay  See clay mineral.

siltstone A fine-grained clastic sedimentary rock composed of silt-sized rock and mineral
material and more or less firmly cemented. Silt particles range from 1/16 to 1/256 mm in size.

sinkhole A roughly circular depression in a karst area measuring meters to tens of meters in
diameter. It is funnel shaped and is formed by collapse of the surface material into an underlying
void created by the dissolution of carbonate rock.

slope An inclined part of the earth's surface.

solution cavity A hole, channel or cave-like cavity formed by dissolution of rock.

stratigraphy The study of rock strata; also refers to the succession of rocks of a particular area.

surfkial materials Unconsolidated glacial, wind-, or waterborne deposits occurring on the
earth's surface.

tablelands General term for a broad, elevated region with a nearly level surface of considerable
extent
                                           1-25     Reprinted ftom USGS Open-Hie Report 93-292

-------
terrace gravel Gravel-sized material that caps ridges and terraces, left behind by a stream as it
cuts down to a lower level.

terrain A tract or region of the Earth's surface considered as a physical feature or an ecological
environment

till Unsorted, generally unconsolidated and unbedded rock and mineral material deposited directly
adjacent to and underneath a glacier, without reworking by meltwater. Size of grains varies greatly
from clay to boulders.

uraniferous Containing uranium, usually more than 2 ppm.

vendor data Used in this report to refer to indoor radon data collected and measured by
commercial vendors of radon measurement devices and/or services.

volcanic Pertaining to the activities, structures, and extrusive rock types of a volcano.

water table  The surface forming the boundary between the zone of saturation and the zone of
aeration; the top surface of a body of unconfined groundwater in rock or soil.

weathering  The destructive process by which earth and rock materials, on exposure to
atmospheric  elements, are changed in color, texture, composition, firmness, or form with little or
no transport of the material.
                                         11-26     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                                           APPENDIX C
                                  EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
 EPA  Regional  Offices
State
EPA  Region
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4502

EPA Region 2
(2AIR:RAD)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-4110

Region 3  (3AH14)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-8326

EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N,E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3907

EPARegion5(5AR26)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago,  IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-6175

EPA Region 6 (6T-AS)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-7224

EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7604

EPA Region 8
(8HWM-RP)
999 18th  Street
One Denver Place, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80202-2413
(303) 293-1713

EPA Region 9 (A-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1048

EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(202) 442-7660
Alabama	4
Alaska	.	10
Arizona	,...9
Arkansas	,	6
California	9
Colorado	8
Connecticut	,	1
Delaware	...,.,.3
District of Columbia	3
Florida.....	4
Georgia	4
Hawaii	9
Idaho	10
Illinois.....	5
Indiana	...5
Iowa	7
Kansas	:	7
Kentucky	4
Louisiana	....6
Maine	I
Maryland	3
Massachusetts....,	,	1
Michigan	5
Minnesota	...5,
Mississippi...	,	4
Missouri....	7
Montana	8
Nebraska	7
Nevada	9
New Hampshire	...1
New  Jersey	2
New Mexico	6
New York	2
North  Carolina...	4
North  Dakota..	8
Ohio	5
Oklahoma	6
Oregon	10
Pennsylvania	.,3
Rhode Island.	,	1
South  Carolina	.....,,.4
South  Dakota	8
Tennessee	4
Texas	,	6
Utah..	8
Vermont	1
Virginia	3
Washington	10
West Virginia	;	3
Wisconsin.—,	5
Wyoming....	8
                                                n-27
       Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
                                 STATE RADON  CONTACTS
                                            May, 1993
Alabama       James McNees
               Division of Radiation Control
               Alabama Department of Public Health
               State Office Building
               Montgomery, AL 36130
               (205) 242-53 15
               1-800-582-1866 in state
               Charles Tedford
               Department of Health and Social
                 Services
               P.O. Box 110613
               Juneau, AK 99811-0613
               (907)465-3019
               1-800-478-4845 in state

               John Stewart
               Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
               4814 South 40th St
               Phoenix, AZ 85040
               (602)2554845
Arkansas       LeeGershner
               Division of Radiation Control
               Department of Health
               4815 Markham Street, Slot 30
               Little Rock, AR 72205-3867
               (501)661-2301
California       J. David Quinton
               Department of Health Services
               714 P Street, Room 600
               Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
               (916) 324-2208
               1-800-745-7236 in stale
Colorado       Linda Martin
               Department of Health
               4210 East llth Avenue
               Denver, CO 80220
               (303)692-3057
               1-800-846-3986 in state
 Connecticut Alan J. Siniscalchi
            Radon Program
            Connecticut Department of Health
              Services
            150 Washington Street
            Hartford, CT 061064474
            (203) 566-3122

   Delaware MaraiG. Rejai
            Office of Radiation Control
            Division of Public Health
            P.O. Box 637
            Dover, DE 19903
            (302)736-3028
            1-800-554-4636 In State

    District Robert Davis
of Columbia DC Department of Consumer and
              Regulatory Affairs
            614 H Street NW
            Room 1014
            Washington, DC 20001
            (202)727-71068

    Florida N. Michael Gilley
            Office of Radiation Control
            Department of Health and
              Rehabilitative Services
            1317 Winewood Boulevard
            Tallahassee, EL 32399-0700
            (904)488-1525
            1-800-543-8279 in state
            Richard Schrciber
            Georgia Department of Human
              Resources
            878 Peachtree SL, Room 100
            Atlanta, GA 30309
            (404) 894-6644
            1-800-745-0037 in state
     Hawaii Russell Takata
            Environmental Health Services
              Division
            591 Ala Moana Boulevard
            Honolulu, HI 96813-2498
            (808)5864700
                                              n-28
      Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
PatMcGavarn
Office of Environmental Health
450 West State Street
Boise, ED 83720
(208) 334-6584
1-800-445-8647 in state
Richard Allen
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safely
1301 Outer Park Drive
Springfield, IL 62704
(217) 524-5614
1-800-325-1245 in state
Lorand Magyar
Radiological Health Section
Indiana State Department of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
P.O. Box 1964
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317)633-8563
1-800-272-9723 In State

Donald A. Plater
Bureau of Radiological Health
Iowa Department of Public Health
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319-0075
(515)281-3478
1-800-383-5992 In State

Harold Spiker
Radiation Control Program
Kansas Department of Health and
  Environment
109 SW 9th Street
6th Floor Mills Building
Topeka, KS 66612
(913)296-1561

JeanaPhelps
Radiation Control Branch
Department of Health Services
Cabinet for Human Resources
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3700
    Louisiana  Matt Schlenker
              Louisiana Department of
                Environmental Quality
              P.O. Box 82135
              Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135
              (504)925-7042
              1-800-256-2494 in state

       Maine  BobStilwell
              Division of Health Engineering
              Department of Human Services
              State House, Station 10
              Augusta, ME 04333
              (207)289-5676
              1-800-232-0842 in state

    Maryland  Leon J. Rachuba
              Radiological Health Program
              Maryland Department of the
                Environment
              2500 Broening Highway
              Baltimore, MD 21224
              (410)631-3301
              1-800-872-3666 In State

Massachusetts  William J. Bell
              Radiation Control Program
              Department of Public Health
              23 Service Center
              Northampton, MA 01060
              (413)586-7525
              1-800-445-1255 in state

    Michigan  Sue Hendershott
              Division of Radiological Health
              Bureau of Environmental and
                Occupational Health
              3423 North Logan Street
              P.O. Box 30195
              Lansing, MI 48909
              (517) 335-8194

   Minnesota  Laura Oatmann
              Indoor Air Quality Unit
              925 Delaware Street, SE
              P.O. Box 59040
              Minneapolis, MN 55459-0040
              (612)627-5480
              1-800-798-9050 in state
                                               11-29      Reprinted ftont USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Mississippi
Montana.
               Silas Anderson
               Division of Radiological Health
               Department of Health
               3 150 Lawson Street
               P.O. Box 1700
               Jackson, MS 39215-1700
               (601) 354-6657
               1-800-626-7739 in state

               Kenneth V. Miller
               Bureau of Radiological Health
               Missouri Department of Health
               1730 East Elm
               P.O. Box 570
               Jefferson City, MO 65102
               (314)751-6083
               1-800-669-7236 In State

               Adrian C, Howe
               Occupational Health Bureau
               Montana Department of Health and
                 Environmental Sciences
               Cogswell Building A113
               Helena, MT 59620
               (406)444-3671
               Joseph Mllone
               Division of Radiological Health
               Nebraska Department of Health
               301 Centennial Mall, South
               P.O. Box 95007
               Lincoln, NE 68509
               (402)471-2168
               1-800-334-9491 In State

               Stan Marshall
               Department of Human Resources
               505 East King Street
               Room 203
               Carson City, NV 89710
               (702)687-5394
New Hampshire David Chase
               Bureau of Radiological Health
               Division of Public Health Services
               Health and Welfare Building
               Six Hazen Drive
               Concord, NH 03301
               (603)271-4674
               1-800-852-3345 x4674
   New Jersey Tonalee Carlson Key
              Division of Environmental Quality
              Department of Environmental
                Protection
              CN415
              Trenton, NJ 08625-0145
              (609)987-6369
              1-800-648-0394 in state

  New Mexico William M. Floyd
              Radiation Licensing and Registration
                Section
              New Mexico Environmental
                Improvement Division
              1190 St. Francis Drive
              Santa Fe,NM 87503
              (505) 827-4300

    NewrYoTk William J. Condon
              Bureau of Environmental Radiation
                Protection
              New York State Health Department
              Two University Place
              Albany, NY 12202
              (518)458-6495
              1-800-458-1158 in state

North Carolina Dr. Felix Fong
              Radiation Protection Division
              Department of Environmental Health
                and Natural Resources
              701 Barbour Drive
              Raleigh, NC 27603-2008
              (919) 571-4141
              1-800-662-7301 (recorded info x4196)

 North Dakota Arlen Jacobson
              North Dakota Department of Health
              1200 Missouri Avenue, Room 304
              P.O. Box 5520
              Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
              (701)221-5188

         Ohio Marcie Matthews
              Radiological Health Program
              Department of Health
              1224 Kinnear Road - Suite 120
              Columbus, OH 43212
              (614)644-2727
              1-800-523-4439 in state
                                               n-30
                                                          Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
               Gene Smith
               Radiation Protection Division
               Oklahoma State Department of
                 Health
               P.O. Box 53551
               Oklahoma City, OK 73152
               (405) 271-5221
George Toombs
Department of Human Resources
Health Division
1400 SW 5th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503)731-4014
Michael Pyles
Pennsylvania Department of
  Environmental Resources
Bureau of Radiation Protection
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)783-3594
1-800-23-RADON In State

David Saldana
Radiological Health Division
G.P.O. Call Box 70184
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00936
(809)767-3563
Edmund Arcand
Division of Occupational Health and
  Radiation
Department of Health
205 Cannon Building
Davis Street
Providence, RI02908
(401)277-2438
               Bureau of Radiological Health
               Department of Health and
                 Environmental Control
               2600 Bull Street
               Columbia, SC 29201
               (803)734-4631
               1-800-768-0362
South Dakota MkePochop
             Division of Environment Regulation
             Department of Water and Natural
               Resources
             Joe Foss Building, Room 217
             523 E. Capitol
             Pierre, SD 57501-3181
             (605)773-3351

   Tennessee Susie Shimek
             Division of Air Pollution Control
             Bureau of the Environment
             Department of Environment and
               Conservation
             Customs House, 701 Broadway
             Nashville, IN 37219-5403
             (615)532-0733
             1-800-232-1139 in state

       Texas Gary Smith
             Bureau of Radiation Control
             Texas Department of Health
             1100 West 49th Street
             Austin, TX 78756-3189
             (512) 834-6688
       Utah  John Hultquist
             Bureau of Radiation Control
             Utah State Department of Health
             288 North, 1460 West
             P.O. Box 16690
             Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
             (801)536-4250

    Vermont  Paul demons
             Occupational and Radiological Health
               Division
             Vermont Department of Health
             10 Baldwin Street
             Montpelier, VT 05602
             (802) 828-2886
             1-800-640-0601 in state

Virgin Islands  Contact the U,S. Environmental
             Protection Agency, Region n
             in New York
             (212)264-4110
                                              H-31
                                          Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
Virginia         Shelly Ottenbrite
                Bureau of Radiological Health
                Department of Health
                109 Governor Street
                Richmond, VA 23219
                (804)786-5932
                1-800-468-0138 in state

Washington      KateColeman
                Department of Health
                Office of Radiation Protection
                Airdustrial Building 5, LE-13
                Olympia, WA 98504
                (206)7534518
                1-800-323-9727 In State

West Virginia    Beanie L.DeBord
                Industrial Hygiene Division
                West Virginia Department of Health
                151 llth Avenue
                South Charleston, WV 25303
                (304) 558-3526
                1-800-922-1255 In State

Wisconsin       Conrad Weiffenbach
                Radiation Protection Section
                Division of Health
                Department of Health and Social
                 Services
                P.O. Box 309
                Madison, WI53701-0309
                (608)2674796
                1-800-798-9050 in state

Wyoming       Janet Hough
                Wyoming Department of Health and
                 Social Services
                Hathway Building, 4th Floor
                Cheyenne, WY 82002-0710 '
                (307)777-6015
                1-800-458-5847 in state
                                               n-32
Reprinted from USGS Open-lite Report 93-292

-------
                            STATE  GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS
                                            May, 1993
Alabama        Ernest A. Mancini
               Geological Survey of Alabama
               P.O. Box 0
               420 Hackberry Lane
               Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780
               (205) 349-2852

Alaska         Thomas E. Smith
               Alaska Division of Geological &
                 Geophysical Surveys
               794 University Ave., Suite 200
               Fairbanks, AK 99709-3645
               (907)479-7147

Arizona        Larry D. Fellows
               Arizona Geological Survey
               845 North Park Ave., Suite 100
               Tucson, AZ 85719
               (602) 882-4795
Arkansas        Norman F. Williams
               Arkansas Geological Commission
               Vardelle Parham Geology Center
               3815 West Roosevelt Rd.
               LMe Rock, AR 72204
               (501)324-9165

California       James F. Davis
               California Division of Mines &
                 Geology
               801 K Street, MS 12-30
               Sacramento, CA 95814-3531
               (916)445-1923

Colorado        Pat Rogers (Acting)
               Colorado Geological Survey
               1313 Sherman St., Rm 715
               Denver, CO 80203
               (303)866-2611

Connecticut     Richard C. Hyde
               Connecticut Geological & Natural
                 History Survey
               165 Capitol Ave., Rm. 553
               Hartford, CT 06106
               (203) 566-3540

Delaware        Robert R. Jordan
               Delaware Geological Survey
               University of Delaware
               101 Penny Hall
           ,.   Newark, DE19716-7501
               (302)831-2833
 Florida  Walter Schmidt
        Florida Geological Survey
        903 W. Tennessee St
        Tallahassee, EL 32304-7700
        (904)488-4191
Georgia  William H. McLemore
        Georgia Geologic Survey
        Rm. 400
        19 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. SW
        Atlanta, GA 30334
        (404)656-3214

Hawaii  Manabu Tagomori
        Dept. of Land and Natural Resources
        Division of Water & Land Mgt
        P.O. Box 373
        Honolulu, HI 96809
        (808)548-7539

  Idaho  Earl H. Bennett
        Idaho Geological Survey
        University of Idaho
        Morrill Hall, Rm. 332
        Moscow, ID 83843
        (208) 885-7991

Illinois  Morris W. Leighton
        Illinois State Geological Survey
        Natural Resources Building
        615 East Peabody Dr.
        Champaign, H, 61820
        (217)333-4747

Indiana  Norman C. Hester
        Indiana Geological Survey
        611 North Walnut Grove
        Bloomington, IN 47405
        (812)855-9350

  Iowa  Donald L.Koch
        Iowa Department of Natural Resources
        Geological Survey Bureau
        109 Trowbridge Hall
        Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
        (319)335-1575

Kansas  Lee C. Gerhard
        Kansas Geological Survey
        1930 Constant Ave., West Campus
        University of Kansas
        Lawrence, KS 66047
        (913) 864-3965
                                              H-33
  Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
 Kentucky       Donald C. Haney
                Kentucky Geological Survey
                University of Kentucky
                228 Mining & Mineral Resources
                  Building
                Lexington, KY 40506-0107
                (60® 257-5500

 Louisiana       William E. Marsalis
                Louisiana Geological Survey
                P.O. Box 2827
                University Station
                Baton Rouge, LA 70821-2827
                (504)388-5320

 Maine          Walter A. Anderson
                Maine Geological Survey
                Department of Conservation
                State House, Station 22
                Augusta, ME 04333
                (207) 289-2801
Mmyland       Emery T. Cleaves
               Maryland Geological Survey
               2300 St Paul Street
               Baltimore, MD 21218-5210
               (410) 554-5500
Massachusetts   Joseph A. Slnnott
               Massachusetts Office of
                 Environmental Affairs
               100 Cambridge St, Room 2000
               Boston, MA 02202
               (617) 727-9800

Michigan       R. Thomas Segall
               Michigan Geological Survey DMsion
               Box 30256
               Lansing, MI 48909
               (517) 334-6923

Minnesota      Priscilla C. Grew
               Minnesota Geological Survey
               2642 University Ave.
               SL Paul, MN 55114-1057
               (612) 627-4780
Mississippi     S. Cragin Knox
               Mississippi Office of Geology
               P.O. Box 20307
               Jackson, MS 39289-1307
               (601) 961-5500
      Missouri James H. Williams
               Missouri Division of Geology &
                 Land Survey
               111 Fairgrounds Road
               P.O. Box 250
               Rolla, MO 65401
               (314) 368-2100

      Montana Edward T.Ruppel
               Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology
               Montana College of Mineral Science
                 and Technology, Main Hall
               Butte, MT 59701
               (406)496-4180

      Nebraska Perry B. Wigley
               Nebraska Conservation & Survey
                 Division
               113 Nebraska Hall
               University of Nebraska
               Lincoln, ME 68588-0517
               (402)472-2410

        Nevada Jonathan G. Price
               Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology
               Stop 178
               University of Nevada-Reno
               Reno, NV 89557-0088
               (702)784-6691

New Hampshire Eugene L. Boudette
               Dept. of Environmental Services
               117 James Hall
               University of New Hampshire
               Dufham,NH 03824-3589
               (603)862-3160

    New Jersey Haig F. Kasabach
               New Jersey Geological Survey
               P.O. Box 427
               Trenton, NJ 08625
               (609)292-1185

   New Mexico Charles E. Chapin
               New Mexico Bureau of Mines &
                 Mineral Resources
               Campus Station
               Socorro.NM 87801
               (505)835-5420

     NewYork Robert H. Fakundiny
               New York State Geological Survey
               3136 Cultural Education Center
               Empire State Plaza
               Albany, NY 12230
               (518)474-5816
                                               H-34
         Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
 North Carolina Charles H. Gardner
               North Carolina Geological Survey
               P.O. Bra 27687
               Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
               (919)733-3833

North Dakota   John P. Bluemle
               North Dakota Geological Survey
               600 East Blvd
               Bismarck, ND 58505-0840
               (701)224-4109
Ohio
Thomas M, Berg
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Division of Geological Survey
4383 Fountain Square Drive
Columbus, OH 43224-1362
(614) 265-6576

Charles J. ManMn
Oklahoma Geological Survey
Room N-131, Energy Center
100E.Boyd
Norman, OK 73019-0628
(405) 325-3031

Donald A. Hull
Dept of Geology & Mineral Must.
Suite 965
800 NE Oregon St. #28
Portland, OR 97232-2162
(503)73W600
Pennsylvania    Donald M. Hoskins
               Dept. of Environmental Resources
               Bureau of Topographic & Geologic
                 Survey
               P.O. Box 2357
               Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357
               (717)787-2169

Puerto Rico     Ramdn M. Alonso
               Puerto Rico Geological Survey
                 Division
               Box 5887
               PuertadeTierra Station
               San Juan, P.R, 00906
               (809)722-2526

Rhode Island    J. Allan Cain
               Department of Geology
               University of Rhode Island
               315 Green Hall
               Kingston, RI02881
               (401)792-2265
South Carolina Alan-Jon W. Zupan (Acting)
              South Carolina Geological Survey
              5 Geology Road
              Columbia, SC 29210-9998
              (803) 7_ 7-9440

 South Dakota C.M. Christensen (Acting)
              South Dakota Geological Survey
              Science Center
              University of South Dakota
              Vermiffion, SD 57069-2390
              (605)677-5227

    Tennessee Edward T.Luther
              Tennessee Division of Geology
              13th Hoor, L  & C Tower
              401 Church Street
              Nashville, TN 37243-0445
              (615) 532-1500

        Texag William L. Fisher
              Texas Bureau of Economic Geology
              University of Texas
              University Station, Box X
              Austin, TX 78713-7508
              (512)471-7721

         Utah M. Lee Allison
              Utah Geological & Mineral Survey
              2363 S. Foothill Dr.
              Salt Lake City, UT 84109-1491
              (801)467-7970
                                        Vermont  Diane L. Conrad
                                                 Vermont Division of Geology and
                                                   Mineral Resources
                                                 103 South Main St.
                                                 Watebury.VT 05671
                                                 (802)244-5164
                                        Virginia  Stanley S. Johnson
                                                 Virginia Division of Mineral
                                                   Resources
                                                 P.O. Box 3667
                                                 Charlottesville, VA  22903
                                                 (804) 293-5121
                                     Washington  Raymond Lasmanis
                                                 Washington Division of Geology &
                                                   Earth Resources
                                                 Department of Natural Resources
                                                 P.O. Box 47007
                                                 Olympia, Washington 98504-7007
                                                 (206)902-1450
                                               H-35      Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
  West Virginia Lany D. Woodfoik
               West Virginia Geological and
                 Economic Survey
               Mont Chateau Research Center
               P.O. Box 879
               Morgantown, WV  26507-0879
               (304) 594-2331

Wisconsin      James Robertson
               Wisconsin Geological & Natural
                 History Survey
               3817 Mineral Point Road
               Madison, WI 53705-5100
               (608)263-7384

Wyoming       Gary B. Glass
               Geological Survey of Wyoming
               University of Wyoming
               Box 3008, University Station
               Laramie, WY 82071-3008
               (307)766-2286
                                              n-36      Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292

-------
              EPA REGION 8 GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL SUMMARY
                                           by
       R. Randall Schumann, Douglass E. Owen, Russell F, Dubiel, and Sandra L. Szarzi
                                 U.S.  Geological Survey

       EPA Region 8 includes the states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming. For each state, geologic radon potential areas were delineated and ranked on
the basis of geologic, soils, housing construction, and other factors.  Areas in which the average
screening indoor radon level of all homes within the area is estimated to be greater than 4 pCi/L
were ranked high. Areas in which the average screening indoor radon level of all homes within the
area is estimated to be between 2 and 4 pCi/L were ranked moderate/variable, and areas in which
the average screening indoor radon level of all homes within the area is estimated to be less than
2 pGi/L were ranked low. Information on the data used and on the radon potential ranking scheme
is given in the introduction  to this volume. More detailed information on the geology and radon
potential of each state in Region 8 is given in the individual state chapters. The individual chapters
describing the geology and radon potential of the six states in EPA Region 8, though much more
detailed than this summary, still are generalized assessments and there is no substitute for having a
home tested. Within any radon potential area homes with indoor radon levels both above and
below the predicted average likely will be found.
       Figure 1 shows a generalized map of the physiographic provinces in EPA Region 8. The
following summary of radon potential in Region 8 is based on these provinces. Figure 2 shows
average screening indoor radon levels by county. The data for South Dakota are from the
EPA/Indian Health Service Residential Radon Survey and from The Radon Project of the
University of Pittsburgh; data for Utah are from an indoor radon survey conducted in  1988 by the
Utah Bureau of Radiation Control; data for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming are
from the State/EPA Residential Radon Survey.  Figure 3 shows the geologic radon potential areas
in Region 8, combined and summarized from the individual state chapters.  Rocks and soils in
EPA Region 8 contain ample radon source material (uranium and radium) and have soil
permeabilities sufficient to produce moderate or high radon levels in homes.  At the scale of this
evaluation, all areas in EPA Region 8 have either moderate or high geologic radon potential, except
for an area in southern South Dakota corresponding to the northern part of the Nebraska Sand
Hills, which has low radon potential.
       The limit of continental glaciation is of great significance in Montana, North Dakota, and
South Dakota (fig. 1). The glaciated portions of the Great Plains and the Central Lowland
generally have a higher radon potential than their counterparts to the south because glacial action
crushes and grinds up rocks as it forms till and other glacial deposits. This crushing and grinding
enhances weathering and increases the surface area from which radon may emanate; further, it
exposes more uranium and  radium at grain surfaces where they are more easily leached.  Leached
uranium and radium may be transported downward in the soil below the depth at which it may be
detected by a gamma-ray spectrometer (approximately 30 cm), giving these areas a relatively low
surface or aerial radiometric signature. However, the uranium and radium still are present at
depths shallow enough to allow generated radon to migrate into a home.
       The Central Lowland Province is a vast plain that lies between 500 and 2,000 feet above
sea level and forms the agricultural heart of the United States. In Region 8, it covers the eastern
part  of North Dakota and South Dakota. The Central Lowland in Region 8 has experienced the
effects of continental glaciation and also contains silt and clay deposits from a number of glacial
                                          ffl-l     Reprinted torn USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
Figure 1. Physiographic provinces in EPA Region 8 (after Hunt, C.W., 1967, Physiography of
the United States: Freeman and Co., p. 8-9.)

-------
                                100 Miles
                            Indoor Radon Screening
                         Measurements: Average (pCi/L)
                          160
                       76EZZ2
                    106
                           11
                      82
0.0 to 1.9
2.0 to 4.0
4.1 to 9.9
10.0 to 29.2
Missing Data
Figure 2. Average screening indoor radon levels by county for EPA Region 8. Data for
CO, MT, ND, and WY from the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey; data for UT from
the Utah Bureau of Radiation Control indoor radon survey; data for SD from the EPA/EHS
Indoor Radon Survey and from The Radon Project Histograms in map legend
indicate the number of counties in each measurement category.

-------
                                            GEOLOGIC
                                         RADON POTENTIAL
                                            HIGH

                                            MODERATE
                                            LOW
Figure 3. Geologic radon potential of EPA Region 8.

-------
 lakes. Many of the glacial deposits are derived from or contain components of the uranium-bearing
 Pierre Shale. Although many of the soils derived from glacial deposits in the Dakotas contain
 significant amounts of clay, the soils can have permeabilities that are higher than indicated by
 °*ardard water percolation tests due to shrinkage craekr when dry.  In addition, cla-'s tend to have
 high radon emanation coefficients because clay particles have a high surface-area-to-volume ratio
 compared to larger and(or) more spherical soil grains. These two factors make areas underlain by
 glacial deposits derived from the Pierre Shale, and areas underlain by glacial lake deposits, such as
 the Red River Valley, highly susceptible to indoor radon problems. Average indoor radon levels in
 this province generally are greater than 4 pCi/L (fig. 2).  The Central Lowland in Region 8 has
 high radon potential.
       The Great Plains Province is an extension of the Central Lowlands that rises from 2,000
 feet in the east to 5,000 feet above sea level in the west. In Region  8, it covers the western part of
 North and South Dakota and the eastern portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.  The
 northern part of the Great Plains has been glaciated (fig. 1) and previous comments about
 continental glaciation apply.  The Great Plains are largely underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary
 sedimentary rocks. In general, the Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks in the southern part of the Great
 Plains in Region 8 have a moderate to high radon potential. The Cretaceous Inyan Kara Group,
 which surrounds the Black Hills in southwestern South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming, locally
 hosts uranium deposits. There are a number of uranium occurrences in Tertiary sedimentary rocks
 in the northern part of the Great Plains, such as in the Powder River Basin. The northwestern part
 of the Great Plains contains numerous discontinuous uplifts (mountainous areas) that generally
 have high radon potential. A few, such as the Black Hills, have uranium districts associated with
 them.  Average indoor radon levels in this province are greater than 2 pCi/L, with a significant
 number of counties having average indoor radon concentrations exceeding 4 pCi/L (fig. 2).
       The Northern Rocky Mountains Province (fig. 1) has high radon potential. Generally, the
 igneous and  metamorphic rocks of this province have elevated uranium contents. The soils
 developed on these rocks typically have moderate or high permeability. Coarse-grained glacial
 flood deposits composed of sand, gravel, and  boulders, which are found in many of the valleys in
 the province, also have high permeability. A number of uranium occurrences are found in granite
 and chalcedony in the Boulder Batholith; in veins or pegmatite dikes in igneous and metamorphic
 rocks near Clancy in Jefferson County, near Saltese in Mineral County, and in the Bitterroot and
 Beartooth Mountains, all in Montana.  Uranium also occurs in Tertiary volcanic rocks about 20
 miles east of Helena, and in the Mississippian-age Madison Limestone in the Pryor Mountains.
 County average indoor radon levels generally  exceed 4 pCi/L in the province (fig. 2).
       The Wyoming Basin Province lies dominantly in Wyoming, but also includes an area of
 Tertiary sedimentary rocks in northern Colorado (fig. 1). The Wyoming Basin consists of a
 number of elevated semiarid basins separated by small mountain ranges. In general the rocks and
 soils have uranium contents greater than 2.5 ppm and host a number of uranium occurrences as
well, particularly in the Tertiary Fort Union and Wasatch Formations. Average indoor radon levels
for homes tested in this area generally are greater than 3 pCi/L (fig.  2).  The Wyoming Basin has a
 high radon potential.
       The Middle Rocky Mountains Province (fig. 1) has both moderate and high radon potential
 areas  (fig. 3). The southern part of the Middle Rocky Mountains province contains the Wasatch
Range in Utah, which has high radon potential, and the Uinta Mountains and the Overthrust Belt in
Utah and Wyoming, both of which have moderate radon potential.  The northern part of the
province contains the Yellowstone Plateau, which is underlain by volcanic rocks containing
                                           ffl-5    Reprinted from USGS Open-FUe Report 93-292-H

-------
relatively high uranium concentrations.  Mountain ranges such as the Grand Tetons and Big Horn
Mountains, which are underlain by granitic and metamorphic rocks that generally contain more
than 2.5 ppm uranium, also occur in this province.  County average indoor radon levels are mostly
in the 2-4 pCi/L range (fig. 2). The Yellowstone Plateau, Grand Tetons, and Big Horn Mountains
all have high geologic radon potential.
       The Southern Rocky Mountains Province lies dominantly in Colorado (fig. 1). Much of
the province is underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks with uranium contents generally
exceeding the upper continental crustal average of 2.5 ppm. The Front Range Mineral Belt west of
Denver hosts a number of uranium occurrences and inactive uranium mines.  County indoor radon
averages generally are greater than 4 pCi/L, except in the San Juan Mountains in south-central
Colorado, where the county radon averages range from 1 to 4 pCi/L (fig. 3).  The Southern Rocky
Mountains generally have high radon potential, with the main exception being the volcanic rocks of
the San Juan volcanic field (located in the southwestern part of the province) which have moderate
radon potential.
       The part of the Colorado Plateau Province in Region 8 has a band of high radon potential
and a core of moderate radon potential (figs. 1,3). The band of high radon potential consists
largely of: (1) the Uravan Mineral Belt, a uranium mining district, on the east; (2) the Uinta Basin,
which contains uranium-bearing Tertiary rocks, on the  north; and (3) Tertiary volcanic rocks,
which have a high aeroradiometric signature, on the west The moderate radon potential zone in
the interior part of the province is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks, including sandstone,
limestone, and shale, which have a low aeroradiometric signature. County average screening
indoor radon levels in the Colorado Plateau are mostly  greater than 2 pCi/L (fig. 3).
       The part of the Basin and Range Province lying in EPA Region 8 has moderate geologic
radon potential. The part of the province which is in Region 8 is actually a part of the Great Basin
Section of the Basin and Range Province.  The entire province is laced with numerous faults, and
large displacements along the faults are common. Many of the faulted mountain ranges have high
aeroradiometric signatures, whereas the intervening valleys or basins often have low
aeroradiometric signatures. Because of the numerous faults and igneous intrusions, the geology is
highly variable and complex.  Indoor radon levels are similarly variable, with county averages
ranging from less than 1 pCi/L to more than 4 pCi/L (fig. 3).
                                           m-6    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
        PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF UTAH
                                          by
                                   Russell F.Dubiel
                                 U.S. Geological Survey

INTRODUCTION

       Uranium ore was discovered in southwestern Utah in 1900, and since that time uranium
deposits have been mined as an energy resource and as a source of vanadium and radium,
primarily in southeastern Utah (Smith, 1987). Uranium in Utah occurs in rocks of many ages and
lithologies (Doelling, 1974), and in 1980 Utah ranked third in domestic uranium production behind
New Mexico and Wyoming (Chenoweth, 1980). Because the uranium- and radium-bearing
bedrock and the soils and alluvium derived from those rocks are widespread in Utah, and because
radon is a daughter product of uranium decay, many areas in the State have the potential to generate
and transport radon in sufficient concentrations to be of concern in indoor air.  However, even in
areas underlain by rocks known to contain uranium, other mitigating factors such as soil porosity
and permeability or ground-water levels may locally interact to produce an environment (hat does
not have elevated indoor radon levels.
       Recently, several studies have investigated the potential for indoor radon  in Utah. Parts of
the discussion of radon potential in Utah in the present report are summarized from comprehensive
papers on indoor radon data and the potential for radon hazards in Utah (Sprinkel, 1987,1988;
Sprinkel and Solomon, 1990a, 1990b). Preliminary indoor radon measurements suggested that
parts of Utah locally may be susceptible to elevated radon levels (Woolf, 1987; Lafavore, 1987).
Additional studies investigated outdoor radon occurrences in soil and water (Rogers, 1956,1958;
Tanner, 1964; Horton, 1985).  The Utah Geological and Mineral Survey has conducted statewide
studies to identify geologic features that have the potential to produce elevated indoor radon levels
(Sprinkel, 1987,1988).  Subsequent indoor radon studies (Sprinkel and others, 1989; Sprinkel
and Solomon, 1990b) were conducted on the basis of that research, and additional geologic studies
have updated the discussion of radon hazards in Utah (Solomon and others, 1991).
       This is a generalized assessment of geologic radon potential of rocks, soils, and surficial
deposits of Utah. The scale of this assessment is such that it is inappropriate for use in identifying
the radon potential of small areas such as neighborhoods, individual building sites, or housing
tracts.  Any localized assessment of radon potential must be supplemented with additional data and
information from the locality.  Within any area of a given radon potential ranking, there are likely
to be areas with higher or lower radon levels than characterized for the area as a whole. Indoor
radon levels, both high and low, can be quite localized, and there is no substitute  for testing
individual homes. Elevated levels of indoor radon have been found in every state, and EPA
recommends that all homes be tested.  For more information on radon, the reader is urged to
consult the local or State radon program or EPA regional office. More detailed information on state
or local geology may be obtained from the State geological survey. Addresses and phone numbers
for these agencies are listed in chapter 1 of this booklet

PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

       Five major physiographic provinces (fig. 1 A) extend into Utah, three of which occupy
large areas of the state, and they result in considerable topographic variety that reflects the
                                         IV-1    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
Figure 1A. Map showing major physiographic features in the western United States (modified
            from Mallory, 1972).

-------
                                             PHYSIOGRAPHIC
                                                 PROVINCES
                                                                   UCEKD
                                                                BOUNDARY DIVISIONS
                                                               mm Physiographic Frevmtt i
                                                           "'"" mm mm Phyitogiaphic Section*
Figure IB. Physiographic features in Utah (modified from Wahlquist, 1981).

-------
 underlying bedrock geology (fig. 2) (MaHory, 1972; Hintze, 1980,1988).  The Great Basin
 section of the Basin and Range encompasses the western part of Utah, whereas the Wasatoh Range
 and the Uinta Mountains in the north and northeast are part of the Northern Rocky Mountains. The
 Colorado Plateau, a roughly circular area centered about the Four Corners region of Utah,
 Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, covers a large part of the southeastern half of Utah
 (Wahlquist, 1981).
       The Colorado Plateau consists of highly dissected plateaus and mesas ranging in elevation
 from about 5,000 ft to high mountains of about 11,000 ft, and lower elevations in the deepest river
 canyons. On the Colorado Plateau, the bedrock geology consists primarily of Paleozoic,
 Mesozoic, and Cenozoic flat-lying to gently folded sedimentary rocks that are locally interrupted by
 Cenozoic intrusive plutonic and extrusive volcanic rocks.
       In Utah, the Colorado Plateau is subdivided into three subsections (fig. IB): the Uinta
 Basin, Canyonlands, and High Plateaus.  The Uinta Basin lies south of the Uinta Mountains in
 northeastern Utah.  Elevations rise to over 9,000 ft on the Roan Plateau at the southern rim of the
 basin.  Although the basin consists predominantly of gently rolling terrain, the Green River and its
 tributaries have cut numerous spectacular canyons and deep ravines into the easily eroded Tertiary
 rocks that are prominent in the basin.  Canyonlands dominate the southeastern quarter of Utah.
 The Colorado River and its tributaries have sculpted extensive canyons, cliffs, mesas, buttes, and
 badlands. Within Canyonlands, the Abajo, Henry, and La Sal Mountains form rugged highlands
 eroded from Tertiary igneous intrusions that tower over the surrounding canyon country. Large
 structural upwarps, such as the Monument uplift and the San Rafael Swell, expose domed and
 folded Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. The Kaiparowits Plateau is a high mesa that is
 transitional from the Canyonlands to the High Plateaus.  The High Plateaus form a series of gently
 rolling uplands locally capped by basalt flows and glacial deposits. The western edge of the High
 Plateaus are marked by impressive escarpments that resulted from large normal faults.  The
 Hurricane fault separates the High Plateaus from the Basin and Range in southwestern Utah.
       The Basin and Range covers most of the western half of Utah and includes the Great
 Basin,  which is located in western Utah and eastern Nevada. The Basin and Range is
 characterized by uplifted and tilted high mountain ranges separated by flat, low-lying basins. In
 the Basin and Range, mountain ranges vary in width from less than a mile to more than 15 miles,
 and they vary in length from a few miles to more than 60 miles. Uplifted rocks in the ranges
 consist primarily of Precambrian metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary rocks, Paleozoic to
 Cenozoic sandstone and limestone, and Tertiary plutonic and volcanic rocks. The intervening
 basins  are filled by fluvial, lacustrine, colluvial, and alluvial-fan deposits. Many of the basins
 exhibit internal drainage. The basin fills are generally quite thick and consist of gravel, sand, silt,
 clay, marl, gypsum, and halite.
       In northeastern Utah, the Uinta Mountains and the Wasatch Range are the southernmost
part of the Northern Rocky Mountains Province.  The east-west trending  Uinta Mountains were
created by anticlinal upwarping, with sedimentary rocks dipping outward on aU flanks of the
range.  The north-south trending Wasatch Range extends from east of Nephi northward into Idaho.
The western flank of the range is steep and straight, reflecting displacement on the still-active
Wasatch fault
       The Snake River-Columbia Plateau Province extends from the northwest into the extreme
northwestern corner of Utah, and the Wyoming Basin Province extends into the extreme
northeastern part of Utah. Both areas are so small compared to the remainder of the State that they
do not  warrant additional discussion.
                                           IV-4    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
                114°
                                          112°
                            N
                                                          100 mi
                                  0             100km

                                       EXPLANATION
Quaternary sedimentary and
igneous rocks

Tertiary sedimentary rocks
(sandstone, mudstone, limestone)

Tertiary volcanic rocks

Tertiary ntrusive rocks

 Faults (dashed where inferred)
                                                           Cretaceous sedimentary rocks (sand-
                                                           stone, shale, mudstone, and coal)

                                                           Paleozoic, Triassic and Jurassic
                                                           rocks (sandstone, shale, limestone)

                                                           Precambrian sedimentary rocks
                                                           (sandstone, shale, limestone)

                                                            Precambrian igneous and
                                                            metamorphic rocks
Figure 2.  Map showing generalized geology of Utah (modified from Mallory, 1972).

-------
       Population density (fig. 3A,B) and land use in Utah reflect the geology, topography,
 climate, and early immigration history of the State.  Utah is a very sparsely populated state and has
 a mean population density of 12.9 persons per square mile (Wahlquist, 1981). The population has
 a very uneven distribution: some mountainous and desert tracts have virtually no residents, and
 only a few ranching and farming communities can be found in large areas of both the Colorado
 Plateau and the Basin and Range provinces.  Only 8 percent of Utah's population lies within 15
 counties that account for 70 percent of Utah's land area. On the other end of the scale, the four
 Wasatch Front counties of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, and Utah account for only 4 percent of Utah's
 land area but 77 percent of its population.  Salt Lake County has only one percent of the State's
 area but contains 42 percent of its population (Wahlquist, 1981).
       Urban areas are concentrated along the Wasatch Front on the western flank of the Wasatch
 Mountains and extend from Brigham City and Perry on the north through Ogden and Salt Lake
 City to Sandy and Provo on the south. This population concentration along the Wasatch Front
 reflects Utah's early settlement by Mormon pioneers. Many of the small ranching and farming
 communities scattered throughout the State also started as early Mormon settlements. Outside the
 Wasatch Front, fairly dense concentrations of Mormon settlements developed in Cache Valley,
 Sanpete Valley, and the St. George area.

 GEOLOGY

       Utah's geology is complex and varies widely from place to place, but in general the
 bedrock geology (fig. 2) is characteristic of the major physiographic provinces (fig.  IB). The
 following discussion of the geology of Utah is condensed from Mallory (1972), Hintze (1975,
 1980,1988), and Wahlquist (1981). Detailed maps of the geology of Utah are presented by
 Hintze (1975,1980).
       The Colorado Plateau in southeastern Utah and the small part of the Wyoming Basin in
 extreme northeastern Utah are underlain by uplifted, primarily flat-lying to locally folded, deeply
 incised sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Pennsylvanian to Tertiary. Pennsylvanian and
 Permian rocks are predominantly arkosic conglomerates, fluvial and eoh'an sandstones, and minor
 marine limestones. Triassic strata comprise marine sandstone, shales, and limestones and
 extensive continental fluvial and lacustrine sandstones, mudstones, and limestones.  Jurassic rocks
 consist of laterally extensive eolian sandstones, marine limestones, evaporites, and shales, and
 continental lacustrine and fluvial sandstones and mudstones. Cretaceous strata form a thick
 sedimentary section in Utah and consist of marine shales, sandstones, limestones, and coals that
 interfinger with nonmarine fluvial sandstones and shales. Tertiary sedimentary rocks are
 dominanfly lacustrine carbonates and mudstones and include minor fluvial sandstones. Tertiary
 igneous intrusions locally dome the sedimentary section in the La Sal, Henry, and Abajo
 Mountains on the Colorado Plateau. Tertiary volcanic rocks formed by extrusive lava flows, tuffs,
 breccias, and conglomerates along with rhyolitic intrusives are exposed in the Marysvale volcanic
 field along the central part of the margin between the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range.
       In the Wasatch Range, Precambrian metasedimentary, metamorphic, and crystalline rocks
form the cores of the mountains. Uplifted sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age from
 Cambrian through Tertiary ring the mountains and locally crop out within them. Along the
Wasatch Front, uplift of the mountains along faults has produced erosion and subsequent
 deposition of Pleistocene lacustrine deltas and Holocene alluvial fans and gravels. Tertiary
crystalline rocks in southeast Salt Lake County provided clastic material to uranium-enriched
                                          IV-6    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
                                  LEGEND
                       Number of Persons Per Square Mile

                     788.3
                     100.0-499.0

               |     | < 2JD-49.0
Figure 3A. Map showing population density by county (modified from Wahlquist, 1981).

-------
                                                  POPULATION (1990)
                                                 L3  0 to 5000
                                                 Q  5001 to 25000
                                                 0  25001 to 100000
                                                 H  100001 to 250000
                                                 •  250001 to 725956
Figure 3B. Population of counties in Utah (1990 U.S. Census data).

-------
 sediments in eastern Salt Lake Valley (Stokes, 1986).  In the Uinta Mountains, the core of the
 anticline is foimed by Precambrian quartzites, and the rocks on the flanks of the range include
 upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestones, sandstones, and shales.
       In the Basin and Range, Tertiary tectonism uplifted and faulted to the surface rocks ranging
 in age from Precambrian through Cenozoic. Deformation during the Late Cretaceous to early
 Tertiary Laramide orogeny created scattered mountain ranges with NE-S W trends. In the late
 Oligocene, tensional faulting associated with extrusive volcanic activity was initiated and continued
 into the Miocene, a time characterized by intense normal faulting and crustal extension.  In the late
 Miocene, renewed tectonism produced block-fault mountain ranges that trend NW-SE.  This
 episode of tectonism continues today. Basin filling was dominant in the earlier stages of this
 episode, but more recent geologic activity is dominated by stream downcutting, development of
 alluvial terraces, and erosion by the major rivers in the region.
       The Basin and Range province exposes a wide variety of rocks of different ages and
 Ethologies  (fig. 2). Precambrian igneous plutonic rocks and metasedimentary, metavolcanic, and
 metamorphic rocks are scattered throughout the region. Paleozoic rocks exposed in the uplifted
 mountains range in age from Cambrian to Permian. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary and
 volcanic rocks occur in small outcrops in the ranges. Major basins in the region were filled by
 Paleocene through Pleistocene and Holocene fluvial and lacustrine systems that deposited
 sandstones, mudstones, and limestones.
       Uranium ore has been produced from several provinces in Utah.  The Colorado Plateau
 hosts the majority of Utah's significant uranium ore deposits, although major deposits also occur
 in the Marysvale volcanic field, at Topaz Mountain, near Wah Wah, and at Silver Reef (fig. 4).
 The Colorado Plateau has produced the majority of Utah's total uranium production, principally
 from  sandstone-hosted ore bodies in two settings: 1) the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and
 2) the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation.  The Shinarump, Monitor Butte, and Moss Back
 Members of the Chinle Formation and the Cutler Formation host significant uranium ore bodies in
 many areas of southern Utah, including Monument Valley, White Canyon (Red Canyon, Fry
 Canyon, Deer Flat, Elk Ridge), Lisbon Valley, Canyonlands (Cane Creek, Inter-River, Seven
 Mile, Indian Creek, Lockhart Canyon, Mineral Canyon), Circle Cliffs, Capitol Reef, Orange
 Cliffs, Temple Mountain, San Rafael Swell, Paria, and Silver Reef. The Morrison Formation
 hosts significant uranium ore deposits in several areas of Utah including Montezuma Canyon,
 Bluff (Butler Wash), Dry Valley, Paradox Valley, Thompsons, La Sal Montains, Henry
 Mountains, and Green River. Uranium also occurs in Tertiary volcanic rocks of the Marysvale
 volcanic field and Wah Wah Mountains and in Tertiary sedimentary strata of the Uinta Basin near
 Myton.
       In addition to known deposits in Utah where uranium has been concentrated as ore,
 uranium also occurs in several rock types at concentrations too low to be considered economic but
 in amounts that may still generate radon at levels considered to be a problem in indoor air. For
 example, the black, organic-rich deposits of the Upper Mississippian and Lower Pennsylvanian
 Manning Canyon Shale and the Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale contain low-level concentrations
 of uranium; Precambrian crystalline rocks exposed along the Wasatch Front have consistent
 uranium concentrations and may contain locally higher concentrations along fractures, faults, and
 shear zones; Tertiary volcanic rocks and ash-flow tuffs surrounding calderas in the Marysvale
volcanic field have low-level uranium concentrations; and many alluvial and lacustrine deposits and
 soils reworked from uranium-bearing igneous and sedimentary parent rocks, particularly along the
Wasatch Front, have significant potential to generate radon.
                                          IV-9     Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
                                                                   Cottonwood Wash

                                                            White Canyon
Figure 4. Map showing uranium districts in Utah (modified from Wahlquist, 1981, and from
            WJ. Finch, written comm., 1990).

-------
 SOILS

       A generalized soils map of Utah (fig. 5) complied from Agriculture Experiment Station
 (1964), Soil Conservation Service (1973), and Wilson and others (1975) indicates that soils in
 Utah in general consist of Mollisols, Aridisols and Entisols. Mollisols are dark, relatively fertile
 soils formed under grasslands and in grass-covered forests. Mollisols are generally found in
 central Utah from the Idaho border south almost to Arizona. They occur where average annual
 precipitation exceeds 12 to 14 inches and elevations are mainly above 5,000 ft. Aridisols are thin,
 light-colored soils that occur where average annual precipitation is less than 12 to 14 inches and
 comonly is less than 10 inches. They are found throughout the Great Basin, the Bear River Valley
 of Rich County, the southern part of the Uinta Basin, and the northern part of the Colorado River
 drainage system in Utah. Entisols are incipient soils that lack discernable horizons.  Entisols are
 unevenly distributed around the Uinta Mountains in northeastern Utah and in scattered valleys in
 southern Utah.  Many parts of Utah display no  soil development in areas  of rock outcrops, sand
 dunes, and playa lake beds. It should be noted  that the soil associations shown on the map are
 very generalized due to the scale of the map, and the reader is referred to Soil Conservation Service
 (1973) and Wilson and others (1975) for more detailed descriptions of the soils and their
 permeabilities.

 INDOOR RADON DATA

       Indoor radon data from the State of Utah radon study (fig. 6, Table 1) are included in the
 following discussion. Data from these radon studies in Utah are published and discussed in
 Sprinkel and Solomon (1990a, 1990b) and Sprinkel (1988). The data are from track-etch indoor
 radon detectors that were placed in the homes for approximately one year. A map showing the
 counties in Utah (fig. 7) is provided for reference. In this discussion, "elevated" indoor radon
 refers to indoor radon levels greater than 4.0 pCi/L.
       Box Elder, Sevier, Beaver, Garfield, and Washington Counties had average indoor radon
 levels greater than 4.1 pCi/L; Rich, Weber, Morgan, Wasatch, Sanpete, Uintah, and Grand
 Counties had average indoor radon levels from 3.1 to 4.0 pCi/L; Hute, Utah, Salt Lake, Summit,
 and Cache Counties had average indoor radon levels of 2.1 to 3.0 pCi/l; Davis, Duschene, Iron,
 and Kane Cunties had average indor radon levels of 1.1 to 2.0 pCi/l; and Toole, Millard, and
 Carbon Counties had average indoor radon levels from 0 to 1.1 pCi/L. (fig. 6). In these counties,
 the average concentration was from 3.1 to 4 pCi/L (fig. 6). Daggett, Juab, Emery, Wayne, and
 San Juan Counties had no data.

•GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL

       A comparison of the geology  (fig. 2) with aerial radiometric data (fig. 8) and indoor radon
 data (fig. 6, Table 1) provides preliminary indications of rock types and geologic features
 suspected of having the potential to generate elevated indoor radon levels.  An overriding factor in
 the geologic evaluation is the location and distribution of known uranium-producing outcrops in
 Utah (figs. 2,4), coupled with the distribution of uranium occurrences and areas with
 concentrations of uranium that are suspected of producing elevated indoor radon levels (Sprinkel,
 1987,1988; Sprinkel and Solomon, 1990b). In addition to identifying uranium-bearing rocks and
 uranium occurrences, Sprinkel (1988) and Solomon and  others (1991) also indicated that the
                                          IV-l 1    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
                                                                                  EntiwJf



                                                                                 Other SurfitM



                                                                               X j Roci Ouicrop
                                                             •fT^kcU
                 ?•*¥','£!/&//' -. v_r_ *   A?^#x""''ci(V  "  <$#  v  W
                 ><-fe<«.>*j« -  '-^-^ ^. v-~^>{y ^^- >'.t)j  /y a -^-.     -•>-
                                                                             \«r l»«l>UiuI>i>n((

                                                                             tnrrftnalt, bMBfalt. 
-------
                                                           Bsmt. &1st Floor Rn
                                                               %>4pCM.
                                                       i E
0.0 to 10.0
11.0 to 20.0
21.0 to 40,0
41.0 to 60.0
Missing Data
or < 5 measurements
                                                             Bsmt. & 1st Floor Rn
                                                          Average Concentration (pCi/L)
                                                                 0.0 to 1.9
                                                                 2.0 to 4.0
                                                                 4.1 to 6.7
                                                                 Missing Data
                                                                 or < 5 measurements
                                                         100 miles
Figure 6.  Indoor radon data from the State of Utah Radon Survey (Sprinkel and Solomon,
1990b), for counties with 5 or more measurements. Data are from 1-year alpha-track detector
tests conducted during 1987-88. Histograms in map legends show the number of counties in
each category.  The number of samples in each county (see Table  1) may not be sufficient to
statistically characterize the radon levels of the counties, but they do suggest general trends.
Unequal category intervals were chosen to provide reference to decision and action levels.

-------
TABLE 1. Screening indoor radon data from the State of Utah's indoor radon survey. Data
represent long-term alpha-track detector readings collected during 1987-88. Compiled from
data in Sprinkel and Solomon (1990).
COUNTY
BEAVER
BOX ELDER
CACHE
CARBON
DAVIS
DUCHESNE
GARHELD
GRAND
IRON
KANE
MELLARD
MORGAN
PIUTE
RICH
SALT LAKE
SANPETE
SEVER
SUMMIT
TOOELE
UINTAH
UTAH
WASATCH
WASHINGTON
WEBER
NO. OF
MEAS.
2
16
17
1
38
14
2
2
6
2
2
3
1
10
268
6
14
14
2
10
127
1
8
65
MEAN
6.7
5.9
2.6
0.4
1.5
1.8
4.8
3.2
1.8
1.2
0.7
3.7
2.1
3.5
2.4
3.1
5.8
3.0
0.8
3.4
2.7
3.6
4.5
3.5
STD.
DEV.
5.4
12.4
1.9
***
1.0
1.5
2.3
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.5
1.8
.***
3.4
2.5
1.2
7.2
1.5
0.3
3.0
2.3
***
4.7
8.9
MEDIAN
6.7
2.2
2.2
0.4
1.2
1.4
4.8
3.2
1.7
1.2
0.7
3.3
2.1
2.2
1.7
2.9
2.4
3.2
0.8
2.2
2.1
3.6
2.8
1.3
GEO.
MEAN
5.5
2.9
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.2
4.5
2.0
1.6
1.0
0.5
3.5
2.1
2.7
1.7
2.9
3.3
2.6
0.8
2.3
2.0
3.6
2.7
1.6
MAXIMUM
10.5
52.0
7.1
0.4
4.3
5.7
6.4
5.6
3.8
1.9
1.0
5.7
2.1
12.1
26.2
4.6
22.4
4.9
1.0
8.5
13.6
3.6
14.3
68.2
%>4pCi/L
50
19
24
0
3
7
50
50
0
0
0
33
0
20
13
33
43
29
0
30
14
0
50
12
%>20 pCi/L
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

-------
Figure 7. Map showing counties in Utah.

-------
Figure 8. Aerial radiometric map of Utah (after Duval and others, 1989).  Contour lines at 1.5 and
   2.5 ppm equivalent uranium (eU).  Pixels shaded from 0 to 6.0 ppm elJ at 0.5 ppm elJ
   increments; darker pixels have lower eU values; white indicates no data.

-------
Wasatch fault zone, which generally runs north-south at the foot of the Wasatch Range, and small
geothermal areas also have the potential to produce elevated indoor radon. However, even in areas
underlain by rocks known to contain uranium, other mitigating factors such as soil porosity and
permeability or ground-water levels locally may interact to produce an environment that does not
have elevated indoor radon levels.
       On the Colorado Plateau, aerial radiometric data (fig. 8) and indoor radon data (fig. 6)
suggest that several rock formations have the potential to contribute to elevated indoor radon levels.
Outcrops of the Lower Permian Cutler Formation, Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, and the
Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, all of which contain significant uranium ore deposits, have
the potential to generate elevated levels of indoor radon even in areas that do not contain uranium at
economic concentrations.  In addition to these known uranium-producing formations, several other
formations warrant consideration. Dark marine strata of the Upper Mississippian and Lower
Pennsylvanian Manning Canyon Shale along the Wasatch Range; marine phosphatic limestones of
the Lower Permian Phosphoria Formation on the southeastern flank of the Uinta Mountains;
Cretaceous marine shales  that occur on the southern flank of the Uinta Basin, on the northern rim
of the San Rafael Swell, in the northern Henry Basin, and on the southeastern flank of the Uinta
Mountains; Jurassic sedimentary rocks at the northern end of the Henry Basin; Tertiary continental
rocks in the southern Uinta Basin; Tertiary volcanic rocks in the Marysvale volcanic field and
smaller adjacent volcanic areas that trend from the Colorado Plateau to the Basin and Range, all are
known to contain uranium in concentrations  above background and have the potential to generate
elevated indoor radon concentrations.  Although these rock units are not specifically labelled on the
geologic map (fig. 2), the  areas identified by Sprinkel (1987,1988)  and by Sprinkel and Solomon
(1990a, 1990b) that contain these units are shown on figure 9 and can be compared to more
detailed geologic maps of Utah (Hintze, 1975,1980).
       In the Wasatch Range and the Uinta Mountains, the aerial radiometric data (fig. 8) indicate
relatively low eU (equivalent uranium) readings. However, along the Wasatch Front, the aerial
radiometric data indicate several anomalies that may be attributable to the proximity of uranium-
bearing quartz monzonite  bedrock, to porous and permeable Pleistocene to Holocene lacustrine,
lacustrine-deltaic, and alluvial fan deposits shed from steep mountain canyons and eroded from
uranium-bearing bedrock  such as the quartz  monzonite, the Manning Canyon Shale, or Permian
Phosphoria Formation, or  to the proximity of the Wasatch fault zone.
       In the Basin and Range, much of the area has an anomalously high eU signature on the
aerial radiometric map (fig. 8). Small areas associated with Precambrian granites and Tertiary
volcanic rocks and granites have very high eU signatures, as do many of the Tertiary and
Quaternary basin fills.  Locally, individual rock formations may contribute to elevated indoor
radon, but the scale of the  maps and available geologic and aerial radiometric data, coupled with the
lack  of indoor radon data from this region, are not sufficient to characterize individual rock units.
       Each of the three major physiographic provinces in Utah contain areas underlain by rocks
that potentially could generate elevated indoor radon levels. Particular attention should be paid to
rocks discussed in this section (fig. 9) and to areas previously identifed in other reports (Sprinkel,
1987,1988; Sprinkel and Solomon, 1990b) as having the potential to generate elevated indoor
radon levels.  Areas with high uranium contents in soils, particularly in areas where the sediments
are derived from rocks with high uranium contents or with relatively low, but uniform uranium
contents such as Pleistocene to Holocene lacustrine deposits, Precambrian rocks, and
Mississippian to Pennsylvanian black shales, should be regarded as having the potential to produce
increased indoor radon levels (Solomon and others, 1991).
                                          IV-17    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
Figure 9. Map showing radon potential areas in Utah (see text and Table 1 for discussion of
           numbered areas).

-------
SUMMARY

       For purposes of assessing the radon potential of the state, Utah is divided into nine general
areas (termed Area 1 through Area 9; see fig, 9 and Table 2) and scored with a Radon Index (RI), a
semi-quantitative measure of radon potential, and an associated Confidence Index (CI), a measure
of the relative confidence of the assessment based on the quality and quantity of data used to make
the evaluations. For further details on the ranking schemes and the factors used in the evaluations,
refer to the Introduction chapter to this booklet.
       Areas 1,2,3, and 4 each have high radon potential (RI=14, 13,13, and 13, respectively)
associated with a high confidence index (CI=11) on the basis of high to moderate indoor radon
measurements, high surface radioactivity as evidenced by the aerial radiometric data, and the
presence of rocks that are known  to contain uranium. Area 1 encompasses the Wasateh Range,
which contains Precambrian granite and gneiss, Tertiary igneous rocks that have low but consistent
uranium concentrations, and major shear zones and faults that can contribute radon.  Area 2 is
underlain by marine rocks of the Mancos Shale that contain low but consistent concentrations of
uranium, and a small area in southeastern Utah that is an extension of the Uravan uranium belt
which lies primarily in Colorado.  Area 3 is underlain by Tertiary volcanic rocks that have a high
aerial radiometric signature. Area 4 is the southern part of the Uinta Basin that contains uranium-
bearing Tertiary sedimentary rocks.
       Areas 5 through 8 each have moderate radon potential (RI=11,9,10, and  11, respectively)
associated with a high confidence index (CI=10). These areas exhibit low to moderate indoor
radon measurements, have low to high surface radioactivity, and contain rocks known to contain
little uranium or rocks that are variable in lithology. Area 5 encompasses a part of the Great Basin
of the Basin and Range province,  and contains variable geology.  While many of the mountain
ranges have high radiometric signatures, each of the intervening valleys or basins has a
characteristically low radiometric signature. The indoor radon data is sparse and generally low,
and coupled with the variable geology, the area is rated as moderate. Area 6  includes part of the
Colorado Plateau. Both the indoor radon values and the aerial radiometric values are low, and the
variable geology indicates a moderate radon potential, although there are small areas of known
uranium-bearing and uranium-producing rocks within the area.  Area 7 includes the Uinta
Mountains.  The moderate indoor radon values, coupled with the low aerial radioactivity, and the
variable sedimentary geology indicates a moderate radon potential. Area 8 in northeastern Utah is
adjacent to the Wyoming Basin province and has moderate indoor radon values, moderate aerial
radiometric signatures, and variable geology, indicating a moderate radon potentiaL
       Area 9 has high radon potential (RI=12) associated with a high confidence interval
(CI=10). This area exhibits high indoor radon measurements, moderate aerial radioactivity, and
variable geology, including Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks.
       This is a generalized assessment of the State's geologic radon potential and there is no
substitute for having a home tested.  The conclusions about radon potential presented in this report
cannot be applied to individual homes or building sites. Indoor radon levels, both high and low,
can be quite localized, and within  any radon potential area there will likely be areas with higher or
lower radon  potential that assigned to the area as a whole. Any local decisions about radon should
nqt be made without consulting all available local data.  For additional information on radon and
how to test, contact your State radon program or EPA regional office.  More detailed information
on state or local geology may be obtained from the State geological survey.  Addresses and phone
numbers for these agencies are listed in chapter 1 of this booklet.
                                          IV-19    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
TABLE 2. Radon Index (RI) and Confidence Index (CI) scores for geologic radon potential areas
of Utah.  See figure 9 for locations of areas.
                    Areal              Area2            Area 3
     FACTOR        RI   CI          RI    CI          RI    CI
INDOOR RADON
RADIOACTIVITY
GEOLOGY
SOIL PERM.
ARCHITECTURE
GFE POINTS
TOTAL
3
3
3
2
3
0
14
3
3
3
2
_
—
11
2
3
3
2
3
0
13
3
3
3
2
__
—
11
2
3
3
2
3
0
13
3
3
3
2
—
._
11
        RANKING HIGH  HIGH
HIGH  HIGH
       RANKING HIGH  HIGH
MOD  HIGH
HIGH  HIGH
FACTOR
INDOOR RADON
RADIOACTIVITY
GEOLOGY
SOIL PERM.
ARCHITECTURE
GFE POINTS
TOTAL
Area 4
RI CI
2
3
3
2
3
0
13
3
3
3
2
11
Area 5
m ci
2
3
3
2
1
0
11
3
3
2
2
10
Area 6
RI CI
1
1
2
2
3
0
9
3
3
2
2
10
MOD  HIGH
FACTOR
INDOOR RADON
RADIOACnVTTY
GEOLOGY
SOIL PERM.
ARCHITECTURE
GFE POINTS
TOTAL
Area?
RI CI
2
1
2
2
3
0
10
3
3
2
2
10
AreaS
RI CI
2
2
2
2
3
0
11
3
3
2
2
10
Area 9
RI CI
3
2
2
2
3
0
12
3
3
2
2
10
       RANKING MOD  HIGH
MOD  HIGH
HIGH  HIGH
RADON INDEX SCORING:

         Radon potential category
         LOW                       3-8 points
         MODERATE/VARIABLE      9-11 points
         HIGH                      > 11 points

                          Possible range of points = 3 to 17

CONFIDENCE INDEX SCORING:
              Probable screening indoor
Point range	radon average for area
         LOW CONFIDENCE
         MODERATE CONFIDENCE
         HIGH CONFIDENCE
      4-6 points
      7-9 points
      10 -12 points
                         Possible range of points = 4 to 12
                    <2pCi/L
                    2-4pCi/L
                    >4pCi/L
                                     IV-20    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
                        REFERENCES CITED IN THIS REPORT
           AND GENERAL REFERENCES PERTAINING TO RADON IN UTAH

Agriculture Experiment Stations, 1964, Soils of the western United States: Agriculture Experiment
       Stations of the Western States Land-Grant Universities and Soil Conservation Service of
       the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 69 p.

Alter, H.W., 1980, Track etch radon ratios to soil uranium and a new uranium abundance
       estimate, in Gesell, T.F., and Lowder, W.M., eds., Natural radiation environment HI;
       Vol. 1:  Proceedings of international symposium on the natural radiation environment:
       Houston, TX, April 23-28,1978, DOE Symposium Series 1, p. 84-89.

Bollenbacher, M.K., Nielson, K.K., Smith, WJ., II and Rogers, V.C, 1987 , A comparison of
       radon concentrations in soil gas with indoor radon levels in the Salt Lake Valley, Utah:
       Health Physics, v. 52, p. S40.

Cadigan, R.A., 1979, Uranium source potential estimated from radium and radon concentrations
       in flowing water: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1150,48 p.

Cadigan, R.A. and Felmlee, J.K., 1979, Uranium source potential estimated from radium and
       radon concentrations in waters in an area of radioactive hot springs, in Watterson, J.R.,
       and Theobald, P.K., eds., Proceedings of seventh international geochemical exploration
       symposium: Golden, Colo., April 17-19,1978, International Geochemical Exploration
       Symposium, Proceedings 7, p. 401-406.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1975, Uranium deposits of the Canyonlands area, in Fassett, J.E., and
       Wengerd, S.A.,eds., Four Corners Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook, p.
       253-260.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1980, Uranium in Colorado, in Kent, H.C., and Porter, K.W., eds.,
       Colorado Geology: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 217-224.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1990, Lisbon Valley, Utah's premier uranium area, a summary of exploration
       and ore production: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Open-File Report 188,1 map,
       45 p.

Doelling, H.H., 1974, Uranium-vanadium occurrences of Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral
       Survey, Open-File Report 18, 354 p.

Duval, J.S., Jones, W.J., Riggle, F.R. and Pitkin, J.A., 1989, Equivalent uranium map of
       conterminous United States:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-478,10 p.

Evans, H.B., 1958, Natural radioactivity of the atmosphere:  U.S. Geological Survey Report
       TEI-750, p. 128-133.

Evans, H.B., 1959, Natural radioactivity of the atmosphere:  U.S. Geological Survey Report
       TEI-751, p. 123-124.
                                        IV-21   Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
Gedach, A.C.E., 1970, The national atlas of the United States of America:  Washington, D.C.,
       U.S. Geological Survey, 417 p.

Hintze, L.F., 1975, Utah geological highway map: Provo, UT, Brigham Young University
       Geology Studies, Special Publication 3, (scale: 1 inch = 20 miles).

Hintze, L.F., 1980, Geologic map of Utah:  Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, scale
       1:500,000.

Hintze, L.F., 1988, Geologic history of Utah: Brigham Young University Geology Series,
       Special Publication 7,202 p.

Horton, T.R., 1985, Nationwide occurrence of radon and other natural radioactivity in public
       water supplies: Environmental Protection Agency, 520/5-85-008, p. 208.

Jacoby, G.C., Jr., Simpson, H.J., Mathieu, G. and Torgersen, T., 1979, Analysis of
       groundwater and surface water supply interrelationships in the Upper Colorado River basin
       using natural radon-222 as a tracer:  John Muir Institute, 46 p.

Lafavore, M., 1987, Radon—the invisible threat: Emmaus, Pennsylvania, Rodale Press, 256 p.

Lindstrom, P., 1964, Experience at the Radon uranium mine: Mining Engineering, v. 16,
       p. 56-59.

Mallory, W.W., 1972, Geologic atlas of the Rocky Mountain region: Denver, Rocky Mountain
       Association of Geologists, 331 p.

McHugh, J.B. and Miller, W.R., 1982, Radon survey of ground waters from Beaver and Milford
       basins, Utah: United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-0382,15 p.

Nielson, D.L., 1978, Radon emanometry as a geothermal exploration technique; theory and an
       example from Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA, Utah: U.S. Department of Energy,
       IDO/78-1701.B.1.1.2; ESL-14, 31 p.

Nye, R.K.,  1977, Causes of observed variations in strain and tilt at the Granite Mountain Records
       Vault, Salt Lake County, Utah: Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah,
       USA, p (unknown ).

Rogers, A.S., 1953, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological  Survey Report TEI-330,
       p. 293-296.

Rogers, A.S., 1953, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological  Survey Report TEI-390,
       p. 274-276.

Rogers, A.S., 1954, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological  Survey Report TEI-440,
       p. 241.
                                         W-22    Reprinted from USGS Open-FUe Report 93-292-H

-------
Rogers, A.S., 1954, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological Survey Report TEt-490,
       p. 294-296.

Rogers, A.S., 1955, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological Survey Report TEI-590,
       p. 337-343.

Rogers, A.S., 1955, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological Survey Report TEI-540,
       p. 270-271.

Rogers, A.S., 1956, Application of radon concentrations to ground-water studies near Salt Lake
       City and Ogden, Utah:  Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 1781-1782.

Rogers, A.S., 1958, Physical behavior and geologic control of radon in mountain streams:  U.S.
       Geological Survey Bulletin 10S2-E, p. 187-211.

Rogers, A.S. and Tanner, A.B., 1956, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological Survey
       Report TEI-620, p. 349-351.

Smith, M.R., 1987, Mineral fuels and associated energy resources: Utah Geological and Mineral
       Survey, Miscellaneous Publication 87-2 (folded pamphlet).

Soil Conservation Service, 1973, General soil map-Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture and
       Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, scale'1:1,000,000.

Solomon, B.J., Black, B.D., Nielson, D.L., and Cui, Linpei, 1991, Identification of radon-
       hazard areas along the Wasatch Front, Utah, using geologic techniques, in McCalpin,
       James, ed., Proceedings of the 27th Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and
       Geothechnical Engineering: Logan, University of Utah, April 10-12,1991, p. 4IQ-1  - 16.

Solomon, B.J., 1992, Geology and the indoor radon hazard in southwestern Utah, in Hatty,
       K.M., ed., Engineering and environmental geology of southwestern Utah: Utah
       Geological Association Publication 21, p. 165-172.

Solomon, B.J., 1992, Environmental geophysical survey of radon-hazard areas in the southern St
       George basin, Washington County, Utah, in Harty, K.M., ed., Engineering and
       environmental geology of southwestern Utah:  Utah Geological Association Publication 21,
       p. 173-192.

Sprinkel, D.A., 1987, Potential radon hazard map: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Open-
       File Report 108 (revised 1988), 5 p.

Sprinkel, D.A., 1988, Assessing the radon hazard in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey
       Notes, v. 22, p.  3-13.

Sprinkel, D.A., Hand, J.S., Solomon, B.J. and Finerfrock, D., 1989, Correlation of Geology
       and indoor radon levels in Utah: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs,
       v. 21, p. A145.
                                         IV-23    Reprinted from USGS Open-File Report 93-292-H

-------
Sprinkel, D.A. and Solomon, B.J., 1990a, Utah indoor radon data:  Utah Geological and Mineral
       Survey, Open-File Report No. 175-DF, 16 p.

Sprinkel, D.A. and Solomon, BJ., 1990b, Radon hazards in Utah:  Utah Geological and Mineral
       Survey Circular 81, 24 p.

Stevens, D.N., Rouse, G.E. and Voto, R.H.d., 1971, Radon-222 in soil gas; three uranium
       exploration case histories in the western United States,w Geochemical exploration
       (International Geochemical Exploration Symposium, 3rd, Proc.),: Proceedings of
       Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Special Volume no. 11, p, 258-264.

Stokes, W.L., 1986, Geology of Utah: Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah Geological
       and Mineral Survey, Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Paper 6,280 p.

Swindle, R.W., 1977, Radon daughter control in the Uravan mineral belts, in Kim, Y.S., ed.,
       Uranium mining technology: Proceedings of first conference on uranium mining
       technology, Reno, Nev., April 24-29,1977, unpaginated.

Tanner, A.B., 1958, Physical behavior of radon: U.S. Geological Survey Report TEI-750,
       p. 93-95.

Tanner, A.B., 1964, Physical and chemical controls on distribution of radium-226 and radon-222
       in ground water near Great Salt Lake, Utah, in The natural radiation environment: Univ. of
       Chicago Press (for William Marsh Rice Univ.), p. 253-278.

Wahlquist, W.L., 1981, Atlas of Utah: Provo, Utah, Weber State College, Brigham Young
       University Press, 300 p.

Wilson, L., Olsen, M.E., Hutchings, T.B., Southard, A.R. and Erickson, A.J., 1975, Soils of
       Utah:  Logan, Utah, Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University,  and Soil
       Conservation Service, 94 p.

Woolf, J., 1987, Levels of radon gas high in 13 of 31 homes surveyed in valley:  Salt Lake
       Tribune, v. 234, p. Bl.
                                         IV-24    Reprinted from USGS Open-FUe Report 93-292-H

-------
                           EPA's Map of Radon Zones
       The USGS1 Geologic Radon Province Map is the technical foundation for EPA's Map
of Radon Zones.  The Geologic Radon Province Map defines the radon potential for
approximately 360 geologic provinces. EPA has adapted this information to fit a county
boundary map in order to produce the Map of Radon Zones.
       The Map of Radon Zones is based on the same range of predicted screening levels of
indoor radon as USGS' Geologic Radon Province Map.  EPA defines the three zones as
follows:  Zone One areas have an average predicted indoor radon screening potential greater
than 4 pCi/L.  Zone Two areas are predicted to have an  average indoor radon screening
potential between  2 pCi/L and 4 pCi/L,  Zone  Three areas are predicted to have an average
indoor radon screening potential less than 2  pCi/L.
       Since the geologic province boundaries cross state and  county boundaries, a strict
translation of counties from the Geologic Radon Province Map to the Map of Radon  Zones
was not possible.  For counties that have variable radon  potential (i.e., are located in  two or
more provinces of different rankings), the counties were,assigned to  a zone based on  the
predicted radon potential of the province in which most of its  area lies.  (See Part I for more
details.)
UTAH MAP OF RADON ZONES

       The Utah Map of Radon Zones and its supporting documentation (Part IV of this
report) have received extensive review by Utah geologists and radon program experts. The
map for Utah generally reflects current State knowledge about radon for its counties.  Some
States have been able to conduct radon investigations in areas smaller than geologic provinces
and counties, so it is important to consult locally available data.
       Although the information provided in Part IV of this report — the State chapter entitled
"Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Utah" — may appear to be quite
specific, it cannot be applied to determine the radon levels of a neighborhood, housing tract,
individual house, etc.  THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE IF A  HOUSE HAS
ELEVATED INDOOR RADON IS TO TEST. Contact the Region 8 EPA office or the
Utah radon program for information on testing and fixing homes. Telephone numbers and
addresses can be found in Part II of this report.
                                         V-l

-------
UTAH - EPA Map of Radon Zones

     Tt» purpose of this map is to assist Nation a), State and local organizations
     to target ttieir resources and to Implement radon-resbtarrt building codes,
   This map is not intended to determine 'rf a home in a given zone should be tested
   for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found in all three
   zones.  AK homes should be tested1, regard/ess of zono doslgnatlon.
 Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
IMPORTANT: Consult ihe publication entitled "Preliminary Geologic Radon
Potential Assessment of Utah" before using this map. This
document contains information on radon potential variations within counties.
EPA also recommends that this map be supplemented with any available
local data In order to further understand and predict the radon potential of a
specific area,                                             i.-

-------