SUMMARY OF STATE RADON PROGRAMS
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors
August 1987
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Office of Radiation Programs, in Washington, D.C. and the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. Jamie Burnett of the
Office of Radiation Programs coordinated this project. Technical support
was provided by Putnam, Hayes 8 Bartlett, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20036.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Paqe
Figures
Tables
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Objectives and Approach 1
Information Sources and Questions 2
Summary of EPA Activities 3
Organization of Report 5
2. OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ORIGIN,
EMPHASIS, AND LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 7
Origin of State Programs 7
Program Emphasis and Level of Development 9
3. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 15
Program Organization and Administration 15
Measurement Activities 21
Mitigation Activities 28
Health Risk and Geologic Studies 29
Public Information Activities 31
4. ISSUES, OBSERVATIONS, AND TRENDS 37
Issues and Comments Expressed by States 37
Overall Observations and Trends 38
APPENDIX
-------
FIGURE
Number
1. Current Level of State Radon Program Development 14
TABLES
1. Current Level of State Radon Program Development 13
2. Organization and Resources 18
3. Legislative Initiatives 19
4. EPA/State Sponsored Surveys 22
5. State Testing Programs 23
6. Local Measurements and Free State Tests 2U
7. State Activities Associated with Measurement 25
8. Mitigation Activities 30
9. Health Risk and Geologic Studies 32
10. Information Activities 35
-------
INTRODUCTION Chapter 1
OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
This report was prepared on behalf of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors (CRCPD) to provide a baseline of information on
State indoor radon programs. While virtually every State has at least a
small amount of radon program activity, programs vary from State to State.
The objective of this report is to provide a means by which States can
exchange information regarding the organization and administration of State
radon programs, thereby assisting States in creating their own programs.
The report describes the range of State radon activities underway, the
administrative and legislative mechanisms used to support these activities,
and the resources devoted to them. The report focuses on the scope and
magnitude of the radon program within each State, rather than on the radon
problem and how to address it. Hence, the report is not a comprehensive
source of technical information, nor a source of measurement or mitigation
results.
State radon programs are naturally influenced strongly by geologic or
measurement data that may indicate the potential for a problem, as well as
by issues particular to each State (e.g., public concern, resource
availability, the size and structure of existing radiation control programs,
and legislative procedures). Although several States have initiated
surveys, at this time, few States know for certain whether or where
-------
elevated indoor radon levels will occur in the State. Consequently, many
States must rely on available geologic information in order to assess the
urgency of the problem. In this context of technical uncertainty, different
financial capabilities, and different institutional structures, the wide
variation from State to State in the level of radon program development is
not surprising. Finally, the report focuses only on programs designed to
address elevated levels of indoor radon from naturally occurring sources,
although it is clear that significant State capabilities have sometimes been
developed in response to other radiation problems.
INFORMATION SOURCES AND QUESTIONS
Information regarding each State radon program was assembled from
existing data collected by EPA Headquarters and by EPA regional radiation
program representatives. This information was expanded through
discussions with a knowledgeable government representative in each State
(generally in the lead agency). In a few cases, discussions involved
several State representatives at the suggestion of the first State contact.
Finally, the information was verified by the CRCPD representative of each
State.
This report describes State radon programs as of July 1, 1987.
However, the radon program in several States is changing rapidly due to
new information (e.g., survey results) and legislative development. In a
few exceptional cases, particularly important developments during July and
August 1987 were also included in the report.
In the detailed description of each State's program (provided in the
Appendix), a State contact (or contacts) is identified as a source of further
information and that person's address and telephone number are indicated.
We have attempted to verify the information with each State as fully as
possible. Nevertheless, it is possible that some program activities have
-2-
-------
occasionally been missed (especially those activities which are administered
outside of the lead agency). As a whole, the descriptions should provide a
useful indication of the scope of each State program and the organization
which administers it.
Questions relating to a specific State (i.e., the Appendix descriptions)
should be directed to the State contact. Questions regarding this summary
report should be directed to:
Richard J. Cuimond
Director, Radon Action Program
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-9605
SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIVITIES
Since many States are already receiving some EPA assistance in
developing a radon program, it is useful to review the four major elements
of EPA's Radon Action Program: (1) Problem Assessment; (2) Mitigation
and Prevention; (3) Capability Development; and (4) Public Information.
With respect to Problem Assessment, EPA has developed a program
(the EPA State Radon Survey Program) to help States conduct State-wide
statistically designed radon surveys. EPA provides survey design
assistance and measurement devices (charcoal canisters). The design work
includes a preliminary geologic characterization to identify areas with a high
likelihood of elevated measurements. Ten States participated in the program
in fiscal year 1987 (FY 87) and seven States have submitted applications for
FY 88. In addition, EPA is designing a national survey to meet the
national indoor radon assessment requirement contained in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
-3-
-------
Also as part of its Problem Assessment program, EPA issued
standardized measurement protocols for seven measurement methods. These
protocols help to ensure that measurements are comparable and to assure
the public that readings are made accurately. States must follow the
protocols in the EPA/State survey. EPA is also beginning to identify those
geological factors and characteristics which are most useful as indicators of
high radon levels. EPA is conducting preliminary work on the use of soil
gas measurements to predict the radon potential for individual parcels of
land.
Under Mitigation and Prevention, EPA's Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) is conducting the House Evaluation Program (HEP), which is
designed to assist the States in providing home evaluations and mitigation
recommendations. Eighty homes in Pennsylvania were evaluated under
Phase I of HEP; Phase II will tentatively cover an additional 80 homes in
more than five other States. EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) is also conducting a Mitigation Demonstration Program.
Demonstrations are underway in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania,
and additional projects are planned in Maryland.
Under Capability Development, EPA's activity includes two major
programs, one on diagnostic and mitigation training and the other on
measurement proficiency. The Mitigation Training program is designed for
State personnel and private contractors chosen by the States.
Twenty-seven courses have been completed and 1,000 people in 40 States
have been trained. The Radon Measurement Proficiency Program (RMP) is
designed to test the ability of radon measurement firms to measure
accurately the radon concentration in a control chamber with a radon level
known to EPA. Approximately 150 firms have demonstrated adequate
proficiency (based on the results for participants in the third round of the
program) and were listed in the last semiannual RMP Report.
Under Public Information, EPA has developed several brochures and
publications for distribution to homeowners or contractors. These include
two brochures for homeowners: "A Citizen's Guide to Radon: What It is
-------
and What To Do About It" ("A Citizen's Guide"), and "Radon Reduction
Methods: A Homeowner's Guide" ("Radon Reduction Methods"). EPA also
developed a technical manual for use by contractors and interested
homeowners: "Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached Houses:
Technical Guidance" ("Technical Guidance"). States were provided with
camera-ready copies of the two brochures for reprinting and distribution,
as well as copies of the "Technical Guidance." States also distribute EPA's
RMP Report, or a list of firms operating within the State that is extracted
from the RMP Report.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
In order to facilitate a comparison of programs across States, the
principal descriptive characteristics of each program have been grouped into
six areas:
1. Program Organization and Administration;
2. Measurement Activities;
3. Mitigation Activities;
4. Health Risk Studies;
5. Geology/Land Evaluation Studies; and
6. Public Information Activities.
Each of the six areas is characterized quantitatively whenever possible
(e.g., dollar budget, number of measurements, number of information
brochures distributed, etc.). These quantitative measures provide only a
partial description of each State's activities, as is evident through
examination of the detailed description provided for each State in the
Appendix. To complete the comparison, State activities are also summarized
along other dimensions, recognizing that the summary may necessarily
simplify activities that are individually extensive within a given State.
-5-
-------
This report is organized in three sections. Chapter 2 provides an
overview of the origin and emphasis of various State programs. The
purpose of this section is to place in context variations in the level of
activity from one State to the next and the different choices States have
made in implementing their programs. Four general levels of program
development are described in order to facilitate program comparisons. In
each of the six descriptive areas mentioned above, Chapter 3 compares
specific activities across States, both to provide a sense of the overall level
and range of activities, and to highlight important elements that are common
to many programs. Finally, Chapter 4 summarizes some of the key observa-
tions, highlights concerns that are common to more than one State, and
notes initial trends in State programs. As mentioned earlier, a detailed
description of the radon program in each State is provided as an Appendix.
-6-
-------
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ORIGIN,
EMPHASIS, AND LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT Chapter 2
The heart of this report is the summary of specific State activities
drawn from the descriptions of individual programs. However, there are
some general observations we can make concerning the origin of State radon
programs and the approach taken by States in developing their programs.
These observations provide a perspective for the comparisons that follow.
ORIGIN OF STATE PROGRAMS
The States fall into relatively distinct levels of development, but within
those levels, radon programs are quite different. Among the reasons for
these differences are the factors contributing to their origins. For
example, western States that have uranium mining learned about radon and
its health risks in the 1950s and 1960s when studies showed a high
incidence of lung cancer among uranium miners. Together with the federal
government, these States developed programs to assist citizens living on or
near uranium mines or mill tailings sites. In 1978, Congress passed the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and in 1983, EPA promulgated
health standards for these areas. In order to estimate recoverable uranium
ore reserves, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy
gathered extensive data to map the presence of uranium in the soil and
underlying rock. Since most of the significant U.S. uranium deposits are
in the west, these geologic data have proven valuable in determining
potential "hot spots" for radon in homes. In the late 1960s, it was also
discovered that uranium mill tailings had been removed from waste sites and
used as construction materials, particularly in Grand Junction, Colorado.
-7-
-------
In 1970, the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service issued
health guidelines for Grand Junction which are now being implemented by
the State of Colorado and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Although few western States have operational indoor radon programs,
many of these States have the benefit of existing data and an
understanding of applicable measurement techniques developed for these
other programs to assess the potential for an indoor radon problem. For
example, in 1977, the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences (DHES) initiated an investigation of the use of phosphate slag in
Butte and Anaconda, Montana. Phosphate slag, a waste product from a
nearby elemental phosphorus smelter, was of concern because of its elevated
content of natural radioactivity, particularly radium-226. During the
investigation of phosphate slag, DHES discovered elevated radon and radon
decay product concentrations in many structures in Butte. DHES requested
assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs subsequently entered into a contract
with DHES to identify the sources of radon in structures and in the ambient
air in the Butte area. The scope of the contract was expanded in 1981 to
include an intensive sampling program designed to evaluate the
state-of-the-art in indoor radon measurement equipment and methods.
During 1977, an EPA gamma survey truck operated by EPA and the Idaho
Radiation Control office scanned the towns of Soda Springs and Pocatello,
Idaho, to detect elevated radiation levels coming from phosphate slag used
within structures.
State radon programs in the east developed under different
circumstances. The 1984 discovery of highly elevated radon levels in homes
on the geologic formation known as the Reading Prong prompted
Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey to develop their radon programs
fairly quickly. Because a large number of homes were discovered to have
elevated radon levels, these States have devoted substantial resources to
addressing radon and related issues. Yet different factors influenced the
development of programs in Maine, where radon in well water is a particular
-8-
-------
issue, and in Florida, where elevated radon levels in homes built on
reclaimed phosphate mining lands were investigated by Florida and EPA in
the 1970s.
Except for Florida, the southeastern States are developing radon
programs but are generally less active than States in the. northeast.
Several States have chosen to move slowly because the available geologic
data on the soil in this area typically do not indicate an obvious potential to
create a radon problem. Limited surveys have not discovered levels similar
to those found in the Reading Prong, although several States have found
homes with elevated levels. Several southeastern States mentioned that
national attention to the radon issue was the impetus for their program.
Some State programs have also been strongly influenced by prior State
or federal energy conservation efforts. For example, in Oregon, Washing-
ton, and Idaho, DOE's Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has
sponsored extensive testing and studies on indoor radon, and on the effects
of weatherization on indoor air quality. States have utilized this infor-
mation in determining the structure and emphasis of their radon programs.
In a few States, the association of energy work and indoor air quality has
facilitated the use of funds distributed to the States pursuant to oil
overcharge litigation for radon-related programs (e.g., in Connecticut,
Iowa, New Hampshire and New York).
These are only a few of the many factors that have influenced the
pace of radon program development. Other factors include the availability
of resources, the structure of State governments (yearly or biennial
legislatures, division of responsibilities among State agencies), public
concern and/or media activities, and the perceived risks of radon in
comparison to other environmental concerns in a State.
PROGRAM EMPHASIS AND LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
Essentially all States have some mechanism for handling indoor radon
-9-
-------
problems, whether it is formal by legislative mandate or informal under
general public health policy. While it is difficult to categorize the different
approaches taken by the States since the programs vary along many
dimensions, we can make observations as to the general levels of activity.
To facilitate discussion, we have placed State programs into one of four
categories, depending on the extent, of the problem as perceived by the
State and its response to date:
LEVEL 1. INFORMATION PROGRAM: States at this level are not actively
addressing radon issues. Very little State time is spent
addressing inquiries. Normally, the State distributes EPA
information documents to homeowners upon request and monitors
activities in other States. Very few, if any, State
measurements have been taken.
LEVEL 2. FORMATIVE PROGRAM: States at this level are actively
beginning to address radon issues, but have not begun
extensive testing. These States are providing information to
homeowners and other interested parties, distributing EPA
documents upon request, and are sometimes developing State
materials. These States are performing limited measurements
(screening only, follow-up only, or both), and are collecting
data from measurement firms. A few are preparing for or
considering extensive surveys.
LEVEL 3. DEVELOPING PROGRAM: The key to this level is extensive
state-wide testing. All of these States have state-wide surveys
underway or recently completed. A few States are performing
measurements with appropriated radon funds; others are drawing
on general funds in the department. Several of these States are
participating in EPA's State Radon Survey Program. Three
States have active information programs which include reprinting
and distribution of EPA materials. A few have specific
legislation and several have task forces that involve multiple
State agencies and/or non-governmental groups.
-10-
-------
LEVEL 4. OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: The key to this level is that a radon
problem has been reasonably confirmed, and the States are
moving to address it. All have funding for radon programs,
often with specific legislative mandate. All have or had task
forces. These States have each sponsored several thousand or
more tests, and a few provide financial assistance to homeowners
for measurements and/or mitigation. In a few cases, funding is
provided for health risk studies and geological surveying.
Private radon mitigation or prevention is underway in over 50
homes per State. Extensive information and training programs
are in operation.
The four levels described above represent very general stages of
program development. Most of the States fall into Levels 1 or 2
(Information Programs or Formative Programs), while only five have
Operational Programs (Level 4). Due to the many activities included in
radon programs, the boundaries between development levels is not well
defined. Rather, States were assigned to a level in order to facilitate
discussion, based on broad differences in the level of activity. With these
qualifications in mind, Table 1 presents an overview of the current level of
State radon program development. Seven States have Information Programs
(Level 1), 24 have Formative Programs (Level 2), 14 have Developing
Programs (Level 3), and five have Operational Programs (Level 4). The
geographic location of these States is illustrated in Figure 1. Since the
potential for a radon problem is related to geologic features that extend
across State boundaries, it is logical to expect that neighboring States will
face similar issues. It is, therefore, also to be expected that the level of
radon program development tends to be similar for States in the same
geographic region, as shown in Figure 1.
In addition to being at varying levels of development, radon programs
also differ in emphasis. While most States indicated a desire first to survey
the State to determine the extent of the problem, a few indicate a prefer-
ence for first adopting rules and regulations to certify measurement and
-11-
-------
mitigation companies in order to prevent homeowners from performing unnec-
essary measurements or repairs. A few States have been able to move for-
ward with existing general funds, while many are constrained until specific
funding becomes available. A few States mentioned that the emphasis of
their programs was strictly to disseminate information. For the five States
with Operational Programs, the emphasis has turned toward locating homes
at risk and developing and assisting mitigation or prevention efforts. In
Florida, the current emphasis is on radon prevention in new homes, while
*
in Maine, the focus is on radon in water . The remaining three Operational
Programs (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania) were developed largely in
response to the discovery of elevated indoor radon levels in existing homes
on the Reading Prong.
Although Maine's program is Operational with respect to radon in
water, it is still Developing for radon in air.
-12-
-------
Table 1
CURRENT LEVEL OF
STATE RADON PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
LEVEL 1: INFORMATION PROGRAM
Arkansas
Hawaii
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nevada
South Dakota
Texas
LEVEL 2: FORMATIVE PROGRAM
Alaska Iowa New Hampshire
Arizona Massachusetts New Mexico
California Minnesota North Carolina
Delaware Missouri North Dakota
Georgia Montana Ohio
Idaho Nebraska Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
LEVEL 3: DEVELOPING PROGRAM
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
LEVEL 4: OPERATIONAL PROGRAM
Florida
*
Maine
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes 6 Bartlett, Inc., 28 August 1987.
Maine's program is Operational for radon in water, but is Developing
for radon in air.
-13-
-------
Rgure 1
CURRENT LEVEL OF STATE RADON PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Information Program
Formative Program
Developing Program
Operational Program
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., 28 August 1987.
-------
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS Chapter 3
This section summarizes and compares State radon programs within
each of six general areas:
1. Program Organization and Administration;
2. Measurement Activities;
3. Mitigation Activities;
4. Health Risk Studies;
5. Geology/Land Evaluation Studies; and
6. Public Information Activities.
Each area is discussed below.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Even at the Formative Program level, implementation of a radon
program involves resolution of a number of basic organizational issues,
including: (1) designation of a responsible agency or group(s) within the
State to lead the program, (2) identification and organization of other
groups that have a role in addressing the problem, (3) a mandate —
executive, legislative, or otherwise — to address the problem, (4)
resources to develop the program, and (5) a strategy to address the
problem. Moreover, even before a program is organized, the State must
determine the degree to which it should implement a program, in response
to its perception of the need for a program. To determine this need
initially, the State must collect and review available measurement and
geologic data.
-15-
-------
The seven States at the Information Program level (Level 1) do not
presently perceive the need to create a program, do not have a clear
mandate to develop one, and/or do not have the resources to develop one.
As a result, they tend to rely heavily on EPA and other federal assistance
in order to supply citizens with information. A lead agency (normally a
group that handles other environmental radiation matters within the State)
is typically not designated in a formal way, but rather addresses radon
issues along with other responsibilities. The strategy of these States for
addressing the radon problem is implicit in broader radiation protection
goals, and specific policy decisions are confined to endorsement of EPA or
other federal guidance (e.g., EPA's Action Level guidance as contained in
"A Citizen's Guide to Radon"). Citizen awareness is low, and program
development beyond this level depends heavily on evidence that a problem
could exist and the availability of resources.
The 24 States at the Formative Program level (Level 2) generally
acknowledge that a problem within their States could exist (either as a
result of limited measurements, historical awareness for other reasons, or
geologic data), and are considering or will soon begin active program
development. While a lead agency is typically not yet formally designated,
a more active role is emerging for personnel within the agency that handles
radiation issues. With a few exceptions, one person spends the equivalent
of one-quarter to full time working on radon in these 24 States (Missouri,
Oklahoma and Oregon devotes less time; Massachusetts and Ohio devote
more time). Five of these States (Arizona, California, Iowa, New
Hampshire, and Utah) have limited funding for measurements in FY 88;
Washington had funding in FY 86 and FY 87, but not in FY 88. Delaware
and Nebraska have had general radiation control regulations in place for
several years that incidentally require certification of indoor radon
measurement companies (Nebraska's recent legislation will also require
certification of radon mitigation companies).
-16-
-------
The 14 States at the Developing Program level (Level 3) devote one or
more person fulltime to radon, except for Rhode Island and Colorado (both
of which are in EPA's State Radon Survey Program). Four have three or
more fulltime equivalent employees on radon and more than $75,000 in
radon-specific appropriations (Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, and
Tennessee). Wisconsin also has limited funding ($25,000 for measurements,
in FY 87). Nine of the 14 States (Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) have created
radon task forces to study the problem; six of the nine task forces include
non-government representatives.
The five States which have Operational Programs (Level 4) include
both the Reading Prong States (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania)
and two other States with acknowledged radon problems (radon in water in
Maine; phosphate lands in Florida). Task forces have been used or are
proposed in all five States; three of the task forces include
non-governemental representatives. All but Maine have radon-specific
legislation in place Maine has recently created a study commission on radon
that, among other tasks, will submit legislative recommendations to the
Maine Legislature by January 15, 1988. In all cases except Maine, existing
legislation also defines roles for a specific agency or agencies. The
Reading Prong States have funding or appropriations in excess of $4.3
million each, and 19 or more fulltime equivalent employees are devoted to
radon work. Florida has a survey appropriation of $1 million and devotes
about 2.5 fulltime equivalent employees. While Maine's indoor radon in air
program is less extensive than the other four and is still at the Developing
Program level, it has initiated significant study of radon in water and has
an Operational Program for this problem. Maine devotes about 3.5 fulltime
equivalent employees to radon work.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize all 50 State programs with respect to organi-
zation and resources and legislative activity, respectively. In total, nearly
$20 million in funding has been specifically appropriated to radon, and
approximately 119 fulltime equivalent employees are working on indoor radon
-17-
-------
Table 2
ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
(shared lead)
I llinois
I nd i ana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
(shared lead)
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Lead Agency (s):
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs.
Radiation Regulation Agency
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health Services
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health Services
Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs.
Dept. of Health & Rehab. Sv.
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Health
(1) Dept. of Health & Welfare
(2) Dept. of Water Resources;
Dept. of Nuclear Safety
State Board of Health
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Health & Environment
Dept. of Health Services
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Dept. of Human Services
Dept. of the Environment
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health & Env. Sciences
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Human Resources
Dept. of Health and Human Serv.
Dept. of Env. Protection
Dept. of Health & Environment
(1) Dept. of Health
(2) State Energy Office
(3) NYS Energy Res. & Dev. Auth.
Dept. of Human Resources
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Human Resources
Dept. of Environ. Resources
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health & Env. Control
Dept. of Water & Nat. Resources
Dept. of Health and Environment
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Social & Health Svc.
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health & Soc. Services
Dept. of Health & Med. Services
Source of
Formal
Designation
Governor
Legislation
Governor
Legislation
Legislation
Legislation
Legislation
TASK FORCE
Status
Current
Current
Current
Current
Past(1986)
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
As Needed
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Type of
Membership
Interagency
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Ad Hoc Comm.
(Interagency)
Interagency
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Interagency
Varies
Interagency
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
Govt/non-govt
I ntra- agency
Govt/non-govt
Interagency
RADON
SPECIFIC
APPROPRIATION
Amount Time period
($ OOO's) for expenditure
$75 FY87
$58 FY88
$109 FY 88,89
$400 FY88
$10 FY88
$1,000 18 month survey
- -
$130 FY88 (Pending)
$123 FY88
$105 18 month survey
$4,340 FY87
$5,675 FY87
$1,025 3 yrs or more
$1,167 Indefinite
--
$5,300 FY87 or longer
--
$150 FY88
--
$38 FY88
$50 FY87
$25 FY87
$19,780
RADON
FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYEES
3
0.25
1
<.01
0.75
0.25
5.5
0.3
2.5
1
<.01
0.50
0.1
3.25
2.5
1
1
2
0.1
3.5
2
1 .5
1.5
0.5
<.01
0.1
0.25
0.25
<.01
1
26
1.5
15
3
1
NA
1
1.5
0.125
0.05
21
0.33
0.5
0.5
3
0.0625
0.5
0.25
2.5
1
0.4
2.25
2
119.1
KEY
Blank =
Informal
Lead
Blank = Interagency = Dash = No
No Task State govt. Specific
Force membership Appropriation
only
FY =
F i sea I
Year
NA =
Not Avail.
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bart Lett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
-18-
-------
Table 3
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
hawai i
Idaho
1 1 linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
^cv
Reference
Section B(5)
SR 14
Ch. 404.056
NA
HCR 5007
LD 1023
HJR 24
LB 390
AB 4112
SB 1797
Ch. 645 of
State Laws
SB 6496;
AB 8594
Ch. 50, 87 U
NA
SB 137
NA
HJR 229
D 1 ^MiL. _ u_ 1 -
LEGISLATION ENACTED
Summary of Legislation
DE Radiation Control Regulations
Radon study resolution
Land Radiation Emission Standards
1986 Appropriations Act: budgets
$1 million for radon survey
Creation of task force
Creation of task force
Creation of task force & survey
Revisions to the Radiation Control
Act call for develop, of Rn prog.;
strengthening of current cert, regs
req. mi tig. contractors to submit
copy of proposal to state.
Budget approp. (survey & studies)
Cert, of meas. and mi tig. firms;
mandatory reporting of results
Mandate studies en radon- related
i ssues
Appropriation of stripper
well funds
1WS
Radon Gas Demonstration Project and
Home Improvement Act
Cert, of meas. and mi tig. firms
Creation of task force; survey
Creation of task force
•
Effective
Date
1983
1987
1984
1986
4/87
1987
1987
5/87
• »
1/86
8/86
1986
7/87
1986
7/87
1987
2/87
LEGISLATION PROPOSED
Reference Summary of Legislation
AB 31; SB 127 Budget appropriation (survey)
NA Cert, of measurement firms
NA Cert, of measurement firms
NA Budget approp. (survey & studies)
HB 2079 Cert, of meas. and mi tig. firms
LD 563 State testing of schools
NA Certification and related legis.
AB 2940 Income tax deduct, for mitigation
SB 4516,4338 Subsidized mitigation financing;
AB 6363,6311 free testing/training; and miti-
gation education & research
Status
Pending
Failed
Failed
Pending
Pending
Failed
Failed
Pending
All 4
are
pending
HCR = House Concurrent Resolution
HJR = House Joint Resolution
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
LB = Legislative Bill
AB = Assembly BiII
SB = Senate Bill
SR = Senate Resolution
LD = Legislative Directive
HB = House Bill
NA = Not Available
-19-
-------
in the 50 States. However, the three Reading Prong States account for
88.5 percent of the funding and 55.1 percent of the fulltime equivalent
employees. Based on Tables 2 and 3, a number of additional observations
can be made to characterize the organization and administration of State
radon programs, as follows:
• All but eight States administer their radon programs out of the
Department of Health or its equivalent (the exceptions are
Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota). Alternative lead agencies are
either the Department of Environmental Protection (or equivalent)
or a radiation-specific agency. The lead agency designation does
not appear to affect program development. Only two States
(Idaho and New York) have a shared lead.
• Twenty States had, have, or plan to have task forces. Of these
20 task forces, 12 include non-state government membership, such
as local government representatives, measurement or mitigation
company members, citizen and/or environmental group members,
and academia. All 12 of these government/non-government task
forces are currently active. Of the remaining eight, two are "Ad
Hoc" or "as needed" (Idaho, New Jersey), one is disbanded
(Illinois, previously interagency), Vermont's is intraagency and
the rest are currently active, interagency task forces.
• In the cases where legal requirements are in effect (e.g., manda-
tory certification), they are generally specified in legislation
rather than through regulation pursuant to existing statutes.
Exceptions include New York (regulations under development) and
Florida (regulations will specify the geographic areas in which a
legislated 0.02 WL building standard will be applied).
-20-
-------
MEASUREMENT ACTIVITIES
Since the extent of the radon problem in States is still unclear,
measurement and associated activities constitute one of the key parts of
current radon programs. Measurement activities range from no activity or
isolated measurements by State personnel to extensive state-wide surveys,
both random (to characterize the distribution of radon levels within the
State) and "hot spot" or focused surveys to locate specific houses with
elevated levels in geographic areas suspected to have a high radon poten-
tial. In addition to measurement itself, a number of activities associated
with measurement are included in this discussion of State measurement
programs, including provision of free or subsidized radon detectors, a
program for monitoring screening measurements, follow-up if the
measurement is above a certain level, collection of private measurement
data, and organization of the measurement data in a computer database
(which typically prompts important policy decisions with respect to data
access). Current State measurement activities are summarized in Tables 4,
5, 6, and 7, which cover EPA/State surveys (Table 4), State surveys
(Table 5), local surveys (Table 6), and associated measurement activities
(Table 7).
None of the seven Information Programs (Level 1 States) have
performed radon measurements or have initiated significant other
measurement activities. Four of the seven States (Arkansas, Hawaii,
Louisiana, and Texas) have received and reviewed data from Terradex, the
University of Pittsburgh, or both. Louisiana is considering a very small
future survey, and a Biloxi TV station in Mississippi has surveyed about
240 homes. About 20 volunteer homes in Pierre and Rapid City, South
Dakota have also been tested. In general, none of these seven States
anticipate (or have found) that a problem is present and, therefore, they
have no plans to develop a significant program.
All of the 24 Formative Programs (Level 2 States) have had a limited
amount of testing performed, although the tests in Arizona, Massachusetts,
-21-
-------
Table 4
EPA/STATE SPONSORED SURVEYS
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
1 llinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EPA STATE RAT
Date
FY87
Proposed FY88
FY87
FY87
Proposed FY&8
FY87
FY87
Proposed FY88
FY87
Proposed FY88
Proposed FY88
Proposed FY88
Proposed FY88
FY87
FY87
FY87
FY87
ION SURVEY PROGRAM
Number of Houses
Measured
(see Note)
2200
900
1600
1000
900
500
190
1800
1700
900
OTHER EPA/STATE SI
Description
Reclaimed phosphate land
Cherokee Cnty (11 buildings
& 10 homes tested)
Helena Valley; EPA supplied
100 charcoal canisters
Butte
Hot spot, grab sample
Prescreen for mit. proj.
Prescreen for mit. proj.
Uran. mill tail ings (EPA)
RVEYS
Date
1978
August 1985
In Progress
1979-1983
Completed
In Progress
In Progress
late 70's
Number
Already
Tested
1000
21
250
100
120
NA
430
NA
TOTAL 11,690
NOTE: These are EPA estimates as of July 1987, and may
conflict with numbers reported earlier by States.
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
1,921
NA =
Not Available
-22-
-------
Table 5
STATE TESTING PROGRAMS
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
I llinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Ma i ne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
(See Note)
Hot spot, AT
State is selling detector at cost
State-wide random AT; 400 homes
CC; 4000 homes selected by geology, 220
potential hot spots; also 260 wells
100 hour RPISU, on request
Random, AT and CC; includes 70 schools
Homes in 30 counties, CC
Hot spot, 20 tests per county, 50 counties
Random, 1 month AT; 3500-4000 planned
AT and CC; 3000 tests planned
DOC, weatherization study; 200 planned
Eastern part of state; CC
Very limited study proposed
CC; At cost testing program
Water; At cost testing program
Comprehensive state survey
Minnesota OSHA tests for workers
Description not available
18 month survey; planned
State wide random survey, CC; including
180 public buildings
50 volunteer ea. commun.; WLM 24 hr grab
Indoor Air Qua I study; 1 yr living level AT
State- wide random CC
Hot spot; AT
WLM follow-up tests
State selected, AT;plan 100-500
Regional Air Poll Control Agency (RAPCA)
in the Dayton area
AT in selected homes
Reading Prong, AT;
Colebrookdale, 5 minute Kusnetz and AT;
Schools (175 in Reading Prong)
AT and CC
Volunteers in Pierre and Rapid City
Hot spot
Hot spot; throughout state
State employee volunteers, WLM
Selected by state, RPISU
DATE/STATUS
OF PROGRAM
1985
Began 1985
Proposed FY88
Summer 1987
1985-1986
In Progress
In Progress
Winter 1986-87
Winters 85-87
In Progress
In Progress
Fall 1987
Oct. 1986
Proposed FY88
In Progress
In Progress
Proposed
In Progress
In Progress
Begin fall '87
12/86-6/87
In Progress
In Progress
1986
Winter 1986
1986
1985 -present
2/86-9/86
1985-1986
10/85-12/86
Nov. 1985
In Progress
In Progress
NA
Fall 1987
1984
Spring 1987
In Progress
NUMBER
OF HOUSES
MEASURED
19
300
0
NA
220
65
7000
88
1000
2000
1000
0
100
0
1260
4560
0
5
140
0
6000
250
2401
500
35
100
60
160
50
21800
2800
200
300
20
0
30
800
12
TOTAL
KEY
53,275
AT * alpha track
CC = charcoal canister
RPISU = radon progeny integrating sampling unit
WLM = Working Level Monitor
NA = Not Available
NOTE: In several cases, State-sponsored programs received some EPA assistance.
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
-23-
-------
Table 6
LOCAL MEASUREMENTS AND FREE STATE TESTS
STATE
A I abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal ifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
1 1 linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
OTHER GOVERNMENT
TESTING PROG
Program
Sponsor
Pi ma County DOH
LA County DHS &
Found. Advanced Sci & Env
LA Times
City of Fort Collins
BPA (DOE)
TV station & other groups
Marian County
Scott County
ISU Extension Serv.
Wichita
Washburn Univ.
Private hospital
State & Univ. Maine
Cit. Against Hue I. Trash
TV station
TV station; Twin Cities
St. John's Univ.
St. John's Univ.
Moorhead Univ.
Minnesota Power Co.
Biloxi TV
City of Great Falls
Nat 'I Park Svc.
U.S. Forest Svc.
Omaha TV/newspaper
Dartmouth College
Local Health Offices
NM Solar Energy Inst
Several counties
University group
RAPCA and Channel 7
Channel 8
Akron RAQMD & Mont. RAPCA
Tulsa City County
Pacific Power &Light
BPA (DOE)
Fairfax County
BPA (DOE)
City of Lander
OR PRIVATELY SPONSORED
RAMS AND SURVEYS
Description
of Program
Tucson area
Random in LA; 3 month AT
1 year; employee homes
AT; in Fort Collins
Weather izat ion program homes
Chicago area
Subsidized detector distrib.
Local homes
CC; random
Local homes
Shawnee County homes
Bowling Green; CC
RDP on water filters
Proposed;CC;55 planned
Boston area
Twin Cities
Edge of Canadian Shield
Edge of Canadian Shield
Moorhead/Fargo area
Northern Minnesota
Local homes
AT 's to requests
NPS buildings
USFS buildings
Small survey
Using state-owned WLM
Reduced rate CC programs
Solar homes across state
Local measurements
Small study
Dayton area, CC
Cleveland area, CC
District surveys
Local
Homes in weather iz. prog
Weather izat ion prog homes
2400 tests planned
Weather izat ion prog homes
Local measurements
Date/Status
of Program
Completed
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
1986
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
Completed
Winter 1986
Winter 1986
Summer 1987
Proposed
11/86-2/11
Completed
1985(air)
1985(water)
Completed
Completed
Fall 1986
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
In Progress
In Progress
Completed
Completed
Completed
Spring 1987
Summer 1986
NA
Winter 1986
Completed
In Progress
1987-1988
In Progress
Completed
Number
Already
Tested
35
100
600
100
750
200
NA
200
900
50
70
500
0
0
200
200
54
79
NA
NA
240
25
NA
250
NA
50
NA
20
NA
NA
10000
82
NA
42
500
5000
1200
14000
25
FREE/SUBSIDIZED
TESTING BY STATE
(Exclud. EPA/State Survey)
Description of Program
Prev. free; now at cost
RPISU on request
Providing AT to some counties (request)
Free survey det.,by request
At cost air (CC) or water
No(prev. Washtenaw cnty at cost)
1000 CC's at bulk cost
Free retests if >4 pCi/l or Cluster
Identification Program homes
CC at cost; free AT & CC to energy
conservation program participants
Free to Reading Prong
At cost w/ energy audit
A few special requests
TOTAL
KEY
AT = alpha track
CC = charcoal canister
RPISU = radon progeny integrating sampling unit
WLM = Working Level Monitor
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
35,472
Completed -
Exact date
Unknown
NA = Not Available
Blank = No Program
-24-
-------
Table 7
STATE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH MEASUREMENT
COLLECTION OF PRIVATE
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
I llinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
PROGRAM FOR MONITORING
AND FOLLOW-UP
Action or
Recommends t i on
Technical info sent
Test locale if 3 homes above
State retest by request
May send devices (future)
Visit site, WLM & grab
Provide alpha track free
Visit site and advise
State retest by request
Free retest to survey homes
May retest (case basis)
Technical info sent
Visit site; test; advise
Retest with RPISU
State retest by request
Free retest (2 char, can.)
Survey of locale (Clust. Prog
Free retest (alpha track)
Free retest (2 char, can.)
Survey of locale
Free retest (PERM or RPISU)
May retest after mitig.
Free retests (alpha track)
Visit site; retest
Free retests (char, can.)
Free retest to survey homes
Visit site;test after mit.
Free retest to survey homes
Trigger
Level
(pCi/l
8
20
4
N\S
20
10
50
30
20
20
4
20-50
20
20
4
) 200
4
20
200
8
N\S
4-20
>20
4
4
N\S
4
Rlanlr inrlirnfac nn nrnnnam
COMPUTERIZED DATABASE
OF MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Level of Policy
Status of Detail in Regarding
Database Database Data Release
P I anned
Planned
P 1 anned
Operat1
Operat'
Operat1
Operat1
Operat '
Operat '
Planned
P I anned
Operat 'I
Operat 'I
Planned
Operat 'I
Operat1 1
Operat 'I
Developing
Operat1 I
Operat1 I
Developing
Operat 'I
Operat 'I
Developing
Operat1 I
Developing
Operat 'I
BPA data
Developing
Operat1 I
City, Zip, St.
Zip
Sample #, Zip
County, Zip
County.Zip
Sample*, Twnshp
Address
County, Zip
County, Zip
NA
Address
Zip
Zip
NA
By test
Name, addr.
Zip or town
NA
By home
I.D. number
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Location code
Township
NA
NA
Not Confdent'l
Not Confdent'l
Anonymous
Summary data
Confidential
Confidential
Summary data
Summary data
Confidential
Summary data
Summary data
Anonymous
Summary data
NA
Summary only
by law
Summary data
Summary data
Anonymous
Confidential
Not Conf.
Summary only
by law
Confidential
Not decided
Confidential
Not decided
Access by FOIA
Anonymous
Not decided
NA
.
MEASUREMENT DATA
BY STATE
In
Means of Data- Source
Collection base? of Data
Company sends
By request
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
By request
Company sends
By Request
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Mandatory
Company sends
By request
Company sends
Mandatory
By request
Company sends
By request
Company sends
Company sends
Company sends
Yes Ter, Pitt,
Ter, Pitt,
Ter, Pitt
Pitt
Ter
No N\S
No N\S
No Pitt
No Ter, Pitt
No N\S
Ter
Yes N\S
Yes N\S
No N\S
Ter, Pitt,
No N\S
Ter, Pitt
Yes Ter, Pitt,
N\S
Yes N\S
N\S
Yes Pitt
Yes All private
Ter
No N\S
Yes N\S
No N\S
No N\S
No Pitt
No All private
No N/S
None yet.
No N\S
No Ter, Pitt
Ter
Yes N\S
Ter, Pitt
No N\S
U of P
No N\S
other
other
other
other
Ter, Pitt, Other
Blank indicates no computerized data
management.
KEY N\S = Not specified
NA = Not available
PERM = Passive Environmental Radon Monitor
RPISU = Radon Progeny Integrate Sampling Unit
Pitt = Univ. of Pittsburgh
Ter = Terradex (now Landauer)
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
Blank indicates private data not
collected.
-25-
-------
Minnesota, Ohio, and Oklahoma have been sponsored by universities, local
governments, or TV stations. Six States with Formative Programs
(Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota)
have applied to participate in EPA's State Radon Survey Program, and
California, Iowa, and New Hampshire also plan State surveys in FY 88.
The number of completed State sponsored tests ranges from a very few to
no measurements (Arizona, California, Indiana, Massachusettes, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, Okalahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia) to between 50 and
500 measurements (the remaining 15 States, except Idaho, which has
completed 1,000 tests). Alaska provides detectors at cost (previously
free); Delaware performs tests on request. Six States have or will provide
free follow-up tests (Delaware, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Dakota,
South Carolina, and Wyoming), and Ohio has retested a few homes that
were mitigated. Twelve of these States have or are in the process of
developing computerized measurement databases.
Ten of the 14 Developing Programs (Level 3 States) are currently
participating in the EPA State Radon Survey Program and, therefore, have
statistically designed surveys underway and nearly complete (Alabama,
Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). In all cases, these surveys employ
charcoal canisters. The surveys will include between 500 and 2,700
measurements, depending on the State.
In addition, a number of Level 3 States are conducting surveys
independent of EPA. Connecticut is conducting a 4,000 home study this
summer. Illinois has 2,,000 tests complete in a 3,000 to 4,000 test random
survey. Indiana has completed 1,000 non-random measurements of a
planned 3,000 home program, and Virginia has tested 800 homes (Fairfax
County, Virginia has tested 1,200 homes and plans to test 1,200 more).
Maryland also plans a comprehensive State-wide survey. All but Kansas
and Michigan have at least a limited follow-up program. Rhode Island
provides detectors at cost; Indiana provides detectors free to participants
in its survey.
-26-
-------
The five Operational Programs (Level 4 States) generally have already
completed an extensive amount of measurement, especially in the three
Reading Prong States. All five States have measured over 2,000 homes.
Maine has measured radon in water in 4,560 homes. Pennsylvania, with
EPA assistance, has tested over 24,600 homes and has applied to
participate in EPA's F'Y 88 State Radon Survey Program. All five States
provide detectors free or at cost to some homeowners. The Reading Prong
States also provide free follow-up tests, Florida plans a follow-up program,
and Maine recommends a follow-up test. New Jersey and New York include
special follow-up procedures at levels above 200 pCi/l (e.g., a local
survey is performed). In New York and Pennsylvania a State official offers
to visit the home if levels are above 20 pCi/l. All five States are
developing computerized measurement databases. Reporting of private
measurements to the State is mandatory in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
where public access to names and addresses is also prohibited through
specific legislation.
In addition to the comments above regarding the four general levels of
program development, the following observations can also be drawn from
State programs, as illustrated in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7:
• Overall, over 53,000 measurements have been taken by the
States. A large number of these were completed with EPA
assistance. Additionally, at the end of FY 87, nearly 12,000
measurements will have been completed as part of the EPA State
Radon Survey Program. EPA also assists States in other
measurement activities. Over 86 percent of the state-sponsored
measurements are in Level 4 States, about eight percent are in
Level 3 States, and about six percent are in Level 2 States.
None were in Level 1 States.
• Local governments or private sponsors have completed over 16,000
measurements (10,000 in Ohio by Dayton Channel 7), and BPA
has sponsored nearly 20,000 tests as part of its weatherization
program. Twenty States have had limited measurements
-27-
-------
sponsored by counties, cities, local TV stations, newspapers, or
academic institutions. In six cases, these measurements entailed
surveys ranging in size from 50 to 600 measurements and, in one
case (Fairfax County, Virginia), a survey of 2,400 homes is
underway.
Nineteen States have a measurement follow-up program in place
which includes free retesting and/or a site visit. The
measurement level that triggers follow-up testing varies fairly
widely, probably because it depends in part on the availability of
resources in the State. For States that have a follow-up program
including confirmatory testing, trigger levels range from 4 pCi/l
(for Delaware, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, and
Virginia) to 40 or 50 pCi/l (for Maryland and Montana).
MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
Mitigation activities are typically one of the last areas to develop in a
State radon program and one of the most difficult to track. Over 50 homes
have been privately mitigated in each of the five Operational Program
States. Almost all of the publicly sponsored activity is confined to the
three Reading Prong States, as illustrated in Table 8. All three are
participating in EPA/ORP's House Evaluation Program (HEP, which provides
free diagnosis and follow-up, 110 homes) and in EPA/ORD's Mitigation
Demonstration Program (102 homes). New York and Pennsylvania have
sponsored additional mitigation efforts (14 homes in New York; 150 in
Pennsylvania). Over 612 private mitigations have occurred in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania; the number in New York is unknown but is probably
substantial. New Jersey and Pennsylvania both have low interest loan
programs for mitigation assistance, and a financial assistance program has
been proposed in New York. New Jersey has a program for demonstration
of radon prevention in new homes (with EPA and NAHB). A three-home
new home prevention project was previously conducted in Florida. Over 12
-28-
-------
Table 8
MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
I llinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Ma i ne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
Homes Completed or Underway
EPA-ORD Spons.
Mitigation
Demo. Program
20 planned
44(with state)
16
42
122 homes
EPA-ORP Spons
House Eva I.
Program (HEP)
15 Phase II
15 Phase II
10 Phase II
80 Phase I
10 Phase II
10 Phase II
140 homes
Other EPA
and/or State Spons.
Mitigation
3; new homes; 1986
4 retrofitted
new;state/EPA/NAHB
14;state/Niag.Mhwk
150; state mi tig.
164 mitigations;
Private
Mitigation
if known
3
<10
1
<10
10-100
0
4-10
<10
>12 air;>40 water
>24
10-50
<10
15
1
>332
<5
Unknown; many
3-10
50-100
<10
>280
a few water mit.
1
>1
>50
BPA Mitigation
4-5 est.
<10
Over 801 air mit.
LOW
INTEREST
LOANS
BY STATE
?
Yes
Proposed
Yes
MITIGATION TRAINING COURSES
No. of State
Personnel
that Attended
an EPA Course
1
0
2
1
NA
3
1
4
5
2
0
3
1 course; many
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
6
NA
<12
3
1
40
3
50
3
1
2
17
10
20
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
1
1
Over 223 state
Other State- sponsored
Training Courses or
Workshops that
Include Mitig. Training
tape, EPA course;9 st.empl
3/87 2 -day course;
412 attended
internal seminar; EPA
format; 15 attended
developed the EPA course
5 workshops, FY87; 500
attended
Over 3 new home and over 40 water employees in
prevention proj. mitigations 40 states
KEY:
Blank indicates zero or no program.
NA = unknown.
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
-29-
-------
air mitigations and 40 water mitigations have occurred in Maine, and
between 10 and 100 private air mitigations have been performed in Florida.
Among the 14 Developing Programs, two States are participating in
Phase II of the HEP program (Tennessee and Virginia, 10 homes each), and
Maryland is participating in the Mitigation Demonstration Program (15 to 20
homes). Virginia reports that over 50 private mitigations have occurred,
but very few States have any accurate means to estimate the number of
private mitigation efforts that have been completed or are underway.
Among the Level 2 States, only Ohio is involved in mitigation, through
its participation in Phase II of HEP (10 homes planned). Ohio also
estimates that between 50 and 100 private mitigations have been conducted.
There is no Level 1 mitigation activity.
Over 226 State employees in 40 States have been trained at EPA
Mitigation Training courses (in all, about 1,000 have attended one of these
27 courses). Seven States also offer some sort of mitigation training (in
four cases using the EPA format).
HEALTH RISK AND GEOLOGIC STUDIES
Two important areas of radon study include health risk studies and
geologic evaluations. At the State level, the emphasis of these programs is
generally on evaluating the link between known areas of high radon levels
and lung cancer incidence through epidemiologic studies, or on evaluating
geologic characteristics to assist in locating potential radon hot spots. State
health risk and geologic study activities are summarized in Table 9.
Not surprisingly, most of the health risk effort is concentrated in the
Operational Programs (Level 4 States), especially in the Reading Prong.
Four of these five States (all except Florida) have some study underway.
New Jersey and New York have both established cancer registries to track
-30-
-------
Table 9
HEALTH RISK AND GEOLOGIC STUDIES
STATE
DESCRIPTION OF
HEALTH RISK STUDIES
State Sponsored
Review survey results
Other
DESCRIPTION OF
GEOLOGY/LAND EVALUATION STUDIES
State Sponsored
Other
AIabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
11linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Ma i ne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Yale Univ./ NURE data
Company radon data and cancer
statistics. Maintains cancer
registry.
Study on lung cancer patients
and their living environments
(Epidemiology Division (DHW))
Review survey results
Cancer-radon study by
DHS, Univ. of Maine &
Maine Medical Center
Epidemiological study (DOH)
mandated by P.L. 1985, Ch. 408.
Maintaining radon exposure registry.
Cancer/radon registry of
homes above 20 pCi/l.
Review lung cancer
statistics (DOH).
Argonne National Lab:
(1) lung cancer mortality
vs. Rn exposure.
(2) Smker vs. non-smker
Rn risks in Reading Prong
Two small surveys to compare
cancer incidence w/radon.
Review survey results
Review of maps
Analysis of geol. survey
Review survey results
Gamma readings and mapping
data points
Review of NURE maps
Measuring radon flux and
radium in soils for pre-
and post-mining conditions
All major state
universities have
related work in progress
Studying radon-bear ing rock
Review survey results
Spot gamma/alpha readings
of outdoor air; detailed
bedrock map
Review survey results
Radon in water study
Review prior soil surveys
Published map of radon potential
Geologic study of Clinton, NJ (DEP);
Geologic assess, for Cluster I dent.
program (DEP)
UNM
Research on soil characteristics
in 4 areas of state.
Developed maps of radon
potential
Univ. of Maine;
extensive studies
radon emanation study
Gamma radiation road surveys
Soil sampling by OSU
U.S. DOE: Fly-overs
to map areas w/potential
radon emissions.
Review existing fly-over data
Extensive uranium survey several years ago
Review of DOE data
Mapping of hot spots,
for EPA/state survey.
planning map
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
-31-
-------
future cancer incidence among homeowners who have lived in homes that
have been found to contain high radon levels.
Outside of Level 4, little health risk study is underway. Four States
have performed some study (Alabama, Indiana (Level 3) and Idaho and
South Carolina (Level 2)). Universities in at least two States (Yale, in
Connecticut, and South Dakota State) also have studies underway.
All five Level 4 States are also engaged in geologic studies. In
addition, geologic studies by the University of Maine and several Florida
universities have been completed or are in progress. Thirteen other States
have or had some studies (not necessarily sponsored by the State),
including seven Level 3 States (Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, and Wyoming) and six Level 2 States
(Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Dakota, and Washington).
PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
Public information programs are generally among the first activities to
begin within a State. All States have either utilized the information pamph-
lets developed by EPA for homeowner use ("A Citizen's Guide" and "Radon
Reduction Methods"), have developed informational brochures themselves, or
both. In total, EPA has distributed over 280,000 copies of "A Citizen's
Guide" and over 150,000 copies of "Radon Reduction Methods" to States,
public and private organizations and individuals. Many States have
reprinted the pamphlets for wider distribution. In many cases, information
programs have accelerated in response to media activities which raise home-
owner awareness of a potential problem. Most States also will send the list
of measurement companies participating in EPA's Radon Measurement Profi-
ciency (RMP) program (or an extract or modified version) in response to
homeowner requests for measurement company referrals.
-32-
-------
All seven Information Programs (Level 1 States) are distributing the
two EPA pamphlets on request, although generally 100 or fewer copies have
been requested (except Texas, 400 of each). Only South Dakota has
distributed EPA's "Technical Guidance." None of these States has
developed its own materials, and eight or fewer calls are received per
month (except South Dakota, which receives about 16, and Texas, which
receives 30). All of these States will also send the EPA RMP list or an
extract. None have toll-free "hot lines." No mitigation company referrals
are provided (and they are very rarely requested).
The 24 States at the Formative Program level of development (Level 2)
also distribute on request both EPA pamphlets and the RMP list or an
extract, with four exceptions. These exceptions include California,
Minnesota, and Utah, which do not distribute one or both of the two EPA
pamphlets. Minnesota and Utah have distributed State developed materials
in lieu of "A Citizen's Guide" and California is developing its own materials
in lieu of both EPA pamphlets. The fourth exception, Delaware, distributes
a State list in lieu of the RMP list, but does distribute the EPA pamphlets.
Level 2 States that distribute the EPA materials have sent over 100 copies
of one or both pamphlets, except for West Virginia (less than 20 copies of
each). Nine States have distributed State-developed materials (Alaska,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Utah, and Vermont). One Level 2 State has a toll-free hot line
(Minnesota). California and Oklahoma are developing State materials.
Mitigation company referrals are very limited (Delaware, Indiana, and Ohio
list only one or two companies, North Dakota only lists heat exchanger
companies, Utah lists only consulting companies, and Vermont is developing
a list), although requests for referrals are also rare.
Seven of the 14 States with Developing Programs (Level 3) have sent
or will send out State developed materials and all send "A Citizen's Guide"
and "Radon Reduction Methods." State developed materials currently
include questionnaires, special brochures for realtors, brochures focusing
on radon in water, and others. These States generally will also provide the
-33-
-------
EPA "Technical Guidance" on request, and four refer homeowners to
specific radon mitigation contractors. All but three have distributed 1 ,000
or more copies of the EPA pamphlets. Typically, States stress that
company referrals do not constitute endorsement or recommendation. Two
have toll-free hot lines (Maryland and Virginia).
The five Operational Programs (Level 4 States) all have extensive
information programs. All have distributed 10,000 or more of each EPA
pamphlet. All have also distributed State developed materials. The three
Reading Prong States have toll-free hot lines. All provide some sort of
mitigation company referral. All provide an EPA or State list of
measurement companies (Maine offers to test). All receive 260 or more calls
per month (the three Reading Prong States each receive over 3,000 calls
per month).
Table 10 summarizes all 50 State programs with respect to public infor-
mation services. From Table 10 (and back-up information in Appendix A),
the following additional observations can be made:
• EPA has distributed 280,000 copies of "A Citizen's Guide",
130,000 directly to the States and 150,000 to organizations and
interested citizens. Twenty-four States have distributed 1,000 or
more copies of "A Citizen's Guide," 12 have sent over 10,000, and
one over 100,000 (Pennsylvania). It is estimated that States have
distributed approximately 330,000 copies of "A Citizen's Guide".
• Forty-seven States send out "A Citizen's Guide," and the
remaining three have sent or will send modified versions
(California, Minnesota, and Utah).
• The States have distributed nearly 280,000 copies of "Radon
Reduction Methods". Over 60 percent were distributed by Level
4 States. Twenty-one States have sent out 1 ,000 or more copies
of "Radon Reduction Methods," nine have sent over 10,000, and
one has sent over 100,000 (Pennsylvania).
-34-
-------
Table 10
INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
EPA MATERIALS SENT OUT
A
Citizen's
Guide to
Radon
4,500
100
2,000
100
0
2,000
10,000
>250
50,000
300
<5
700
18,000
2,000
175
1,500
2,000
25
10,000
16,000
20,000
10,000
0
50
<200
2,500
500
15
10,000
25,000
>500
15,000
1,000
250
10,000
500
100
100,000
500
400
100
5,000
400
0
200
1,000
5,000
20
300
2,500
330,685
Radon
Reducton
Methods:
A Home-
owner ' s
Guide
4,500
25
2,000
100
0
1,000
10,000
>250
30,000
<100
<5
700
18,000
2,000
175
100
500
25
6,000
16,000
30
10,000
4,500
50
<200
2,500
500
15
10,000
25,000
>500
12,500
1,000
100
10,000
500
100
100,000
500
400
100
1,000
400
50
20
2,000
5,000
12
150
NA
278,602
Radon
Miti-
gation
Technical
Guidance
200
<20
200
NA
6
1,500
300
300
6
2
40
>100
150
NA
3,000
NA
300
20
200
10
1,000
100
100
10
10
100
3
7,677
STATE
MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED
No.
Yes/ copies
No sent
Y 1,900
Y NA
N
N
Developing
Y NA
Y 10,000
N
Y 500
N
N
Developing
N
Developing
N
Y 6
N
N
Y 10,000
N
Y >10,000
Y NA
Y 4,500
N
N
N
Y NA
N
H
Y 2,000
H
Y 15,000
V NA
Y NA
Y 10,000
Developing
N
V 100,000
N
H
N
N
M
Y NA
Y 200
Y 10,000
Y 5,000
N
N
Y NA
179,106
TELEPHONE
INQUIRIES
Toll
Free
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Avg.
Calls
Per
Month
25
20
140
4
40
200
NA
NA
260
40
<2
80
>250
NA
25
20
NA
8
300
1400
300
100
40
6
24
120
30
5
200
5000
24
3500
NA
80
80
25
14
3000
40
25
16
NA
30
16
40
140
30
40
NA
50
15,537
MEASUREMENT
COMPANY
REFERRALS
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
Extract from RMP list
State list w/RMP co.'s marked
Extract from RMP list
List of state registered co.'s
RMP list & Florida firms
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
List w/primary RMP firms
RMP list
RMP list/state developing list
RMP list sent to counties
Extract from RMP list
Verify co.'s particip. in RMP
Extract from RMP list
State list(select of RMP)
RMP AT & CC co.'s
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
State developed list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list + local NY firms
Extract from RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
Extract from RMP list
State developed list
Extract from RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
RMP list
2 firms by phone/ RMP list
Extract from RMP list
RMP list
State list (
RMP list
Extract from RMP list (3 co.)
RMP list
MITIGATION
COMPANY
REFERRALS
State and EPA List
Send list from EPA -Denver
List of five EPA contractors
2 Firms; attended EPA train.
State list
1 Firm; at tended EPA train.
State developing list
4 co.s' referred over phone
6 firms req. to be listed
State developing list
List of course attendees
Refer to BPA
State developed list
3 firms req. to be listed
List consulting firms only
State developing list
KEY NA = Not Available. Developing = Indicates a list is Blank = No policv
Blank - None unless
being developed by state.
for referral,
otherwise indicated.
SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., August 28, 1987.
-35-
-------
• Thirteen States have sent out 100 or more copies of EPA's
"Technical Guidance."
• Eight States have toll-free hot lines. For all 50 States, nearly
16,000 calls are received per month. Four States are receiving
over 1 ,000 calls a month (the Reading Prong States and
Maryland).
-36-
-------
ISSUES, OBSERVATIONS, AND TRENDS Chapter
ISSUES AND COMMENTS EXPRESSED BY STATES
Many of the State contacts made observations that, due to the nature
of the comment, could not be included in the summary table structure. We
believe that several of the issues or concerns raised may be useful in
understanding the current status of State radon programs.
1. Several States mentioned a concern about "unscrupulous" com-
panies performing poor measurements or offering unqualified
mitigation services. Two States suggested that certification or
guidelines to certify companies in radon-related work is an area
where EPA could provide the most assistance. Most companies do
not make any referrals for mitigation and only refer States on
EPA's RMP Report for testing services. The States typically do
not have the resources to determine which companies are
qualified.
2. Several States indicated an interest in the EPA State Radon
Survey Program, but are presently unable to devote the
resources it requires. The EPA/State survey requires several
State personnel for selection of test homes through a telephone
survey, for distribution of the measurement devices, and for data
collection arid management. A State resource commitment of
$50,000 to $100,000 is needed, depending on the State. EPA
provides between $75,000 and $150,000 to each State participating
in the program.
-37-
-------
3. Thirty-one of 50 States are at the Information Program or
Formative Program level of development. While almost all States
are interested in developing their programs, most have found it
difficult to obtain the necessary funding.
4. Although all States are concerned about radon, for many States it
is not the primary environmental concern. The more established
environmental issues and operational programs compete for State
resources and public attention.
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS AND TRENDS
Over the last two years, State attention to indoor radon has increased
substantially, in parallel with a broader public awareness and, through
additional measurements, a growing body of data that continues to suggest
that elevated radon levels could be widespread. For States with Formative
or Developing programs, early action has often included creation of a task
force to study the problem. A majority of the task forces or committees
now advising States include interagency government members, legislators,
representatives from private industry (realtors, housing contractors,
mitigation contractors, measurement firms) academia, and even private
homeowners. These committees have provided valuable input and are
expected to be important for consensus building, public information, public
acceptance of radon initiatives, and public confidence that the issue in the
State is being properly addressed.
Since most States are developing or just beginning to develop radon
programs, measurement activities constitute one of the key activities among
the States. The undertaking of a widespread radon survey, which is almost
always necessary to determine the true extent of the problem in the State,
is the primary distinction between Formative and Developing programs.
However, since 19 of 50 States have conducted or will shortly complete
wide-scale measurements, knowledge of the technical, resource, and
organizational requirements of such surveys is fairly well advanced.
-38-
-------
Obviously, future trends in State radon programs depend on whether a
radon problem is discovered in the State, and, if one is discovered, its
severity. Initial survey results have indicated that many homes have radon
levels above 4 pCi/l. While these surveys are not necessarily indicative of
radon levels nationwide (since, for example, many of the surveys targeted
areas known or suspected to have elevated levels), they do suggest that
indoor radon may be a problem in virtually every State. As knowledge of
the problem evolves, a number of issues that have not yet received a great
deal of attention are likely to grow in importance. Such issues include:
predictive measurement techniques, mitigation in homes with high or
moderate radon levels, health risk estimates, various regulatory or legal
issues (certification, liability, and confidentiality), and radon prevention in
new homes.
Even if a survey indicates that a widespread problem exists,
identification of exactly which houses have elevated levels is necessary
before mitigation can begin. For States where only a small number of
homes are expected to have elevated levels, measuring all the homes in the
State would be fairly expensive. However, as geologic studies and work on
new measurement techniques (e.g. soil gas testing) continue, the ability to
predict high radon areas should improve. By avoiding measurements in
unlikely areas, such prediction should decrease the cost of identifying
homes with elevated levels.
Mitigation activities — "fixing" the problem once it is located -- have
significant technical, organizational, and resource-related questions still
outstanding. Since mitigation is much more costly than testing,
resource-related questions will be very important. Even Operational radon
programs are just beginning to tackle these problems. Since measurements,
once underway, can be completed fairly quickly (observe that very few
measurements were taken prior to 1985), but mitigation is likely to proceed
fairly slowly (due to outstanding technical questions and relatively greater
resource requirements), it is possible to anticipate that mitigation will soon
be a central issue.
-39-
-------
State administrators that have already encountered high radon levels
have frequently recommended mitigation of homes with radon levels over 20
pCi/l when this level has been confirmed with long-term living-level
measurements. However, the much larger number of homes likely to be in
the 4 to 20 pCi/l range which are subject to various interpretations. The
tendency at these levels has been for State radon administrators to offer
insight and information on the personal risk of the readings (given specific
life styles) and to leave the mitigation decision in the homeowner's hands.
Relative to many other environmental health risks, the risk of
exposure to radon is relatively well understood. However, substantial
uncertainty still remains. Two States (New Jersey and New York) have
begun to collect data that will help to improve our knowledge of radon
risks. In both States,, a registry has been established that will track the
cancer incidence prospectively among homeowners who have lived in homes
recently found to have elevated radon levels. Addition of radon exposure
data (when available) to existing cancer registries in other States
represents a potential extension of this health risk data collection effort.
Actions dealing with the certification of mitigation and measurement
companies are likely to increase; however, mandatory certification may often
require new legislative authority. Nebraska and New Jersey are
particularly proactive in this area. Nebraska will soon require that a
mitigation proposal that is offered by a mitigation contractor to a homeowner
be provided to the State before any mitigation can be conducted. The
contractor will also pay a fee to be included on a list of certified mitigation
companies which the State will provide to homeowners. Thus, the
administration of the program by the State will, in part, be funded by
these fees.
Difficult legal questions concerning confidentiality and liability,
especially in the context of property transfers remain largely unanswered.
Should a homeowner who has tested his property be required to inform
prospective buyers? Should a homeowner who has mitigated be required to
inform prospective buyers (to ensure that the remediation is not
-40-
-------
accidentally defeated)? If the State has a measurement for a home in its
database, should it release this data to prospective buyers? Might this
data become a form of evidence in litigation resulting from buyer/seller
disagreements? If a test is conducted before transfer of real property, how
should the results be interpreted? How can the quality of this type of test
be ensured (closed conditions, season, etc.)? Answers to these questions
will be difficult; however, as measurement and mitigation activity increases,
their importance is likely to grow. To date, two States (New Jersey and
Pennsylvania) have passed legislation which maintains the confidentiality of
measurements reported to the State.
Finally, prevention of elevated radon levels in new homes represents
yet another area where future activity is likely to grow. To date, only two
States have addressed this problem in earnest: Florida, since the late
1970's, and New Jersey, relatively recently (with EPA and NAHB). Study
issues include changes to building codes, development of radon "resistant"
construction techniques, and soil gas radon measurement.
-41-
-------
------- |