United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air And Radiation
(ANR-464)
EPA 520/1-91-015
September 1990
1989 Summary Of State
Radon Programs
520191015
-------
-------
1989 SUMMARY OF STATE RADON PROGRAMS
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
September 1990
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Radiation
Programs in Washington, D.C. Technical support was provided by Scientific and Commercial Systems
Corporation (SCSC) and by Battelle Memorial Institute, under subcontract to SCSC.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
Objectives and Approach iv
Findings v
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Objectives and Approach 1
Information Sources 2
Summary of EPA Radon Activities 3
Organization of the Report 4
CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW OF STATE RADON PROGRAMS 5
Factors in State Program Development 5
Program Elements 6
Classification of State Program Development 7
CHAPTER 3. SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAMS 11
Core Programs 11
Moderate Programs 19
Extensive Programs 23
CHAPTER 4. REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS 28
Core Programs 28
Moderate Programs 30
Extensive Programs 30
CONCLUSIONS 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Level of State Radon Program Activity 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Current Level of State Radon Program Development 12
Table 2. Summary of Core Program Activities 13
Table 3. Summary of Moderate Program Activities 20
Table 4. Summary of Extensive Program Activities 24
Table 5. Summary of All State Program Activities 29
Table 6. Program Mangement: Organization, Resources, and Legislation 33
Table 7. Program Management Local Initiatives 38
Table 8. Public Information Activities 40
Table 9. Problem Assessment. Radon Surveys 44
Table 10. Problem Assessment: State Testing Programs and State-Subsidized Testing 48
Table 11. Problem Assessment: State Measurement and Database Activities 50
Table 12. Problem Response Activities 56
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
The purpose of the report is to characterize State radon programs as of September, 1989,
before implementation of activities under the State Indoor Radon Grants (SIRG) Program administered
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The SIRG program, authorized under the Indoor
Radon Abatement Act of 1988, is intended to assist the States to develop and enhance programs for
the assessment and mitigation of radon.
This report is based on information collected by EPA regional offices from the States. The
report extends and updates a 1987 study of State radon programs jointly produced by EPA and the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). This report presents a snapshot of the
range of State radon program activity. With the support of SIRG, further enhancement of these
activities is anticipated.
The report characterizes State radon activities in four areas:
• Program Management - basic organizational and management activities designed to
establish a strong program framework.
Public Information - activities designed to inform the public about the health risks of
radon and encourage testing.
• Problem Assessment - activities designed to identify the level of radon in dwellings.
• Problem Response - activities designed to prevent or mitigate a radon problem.
Because there is considerable variability in State program activities, the report is organized to
describe activities for different levels of State programs:
• Core Programs. These are programs in which States have basic capabilities in some
or all of the four program areas. For example, such States may have a plan and a
staff to manage a radon program, a mechanism to respond to public inquiries, some
data on the extent of the indoor radon problem in the State, and/or the ability to refer
citizens needing radon control services.
Moderate Programs. These are programs in which States have undertaken expanded
activities in one or more program areas in a proactive manner, including identifying high
risk areas and/or populations, and actively providing information on availability of
measurement, mitigation, and prevention resources.
iv
-------
Extensive Programs. These are programs in which States have an established
proactive radon program to address the radon problem in a manner appropriate to the
State by fostering local initiatives, refining knowledge of radon in homes, schools and
public buildings, and promoting prevention by encouraging adoption of new construction
techniques.
The sections which follow describe findings for these three types of programs.
FINDINGS
Core Programs. States at the core level of program development are beginning to actively
address radon issues and have developed some capability in at least one program element. The
development of program management capability was a major emphasis in the 40 States with programs
at the core level. However, there is a fair degree of variability in the range of program activities
conducted by core States. Most States in this category have a designated agency to handle radon
related problems, but in only a few core States does responsibility for radon-related activities extend
beyond the designated agency. These State radon programs tend to have a minimal amount of staff
and funding. For example, only twelve core States reported any radon-specific funding, and sixteen of
them had less than 1 FTE committed to the radon program. Only 9 (AL, GA, ME, MO, NE, NH, Rl,
TN, VA) of these States have enacted radon-related legislation.
All States in this category provide information and referrals to citizens who contact them by
telephone. However, 22 States with core programs estimated that they respond to fewer than 100
calls per month. All these States distributed EPA publications, most commonly "A Citizen's Guide,"
and 16 of the 40 core States produce their own State materials for distribution.
Efforts have been made to characterize the extent of the radon problem in the majority of the
States with core programs. EPA/State surveys have been undertaken in 72% of the States with core
programs. As in the other areas of program development in core States, there is a wide range of
State activities in problem assessment. In some States, private companies such as the Bonneville
Power Administration were involved in radon measurement. Slightly more than half of the core States
(20 of 40) reported sponsoring State surveys and approximately 25% of core States (10 of 40)
provided subsidized measurement assistance.
Problem response capability is often limited in States with core programs. These States were
usually able to provide a State list of mitigation companies. States with core programs (18 of 40)
-------
used EPA courses to provide training to State and local officials in radon response and, in addition,
five core States reported developing their own training courses.
Moderate Programs. Seven States have moderate level radon programs: California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. These programs are characterized by increasing
program resources. Average funding for these programs was approximately $198,600 in 1989 and all
States had 1-2 staff working on the radon program in 1989. A major difference between core and
moderate programs is that the majority of the States with moderate programs have legislation requiring
registration or certification of measurement and mitigation contractors. Five of the moderate program
States have established linkages with other State agencies and all but Connecticut have enacted
radon-specific legislation.
Most of the moderate States have expanded their radon public information and outreach
activities. Five of these States with moderate programs have a telephone hotline to handle between
20 and 600 radon-related inquiries a month. Five of the States distribute EPA materials, and six
States reprint EPA materials with the State logo or send out State-developed fact sheets.
The characterization of the amount and distribution of radon is well underway in the States with
moderate programs, with seven States reporting sponsoring surveys, and two reporting sponsoring
school surveys. One State, Colorado, is also conducting a survey of radon in water. Three moderate
States provide measurement assistance subsidies.
Activity in the area of problem response in States with moderate programs has also expanded
beyond the capability reported by core States. Six of the seven moderate States maintain State lists
of measurement companies, and three have also compiled State lists of mitigators. Three moderate
States conducted measurement or mitigation courses.
Extensive Programs. Four States have extensive radon programs. These include States in
the Reading Prong area where radon problems were first identified in New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania, and one southern State, Florida.
These four States are characterized by comparatively high levels of program staff and funding -
a mean staff size of 16 FTE's and a mean budget of $1.4 million in 1989. The States with extensive
programs tend to have a lead agency with strong ties to other agencies as well as with universities
and State extension services. All of the extensive States have enacted radon-specific legislation.
The four States with extensive programs are proactive in their public information capability.
These States handled an average of 1,375 telephone inquiries each month in 1989. All these States
vi
-------
have developed and distribute their own and EPA materials. In total, copies of radon education
materials have been sent to more than 500,000 households in two of the five States. Several of
these States are involved in targeted public information activities; for instance, New Jersey has
distributed 400,000 letters to homes in high risk areas urging radon measurements.
The extent of the radon problem has been well characterized in States with extensive programs.
Efforts in this area range in size from a survey of 3,400 homes in New York to a Pennsylvania survey
of 29,000 homes in the Reading Prong area. Two of the States with extensive program activities
(New Jersey and New York) also provided free or at-cost testing. All of the States with extensive
programs except New York were involved in geological studies and/or health risk studies as well. All
the extensive program States had laboratory facilities to analyze radon measurement data, although
New York relies primarily on private lab contacts. All States except Florida had operational
computerized data systems that provided radon data at the zipcode level.
In terms of problem response, State-specific lists of measurement and mitigation companies are
maintained by all four of the extensive program States. Florida has mandatory and New Jersey has
voluntary certification of measurement and mitigation companies. All of the States with extensive
programs provided training in measurement and mitigation. For instance, Florida reported training more
than 800 professionals in 200 companies. One of these States, New Jersey, offered low interest loans
for radon mitigation. Florida and New Jersey both have enacted legislation regarding standards for
radon resistant building techniques.
In conclusion, States throughout the country are actively involved in the development of
programs representing a range of activities and approaches to reduce radon risks. In many parts of
the country, considerable activity has been undertaken to provide information to the public about the
risk of radon. In most States, surveys have been conducted by EPA to characterize the nature of the
indoor air radon problem, and some States are sponsoring their own surveys. Many States are
actively involved in the provision of, and training in, testing and mitigation procedures; however, the
number of homes where testing and mitigation has actually taken place is still small. With the support
of SIRG, States are undertaking activities which will lead to further program development.
vii
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
The objective of this report is to characterize State radon programs at the outset of the State
Indoor Radon Grants (SIRG) Program. This chapter describes the SIRG program, summarizes recent
EPA actions to assist in developing State radon programs, and presents an orientation to the
remainder of the report.
This report expands and updates an earlier report, Summary of State Radon Programs.
published by EPA in cooperation with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD),
in August of 1987. The 1987 report described the range of State radon activities in place as of July
1987, the administrative and legislative mechanisms used to support these activities, and the resources
devoted to them. The current report provides a snapshot of the range of State radon program
activity prior to implementation of the SIRG program.
There are several differences between the 1987 baseline radon report and the current report in
terms of classification categories. For instance, the 1987 report described four levels of State program
activity (Information, Formative, Developing and Operational) as opposed to the current classification of
State program development as core, moderate, and extensive. In this report the "Information" and
"Formative" categories of the 1987 report are combined into a single "core" category. The "moderate"
category used in this report is essentially the same as the "Developing" category of the 1987 report,
and the "extensive" category in the current document corresponds to the "Operational" category of the
1987 report.
There are also several changes in the labels given to program elements. The activities
described as "Program Management" in the current report were described under the category
"Capability Development" in the 1987 document, and "Mitigation and Prevention" activities are now
described under the category "Problem Response". Public Assessment and Public Information have
retained their 1987 definitions for the current report.
Public awareness of radon has increased significantly since preparation of the 1987 report.
However, translation of this awareness into program responses varied considerably by State and in
most States actual risk reduction through testing and mitigation has been limited. In October, 1988 the
Federal Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA) was signed into law, endorsing and expanding EPA's
existing radon program and authorizing a new program to provide federal financial assistance to
developing state radon programs - the SIRG program. SIRG is authorized under Section 306 of Title
III (IRAA, 15 U.S.C. 2661 et. seq.) which authorizes the Administrator of EPA to award grants to the
1
-------
States "... for the purpose of assisting the States in the development and implementation of programs
for the assessment and mitigation of radon."
The major long-term goal of the SIRG program is to achieve a significant reduction in the health
risk in the United States due to radon exposure. Specific goals are:
• to achieve widespread participation of States in the Program,
to establish core capabilities for radon response in all States,
• to stimulate innovation and expansion in States which have already initiated programs,
• to foster development of radon programs appropriate to the scope and severity of the
problem in individual States, and
to strengthen the Federal/State partnership by helping States to develop radon activities
that will maintain their effectiveness in reducing radon risk beyond the life of SIRG.
INFORMATION SOURCES
This report is based on a review of information collected by EPA regional offices from States in
September 1989. Information regarding each State radon program was collected directly from the
States via EPA Regional Radiation Program representatives. State radon programs are rapidly
evolving, so it is possible that activities are now underway in States that are not included here,
because they were not initiated at the time this report was prepared. Still, the descriptions herein are
intended to provide a useful indication of the scope of each State program and the organization which
administers it.
Questions relating to a specific State should be directed to the State contact shown in the
Appendix. Questions regarding this summary report should be directed to:
Public Information & Policy Branch
Radon Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (ANR-464)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-9617
-------
SUMMARY OF EPA RADON ACTIVITIES
The goal of EPA's Radon program is to reduce public health risk from radon by reducing
exposure in existing structures and preventing exposure in new construction. SIRG is one part of a
total program of activities conducted by EPA to achieve this goal.
The most important EPA initiative benefitting States is the SIRG Program itself, which will
provide States with funding to assist them in developing and operating their own radon programs.
State radon programs can benefit from the SIRG program through enhanced capability in the four
program elements discussed in this report. For example, program management activities supported by
SIRG grants include training for State staff, development of data management systems, and efforts to
coordinate with other State programs.
States play an important role in disseminating information about radon and promoting informed
citizen risk reduction. To aid the States in this capacity, EPA has developed a number of brochures
and publications for distribution to the public. The best-known EPA publications were targeted to
homeowners: "A Citizen's Guide to Radon: What it is and What to do about it" (1986) and "Radon
Reduction Methods: A Homeowners Guide" (1986). These two publications were provided to States in
camera-ready form for production and distribution in response to inquiries. As of the end of FY 1989,
at least 450,000 copies of "A Citizen's Guide" had been distributed by EPA through all the States.
An update of "A Citizen's Guide" is in progress, and should be available in 1990. EPA has also
produced a number of technical guidance documents for use by contractors, including "Radon
Reduction Techniques for Detached Houses: Technical Guidance" (1986) and "Radon Reduction in New
Construction: An Interim Guide" (1987). Another information source is a brochure prepared by the
National Ad Council, which is sent in response to calls to the national hotline (800-SOS-RADON). The
brochure and other materials were prepared as part of the larger public information campaign
conducted by EPA and the National Ad Council to educate the general public about the potential
health risk posed by radon, to publicize the existence of a national radon hotline, and to motivate a
response in terms of testing and mitigating. In addition, EPA conducts cooperative outreach activities
with national organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association,
the National Association of Homebuilders, Parent Teachers Association, and various national school
organizations.
EPA has worked with States to conduct statistically valid radon surveys under the EPA/State
Radon Survey Program to characterize their own radon potential. Thirty-four States participated or are
currently participating in the survey between 1985 and 1990. In 1989, EPA began addressing the
problem of radon in schools with a preliminary investigation and preparation of guidance for school
administrators.
-------
EPA initiatives have also served to improve the state-of-the-art of techniques for radon
measurement by supporting ongoing development of standardized measurement protocols for
residences, schools and workplaces. Standardized protocols help to ensure that measurements are
comparable from site to site and assure the public that measurements are made accurately. These
protocols must be used to obtain measurements for EPA/State radon surveys. The voluntary Radon
Measurement Proficiency Program (RMP), begun in 1986, tests the proficiency of radon measurements
from laboratories and commercial firms. Lists of successful participants in the RMP are maintained by
most States for use in referral to the public.
EPA support of States also includes training and development of technical information to support
mitigation. Training courses in mitigation have been offered to State and local government officials and
the private sector. EPA supports three Regional Radon Training Centers at which courses are
conducted for States and the private sector. In 1989, EPA initiated the Radon Contractor Proficiency
Program (RCP) which evaluates the proficiency of mitigation contractors, and generates lists which can
be used by State and local governments for referral of inquiries.
The EPA House Evaluation Program (HEP) is designed to assist the States in providing house
evaluations and mitigation recommendations. The New House Evaluation Program (NEWHEP) is an
ongoing project to validate the effectiveness of construction techniques that reduce radon in new
homes. Administered through a cooperative agreement with the National Association at Home Builders
National Research Center, the program currently involves eight builders in six States and will produce
data on about 50 new homes. The project includes evaluation of building sites prior to construction
and post-construction analysis of indoor radon levels. EPA is also working to develop model standards
and techniques to reduce or prevent radon exposure in new construction.
ORGANIZATION OF THE
In order to facilitate comparisons of programs across States, program activities will be assigned
to one of the four program elements presented in the previous section. State radon program data are
presented in several ways. Chapter 2 will introduce three levels of program development - core,
moderate and extensive. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the baseline status of State radon
programs at the inception of the SIRG program. Chapter 4 summarizes the findings of the status of
State radon programs by development level. A series of tables listing radon-related activities by State
(Tables 6-12.) is appended to this document. In addition, a detailed description of the radon program
in each State is provided in a separate Appendix volume.
-------
CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW OF STATE RADON PROGRAMS
This chapter will outline factors which may govern program development, and will define program
elements and program levels to be used to classify State activities in the remainder of the document.
In the last section, a capsule description of State radon programs at each development level will be
presented.
FACTORS IN STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Factors contributing to the origins of State radon programs vary from State to State. The first
States to explore and document the health risks due to radon were in the West, particularly in States
with a significant uranium mining industry. The earliest awareness of health risks due to radon
emerged in health studies done in the 1950s and 1960s which demonstrated a high incidence of lung
cancer in uranium miners living in western States. Risk of indoor radon exposure in the general
population also first emerged in the West when it was discovered in the late 1960s that uranium mill
tailings had been removed from waste sites and used as construction materials in Grand Junction,
Colorado. In 1970, the U. S. Surgeon General issued health guidelines for Grand Junction which are
now being jointly implemented by the State of Colorado and the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE).
In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and in 1983, EPA
promulgated health standards for areas near uranium mines or mill tailings sites. The effort to identify
these areas was aided by mapping projects of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) which were
intended to estimate recoverable uranium ore reserves. The abundant data available on the distribution
of uranium in soil and underlying rock in western States has proven valuable as an indicator for
potential "hot spots" for indoor radon.
The impetus for establishment of State radon programs in the East came primarily from the
1984 discovery of highly elevated radon levels in homes on the geologic formation known as the
Reading Prong in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. These three States have devoted
substantial resources to radon control issues, and their programs have expanded very quickly. Other
concerns which have resulted in a fairly rapid State response to radon are the presence of radon in
well water in Maine and in homes built on reclaimed phosphate mining lands in Florida.
Some State programs have built on energy conservation efforts. For example, DOE's Bonneville
Power Administration has sponsored testing and studies of the effects of weatherization of houses on
indoor air quality, including radon levels. Oregon, Washington and Idaho have used this information to
set priorities for their radon programs. In Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and New York, the
-------
linkage of radon levels to energy conservation efforts has been used to justify support of State radon
programs with funds made available to the State as a result of oil overcharge litigation.
Two Federal initiatives that have influenced the pace of development of State radon programs
are the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and the Indoor Radon
Abatement (IRRA) of 1988. SARA required EPA to conduct a national assessment of radon, conduct
a mitigation demonstration program and establish a research program with respect to radon gas and
indoor air quality.
IRRA authorizes EPA to administer grants to help States establish radon programs, conduct
radon surveys, develop public information on radon, and conduct demonstration and mitigation projects.
As established by IRRA, the goal of the United States is that indoor air should be as free from radon
as the ambient air outside buildings. Under this legislation, EPA is authorized to provide States with a
broad range of technical assistance in areas including radon surveys, mitigation demonstration projects,
and public information materials. IRRA also authorizes EPA to conduct a study in the nation's schools.
In addition, EPA is to establish proficiency programs for firms offering radon-related services, including
testing and mitigation, develop model new construction standards and provide grants to universities to
establish at least three regional training centers.
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Guidance for the State Indoor Radon Grants Program developed by EPA and the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) in 1989, classifies program activities into
four program elements which form the functional components of a comprehensive radon program. The
description of State programs to be presented in Chapter 3 and in the Appendix will be structured
using these program elements:
Program Management- basic organization and management activities designed to establish an
effective program infrastructure. Examples include development of a State
radon policy or strategy, designation of agency responsibilities, resource
acquisition, and implementation of data management systems.
Public Information- activities that provide basic, up-to-date information to citizens concerning the
sources of radon contamination, paths of exposure, health risks, assessment
techniques, mitigation methods, and prevention measures so that citizens can
take informed actions to reduce their risk.
-------
Problem Assessment- the process of identifying and evaluating areas of potentially significant radon
exposure and health risk. Activities in this area may range from conducting
isolated measurements in houses, schools, and other types of buildings to
surveying potential "hot-spot" areas or undertaking statistically valid, State-
wide surveys.
Problem Response-
actions designed to reduce radon exposure and risk to acceptable levels.
Problem response encompasses both mitigation of risks in existing homes,
schools, and other buildings and preventing radon-related problems in new
structures.
An assessment of progress in these areas was used in classification of State program
development, as will be described in the next section.
CLASSIFICATIONQF STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The goal of the SIRG is for States to develop a radon program that is appropriate for the
extent of the radon problem in the State. The activities undertaken by State radon programs are
classified into three categories of development defined as follows:
Core
Moderate
Extensive
This category encompasses the activities assigned to the "Information" and
"Formative" categories of the 1987 report. To be included in this category, the
State has basic capability in at least one of the four program elements. These
include a plan and staff to manage a radon program; a mechanism to respond to
public inquiries; a means, planned or proposed, to gather data on the extent of the
indoor radon problem in the State; and the ability to refer citizens needing radon
control services.
This category was referred to as "Developing" in the 1987 report. States with
moderate program development have undertaken expanded or innovative activities
in more than 1 program element in a proactive manner. These activities include
identifying high risk areas and/or populations and providing information on
availability of measurement, mitigation, and prevention resources.
The "Operational" category in the 1987 report was changed to extensive for the
current report. States classified as extensive have established, proactive radon
programs which are addressing the radon problem in a manner appropriate to the
State. Extensive activities include fostering local initiatives, refining knowledge of
-------
radon in homes, schools and public buildings, and promotion of quality-assured
remedial and new construction capacity.
Classification of States has been done on the basis of overall capability, rather than on the
status of any one program element. Due to the many activities included in radon programs, the
boundaries between these development levels are not well defined. Rather, States were assigned to a
development level in order to facilitate discussion, based on broad differences the level of overall
activity. With these qualifications in mind, assignment of States to levels was based on the
predominance of the evidence across all program activities. A map of States by program level is
provided in Figure 1.
A State is considered to have core capability when a basic capacity to address the radon
problem has been developed in at least some of the four program elements. In many core states, a
plan for dealing with radon has been developed, and a lead agency has been designated and funded
to implement the plan. There usually is a mechanism in the lead agency to respond to public
inquiries about radon, and to send out EPA publications. Most of the States have participated in
EPA/State surveys and some States have sponsored additional surveys. The majority of States (40
out of 51) are classified as having core capability at the outset of the SIRG program. Because this
category contains most of the States, it has a very wide range of variation in the type and degree of
radon-related activity occurring in individual States. An exception to some of the core category
characteristics is Maine, which is considered to have extensive program development for radon in water
but as its program for radon in air is more on the core level, it is classified as core in this report.
A moderate radon program is one in which expansion and innovation beyond core capabilities is
occurring. Moderate programs are characterized by a pro-active, rather than a reactive, approach in
one or more program elements. The management of the program supports active enhancement of
capabilities in other areas. The State has enacted radon specific legislation and produces its own
particular public information materials, appropriate to the particular radon problem in the State. There
is a program to support the goal of radon testing for all indoor areas in the State - including homes,
schools and workplaces - and to act on known radon risk.
Extensive programs are stable and growing programs that can respond appropriately to all radon
problems in the State as they arise. There is good characterization of the radon problem through
surveys and private testing, and the ability of the State to identify and facilitate mitigation services, and
create response activities geared to the prevention of new sources of indoor radon risk is well-
developed. Innovative projects, demonstrations, and local initiatives may also be part of extensive
programs. All of these activities are funded by a stable administrative structure with authority to
implement policy, and adequate funding.
8
-------
These levels represent stages in a dynamic process of development which does not operate in
the same fashion or at the same rate across all parts of evolving State radon programs. State
programs are quite variable both in terms of the activities that they choose to pursue, and in the kinds
of activities which are appropriate in a specific State at a particular point in time. The next chapter
presents a summary of State radon programs by level of program development.
-------
Figure 1. Level of State Radon Program Activity
so.
CAROLINA/ KEY*
Core
Moderate
Extensive
HAWAII
-------
CHAPTER 3. SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAMS
The State program descriptions in this chapter are presented in three sections: one for States
with core activities in one or more of the four program elements, one for States with moderate level
programs, and one for States with extensive programs. The classification of each State as core,
moderate or extensive is shown in Table 1.
CORE PROGRAMS
States at the core level of program development are beginning to actively address radon issues
by developing their capability in at least some of the four program elements. As summarized in Table
2, the majority (34 of 40) of the core category States have some type of policy or strategy to address
radon issues. These States distribute EPA information documents to homeowners upon request and
may have a hotline or other mechanism for responding to public inquiries. Limited measurements are
being performed (mostly screening only or follow-up only) and data from measurement companies is
being collected in some States. EPA/State surveys have been completed or are being conducted in
29 core States and, in addition, 20 States have sponsored State surveys.
Core programs were defined in terms of a State's basic capability to operate a radon program,
to respond to public inquiries, to assess the extent of the radon problem in the State, and to refer
citizens needing radon control services. There is a fair degree of variability among programs classified
as core programs in terms of these capabilities.
Core category radon programs range in level of activity from States like Hawaii, which does not
have a perceived radon problem and so has no funding or staff to manage a radon program, no
hotline to respond to public inquiries, and almost no activity in the areas of problem assessment and
problem response. At the other end of the spectrum of core level program activity are States like
Maryland which has a budget approaching that of a moderate category State ($100,000) and one FTE
allocated to radon, has enacted radon-specific legislation and has a radon hotline.
Program Management in Core Programs. Program Management capability consists primarily
of designating an agency with sufficient staff and funds to operate the State radon program in that
State. This also includes establishing a radon policy, enacting radon-specific legislation, and
coordinating radon activities with different organizations to ensure adequate coverage. Thirty-four of the
40 States with core programs reported a radon policy, but often this was a statement of general goals
rather than a specific policy statement. Twenty-four States responded "none" or "no written policy" to
this question. In 18 of these 24 States, the radon program is operated under the general public
11
-------
TABLE 1.
CURRENT LEVEL OF
STATE RADON PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
CORE
(n = 40)
MODERATE
(n = 7)
EXTENSIVE
(n = 4)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine*
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Florida
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
* Maine's program is extensive for radon in water, but is core for radon in
air.
12
-------
Table 2. Summary of Core Program Activities
Number of Core States n = 40
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Average Radon Budget n = 12
Average FTE's n = 30
Designated Agency for Radon
State Policy for Radon
Legislation Enacted
Legislation Proposed
Linkages with Other State Agencies
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Hotline
Fewer than 100 calls per month n = 22
Between 100-500 calls per month n = 14
More than 500 calls per month n = 1
Target Outreach
Average Number of EPA Citizen's Guides
Distributed n = 17
State-developed Publications Produced
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
EPA/State Survey Completed or Underway
State-sponsored Surveys
Water Surveys
School Surveys
Free, Subsidized, or At-cost Measurement Devices
PROBLEM RESPONSE
State List of Measurers
State List of Mitigators
State-sponsored Mitigation Demonstrations
Mitigation Statistics Collected
State Training Programs
EPA Training Programs in Use
n = 40
$62,400
1
100%
85%
22%
28%
30%
20%
59%
38%
3%
0%
7,500
45%
72%
50%
3%
13%
25%
60%
45%
15%
3%
13%
45%
n = Number of States reporting data for that item
13
-------
health policy to protect the public from adverse health risk. Common goals described by core States
included to make the public aware of radon risk, to encourage testing in the State, and to continue to
develop and implement a radon program.
Nine States in this category reported radon-related legislation. In three of the States, legislation
dealt with certification of measurement and mitigation firms. Maryland law requires that radon testers
successfully complete the EPA Radon Measurement Proficiency Program in order to be listed as
recommended testers in Maryland. A Nebraska law requires that both measurement and mitigation
companies be certified by the State. Virginia requires measurement and mitigation companies be EPA
listed.
Legislation in Alaska, New Hampshire and Tennessee mandates public information activities.
Radon surveys were mandated in Maryland and New Hampshire. Rhode Island advises radon testing
in real estate transactions, and New Hampshire requires testing of wells in new construction.
States with core programs run their radon program with a minimal amount of staff and funding.
Only twelve (30%) of the States with core programs reported radon-specific funding with a average
amount of $62,400. The remaining States did not report funds committed to the radon program. Staff
likewise are in short supply in these States, with 30 States (75%) having a mean of 1 FTE devoted to
the radon program. (The remaining 10 States have no FTEs assigned to radon).
All the States have a designated agency, named by the governor or identified in legislation as
having lead responsibility for State efforts to address the radon problem. In 31 of the 40 core States,
the designated agency is a health department or a joint department of health and environment. Other
departments which may house State radon programs are departments of environment or natural
resources (four States) and departments of human resources (three States). In Arizona, the radon
program is housed in the Radiation Regulatory Agency, and in the District of Columbia, it is in the
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
With a few exceptions, in States classified as having core radon programs, responsibility for
radon-related activities does not extend beyond the designated agency, although State universities and
private groups may provide the State with some support in geology studies or environmental
monitoring. Most of the activities reported by States for "other involved parties" involve linkages with
cooperative extension services, universities, private organizations, and selected local governments. In
several New England States, designated radon agencies have agreements with departments of
environmental protection to provide ongoing evaluation of radon levels in drinking water.
14
-------
However, even at the core level, some designated radon agencies have effectively linked with
other State agencies and universities to strengthen the overall radon program. In North Dakota, for
example, the Division of Environmental Engineering (DEE) in the Department of Health has lead
responsibility for the radon program and provides public information, problem assessment, and problem
response services. However, the Department of Public Instruction is in charge of a testing program in
276 schools. DEE maintains close contact with the State Attorney General's Office in order to refer
and prosecute fraudulent practices by measurement and mitigation contractors under existing consumer
fraud law. The North Dakota Geological Survey is evaluating radon testing data for geological
interpretation of radon in soil.
Eighteen of the States with core programs reported local radon initiatives in their States. The
majority reported local initiatives in Problem Assessment (14 States), with the next most frequent area
reported being Public Information (9 States), followed by Program Management (5 States). Local
initiatives in Problem Assessment consist of radon surveys other than those conducted by the State
and are listed in Table 9. Local initiatives in Public Information consist primarily of public awareness
seminars. However, in Alaska the University of Alaska provides weatherization and radon mitigation
information, and in Oregon the Bonneville Power Administration has published a report on the potential
for radon based on geological data. Wisconsin sponsors two regional information centers and plans to
expand to one or two more. Local initiatives in Program Management consist of university advisory
and technical assistance to the State (in North Carolina and South Carolina), local health department
involvement in disseminating information and assistance (North Dakota), the involvement of the Rhode
Island Saving Energy (a private non-profit organization) in assisting with the EPA/State survey in Rhode
Island, and in Ohio, there is a county-level radon program in Montgomery County. These capabilities
may be the result of a growing public demand for information and action that the current State radon
program is unable to respond to and so other agencies are seeking to satisfy the needs for increased
radon services.
Public Information in Core Programs. Providing the general public with information about
radon, the importance of testing, and where to obtain assistance is a vital part of any State radon
program. All States provide information and referrals to citizens and localities who contact them by
telephone, and ten States with core programs have a toll-free hotline. Of 40 States with core program
activities, 22 estimate that they respond to fewer than 100 calls per month. These figures are difficult
to interpret because the numbers are variable and may not be tracked consistently. For example,
most States report that calls go up with media exposure. During a campaign sponsored in the public
interest by a television station in Washington, D.C., inquiries to the District of Columbia's radon
program increased to 125 calls per week from a normal average of two to five calls per week.
The baseline data used here also do not report the staff responsible for handling telephone
inquiries. However, with a mean of only 1 FTE for the entire radon program in the 30 of the 40
15
-------
States with core programs that reported any staff, the amount of time that technical staff have
available to respond to public inquiries is of necessity limited.
Virtually all States, whatever the level of their radon program, distribute EPA radon publications,
especially "A Citizen's Guide," to the public on request. Although not all States provided estimates of
the number of copies of the publication distributed, 17 States with core programs distributed an
average of 7,500 copies of "A Citizens Guide" during 1989.
Development of materials at the State level is important for radon programs because the
distribution of radon risk may differ from one State to another. Risk communication research suggests
State or locally based materials tend to be more effective in motivating informed testing and mitigation.
Sixteen States with core program produce their own publications containing information appropriate to
the radon program in their State. Some of these are distributed in innovative ways. Virginia
reproduced "A Citizens Guide" and "Radon Reduction Methods", added the Virginia logo and sent out
24,000 copies as bill stuffers in utility statements. In Minnesota, State-produced fact sheets were
distributed at State and county fairs.
A broad spectrum approach to public information creates the foundation for development of a
strong radon program. Outreach is especially important to local officials, members of the construction
industry, and citizens, in order to create awareness of the health risk from radon exposure and the
ways the risk can be prevented or reduced. For example, North Dakota has sent speakers to a wide
range of interest groups, including the North Dakota Environmental Health Association, a group of
public school administrators, the North Dakota Chapter of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, the
North Dakota State Science Conference, the Radiological Response Team training course, the Bismarck
Public Works Department, and a large number of other groups.
Problem Assessment in Core Programs. Problem assessment capability in States with core
programs involves characterizing the problem, developing capability for ongoing monitoring, and
maintaining a database needed to track the problem. States with core programs have conducted
testing and research to characterize the radon problem primarily in homes. EPA/State radon surveys
have been completed or are underway in 29 of the 40 States with core programs (72%) and State-
sponsored surveys have been undertaken in 20 States with core level programs (50%). Universities,
private organizations such as the American Lung Association and public utilities such as the Bonneville
Power Administration, and television stations have also sponsored home radon surveys in many States
with core programs. One of the most comprehensive of these efforts is the radon monitoring
conducted in Washington, Oregon and Idaho by the Bonneville Power Administration as part of its
home weatherization program. About 32,000 homes in these States have been evaluated under this
program. Free or subsidized testing of homes or schools was reported by 10 States, always in
16
-------
association with radon surveys. These subsidies were provided, for the most part, by the State (North
Dakota was the only exception - assistance there is provided by the University of North Dakota).
Virtually all of the problem assessment activities in States with core programs have addressed
radon in indoor air. Only Maine has conducted systematic surveys of radionuclides in water, although
the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission oversees a radon in drinking
water program. Also, there has been a cooperative EPA/USGS survey of wells in Region IV which
collected some radon in water data in Georgia and Tennessee.
Special studies of radon are also quite rare in States with core programs. An example of a
geology study is the "Estimation of Radon Potential in the Pacific Northwest Using Geological Data,"
published by the Bonneville Power Administration. This study characterized geological risk in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Other geology studies in States with core programs are limited
studies by individual researchers or mapping projects undertaken by the State geological survey staff.
There were no health effects studies of radon reported in States with core programs. The University
of Utah, under a grant from the National Institutes of Health, is searching for possible radon-related
cancers in the Idaho health registry.
Five States with core programs reported State-sponsored school surveys: Idaho, Kentucky,
North Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming. In addition, North Carolina and Tennessee subsidize the purchase
of measuring devices by schools. Kentucky has an especially vigorous school testing program
operated by the State Department of Education. Under this program, radon levels have been screened
in public schools in 150 of 178 school districts. This survey found 227 rooms in 62 schools with
radon screening levels above 4 pCi/L. Expansion of the testing program and long-term followup is
ongoing. In addition, three county school districts in Kentucky have started their own radon
measurement programs.
State measurement capability is variable in States with core programs, with 21 of 40 (53%) core
States reporting this capacity. This radiation measurement capability is housed primarily in State public
health and environment laboratories. Several States reported equipment, such as working level
monitors and capability to analyze charcoal canisters, without specifying the locus of this capability in
the State. For instance, Texas reports existing capacity to measure radiation in labs which could be
expanded to do radon. This hidden capacity to measure radon may be common in States with
experience in radiation control. Few States with core programs report sufficient technical staff and
funding to support radon monitoring, which is a key characteristic of core level programs. The Kansas
Department of Health and Environment Laboratory and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social
Services are on the RMP list for analysis of charcoal canisters.
17
-------
Management of radon measurement data is needed for a variety of programmatic purposes.
However, the status of measurement data as a public database is questionable in States where there
are policies restricting confidentiality of public data. A majority of States with core programs (27 States
or 68%) report an operational computer database for radon test results. A policy permitting protection
of confidentiality of radon test results is found in 14 of 27 core States with data management systems.
Where State law or regulation requires that data be made available to the public, radon test results
are coded only in the aggregate. Results are aggregated at the level of the zip code or the county
in 14 of 15 core States reporting specific data elements.
Problem Response in Core Programs. Problem response capability (mitigating a radon
problem) may be the last area to develop during the growth of radon programs, and is limited in
States with core programs. The most common problem response activities in States with core
programs are maintenance of a State list of measurement companies (reported by 60% of States with
core programs), maintenance of a State list of approved mitigation companies (in 45% of States) and
use of EPA programs for training of State and local officials in radon response (in 45% of States).
Most States did not report data on either measurement or mitigation referrals. Only Texas (200 total),
West Virginia (two per day), and Wisconsin (200 per month) reported a number of measurement
referrals. None of the States with a core program reported a number for mitigation referrals.
Nebraska has a statutorily authorized program to certify mitigators. Virginia requires measure-
ment companies to successfully participate in the RMP program. Nine (23%) States with core
programs protect consumers against unscrupulous mitigators by maintaining lists of contractors known to
have EPA training. Eight additional States keep lists of contractors, but have no explicit criteria for
inclusion on the list. Maine maintains statistics on mitigation activity; contractors in the State report
that 95 private air mitigations and more than 100 water mitigations have taken place.
Mitigation assistance in States with core programs is limited to providing technical advice, almost
always in response to telephone inquiries. Eighteen States (45% of all States with core programs)
reported that they provide technical consultation by telephone. None of the 40 States with core
programs provide financial assistance for mitigation of any kind of structure. Kansas provides in-home
technical consultation in residences testing over 20 pCi/L, and Wisconsin will perform post-mitigation
assessments on request. Maine will visit homes if an air reading is 100 pCi/L or greater. Oregon
refers inquiries to the Bonneville Power Administration for technical advice, and Washington refers
people to the Washington Energy Extension Service. Idaho refers mitigator inquiries to the Idaho
Better Business Bureau.
Attendance at training courses jointly sponsored by the State and EPA is the most widespread
kind of mitigation training in States with core programs. Nine States specified that the EPA/State
18
-------
courses "Reducing Radon in Structures" had been given for contractors one or more times in their
State; these are Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee and
Washington. Michigan and Virginia reported sponsoring Regional Radon Training Center courses but
provided no other details. Eleven States reported that they had sent staff to EPA courses, but did not
specify what these were.
Five States with core programs have developed their own training for local officials and
mitigation. These are Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Tennessee. The Georgia and
Tennessee programs were workshops directed toward school administrators and maintenance staff.
Maryland conducted a course for radon contractors at a local community college and Massachusetts
reports sponsoring three courses on mitigation.
Some core States use training programs made available by universities and extension services.
Maine conducted workshops for mitigators that were co-sponsored by Southern Maine Technical
College. Virginia runs a State-sponsored mitigation course in cooperation with Virginia Technical
University. This course was given three times in 1988-1989 to a total of 200 participants. In
Washington, the Washington Energy Extension Service provides mitigation and diagnostic training and
consultation to the Spokane area and the eastern part of the State.
MODERATE PROGRAMS
Seven states were categorized as having moderate programs based on expanded or innovative
pro-active activities in one or more program areas. These States include California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa. All of these States have State-wide surveys
completed or underway. Other common features of States with moderate programs include enacting
radon-specific legislation, developing State-specific radon materials, increasing knowledge of the extent
of the radon problem in the State, and promoting remedial and new construction techniques to mitigate
and prevent problems from radon. These findings are summarized in Table 3.
Program Management in Moderate programs. The goals of the radon program in the
seven States with moderate-level radon programs duplicate the interest of core States in fully assessing
the radon problem in their States, in informing the public and in providing information and technical
assistance to citizens seeking measurement or mitigation advice. In addition, there is a focus on
educating, registering, and certifying measurement and mitigation companies. This is reflected in the
passage of legislation, at the time of this report, to regulate companies doing radon-related work in
four of the seven States with moderate programs: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana and Iowa. Colorado has
published a regulation requiring testing of schools. Radon-related legislation enacted in California
requires disclosure of radon levels, if known, in real estate transactions.
19
-------
Table 3. Summary of Moderate Program Activities
Number of Moderate States n = 7
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Average Radon Budget n = 5
Mean FTE's n = 6
Designated Agency for Radon
State Policy for Radon
Legislation Enacted
Legislation Proposed
Linkages with Other State Agencies
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Hotline
Fewer than 100 calls per month n = 3
Between 100-500 calls per month n = 2
More than 500 calls per month n = 1
Target Outreach
Average Number of EPA Citizen's Guides Distributed n = 5
State-developed Publications Produced
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
EPA/State Survey Completed or Underway
State-sponsored Surveys
Water Surveys
School Surveys
Free, Subsidized, or At-cost Measurement Devices n = 6
PROBLEM RESPONSE
State List of Measurers
State List of Mitigators
State-sponsored Mitigation Demonstrations
Mitigation Statistics Collected
State Training Programs
EPA Training Programs in Use
$198,600
1.9
100%
100%
86%
71%
71%
71%
50%
33%
17%
0%
8,900
86%
71%
100%
29%
43%
43%
83%
33%
29%
17%
43%
17%
n = Number of States reporting data for that item
20
-------
Six of the seven States with moderate programs have the radon program housed in the State
health department. Illinois is different in that it operates the radon program out of the Department of
Nuclear Safety. Average funding available to the moderate programs is about $198,600, but this figure
may be misleading. Only California ($350,000). Iowa ($105,000), and Illinois ($100,000) report radon-
specific appropriations. The Connecticut program received $400,000 in 1987. Resources currently
available at the time data were collected revealed that moderate States had an average of 1.9 FTEs
with no cost estimate associated. Indiana and Delaware have no funds appropriated for radon,
although Indiana estimated the value of labor devoted to radon provided by 2 staff at $10,000. A
Colorado request for radon funding was turned down by the legislature, but $38,000 in general funds
were spent on radon-related activities. Six of the seven States with moderate programs reported an
average of one to two staff working on the radon program.
In five of the seven States with moderate programs there were linkages between the lead State
radon agency and other programs. For instance, the State Geological Surveys provided survey
assistance in Colorado and Indiana. In Connecticut the Department of Environmental Protection
collects all air and water data and analyzes the relationship between radon levels and geologic factors.
Local initiatives in these States were in providing technical information and advice and pamphlets to
local governments on request, especially with regard to school testing. California staff have established
linkages with the Los Angeles Health Department and the Los Angeles School District to provide
advice and technical support. Colorado is working with EPA on a long-term radon risk evaluation in
the Denver Metropolitan area. The Indiana Department of Health provided a training seminar for the
State Bureau of Local Support Services in January, 1989 but no direct help to localities was reported.
Five of the moderate program States report the existence of local initiatives to address the
radon problem in their State. California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois and Indiana all report local
initiatives in Problem Assessment, which consists of measurement surveys sponsored by an agency
other than the State.
Public Information in Moderate Programs. Five of these States, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, and Iowa, have a telephone hotline to handle radon-related inquiries. Estimates of
the level of telephone activity are difficult to evaluate, because the number of calls may vary a great
deal with other public information activities, such as public service announcements (PSA's). However,
of six States attempting such estimates, one reported 625 calls per month, two reported between 100
and 500 calls a month, while three received less than 100 calls a month.
All of the States with moderate programs send out "A Citizens Guide" and other EPA materials,
but only five reported numeric estimates (ranging from 700 to 22,000 per year) of the number
distributed. California has developed its own Citizens Guide, and Delaware reprinted the EPA "Citizen's
21
-------
Guide" with the State logo. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana and Iowa sent out State-developed fact sheets
and survey reports.
Indiana conducted an EPA-sponsored public outreach campaign in 1988-89 which included
distribution of radon leaflets in electric bills sent to over 760,000 homes, and special presentations and
videos for county health officials, health educators, school officials and real estate professionals. Illinois
identified "proactive public outreach" as one of its goals for the future.
Problem Assessment in Moderate Programs. Characterization of the amount and
distribution of radon in the State is well underway in States with moderate programs. Connecticut,
Colorado, Indiana and Iowa have completed EPA/State surveys of indoor air radon, and California will'
initiate such a survey in 1990. Connecticut also conducted a State-survey to augment the EPA/State
survey. California and Illinois are initiating their own State-wide surveys. Among States with moderate
programs, Connecticut and Colorado have undertaken a survey of radon in water. The Colorado
Health Department has cooperated with the USGS to study very high radon readings in private wells in
Boulder County. In addition, local governments are conducting surveys in most of these States. In
California, a small survey was conducted by DHS, and Los Angeles County School District conducted a
more extensive survye of L.A. schools.
State measurement assistance programs are not yet widespread in States with moderate
programs. The most extensive measurement assistance program is reported by Delaware, which offers
free charcoal canister radon testing to State residents for a $5 materials fee. Illinois has placed year-
long alpha track detectors in schools in two counties. The Iowa Department of Public Health has
plans to conduct confirmatory testing in homes which measure over 40 pCi/L.
California is the only moderate State reporting a health effects study, in which the California
Department of Health Services participated. No results are yet available from this study. Geologic
Survey offices have undertaken geologic studies of radon in two States. The Indiana Geologic Survey
and the Department of Health have co-authored "Preliminary Geologic Characterization of Indiana for
Indoor Radon Survey" which is an ongoing project. The Colorado Geologic Survey is working with the
USGS on the Conifer Mountain soil/water radon study.
Six of the moderate States are developing measurement and data management systems. State
laboratories perform radon measurement assessments in Connecticut, California, Delaware, and Indiana.
Other States with moderate programs report no laboratory capability, but do possess measurement
equipment. Delaware reported having one staff member to operate measurement devices.
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana and Iowa all maintain PC data bases with radon survey results.
In all of these States, data are aggregated to the level of the zip code and/or the county, and the
22
-------
identity of homeowners is either not recorded or is kept confidential. Colorado has only some of its
survey data computerized, while California is in the planning stage of computerizing a database of
radon measurement data.
Problem Response in Moderate Programs. In terms of problem response, the most
important difference between States with moderate programs and those with core programs is the
presence in moderate program States of legislation requiring registration/certification of measurement
and mitigation contractors. As noted above, only California, Connecticut and Colorado lack such
legislation. In California and Connecticut, legislation has been proposed but was not enacted at the
time this report was prepared. The Radon Control Division in Colorado has chosen not to regulate
companies as a matter of policy.
Registration/certification makes available to consumers State lists of measurement and mitigation
companies which have met the criteria established for the State. Often these criteria include
successful application for inclusion on the EPA RMP list. Not surprisingly, RMP lists are a less
important resource in States which compile their own lists. All of the moderate States except
California maintain State lists of measurers, Connecticut, Iowa and Illinois also have compiled State
lists of mitigators.
Mitigation demonstrations were not reported in States with moderate programs with the exception
of a small project to mitigate in the Illinois State Capitol Building. None of these States offer financial
assistance to homeowners for the purpose of mitigation, although all of them provide technical advice
over the phone or in person. Illinois and Connecticut reported the only mitigation statistics, a list of
the number of homes mitigated which is voluntarily provided by mitigation contractors.
Mitigation training courses were conducted in three of the moderate program States. Iowa co-
sponsored with EPA a 3-day mitigation course. The North American Radon Association sponsored two
courses on mitigation in Indiana. Connecticut sponsored two courses in 1988 and 1989. Indiana and
Illinois both planned mitigation courses in 1989. The Midwest Universities Radon Consortium (MURC)
planned to offer radon seminars for radon measurement company personnel.
EXTENSIVE PROGRAMS
States classified as extensive have programs which are addressing the radon problem in a
manner appropriate to the particular State. Four States considered as having extensive programs are:
Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. A key feature of this level, as summarized in
Table 4, is that considerable effort has been expended in measuring and mitigating the radon problem
in the State. All have funding, staff, and radon-specific legislation. All four extensive States have
23
-------
Table 4. Summary of Extensive Program Activities
Number of Extensive States n = 4
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Average Radon Budget n = 4
Mean FTE's n = 4
Designated Agency for Radon
State Policy for Radon
Legislation Enacted
Legislation Proposed
Linkages with Other State Agencies
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Hotline
Fewer than 100 calls per month n = 0
Between 100-500 calls per month n = 0
More than 500 calls per month n = 4
Target Outreach
Average Number of EPA Citizen's Guides Distributed n = 1
State-developed Publications Produced
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
EPA/State Survey Completed or Underway
State-sponsored Surveys
Water Surveys
School Surveys
Free, Subsidized, or At-cost Measurement Devices
PROBLEM RESPONSE
State List of Measurers
State List of Mitigators
State-sponsored Mitigation Demonstrations
Mitigation Statistics Collected
State Training Programs
EPA Training Programs in Use
$1,383,020
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
75%
300,000
100%
75%
100%
0%
0%
75%
100%
100%
50%
75%
75%
0%
n = Number of States reporting data for that item
24
-------
sponsored State surveys of homes, and three (all except New York) are conducting geological and/or
health studies as well. Local initiatives in problem assessment were reported in New York and
Pennsylvania. New Jersey and Pennsylvania offer some type of measurement assistance.
Program Management in Extensive Programs. In States with extensive radon programs, the
extent and distribution of radon in the State has been reasonably well characterized. All have specific
policy goals to reduce radon risk. There is an emphasis on reducing exposure to radon by mitigating
existing structures and preventing exposure in new buildings. Radon policy is supported by legislation
and regulations requiring testing of structures, certification of measurement and mitigation companies
and investigation of changes in building codes. For example:
Florida has legislation calling for mandatory testing of schools, daycare centers and 24-
hour public facilities. The legislation also requires revelation of radon issues at the time
of real estate transactions, and certification of measurement and mitigation contractors.
• The Radon Mitigation Construction Standards Bill, enacted in New Jersey, requires use
of radon resistant construction techniques in high-risk areas, as defined by the State.
New York has enacted radon-specific legislation mandating in-depth study of mitigation
and prevention techniques and authorizing funds to support the radon program.
Probably the most striking feature of extensive radon programs is the degree to which they are
well-staffed and well-funded compared to moderate and core programs. These States reported an
average budget of $1.4 million and an average staff size of 16 FTEs. The radon budget in New York
received a boost of almost $2 million from stripper well exemption litigation funds for three years
beginning in 1987, and $525,000 from Exxon oil overcharge litigation funds in 1989.
The designated lead agency for the radon program is some branch of the State Health
Department in Florida and New York. The New Jersey radon program is housed in the Department of
Environmental Protection, and in Pennsylvania the program is in the Department of Environmental
Resources. Both of these programs receive support in epidemiological studies and local outreach from
the State Health Department. Other intra-agency linkages found in these States are with energy
departments (mitigation training, measurement), Geologic Survey departments (geological studies,
problem characterization), and departments of community affairs (development of model building codes).
Research services are provided to the radon program by universities and State extension services.
State assistance to local government consists primarily of consultation and distribution of
information packets to local governments. There may, however, be independent local initiatives which
25
-------
were not reported. Training of local government officials in response to public inquiries has been
provided by State programs in Florida and New Jersey. New York provides training programs and
provides measurement devices to local governments at cost. No direct financial assistance to local
governments was reported by any extensive program in this baseline period.
Public Information in Extensive Programs. All of the States with extensive programs
maintain telephone hotlines to provide information and materials to the public. The number of public
inquiries responded to in these States was quite high. For instance, Florida handles 750 calls per
month, while New Jersey has handled more than 100,000 telephone inquiries since 1985.
All these States have developed and distributed their own materials, as well as EPA
publications. In total, copies of radon education materials have been sent to more than 500,000
households in the four States with extensive programs. New Jersey has developed a slide show and
videotape, both of which have been provided to all county libraries.
These States have also been involved in targeted education activities. For instance,
Pennsylvania developed a Spanish language version of "A Citizen's Guide" and New Jersey has
distributed 400,000 letters to homes in high risk areas urging radon testing.
Problem Assessment in Extensive Programs. All the States with extensive programs have
conducted State-sponsored surveys of radon in households. These range in size from a survey of
2,401 homes in New York to a Pennsylvania survey of 29,000 homes in the Reading Prong area.
New York is providing 20,000 detectors as part of a free/at-cost monitoring program and Pennsylvania
provides free follow-up testing to homes with radon levels greater than 20 pCi/L.
Three States offer monitoring and follow-up as part of problem assessment. The Department of
Environmental Protection in New Jersey provides free or subsidized testing if it is a confirmatory
measurement as part of its Cluster Identification Program. New York has a similar approach: if a
home measures above 200 pCi/L, the Department of Health measures 25 homes within a one mile
radius as part of a cluster program. One such "cluster" has been completed in New York at the time
of this report and eight were in progress. Pennsylvania provides additional testing to homeowners who
have test results greater than 50 pCi/L.
In all the extensive States except New York, there is a geology/land evaluation that can be
used to characterize radon risk in the State. In addition, these States are conducting health studies of
risk of exposure to radon. For instance, an epidemiologic study of women in New Jersey indicated a
trend of increasing lung cancer risk based on increasing radon levels.
26
-------
All four States have laboratory facilities for analyzing radon measurement data, although New
York relies primarily on private lab contacts. All the States with extensive programs (except Florida)
have an operational database of information provided by private testing companies of radon
measurements that is coded at the zifxxxle level. In Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania reporting
of this information by radon testing and mitigation firms is required by law, though the identity of
records in the database remains confidential.
Problem Response in Extensive Programs. All four of the States with extensive programs
routinely provide State lists of measurement and mitigation companies. Florida has a mandatory
certification program for measurement and mitigation companies; New Jersey has a voluntary program.
While the number of referrals to mitigation companies was not reported, and data on the number of
private mitigations is not complete, these States indicated at least 8,500 in New Jersey, and 2,600 in
New York. In New Jersey, the State Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency provides low-cost loans
for mitigation activities.
Three of the States with extensive programs provide training courses. For instance, Florida
reported that 800 professionals in more that 200 measurement and mitigation firms had participated in
State radon training courses. In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Resources does not
provide training courses but does approve radon and mitigation training courses offered by the private
sector.
27
-------
CHAPTER 4. REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
This Chapter summarizes the characteristics of State radon program activities for programs at
different levels of development. An overview of these findings is presented in Table 5.
CORE PROGRAMS
In 1989, a number of State programs were working to consolidate core capabilities. Most of the
programs in the core category (70%) did not report any radon-specific funding and the average staff
devoted to the radon program in 30 of the 40 core program States was just over one FTE in 1989.
Although thirty-four of the 40 core States reported a State radon policy, three-fourths of the core States
had not enacted radon-related legislation. There was considerable variability in States classified as
having core programs. State capability in all the areas of program development ranges from limited
activity to greater activity. An example is Maine, which has an extensive program for radon in water
but is still at the core level for radon in indoor air.
While all these States have basic capability to respond to public inquiries, only eight of the 40
core States (20%) had radon hotlines. Most States (22 of 37 States reporting data) respond to fewer
than 100 call per month. All the core States reported that they distributed EPA publications upon
request, and the 17 States that provided numeric estimates sent out a mean of 7,500 copies of "A
Citizen's Guide." In addition, 18 core States (45%) reported that they produced State-specific radon
publications which were distributed along with EPA materials.
This variability in program activities and emphasis among core States was also seen in the
areas of Problem Assessment and Problem Response. Just half of the core States (20 of 40)
reported sponsoring State surveys, ranging in size from a survey of 11 homes in Wisconsin to one of
1,100 homes in Idaho. About a fourth of States with core programs (10 of 40) offered some type of
measurement assistance. A majority of the core program States (27 of 40 or 69%) report computer
capability for maintaining a database for tracking radon measurement and mitigation results. The
majority of the core program States (24 of 40 or 60%) maintain State lists of measurement companies.
Five States (13%) reported developing their own training course, while 45% of the core States (18 of
40) use EPA programs to train State and local officials in radon response.
28
-------
Table 5. Summary of All Program Activities
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY
Number of States
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Average Radon Budget
Average FTE's
Designated Agency for Radon
State Policy for Radon
Legislation Enacted
Legislation Proposed
Linkages with Other State Agencies
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Hotline
Fewer than 100 calls per month
Between 100-500 calls per month
More than 500 calls per month
Targeted Outreach
Average Number of EPA Citizen's Guides
Distributed
State-developed Publications Produced
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
EPA/State Survey Completed or Underway
State-sponsored Surveys
Water Surveys
School Surveys
Free Subsidized, or At-cost Meas. Devices
PROBLEM RESPONSES
State List of Measurers
State List of Mitigators
State-sponsored Mitigation Demonstrations
Mitigation Statistics Collected
State Training Programs
EPA Training Programs in Use
CORE
40
$62,400
1
100%
85%
22%
28%
30%
20%
59%
38%
3%
0%
7,500
45%
72%
50%
3%
13%
25%
60%
45%
15%
3%
13%
45%
MODERATE
7
$198,600
1.9
100%
100%
86%
71%
71%
71%
50%
33%
17%
0%
8,900
86%
71%
100%
29%
43%
43%
83%
33%
29%
17%
43%
17%
EXTENSIVE
4
$1,383,020
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
75%
300,000
100%
75%
100%
0%
0%
75%
100%
100%
50%
75%
75%
0%
TOTAL
J
$356,060
n = 21 1
3.21
n = 40
100%
88%
43%
36%
43%
33%
54%
33%
13%
10%
20,500
n = 23
55%
73%
65%
6%
14%
31%
67%
45%
18%
14%
18%
37%
n = Number of States reporting data for that item
29
-------
MODERATE PROGRAMS
Programs in States with moderate programs had slightly less than 2 FTEs working on radon,
and an average budget of $198,600. These programs all had a State policy, two-thirds had linkages
to other State programs, and radon-related legislation had been enacted in all but one (Connecticut) of
the States with moderate programs.
All these moderate States have developed their own radon-related publications. Five of these
States have hotlines and six of the seven moderate States handled an average of 140 calls per month
in 1989, ranging from 20 to 600 calls per month. Two of the moderate program States (California and
Illinois) are involved with school surveys. Aside from maintaining State lists of measurement
companies, State involvement in measurement and mitigation activities and training in 1989 was more
limited. However, three moderate States (Delaware, Connecticut, and Illinois) offered subsidized
measurement assistance.
EXTENSIVE PROGRAMS
States classified as extensive have programs which are effectively addressing the radon problem
in a manner appropriate to the particular State. The four States considered to have extensive
programs are: Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
These States had large solidly funded programs (average budget of $1.4 million, and an average
of 16 FTEs) that are linked to other programs in the State. The extensive States all have developed
State-specific publications on radon, and have distributed large numbers of State and EPA publications.
Three of these four States are responding to more than 500 calls per month and all have outreach
programs targeted at high risk populations. These extensive programs have all sponsored State
surveys. New York and Pennsylvania also offer free or subsidized testing. New Jersey offers free or
subsidized testing only if it is confirmatory or part of the cluster program.
One of these States with extensive programs is also involved in mitigation efforts. In New
Jersey, the State Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency offers low-interest loans for home
improvement to include radon mitigation. All the extensive program States have lists of mitigators, and
offer or approve training programs in measurement and mitigation. Mitigation statistics are being
collected and maintained in some form in all four of the extensive program States.
30
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The most striking difference between core, moderate and extensive States was in program
funding; average budgets were $62,400 in core States, $198,600 in moderate States, and $1.4 million
in extensive program States. The difference in average reported FTEs (1 FTE in core programs, 1.9
FTEs in moderate programs, and 16 FTEs in extensive programs) was in the same direction. The
presence of proposed or enacted legislation and linkages to other State agencies also seems to reflect
a program which is becoming more established.
The monthly number of reported calls - whether to a hotline or to the designated agency -
shows a regular increase from core to moderate to extensive categories. There is a move toward
development of State specific publications in the more developed radon programs. Most core States
(79%) either send out EPA brochures or produce copies of EPA materials with the State logo affixed.
However, 100% of both moderate and extensive programs either replace or supplement EPA materials
with their own brochures or fact sheets. Several States are conducting targeted outreach-public
information efforts which are geared to reach selected subgroups of the population. At this time, all
targeted outreach activities reported by States are most commonly directed to homeowners in high-risk
areas. There are no low-income public information initiatives as yet.
The major difference in problem characterization by level of development is in surveys sponsored
by States on their own initiative. All of the moderate and extensive States have sponsored at least
one, and sometimes more than one, survey of radon in homes compared to only 50% in core States.
School surveys are still relatively rare even in States with extensive programs; only 24% of States
have characterized the extent of the school radon problem in their States. Of the 12 States that
reported any school survey activity, seven were referring to participation in the EPA School
Measurement Protocol Development Study. Only eight States (five core and three moderate) are
conducting State-sponsored measurement of radon in school buildings. Three States also report
conducting surveys of radon in water.
Programs to provide measurement devices free or at a reduced cost to homeowners or to
schools are not widespread and do not appear to vary with program level. The three subsidized
measurement programs in extensive States are restricted to follow-up measurements in homes that
already have demonstrably high levels of radon.
Support of ongoing measures to respond to elevated levels of indoor radon is generally more
limited. Most activity in problem response is found in the four States with extensive programs. States
with programs at the core and moderate levels show very little activity in problem response, and tend
to rely on support provided by EPA in the area of problem response. For example, while all States
31
-------
have available the EPA RMP list to respond to inquiries, extensive States have expanded their
capability to provide State specific lists of both measurement and mitigation companies. Moderate
States also have their own lists of measurement companies, but only three maintain lists of companies
which do mitigation.
Core, moderate and extensive programs use EPA RRTC courses to deliver mitigation training to
contractors and local officials. In addition, 80% of States with extensive programs have developed
their own mitigation training courses as compared to about 13 percent of the core and moderate
States. Likewise, State-sponsored projects to investigate and develop mitigation methods are
disproportionately found in States with extensive programs. Finally, extensive States collect the
mitigation statistics from contractors which form the basis of any assessment of the overall success of
the radon program in reducing radon risk to their citizens.
In conclusion, this report presents a snapshot of the extent to which States throughout the
country are actively involved in the development of radon programs. In many parts of the country,
considerable activity has been undertaken to provide information to the public about the risk of radon.
In most States, surveys have been conducted to characterize the nature of the indoor air radon
problem, and some States are also sponsoring their own surveys. Many States are actively involved
in the provision of, and training in, testing and mitigation procedures; however, the number of homes
where mitigation has actually taken place is still small. With the support of SIRG, States are
undertaking activities which will lead to further program development.
32
-------
STATE TABLES
-------
-------
TABLE 6.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES, AND LEGISLATION
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Name of
Lead Agency
Dept Public Health
Health & Social Svcs
Radiation Reg Agcy
Dept of Health
Dept of Health Svcs
Dept of Health
Dept of Health Svcs
Health & Social Svcs
Consumer & Reg Affairs
Health & Rehab Svcs
State Policy Radon
(Yes/No) Appropriation FTE's
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
$ 80,000 0.25
$ 80,000 2
None
$350,000 2
$ 38,000
$400,000 (FY87) 1.5
None 2
None
$700,000 1 1
Effective
Summary Date
Radon info. prog. (HJR38)
Disclos. of radon in resid.
real estate (AB584)
State must consider EPA radon-
resis. bldg. stand. (SB364)
All public schools must be
tested. (DOH-neg.10-102)
Mea & Mil. Co. must be EPA
listed; register with the State
Radon study resol.
Radon advis. council, public
1988
1989
1989
1989
1988
1987
1988
info, prog., bldg. codes.
funding, mand. test, schools,
day care, 24-hr, facil.,
cert, of meas. & mitig.,
disclos. in real estate
transac. (HB1420)
Radon stand., radon resis.
bldg. tech. in new construct.,
info. prog. (FAC 10D-91)
1984
Blank - no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES, AND LEGISLATION
State
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Name of
Lead Agency
Dept Human Res.
Dept of Health
Health & Welfare
Dept Nuclear Sfty
State Bd of Health
Dept of Public Hlth
Health & Environ.
Dept of Health Svcs
Dept Environ Qlty
Dept Human Svcs.
Dept of Environ
Legislation Enacted
State Policy Radon Effective
(Yes/No) Appropriation FTE's Summary Date
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
$15,000 0.5 Committee to study, report
on radon (HR548)
None
$ 3.500/FY89 0.25
$100,000 2 Prog, dvlpmnt & consumer
fraud provisions (HB2709)
Regis, testers (H1611)
2 Cert meas. & mitig. firms
(HA1837)
$105,000 2 Cert meas. (HF2354)
Create Task Force
None 1
1
$ 3,000(FY88) 0.1
$121,000 3.5 Task Force to study, report
on radon (HP760)
$100,000 1 Cert, radon tsters, BMP list
(HB567)
Task Force to study, report on
radon; survey (HJR24)
1987
1989
1989
1989
1988
1987
1987
1988
1987
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES, AND LEGISLATION
State
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
Name of
Lead Agency
Dept of Public Hlth
Dept of Public Hlth
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Health & Env Sciences
Dept of Health
Dept of Human Res
Health & Human Svcs
State Policy
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Appropriation
None
$209,600
None
None
None
None
None
None
$1 05,000 (FY87)
Radon
FTE's
1
1
1
None
None
None
0.25
None
1
Legislation Enacted
Effective
Summary Date
Cert. meas. & mitig. firms 1989
(LB390)
Radon survey, info, prog., 1988
New Jersey
Env Protection
Yes
$1.2 M/FY90
16
new construe. (SB260)
Radon resis. construe., builder 1989
liab. (SN2961)
Cert, of meas. & mitig. firms 1986
(AN2371)
Fund program, State survey, 1986
EPI study, confirm, monit.
prog..public info. & educ.,
toll free hot line (AN4112)
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES, AND LEGISLATION
ON
State
New Mexico
New York
North
Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Name of
Lead Agency
Health & Environ
Dept of Health
Dept of Environ
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Human Res
Dept of Env Res
Dept of Health
Health & Env Cntrl
Water & Nat Res
State Policy
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Appropriation
None
$6.7 M
(for three years)
None
None
None
None
None
$1.4 M
None
None
None
Radon
FTE's
5
15
1
1.2
0.5
0.125
0.25
21
0.33
<1.0
0.2
Legislation Enacted
Summary
Approp. stripper well funds
(SB6496)
Studies & funds (AB9594)
Cert, of meas. & mitig. firms
(SB 137)
Demo proj.; low interest loans
(HB1934)
Radon testing advisory in real
estate sales (S2789)
Effective
Date
1987
1986
1987
1986
1988
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES, AND LEGISLATION
State
Name of
Lead Agency
State Policy
(Yes/No)
Appropriation
Radon
RE's
Legislation Enacted
Summary
Effective
Date
Tennesse
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Health & Environ
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Dept of Health
Health & Soc Svcs
Health & Med Svcs
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
$15Q,000(FY87)
None
None
None
$52,700
0.5
0.33
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
$ 30,000
None
1.25
0.8
0.5
Average Radon Budget: $356,000 (n=21)
Average Radon FTE's: 2.6 (n = 39)
Number of States With Enacted Legislation: 19
Geo. study, public educ., 1988
pilot test public bldgs,
conting. on fed. funds (HJR515)
Mit. co. must be EPA listed 1989
(HB1403)
Mea. Co. must be EPA listed 1988
(HB746)
Task force to study, report on 1987
radon (HJR229)
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 7.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: LOCAL INITIATIVES
Program
State Management
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut X
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
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 X
North Dakota X
Ohio X
Oklahoma
Oregon
Public
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Problem Problem
Assessment Response
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 7. (Continued)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: LOCAL INITIATIVES
Program Public
State Management Information
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin X
Wyoming
Problem Problem
Assessment Response
X
X
X X
Totals: 6
Total Local Initiatives: 40
States with Local Initiatives:
10
19 of the 40 Core
5 of the 7 Moderate
3 of the 4 Extensive
24
Total Number of States With Local Initiatives: 27 States
Blank - no activity or no data reported
39
-------
TABLE 8. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
-c-
o
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
EPA
A
Citizen's
Guide to
Radon
—
4,592
—
—
700
20,000
500
—
—
...
24
—
1,400
22,000
—
—
2,000
MATERIALS SENT OUT
Radon
Radon Mitigation
Reduction Technical
Methods Guidance
—
4,592
—
—
700 700
10,000
400
—
—
—
6
—
500 500
10,000
—
—
STATE MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED
No
Copies
Yes/No Sent
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes 25,000
Yes
Yes 5,000
Yes
No
No
No
Yes 250
Yes 22,000
Yes
Yes
No
TELEPHONE
INQUIRIES
Hotline Avg.
Calls
Yes/No Per Month
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
30
29
100
50
—
250
625
20
70
750
250
2
50
300
80
50
115
50
— = number not reported
-------
TABLE 8. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
Continued
EPA MATERIALS SENT
A
State
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Citizen's
Guide to
Radon
15,000
1,000
50,000
10,000
10,500
—
—
—
250
10,000
—
500
—
—
2,500
Radon
Reduction
Methods
8,000
1,000
—
...
5,000
—
—
—
—
250
10,000
—
500
—
—
1,000
OUT
Radon
Mitigation
Technical
Guidance
75
30
...
300
2,500
—
—
—
—
—
200
...
—
—
—
100
STATE MATERIALS TELEPHONE
DISTRIBUTED INQUIRIES
Yes/No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Copies Hotline
Sent Yes/No
No
10,000 No
Yes
50,000 No
500 No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
55,000 Yes
No
137,000 Yes
No
1,000 Yes
Yes
Avg. Calls
Per Month
6
300
250
300
100
990
10
215
50
66
6
200
1,877
25
...
50
...
250
— = number not reported
-------
TABLE 8. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
Continued
-e-
K)
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EPA MATERIALS SENT OUT
A Radon
Citizen's Radon Mitigation
Guide to Reduction Technical
Radon Methods Guidance
—
300,000 200,000 1 ,000
500 500
...
—
—
—
—
200 20 10
7,000
...
5,000
7,800 2,400 2,400
STATE MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED
No
Copies
Yes/No Sent
No
Yes 800
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes 24,000
Yes 800
Yes
Yes 300
Yes
TELEPHONE
INQUIRIES
Hotline Avg.
Calls
Yes/No Per Month
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
25
66
1,500
40
20
25
450
30
—
150
160
—
60
200
60
— = number not reported
-------
TABLE 8. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
Continued
FPA MATERIALS SENT OUT
STATE MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED
TELEPHONE
INQUIRIES
State
A
Citizen's
Guide to
Radon
Radon
Reduction
Methods
Radon
Mitigation
Technical
Guidance Yes/No
No
Copies
Sent
Hotline
Yes/No
Avg. Calls
Per Month
Number of States Distributing State-Developed Materials:
Number of States Reporting Less Than 100 Calls Per Month:
Number of States Reporting 100-500 Calls Per Month:
Number of States Reporting More Than 500 Calls Per Month:
Number of States Not Reporting Number of Calls:
28 (18 Core, 6 Moderate, 4 Extensive)
25 (22 Core, 3 Moderate)
16 (14 Core, 2 Moderate)
5 (2 Core, 3 Extensive)
5 (3 Core, 1 Moderate, 1 Extensive)
— = number not reported
-------
TABLE 9. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT: RADON SURVEYS
EPA/State Radon Survey
Homes Percent
State Year Measured >4pCi/L
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
1987 1,200 6%
1989 1,127 8%
1988 1,507 7%
1988
1990 2,000 2%
1987 1,400 41%
1987 1,450 19%
1989
—
--
1989 1,534 8%
1990 523 0.4%
1990 1,140 19%
-
Sponsor
State/Terradex
State/ASU
State
State
State
State/EPA
State
State
State
BPA
State
State
State
State
City of E Moline
State-Sponsored
Type
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
School districts
Well Water
Well Water
Homes
Schools
National Guard
Homes
Homes
Schools
Schools
State Bldg.
Homes
Homes
or Other Surveys
Unit
Measured
606
200
351
400
29
262
3,409
150
30
6,000
1,000
1,100
47
26
2,269
96
Percent
>4pCi/L
17%
11%
10%
4%
25% >
4pCi/L
3>4pCi/L
38%
80%
Blanks = no activity or no data reported
* Data not yet available
-- Survey has not yet been conducted
-------
TABLE 9. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT: RADON SURVEYS
(Continued)
EPA /State Radon Survey
Homes
State Year Measured
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
1988
1989
1987
1987
1990
1989
—
1988
1987
1988
-
1988
—
1990
1990
--
1989
1989
1,900
1,381
2,000
900
1,300
839
1,659
1,989
919
1,859
2,000
1,560
1,887
Percent
>4pCi/L
28%
71%
22%
17%
0.8%
30%
23%
12%
46%
17%
54%
10%
22%
Sponsor
McDonough City
Peoria/ALA
Bartholomew City
Ball State Univ.
ISU & UI
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State-Sponsored or Other Surveys
Unit
Type Measured
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Schools
Wells
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
47
10,000
461
4,000
150 sch.
districts
4,560
1,600
200
350
1,658
6,000
2,401
Percent
>4pCi/L
77%
77%
63%
27%
40%, at least
Isch
40%
25%
20%
26%
32%
10%
Blanks = no activity or no data reported
* Data not yd available
— Survey has not yet been conducted
-------
TABLE 9. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT: RADON SURVEYS
(Continued)
-P-
ON
EPA/State Radon Survey
Homes
State Year Measured
North
Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1990
1988
1989
1990
-
1988
1987
1990
-
1987
—
—
1989
--
--
1989
1987
1,200
1,600
1,734
1,500
3,000
500
1,000
1,000
1,800
710
1,006
1,200
Percent
>4pCi/L
7%
61%
29%
3%
40%
21%
40%
16%
16%
16%
27%
Sponsor
Forsyth Co.
UND
Cincinnati Health
Dept.
OAQDA: Ohio
RAPCA: Dayton
Youngstown St. U
Mansfield & Richland
counties
Private Company
BPA
State
State
State
BPA
State
Marathon Co
State
State-Sponsored or Other Surveys
Unit
Type Measured
Schools
Homes
Homes
Homes
Schools
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
Homes
1,000
7 counties
13counties
5
1,000
369
112
10,000
29,050
735
21,161
6,700
6,000
243
Percent
>4pCi/L
25%
52%
11%
10%
52%
52%
Blanks = no activity or no data reported
* Data not yet available
— Survey has not yet been conducted
-------
TABLE 9. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT: RADON SURVEYS
(Continued)
State
EPA/State Radon Survey
Homes Percent
Year Measured >4pCi/L Sponsor
State-Sponsored or Other Surveys
Unit
Type Measured
Percent
>4pCi/L
Wyoming
1987
800 26%
State
Schools
11
40%
Number of EPA/STATE Surveys Conducted through 1990: 36
Number of STATE-Sponsored Surveys Conducted through 1989: 29
Blanks = no activity or no data reported
* Data not yet available
-- Survey has not yet been conducted
-------
TABLE 10.
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE TESTING PROGRAMS AND STATE-SUBSIDIZED TESTING
Free or State-Subsidized Testing
State Description Number of Units
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona Provide CC's* to counties 1,800
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut Free CC's 3,410
Delaware Free CC's
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia CC's available to vol. for State survey
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois Annual ATDV All schools in 2 counties
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire CC's at cost (prior to 1988) 2,000
New Jersey Screen homes in cluster ID program/ 1,045
confirmatory testing
New Mexico
New York Screening free or at cost 33,000 ATD's
North Carolina CC's & analyt sources for schools
North Dakota UND distributes some CC's
Ohio
Oklahoma
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE TESTING PROGRAMS AND STATE-SUBSIDIZED TESTING
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Free or State-Subsidized Testing
Description
Number of Units
2 ATD's for Homes > 50pCi/L
At cost testing by RISE*
Reduced cost ATD's for schools
Financial assistance to low-income
Free CC's, $5 for analysis
Free CC's in Wausau
12,000
6,000
Number Of States With Free or Subsidized Testing: 16
* Charcoal Cannisters
+ Alpha Track Detectors
# Rhode Island Saving Energy - a consumer group
Blank = no activity or no data reported
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Advics un where to purchase, how-
to use & interpret results
Advice to Hlth Dept on monitoring
homes adjacent to structures 2.100
Pci/LAir, >100pCi/L water
Follow-up testing, >_10pCi/L
Under development
Advice
Confirmation of measure >50pCi/L
Operational, confidential
Computerized, zip code
Not computerized
Computerized
Computerized, zip code
Computerized, county & zip code,
confidential
Planned
Computerized, zip code & county
Computerized, confidential
Computerized, confidential, zip code
By request
Voluntary
U of Pittsburgh sends
Voluntary
By request
By request
Required
Voluntary
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
AT follow-up, 10pCi/L
contact homeowner >50pCi/L
Confirm survey meas. >40pCi/L
Home visit if, >20pCi/L
Confirm high measurement
Home visit if >100 pCi/L
Follow-up w/AT's, >20pCi/L
Follow-up school, homes screened
in EPA survey, >20pCi/L
DOH 6 month AID in homes
screened, >20pCi/L
Computerized, zip code, 3,000 results
Computerized
Computerized
Computerized, zip code & county
Computerized
Computerized, confidential, 8,000 results
Computerized, zip code
Computerized, confidential, zip code
Not computerized, zip code & county
Required
By request
Voluntary
By request
Voluntary
Voluntary
None
Pending
Pending
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
KJ
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
At cost CC's
Free confirmation tests, or Cluster
ID Program
Computerized
Computerized
Computer database availability exists
Not computerized, data only collected
for NV Bur. of Mines and Geology
Computerized, >1000 results
Computerized, confidential access,
limited to DOH, DEP
Computerized
None
None
Voluntary
Required
Voluntary
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
New York
Cluster Prog. - measure 25 homes
in 1 mi radius of problem house
which is >200pCi/L;(free or at cost
CC's and ATD's) <20 pCi/L leave
ATD in place for 1 yr; >20pCi/L
suggests follow-up
Computerized, confidential
Voluntary
North
Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Limited follow-up
Telephone advice to callers
Free ATD > 20pCi/L
Computerized, confidential, county
Operational
Planned
Computerized
Computerized, confidential
Computerized, confidential
zip code & county
Voluntary
Voluntary
U. of Pittsburgh sends
Required
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Visits to "hot" houses, >50pCi/L
Telephone advice
Computerized, confidential
No
Computerized, zip code & county
USGS Radon Bulletin Board Sys.
Advice, reduced cost detectors for Computerized, confidential zip code &
county
Not computerized
Computerized
Computerized, confidential, zip code,
county & town
schools
ADT to houses >4 pCi/L
Advice
Advice on long term testing and
health risks
Advice
Letters from vendors
Computerized, location, 735 results
Computerized, confidential, Bonneville
data
Computerized 4300 results
Voluntary
Voluntary
Voluntary
Voluntary
No
No
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 11. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT:
STATE MEASUREMENT AND DATABASE ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
State
Program for Monitoring
and Follow-up
(Action/Recommendation,
Trigger Level - pCi/L)
Database of Measurement Results
(Status, Confidentiality, Level of
Detail, Number of Elements)
Collection of Private
Measurement Data
(Collection Method)
Wisconsin
Wyoming
CC's >20 pCi\L
Computerized, confidential, zip codes,
names, addresses & housecodes, 16,000
results
Collected, not entered
Blanks = no activity or no data
Computerized = data is accessible through a computerized database
Operational = Mechanism exists for collecting and maintaining data (computerization was not reported)
-------
TABLE 12.
PROBLEM RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
State
State-sponsored
Mitigations
Private
Mitigations
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
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
Review of H20 mitigation
1 - pending
3
> 1,000 subslabs
RRTC, 3 Homes
Dept. Public Services, 4 projects
>95 Air; >100 Water
10-50/yr
Midwest U. Radon Consortium
1 project - water
EPA/NAHB & DCA," new home
construction tech.
NYSEO as part of hands-on
training
schools, Forsyth County
* Dept. of Community Affairs
Blank = no activity or data reported
-------
TABLE 12. (Continued)
PROBLEM RESPONSE: ACTIVITIES
State
State-sponsored
Mitigations
Private
Mitigations
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
13 homes
40-50
Blank = no activity or data reported
U.S. Government Printing Office : 1991 - 281-724/43576
-------
-------
-------
------- |