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

-------

-------

-------

-------