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 ------- ------- ------- ------- |