United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington. DC 20460
Volume 12
Number 6
August 1986
EPA JOURNAL
pointing a Mystery
-------
Top: The home of Stanley Wutrus and
his family in Boyertown, PA. Discovery
of high radon levels in this home has
activated a national examination of the
radon problem. Bottom: Mr. and Mrs.
Stanley Wutras attend a press
conference in Pottstoivn, PA, in April
1985. Philadelphia Electric Co. and the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources announced at
the conference that they would
cooperate to radon-proof the Watras
home.
Radon: Pinpointing a Mystery
All pollution isn't man-made.
•* *• EPA's experience with the
colorless, odorless gas, radon,
demonstrates that fact. This
issue of fi'PA Journal includes
articles on Hie radon
situation.
The magazine leads off its
report with a brief
explanation of the radon
problem. The Agency's
Deputy Administrator, A.
James Barnes, discusses
strategies to deal with this
unusual, nonregulatory
challenge. The specifics of
EPA's Radon Action Program
are spelled out by Richard ].
Guimond, director of the
Agency's efforts to deal with
radon.
Pennsylvania's 18-month
battle against a radon threat
is chronicled by Nicholas
DeBenedictis, Secretary of
the state's Department of
Environmental Resources.
The story of how one
television series focused
attention on the radon
problem is related by Roberta
Baskin, a reporter for
WJLA-TV in Washington, DC.
The personal experience of
an EPA Region 3 official
working directly with people
who have high radon levels
in their homes is described.
Excerpts from EPA guidance
to homeowners about radon
are featured.
In a related story,
Congresswoman Claudine
Schneider (R-RI) argues that
indoor air pollution is
putting an increasing burden
on the modern home.
Other stories discuss EPA's
role in answering questions
that emerged following the
accident at the Chernobyl
nuclear power plant, and
asbestos in the home.
The issue concludes with
two features—Update and
Appointments/Awards, a
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 12
Number 6
August 1986
S-EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director, Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Susan Tejada, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect EPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
The Radon Problem: An
Overview 2
A Nonregulatory
Challenge
by A. James Barnes 3
Indoor Radon:
The Federal Approach
by Richard J. Guimond 5
Manning the Radon Front
in Pennsylvania
by Nicholas DeBenedictis (i
Making Sense of Radon
for the News
by Roberta Baskin II
Beginning with
a Phone Call
by Michael J. Chern It)
Guidance for Dealing
with Radon 12
The Indoor
Pollution Burden
by Claudine Schneider 14
Answering Questions
About Chernobyl
by Roy Popkin 1(5
Advice on Asbestos
in the Home
by Dave Ryan 21
Update 23
Appointments/Awards 24
Front Cover; Homes on an
American landscape. Discovery of
high radon levels in some homes
has been a surprise. Pholo by Skip
Brown for Folio. Inc.
Design Credits:
Robert Flanagan;
Ron Farrah.
R
o
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for the EPA Journal is
$20.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is $25.00 a
year. The price of a single copy of
the EPA Journal is $2.00 in this
country and $2.50 if sent to a for-
eign country. Prices include mail
costs. Subscriptions to the EPA
journal as well as to other federal
government magazines are handled
only by the U.S. Government Print-
ing Office. Anyone wishing to sub-
scribe to the EPA Journal should
fill in the form at right and enclose
a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents.
The requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents,
GPO, Washington, DC 20402.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Na
me -
Firs
t, L<
ist
PI
EA5
>E P
RIN"
Co
Str
Cit
•n pa
eet /
/
ny N
\ddr
am«
ess
> or
Add
tion
3l Ac
dre
ssL
ne
Sta
te
Zip
Coc
e
LJ Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
I I Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
The Radon Problem:
An Overview
EPA has traditionally been concerned
with man-made pollutants—smog,
toxic: chemicals, misapplied pesticides,
contaminated water, and abandoned
hazardous waste dumps. Now it seems
we have still another problem to worry
about, namely, a colorless, odorless,
completely imperceptible gas, radon,
generated from the natural radioactive
decay of radium. Radium can be found
in ordinary topsoil all around the
country, hut, like uranium, its parent
element, it also concentrates in granite
and black shale.
When radon gas is released it
percolates up through the earth into the
atmosphere, where it is thought to
dissipate innocuously. However, it can
also find its way into and concentrate in
dwelling places through cracks in
foundations, wells, drainpipes, and
cinderblock walls. As radon decays,
radioactive byproducts are formed and
attach themselves electrostatically to
dust particles in the air. These particles
emit ioni/ing energy that can damage
lung tissue and produce cancer. The
problem is often less severe in schools
and commercial buildings, which are
usually designed for high rates of
exchange between inside and outside
air.
No one knows exactly how many
homes in America may have seriously
elevated levels of indoor radon. The
Argonne National Laboratory thinks
5-10 percent of homes are contaminated.
EPA believes that from one to five
million private residences may be
impacted. The reason for the wide
variance in estimates is that the danger
cannot simply be calculated by looking
for uranium or radium-bearing rocks
and then assuming that everyone living
on the surface above them is at risk. As
we have seen in eastern Pennsylvania,
one house in a given neighborhood may
be heavily contaminated because it sits
on porous soil, while another two doors
away may lie well within the acceptable
range of risk for an entire lifetime of
exposure because it rests on a bed of
clay. But many other variables may also
account for these differences. Ironically,
energy conservation attempts, such as
caulking and insulating, may contribute
somewhat to the problem by slowing air
exchange rates.
It is not clear as yet how many
additional cases of cancer may be
attributed to radon. Estimates have run
from 5,000 per year to as high as 30,000.
Most experts say that radon is a leading
or even the leading cause of lung cancer
among nonsmokers. EPA plans to
conduct a survey to determine the true
extent of the risk. If we can predict
which locations are at greatest hazard,
then the public can be warned away
from those sites, or houses can be built
with air control systems to ensure that
radon does not accumulate to
intolerable levels. Such measures
should be inexpensive if incorporated
into a home while it is under
construction, but retroactive measures
can be costly.
This issue of the Journal describes the
federal role in addressing the radon
challenge, includes an article from a
state with radon problems, reports on a
media experience in making the radon
problem understandable to the public,
features an expert's front line
experience in dealing with radon, and
provides tips to homeowners to help
them understand radon and what they
can do about it.
EPA is working vigorously to put an
effective radon program in place. Such a
program cannot be created overnight,
but with an appropriate investment of
time and management effort, the Agency
expects to make substantial progress
over the coming months. Q
X-ray showing
diseased tissue due to
cancer of the lung.
Next to smoking,
radon exposure
may be one of the
leading contributors
to lung cancer
in the U.S.
American Cancel Society
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A Nonregulatory
Challenge
by A. James Barnes
A neiv home under construction.
Building techniques now living
developed may minimize indoor radon
levels in the future.
When Stanley Watras of Boyertown,
PA, tripped the radiation monitor
going into work at a nuclear power
plant in 1984, he did more than set off
lights and horns there. He also triggered
alarm within the scientific and
regulatory community.
Investigators discovered that Watras'
home was being contaminated by
radioactivity from natural, radon-bearing
rock formations known as the Reading
Prong. The radon levels wrere so high
that Watras was clearly safer at work in
a nuclear power plant than at home
asleep in his own bed.
Radon is not a new problem. Early
studies showed that radon could cause
lung cancer and other health problems
in miners, and it was also known that
private homes could be contaminated in
certain instances. For example, the use
of byproducts from Western uranium
and phosphate mining in construction
often resulted in radon contamination in
private houses.
But until Watras' experience, we had
no idea that radon posed a threat to the
population at large. Further studies now
show that radon contamination may be
a problem in many parts of the country.
Health experts estimate that radon
could contribute to or cause anywhere
from 5,000 to 20,000 cases of lung
cancer every year. That's around 16
percent of all known lung cancers in the
United States. After smoking, in fact,
radon exposure may be one of the
leading contributors to lung cancer.
Clearly, indoor radon has the potential
for being an enormous environmental
health problem, and one that would
require a unique approach.
Generally, EPA addresses new
environmental problems either by
issuing regulations or by helping states
meet regulatory responsibilities. The
indoor radon problem, however, does
not lend itself to a regulatory approach.
(Barnes is the Deputy Administrator of
EPA.)
First of all, radon is a naturally
occurring substance. It unmistakably
poses a risk, but a blameless risk. There
is no one at whom we can point an
accusatory finger and say, "You did
this, now you fix it."
Another feature inhibiting a
regulatory approach is the diversity of
the radon problem. Radon levels vary
from region to region, even from home
to home. They depend on a building's
location, style of construction, and
air-tightness, as well as the amount of
radon beneath it, and numerous other
factors. The Watras family, for example,
was exposed to radiation levels equal to
about 200,000 chest X-rays a year, while
radon levels in the house right next
door were normal. By contrast, outdoor
air pollution is shared evenly by
everyone in a particular area.
The situation poses an exceptional
public health issue. We now know that
radon represents one of the more
serious health threats facing the
American public today. And we are
convinced that EPA has a role to
play—but we don't see it as a regulatory
one. Instead, we've worked out a unique
partnership with the state and local
governments—unique in the sense that
we are not merely cooperating,
consulting, or even collaborating with
the other governments. Rather, we are
working in a trim partnership with
them, where they perform certain
functions and we perform others. We
have several levels of government
working hand in hand to jointly address
a problem.
We believe EPA's knowledge and
specialized abilities can complement
local efforts. For instance, EPA has
provided survey equipment and
personnel to help take measurements in
the Reading Prong area. But the states
retain actual responsibility for the
surveys and for follow-up. We are also
training state and federal personnel to
diagnose and recommend remedies. But,
AUGUST 1986
-------
other than for experimental mitigation
projects, the federal government will not
do the actual work.
Several other agencies, including the
Department of Energy, the Centers for
Disease Control, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, have
capabilities and expertise to contribute,
too. We are working closely with them
to build a comprehensive federal
approach.
Rut while EPA will help in assessing
radon hazards, demonstrating remedial
techniques, and coordinating abatement
efforts, perhaps our most important
challenge is appropriately
communicating radon risks and what
can be done about them.
Our overall goal is to alleviate the
potential throat that radon poses to
millions of Americans. Since we're
taking a nonregulatory approach to that
goal, we must depend on the public to
act on its own behalf. But first it needs
information. The: public has to know
there is a threat, how large that threat
may be, and how that threat can be
lessened,
We at the Environmental Protection
Agency must help communicate that
information as accurately, honestly, and
understandably as possible. We must let
people know what risk radon poses to
them and what they can do about it.
Then we must leave the decision up to
them.
It's a fine line we have to tread. On
one hand, we don't want to alarm
people unduly or produce stress and
anxiety that could in itself be damaging
to their health. On the other hand, we
do betieve radon is a significant hazard
to public health.
If we do our job well, people will
have enough information to take the
vital first step of having their homes
tested, where there's reason to suspect
radon problems. Our information will
also help them judge the risks and
decide for themselves what they will do
to lessen those risks. We're not going to
pay for the work, but we will help
inform people what options they have.
In a sense, our entire radon strategy
is a means toward this end.
We're working on ways of
standardizing measurement procedures
and of providing quality assurance
programs, so that we all speak the
same language, so a reading taken in
New Jersey means the same thing in
California. We're working on surveys
We must let people know what
risk radon poses to them and
what they can do about it.
and epidemiological studies to tell us
what and how much of a hazard radon
actually poses to human health. And
our geological studies help us pinpoint
the high-risk areas of the country.
But we don't feel it's enough to just
point out a danger; we want to offer
some solutions. We want to let people
know that there are steps they can take
to lessen indoor radon concentrations
and what those steps are. That's where
the second aspect of our approach
comes in. We are conducting a program
in Boyertown, PA, Clinton, NJ, and
other areas to demonstrate ways of
reducing radon levels in houses. The
experience we gain from this program
can be applied throughout the country.
We are also working with the states and
the housing industry to develop
techniques of new home construction
that might minimize radon levels in the
future.
Finally, we are pursuing what we call
"Capabilities Development." As the
name implies, this is an effort to help
local governments and industry groups
develop the expertise to handle the
problem themselves.
Together with some of our regional
offices and the states, we are designing
a program to train federal and state
employees to diagnose radon problems
and give homeowners proper
information on remedial actions. We're
also working with those who
manufacture radon measurement
devices, urging them to enter the
residential market, and with those who
make heat exchangers and air cleaners
to encourage them to test their products
properly, so that homeowners can select
devices that are effective in reducing
health risks.
In a nutshell, we are all learning what
we can about radon and are jointly
taking steps to make sure that
knowledge is presented to the public.
We'll do that with brochures, public
service announcements on radio and
TV, and with a special videotape made
available for community groups and
other interested parties.
We are confident that the
extraordinary state/federal partnership
we've formed will enable us to
effectively communicate the danger of
indoor radon to the public. We're
also confident that, armed with
accurate, timely, and appropriate
information, people will make informed
decisions. Q
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Indoor Radon:
The Federal Approach
by Richard J. Guimond
In September 1985, EPA Administrator
Lee M. Thomas created a Radon
Action Program to assist the states in
dealing with radon problems in homes.
Activities included in the EPA program
can be grouped into four general
categories:
Problem Assessment: EPA plans to
conduct a national survey to evaluate
the distribution of indoor radon levels
across the country. In addition, EPA
will provide technical assistance to
states for surveys designed to identify
specific areas that have a potential for
significantly elevated levels of radon. To
ensure that radon measurements are
comparable and accurate, EPA has
issued standardized measurement
protocols and established a
measurement proficiency program open
to both governmental and private
organizations.
Mitigation and Prevention: In this area,
EPA is addressing the need for
technology that is effective and
inexpensive. The program includes
demonstrations and evaluations of
techniques to reduce radon levels in
existing homes and identification and
evaluation of ways to prevent radon
problems from occurring in new homes,
Capability Development: The Radon
Action Program includes efforts to help
states and the private sector develop the
technical capabilities needed: number
one, to assess radon problems in homes
and, number two, to help people reduce
high radon levels.
Public Information: EPA is developing
materials which provide information
and guidance for citizens: to help them
understand how to have measurements
made, how to evaluate the health risks
associated with high radon levels, and
how to reduce those levels.
Indoor radon is too broad an issue to
(Guimond is the director of EPA's effort
to help deal with radon.)
AUGUST 1986
be addressed by any one agency. Many
state and federal agencies are involved,
as is a variety of private sector
organizations. EPA recognizes that a
coordinated approach to the problem
must be taken and has designed the
Radon Action Program as a partnership
among its regional offices, the states,
and the private sector, as well as other
federal agencies.
Within the federal government, a
number of agencies are participating in
joint activities to address radon
problems from a variety of perspectives.
The primary vehicle to coordinate
research efforts among these agencies is
the Committee on Indoor Air Quality's
Radon Work Group. The members
To prevent radon <;ntry. pip<- ((it top of
picture) (fruivs radon-containing soil »»s
from wall and vents it outdoor* liv
means of an outside fan. Sealing up
cracks hi ivuJJ and top am of blocks
enables fan to draw .suction. The \\ork
in this Boyertown, PA. huxeine.n! ua.s
done as part of an EPA pro»mtn to
demonstrate and evaluate radon
reduction techniques,
include representatives from the
Department of Energy, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the
Centers for Disease Control, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the National Institutes of
Health, and the National Bureau of
Standards. Participants plan and
develop projects, prepare and review
public information documents, and are
developing a joint research strategy.
Another group which contributes to
the federal effort on indoor radon is the
Committee for Inter-agency Radiation
Research and Policy Coordination.
Through this committee, federal
agencies are able to maintain a dialogue
on overall research needs and
long-range policy for radon-related
activities.
Only through a cooperative effort
involving many agencies working
together can the problem of indoor
radon be addressed successfully. EPA's
Radon Action Program, as well as the
activities of other federal agencies, helps
to ensure that the radon problem is
dealt with in the most thorough and
effective way possible, a
-------
Manning the Radon Front
in Pennsylvania
by Nicholas DeBenedictis
Pennsylvania has just taken what is a
giant step for the Commonwealth,
but a small step for a nation just
becoming aware of the danger of indoor
radon gas.
After testing over 22,000 homes in the
last 18 months for radon and finding
nearly 60 percent with high levels, the
Commonwealth is now providing $3
million in low-interest loans to help
owners rid their homes of natural
radioactive) radon. The loan program
may be just the first hurdle cleared in
what is assuredly a long commitment to
test and help all Pennsylvanians
threatened by the risk of lung cancer
from radon, but it is also the
culmination of 18 months of discovery,
excitement, expansion, exhaustion, and,
finally, achievement in fighting a very
new and hard-to-believe threat.
Radon is a colorless, odorless,
tasteless gas that has been produced
from the radioactive decay of trace
amounts of uranium since time began.
Normally, the radioactive gas dissipates
into the atmosphere, where its more
dangerous decay products, so-called
radon daughters, pose no threat.
In today's well-weathemed homes,
however, that normal process is
interrupted: radon gets in, but it doesn't
get out. The gas and its short-lived
decay products build up, creating a
greater risk of lung cancer the longer the
exposure.
The lack of data on natural indoor
radon and its health consequences has
led most experts to rely on standards,
known as working levels (WL), set for
uranium miners. But these standards,
which measure the level of activity of
radon daughters in a liter of air, are very-
hard to explain to people whose homes
are being endangered by a colorless,
odorless, tasteless gas.
How much danger it poses is not yet
known, but we in Pennsylvania have by
necessity taken 0.02 WL as our action
fPcHrnedicti.s- is Srcrcliny ol tin:
Pennsylvania Di-jxirfnronl of
/•.'iivironmcnldi Resources.)
6
guideline. 1 say by necessity because we
did not choose 0.02 WL after studied
consideration, but under an urgent need
to take action.
Let me explain. Eighteen months ago,
in December 1984, an engineer working
on a nuclear power plant under
construction near Philadelphia kept
setting off portal monitors. He wasn't
contaminated by anything at the
uncompleted plant, so tests were taken
of his home in nearby Berks County.
The result was unheard of—the
engineer's home was 13.5 WL, 675
times our soon-to-be-developed action
guideline. The week after New Year's, I
had to advise Stanley Watras and his
wife and two small children to leave
their home immediately, minus even
their newly opened Christmas presents,
which were too contaminated to take
with them.
They moved to a motel, and the
Department of Environmental Resources
moved into the neighborhood. The level
of the Watras home was too high to be
an anomaly, so we started testing
neighbors' homes. Some had radon
problems; others had none.
We suspected the problem lay with
the Reading Prong, a granite rock
formation stretching from eastern
Pennsylvania to New England, first
noted by the U.S. Departmnt of Energy
in its national search for uranium
resources in the early 1970s. In fact, the
Department of Energy had been funding
a survey of the Prong in Pennsylvania
over the last few years.
We were confronted by a problem that
stretched 45 miles from Reading to the
New Jersey border, was six to eight
miles wide, and included over 20,000
homes in four counties.
A major radon program was obviously
not part of DER's planned initiatives,
but we knew we had to react
immediately with as many resources as
we could muster. We started with the
Watras neighbors, then called a public
meeting to explain radon and offer free
testing. This procedure has been
repeated again and again in the last year
and a half as we have moved further out
into the Prong.
Initially, we had no equipment, no
program, nothing except our
responsibility to address the problem.
EPA's Radiation Laboratory from
Montgomery, AL, loaned equipment and
crews to help with the testing during
those first crucial weeks of 1985. DOE
brought in its helicopter to search for
radon "hot spots" from the air.
And we tested, day after day, week
after week. From the beginning, we have
found that a fairly constant percentage
of 50 to 60 percent of the homes
surveyed have radon above .02 WL.
An office was established in
Gilbertsville, near the Watras home,
with staff from DER's Bureau of
Radiation Protection. Working from the
back of a dairy store, their early
struggles included just getting
telephones, typewriters, and finally a
computer to store the test results.
Nevertheless, we were soon able to
begin returning lives to normal. The
Watras family, for example, was able to
return home after the Philadelphia
Electric Co., in cooperation with DER,
had paid for remediation work by ARIX
Engineers, of Grand Junction, CO. This
work, which cost over $32,000, involved
installing a radon barrier on exterior
basement foundation walls, sealing and
ventilating the interior foundation wall,
sealing all floor slab openings and
joints, and installing a subfloor
ventilation system. Radon levels in the
Watras home dropped from 13.5 WL to
.009 WL.
Although levels rose again last fall,
adjustments, including the addition of
fans, were able to bring radon in the
Watras home below .02 WL.
Bob Lewis, radiation health phy.sici.sf
with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, unloads
monitoring equipment from a van. A
combination mobile field office and lab,
the van serves as a sort of "mother
ship" for field workers from the state's
Bureau of Radiation Protection office in
Gilbertsville, PA.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Workers check radon levels and
ventilation in an underground mine.
Estimates of the risk of lung cancer due
to radon exposure are based on studies
of miners.
ARIX also diagnosed 25 other
radon-plagued homes for DER, and the
results were collected into an advisory
booklet on various building types and
remedies. Residents, already unnerved
by this unexpected threat, were
impatient for remedies and for financial
help from the government.
Our job was cut out for us when
the state legislature approved $1
million to develop a testing program for
the entire Prong. We had already spent
nearly $1 million in unbudgeted money
for testing, but had concentrated in
southern Berks County where radon was
initially found.
Faced with offering free radon testing
to over 40,000 residences in four
counties, we sought a new approach.
With a press conference by Governor
Dick Thornburgh and full-page, repeat
advertising in five newspapers and over
a dozen radio stations serving the Prong,
we offered mail-in radon tests to
residents in the four counties. The task
was made no easier by a large Hispanic
population in the Prong area that
required translating all our radon
materials into Spanish and hiring a
bilingual community relations
coordinator.
Over 20,000 testing requests came in,
many in the immediate weeks after the
Governor's announcement, which had
also unveiled a $3 million loan program
to help homeowners rid their homes of
radon. Whether it was the anonymity
of the mail-in testing or the light at the
end of the financial tunnel, over 50
percent of all those eligible for the free
testing have responded.
Radon has been a most difficult issue
with which to deal. At first,
Pennsylvania was the only state to
know much of anything, and our basic
problem was trying to communicate the
risks of radon gas without raising undue
panic. Now, everybody seems to know
about radon and the problem is why
don't we. state and federal government,
know more.
We welcome this dialogue, this
attention, because that's how answers
are found. We think Pennsylvania has
contributed and will continue to
contribute as more is learned about this
national problem called radon. But ours
is not just scientific curiosity; we feel
great sympathy for the many citizens
whose lives have been disturbed by this
unseen threat. We feel great sympathy
for the parents who worry that their
children may develop lung cancer in 20
years. We feel sympathy for the young
homeowners who struggle to meet a
mortgage each month for a home that
could cost thousands of dollars more to
make safe from radon.
We do not feel helpless, however. We
have acted, to the extent of our state
resources and to the best of our abilities.
And even though the battle is just
begun, we take a moment to savor
conquering that first hurdle. D
AUGUST 1986
-------
Making Sense of Radon
for the News
by Roberta Baskin
It's not easy to focus attention on
something you can't see or smell,
taste or feel, so making sense of radon
for television news was a special
challenge. In TV, we're at our best when
there is something to show. "Covering"
an invisible gas defies the imagination.
What eventually captured the media's
attention was a dramatic; incident.
tStanley Watras of Boyertown, PA, kept
setting off alarms at the nuclear power
plant where he worked. When the
experts finally traced the problem to
fantastically high levels of radon gas in
his home, the media had something
tangible—a family of victims living in a
radioactive cloud. That revelation led to
a flurry of media attention and radon
testing in the Reading Prong area, a
radon-bearing geological formation that
stretches through Pennsylvania. But the
issue's coverage was represented as a
local problem. In the nation's capital,
we could pity those poor families in
Boyertown without being touched by
the problem directly. We were safe at
home in our beds. Or so we thought.
Radiation experts seemed to agree
that, as serious as the radon problem is
along the Reading Prong, it is not
confined to that geographic area. In fact,
there seemed to be acknowledgment
that, as more homes are tested
nationwide, radon at even higher levels
would be discovered. It left us
wondering what we might find in the
Washington, DC area.
Checking with the Department of
Energy about that possibility was not
encouraging. DOE officials felt radon
testing here would be uneventful,
certainly not a high priority. But, since
fl!()l)cr((i Hnskin is n reporter for
W/LA-TV in \\'nsliin»lon, /)CJ
8
there's no way to know without doing
the tests, they decided to help us out,
providing we followed their guidelines
and standards. If it turned out there was
no radon hazard in the Washington
area, we could at least give people an
added measure of peace of mind.
The ground rules DOE set up for us
involved coming up with a random
sample of some fifty single-family
homes with basements. We would test
them in the basements and living areas,
first in the fall, then following up in the
winter when homes are "tightened up."
We came up with our volunteers in the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia, and arranged to place carbon
cannisters in the homes to take air
It's not easy to focus attention
on something you can't see or
smell, taste or feel.
samples. These were all sent to DOE's
Environmental Management Laboratory
in New York City for analysis.
The results surprised all of us. In
simple terms, the radon levels were
about three times higher than the
known national average. Nearly half the
homes tested were above the
Environmental Protection Agency's
suggested action level. Although
our levels didn't approach the
Reading Prong problem, they were
definitely cause for concern. A few of
the homes had radon levels exceeding
the Bureau of Mines safety standard for
uranium workers. We had opened a
Pandora's Box. The five months of
preparation that went into our series of
radon reports did not prepare us for the
public's reaction.
The station received hundreds of
calls from homeowners who wanted to
find out how to get their homes
radon-tested. But our phones weren't
the only ones ringing off the hook. The
state health departments in Maryland
and Virginia were each getting
thousands of calls. Officials complained
they couldn't get their coats off, much
less handle anything else but radon
calls. All state resources for radiation
issues were channelled into handling
endless radon questions from the
public. The EPA got its fair share of the
spillover. And one person, WJLA-TV's
sports anchor Frank Herzog, got more
than his fair share of calls.
Herzog was one of the volunteers in
our radon survey. He had given up
smoking three years ago, but radon tests
in his home revealed he was getting a
dose similar to that from smoking a
pack and a half of cigarettes a day. It was
not cheery news, but he was a good
sport about it. He was an even better
sport about the calls he started getting at
all kinds of hours from people who
wanted to know what they should do
about radon because they figured he
was an expert. Fortunately, he was able
to lower his home's radon levels by
following some simple
recommendations.
As hundreds more homes were tested,
we started to get new data. Unlike the
volunteers in our radon survey, many of
the homeowners were eager to keep the
problem quiet. In fact, the majority of
callers were far more concerned about
their property values than any possible
health hazard. They were anxious to
find out what they could do about it,
and equally anxious that no one else
learn of their problem. In many cases,
this made it difficult to do follow-up
reports. For example, one woman who
called was outraged about how high her
radon levels were and how she couldn't
get anyone to do anything for her.
Indeed they were high: 20
times higher than the EPA's
EPA JOURNAL
-------
On the air: TV mnvsivoman Roberta Baskin reports on the results ol radon tests in
the Washington, IX!!, metropolitan ami.
recommended action level. She was
particularly concerned because she
lived in a new house and the developer
was building hundreds more homes up
the street from her. On her first call, she
wanted the world to know about the
potential hazard. By the second call, she
wanted to keep it very, very quiet. She
said she'd found someone to do the
remedial work on her home, providing
she not talk to any journalists. That case
was not unique.
Occasionally we heard from families
who wanted to share their experiences
in the hope others would benefit. In one
of those cases, the family was building a
bedroom in the basement for their eight
year-old son. Radon testing showed
a level of radon equal to getting a chest
X-ray every passing hour, Although most
of the renovation was complete, the
parents decided not to move their son
downstairs until they found a way to
bring down the radon levels. But, as a
benefit of the publicity, they were
contacted by an engineering company
that specializes in radon-proofing
homes. The company is doing the work
at no charge in the hopes it can
publicize its success later on.
In the aftermath of our radon reports,
the Maryland and Virginia health
departments have put more resources
into their radon efforts. In Virginia, the
state is now radon-testing about 600
homes to get a better notion of how
serious the problm is there. An "800
number" was installed to help answer
questions, and a booklet was produced
to explain more about radon, along with
basic advice about what to do about it,
Both Virginia and Maryland joined EPA
in encouraging homeowners to get their
homes tested. We took a cue from that
advice to try and persuade officials to
radon-test the White House. The
officials we were referred to were
delighted to hear from us because they
wanted to get their own homes tested.
But our calls did lead to dozens of
detectors being placed around the White
House, all of which turned up low
readings, according to a spokesman.
It was rewarding to get people in high
places and near places and far away
places to become aware of the radon gas
problem and how it may affect them
directly- The fact that dozens of
television, radio, and newspaper
reporters contacted us from all around
the country is a hopeful sign that the
story will continue to unfold
everywhere. That's important since
there is a temptation to ignore a
problem like radon because it's unseen.
Another temptation is for homeowners
to cover it up. The media really have a
responsibility to stop that from
happening. The problem won't go away
by itself. And the consequences will
only grow worse. In fact, hiding the
issue only raises the specter of future
litigation. The developers, the builders,
the home sellers who conceal a radon
hazard today are likely to be the subject
of tomorrow's stories. There will also be
future stories about fly-by-night
radon-testing companies . . . the sort
preying on old ladies. The mind reels at
the entrepreneurial possibilities.
Mayonnaise jars could be used to test
for radon, and who knows what else.
But the more attention radon gets, the
more enlightened the public will be,
meaning the more responsibly it will be
dealt with. An important role for
reporters is to keep radon from being
relegated to the obscurity of the
basement. People need to be reminded
that it's there . . . and that they can do
something about it. Q
AUGUST 1986
-------
Beginning with
a Phone Call
by Michael J. Chern
«T A Then the lady you're speaking to
VV breaks down crying because
she's worried that she and her family
may die of lung cancer, you feel like
dropping everything else and spending
a month helping this one person until
her problem is solved," says Bill
Belanger, EPA Region 3's radiation
expert for the last five years. Belanger is
talking about his first-hand experience
working directly with people who have
high radon levels in their homes.
Until a year and a half ago, Belangei
spent much of his time working on
emergency drills for nuclear power
plants. His only experience with
radiation in houses was in a
Lansdowne, PA, home which had been
used by a university professor in the
1940s to refine radium for use in
hospitals. The house is now so
contaminated with radioactivity that it
was evacuated under the emergency
provisions of Superfuud and added to
the Superfund National Priorities List
for remedial cleanup.
Now, with the discovery of high
radon levels in the Reading Prong area
of Pennsylvania, Belanger spends almost
all his time on this problem.
First Word
Belanger's serious involvement with
naturally occurring radon began on
December 19, 1984, with, a phone call
from Charles Porter, Director of EPA's
Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility in Montgomery, AL.
Belanger remembers that the
conversation began with Porter saying,
"Bill, you better sit down. There's a
house in your region that has 13
working levels (WL)!" ("Working level"
is one of tin: measures used to express
radon exposure.)
Belanger replied, "Are you sure you
didn't slip the decimal a couple of
places?" Until that time, everyone's
experience with natural radon had
indicated that a high indoor reading was
0.1 WL; Belanger had taken readings of
0.3 WL in the Lansdowne house and
had considered that extraordinarily
high.
(Cnern is a former Public fn/ormation
Officer lor EPA Region .'!.)
Porter's 13 WL referred to radon
levels found in the home of Stanley
Watras of Boyertown, PA. Watras, a
construction engineer, had set off
radiation monitors while entering the
Limerick nuclear power plant where he
worked, and the source of the radiation
had been identified as his house.
Early Actions
EPA's radiation experts quickly realized
that the discovery of radon in the
Watras house probably would mean an
extensive monitoring program in the
Reading Prong. "It would have been too
much of a coincidence to expect that
the only homeowner with high radon
readings was an employee at a nuclear
power plant," says Belanger. "If it was a
naturally occurring problem, there had
to be more houses with it."
One of the first concerns of state and
federal officials in the monitoring
program was whether to use protective
equipment for the monitoring team.
Normally, workers who knowingly go
into areas with high contaminant levels
wear such equipment, and homes with
10 to 20 WL are considered to have very
high levels.
"But if you were a homeowner, what
would you think if we showed up at
your door in gas masks and said we
wanted to take radon readings in your
home?" asks Belanger. The EPA field
staff finally decided to work without
protective equipment. They reasoned
that, even if they entered a few houses
with high radon readings, their length of
exposure would be too brief to have a
significant health effect.
Working in the Reading Prong
At the request of Pennsylvania
environmental officials, Belanger joined
the field monitoring effort in April 1985
to take radon measurements in the
Reading Prong.
The first step in measuring radon is to
take a screening measurement to
determine the highest level in the
house. EPA recommends that this
reading be taken in the basement or the
lowest part of the house during the
heating season or some other time when
the house is closed. If this reading is
Janet Luily, EPA
low, radon can usually be dismissed as
a problem.
If a high level is found, however,
further measurements are taken in the
most frequently occupied parts of the
house. Only after these additional
readings are completed is it possible to
tell the extent of the radon problem.
"But it's up to the homeowner to
decide what will be done," says
Belanger. "We can make a
recommendation as to what level the
homeowner should shoot for. We have
been recommending the .02 WL, but the
homeowner doesn't have to accept that.
He may not be willing to spend the
amount of money needed to reach that
level. Or, perhaps he is not satisfied that
.02 WL is safe enough, and he wants to
go lower. He may decide he is willing to
give up regular use of his basement. All
these things are alternatives that only
the homeowner can and should decide."
Remediation Research
Helping homeowners decide what to do
is another part of EPA's Radon Action
Program. The Agency has embarked on
an intensive research project in the
Hole in the floor of a house under
construction is an entry point /or radon.
The hole—a result of standard
construction practices—will probably be
hidden by floor covering when (In;
house is complete. Other common
radon entry points are sum;) pump
holes, crawl spaces, and cracks in
foundation slabs. "If we can easily find
the entry places of radon," says EPA
expert Bill Belanger, "the control co.sf.s
are usually reasonable."
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Checking his ivatch, Bill Belanger times
u jive-minute indoor air sample for
radon testing.
Reading Prong to try various radon
reduction methods in a variety of
houses representative of those found
most often in the area. The project is
designed to find affordable as well as
effective radon reduction techniques.
According to Belanger, the costs of
radon removal can vary greatly. "If we
can easily find the entry places of
radon, the control costs are usually
reasonable," he says. "The job can often
be done for a thousand dollars or less."
"On the other hand," he warns, "if the
house already has a finished basement
or there is nothing obvious to do, it may
cost many thousands of dollars because
you may have to make major structural
changes."
EPA also has found that the higher
the level of radon in a house, the higher
the costs of control. "If you have 0.2 WL
in the house and you want to get down
to .02, that's a 90 percent reduction,"
says Belanger. "That's not too hard to
do. But if vou have 2 WL and want to
get to .02, that's a 99 percent
reduction."
EPA has looked at many reduction
techniques that reduce radon by about
90 percent. But it is difficult to predict
exact costs until the construction of the
house is determined. It's also difficult to
be sure that control measures work all
the time. Take, for example, Belanger's
October 1985 visit to Boyertown, PA,
with a U.S. Senator who was inspecting
one of the homes in EPA's remediation
research program. It turned out to be a
classic example of Murphy's law that
anything that can go wrong, will.
Belanger recalls that, after explaining
to the Senator some of the things that
had been done to the house, he was
asked to take a radon measurement.
"This home originally had a
concentration of 7 WL," says Belanger,
"and my own measurements taken soon
after the house was fixed showed only a
little above 0.02 WL. But this day, I got
a measurement of 3 WL!"
"All of us there—the Senator, the
homeowner, and I—realized something
was very wrong," Belanger continues.
"Since the highest reading was
previously in the basement, I went
down there to take a reading. It was 15;
more than twice as high as the house
had been before we did anything to it."
"At this point, the homeowner was at
the point of tears," says Belanger.
.
After the Senator left, Belanger spent
some time looking around the house
and found a bedroom window open on
the downwind side of the house. No
other windows were open, yet air was
rushing out of that window,
"I figured that, since the rest of the
house was sealed, the air going out must
be coming in through the foundation,
bringing radon with it." Belanger closed
the window, went down to the
basement, and opened up one of the
basement windows on the upwind side,
allowing fresh air to enter the house.
Within an hour, the level of radon had
been reduced by a factor of two.
That afternoon state officials took
more measurements, and the level had
dropped to under 0.1 WL. They
returned the next day and took readings
under .01 \VL—well within the state
and proposed federal guidelines.
Says Belanger of the experience, "We
learned a lot that day. And not just that
things can go wrong at inopportune
moments. Most importantly, we learned
that open windows and air currents can
have a dramatic effect on radon control
systems."
Working with Citizens
Despite occasional events like the
Boyertown visit, Belanger has nothing
but positive things to say about his
experiences working with people who
have radon problems.
"All of us from EPA working there
have an enormous amount of sympathy
for the people we meet with high radon
levels in their homes." says Belanger.
"We would like to help every one of
them individually. But we just can't.
There aren't enough of us. Our primary
job must be to provide advice and
assistance to the states so that they can
help everyone with a problem."
The most important thing in
providing help, he believes, is getting
the people's trust. "They believe you
and accept your help if you give it to
them straight," he says.
"If you try to mislead thorn in any
way, if you try to minimize the problem
or make it sound more serious than it is,
they pick it up right away. People living
up there (in the Reading Prong) have
spoken to others about the problem.
They know the background. So, you
can't throw bull at them.
"I feel very good about my work
there," says Belanger. "It's tike working
as a medic in an ambulance. You can
point to the people you've helped. This
is what drives you. You feel like you're
saving lives. That's the real motivation
in a job like this." a
AUGUST 1986
11
-------
Guidance for Dealing
with Radon
To help people understand radon, EPA
and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
recently published A Citizen's Guide to
Radon: What It Is and What to Do About
It. Following ore excerpts from this
booklet.
How is radon detected?
Since you cannot see or smell radon,
special equipment is needed to detect it.
The two most popular,
commercially-available radon detectors
are the charcoal canister and the alpha
track detector. Both of these devices are
exposed to the air in your home for a
specified period of time and sent to a
laboratory for analysis.
There are other techniques—requiring
operation by trained personnel—which
can be used to measure radon levels,
but such techniques may be more
expensive.
Your measurement result will be
reported to you in one of two ways.
Results from devices which measure
radon decay products are reported as
"Working Levels" (WL). Results from
devices which measure concentrations
of radon gas are reported as "picocuries
per liter" (pCi/1).
How can I get a radon detector?
Homeowners in some areas are being
provided with detectors by their state or
local government. In many areas, private
firms offer radon testing. Your state
radiation protection office may be able
to provide you with information on the
availability of detection devices or
services.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency conducts a Radon Measurement
Proficiency Program. This voluntary
program allows laboratories and
businesses to demonstrate their
capabilities in measuring indoor radon.
The names of firms participating in this
program can be obtained from your state
radiation protection office or from your
EPA regional office.
12
How should radon detectors be
used?
. . . have a short-term "screening"
measurement made to give you an idea
of the highest radon level in your home.
Thus, you can find out quickly and
inexpensively whether or not you have
a potential radon problem.
The screening measurement should be
made in the lowest livable area of your
home (the basement, if you have one).
All windows and doors should be
closed for at least 12 hours prior to the
start of the test, and kept closed as
much as possible throughout the testing
period ...
Depending upon the result of your
screening measurement, you may need
to have follow-up measurements made
to give you a better idea of the average
radon level in your home ...
We strongly recommend that you
make follow-up measurements before
you make any final decisions about
whether to undertake major efforts to
permanently correct the problem.
Follow-up measurements should be
made in at least two lived-in areas of
your home. If your home has lived-in
areas on more than one floor, you
should make measurements in a room
on each of the floors. The results of the
follow-up measurements should be
averaged together.
What do my test results mean?
The results of your follow-up
measurements provide you with an idea
of the average concentration throughout
your home. The actual risk you face
depends upon the amount of time you
are exposed to this concentration.
One, way to think about the risk
associated with radon exposure is to
compare it with the risk from other
activities. Figure i gives an idea of how
exposure to various radon levels over a
lifetime compares to the risk of
developing lung cancer from smoking
and from chest x-rays. Figure 1 also
compares these levels to the average
indoor and outdoor radon
concentrations.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Radon Risk Evaluation Chart
pCi/l
200
100
40
20
10
A
2
1
0.2
WL
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
Ono
0.01
0.005
0.001
Estimated number of
lung cancer deaths
due to radon exposure
(out of 1000)
440—770
270—630
120—380
60—210
30—120
10, , CA
7—30
3—13
1—3
Comparable
exposure levels
1000 times
average outdoor^
level
HUss
«
100 times
average indoor 41
level -W
Comparable
risk
|L More than 60 times
r non-smoker risk
SoL
1^ 4 pack-a-dav
F smoker
1
I
1^ 20,000 chest
x-rays per year
llttlf
•^ /XvXvX-:-:^
100 times
average outdoor^ tw.
level
10 times average .:::;:
indoor level
10 times
average outdoor >
level
Average indoor
level
Average outdoor ,
level
••••••••••y 2 pack-a-day
smoker
ffffi |
wspl pack-a-day
S;;;:!: smoker
:;:::;::» R t! m P^
•• •••:•:• non-smoker risk
^200 chest x-rays
; : per year
k Non-smoker
risk of dying
from lung cancer
r20 chest x-rays
per year
Figure 1
How quickly should I take
action?
In considering whether and how quickly
to take action based on your test results,
you may find the follovving guidelines
useful. EPA believes that you should try
to permanently reduce your radon levels
as-much as possible. Based on currently
available infromation, EPA believes that
levels in most homes can be reduced to
about 0.02 WL (4 pCi/l).
If your results are about 1.0 WL or
higher, or about 200 pCi/l or higher:
Exposures in this range are among the
highest observed in homes. Residents
should undertake action to reduce levels
as far below 1.0 WL (200 pCi/1] as
possible. We recommend that you take
action within several weeks. If this is
not possible, you should determine, in
consultation with appropriate state or
local health or radiation protection
officials, if temporary relocation is
appropriate until the levels can be
reduced.
If your results are about 0.1 to about
1.0 WL, or about 20 to about 200 pCi/l:
Exposures in this range are considered
greatly above average for residential
structures. You should undertake action
to reduce levels as far below 0.1 WL (20
pCi/l) as possible. We recommend that
you take action within several months.
If your results are about 0.02 to about
0.1 WL, or about 4 pCi/l to about 20
pCi/l:
Exposures in this range are considered
above average for residential structures.
You should undertake action to lower
levels to about 0.02 WL (4 pCi/l) or
below. We recommend that you take
action within a few years, sooner if
levels are at the upper end of this range.
If your results are about 0.02 WL or
lower, or about 4 pCi/l or lower:
Exposures in this range are considered
average or slightly above average for
residential structures. Although
exposures in this range do present some
risk of lung cancer, reductions of levels
this low may be difficult, and
sometimes impossible, to achieve.
Remember: There is increasing
urgency for action at higher
concentrations of radon. The higher the
radon level in your home, the faster you
should take action to reduce your
exposure.
How can I reduce my risk from
radon?
Your risk of lung cancer from exposure
to radon depends upon the amount of
radon entering your home and the
length of time it remains in your living
areas. Listed below are some actions
you might take to immediately reduce
your risk from radon.
• Stop smoking and discourage
smoking in your home.
• Spend less time in areas with higher
concentrations of radon, such as the
basement.
• Whenever practical, open all
windows and turn on fans to increase
the air flow into and through the house.
This is especially important in the
basement.
• If your home has a crawl space
beneath, keep the crawl space vents on
all sides of the house fully open all
year.
The bookJet from ivhich the above trxt
is excerpted is available from state
radiation protection offices. Also
available from these sources is another
new EPA publication Radon Reduction
Methods: A Homeowner's Guide, ivitli
information on methods which might be
used to reduce the level of radon in
homes.
AUGUST 1986
13
-------
The Indoor
Pollution Burden
by Claudine Schneider
home is your castle," goes the
old saying, and most Americans
are still convinced that home is one of
the last refuges left from the many ills of
modern living. Unfortunately, this belief
may be far from reality as the evidence
mounts regarding the harmful effects of
indoor pollution.
EPA spends $230 million to control
air pollution outside, but only $2
million on indoor air pollution. Based
on the amount of time Americans spend
in buildings, federal research spending
Indoor air is more polluted on
the average than outdoor air.
on indoor air quality amounts to only
two cents per person-year of exposure,
compared to about six dollars per
person-year of exposure outdoors. Yet
indoor air is more polluted on the
average than outdoor air, and we spend
more than 75 percent of our time in it.
(Infants and the elderly, the groups most
sensitive to pollutants, spend 90 percent
of their time indoors.) Through indoor
air, we're exposed daily to known
carcinogens such as asbestos, as well as
to pesticides, cleaning supplies, and
other chemicals whose effects are yet
unknown. The tobacco smoke inhaled
by active and passive smokers includes
fCongresswoman Schneider (K-H/J is a
member of (hi; C.S. /louse Committee, on
Science and Technology where she is
ranking minority member of (lie
Subcommittee on N'dtiiml Resources,
Agricultural lies-eureh and fi'nvironimmt.
She is ulso (i member of !he
.Men haul A/orine ami Fisheries
Committee.]
over 2,000 chemicals, many of which
are known toxins and carcinogens. And
now we've learned that radon—a
naturally occurring radioactive gas that
causes lung cancer—is present in
millions of American homes at exposure
levels greater than those regulated in
uranium mines.
In fact, the majority of known
pollution-related deaths in the U.S. is
caused by tobacco (350,000 deaths per
year) and radon (5,000 to 20,000 deaths
per year). Yet the government continues
to subsidize tobacco farmers, allow
seductive cigarette advertising, and
support a reduction of the cigarette tax.
The case of radon, too, is noteworthy
because it could be solved relatively
easily. If EPA and other concerned
agencies put a reasonable emphasis on
radon alone, we could prevent
several thousand lung cancer deaths
each year.
Techniques for identifying and
measuring indoor radon have improved
immensely over the past 10 years, and
inexpensive monitors, sensitive and
accurate enough to determine whether
radon is a concern in individual homes,
are now available for less than $20.
Many homeowners can modify their
homes fairly simply to minimize radon
concentrations by closing off the radon
entry points and ventilating as near to
the source as possible.
Some of the best radon research and
monitoring equipment has emerged
from federal energy programs analyzing
the ventilation conditions of
energy-efficient buildings. Popular press
reports have repeatedly implicated
"tightened" buildings as the cause of
indoor pollution, but the evidence to
date does not indicate that energy
conservation efforts are creating health
hazards. According to a report in
progress by the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, researchers
found homes with extremely low
ventilation rates where radon was not a
concern, while leakier homes
experienced high radon levels. The key
is to identify those homes with
significant sources, and implement
available control techniques.
One of the problems of this health
threat is that the location of homes with
high radon levels remain largely
unknown. A national survey of indoor
radon in the U.S. housing stock is of
paramount importance to understand
the distribution of this hazard across the
country. Additional data on the
distribution of other significant indoor
pollutants are also needed.
A key part of the problem lies with
Congress which needs to reconsider and
update the way it funds and organizes
all the agencies that are protecting our
health. Agency budgets should be
related to their potential contribution to
our well-being.
Indoor air hazards can be
significantly reduced before
we have a problem of
epidemic proportions.
That is why I support funding
specifically allocated for the study of
indoor environments. This past year I
sponsored the Indoor Air Quality Act of
1985, which was incorporated into
EPA's pending Office of Research and
Development authorization bill. It
would require that EPA:
• Coordinate federal, state, local, and
private research efforts relating to
indoor air:
• Prepare a research plan;
• Conduct research to identify, monitor,
characterize, and measure pollutants;
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Heating and
Air pollution from
many sources assails
us in our homes and
offices, as shown in
this cut-away view of
a dwelling.
Studies show that
indoor pollution can
be two to five times
greater than outdoor
pollution. Many of its
sources are common
household products.
Air Pollution, In My Home?
study the effects on health; identify
high-risk building types; evaluate
control technologies; and disseminate
information;
• Establish broad-based advisory
groups; and
• Report on the risks to human health
associated with indoor air pollution, the
need for further research, and the need
for possible federal actions to mitigate
risks associated with indoor air
problems.
I also consider it appropriate for the
Committee on Indoor Air Quality,
which has been designated by Congress
to coordinate the research efforts of the
16 agencies examining indoor
environments, to convene a study with
EPA to reprioritize funding within the
related agencies so that each dollar
spent has a fair chance of contributing
equally to improving our health and
well-being.
Initiatives in the private sector have
also contributed to our knowledge of
indoor air quality. I admire the efforts of
groups such as the Consumer Federation
of America (CFA) and the American
Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) in bringing this issue
to the attention of policy-makers and
consumers alike. CFA has designated
indoor air quality as its number one
health and safety issue, and has held
conferences and published a newsletter
on this topic. ACEEE's ongoing research
clearly indicates that healthy indoor air
in energy-efficient homes is attainable;
but only a national commitment to
achieving this important public health
goal will get us there.
Much remains to be done, particularly
the establishment of an information
clearinghouse to effectively disseminate
information on indoor air quality. The
scientific and technical communities
working on these problems need to
exchange information, as do the many
state and local health agencies. And
last, but certainly not least, individual
citizens who may have potential
problems desperately need information.
Since I began focusing on this issue, I
have received many requests for
information, as 1 am sure EPA and other
organizations have also. Consumers
want to know: How do I know if I have
a problem? How can I measure for
pollutants in my home? What health
effects are indicative of an indoor air
pollution problem? What should I do to
combat unsafe levels? These and scores
of other questions need to be answered.
Arming consumers and building
operators with accurate information will
help prevent the fraud and marketing
abuse which lurk around the corner
whenever a new hazard is coupled with
a lack of adequate and reliable
information.
There is another old adage I strongly
believe, and that is "an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure."
With a commitment by EPA, other
government agencies, and the private
sector, I believe that indoor air hazards
can be significantly reduced before we
have a problem of epidemic proportions
and before Americans become resigned
to living in homes that make them
sick. D
AUGUST 1986
15
-------
Answering
Questions
About
Chernobyl
by Roy Popkin
Before the reactor blew on April 26,
few Americans had heard of the
Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear power
plant; 48 hours later, it was a household
word, the anxious focus of the press, the
public, and the government. Was
dangerous radioactive fallout heading to
the United States? Was the health and
safety of Americans abroad being
threatened? No one knew.
Answering these questions became
the job of the Task Force on the Soviet
Nuclear Accident. At the peak of its
activity, it was measuring domestic
radiation levels, monitoring foreign
levels, tracking the situation at
Chernobyl, and handling hundreds of
phone calls everyday. For almost a
month, the Task Force was the source of
information for Americans on the
world's worst nuclear disaster.
Chernobyl was a secret disaster at
first. The initial evidence that a major
nuclear accident had occurred came not
from Soviet sources, but from Sweden,
where on April 27 workers at a nuclear
power plant were found to have
radioactive particles on their clothes. It
was Sweden's search for the source of
radioactivity—there was no leak at the
At EPA's Eastern Environmental
Ruilhititm Facility in Montgomery, AL,
Vicki Lloyd tests samples of pasteun'/.w
dairy milk for Strontium 90, a fission
product that may be, present in nuclear
fallout. Following the ac;< itk'nt (if
Chernobyl, EPA increased milk
monitoring from once a month to fivice
a week.
(Popkin is a writer/editor for the KPA
Office of Public Affairs.)
What Does a Task Force
Really Do?
The letter from the White House was
short and to the point. From Larry
Speakes, Deputy Press Secretary to
President Ronald Reagan, it was
addressed to EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas:
"My congratulations on a job well
done in the wake of the Chernobyl
accident. The interogency group you
headed so e;ffectively ought to be used
as a model for future situations like
this."
Interagency task forces are not
unusual in emergencies and even in
relatively mundane situations. The
Chernobyl task force was formed
quickly, its structure based in large part
on an existing Memorandum of
Understanding which gave EPA the lead
role when there was an atmospheric
nuclear detonation abroad, as in the
case of two Chinese nuclear tests which
led to extensive mouitoring in the
United States. Although Chernobyl was
not the same, the required response
activities were judged to be quite
similar.
The Task Force met for the first time
at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, April 30.
The fire in the graphite core was still
burning and the situation at the reactor
site was still unclear. The Task Force's
first job was to assign tasks:
EPA would be the clearinghouse for
offers of assistance to the Soviet Union
and would coordinate with the
Department of State; DOE would help
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Swedish plant—that led to the first hint
of a nuclear problem in the Soviet
Union.
EPA first learned about a possible
radiological incident from press and
citizen inquiries coming in on Monday,
April 28. The Agency's Press, Radiation,
and International Activities offices
began fielding calls while working with
the State Department, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRCj, and the
Department of Energy (DOE) to find out
what was happening. Although the
Soviet news agency, TASS, finally
issued a terse statement that evening
confirming an accident at the Chernobyl
plant, the Soviets offered no details. The
resulting information vacuum fueled
rumors of all kinds, from fatality
estimates to speculation about fires in
adjoining reactors.
Tuesday morning, an interagency
group met at the White House to review
what little information was then
available. Although President Reagan
was en route to the economic summit
meetings in Tokyo, EPA was confirmed
as the "lead" agency for coordinating
the federal response, and EPA
Adminstrator Lee Thomas was
designated head of the Task Force. In
addition to EPA, the Task Force was to
include DOE and NRG, the White
House, the Departments of State,
Interior, and Agriculture, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Air
Force, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and the U.S.
Public Health Service.
The Task Force immediately
established an "up front" approach to
the FAA take measurements; the Centers
for Disease Control/FDA medical
network—normally used in
drug-tampering incidents—would be
used to inform state health officers. The
lead for-public information would be
EPA; and DOE would handle
congressional liaison. At the same
meeting, the Task Force also decided to
step up the monthly ERAMS milk
monitoring to twice a week.
On Thursday, the Task Force
broadened its assignments:
• The State Department was to report
on the Soviet obligation to report data.
• EPA's Office of International
Activities was to make
recommendations on an international
information exchange.
• EPA's Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) was to work with the Department
of State to prepare a cable requesting
technical information from the USSR
and to solicit information based on
questions submitted by Task Force
agencies.
• A Health Working Group was formed
to examine potential long- and
short-term health effects, identify
symptoms and effects, and distribute
information to health officials.
• ORP/EPA was to be responsible for
day-to-day events, reporting, and data
collection.
• A DOE-NRC-FEMA-CIA subgroup was
to develop and evaluate possible reactor
scenarios.
• NOAA was to provide the
meteorological and dispersion
information for the daily Task Force
report.
• DOE was to evaluate the technical
aspects of extinguishing a graphite
reactor fire.
The Task Force met daily through
May 9, then skipped the weekend,
although updated task force reports
were issued by the EPA press office on
Saturday and Sunday. Excerpts from
minutes of Task Force meetings show
the variety of actions taken by the
interagency group.
May 2—The Task Force decided to
contact counterpart agencies in affected
countries to obtain radiological data.
{NRG placed calls to 18 countries.)
May 3—NRG sent a notice to its
licensees requesting they report any
unusual radiation levels. EPA was to
get radiological data from DOD bases in
Europe and Japan, as well as coordinate
data from several other countries.
NOAA reported that the radioactive
plume had reached Japan, but no
numbers were firmly established. The
Department of State was to call our
embassy there, and EPA was to
determine when data from the military
would be available. State and HHS were
to work on another cable to offer
medical liaison with the USSR. USDA
reported that the World Agriculture
Outlook Board had requested data from
the Task Force to consider in its grain
and sugar beet projections. Early
radiation readings did not appear
alarming.
May 6—The Task Force decided to
begin publishing consolidated data,
with positive U.S. measurements placed
in context, their meaning and health
implications explained. The Health and
Agriculture Working Group(HAWG)
reported on projected health effects and
identified Protective Action Guides.
EPA was asked to provide radiation data
on returning U.S. citizens to the Health
and Agriculture group. Chairman
Thomas directed that any discussions
should explain protective action guides
and compare them with ERAMS and
other U.S.data.
May 12—The Health and Agriculture
Working Group reported it had
completed development of an advisory
outlining levels of concern for imported
products.
May 14—the last meeting of the Task
Force. The group decided that EPA
would continue its operations,
including public reports and intensified
monitoring until deemed to be not
necessary. Other agencies would
continue to cooperate as needed. The
Task Force would issue a summary
health and dose assessment report with
EPA serving as the lead agency. EPA
and other agencies were to evaluate the
lessons learned in the context of their
individual responsibilities and push to
modify their own procedures
accordingly. HAWG would submit to
Lee Thomas a list of areas needing
improvement. The scope of the
Memorandum of Understanding was to
be re-examined, as well as the need for
real time dose and health information,
and the role of the State Department,
especially in relation to the need for an
international capability for faster,
real-time data collection. Thomas
announced he intended to send a
wrap-up memorandum to the White
House. D
AUGUST 1986
17
-------
the news media, providing access to
such top level experts as Harold Denton,
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
for NRG; Dr. Lester Machta, director of
NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory; Dale
Bunch, DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Reactor Deployment; and Sheldon
Meyers, director of EPA's Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP) and head of
Task Force support efforts (with a
quickly mobilized team of ORP staff
serving as the focal point for Task Force
support). At the first press conference,
Thomas promised every effort to
provide as much reliable information as
was available. He also ruled out
conjecture and second-guessing.
Comments would be based on known
facts, even if there were gaps in the
information coming from Soviet or other
official sources.
During the next few weeks, both the
facts and the radioactive clouds from
Chernobyl spread slowly westward.
EPA's Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS)—continuously operated by
ORP and augmented by reports from
DOE national labs, the military, U.S.
diplomatic missions abroad, and
commercial nuclear power plants in this
country—provided daily radiation
measurements based on samples from
hundreds of monitoring posts in the
United States and abroad. The
headquarters press office worked seven
days a week until May 23, issuing daily
task force reports and fielding
thousands of in-person visits and phone
calls from reporters all over the world.
Chris Rice, press specialist for the
radiation program, began to feel like the
"voice of Chernobyl" as he handled
phone calls from print and broadcast
reporters.
1 Trained All My Life for This'
Five days after the Chernobyl
explosion ORP/Las Vegas
specialist Richard Hopper was home
preparing for dinner when the
telephone rang. By 11 that night he was
on a red-eye flight to Washington. His
luggage included a variety of hand-held
radiation monitors and 60 "Thermal
Luminescent Dosimeters," the familiar
looking film badges we see in hospitals
and laboratories. He was on his way to
being EPA's man on the scene in
Eastern Europe.
Hopper's mission? To monitor
radiation levels in U.S. diplomatic
missions in Poland, Hungary and
Bulgaria, the Eastern European countries
most directly in the path of
meteorological systems carrying
radioactive debris from the damaged
Soviet reactor.
The next morning, the 43-year old,
dark-haired Westerner met with other
members of the team he was joining at
EPA headquarters, then went to a
briefing at the State Department, where
the priority subject of discussion was
whether to evacuate U.S. women and
children in those countries. Hopper,
whose regular job involves monitoring
radioactivity and radiation exposure
around the EPA Las Vegas Laboratories
and the Nevada nuclear test site,
suggested they hold the decision until
he'd had a chance to check the actual
radiation levels.
Arriving in Warsaw on May 3, he
found the embassy people "full of
apprehension. Anxiety definitely had
taken over."
Many Poles were reluctant to accept
their government's initial reassurances.
In fact, he believes their concern helped
the embassy attache speed him through
Polish customs without having his
instruments and equipment inspected.
En route from the airport, Hopper
took readings in a number of places,
including office buildings and houses,
inside and outside. He found the
readings to be very low. Because he had
spent many years at the Nevada test site
and had organized the monitoring
network after the Three Mile Island
incident, Hopper anticipated many
questions he would be asked, but also
assumed there would be problems in
Europe that he hadn't heard about back
home. The first day in Poland, he met
with a team of Polish scientists (whose
knowledge of the Las Vegas lab—one
had actually been there—gave Hopper
added credibility). They told him they
were advising the populace to be wary
of drinking milk and water, and eating
vegetables that might contain radio-
active particles.
That evening, he continued his
monitoring activities until late at night.
The next morning he spent two hours
briefing the entire embassy staff,
including families. He discussed the
exposure levels he had found and the
Polish scientists had recorded, putting
the levels into a perspective that
indicated there would be no long-term
health effects for the embassy personnel
and their families. After this, he met
privately with individuals—mostly
pregnant women—who had special
concerns but were reluctant to discuss
their fears in a public gathering. To
Hopper, this was as important as talking
to the larger group. He knew, from years
of Nevada experience, that such
concerns are "very real and frightening
to the people involved. A danger you
can't see or feel or smell can seem much
worse than it really is."
Before leaving Poland, Hopper also
went to Kracow and Poznan to monitor
radiation levels and brief the U.S.
consular staffs and their families; he
also talked to the students and staffs at
the schools attended by U.S. and British
embassy children. He additionally
managed a trip close to the border area
closest to Chernobyl, where he took
even more readings. His working days
ran easily to 18 hours. Before leaving
Poland, he set up a monitoring system
at the embassy and trained the staff to
use it over the next six months, a
process he repeated in Hungary and
Bulgaria.
In Hungary, too, where modern town
laboratories were doing the monitoring,
he found an openness about sharing
information on the part of government
authorities. And he found the same
need for empathetic briefing of embassy
people and their families. In Bulgaria,
there was little sharing of information
with him on the part of government
officials, but his sessions with U.S..
embassy personnel were comparable to
those in Warsaw and Budapest.
Hopper has been on the EPA staff
since the agency was founded, corning
to EPA after serving at the Nevada test
site and with the Public Health Service.
He has three children, the oldest 24,
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
At the peak, eight press office staff
members were dealing with media and
other calls, although the pace slackened
as it became apparent that the
Chernobyl fire was out and that
radiation levels in the United States
were well below danger levels.
In addition to calls from the press,
calls from organizations, congressional
offices, and concerned individuals were
also pouring into headquarters, the
Regional Offices, and various EPA
laboratories. At headquarters,
responsibility for answering such
inquiries was ultimately given to the
Office of Public and Private Sector
Liaison, which answered hundreds of
individual calls and also circulated
needed information through a system
developed by the Centers for Disease
Control to notify health officials of
over-the-counter drug tampering
incidents.
Most of the calls received by EPA
offices concerned possible dangers to
U.S. citizens traveling abroad, but others
were concerned with reports of
radioactivity in specific parts of the
United States:
• Region 9 was called by a post office
in Seattle which had received a parcel
from Sweden. Was it safe to handle?
• Region 3 had a caller who wanted to
know when the radioactive cloud would
pass over Pittsburgh so she could take
in her wash.
• Research Triangle Park had a call
from a North Carolina dog breeder who
had arranged to purchase an expensive
German shepherd from a breeder in
West Germany. He wanted to know if
there had been heavy fallout in the
and his wife, Jacki, is a health physicist.
Of this special assignment he says, "It
was the opportunity of a lifetime. I've
been training for this assignment for the
last 20 years."
His feelings of satisfaction are more
than echoed by a message from the U.S.
Ambassador in Poland to the Secretary
of State for relay to EPA:
"The entire staff of Embassy Warsaw
joins me in expressing our heartfelt and
most sincere thanks to Mr. Hopper for
the outstanding manner in which he
performed during his recent visit to
Poland. His superb technical
competence was perhaps expected, but
he proved to be equally well qualified
and adept at dealing with press
inquiries, explaining his findings,
reassuring worried mission, members,
and maintaining an invariably
cooperative and cheerful attitude
through long and very intensive
workdays. He was highly professional in
meetings with Polish scientific experts
and obtained valuable information. He
enthusiastically undertook three long
and tiring field trips to various regions
of Poland, making readings which
enabled policy decisions to be taken in
Washington. His serious but friendly
manner and long experience made him
particularly effective in visiting our
diplomatic school and talking with
pupils there. He ... earned our
unanimous admiration and respect." Q
EPA radiation specialist Richard
Hopper checks background radiation
readings in front of the l/.S. h'mbnss}' in
Warsaw, Poland, on Mav 5, 1986.
Wide World Photos
AUGUST 1986
19
-------
dog's home so he could cancel the deal
if the dog could get sick or harm his
other dogs in North Carolina.
EPA's Office of International
Activities (OIA) was also heavily
involved. Radioactive debris from the
reactor was monitored around the world
and concern was high in most countries.
OIA worked closely with the State
Department to get radiation data on
fallout within their borders. This
information was used to inform the
public of world-wide radiation levels
and potential health risks for travelers.
Richard Hopper of the ORP Las Vegas
facility was sent to Poland, Hungary,
and Bulgaria to work with U.S. Embassy
officials monitoring potential impacts
on U.S. employees there.
The Task Force met for the last time
on May 14. Its last public report was
issued on May 23, just short of four
weeks after the accident. Reports from
the Soviet Union are still adding new
information, EPA's ERAMS system
continues its regular monitoring
activity, as does the instrumentation
Hopper took to the U.S embassies
abroad. The fallout from Chernobyl
created no health problems for
Americans here or abroad, but the
nation now knows that, should another
such accident occur or other radiation
emergencies arise, there is an effective
system in place to provide scientifically
credible information about potential
dangers and what to do about them, o
At the Montgomery facility, Avis Culver
collects precipitation samples for
radiation analysis. To monitor fallout
from Chernobyl, EPA also provided
daily radiation measurements based on
air samples from hundreds of
monitoring posts in the U.S. and
abroad.
.HI
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Advice on Asbestos
in the Home
by Dave Ryan
ti ~\ yTillions of Americans Face
iVJL Asbestos Hazards in Homes"
screams a headline in the Atlanta
Constitution; "Is Asbestos Lurking in
Your Home?" the San Diego Union asks
ominously; "As Home Asbestos Crisis
Grows Worse, Remedies Can be Costly
and Dangerous," the WoJI Street Journal
warns in Armageddon-like tones.
True, home is where the heart is, but
many Americans fear that it's also
where the asbestos is—inside their
domestic fortresses, creating time bombs
of cancer in their very own kitchens and
recreation rooms.
Approached with knowledge
and caution, asbestos in any
home can be safely brought
under control.
It's easy to see how citizens can
become apprehensive under such a
barrage of headlines, but EPA has some
advice: don't panic.
Asbestos is dangerous if inhaled, but
its presence in your home is not
necessarily a cause for alarm. As long as
asbestos-containing material is
maintained in good condition, there's
usually no problem. It's only when this
material is damaged that asbestos
becomes dangerous, because then the
fibers can escape into the air and be
inhaled. (Soft, easily crumbled material,
which EPA calls friable, has the greatest
potential for releasing asbestos fibers
into the air and therefore has the
greatest potential to create health risks.)
In the majority of cases, then, these
materials are best left in place. In fact,
it's usually more dangerous to try to
remove them; improper removal can
disperse high levels of asbestos into the
air.
fHvan is ci Press Officer in the EPA
Office of Public Affairs.)
AUGUST 1986
Asbestos-containing materials can be
found in many areas throughout the
house, but these are the more common
areas where asbestos may be found:
• Pipe and Furnace Insulation: Many
homes built in the last 30 or 40 years
have hot water and steam pipes and
furnace ducts insulated with material
containing asbestos. The most common
type of this insulation contains asbestos
mixed with paper, textile, or cement
materials. These materials can often be
repaired if the damage is minimal and
in a confined area. Removal is
recommended for damaged pipes when
more than a small area has deteriorated.
• Wall and Ceiling Insulation: Homes
built between 1930 and 1950 may have
asbestos insulation sandwiched between
exterior and interior walls. The
quantities of asbestos involved may be
substantial, and, correspondingly, so are
the risks of exposing and disturbing it.
Walls and ceilings should be checked
for concealed asbestos insulation before
beginning any repairs or renovations.
• Stove and furnace insulation:
Asbestos has frequently been used to
insulate wood-burning stoves as well as
oil, coal, and wood furnaces. Usually
the asbestos is contained in cement
sheets, stiff paperboard, or paper. Some
door gaskets in stoves, ovens, and
furnaces may also contain asbestos,
• Vinyl Floor Tiles and Vinyl Sheet
Flooring: Asbestos is often found in
vinyl floor tiles and sheet flooring or
their backing. If the flooring is sanded
or cut to fit into place, or if old flooring
is removed and the surface beneath it is
sanded, fibers can be released into the
air. To avoid disturbing asbestos fibers
in existing flooring, it's best to place
new flooring material directly over the
old.
• Patching Compounds and Textured
Paint: Homes built or renovated before
1975 may have patching compounds or
textured paints with asbestos applied on
wall or ceiling joints. If these materials
are in good condition, it's best to leave
them untouched. No patching
compounds or textured paint should be
sanded or scraped unless lab tests have
confirmed them to be free of asbestos.
• Walls and Ceilings: In rare instances,
private homes may have asbestos
material sprayed or troweled on walls or
ceilings, although this is much more
likely to be found in large offices or
apartment buildings built before 1973.
Leave it undisturbed unless it shows
signs of deterioration.
• Roofing, Shingles, and Siding:
Asbestos-containing portland cement
has sometimes been used to bind
roofing and siding shingles. Since
roofing and shingling are outdoors,
intact materials pose minimal risk to
building occupants; roofers who remove
shingles, however, may experience a
significant health threat unless they use
proper procedures for handling
asbestos-containing materials.
Homeowners should avoid cutting,
sanding, or scoring materials, although
worn or damaged siding should be
painted to seal in fibers that might
otherwise escape.
What to do if you suspect there's
asbestos in your home?
The first thing is to call EPA's TSCA
(Toxic Substances Control Act)
Assistance Office at the toll-free number
(800) 424-9065 (554-1404 in the District
of Columbia). They'll be glad to send a
free packet including an asbestos fact
sheet; a copy of a booklet called
"Asbestos in the Home"; and a report
titled "Guidance for Controlling
Asbestos-Containing Materials in
Buildings." The TSCA Assistance Office
can also refer you to the Regional
Asbestos Coordinator (RAC) in the
nearest EPA regional office. The RAC
offices are staffed by technical experts,
21
-------
architects, and engineers who have
extensive practical experience with
asbestos problems. In addition, many
states now have licensing requirements
for asbestos contractors. RACs can refer
you to state contacts who can provide a
list of licensed contractors.
For a thorough inspection of your
living quarters, however, you'd better
get some expert assistance.
Your local health department might
inspect your home for free, or at least
refer you to specially trained inspectors
you can hire to do the job.
But, whoever does the work, you
must remember that visual inspection
alone is insufficient to identify asbestos.
Laboratory analysis using polarized light
microscopy is the only positive method
of identification. Costs currently range
from $20 to $50 per sample, and often
several siimples are required to confirm
the presence of asbestos.
Samples must be collected in a way
that protects the health of the sampler
and ensures validity. The proper
sampling procedures are spelled out in
EPA's report, "Asbestos in Buildings:
Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable
Surfacing Materials." If you're looking
for a qualified laboratory near you, you
can call another EPA toll-free number
for help: (800) 334-8571, extension
6741.
If action must be taken to abate
asbtistos, it should only be done by a
trained and qualified contractor. Home
repair contractors are usually not
experienced in the proper procedures
for handling asbestos. A good abatement
contractor will:
• Seal off the work area from the rest of
the home with plastic sheeting and duct
tape, and make sure not to track
asbesios dust throughout the house;
• Always wear a respirator, protective
gloves, and other protective clothing.
Clothing should be disposed of as
asbestos waste immediately after use.
Clothing that cannot be thrown away
should be washed separately from other
clothes;
• Always wet asbestos-containing
material before working with it. Wet
asbestos fibers do not float in the air as
readily as dry fibers, and are therefore
easier to capture and dispose of;
• Avoid breaking asbestos-containing
material into small pieces, which are
more likely to release breathable fibers
into the air;
• Place any debris from the work in 6-
millimeter plastic trash bags and follow
the instructions of the local health
Asbestos-coated hot water piping in a
residential basement.
department for disposing of it in an
approved landfill. The contractor should
take care not to break the bag;
• Be sure not to dust or sweep particles
suspected of containing asbestos, since
this will disturb microscopic fibers and
make them airborne. The fibers are so
small that they cannot be seen. They
can pass through normal vacuum
cleaner filters and get back into the air.
Dust should be removed by wet
mopping and the use of High Efficiency
Particulate Apparatus (HEPA) vacuum
cleaners;
• Thoroughly clean the work area twice
with wet mops, wet rags, or sponges,
and be sure that no fibers are tracked
into other areas of the home. All
cleaning equipment should be disposed
of in the same trash bags containing the
asbestos materials.
It is important to find a contractor
who conscientiously follows these safe
work practices. In an effort to increase
the numbers and availability of
responsible contractors, EPA is
encouraging all states to adopt
certification programs ensuring that all
asbestos abatement contractors are
licensed to perform their work correctly.
Last year, EPA awarded grants to 12
states to support contractor certification
programs, and this year plans awards to
an additional 20 states. Partly as a result
oi this funding, 13 states now operate
their own certification programs, and an
additional 17 have certification bills
either passed or pending in their
legislatures. These states maintain lists
of licensed contractors and make the
lists available to the public.
Last year, EPA also opened three
national training centers at Tufts
University, Georgia Institute of
Technology, and the University of
Kansas. So far. these centers have
instructed over 1,500 people, including
contractors, building owners and
managers, maintenance workers, school
officials, architects, and consultants in
various aspects of asbestos
identification, maintenance, and control.
Because of their success, EPA plans to
open two more centers this year, one at
the University of Illinois in Chicago and
another at the University of California at
Berkeley. In addition, four satellite
centers will open late this spring to
train contractors in proper abatement
techniques. These will be located at
Drexel University in Philadelphia,
Rutgers Medical School in New Jersey,
the University of Texas at Arlington,
and the University of Utah in Salt Lake
City.
In January of this year, EPA also
proposed to ban five specific asbestos
products for which there are adequate
substitutes, and to phase out the use
and importation of all other
asbestos-containing products over the
next 10 years. The ban will immediately
prohibit the further sale and use in the
U.S. of five products, the first three of
which are used mainly in the
construction and renovation industry:
(1) saturated and unsaturated roofing
felt; (2) flooring felt and asbestos
felt-backed sheet flooring; (3)
vinyl-asbestos floor tile; (4)
asbestos-cement pipe and fittings; and
(5) asbestos clothing. While EPA is
not attempting to downplay the
essential danger of inhaled asbestos, the
Agency urges citizens not to let fear
propel them into hasty and
ill-conceived actions. When
asbestos-containing materials are in
good condition, the most appropriate
action is to periodically inspect the
materials for signs of damage or
deterioration. If deterioration or damage
is minor or localized, such simple steps
as enclosing or repairing the material
may be adequate. Only when
asbestos-containing material is
deteriorating over a broad area, or when
it is likely to be disturbed by repair or
renovation, should removal be
considered, and then only by a trained
contractor.
Approached with knowledge and
caution, asbestos in any home can be
safely brought under control, Q
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Update
A review of recent major EPA
activities and developments
in the pollution control
program areas
AIR
HAZARDOUS WASTE TOXICS
Standards for Industrial
Boilers
The Agency has proposed
new rules under the Clean
Air Act requiring reductions
of sulfur dioxide emissions
for new or modified
industrial boilers.
The proposed rules require
that new or modified steam
generating units larger than
29 megawatts (100 million
Btu/hour) achieve a 90
percent reduction in sulfur
dioxide emission.
EPA rules are expected to
apply primarily to industrial
boilers but would include the
largest institutional and
commercial boilers and the
smallest utility boilers.
The 90 percent reduction
standard represents the
performance capabilities of
demonstrated control
technologies over the 30 day
averaging time of the
standard.
ENFORCEMENT
Firm Indicted
A Pennsylvania firm and two
of its officials have been
indicted in connection with
the storage and transportation
of hazardous waste in
south central Kentucky. The
investigation was conducted
by the EPA Office of Criminal
Investigation in Region 4.
RAD Services Inc., Arthur
J. Sciullo, Executive Vice
President, and George R.
Gary, head of the Chemicals
Division, were indicted on
five counts by a federal grand
jury. According to U.S.
Attorney Joseph Wittle, RAD
illegally stored thousands of
tons of hazardous waste in a
Bowling Green warehouse,
between 1980 and 1983,
without notifying the EPA.
The material was emission
control dust, a byproduct of
air pollution control devices
in steel mills.
The investigation was
prompted by complaints from
residents of Rutherford
County who became
suspicious of late-night
dumping in 1983.
Superfund Priority List
EPA has added 170
hazardous waste sites to its
final Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL), making
them eligible for long-term
action under the Superfund
site cleanup program.
The Agency also proposed
45 sites for the priority list.
The proposed sites are
subject to a 60-day public
comment period and could
be added at a later date.
With these additions, there
are now 703 sites on the final
NPL and 185 proposed sites.
EPA deleted eight sites from
the final NPL on March 7,
1986, since work on those
sites had been completed.
PESTICIDES
Dicofol Registration
Cancelled
EPA announced its decision
to cancel the registration of
the pesticide dicofol unless
certain modifications are
made to reduce significantly
the levels of DDT and related
contaminants in this product.
EPA is requiring two kinds
of modifications to the
dicofol registration. First, the
levels of DDT allowed in
dicofol will be reduced in
two stages. There will be an
initial and immediate
reduction to less than 2.5
percent DDTr (DDT and
related derivatives including
DDD, DDE and,
tetrachloro-DDT)
contamination in the
technical-grade compound.
After December 31, 1988, all
technical-grade dicofol
products offered for sale
must contain less than 0.1
percent DDTr. The second
modification requires the
registrants of dicofol to
include a warning statement
on labels of all products
stating that loaders and
applicators of the chemical
should wear impervious
gloves.
Information on Commercial
Chemicals
The Agency has issued a
final rule requiring chemical
manufacturers and importers
to report current production
and plant-site information on
thousands of commercial
chemicals.
The new rule requires
companies to report to EPA
every four years beginning
this year.
This rule requires the first
substantial update of
production and plant-site
data for chemicals listed on
EPA's chemical substances
inventory. EPA will collect
the latest information on
chemicals in the current
inventory on a plant-by-plant
basis, including each
chemical's identity, whether
the firm is a manufacturer or
importer, whether or not use
of the substance is limited to
the site where it is
manufactured, how much is
produced, the plant's
technical contact, and
whether any of the
information is confidential.
WATER
Research Burn Permit
Denied
EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water,
Lawrence J. Jensen, has
denied the application by
Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., for a
research permit to conduct
ocean incineration of toxic
wastes.
Jensen said that his review
of public comments and the
hearing officer's
recommendations had loci
him to conclude that it was
not necessary to conduct the
research burn at this time.
Chemical Waste
Management had planned to
conduct the research burn
using the Vulcanus II, a
special incinerator ship. The
permit proposed burning
708,958 gallons of fuel oil
containing 10 to 30 percent
polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at sea approximately
140 miles east of Cape May,
NJ. c
AUGUST 1986
23
-------
Appointments/Awards
Thoimis L. Adams, /r,
Hobie G. Kussdl
Douglas D. Campt
Thomas L. Adams Jr. has been
nominated to be Assistant Administrator
for EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring. Adams will be
responsible for judicial enforcement
actions against violators of federal
environmental laws and for maintaining
national consistency in the enforcement
of the civil and criminal laws and
regulations.
Since 15)83 Adams served a.s the EPA
Deputy General Counsel for Regional
Coordination. From 1977 to 1983 he
was assistant director for governmental
relations for Republic Steel Corp. Prior
to that he served for two years as
assistant general counsel for the Federal
Trade Commission and earlier as
minority counsel for the Senate
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee
on Environment and Consumer Affairs.
Adams is a graduate of the University
of Virginia and the Vanderbilt
University School of Law.
Robie G. Russell has been named EPA's
Regional Administrator for the Pacific
Xuithwest Region (Region 10).
Russell has served as Senior Deputy
Attorney Ceneral for the state of Idaho
since 198 I. As chief of the local
government division, he has dealt with
a broad range of issues including land
use, elections, local government law,
disaster planning, public meetings and
records, and Indian law. lie was Idaho
Deputy Attorney Ceneral and acting
chief of the natural resources division
from 1979 to 1981.
Russell received a bachelor's degree
in political science from the University
of Idaho in 1973. Me received a law
degree from the University of Idaho in
1978.
Lee DeHihns formerly the Associate
Ceneral Counsel for Crants, Contracts
and General Law, will become the new
Deputy Regional Administrator in
Region 4.
DeHihns, who has been with EPA
since 1974, brings to this position an
outstanding professional reputation.
DeHihns has served at his present
position since 1982. He previously
served as an Attorney for the Office of
the General Counsel, Acting Regional
Counsel for Region 5, and Special
Assistant to the Deputy Administrator.
DeHihns has received EPA's Bronze
Medal and EPA's Special Achievement
Award. He received his B.S. degree from
the University of Scranton and his J.I).
from the Columbus School of Law,
Catholic University of America.
Douglas D. Campt has been appointed
to be Director of EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP). He previously
served as director of the Registration
Division in OPP. Campt has been with
EPA since 1970, serving as the
Associate Director for Registration and
Compliance, and as Program
Management Officer. Prior to joining
EPA, he was the head of the
Registration Review Section, Assistant
Chief of the Registrations Branch, and a
Plant Quarantine Inspector at the
Department of Agriculture.
Campt is a graduate of North Carolina
Central University with a degree in
biology. D
Performance Awards
Administrator Lee M. Thomas has
presented awards to nine members of
EPA management for "unusually
outstanding" performance. These
awards are made annually to (host;
employees in the Performance
Management and Recognition System
whose job performance results in major
progress toward Agency objectives.
The following persons received
awards:
Gary A. Amendola, Supervisory
Environmental Engineer, Environmental
Services Division, Region 5.
Kathleen C. Callahan, Deputy
Director, Office of Policy and
Management, Region 2.
Thomas B. DeMoss, Director,
Technical Support Division. Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection.
John A. Edwardson, Chief.
Superfund/'RCRA Branch, Budget
Division, Office of the Comptroller.
Chester J. France, Chief, Standards
Development and Support Branch,
Motor Vehicle Emissions Lab, Ann
Arbor.
Denise M. Keehner, Chief, Regulatory
Section, Exposure Evaluation Division,
Office of Toxic Substances.
Walter E. Mugdan, Deputy Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel,
Region 2.
Oilman D. Veith, Associate Director
for Research Operations, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Duluth.
Thomas C. Voltaggio, Chief,
Superfund Branch, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Region 3.
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
KathJeen Varaday inspects (ho ciir pump
system attached to her home in
Boyertown, FA. The system helps to
ventilate radon from her home.
Back COVKF: Sailing, Photo by John
Bosvden, Folio, inc.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
v i
------- |