John,
I was involved with the PA-DEP "Workshops" a few
years ago. It brought all sides of the "RRNC" debate to the table.
This is what I learned; Builders and Realtors have a great big lobby. The
Radon Industry, not so much..
The builders own the property until
settlement.
-Jay
----- Original Message -----
From:
John Mallon
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 3:03
PM
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive
Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy Peo...
I am curious. If ownership is
the State's rationale wouldn't it only apply to a spec
home. If the builder is building a home for a client, the lot and the
structure in progress belong to the client not the builder. Bottom line: The
builder is not the owner.
John Mallon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joshua Kerber
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 1:16
PM
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive
Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy Peo...
Phil’s
take on Ohio is right on. The Builder technically “owns” the home
until the final paperwork is signed. I’m not saying I agree with it,
but it’s the legal facts.
Joshua
J. Kerber, MS
Ohio
Department of Health
Bureau
of Radiation Protection
Radon
Licensing Program
246
N. High St. - 7th Floor 35 Bldg.
Columbus,
OH 43215
ph:
(614) 644-2727
fax:
(614) 466-0381
joshua.kerber@odh.ohio.gov
From: International
Web Resource for Radon Professionals
[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU] On Behalf Of David
GrammerSent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:19 PMTo:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject: Re: [RNPROF] Time
Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo...
Phil,
Here
in NJ and in reality.
The
builder is not an occupant of the home therefore not the home
owner.
His
ownership is for a purpose of business therefore he is not the finished
product homeowner but he is a vendor selling homes. For the purpose of
business ethics this compromises the consideration that a builder could be
ill-motivated when performing a radon test or
mitigation.
David
Grammer
From: International
Web Resource for Radon Professionals
[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phillip H.
JenkinsSent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:34 AMTo:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject: Re: [RNPROF] Time
Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo...
I believe that
the situation here in Ohio is that the law states that you can test,
mitigate, whatever, on property that you own. And, the logic is that
the builder owns the property until it sells. Therefore, the builder
can do anything, related to radon that is, that he/she desires without
training, without a license, etc., just like I can test my own house without
a license, but I can't test someone else's. I can't even talk to
someone else about mitigation, or radon entrance pathways, or dose from
radon, without a mitigators license. So, don't ask me about any of
those topics, cause I can't tell you. ;-) I don't know about
other states, but their legislation may be
similar.
Phil Phillip
H. Jenkins, PhD, CHPSenior Health PhysicistBowser-Morner,
Inc.Mail: P.O. Box 51 - Dayton, OH 45401Delivery: 4514 Taylorsville
Road - Dayton, OH 45424Voice: (937) 236-8805 x248Fax: (937)
233-2024E-mail: pjenkins@bowser-morner.comWeb:
www.bowser-morner.com
From: Terry Howell
[mailto:thowell@RADALINK.COM]To:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSent: Thu, 02 Apr 2009
19:42:02 -0400Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy Peo...
I would offer
that I don’t think that in most of the licensing states an amendment would
be required. I think that most of the existing rules and
regulations, and laws already have something to the effect of “anyone
performing radon or radon related services for a fee or other
remuneration…. must be licensed (registered or certified)” already in
them. The problem is that just because it is a law, rule, or
regulation does not mean that anyone is required to enforce it. And
no one chooses to enforce it. The question is simply,
why?
JMO!
Terry
-----Original
Message-----From: International Web Resource for Radon
Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Smith, MartinSent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
7:18 PMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo...
I
agree with Terry, this is a great thread. So what’s the next step? It
seems obvious to me, but I am probably not thinking it through
correctly.
We
have the ears of most, if not all, of the professional radon community
through this list serv. We have members of CRCPD and EPA also. We probably
have the individuals who crafted the legislation in the few states (or
counties of) that require the installation of PSD systems in new
construction.
So
how hard would it be to amend the legislation requiring that the PSD
systems by installed only by a nationally certified (or state certified
depending on the state of course) individuals?
The
hard part was already done. An amendment can’t be so tough…can
it?
Moving
forward, using a mit professional should be a requirement in any new
legislation requiring PSD systems in new
construction.
But
it needs to go a bit further, as many have already mentioned. We also need
an amendment that would required testing the home upon completion, again
by a nationally certified person, and if it’s 4 or more, make the system
active.
I
realize I am stating the obvious here, and it’s bound to be much more
difficult to accomplish than I am thinking. But we already know what needs
to be done…the real question is, who’s going to do
it?
Can
AARST lobby for an amendment in one state and then build from that? We
have to start somewhere. Just pick one and go for it. AARST and EPA joint
effort? Add CRCPD, you have a formidable front.
My
2…
Martin
From: International
Web Resource for Radon Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Terry HowellSent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
6:29 PMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo...
I think you are
only partially correct here. I think it is
both.
Elevated levels of
indoor radon is not considered a material defect and therefore the public
does not have a leg to stand on, especially the ones that already own the
property or have a binding contract to purchase the property. They
are stuck with only their own negotiating skills as
protection.
Until the science
can uphold and the government will take the position that a home with
indoor radon concentrations above some level are unsafe and therefore are
unacceptable for occupancy, nothing is going to change very much.
As to the data from
New Jersey on testing, as long as the “don’t test for radon here” maps are
being utilized, the public will continue to feel safe if they are in one
of those zones and not bother to do anything. They think their safe
just like the buyers of homes with something called radon whatever built
into it.
This is one of the
best threads yet and I hope this dialogue continues. This problem is
fixable but the public and private sectors have to come together in order
to do it.
Terry
-----Original
Message-----From: International Web Resource for Radon
Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of James McNeesSent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
5:25 PMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo...
Totally
agree with Laraine.
When a
majority of the public decides they will no longer tollerate living
in elevated radon, we will have turned the corner on the radon
problem.
The
solution is a social marketing problem not a scientific
problem.
Jim McNees
Alabama--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Koehler.Larainne@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
wrote:
From: Koehler.Larainne@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Subject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide Input on
Healthy Peo...To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUDate:
Thursday, April 2, 2009, 3:18 PM
People need
to understand that new home buyers DO NOT test their
homesregardless of whether or not they have RRNC
installed. Its not thatRRNC discourages testing - that's
what NJ thought until they actuallylooked at the
numbers. In fact, according to a study done by
theEastern Regional Radon Training Center for NJ, which
requires RRNC intheir Tier 1 areas highest risk areas - the
rate of testing for newhomes was about 3 times as high as in
Tier 2 but ONLY 15.7%. Only 5%of the new
homes in TIER 2 tested for radon.Statewide over the period of
the study ( 1999-2003) about 38% of thereal estate
transactions included a radon test. The study did
notevaluate the reasons for it, but some of them are likely to
be ; no homeinspector involved in transaction; no real estate
agent; new homecontracts are often different than those for
existing homes,So the following is my take on this and
does not represent Agencypolicy....Whether or not RRNC
is used or is cost effective isn't the relevantpoint.
The issue is to get EVERY new home to test. If RRNC
is costeffective builders will use it, if not they will
install systems inhomes that test high. Either way we
will get risk reduction where weare only getting a fraction of
the reduction now. One potential way toget
homes tested is for areas that requires a certificate of
occupancyis to require radon levels be below 4 before a final
CO is issued.( that is something that might be marketed to HP
2020) Another waywould be where there are new home
warranties make it a condition of thewarranty that the home is
tested.And finally - for those of you looking for work in
this slow real estatemarket - most of those new homes in your
market never had a radon testdone.LLarainne
KoehlerRadon & Indoor Air CoordinatorRadiation and
Indoor Air Branch - 25th FloorUS Environmental Protection
Agency - Region 2290 BroadwayNew York, NY
10007-1866212-637-3745212-637-4942(fax)For radon
information in New York, please call 1-800-458-1158 ext
27556or visit http://www.nyhealth.gov/radiation
For radon information inNJ, please call 1-800-648-0394 or
visithttp://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/radon/index.htm
Radon & Indoor Airinformation is available from the EPA
website at www.epa.gov/iaqFOR UPDATED INFORMATION ABOUT
GRANITE COUNTERTOPS VISITwww.epa.gov/radon AND CLICK ON
FREQUENT QUESTIONS
Kevin Stewart
To
Sent by:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
International
cc
Web
Resource for
Radon
Subject
Professionals
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive
04/02/2009 02:46
PM
Please respond
to
Kevin
Stewart
David,One point I think
I should make here:In my experience, the EPA people with
whom I have worked (Region III andNational) have not claimed
that RRNC would work to be an all-sufficientstandalone radon
prevention system obviating the need for any
additionalwork. I am curious what evidence the builder
you cite produced to showhow he got that specific
impression. The official information I haveseen about
RRNC has always recognized that it may provide partial
Rnreduction, but that there was no guarantee of this, and that
the focuswas on providing (in theory, at least) a lower-cost
alternative topost-construction installation, an alternative
that might get sufficientreductions if operated passively, but
that could be transformed into anactive system should that
prove necessary.Kevin StewartDirector of Environmental
HealthAmerican Lung Association of the
Mid-AtlanticFrom: International Web Resource for Radon
Professionals[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of David GrammerSent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:04
PMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide
Inputon Healthy Peo...Terry,These are good
points.New Jersey has had a radon hazard sub code in place
since 1991.There is no restriction on who can install the
passive piping & thecompleted product infrequently works
without many fixes.The list of defects found with this type
work is long & the cost torepair these mistakes usually
exceeds the installation cost of acomplete system by a
qualified person. Unfortunately for the home buyersa past
Governor of NJ (Jim McGreevy) signed into the radon hazard
subcode law that if followed, the Builders liability was
relieved.This rrnc installation is such a small part of the
new constructionoverall picture in relation to all of the
other components requiringinspection. Its importance to the
construction code officials usuallydoesn’t even deserve
examination. As an example this could explain howbuilders
could have used perforated pipe to run a system up thru a
houseas the passive vent pipe portion of rrnc without
detection.Tom Kelley heard a builder pled their side of the
issue at the newconstruction meeting in Washington, DC 2 years
ago. This meeting wasspecifically for interested parties
concerned about radon control in newconstruction. In this case
multiple home buyers accused the builder ofpersonally
misrepresenting that RRNC was a product designed to
controlradon in their new homes and it would actually work as
a standalonecomponent. That builder paid the additional cost
for adding fans to thesystems but he could not factor this
cost into his building plan sincehe believed the USEPA that
rrnc was adequate. His complaint was not justthe additional
unplanned cost to activate the pipe but he felt that
bymisrepresenting the benefit of rrnc his reputation had been
damaged withexisting buyers. This damaged reputation
transferred from existing homebuyers to future home buyers by
word of mouth. The new home buyers wereunhappy when they
realized that the builder misrepresented RRNC afterconducting
a radon test months after moving into their new home. Thehome
buyers complained that it was unconscionable to allow then
toexpose their families to elevated radon levels & not
allowing them toknow the rrnc was only a partial installation.
The builder’s realcomplaint was he was mislead by the USEPA to
expect that rrnc actuallyworked. He would have had no problem
doing more work to control theradon in the homes he was
building but he was misled into a false senseof security by
the USEPA’s claims of success. He wanted to know why hewas not
properly informed about rrnc.There was also a mitigator there
who explained that new constructionrrnc was more expensive to
install than radon treatment in an existinghome. He explained
that rrnc took several trips to complete & usually
agenerator was required since the new homes had no power at
the phase therrnc is installed. This mitigator also explained
that the buildersalways had scheduling conflicts such as the
sheetrock was alreadyinstalled or the framing was incomplete
when he arrived. This is aflawed process that can be improved
but not until the USEPA accepts thereality of the issue. This
is not a cheap alternative to radonmitigation. The material
& labor cost is not less than installing aradon system in
an existing home.David GrammerFrom:
International Web Resource for Radon Professionals[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Terry HowellSent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:25
AMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject:
Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity; PLEASE Provide
Inputon Healthy Peo...Phil, AllOnce again you have
stated the issues very clearly and correctly.Thanks
again!What I, and I believe others have been trying to get
across for a longtime is that builder installed systems do not
work, usually becausewhoever was responsible for it knows
nothing about what it takes toactually make a system work, and
without that knowledge and experience Ithink nothing will ever
change in this part of the problem.I think what is needed is
really very simple.1.
Passive radon control systems for new
construction shouldonly be installed by licensed/certified
mitigation professionals.2.
Diagnostic evaluation of the pressure field
extension shouldbe required at the time rough-in is performed
and additional measurestaken as required at that
time.3. A radon test
must be performed by a licensed/certifiedtesting professional
either before occupancy (preferred) or with X daysof occupancy
(very problematic).4. I
elevated levels are found, then the system should beactivated
and another test performed, all within X days.Survey
Question: How many states require
that onlylicensed/certified be allowed to install radon
control systems in newconstruction?Based on all the
data we have now I do not agree that all homes shouldhave
active radon systems. Much, much, more data is
needed.Conversely, all homes should be tested and mitigated
when elevatedlevels are found.Just my
thoughts!Terry E. Howell
-----Original Message----- From:
International Web Resource for Radon Professionals
[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Phillip H. Jenkins
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:33 AM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo... I am not a mitigator, but an
interested observer. It seems to me
that the caveat associated with RRNC is always "if
installed correctly." I am willing
to believe that there is benefit to RRNC
"if installed correctly." The question that I have is "how
can we ensure that RRNC will be installed
correctly?". The stories that I hear
tend to make me believe that the general rule, at least
today, is that fixing the job that was botched by
the builder negates any cost savings that
RRNC might have presented. I
sincerely hope that I'm wrong. Further, I tend to believe
that builders' claims that systems they
installed, which in reality do nothing to
reduce radon, give the buyers/home owners a false sense
that they don't need to test because the builder
took care of it. Phil
Phillip H. Jenkins, PhD, CHP
Senior Health Physicist Bowser-Morner,
Inc. Mail: P.O. Box 51 - Dayton, OH
45401 Delivery: 4514 Taylorsville Road -
Dayton, OH 45424 Voice: (937) 236-8805
x248 Fax: (937) 233-2024
E-mail: pjenkins@bowser-morner.com
Web: www.bowser-morner.com
From: Dave Hill [mailto:dhill@SPRUCE.COM]
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Sent: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:45:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo... I would also like to point out that
if the radon system "rough-in" is done
correctly, a 14-20 watt fan is all that is necessary to
make the home "resistant" to radon and get the
benefits Henri is referring to. That would
drop the annual fan operating cost to
below $20. Dave Hill
From: International Web Resource for Radon
Professionals [mailto: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Henri Boyea Sent: Wednesday,
April 01, 2009 12:47 AM To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input on Healthy
Peo... Jim McNees presents some
interesting data, but it seems to me that
the cost of running a mitigation fan in Alabama would be more
than offset by the redduction in runtime
of the A/C and de-humidifiers due to
moisture reduction. If I recall correctly, the study to
quantify moisture reduction showed an average 20-30%
moisture reduction in homes with the
mitigation fan running. This takes quite a
load off the A/C and de-humidifier, which have
compressors, and therefore use quite a bit of
electricity.
Henri Boyea
Radon Control Products
www.radoncontrolproducts.com
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) -
http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com
(Search radon) RN PROF (Subscription
changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com
(Search radon) NOTICE:
This transmission is sent on behalf of Bowser-Morner,
Inc. and it may be
privileged, proprietary or confidential. It is intended
only for the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or a
person responsible for
delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you
may not disclose,
copy or distribute this transmission or take any action
in reliance on it. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone at
937-236-8805 ext 228 or by e-mail at postmaster@bowser-morner.com
or by facsimile transmission
at 937-233-2016, and please destroy all
copies of this transmission. Thank
you.This email message and any attachments
accompanying it may containconfidential and
privilegedinformation belonging to Radalink, Inc. This
information is intendedonly for the use of the
individualor entity for which it is addressed. If you are not
the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notifiedthat any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on
thecontents of this information isstrictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, pleasenotify us at
800.295.4655 immediately.RN PROF (Subscription changes -
archives) -http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS- http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In:http://www.linkedin.com.
(Search radon) RN PROF (Subscription changes -archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
*****RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In:http://www.linkedin.com.
(Search radon)RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives)
-http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS- http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In:http://www.linkedin.com.
(Search radon)RN PROF (Subscription changes -
archives) -http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS- http://www.radonleaders.org/
**** RN Linked In:http://www.linkedin.com.
(Search radon)
RN
PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ ****
RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com (Search
radon)
This email message and any attachments accompanying it may contain confidential and privilegedinformation belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is intended only for the use of the individualor entity for which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notifiedthat any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on the contents of this information isstrictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us at 800.295.4655 immediately.
This email message and any attachments accompanying it may contain confidential and privilegedinformation belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is intended only for the use of the individualor entity for which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notifiedthat any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on the contents of this information isstrictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us at 800.295.4655 immediately.RN
PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ ****
RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com (Search radon)
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ ****
RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com (Search radon)
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html
***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ ****
RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com (Search radon)
NOTICE: This transmission is sent on behalf of Bowser-Morner, Inc. and it maybe privileged, proprietary or confidential. It is intended only for the intendedrecipient. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible fordelivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you may not disclose,copy or distribute this transmission or take any action in reliance on it. If youreceived this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at937-236-8805 ext 228 or by e-mail at postmaster@bowser-morner.com or byfacsimile transmission at 937-233-2016, and please destroy all copies of thistransmission. Thank you.
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) -
http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ***** RN LEADERS -
http://www.radonleaders.org/ **** RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com
(Search radon)
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) -
http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ***** RN LEADERS -
http://www.radonleaders.org/ **** RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com
(Search radon) "This e-mail is intended for the
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged, sensitive, or
protected health information. If you are not the intended recipient, be
advised that the unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or
action taken in reliance on the contents of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender via telephone or return e-mail and immediately delete this e-mail."
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.40/2039 - Release
Date: 04/03/09 06:19:00RN PROF (Subscription changes -
archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ***** RN
LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ **** RN Linked In:
http://www.linkedin.com (Search radon)
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.40/2039 - Release
Date: 04/03/09 06:19:00
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ***** RN LEADERS - http://www.radonleaders.org/ **** RN Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com (Search radon)