Isn’t it irrelevant who owns the house? If
the house is being built radon-ready (RRNC) either by code requirements or
voluntarily, then it shall
meet the established standards. If not, the house was not built truly radon-ready
and should not be marketed as same. Dan West
From: International
Web Resource for Radon Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of John Mallon
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 3:03
PM
To:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
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 Grammer
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:19
PM
To:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: 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. Jenkins
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:34
AM
To:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: 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, 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: Terry
Howell [mailto:thowell@RADALINK.COM]
To:
RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:42:02
-0400
Subject: 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, Martin
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
7:18 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: 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 Howell
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
6:29 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: 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 McNees
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
5:25 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: 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.EDU
Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 3:18 PM
People need to
understand that new home buyers DO NOT test their homes
regardless of whether or not they have RRNC installed. Its not that
RRNC discourages testing - that's what NJ thought until they actually
looked at the numbers. In fact, according to a study done by
the
Eastern Regional Radon
Training Center
for NJ, which requires RRNC in
their Tier 1 areas highest risk areas - the rate of testing for new
homes 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 the
real estate transactions included a radon test. The study
did not
evaluate the reasons for it, but some of them are likely to be ; no home
inspector involved in transaction; no real estate agent; new home
contracts are often different than those for existing homes,
So the following is my take on this and does not represent Agency
policy....
Whether or not RRNC is used or is cost effective isn't the relevant
point. The issue is to get EVERY new home to test. If RRNC
is cost
effective builders will use it, if not they will install systems in
homes that test high. Either way we will get risk reduction where we
are only getting a fraction of the reduction now. One
potential way to
get homes tested is for areas that requires a certificate of occupancy
is to require radon levels be below 4 before a final CO is issued.
( that is something that might be marketed to HP 2020) Another way
would be where there are new home warranties make it a condition of the
warranty that the home is tested.
And finally - for those of you looking for work in this slow real estate
market - most of those new homes in your market never had a radon test
done.
L
Larainne Koehler
Radon & Indoor Air Coordinator
Radiation and Indoor Air Branch - 25th Floor
US Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY
10007-1866
212-637-3745
212-637-4942(fax)
For radon information in New York,
please call 1-800-458-1158 ext 27556
or visit http://www.nyhealth.gov/radiation
For radon information in
NJ, please call 1-800-648-0394 or visit
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/radon/index.htm
Radon & Indoor Air
information is available from the EPA website at www.epa.gov/iaq
FOR UPDATED INFORMATION ABOUT GRANITE COUNTERTOPS VISIT
www.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 and
National) have not claimed that RRNC would work to be an all-sufficient
standalone radon prevention system obviating the need for any additional
work. I am curious what evidence the builder you cite produced to show
how he got that specific impression. The official information I have
seen about RRNC has always recognized that it may provide partial Rn
reduction, but that there was no guarantee of this, and that the focus
was on providing (in theory, at least) a lower-cost alternative to
post-construction installation, an alternative that might get sufficient
reductions if operated passively, but that could be transformed into an
active system should that prove necessary.
Kevin Stewart
Director of Environmental Health
American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic
From: International Web Resource for Radon Professionals
[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of David Grammer
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:04 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input
on 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 & the
completed product infrequently works without many fixes.
The list of defects found with this type work is long & the cost to
repair these mistakes usually exceeds the installation cost of a
complete system by a qualified person. Unfortunately for the home buyers
a past Governor of NJ (Jim McGreevy) signed into the radon hazard sub
code law that if followed, the Builders liability was relieved.
This rrnc installation is such a small part of the new construction
overall picture in relation to all of the other components requiring
inspection. Its importance to the construction code officials usually
doesn’t even deserve examination. As an example this could explain how
builders could have used perforated pipe to run a system up thru a house
as the passive vent pipe portion of rrnc without detection.
Tom Kelley heard a builder pled their side of the issue at the new
construction meeting in Washington,
DC 2 years ago. This meeting
was
specifically for interested parties concerned about radon control in new
construction. In this case multiple home buyers accused the builder of
personally misrepresenting that RRNC was a product designed to control
radon in their new homes and it would actually work as a standalone
component. That builder paid the additional cost for adding fans to the
systems but he could not factor this cost into his building plan since
he believed the USEPA that rrnc was adequate. His complaint was not just
the additional unplanned cost to activate the pipe but he felt that by
misrepresenting the benefit of rrnc his reputation had been damaged with
existing buyers. This damaged reputation transferred from existing home
buyers to future home buyers by word of mouth. The new home buyers were
unhappy when they realized that the builder misrepresented RRNC after
conducting a radon test months after moving into their new home. The
home buyers complained that it was unconscionable to allow then to
expose their families to elevated radon levels & not allowing them to
know the rrnc was only a partial installation. The builder’s real
complaint was he was mislead by the USEPA to expect that rrnc actually
worked. He would have had no problem doing more work to control the
radon in the homes he was building but he was misled into a false sense
of security by the USEPA’s claims of success. He wanted to know why he
was not properly informed about rrnc.
There was also a mitigator there who explained that new construction
rrnc was more expensive to install than radon treatment in an existing
home. He explained that rrnc took several trips to complete & usually a
generator was required since the new homes had no power at the phase the
rrnc is installed. This mitigator also explained that the builders
always had scheduling conflicts such as the sheetrock was already
installed or the framing was incomplete when he arrived. This is a
flawed process that can be improved but not until the USEPA accepts the
reality of the issue. This is not a cheap alternative to radon
mitigation. The material & labor cost is not less than installing a
radon system in an existing home.
David Grammer
From: International Web Resource for Radon Professionals
[mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Terry Howell
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:25 AM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Time Sensitive Opportunity;
PLEASE Provide Input
on Healthy Peo...
Phil, All
Once 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 long
time is that builder installed systems do not work, usually because
whoever was responsible for it knows nothing about what it takes to
actually make a system work, and without that knowledge and experience I
think 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 should
only be installed by licensed/certified mitigation professionals.
2. Diagnostic evaluation of the
pressure field extension should
be required at the time rough-in is performed and additional measures
taken as required at that time.
3. A radon test must be performed by a
licensed/certified
testing professional either before occupancy (preferred) or with X days
of occupancy (very problematic).
4. I elevated levels are found, then
the system should be
activated and another test performed, all within X days.
Survey Question: How many states require that
only
licensed/certified be allowed to install radon control systems in new
construction?
Based on all the data we have now I do not agree that all homes should
have active radon systems. Much, much, more data is needed.
Conversely, all homes should be tested and mitigated when elevated
levels 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 contain
confidential and privileged
information belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is intended
only for the use of the individual
or entity for which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on the
contents of this information is
strictly 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)
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 privileged
information belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity for which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on the contents of this information is
strictly 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 privileged
information belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity for which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on the contents of this information is
strictly 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 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.
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
06:19:00
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)
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)