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 06:19:00
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)