New Jersey is a highly 'regulated' State, and with a commitment to environmental protection. For example, in Newark and Jersey City there are 'recycling police' who patrol the streets checking for correctly sorted rubbish. This aids recycling, and is probably a sign of things to come.

Sensitivity to nuclear issues was heightened in 1979 when the Three Mile Island reactor came close to releasing massive amounts of radioactivity. The reactor is in Pennsylvania, New Jersey's backyard. Despite the severity of the accident, releases were minimal, and the most exposed members of the public received little more radiation than they would have done from a few routine medical examinations. However, this was not how many citizens viewed the matter, and it was predicted that the nuclear industry would take decades to recover - and that was before Chernobyl.

At Three Mile Island, the sloppy management were just lucky. It could have been very much worse, and with populated areas having to be evacuated. Three Mile Island is worth mentioning to illustrate that so much of nuclear legislation, inspection and control is geared specifically to prevention of problems at nuclear facilities. Here, the potential exists for cataclysmic occurrences, or for terrorist acts. Perceptions of anything 'nuclear' owe much to innate fear of disasters.

In the mid 1980s however, this pleasant and environmentally-aware State discovered that it had domestic radon problems. Moreover, some of them were attributed to radium rich spoil heaps from industrial processes, and severe measures were taken to deal with what were often moderate problems.

What happened then and has happened since illustrates how demarcation of official responsibility can determine outcome, and for problems of entirely natural origin also.

The scale of the problem.

New Jersey apparently has around 1.6 million houses that would be expected to be over the US action level based upon basement screening measurements. This might correspond to 600,000 houses above the action level in living areas which was the intent of the original EPA screening protocols, but not how these have often been interpreted.

The definition of a Tier 1 region in New Jersey is that 25% or more of the houses would screen with basement measurements above 4 pCi/l. This is taken to mean approximately 10% above 4 pCi/l in living areas - although it may be less than 10%. This would equate very roughly to Devon and Cornwall combined, although Cornwall alone has higher average levels.

Radon is essentially a health problem in the home. The correct perspectives can be gained by comparing risk and expenditure with other health problems. But in New Jersey, as elsewhere, responsibility for radon was handed to a Department of Environmental Protection that was already heavily concerned with regulation of nuclear materials and work-place exposures, often within the context of nuclear and chemical industry.

The New Jersey reaction to radon.

What follows is an illustration of a widespread problem: how response to an issue can be determined by the choice of responsible persons. Radon in New Jersey is (merely) one example amongst many, and unexceptional.

New Jersey has developed a wide-ranging program for training and certification of radon mitigators, specialists and technicians. This has gone further than probably any other State program, but there has been some vehement criticism both within New Jersey and elsewhere as to the bureaucratic and/or unnecessarily strict nature of laws that have been proposed or enacted.

A series of certification courses have been developed in parallel with those of the EPA. If an individual or a corporate body passes some of the EPA tests or examinations, this does not necessarily qualify them for work in New Jersey because they have to pass the local exams also.

In common with the EPA, RCP (Radon Contractor Proficiency) and RMP (Radon Measurement Proficiency) programmes, the NJ schemes are fee-funded with what have proved to be unpopular rates for examination, testing and submission of documents. Many of the examinations and tests are now performed by private companies under the guidance of NJEPD.

Legislation for control of radon measurement and mitigation companies.

The following extracts from NJ legislation are included to illustrate the scope of the regulations.

"Radon or radon progeny testing may only be performed by certified radon measurement specialists or certified radon measurement technicians."

"A certified radon measurement business shall have its Department radon certification number prominently displayed on each measurement device and/or package it utilises."

"The Department and its representatives may enter and inspect any site, building or equipment or any portion thereof owned or operated by an applicant or by the certified radon measurement or mitigation business, at any time, in order to ascertain compliance or noncompliance with the Radiation Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2D-1 et seq., this subchapter, any certification, or any other agreement or order issued or entered into pursuant thereto."

"All new employees or consultants of a certified radon measurement business or certified radon mitigation business who will be entering structures with unknown radon levels or radon levels above 4 pCi/l for purposes of radon or radon progeny measurement, or designing, installing or repairing radon mitigation systems shall be instructed by the certified radon measurement specialist or certified radon mitigation specialist of the business on proper radiation safety practices prior to entering such a structure, in accordance with the businesses' radiological safety plan. Each new employee shall be required to take and pass a test on radiation safety."

It should be noted that such requirements would apply to many houses in Devon and Cornwall, where the radon level is above 4 pCi/l (150 Bq/m³).

"Where the radon level is unknown or above 4 pCi/l all radon testers and mitigation workers shall respond to questions or concerns of clients in a low radon area, for example, upper floors or patios during field visits".

"Work breaks/lunches shall not be taken in elevated radon areas"

"Smoking by employees shall not be permitted in buildings being mitigated."

Despite some interest in so doing, New Jersey has not found it possible to legislate against advertising because this would infringe the Freedom of the Press. However, to supplement any commercial material handed to homeowners, mitigating companies are required to give a NJEPD guidance document on screening and follow-up to householders.

Penalties within NJ are severe. Any company who attempts to undertake radon testing or mitigation and who is not licensed to do so will be guilty of a crime of the third degree, which entails up to a $7,500 fine in addition to between 3 to 5 years in jail.

Radon mitigation or testing in NJ seems only for the brave, and of course for the lawyers.

In contrast, in New York it is the Health Department that has the lead responsibility for radon. Increasingly, it is considered that this is more appropriate than assessing radon using the same risk factors as used for environmental issues.

New York has a different view than NJ, and it will be interesting to see how the two approaches develop. To date the NY State Health Department has collected over 30,000 basement screening results and over 30,000 from other floor levels. However, these were obtained over a ten year period, and are not indicative of a panic reaction to radon. Generally results are low with only a few school rooms reported as over 20 pCi/l (740 Bq/m³).

Other States, for example Florida and Iowa, are to some extent following the example of NJ. Mandatory testing of all schools has been undertaken in Florida, and with 20% of all rooms to be tested each year. It has been reported that over 300,000 radon results have now been obtained from 30,000 Florida buildings, a sizeable fraction of the total of all monitoring to date in the USA!

Other States have performed less than 1000 measurements, but they do not have the known problems of some regions in Florida. Other States have also proposed or enacted certification for radon measurement companies, and some for radon mitigation companies. These include California, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Ohio and Washington State.

Overall, the NJ approach is seen by some commentators as being a case of government officials going well beyond what is necessary or desirable. However, once local politicians agree on a course of action and the money is made available then obviously State staff will work within the agreed programme.

Concluding remarks.

The emphasis within NJ may be seen in the context of the Department responsible being that of Environmental Protection, which has the remit also for dealing with radiation risks from nuclear plants. Indeed all their risk calculations seem more biased towards these situations than health issues generally.

A substantial amount of consumer protection legislation has been enacted but this is almost exclusively regulatory as regards the setting up and operation of companies. There is little in the way of inspection of work or of cost effectiveness, despite that provision for inspection is built into the legislation.

It may be noted also that NJ and a few other States are embarking on ambitious educational programs aimed at schoolchildren with the intention of using the pressure that children can bring upon their parents to have homes tested for radon. This is seen to be a more effective route than trying to encourage the parents directly.

Washington State has developed a School Radon Manual to assist in resolution of radon problems, but nowhere in the USA amidst all the clamour and thousands of computerised analyses of results does it seem to be appreciated that the integrated dose at school to any individual is low, even at high radon levels - see Section 27.

Radon programs on the scale of that in NJ are developing in several other States, and often driven largely by real-estate pressures. Again, there seems to be little appreciation of relative risk.

SeeRed home page