Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume I and II

RADON 1051

Measurement Program^15 and meet other quality assurance

objectives.

Follow-Up Testing

As residents tested for radon and remediated their radon prob-

lems, they requested access to reliable, unbiased radon test-

ing which would enable them to determine whether or not the

remediation methods employed were effective. In response

to these requests, DEP began a program of testing remedi-

ated homes at no charge to the owner. As of December 1,

1987, a total of 774 homeowners had availed themselves of

this service. In general, these follow up tests document the

effectiveness of the remedial actions employed. When they

do not, DEP staff advise both the homeowner and the con-

tractor and then assist in working out a mutually acceptable

solution.

Radon Cluster Identification

In March of 1986, through the Confirmatory Monitoring

program, the DEP became aware of several homes in Clinton,

New Jersey which had unusually high concentrations of

indoor radon. The DEP and Department of Health worked

closely with municipal and county officials to identify other

homes in the area which also had very high radon levels.

In one neighborhood in Clinton, 105 homes were found to

be above 4 pCi/1. Forty of the 105 homes were found to be

above 200 pCi/1 and five of the forty homes were found to

be above 1000 pCi/1.

Through the cooperation of government at all levels,

what could have been a disaster for the community became

a solvable problem. The DEP, the Department of Health and

local officials provided information on radon and access to

testing for those judged to be at significant risk. The munici-

pal government participated fully in all the decision making

with regard to the State activities in Clinton and offered

access to random testing at reduced cost to all residents.

The EPA was invited to extend their radon remediation

research program begun in Boyertown, Pennsylvania into

New Jersey. EPA remediated ten of the highest radon level

homes at no cost to the occupants and provided detailed

specifications for the remediation of twenty more homes.

The successful remedial techniques developed in Clinton

have been adapted to hundreds of other homes in northern

New Jersey.

Due to the experience of finding a clustering of high radon

level homes in Clinton, the DEP and Department of Health

TABLE 2

Initial results statewide scientific study of radon, home radon testing results by county

County

Average Radon

concentration

(pCi/1)

Median radon

concentration

(pCi/1)

Number of

samples

Range

(pCi/1)

Atlantic 0.75 0.60 23 0.4− 3

Bergen 1.85 1.14 234 0.3–43

Burlington 1.80 1.20 245 0.3–28

Camden 2.27 1.55 66 0.3–9

Cape May 1.43 0.50 18 0.4–8

Cumberland 1.79 1.10 29 03–12

Essex 1.23 0.90 116 0.4–5

Gloucester 3.12 1.10 27 0.4–34

Hudson 2.47 1.00 29 0.4–34

Hunterdon 6.88 3.40 732 0.1–112

Mercer 4.46 1.80 371 0.1–83

Middlesex 2.16 1.10 327 0.2–28

Monmouth 2.68 1.30 305 0.3–38

Morris 5.13 2.30 625 0.3–121

Ocean 0.95 0.70 35 0.3–2

Passaic 3.67 1.70 223 0.3–35

Salem 2.49 1.40 78 0.4–36

Somerset 5.20 2.30 469 0.3–91

Sussex 6.47 3.90 620 0.2–127

Union 2.32 1.30 183 0.3–22

Warren 11.83 6.20 603 0.4–246

Statewide 5.4 2.2 5288 0.1–246

C018_002_r03.indd 1051C018_002_r03.indd 1051 11/18/2005 11:04:58 AM11/18/2005 11:04:58 AM