Indoor air pollution Radon levels in some Maine houses exceed the OSHA standard for uranium mines. Such findings have been partly responsible

for a change in EPA policy on indoor air pollution.

The common attitude toward indoor air quality is nonchalance. Generally, we believe that it is an aspect of our lives that is no problem and is under our control. We have a feeling that we can sense when indoor air deteriorates and that we can do something such as limiting smoking by occupants or opening windows to improve the air. Some of us may believe that the air quality in an office building or public building is less subject to personal control, but even about this, we are not usually greatly concerned, unless we are working in a building where many of the employees seem to be feeling sick for no apparent reason.

Witnesses at an August hearing held by two subcommittees of the House Committee on Science and Technology gave evidence that the air quality in some buildings is definitely dangerous to health. They said that high levels of certain pollutants such as radon and nitrogen dioxide would be entirely undetectable to the occupants without special instruments for mea­suring air pollution, but agreed that they could not assess the overall mag­nitude of the problem for the country without a concerted research effort.

Demetrios Moschandreas, research director at the Research Institute of the Illinois Institute of Technology, said, "Presently, using anecdotal re­search, we have sufficient data to sus­pect a potential problem." But he also noted that the overall quality of indoor air in U.S. housing is unknown. An­thony Nero of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory believes that the problem is definitely serious: "Exposure to some indoor pollutants has the potential to cause thousands of extra deaths each year. . . . Our studies of health effects indicate that even average levels of some pollutants are reason for sub­stantial concern, while in some build­ings, levels of some pollutants are of great concern."

Outdoors, the average concentra­tions of most of the priority pollutants

^~ΞΞ

"Whadya mean there's a reactor in my basement!"

0013-936X/83/0916-0469A$01.50/0 © 1983 American Chemical Society Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 10, 1983 469A

have decreased in the past 10 years. Of the six criteria pollutants, only N 0 2 levels have increased recently in sev­eral urban areas. In contrast, the av­erage indoor air has probably become less pure in the past decade.

This is primarily because electricity and fuel have become more expensive and, to save energy, we have reduced the ventilation rates in many new and older structures by insulating them and sealing them up. Also, more people live in mobile homes, which generally have lower ventilation rates than conven­tional houses. Another factor causing a decline in indoor air quality is that a large fraction of the population has begun to heat their houses with wood stoves and unvented kerosene heaters. Both of these can cause problems for indoor air. Sales of wood-burning stoves in the U.S. increased from fewer than 200 000 in 1972 to approximately 1.5 million in 1981. About three mil­lion kerosene heaters were being op­erated during the winter of 1981-82. A third factor is the increased use of synthetic building materials, some of which emit rather large amounts of formaldehyde.

Because of these developments and because the typical American spends 80-90% of his or her time indoors, the average air that each person breathes over the course of a day may be less pure than it was 10 years ago, despite the improvement in outdoor air quali­ty. Peter Preuss of the Consumer Product Safety Commission testified that outdoors there were 241 million person days of exposure to unhealthy levels of NO2 in 1981, most of which occurred in the Los Angeles basin, but that indoors there were one to one and a half billion person days of exposure to unhealthy concentrations of NO2 in 1982 from the use of unvented gas heaters and kerosene heaters.

Natural radon A number of pollutants are some­

times found in rather high concentra­tions in indoor air. John D. Spengler, associate professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, said that some of the more important indoor contaminants are tobacco smoke, radon, carbon monoxide, ni­trogen dioxide, asbestos fibers, form­aldehyde, chlordane, microorganisms, and aeroallergens. From the perspec­tive of those familiar with the indoor air quality issue, the testimony about radon at the August hearing was probably the newest and most startling information. Data about the high lev­els of indoor radon that have been found in recent measurements have not

been widely publicized. As is the case with most indoor

contaminants, not enough measure­ments of radon have been made to give an accurate picture of how extensive overall exposure is throughout the country. However, radon is different from most indoor contaminants in that its health effects are well-known compared to those of other pollutants. Spengler testified that the health ef­fects of radon are the clearest of all indoor contaminants and that the risk of these effects is also comparatively well defined from studies of uranium miners and other hard-rock miners who were exposed to radon in poorly ventilated mines.

Radon gas is one of the radioactive elements evolved as uranium decays. Some areas of the country, especially granitic regions and phosphate-mining regions, have high levels of both ura­nium and radium in the soil and rock. These areas are located primarily in the New England states (especially Maine), along the eastern side of the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsyl­vania and Virginia, in Florida, and in granitic, uranium, or other mineral-bearing areas of the West. In such re­gions high concentrations of radon in indoor air can result from two path­ways—soil and groundwater. Radon diffuses out of the soil through cracks and other entrances into buildings where it is trapped by the structural shell. The groundwater in such regions may also contain high levels of radon, and if it is used as the water supply from a well, it can cause high levels of airborne radon. The radon gas builds up in the water pipes and outgasses to the air when the water is used. Sprayer devices such as showers and dish­washers are likely to give the user a larger radon dose. Radon can also be emitted from building materials. At first these were considered the primary source, but recent investigations have shown that they are not the usual cause.

The principal ways of keeping radon out of a structure are aerating the water or filtering it with charcoal if radon-rich water is used, and filling any cracks or other openings where radon might enter into the basement and living quarters. Also, increasing ventilation rates by opening windows or using air-to-air heat exchangers prevents radon from building up to high levels.

Radon decays to radioactive daughter elements that attach them­selves to particles in the air and may then be deposited in the walls of the lung. Because radon is an inert gas, the

primary health risk is not from radon itself but from the radon decay prod­ucts such as polonium-218, lead-214, and bismuth-214. The major health effects from these seem to be lung cancer and some nasal cancers. There is a risk of stomach cancer from drinking water containing radon, but the risk is much smaller than that of the lung cancer that might result from airborne radon daughters.

University of Maine researchers estimate that a person drinking water with 20 000 pico-Curies/L (pCi/L) of radon for 60 years would have one chance in 500 of dying from stomach cancer. In contrast, the risk of dying from lung cancer is 1% for each 4 pCi/L of lifetime exposure to airborne radon. The one existing nonoccupa­tional federal standard for indoor radon is applicable only to structures built in contaminated areas around inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Published by EPA in January 1983, it states that the indoor air must contain less than about 3 pCi/L (Table 1).

The Terradex Corporation (Walnut Creek, Calif.) has measured radon in a number of houses in the U.S. H. Ward Alter, president of the cor­poration, testified that a substantial fraction of the houses his company monitored exceed the EPA standard (Table 2). Although the number of houses tested is a very small portion of the total number of dwellings in high-risk areas, the results indicate that there are many houses, especially in Pennsylvania, Maine, and other areas of the Northeast, that exceed the EPA 3-pCi/L standard. (None of these buildings are located close to uranium mill tailings.)

In Pennsylvania, Terradex found that the radon levels in 15% of the houses measured exceed 20 pCi/L. If a family is exposed for a lifetime to this level of radiation, their total exposure lies in the range known to cause lung cancer in uranium miners. Alter stated that "these statistics imply that thou­sands of radon-related lung cancer cases may occur in Pennsylvania [over the course of 50 years] unless appro­priate measurement and remedial ac­tion are undertaken." By contrast, calculations show that less than one cancer death in 50 years might result from the radiation released during the Three Mile Island accident. Another way to look at the problem is to observe that a person living in a house with 3 pCi/L of airborne radon is exposed to about 3000 millirems of radiation each year, in contrast to the average annual exposure of 0.3 millirems that a person receives from nuclear power plants.

470A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 10, 1983

Radon can enter a building in a variety of ways

Crawl space ;

Building material · ,•!;.•

/ Dishwasher,

p = shower, etc. Ventilation

Basement

i

\ Greenhouse

Τ Opening Crack

= Laundry Crack

Pore

Well water

Source: University of Maine, February 1983

Soil gas

Rock + soil emanating radon

TABLE 1 Airborne radon standards for buildings Houses built on uranium mine

wastes in U.S. < 3 pCi/L

Phosphate mining regions in Florida

4 pCi/L: remedial action required

2 pCi/L: reduction to a reasonably feasible level required

Uranium mining regions in Canada

30 pCi/L: prompt remedial action required 4 pCi/L: remedial action required 2 pCi/L: investigation recommended

Sweden (maximum levels) permitted)

11 pCi/L (existing buildings) 5 pCi/L (houses undergoing remodeling) 2 pCi/L (new houses)

Union of Concerned Scientists

> 5 pCi/L: remedial action indicated 2-5 pCi/L: remedial action suggested

TABLE 2 Indoor radon results in the U.S.

Location

Number of

measurements

Highest reading (pCI/L)

Percent> 4 pCI/L

Northern California 80 7.4 15

Midwest 64 7.4 20

South 304 2.7 0

Northeast 133 77 20

New York 413 50 15

Pennsylvania 249 91 42

Maine 427 133 21

Other U.S. Total

826 2496

. . . . . .

Source: Testimony of H. Ward Alter President, Terradex Corporation, August 1983

Charles T. Hess, professor of phys­ics at the University of Maine (Orono) has been studying indoor radon for a number of years. At the hearing, he testified that "in granitic areas [of Maine], some of the [indoor] air con­centrations exceed the OSHA stan­dard for radon in uranium mines [>66 pCi/L]." He said that the radon levels in certain drilled wells in Maine are very high (up to 700 000 pCi/L) and that the average well has a concen­tration of 10 000 pCi/L. Generally, 10 000 pCi/L in the well water will produce 1.0 pCi/L in the indoor air. He stated that University of Maine researchers estimate that the risk of dying from lung cancer would be 1% for each 4 pCi/L of lifetime exposure to airborne radon and that this level is not at all unusual in Maine houses. According to his calculations, 88 ex­cess lung cancer deaths could result annually in Maine from exposure to high levels of radon from well water. Rough estimates he has made of radon exposure throughout the U.S. show that 5000-20 000 excess lung cancers could result each year from indoor radon. Hess also stated that radon in indoor air is the largest single source of ionizing radiation for the public— "larger than medical radiation, other natural radiation, occupational ra­diation, or nuclear fallout" (Table 3).

Passive smoking Tobacco smoke is another indoor

contaminant that was emphasized at the hearing. Jan Solwijk, chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale University School of Medicine, testified that the evidence about passive smoking is not altogether conclusive. He noted, however, that "there is a clear indica­tion that on sensitive individuals the effects of [sidestream] tobacco smoke can be quite disabling." Spengler said that "the evidence is becoming more clear that children who live with par­ents who smoke have a higher rate of respiratory disease." He observed that more than half the population, 60%, live in houses where there is at least one smoker.

The average nonsmoker is a passive smoker of about three cigarettes a day, according to a witness from EPA, James Repace. He has made a rough calculation that about 5000 people die from passive smoking each year. This estimate should be viewed with caution because scientists agree that insuffi­cient research has been done to make accurate estimates of mortality from passive smoking. Only one person at

Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 10, 1983 471A

TABLE 3

Annual radiation exposure from all sources a

Source Mlltirems

Radon decay products6 80

Medical irradiation 50

Terrestrial gamma rays6 38

Internal irradiation 6 37

Cosmic radiation 6 31

Fallout 1

Occupational exposure 0.9

Miscellaneous sources 0.8

Nuclear power 0.3

"Data from U.K. NRPB Bulletin 39 ""Natural" radiation

EPA, Repace, worked on passive smoking during the past year.

Coordinated research effort Although the data collected in the

past several years give scientists some understanding of indoor air quality, the witnesses at the hearing, including the EPA witness, Donald Ehreth, generally agreed that a concerted in­teragency effort is needed to assess the magnitude of the problem and devise additional ways to combat it. Spengler said that "an overall strategy should be developed to investigate indoor expo­sures, health effects, control options, and public policy alternatives." He proposed a national survey of exposure to indoor air pollutants as one of the first steps in the process because thus far indoor air quality has been mea­sured in only a small sample, about 3000 out of 80 million U.S. residences. The witnesses said that a number of agencies, including EPA, the Depart­ment of Energy (DOE), and the De­partment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS) , should be involved since many different federal agencies have research responsibilities for indoor air quality. There was general agreement that EPA should lead such an intera­gency effort, with DOE, H H S , and CPSC (the Consumer Product Safety Commission) sharing some of the leadership responsibility.

An interagency group for indoor air quality research was established in 1979. It was cochaired by DOE and EPA. It met regularly and helped coordinate research between federal agencies until Anne Gorsuch became EPA administrator. At that time, the EPA leadership lost interest in indoor air and the group met rarely if ever.

Indoor air research probably reached its lowest point at EPA in late

1982 when zero funding was requested for this effort for FY 1984. At that time agency officials repeatedly stated that EPA has no regulatory authority over indoor air quality, and thus had no need to perform indoor air research. DOE's Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy followed in EPA's footsteps and requested no funds at all for indoor air research for FY 1984. Congress negated the decisions of both agencies by appropriating $2 million for indoor air research at EPA and $1.6 million for the Office of Conser­vation and Renewable Energy at DOE.

Therefore, EPA's strong plea at the hearing for a coordinated interagency research effort was strikingly different from previous statements made during the Reagan administration. It is al­leged that the way in which this testi­mony was approved was a significant departure from normal practice. Policy changes for federal agencies are usu­ally developed long before they are presented at a hearing. In this case, the policy was apparently made in the process of approving the testimony.

All agency testimony must be ap­proved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before it is pre­sented to a Congressional committee. According to several EPA sources and members of the staffs of the congres­sional subcommittees involved, OMB initially rejected the testimony. It wanted the following sentence stricken from the statement: "EPA has the statutory authority to protect public health from indoor air pollution and other airborne contaminants, as re­quired by the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Federal In­secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and the Uranium Mill Tailings Act." In place of this, sources say, OMB wanted EPA to justify indoor air research by saying that Congress had appropriated money for it. OMB ap­parently preferred that statutory au­thority for such research not be given.

After the testimony had been re­jected by OMB and on the day before the hearing, sources allege that Deputy Administrator Alvin L. Aim person­ally took the testimony to the White House and obtained approval there. This seems to be another instance in which EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus has been able to change EPA policy almost 180 degrees from what it was under Gorsuch-Burford. At the hearing, congressmen expressed delight and approval over the reversal. Rep. James H. Scheuer (D-N.Y.),

chairman of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Re­search and Environment, said, "It 's hard to believe that the same agency that produced this testimony asked for zero funding in FY 1984." EPA's Ehreth answered, "I can only say there has been a change."

Attack on DOE On the second day of hearings, a

major part of the time was spent questioning Joseph J. Tribble, then DOE assistant secretary of Conser­vation and Renewable Energy. Ap­parently, he had canceled three-quar­ters of the indoor air research projects DOE had with Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, even though enough funds had been appropriated to carry on with all of them in FY 1984. The projects that were terminated concerned radon measurements, passive particle sam­plers, building materials emissions, and heat exchangers.

Tribble said he had canceled the projects because he had not been able to find out their details, so was unable to approve them, and because he felt other agencies or the private sector were better equipped to do them. When asked what scientific basis he had for his decisions, he admitted, "None." Reps. Don Fuqua (D-Fla.) and Richard L. Ottinger (D-N.Y.) were highly dissatisfied with Tribble's explanation. Ottinger had in his pos­session a March 1983 internal memo­randum that he had obtained from a member of Tribble's staff which ex­plained many reasons why DOE was most suited to carry on these projects and why they were needed. Members of Tribble's staff allege that his first assistant had the details of the projects since March, long before they were canceled. Ottinger concluded his questioning of Tribble by saying, " I don't think you've demonstrated to us that you have back up for the decision that you've made." Two weeks after the hearing, Tribble, who has been under attack for months from the public and members of Congress for allegedly dismantling the govern­ment's conservation programs, re­signed his position at DOE.

EPA's policy in regard to indoor air has changed. It remains to be seen whether DOE's policy will undergo a similar transformation. As in many other areas, DOE seems far more de­termined than EPA to carry on with the original policy laid down at the beginning of the Reagan administra­tion, rather than reappraise what is required to reflect the public's interest.

—Bette Hileman

472A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 10, 1983