Radon and Whose Responsibility

House Sale Affected By Radon

new_york_times:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DC1F3CF934A35753C1A966958260&sec=&spon=
By JOSEPH F. SULLIVAN
Published: October 7, 1990
LEAD: THE potential health risks posed by radon, a colorless, odorless gas that can collect in the home, may have become another item on the checklist of things that must be handled before a house sale is closed and the keys turned over.
THE potential health risks posed by radon, a colorless, odorless gas that can collect in the home, may have become another item on the checklist of things that must be handled before a house sale is closed and the keys turned over.
Radon occurs naturally from the decay of radioactive material in the ground and dissipates in the open air. It can also seep into the basements of homes through cracks in the foundation or other openings, like sump pits, and if it collects in sufficiently high concentrations, the gas can increase the risk of cancer in those exposed to it over a long period of time.
Susan McGuinness, director of governmental affairs for the New Jersey Association of Realtors, said that over the last three years, the organization has conducted seminars for members on how to handle public concern about the problem and distributed 70,000 brochures discussing radon, methods of detection and possible solutions.
''We have an obligation to disclose what we know about a problem when helping an owner sell a house,'' she said. ''It is a major health threat.'' Easy to Detect
Gerald P. Nicholls, assistant director of the State Division of Environmental Quality, said that radon was easy to detect with the proper equipment and that most problems could be corrected at a cost of $800 to $1,200.
Although radon problems are manageable, the fear that radon engenders is real, and recently a contract dispute between a home buyer and a builder solely over the question of radon made its way to the courtroom of Judge Patrick J. McGann Jr. of State Superior Court in Freehold.
In January 1989, Robert and Lorraine Steiner of Woodbridge hired Robert R. Strano, a principal in Ocean Manor Estates in Oakhurst, to build a $310,000 home for them. The possible presence of radon was a major concern to the Steiners. Mr. Steiner had read a great deal on the subject, according to the trial testimony, and had tested his Woodbridge home for any problems.
Mr. Strano, who was generally aware of radon, had no particular concern about the problem and agreed to let the Steiners add any ''radon clause'' to the contract that they wished. An 'Option to Remedy'
The clause said that if the level of radon in the premises was not at or below 4.01 picocuries per liter of air, ''the seller shall have the option to remedy the condition so as to reduce the level of radon gas to a safe level or to cancel the contract of sale.''
The clause also said that ''the purchaser, however, retains the right to correct the radon gas problem at their own cost and expense or to cancel the contract.''
In October 1989, when the house was nearing completion, Mr. Steiner brought a radon consultant to the job site. The consultant placed two charcoal containers in the basement for 48 hours while the house was closed and then sent one to a testing laboratory and the second to another.
The test readings were 4.6 and 4.8 picocuries, and Mr. Steiner informed Mr. Strano that he was electing to cancel the contract. He asked for return of his $61,000 down payment.
The ensuing hearing in July before Judge McGann attracted attention when it appeared that it might set a precedent that would allow buyers to back off from a sale because of the presence of radon.
But Judge McGann found the radon clause written by Mr. Steiner confusing and the radon test he conducted ''unfair,'' and said Mr. Steiner never gave Mr. Strano a chance to ameliorate the problem, something the clause seemed to call for. Other Tests Conducted
When Mr. Steiner visited the site, a sump pit and a French drain in the basement and around the house were uncovered. When other radon tests were conducted by Mr. Strano's consultants after the openings were covered, the radon readings were 0.5 and 1.9 picocuries.
Mr. Nicholls, the state radiation expert, said a radon level of 4.0 picocuries was not a hard-and-fast sign of danger.
''It's simply the level at which we recommended further testing be done and the homeowner consider taking some remedial steps,'' he said. ''And we recommend that tests be conducted over a long period of time, six months to a year, to get a true reading of the average radon level.''
Judge McGann ordered the Steiners to proceed with the closing of their house with Mr. Strano. Paul T. Jamison, a lawyer with the law firm of Karasic & Stone, who represented Mr. Strano, said that while the case did not produce the type of guidelines that might help judges decide future radon cases, it did seem to establish that it would take more than one radon test to declare a dwelling potentially unsafe.