Proposed Illinois Radon legislation

The following is an amendment pending to the Illinois State Residential Real Property Act:

“Amends the Residential Real Property Act. Provides that prior to the sale of a residential property, the seller must have the property tested for radon and radon progeny by a licensed radon contractor and furnish the prospective buyer with the test results. Provides that if the test reveals that radon is present at a level in excess of 4.0 (pCi/L) pico curies per liter of air in the indoor atmosphere of the residential real property, the seller must mitigate, repair, or alter the premises to reduce the radon level to below 4.0 (pCi/L) or give the prospective buyer notice of the right to terminate the sale agreement without loss of any earnest money or down payment. Effective July 1, 2007*.”*
Good idea or bad?


Hi to all,

Will, it strikes me as a little “heavy handed” I am not aware of any state that mandates Radon testing prior to sale.

As to whether it is in the public interest, well, maybe that arguement can be made.

How much Radon is there in your area?



Zone 1Highest Potential (greater than 4 pCi/L)

Zone 2Moderate Potential (from 2 to 4 pCi/L)

Zone 3Low Potential (less than 2 pCi/L)

If you live in the yellow zone it is probably a bad idea.

Hi to all,

Will here is the answer:



Hmm Where have I seen that before? :wink:


We were told, in a recent state approved CE course on Radon, by the Illinois Emergency Managementg Agency, that it is common for one house to have above 4.0 pCi measured while the house, right next door, measures fine.

Many developers around here are installing what the call “Passive Radon Mitigation Systems”, which consist of a PVC pipe going from below the slab to the outside. They don’t really do anything, but are very easy and inexpensive to convert with the addition of a blower fan and manometer.

I guess it’s a case of ‘give a legislator an excuse and they will pass a law, whether one is needed or not’.

I take no side, just trying to notify Illinois inspectors and inform the rest of NACHI about trends that may become more widespread.

Why, Brian?

If you live in a yellow zone, aren’t you more likely to not have a test above 4.0? And if you do, wouldn’t you like to know.

I like the ‘seller must’ part. Better disclosure. Also, this will be a boon to Radon testers.

State licensed radon inspectors using state licensed labs. Mandatory. Certainly not a good thing for Pro-Lab.

More goofy Illinois state controls.

Why is not using Pro-Lab “goofy”?

Why are you so obsesed with a state neighboring yours that you have to post, negatively and non-helpfully, every time something occurs in Illinois? You practice in Missiouri, not Illinois. Why so critical.

It is one thing to disagree with some of the laws in your state (I certainly do). But, one has to deal with the cards that are dealt.

I don’t write the laws here and neither do the HIs in Illinois. But I do have to live with them and obey them.

Did you ask for input…or more pats on the back? Sorry. I must have gotten my Decker posts mixed up, here.:roll:

No Jim;

I was asking for comments and ideas and reasons and discussion. I was not looking for more of your slams of Illinois.

You were not answering the question or helpfully commenting. You were slamming Illinois.

i.e. ‘goofy Illinois lstate controls’ is not a useful comment.


He asked for more assinine comments from a tool who has nothing better to do than slam a neighboring state who’s laws, said tool does not have to abide by.

Sorry every post doesn’t pertain to you. We’ll do our best to improve upon those deficiencies! :roll:

I think your proposed law, like your existing law, and like the one proposed for Florida and Washington…are ridiculous. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Did you draft it?

Glad you could share your feelings about a law that doesn’t pertain to you.

I know I was lying awake wondering what inspectors in MO thought of our laws.

I do however, admire the MO law that states that drunkeness is an inalienable right.

Good to know you’re availing yourself of that right James!

You’re welcome.

My first reaction to this is, that it might be good for the public. The negative I see right off the bat is…If an HI presently performs Radon, He will not be getting that business from his client anymore. When he is called by a buyer to perform the Property Inspection, the buyer won’t be concerned with purchasing this test from him because the “Seller” has the responsibility. The “Seller” probably won’t or can’t use the buyers inspector to perform the Radon test because of conflict of interest potential. This could mean that now the HI has to increase his marketing efforts for Radon only to be able to keep the sales of Radon tests up for his company. It now means that there are possibly going to be two HI’s on site at the property in the same time frame, thus increasing competition with cards and brochures to Realtors, Sellers and anyone else involved with the transaction of that property. Thus Referrals that we normally might see from one property inspection just might decrease with the extra competition on one property.

Those are my initial thoughts.

I never said it was.

I am critical of all attempts made to socialize our profession. Your state is no exception.

These cards aren’t dealt yet. This is proposed legislation, not law. You are stuck with your silly home inspection licensing law…but this one still has a chance to be defeated.

No one ever suggested otherwise.

Hope this helps.:wink:

And good ones, too, IMO.

With the passage of each new law regulating or otherwise controlling the industry, a piece of freedom and the opportunity to apply ones own judgment or initiative is lost. You never get it back.

If radon is really an issue in Illinois that requires a law and such attention…for a moment, let’s pretend that it is…why is your legislature limiting these inspections to homes being sold?

Isn’t the danger more prevalant to the poor folks living in the home for 35 or 40 years…breathing that radon in every breath? Why does the care of your legislators rest only upon the new tenant and not the one who chooses not to sell, but to live in the home?

Why is there not a law being proposed that would simply require all homes be tested for radon within the next 10 years, and a report of that inspection being attached to the deed, along with receipts for remediation (when appropriate)?

Radon in Illinois is a problem…or it is not. The dangers are real for those living in these homes…or it is not. The danger does not increase when a “for sale” sign is placed in the yard.

This law is a sham.

Of course, Jim. Most laws are a sham.

They are, first and foremost, an attempt to get the legislators re-elected, and doing so by having the public pay for the priviledge.

An imperfect system, but the one we, in America, are stuck with.

To your point. Many of the older houses, with people living in them for 20 to 30 years, are not GFCI or AFCI protected. By your logic, since GFCI and AFCI protection makes the house safer (and we can agree to disagree on that) why not require that whenever there is a new technology that makes a house safer, that the state should mandate that every house be upgraded to the new standard?

This would highlight the ‘grandfathering’ joke that has existed for years, would it not.

Whenever I do an inspection, I am required to call things out in such a way as to provide information to the client that will:

  1. Make the house safer (regardless of its age).
  2. Make the house retain its value (integrety, not sale price) longer.

Again, I am not saying that I am in agreement with this legislation. But it will, (if passed) make the house safer and better protect my client’s lives, won’t it?

Isn’t that the point?