Voluntary Criteria for Radon Credentialing Organizations

The EPA submittied a “Notice of Intent To Establish Voluntary Criteria for Radon Credentialing Organizations” in the August 23 Federal Register. Evidently, they want public feedback on a proposed approach for developing voluntary criteria for organizations that credential radon service providers. The deadline for public comments is October 23.

I have personally considered the possibility of joining a credentialing association other than InterNACHI and IAC2 in the future. However, I’d prefer to keep my national memberships limited in order to apply such funds to local professional and networking groups.

Will InterNACHI be submitting feedback on the issue?

The notice identified radon service providers as stake-holders who should also consider submitting comments. Should we leverage our certified radon tester community in this effort?

The notice can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA_FRDOC_0001-21169

I’m quite certain that the EPA will include InterNACHI as a Radon Credentialing Organization since everyone already recognizes InterNACHI as a Radon Credentialing Organization including:

Approvals:

Alaska Department of Commerce Community and Economic Development, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, Home Inspector Program
American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists AARST
Building Performance Institute (BPI)
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Home Inspector Licensing Board
Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR)
Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
IAC2
InterNACHI
International Association of Professional Contractors
International Code Council ICC
Mississippi Home Inspector Board
National Radon Proficiency Program NRPP
North Carolina Home Inspector Licensure Board
PRO-LAB
Radalink
South Dakota Real Estate Commission
Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, Division of Regulatory Boards, Home Inspector Licensing Division
Washington State Department of Licensing Home Inspection Services

Approvals Related To Radon Certification Programs:

Alabama Department of Public Health
Alaska
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
Arkansas Department of Health
California Department of Health Radon Services
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Delaware Radon Program
Florida
District of Columbia Department of Environment
State of Georgia
Hawaii Indoor Air Quality Program
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Illinois
Indiana State Department of Health
Iowa Department of Health
Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s Radon Program
Kentucky Department of Health Radon Program
Louisiana
Maine Division of Environmental Health Radon Section
Maryland
Massachusetts Health and Human Services
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Department of Health
Mississippi Radon Program
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services
Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Radon Program
New Mexico
New York Department of Health
North Carolina
North Dakota Department of Health Radon Program
Ohio Department of Health
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Radon Program
Oregon Department of Public Health Radon Program
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Health Radon Program
South Carolina
South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Tennessee Radon Program
Texas Radiation Control Program
Utah
Vermont Department of Health
Virginia Radon Program
Washington State Department of Health
West Virginia Radiation, Toxics & indoor Air Division
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
Wyoming Department of Health

Thanks for the reply, Nick.

The public notice seemed to be soliciting comments from interested stakeholders about the process rather than the actual credentialing partners. I thought it might be a good opportunity to either suggest changes to the program for our membership interest, or to confirm its adequacy.

I did not see it as an opportunity to suggest particular training partners should be removed as participants.

I read it and I didn’t feel compelled to comment on anything. Nothing jumped out at me. And with the EPA, you’re probably talking about years and years of mulling over it before they do anything. They are slower than molasses in January.