Radon fees to increase

The cost of radon system installation is set to increase in Pennsylvania with the recent adoption of new fee regulations from the Department of Environmental Protection.

The new rules, published on Oct. 21, and effective immediately, are being implemented as part of the department’s responsibility to establish “fees in amounts at least sufficient to cover the costs of the radiation protection programs” mandated by law. In short, the costs of running the state radon program have increased, and these fees are being increased to cover them.

The most direct impact on real estate transactions is a new $50 “radon system mitigation fee” that must be paid by the system installer. Though there is no requirement that this fee be passed on to the end consumer, it seems likely that this will be the case. In addition, the fees for most radon-related licenses and certifications are being increased by 50 percent. This applies to testing and mitigation services, as well as to dozens of radioactive material licenses that have nothing to do with real estate.

In implementing the new fee, DEP cited that “the cost of testing for radon and installing a mitigation system, if needed, is a small percentage of the overall costs of real estate transactions and should not be an impediment to homeownership.” The department estimates there are about 8,000 radon systems installed in a given year because “the radon levels in this commonwealth are much higher than most other parts of the United States. If a mitigation system is needed and installed, the health concern can be mitigated. This benefit to the purchaser and any future occupants of the home outweighs the cost of the increased fee.”

PAR has been involved in this issue since mid-2015. We’ve met with radon mitigators to discuss potential impacts, and have had several conversations and meetings with DEP to express PAR’s concerns about these increases. In addition, PAR provided a formal comment letter in August 2016, in which we asked them to reconsider the fees in light of possible transactional costs. Though PAR was not successful in this regard, we do believe that these efforts led to the elimination of other potentially burdensome language in the original draft regulations.