An Act amending the act of July 9, 1987 (P.L.238, No.43), known as the Radon Certification Act, further providing for confidentiality of data.
Summary
HB448 amends Pennsylvania’s Radon Certification Act to expand who may receive confidential radon-related data gathered by the Department. Under current law, the department may keep such information confidential and release it only to the property owner. The bill adds an additional category of recipients: a previous owner of the property, but only if that person owned the property during the period when the requested data was collected.
The measure applies to data relating to individuals and to radon gas and radon progeny contamination at nonpublic properties, including residential dwellings. It preserves the act’s general confidentiality framework and the exception for legitimate scientific studies as determined by the department, while clarifying access rights for former owners. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB448 would amend Section 9 of the Radon Certification Act, changing the confidentiality rules for radon testing and remediation records held by the Department. The practical effect is to allow former property owners to obtain radon data from the period when they owned the property, which may assist with disclosure, property transactions, remediation history, or potential health-related inquiries. The bill does not broaden public access generally; it keeps the data confidential and limits disclosure to property owners, former owners meeting the bill’s condition, and scientific-study uses approved by the department.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It was reported from the House Environmental and Natural Resource Protection Committee unanimously, 26-0, and then passed the House on final passage by a wide margin, 176-27. The strong committee and floor votes indicate the measure was generally viewed as a narrow, noncontroversial clarification to existing confidentiality law rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record, and no committee transcript is provided. Any potential point of contention would likely center on the balance between confidentiality and access: whether former owners should be allowed to obtain data about a property after they no longer own it, and whether that access could affect privacy protections for current owners or occupants. The final vote margin suggests that, if concerns existed, they were not enough to prevent broad bipartisan support.