Radon Demonstration: Application of Building Code Changes in Winnipeg New Home Construction. April 2014

Transcription

1 Radon Demonstration: Application of Building Code Changes in Winnipeg New Home Construction April 2014

2 Contents Summary... 2 Background... 3 Project Details... 4 The Stakeholders... 4 Parameters... 4 Findings... 7 National Building Code 2010 Education... 7 Radon Measurements Evaluation National Building Code 2010 Education Part 9 Basic Protection Part 9 Specific Provisions Radon Measurements Suggestions Actions Outcome Evidence Photos References Appendix A: Radon Measurements Page 1

3 Summary This radon demonstration aims to raise awareness of radon mitigation features in new home construction which will ultimately lead to a reduction in radon induced lung cancer. Evidence gathered at the Fall 2013 Winnipeg Parade of Homes indicated the application of the National Building Code 2010 changes with respect to radon has progressed since Manitoba adopted The Code in April In addition to the knowledge gained by the home builder and their associated trades, the City of Winnipeg Building Inspector also benefited by seeing hands on the intended outcomes of the 2010 NBC changes with respect to radon resistance. It was also the first time in Manitoba where new home buyers were connected with radon information in a new home construction setting. No obvious correlations between radon levels and the indoor or outdoor environments were observed from the continuous monitoring or alpha track detectors. It is expected that the Contractor s ability to meet, exceed and promote radon in the National Building Code 2010 will lead to industry advancement in the radon prone community of Winnipeg. Page 2

4 Background Objectives To educate building inspectors, new home builders and their associated trades of best practices and compliance to the recent building code changes relating to radon. To improve awareness of realtors, new home buyers and the general public of best practices and compliance to the recent building code changes relating to radon. To relate building characteristics and environmental factors to indoor radon measurements. Scope Upon the adoption of the National Building Code 2010 ( NBC 2010, The Code ) home builders and their associated trades, were not applying all of the changes with respect to the soil gas protection and specifically radon. Confusion surrounding the purpose of the radon rough in, its position and labelling (see Photos 1 and 2), as well as the general health concern from radon still exists more than two years after The Code changes were adopted in Manitoba. This project should not be taken as a complete scientific analysis of the effects of the National Building Code 2010 but rather serve as a demonstration of proper Code application for the community of Winnipeg, specifically for home builders and new home buyers. Page 3

5 Project Details The Stakeholders Health Canada i The Government of Canada reduced the Guideline for exposure to radon in indoor air in 2007 to 200 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m 3 ). Health Canada s National Radon Strategy was designed to educate and inform Canadians of the hazards associated with indoor radon exposure. Public awareness and education activities are intended to raise awareness of radon and the potential health risks from exposure; and to encourage all Canadians to test for radon in their homes and take appropriate measures to reduce levels, if necessary. The Cross Canada Survey of Radon Concentrations in Homes conducted in estimates 19.4% of Manitobans live in homes with radon above the Guideline ii. City of Winnipeg iii The Housing Inspections Section conducts inspections associated with services in four main disciplines of "Residential" construction: Building from the foundation, framework, and interior finishing of the housing structure up to and including the roof. Plumbing from 3 feet outside the building (basement) foundation wall, all drainage waste/venting and potable water pipes. Mechanical indoor mechanical heating, venting systems installed in the residence. Electrical interior and exterior wiring and lighting of a residence. Manitoba Home Builders Association (MHBA) iv Today the MHBA is a non profit trade association whose mandate is to provide its members, the public and all levels of government with ongoing education and information relative to the housing industry. As the voice of the residential construction industry of Manitoba the MHBA is committed to promoting affordability and choice of housing for all Manitobans. The MHBA ensures that its members are kept up to date on the latest developments, building techniques and government regulations. Parameters Waverly West, Winnipeg Three homes constructed by the same home builder, within the same neighbourhood were chosen. House A was designed and constructed to NBC 2010 standards, but completed prior to the study. House B and C were designed to the same standards; however, the Page 4

6 Contractors were able to observe current building practices and make changes during construction National Building Code The 2010 edition of the National Building Code of Canada incorporates significant technical changes from the 2005 edition. The NBC 2010 sets out technical provisions for the design and construction of new buildings. Manitoba adopted the NBC 2010 as the Manitoba Building Code on April 1, The Manitoba Building Code is the minimum requirement for new home construction in Manitoba. Changes made to the NBC 2010 with respect to radon gas protection are outlined below: Bold = additions to the 2010 NBC Strikethrough = deletions from the 2005 NBC Part 9 Basic Protection Applies to all housing and small buildings: Polyethylene soil gas barrier required under slab Slab perimeter sealed to air barrier of the wall All penetrations (i.e. pipes, utilities) sealed Sump pit cover required to be airtight Exemption from fill under slab Part 9 Specific Provisions Exemption where is can be demonstrated that radon is not a problem Subfloor depressurization as an option for dwelling units only: o Testing required o Activating of system required on exceeding limit Polyethylene under slab as an option for dwelling units Rough in for subfloor depressurization is the deemed to comply prescriptive solution with o 100 mm granular fill under slab, o bottom end of exhaust pipe located near centre of slab, o capped, labelled pipe ready for active system, and o polyethylene soil gas barrier required under slab. Page 5

7 NBC 2010 Intentt Statements s v The NBC 2010 Intent Statements serve as the motive for completing this demonstration in an effort to ultimately reduce lung cancer deaths related to radon gas exposure (2): To limit the probability that the remediation of highh indoor radon concentrationn is unnecessarily difficult and costlyy after construction of the building is complete, which could lead to negative effects on the air quality of indoor spaces, which could lead to harm to persons (1): To limit the probability that radon cannot be extracted from between the air barrier and the ground, which could lead to high concentrations of radon inside buildings, which could lead to negative effects onn the air quality of indoor spaces, which could lead to harm to persons (2): To limit the probability that components of a future system for the remediation of high indoor radon concentration will be located inappropriatelyy or be inaccessible for the future installation of exhaust equipment, which could lead to a very difficult and costly installation of connections to the gas permeable layer, the layer beneath the air barrier cannot be depressurized, or Page 6

8 the connections to a future system for the remediation of high indoor radon concentration o will be used for purposes other than radon extraction, o will not be installed, which could lead to the installation of connections in the future being very difficult or costly, and o will not be adequately labelled, which could lead to the connections accidentally being opened or used for other purposes. Continuous Radon Measurement Scout CRMs were placed on the first floor of each home for 76 days starting November 26 th and removed February 10 th. They were returned to the Radiation Protection Bureau for data download. Results were analyzed by the Contractors in partnership with Health Canada. 91 day Alpha Track Detectors Alpha track detectors were placed in duplicate on each of the three levels (basement, first floor, second floor) of each home on November 26 th and removed by March 1 st. Materials 10 mil polyethylene plastic, CSA approved White 4 inch PVC Schedule 40, 636 pipe Solid pressure cap Informative label Polyurethane caulk Acoustical caulking Red sheathing tape Findings National Building Code 2010 Education August 10, 2013 Inspected ground works, found a black 4 inch ABS drain waste vent pipe under the stairs, not run to the centre of the footprint, capped with an orange Schedule 10 test cap, but not glued or labelled (see Photo 7). August 10, 2013 Installed new white 4 inch PVC Schedule 40, 636 rough in pipes at Houses B and C. The pipe was labelled and the cap was glued. Furthermore, the pipe was run into the mechanical room and stubbed up through the ground cover 12 inches away from the outside wall (see Photo 8). Page 7

9 August 12, 2013 Ground works at House B was inspected by the City of Winnipeg building official and passed (see Photo 9). August 12, 2013 Clean gravel was used for entire surface area of the basement. The gravel was clean ¾ inch washed aggregate (see Photo 10). August 14, mil polyethylene CSA approved ground cover was completed at Houses B and C. All vapor barrier penetrations were sealed; acoustical caulking was used to seal the ground cover to the foundation wall. Construction tuck tape was used at the penetration and overlaps; with a minimum of 18 inches overlap (see Photo 11). August 15, 2013 Additional inspection of the ground cover was completed by the City of Winnipeg building official at Houses B and C. August 19, ed the building official to thank him for doing a second inspection of the ground cover prior to the basement slab being poured. August 20, 2013 Polyurethane caulked all the perimeters and penetrations at Houses B and C (see Photo 12). August 20, 2013 The sump pit and all plumbing penetrations were sealed. Page 8

10 Table 1: Survey of National Building Code 2010 Part 9 Basic Protection in 2013 Fall Parade of Show Homes in Winnipeg House Rough In Accessibility Rough In Cap Rough In Label 1 Open Y Radon Pipe Sump Pit Airtight? Fastened lid, not airtight Penetration Sealing 2 Open, by furnace Y N Fastened lid, not airtight 3 Under stairs Y N Fastened lid, not airtight 4 Under stairs Y N N Polyurethane, good 5 Under stairs Y Future Radon Vent 6 Open Y Future Radon Vent N; extra effort around perimeter but open around discharge pipe (see Photo 3) N; expanding foam and gasket but lid not screwed and open around discharge pipe (see Photo 4) 7 Open Y Radon Removal Unknown; fastened lid not airtight 8 Open Y N Unknown; fastened lid not airtight Polyurethane, good 9 Under stairs Y N N 10 Open, under landing 11 Open Y Future Radon Vent 12 Tight spot between furnace and stairs Y N N Polyurethane, good Y N N Unknown; fastened lid not airtight 13 Open Y N N Expanding foam Page 9

11 House Rough In Accessibility Rough In Cap Rough In Label Sump Pit Airtight? Penetration Sealing 14 Open Y N N Acoutic, good 15 Open Y Radon Removal 16 Under stairs Y Radon Removal 17 Open Y Radon Removal Unknown; fastened lid not airtight N (see Photo 5) Unknown; fastened lid not airtight Polyurethane, good Polyurethane, good 18 Inaccessible under stairs Y N N Excessive beige compound 19 Under stairs Y Future Radon Vent Unknown; fastened lid not airtight 20 Behind furnace Y Future Radon Vent 21 Under stairs Y Radon Pipe N; attempted (gasket and screwed lid) but could feel flow Unknown; fastened lid not airtight Polyurethane, good 22 Open Y N Unknown; fastened lid not airtight 23 Open Y N Unknown; fastened lid not airtight Polyurethane, good 24 n/a n/a n/a N Polyurethane, good TOTAL 54% 96% 46% 0% confirmed 42% Raising Awareness September 24, 2013 Contractors spent 4 hours at House B discussing radon with show home viewers. September 25, 2013 Contractors spent 4 hours at House A discussing radon with show home viewers. Page 10

12 September 26, 2013 Contractors spent 4 hours at House C discussing radon with show home viewers. January 26, 2014 Contractors inquired with the President of the Manitoba Home Builders Association, Mike Moore, if Health Canada could host a breakfast seminar to provide the builder members with an opportunity to learn about this project. January 28, 2014 Mike Moore responded that he felt it was a good idea but could not give a date on when this could take place. Radon Measurements Summary data sheets, continuous monitoring daily averages and weekly snap shots for December 8 14, January 5 11 and February 2 8 are included in the Evidence Section. November 26, 2013 Deployed alpha track detectors with duplicates in basement, first floor and second floor of all three houses. Continuous monitors were deployed on first floor of all three houses. February 10, 2014 Alpha tracks were collected from House A. Continuous monitors were collected from all three houses. March 1, 2014 Alpha tracks were collected at Houses B and C. Table 2: Radon Measurements at the Three Show Homes House A House B House C Continuous Monitor Date [Days] November 26, 2013 February 10, 2014 [76 days] Average [Bq/m 3 ] Low [Bq/m 3 ] <30 <30 <30 High [Bq/m 3 ] Pattern Rolling, poor fit (R 2 = 0.17) Rolling, poor fit (R 2 = 0.34) Rolling, poor fit (R 2 = 0.59) Standard Deviation [Bq/m 3 ] Alpha Tracks Basement [Bq/m 3 ] First Floor [Bq/m 3 ] Second Floor [Bq/m 3 ] Pattern Decreasing Increasing Dip Page 11

13 Table 3: Characteristics of the Three Show Homes Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilator Heating/Cooling System House A House B House C Y, balanced Questionable Questionable High efficiency furnace with air conditioning High efficiency furnace with air conditioning Programmable Y Y Y Thermostat General Style 2 story 2 story (see Photo 6) 2 story Basement Fully finished Insulated exterior walls, unfinished Other High efficiency furnace with air conditioning Insulated exterior walls, unfinished Evaluation National Building Code 2010 Education Evidence gathered at the Fall 2013 Winnipeg Parade of Homes indicated the application of the National Building Code 2010 changes with respect to radon has progressed since Manitoba adopted The Code in April However, as of September 2013, Winnipeg home builders are still not meeting all aspects of the NBC 2010 or its Intent Statements (see Table 1). Rough in pipes were installed in all but one house, unfortunately almost half are in inaccessible locations. Caps were included on all rough in pipes. A wide variety of quality (test caps, sewer clean out, PVC caps) and potential effectiveness (air tightness, durability) exists. Almost half of the rough in pipes had labels, and all had satisfactory messages, at least when compared to early efforts (see Photo 1). Sump pit air tightness seems to be an area that has been almost completely overlooked by home builders, and inspectors. All sump pits come with gaskets, weather stripping and screw down lids; however, most appear to be installed without these features. Page 12

14 The rough in itself does not reduce the level of radon, but it does allow for low cost venting of the sub slab cavity in the event that post construction testing finds high levels of radon in the completed home. EPA, Builder Practices Report p.18 The Contractors were able to observe current building practices and make changes during construction for Houses B and C. Multiple NBC 2010 violations were observed upon initial review (see Photo 6), including: 1. The rough in pipe inlet was not run to centre of slab, as required by NBC 2010 Section (3)b)i) its bottom end opens into the granular layer required at or near the centre of the floor. 2. The rough in pipe inlet had nothing to prevent future blockage as required by NBC 2010 Section (3)b)i) not less than 100mm of granular materials projects beyond the terminus of the pipe measured along its axis. 3. The rough in pipe outlet was not accessible, as required by NBC 2010 Section (3)b)ii) its top end permits connection to depressurization equipment. 4. The rough in pipe outlet was not capped airtight, as required by NBC 2010 Section (3)b)ii) and it provided with an airtight cap. 5. The rough in pipe outlet not labelled, as required by NBC 2010 Section (3)b)iii) the pipe is clearly labelled near the cap. The Contractors were also able to observe and improve upon the quality of workmanship by the trades who installed the initial rough in pipe at Houses B and C (see Photo 7). Schedule 10 test cap represents a potentially higher risk as they are easy to remove and subject to puncture. White 636 gas venting pipe stands out compared to black drain waste vent pipe, potentially preventing future misuse. Ground cover material was upgraded to a CSA approved 10mil polyethylene plastic which represents a decreases risk of puncture during the slab pour. In addition to the knowledge gained by the home builder and their associated trades, the City of Winnipeg Building Inspector also benefited by seeing hands on the intended outcomes of the 2010 NBC changes with respect to radon resistance. Page 13

15 Table 4: Comparing National Building Code 2010 to Observed Building Practices in Winnipeg New Home Construction and Contractor Building Practices Industry/2013 Parade of Homes Observations Difficult to observe; Contractor s experience suggests 6 mil polyethylene is the most common Difficult to observe; Contractors estimate compliance at 40% Evidence observed 42% of the time Not confirmed but estimate compliance 5% or less of the time Rough in accessible and ready for active system 54% of the time 6 mil polyethylene is most common I. Could not be confirmed II. Could not be confirmed [Black 4 inch ABS drain waste vent pipe is most common III. Capped, but vary from Schedule 10 test caps to sewer cleanout plugs IV. 6 mil polyethylene National Building Code 2010 Part 9 Basic Protection Polyethylene soil gas barrier required under slab Slab perimeter sealed to air barrier of the wall All penetrations (i.e. pipes, utilities) sealed Sump pit cover required to be airtight Part 9 Specific Provisions Subfloor depressurization as an option Polyethylene under slab for dwelling units Rough in for subfloor depressurization is the deemed tocomply prescriptive solution, including: I. 100 mm granular fill under slab II. Bottom end of exhaust pipe located near centre of slab III. Capped, labelled pipe ready for active system IV. Polyethylene soil gas barrier required under slab Contractor (Houses B and C) 10 mil polyethylene Yes Yes Yes, weather stripped and gasket for discharge and electrical Rough in ready for active system 10 mil polyethylene I. Yes II. Yes [White 4 inch PVC Schedule 40, 636 used] III. Solid pressure cap, glued on. Labelled with information about active systems. IV. 10 mil polyethylene Page 14

16 Raising Awareness The Contractors were able to spend time at each of the show homes to discuss radon and the benefits of applying the NBC 2010 changes with respect to radon; however, no evaluation of this activity is available. The National Radon Program has been very active in connecting with the public through media campaigns, tradeshow attendance, web and print information distribution but this was the first time in Manitoba where new home buyers were connected with radon information in a new home construction setting. This is an important step in the long term effort to reduce radon induced lung cancer as underscored by Canada s national radon Guideline and the international radon community. The Government of Canada Radon Guideline (2007) recommends, The construction of new dwellings should employ techniques that will minimize radon entry and will facilitate postconstruction radon removal should this prove necessary. Most home buyers do not realize the potential savings of the radon rough in for future mitigation. When combined with a health risk message the upfront cost is considered much more reasonable. It has been demonstrated that, in many cases, a public sector emphasis on radon control in new housing was more cost effective for population based risk reduction than a testing/mitigate approach. Bill Angell, Radon Control in New Homes: A Meta Analysis of 25 Years of Research. Page 15

17 Radon Measurements No statistical analyses were performed on the radon measurement data due to the small number of homes tested and the variability of results obtained. Charts of daily averages and slices from three separate weeks for each of the three show homes can be found in Appendix A. A. Measurement Device Comparison Continuous monitoring 76 day averages and alpha track 91 day results show good agreement on the first floor where the continuous monitors were located. House C has the largest relative percent difference at 22.2%, whereas House A and B are at 11.6% and 7.6% respectively. All three houses were below the Government of Canada Guideline of 200 Bq/m CRM [Avg. Bq/m^3] ATD [Avg. Bq/m^3] House A House B House C Figure 1: First Floor Radon Measurements at Three Show Homes Page 16

18 B. Multi Level Measurements Each of the three show homes follows a different pattern with respect to the alpha track radon measurements in the basement, first floor and second floor. House A decreases with elevation as expected. At House B radon levels increase with elevation and House C is lowest on the first floor, neither pattern was expected. The Contractors suspect the mostly likely reason for the ATD patterns could be related to improper heat recovery ventilator (HRV) balancing House A House B House C Basement First Floor Second Floor Figure 2: Alpha Track Measurements on Each Floor of Three Show Homes Page 17

19 C. Indoor Environment Statistical analysis is required to confirm; however, there is no obvious correlation between continuous monitoring radon levels and indoor environment variables (temperature, relative humidity and pressure) exists at any of the three show homes. Measurements started November 26, 2013 and ended February 10, Data from House C, the highest recorded mean radon level of the three homes, is illustrated in Figure Radon Avg. [Bq/m^3] Pressure [mbar] Days hr Radon Avg. rel. Hum. % Poly. (24 hr Radon Avg.) Poly. (rel. Hum. %) Temp. C Pres. mbar Poly. (Temp. C) Poly. (Pres. mbar) Figure 3: Indoor Environmental Variables Related to Daily Average Radon Measurements at House C Page 18

20 The indoor pressure does not appear to have an immediate impact on the radon levels. Continuous monitoring results during a four day period when the radon levels were high in House C (Figure 4) show the radon levels varied as much as 309% (94 to 291 Bq/m 3 ) when the pressure was recorded at 977 mbar. Inversely, radon at a relatively steady level (263 to 273 Bq/m 3 ) occurs across the entire pressure spectrum (975 to 995 mbar) Radon [Bq/m^3] R² = Pressure [mbar] Figure 4: House C, Dec 15 18, Indoor Pressure during Period of Average Radon of 180 Bq/m 3 Page 19

21 The long term radon averages of the continuous monitoring on the first floor of each of the three show homes do follow a trend when compared to the indoor pressure. Figure 5 shows the house with the lowest pressure (998 mbar) had the highest radon (180 Bq/m 3 ) and the house with the lowest radon (66 Bq/m 3 ) had the highest pressure (995 mbar). 984 Radon [Bq/m^3] R² = , 988 Prssure [mbar] , , Figure 5: Indoor Pressure Related to Average Radon Measurements at Each of Three Show Homes Page 20

22 D. Weather Statistical analysis is required to confirm; however, there is no obvious correlation between continuous monitoring radon levels and outdoor temperature exists at any of the three show homes. Measurements started November 26, 2013 and ended February 10, Radon Avg. [Bq/m^3] Outside Temperature [Degrees Celcius] Days 35 House A 24 hr Radon Avg. House B 24 hr Radon Avg. House C 24 hr Radon Avg. Outside Temp. Poly. (House A 24 hr Radon Avg.) Poly. (House B 24 hr Radon Avg.) Poly. (House C 24 hr Radon Avg.) Poly. (Outside Temp. ) Figure 6: Outside Temperature Related to Daily Average Radon Measurements at Three Show Homes Page 21

23 Suggestions 1. The importance of locating the inlet end of the rough in near the centre of the slab, ensuring the terminus will remain free of debris needs to be communicated to home builders and their associated trades. Furthermore, understanding the airtight capped and labelled outlet end of rough in is an accessible location, such as the corner of the mechanical room, would make mitigation more cost effective, convenient and likely to occur. Education on what the depressurization equipment looks like and what a finished system installation involves should be included. 2. A second trip by a building official is suggested as a good practice to ensure the ground cover is adequate before the basement slab is poured. Also this will further ensure the proper placement of the radon rough in is achieved. 3. Include a check of the sump pit airtight seal on final building inspection. This was the most common violation of the Building Code. 4. The location of the rough in should be suitable for discharge to an outside wall. Again, this would make mitigation more cost effective, convenient and more likely to occur. 5. Label lid of sump pit to indicate an airtight seal is required for reducing soil gases (incl. radon) and should be replaced after maintenance. 6. Ensure rough in pipe is graded to inlet end under slab (min. 1/8 inch per foot, max. ¼ inch per foot) to eliminate water accumulation and potential blockage of the air flow. 7. The heat recovery ventilator (HRV) must be properly balanced. Page 22

24 Actions The following opportunities will be pursued as a result of this demonstration. 1. Manitoba Home Builders Association Technical Session 2. Red River College Plumbing Apprentice Program Learning Module 3. A discussion with the City of Winnipeg Building Inspection Branch, particularly with respect to sump pit air tightness Code violations. 4. A prescriptive, illustrated guide for home builders and their associated trades. Outcome Increased the number of homes built to the 2010 National Building Code standard with respect to radon. The Contractor s ability to meet, exceed and promote the NBC 2010 will lead to industry advancement in a radon prone community. Page 23

25 Evidence Photos Photo 1: Confusion surrounding the purpose of the radon rough in and labelling following Manitoba s adoption of NBC 2010 in April Photo 2: Confusion surrounding the purpose of the radon rough in and labelling following Manitoba s adoption of NBC 2010 in April Page 24

26 Photo 3: Sump pit not airtight; extra effort around perimeter but open around discharge pipe. Page 25

27 Photo 4: Sump pit not airtight; expanding foam and gasket but lid not screwed and open around discharge pipe. Page 26

28 Photo 5: Sump pit not airtight; little to no attention paid to NBC 2010 requirement. Page 27

29 Photo 6: Multiple NBC 2010 violations were observed upon initial review by the Contractors. Page 28

30 Photo 7: Installed new white 4 inch PVC Schedule 40, 636 rough in pipes at Houses B and C. The pipe was labelled and the cap was glued. Furthermore, the pipe was run into the mechanical room and stubbed up through the ground cover 12 inches away from the outside wall. Page 29

31 Photo 8: Ground works at House B was inspected by the City of Winnipeg building official and passed. Page 30

32 Photo 9: Clean gravel was used for entire surface area of the basement. The gravel was clean ¾ inch washed aggregate. Page 31

33 Photo 10: 10 mil polyethylene CSA approved ground cover was completed at Houses B and C. All vapor barrier penetrations were sealed; acoustical caulking was used to seal the ground cover to the foundation wall. Construction tuck tape was used at the penetration and overlaps; with a minimum of 18 inches overlap. Page 32

34 Photo 11: Polyurethane caulked all the perimeters and penetrations at Houses B and C. References i Accessed March 9, ii sc.gc.ca/ewh semt/pubs/radiation/survey sondage/index eng.php Accessed March 9, iii Accessed March 9, iv Accessed March 9, v guides.nrc.ca/ia/10nbc/intentframe.html Accessed March 9, Appendix A: Radon Measurements Summary data sheets, continuous monitoring daily averages and weekly snap shots for December 8 14, January 5 11 and February 2 8 are included. Page 33

35 140 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House A, Daily Average: Winnipeg, MB R² = Radon [Bq/m^ hr Radon Avg. Poly. (24 hr Radon Avg.) /27 12/04 12/11 12/18 12/25 01/01 01/08 01/15 01/22 01/29 02/05

36 250 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House A, Week I: Winnipeg, MB Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % Poly. (Radon Bq/m) Radon [Bq/m^3] 100 R² = /08 0:00 12/08 12:00 12/09 0:00 12/09 12:00 12/10 0:00 12/10 12:00 12/11 0:00 12/11 12:00 12/12 0:00 12/12 12:00 12/13 0:00 12/13 12:00 12/14 0:00 12/14 12:00 12/15 0:00

37 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % Poly. (Radon Bq/m) 173 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House A, Week II: Winnipeg, MB Radon [Bq/m^3 100 R² = /05 0:00 01/05 12:00 01/06 0:00 01/06 12:00 01/07 0:00 01/07 12:00 01/08 0:00 01/08 12:00 01/09 0:00 01/09 12:00 01/10 0:00 01/10 12:00 01/11 0:00 01/11 12:00 01/12 0:00

38 250 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House A, Week III: Winnipeg, MB Radon Bq/m Temp. C 173 rel. Hum. % Poly. (Radon Bq/m) 150 Radon [Bq/m^3 100 R² = C % 0 02/02 0:00 02/02 12:00 02/03 0:00 02/03 12:00 02/04 0:00 02/04 12:00 02/05 0:00 02/05 12:00 02/06 0:00 02/06 12:00 02/07 0:00 02/07 12:00 02/08 0:00 02/08 12:00 02/09 0:00

39 140 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House B, Daily Average: Winnipeg, MB 24 hr Radon Avg R² = : : : : : : : : : : :00

40 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House B, Week I: Winnipeg, MB Radon Bq/m Temp. C 120 rel. Hum. % Radon [Bq/m^ R² = : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00

41 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House B, Week II: Winnipeg, MB : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00

42 250 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House B, Week III: Winnipeg, MB 200 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00

43 350 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House C, Daily Average: Winnipeg, MB hr Radon Avg. Poly. (24 hr R² = : : : : : : : : : : :00

44 400 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House C, Week I: Winnipeg, MB 350 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00

45 350 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House C, Week II: Winnipeg, MB 300 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00

46 350 Demonstration Project: Radon Resistant New Construction House C, Week III: Winnipeg, MB 300 Radon Bq/m Temp. C rel. Hum. % 250 Poly. (Radon Bq/m) R² = : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :00