The purpose of this report is not to question the real or imagined dangers of house tightening. It will be assumed, for the sake of argument, that all pollution sources mentioned in the draft environmental impact statement (E.I.S.) by B.P.A. on the weatherization program dated August 1983, pose a clear and present danger. Active mitigation techniques will be explored for all pollution sources mentioned in the E.I.S. I will also cover simple and cost effective weatherization measures that should be included in the program to increase effective energy savings. Finally, I will discuss a major indoor air pollutant that is almost totally ignored by the E.I.S.

During my tenure as a residential energy auditor for Snohomish P.U.D., I had the opportunity to take part in the initial implementation of the B.P.A. Buy Back Program. I felt the mitigations by exclusion were based on vastly overstated dangers, in some cases. The following is an example. A small two-bedroom rambler with a vented crawl space had an attached garage converted to a family room. The details of the garage conversion are as follows:

1. A 6-mil plastic sheet covering the existing concrete garage floor.
2. Fiberglass insulation, with a vapor barrier, installed using a B.P.A. approved procedure.
3. A continuous perimeter vent that exceeds all jurisdictional requirements.

This home was and, as far as I know, still is denied any house tightening measures under the Buy Back Program due to supposed concerns that radon gas would some how breach this barrier/venting strategy and contaminate the home.

The E.I.S. finding that the program, as it stands, is unpopular with many people is hardly surprising in light of the above example. I, and many of my co- workers, became extremely frustrated. The situation I have described was all too common. I do not mean to imply that there are no real problems to be dealt with, but the E.I.S. seems to be sadly misdirected in its priorities.