I was just about to respond to the untrue assertion that CARST is a part of AARST, but Bill beat me to it. Thank you Bill for responding. Yes - CARST is an entirely independent association with its own Board of Directors and Executive Director.

To register comments on the proposed changes to the ANSI-AARST Consensus National Standards so they can actually be considered by the Mitigation Committee of the Standards Consortium, please fill out and submit them on the form you can download at https://standards.aarst.org/public-review/ . Your specific feedback is welcome and is an important part of the process. For more information on the voluntary consensus standards-making process, including public comments, please go to <a href="https://standards.aarst.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://standards.aarst.org</a>.

Wally - is the inspector certified by NRPP or NRSB?

Steven - The Standards DO require pipe insulation. As per the ANSI-AARST SGM-2017
7.2.10 Protect ducts from the elements (insulation):
As required by codes or climate conditions, duct piping shall be provided with insulation.
7.2.10.1 Where it is likely on a regular basis (e.g., annually or every few years) that freezing temperatures will result in ice buildup within duct piping that would adversely affect system performance, insulation shall be provided for duct piping and fans. The insulation shall be protected from the elements and have an R-value of no less than 4. Greater R-values can be appropriate for meeting this need, depending upon climate extremes.
7.2.10.2 Where it is likely that condensation will occur on the exterior surface of duct piping to the extent damage would occur to adjacent building materials, duct piping shall be provided with insulation having an external vapor barrier and an R-value of not less than 1.8.

Everyone - Standards are LIVING DOCUMENTS! The Executive Stakeholders Committee has instructed the Mitigation Committee to review the whole section regarding active notification monitors because feedback, including some from state program directors, convinced them it should be.

A healthy discussion about the technical merits for, against, and in between is welcome here. But, please keep comments constructive and refrain from personal attacks. There are no bad guys here. People working on the committees as well as those following due process to bring forth issues and concerns all have good intentions. Let the process work.

UPDATE: The Executive Stakeholders Committee of the ANSI-AARST Radon Standards Consortium met late on Friday afternoon January 8th. Joshua Kerber made the following motion: "The ESC resolves to direct the mitigation committee to review the requirements for active alert monitors and address as appropriate. In addition, the ESC committee resolves to review and refine its notification process to ensure that all stakeholders receive ample notification for implementation of standards revisions." Chrys Kelley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

9.2.2 Active notification monitors required
In addition to the operating range capacity required in Section 9.2.1, capacity for active visual and/or audible notification in the event of ASD fan or other mechanical failure shall be provided to actively warn occupants or other individuals responsible for monitoring.
Exception: Active notification monitors are recommended for all systems. Active notification monitors shall be provided for all mitigation systems designed to mitigate hazards from chemical vapor as of the date of this standard’s publication. However, this requirement shall not take effect for radon application until January 1, 2019
to allow product manufacturers to develop improved and cost-effective products.
Informative background—Sensors that trigger active notification are typically air pressure sensors, airflow sensors or circuits that detect electrical flow. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Product features that deserve strong considerations include but are not limited to:
a) Lasting service: For example, products that expose electrical or sensitive components to humid airflow within ASD piping can be prone to premature failure.
b) False notifications: Examples are temporary or seasonal conditions that can result in power outages, low pressure, or low airflow. Delayed notification in terms of hours or even weeks is an example of methods that circumvent false notifications; and
c) Use restrictions: Monitors that can reliably detect fan failure for ASD systems that inherently generate weak pressure or airflow.

All,

To be clear about what appears to be a general misunderstanding, the active notification monitor is NOT required to be audible; as you can see in Section 9.2.2 of the Standard, it says, “active visual and/or audible notification in the event of ASD fan or other mechanical failure.” A blinking light for example, would not awaken the occupants at 3 AM.

Also, for those asserting the Mitigation Standards Committee does not include adequate representation of radon mitigators, the committee includes Bill Broadhead (PA), Tony McDonald (OH), Aaron Fisher (PA), Fred Ellrott (CA), Kyle Hoylman (KY) and James Fraley (GA), all of whom are active mitigation contractors.

Finally, while they do vary in price, there are multiple products on the market that would meet the requirement.

Now that said, the Standards Consortium Executive Stakeholders Committee (ESC) is scheduled to convene Friday Dec.18th to discuss the change requests submitted. After that, the Standards Management Committee will review the matter from a different perspective.

Thanks for the discussion!

Randy and all,

Your statement that ANSI/AARST has refused to rescind the rule is not factual. The form for Standards change request submittals can be found on the AARST Standards Consortium website at https://standards.aarst.org under on the Public Access page.

Please understand that ANSI requires the consortium to follow due process. As the AARST Executive Director, I do not (cannot) make unilateral decisions regarding the standards. You and several of your colleagues sent complaints to my email address and I responded with instructions on how to seek a change.

The very first standards change request on the alarm requirement was received on December 4th, six days ago. As a result, the matter has not even been discussed beyond the SGM committee. Several additional submittals have been received since the 4th and will be presented to the Executive Standards Committee for consideration next week.

I regret that you feel justified to threaten lawsuits before even attempting to communicate through the proper channels. The volunteer stakeholders who work on the various standards committees, as well as the consortium leadership, include mitigators just like you. The Consortium Secretariat, Gary Hodgden and his family have operated a mitigation business for 30 years. Nobody has an agenda to place unnecessary hardships on mitigation contractors.

I can assure you the submittals received last week will be considered with an open mind.

Dallas Jones
Executive Director
AARST

Watch this to learn all about the 34th Annual AARST International Radon Symposium: https://youtu.be/HGelDh2jYEM

Don't miss "Houses from Heck" at the Virtual AARST International Radon Symposium November 9-13th https://youtu.be/nxY6Ec0niVE

The examples you guys are finding are remarkable. I can almost understand how requirements to adhere to the standards could stifle such ingenuity. I'd really like to see more of you contribute photos for a new Wild West Hall of Shame presentation (regardless of where they're located).

To ALL: Lively discussions are welcome. HOWEVER, personal verbal attacks on another contributor (have been) and will be removed from the thread. Repeat offenders will be suspended from the ListServ.

All,
The Radon ListServe is not just limited to AARST Members; all participants must agree to the Terms of Service.

Hi LeAnna,

If the test was performed on behalf of a buyer while the seller was in control of the house, you may want to request that the agent assist in having the seller pay for a retest. If they refuse, the buyer is within their right to assume (based on the data collected) that the home has elavated levels and make a mitigation system part of the contingency. Did you have the occupant or the appropriate agent sign a non-interference agreement?

Hi Brian,

Since the Iowa ListServ goes down at the end of the month, we will try to capture the last couple of days for input here. Thanks for the suggestion.

If you want to see instant responses, click on the name of the person who made the post and chose to Follow them. Email notices of posts from members you follow will come to you immediately!

Starting today, new ListServ Updates will automatically be emailed to ALL ListServ members every morning.

Starting today, new ListServ Updates will automatically be emailed to ALL ListServ members every morning.

Starting today, new ListServ Updates will automatically be emailed to ALL ListServ members every morning.