Alarms are mandatory now on radon systems Thanks to everyone for the exchange of Ideas here. Special thanks to those that volunteer their time to work on improving our industry.
Lots of different situations and workarounds by very dedicated and creative people. All methods have benefits and shortcomings. But in the end these issues have been discussed before, and the decision was made that nothing works like the EPA's recommendation to test every building every 2 years.
Things change in structures and in the ground under them. We should not be telling clients that these are forever solutions and that after installation they are "all good" unless there is an alarm of some type. I personally guarantee every client that the system will fail someday. Airflow, Internal alarms, U-tubes, consumer electronic CRMs, will all fail someday too.
I think the message needs to be on retests. Its the only reliable calibrated method that withstands all the scrutiny of the variety of situations we are discussing. AARST should focus on the message that these are mechanical systems that need to checked out for performance issues, and retesting needs to be conducted regularly. The installation is just the first step. Our industry installations, brochures, and interaction with the clients, needs to be refocused onto not only making, but also on keeping buildings safe from now on.
I can also share that we offer annual inspections (profitable) of installed systems to our clients which avoids system failures and re-exposure situations. We regularly find systems with sump pit covers off, external discharges redone by siding companies, home additions, new attic insulation, missing u-tubes, failing or dead fans, wetter sub slab conditions with reduced airflow, replacement windows, systems disabled by other contractors, and who knows what else I'll see next month. Airflow alarms won't catch most of these situations.
It can be done. I have reasonable success with getting clients to retest. Some have CRMs and they are more difficult to work with because they think the CRM is a substitute for our knowledge and experience, but we still have many that are cooperative.
I suggest that we continue to be the "EXPERTS" to our clients, and leverage our experience to their benefit. This is too important for us to be replaced by an alarm of any sort, that may identify some problems, but will also fail to identify other system problems.
Just my personal opinion.