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.

This is a copy of the AARST rule change request referenced by Dallas in his post.

I encourage everyone to fill out the form and officially submit your comments. The Listserve is nice but processes for change have to be followed.

• Name: Affiliation: Richard Whisler Radon Mitigation Professional Illinois Licensee RNM2003202
1879 N Neltnor #169 West Chicago, IL 60185 Office Telephone 630-876-0800
• Clause or Subclause: SGM-SF-2017 Soil Gas Mitigation Standards for Existing Homes 9.2.2
• Comment/Recommendation: The use of audible alarms on radon mitigation systems is inappropriate and will decrease the safety of the homeowners and add liability to our profession by encouraging homeowners to ignore their systems (unless there is an alarm going off) and will diminish the number of homeowners that actually listen to our industry when we say
“The EPA Recommends that every home is retested every 2 years”
I believe there is increased legal liability for the mitigator or standards organization if we tell people they are protected from system failure with an audible alarm, and then system performance is compromised by a failed alarm or some other unforeseen circumstances.
When temperatures are below 0 Farenheight in the upper Midwest (Northern Illinois) some radon system discharges freeze. I then receive dozens of telephone calls every day from concerned homeowners. We explain it’s probably frozen, Radon risk is based on accumulated exposure over time, and that they can stay in their homes during the freeze up event. We then put them on a list for follow ups when things warm up to make sure the systems are ok.
I don’t know how we would handle the volume of calls we would if there were audible alarms going off in hundreds (thousands) of homes. I also expect that convincing people it is ok to stay in their homes while an alarm is going off is going to be much tougher than we experience with our clients today.
I would probably not be able to do anything else but take these calls and this would severely negatively impact my ability to remain in business.
• Substantiating Statements:
These airflow alarms will only indicate airflow is present and will not replace the need for subsequent radon testing.
They will provide a false sense of security because they are not going off.
They will discourage future testing.
They will not indicate if a homeowner has disrupted a systems effectiveness by removing a sump pit cover, adding an addition to the home, home improvements such as new roofs, siding, windows etc.
If someone wants to monitor their systems effectiveness the consumer radon testing devices are a better option than an airflow measurement alarm. As long as they are not provided by a radon professional and represented as an acceptable alternative to properly calibrated follow up testing. (In Illinois sales of these devices by radon professionals is illegal)

I would encourage mitigators to check systems that they service, to see if the rubber couplings are still tight when they arrive.
I find that systems that have been installed for 3 years or less generally can be tightened by 2-4 turns of the wrist with a nutdriver. Yes they have loosened over time.
I find systems that have been installed for 5 plus years are generally loose enough to require 5+ turns of the wrist.
Since I have been collecting this data for quite a few years, and have thousands of sets of documented system checkups and examinations, I can document that this is true (in Northern Illinois)
Additionally when fans are installed in a Radonaway/RCI Fan housing signs of condensation and moisture inside the housing is often evident in these situations. There have been several situations where these has been enough moisture created inside the housing that there a giant ice cube was formed in the bottom of the housing. Yes the top of the housing was weathertight and properly sealed.

My conclusion is that over time rubber couplings begin to leak if they are not retightened.
This causes me to wonder at the wisdom of unattended fans in attics for years and years.
Thus if the fan is inside, I think there needs to be a new way of connecting the fan to the PVC Pipe.
The Fan and schedule 40 PVC may not leak, but the attachment coupling can and does.