I am a 23-year veteran of the radon mitigation industry as well as a distributor of radon products. I have the unique privilege of speaking with mitigation professionals all over the country every day and have been hearing many concerns regarding the alarm requirement. As a radon products distributor, I would only gain from the alarm requirement; but as a fellow mitigator I heard, understood, and agreed with the concerns being voiced. On November 7th, I contacted the EPA for assistance on the alarm requirement. At that time, the standards committee had been formally asked to extend the alarm requirement for an additional year and denied it.

The alarm requirement 9.2.2 was originally instituted in 2017 and was postponed to 1-1-2019 for radon application. Alarm failure in part helped create this extension of the standard. It was termed as time for “product manufacturers to develop improved and cost-effective products”. Requirement 9.2.2 goes on to say that strong considerations include, but are not limited to:

A. “Lasting service”. I nor anyone I know have been provided with independent study information on the alarm products currently available. A one-year warranty indicates that manufacturers might not have confidence in their product. It is highly possible that that a 1-year warranty alarm device will fail before a 5-year warranty fan, therefore giving the consumer a false sense of a working radon system. Most agree that a typical radon fan will last 8-12 years – we should be able to have the same confidence in an alarm. Additionally, the alarm products currently on the market must be climate controlled. Many professionals are questioning as to how to abide by this requirement when the systems they install are all or mostly on the exterior of the building.
B. “False notifications”. We have not been provided with data indicating the reliability of the alarms during climate changes or other conditions that may affect these devices.

It is unfair to ask radon mitigation professionals to be “guinea pigs” for any device without proper funding to assist.

I would also like to pose this question: Is it a fair and just expense for the consumer? My many years of service to the industry says it is not and I will have to apologize to all the homeowners I serve for the unnecessary expense if my state adopts this ruling.

Only one state has enforced this ruling and it is my hope that no other states adopt this until some of these issues get resolved. The EPA has assured me that they have contacted all regional headquarters to inform states that their funding is NOT affected by adopting or not adopting this alarm ruling.

Thank you for your time,
David Smith