Comments

  • Sink holes, Post tension slabs and Radon….Trifecta
    Can you share a drawing with the data?
  • Sad News About Susie Shimek
    Back in the day when I was the shy, new kid in radon, Susie was already moving the Tennessee Radon Program forward. I met her at the 1992 Symposium in Minneapolis and some time later she joined EPA’s Radon Program and then became a family friend. I was always amazed by her tireless radon advocacy energy. Susie left us in a much better place than when she entered the fray, and I’m not sure what could be a better legacy. I will miss Susie’s smile and positive energy. I look forward to sharing stories and shedding a few tears in Bellevue.
  • Are these changes needed?
    Good information Bruce. As you know, standard writing is very complex when trying to write a National standard, and is even more complicated when juggling and comparing proposed changes to statutes, codes, and regulations in the actual or tangential industries where there is overlap. Here in the US some states adopt the ANSI/AARST standards by reference, some use sections and insert it into their regulations, and some states have separate processes and maintain their own protocols. The problems are when the rules differ across states or are interpreted differently based on the industry use of similar technologies. Sometimes we get carried away and make things overly complex. Sometimes they may appear to be overbearing, but are based on sound committee arguments and experiences and might not have been explained to the users well enough. I don't have a dog in the mitigation standards fight since I am not involved in that type of work, but did want to point out that work outside of our industry directly influenced the original EPA protocols and standards since radon was new at the time. Many of those requirements have now been in the state regulations for years. Deciding to change the AARST standards to be different than the state laws can be a slippery slope and must be navigated carefully.
  • Are these changes needed?
    While not a mitigator, I have been a supporter and worker bee on the standards since AARST's dream of the Consortium sprang to life. Standards Developer perspectives must also be considered in all of the work that gets published. Some of the considerations are the legal responsibilities and liabilities of the backing organization (AARST), who created audits to ensure adherence to the ANSI process, to ensure that the protection of the consumer are always in the forefront, and of course that the standards will do no harm to the organization, practitioners, or their clients.

    Part of the committee due diligence is to also understand related statutes and codes that may impact our work, as well as precedence set by other industries, standards, or codes. I am not on the MIT committee, but as an auditor for nearly all of the ANSI/AARST standards to date, I am aware that much of the work in the background included a review of work done by organizations, such as ASHRAE, who has published standards that definitely overlap with the radon mitigation industry. A quick Google search pulled up this document.

    https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/ashrae%20handbook/i-p_a19_ch46.pdf

    I'm not a Mechanical Engineer either, but the details that I see in their document certainly suggests that significant research has gone into their exhaust criteria and moving in a direction different than theirs would need to be very well thought out, especially when one of their sections is titled Toxic Stack Exhausts. This one struck me and made me think. It certainly fits the definition, even if some people still think its only radon.
  • Multifamily retesting
    Henri, you can find the HUD MAP Guide here:

    https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/4430GHSGG.pdf

    The Radon section is 9.6.3, which begins on pg 340. The Radon Professional credential language is found in Section 9.6.3.2.B, the standards are listed in 9.6.3.2.D, and OM&M is in 9.6.3.2.I. I hear that OM&M has often been overlooked but is currently being enforced when mitigation systems are installed.

    The clearance testing section of ANSI/AARST MAMF-2017 Rev1-21 is found in Section 7.3.2:
    https://standards.aarst.org/MAMF-2017/26/index.html
  • Announcement of Lung Association's Radon Basics online training program
    The course is very well done Kevin. I enjoyed the interactive format, the platform that was used and thought the way you navigated the testing and mitigation without encroaching on industry brands was brilliant. Congratulations to you, ALA, and the design team. Janice would be very pleased with the final delivery.
  • Alarms are mandatory now on radon systems
    list of all the committee’sAndrew Costigan

    They are all available on the Association's website: https://standards.aarst.org/
  • Alarms are mandatory now on radon systems
    obvious conflict of interestSteven Reichert

    Interesting fact here, when the standards consortium was first formed 15 years ago or so, several states felt that industry writing its own standards was like the fox guarding the hen house. Then they got involved and saw that it was a legit process and we were just trying to get the standards right. They saw that a single voice or perspective couldn’t dictate direction. Instead, the balanced viewpoints were actually fixing gaps in early EPA work so they got more involved. Just as with a mitigator, a tester, an educator, a laboratory, a Federal Agency, a consumer advocate, an architect, a builder, a due diligence company, a home inspector, a manufacturer, or a radon chamber, they had input but couldn’t dictate the outcome. That is actually the strength of the consortium. As @Bill Brodhead pointed out previously, everyone on the committees have biases. The process and Bylaws, which have resulted in ANSI accreditation, which allowed them to become recognized and used in Federal and State policies, has actually grown the industry and is transforming it into a real industry instead of the hobby shop that it was for years. The state perspective is an important one and you might be surprised that they are actually on “our” side. I’m proud of the fact that I was one of the first ones holding one end of the olive branch. We can’t let go now.
  • I have 2 questions.
    You are correct regarding the lack of surface area in the mitigation pipe. We see gamma concerns when we use GAC treatment for radon in water because we typically start with a few thousand pCi/L of radon and the charcoal used to remove the radon has an unimaginable amount of surface area.
  • reasons for mounting the fan and exhaust piping outside building envelope in US
    Well Doug, you may have whacked the bee hive with this one.

    In part, the rationale is that the mitigation system is drawing in a lot more radon than would normally be found in the house since it is sucking directly on the source. If the system is going to leak, it will be on the pressure side of the fan, which is why fans cannot be located in or under conditioned space. Leakage could be caused by a leaky fan, poorly sealed connections (including couplings and pipe fittings), damage to the pipe, etc.

    So the mitigation standards have always guarded against concentrated radon being dumped back in the house, which could create higher concentrations than pre-mitigation testing. That was also a factor in the venting location and blowing it out above the roof.

    I'm sure you'll get more replies, so I'll grab some popcorn.
  • Yes, he is still Certified.
    I encourage readers to visit the NRPP website to view the guidelines for submitting complaints, which can be found here: https://nrpp.info/filing-a-complaint/

    The complaint form explains that NRPP professionals are able to assist the aggrieved party when compiling the details, which I'm guessing could increase the likelihood that the complaint actually gets filed.
  • Uh Oh...radon on the chopping block again?
    Strange contradiction, but not surprising.

    Many of the same career bureaucrats have been driving the President's EPA budget proposal since the previous Administration. Being unregulated (voluntary), Radon just gets in the way of the bean counters at EPA and OMB. EPA's Voluntary Radon Program is the ultimate oxymoron because they are known for their regulatory approach to pollutants and polluters. There is no public outcry for them to spend MORE on radon, so its a safe play. Thank goodness AARST continues to work the Appropriations process to make sure that radon continues to be funded through EPA. But how long before they outflank us and get it removed for good? Without MORE outcry from the public, Congress, or the media, we will ultimately see the funding go away.

    Which brings us to the HUD funding. This is a direct result of the Oregonian stories on public housing and the outcry by ~dozen US Senators. While $5,000,000 isn't enough to fix the problem, its enough to ease some of the pressure on Secretary Carson. If the pressure doesn't continue, that proposal may die through the appropriations process or live for a year and get lost next time. This is exactly why AARST encourages everyone to get involved and stay involved. The squeaky wheel gets the grease which is how the HUD funding came about and exactly why radon keeps getting the ax at EPA.

    Make phone calls, write letters, help fund the AARST Policy efforts, or some of each. We have made significant gains over the last 8-9 years so we either keep pushing the boulder over the Hill or watch it come tumbling back down on us. That time is upon us now. :strong:
  • Time Magazine misses the radon story
    They spent more time developing the graphic than the contents.
  • New Haven school board criticizes unapproved $65K radon tests
    And now we know more. Only 10 percent testing of ground contact rooms are required, so the total price for 396 tests would certainly raise eyebrows. Recommending ANSI/AARST MALB procedures would probably be a tough sell at that rate.

    https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/New-Haven-BOE-stall-votes-on-65-000-radon-test-13844502.php
  • Home Buyers & Sellers Guide
    Historically the EPA has supplied some of the State Radon Programs with printed copies, but the states weren't able to have enough to supply radon professionals with them. There are a couple places that will charge for printed copies to cover the production and shipping costs. RadonAway and AARST are places that have had them in the past.
  • System alarms required?
    Henri, check out Section 9.2.2 "Exception" of ANSI-AARST SGM-SF 2017 (page 17). There is indeed a reference to January 1, 2019.
  • No correlation?
    Thanks Bill! I'll forward to the blogger with hopes he will offer better advice in the future.
  • Average post-mitigation levels
    That is a key observation Bob! I also believe that many of the historic messages seem to apologize for radon rather than being more direct. At least here in the US, there was no industry when EPA created their program. It took many years for our industry here to mature into a leadership role, but now that we are in a stronger position, things are beginning to change.
  • Average post-mitigation levels
    You hit a very key point Brian. It is amazing how many conversations I have had with individuals about their high readings, sometimes alarmingly high, who decided that mitigation wasn’t in their plans. That disconnect is very concerning and some day I hope we find the solution to change that outcome.
  • Average post-mitigation levels
    It depends on the overall goal of the company, the clients, and the industry.

    If we mitigate a million homes and only reduced the radon concentrations by 1 pCi/L each, that is still a significant number of families with lower exposures. On the other hand, if we don't have a process to follow up and ensure that the million systems continue to work long into the future, we failed the consumers and have done little for risk reduction.

    In my opinion the real estate transaction is an great opportunity to educate and to perform testing and mitigation. I urge Canada to embrace it, not abandon it. There are a lot of good things that have and are continuing to happen in the US so I encourage your folks to borrow the good parts, improve upon the bad, and try not to reinvent the wheel.

    Shawn