Correction to the post above. I “do” believe in the science of at grade discharge like Canada.

After reading these posts I can’t help but bringing up the current beliefs of the current mitigation committee. And Bill Brodhead you are on this committee as you are well aware. Curious what your vote was on the 20 ft above grade requirement was.
Recently they (the committee) updated the standard to allowing discharges 20 ft above grade along with testing in the room on the other side of the discharge.
Note - that I do not believe in the science of “at grade discharge” like Canada. But do you really think they (the mitigation committee) will ever allow a discharge like this.
Based on the retesting requirement in the room near the discharge, the committee actually believes the radon gas might actually move from the dilution of the outside air after discharge and travel through the siding, insulation, and sheetrock of the house and back into the structure at elevated amounts from 20 ft above grade.
Please think about that for a second.
With what’s in the current standard (that by the way Minnesota is the only state so far to legally follow word by word) there is no way at grade discharge will ever be allowed. Which is strange because a 1 story rambler can be discharged at the roofline which ends up around 10ft above grade - which meets protocol. But you end up with a 2 story home with no windows or openings on one side and it needs to be 20 ft above grade to meet protocol. Because??? Just venting my thoughts.

Whether you are for the alarm requirement or against it - this issue has brought to light just how little impact mitigators truly have on decisions that effect this industry and it should be a grave concern to everyone involved. I will be curious what the mitigation committee decides on the alarm requirement in the next coming months. But - it’s just a hunch that I have that little will change in anyone’s favor.

Tony - I just got finished re-reading all 32 of your comments on here. You certainly are book smart - that is undeniable. I think mitigators in MN however are just asking that some common sense be thrown into the decision making process. And with the same people from 2015-2017 to present day are still involved and voting I really don't think there ever was a chance to delay or make this a "should" requirement. Was there truly anything we could have done to - like you say "help our case".

Right now there are about 7-8 products on the market that would classify as an "active notification device" 99% of them have been around for more then a decade. Dane recently brought up that he has developed 7 new alarms that will be hitting the market this year that he has been doing field testing with. And I am certain many more will be available this year from different companies. 2021 will definitely be the year the market will be flooded with these new devices. So instead of MN being the testing ground / guinea pigs (since we are the only state legally required to use them as of now). Would it really be to much to ask for a 12 month delay or less? This would give us a chance to integrate them into our installations - see what works and what doesn't. Most mitigators were unaware this requirement even existed and honestly I don't think mitigators in MN even realized SGM-SF 2017 was even going to become the law of the land here until recently. None of the other licensed states have adopted it - so why would MN think we would be different?

Has there ever been a list of “approved” active notification devices distributed to contractors since this standard took effect?

Is that what we are doing bitching? I beg to differ.

Are the minutes from all these closed door meetings also public record?

That being said - for full transparency.
Can the list of all the committee’s be posted on here and a list of the names on them?

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. — Admin

Thank you for sharing this Dallas.
Can you or someone familiar with the process explain what this means?

I would like to offer an alternative approach that may assist in our mutual goals.

Please feel free to help me understand your view on the following questions:

1. What minimum temperature should a mitigation system be designed to operate at before freezing is expected?
2. Do you believe the majority of local contractors in your area take similar steps to minimize the potential for freeze ups as you do? If not, do they do more or less?
3. Do you provide any performance guarantees in your contract for radon reduction? If so, are their any caveats regarding freeze ups?
4. Do you believe contractors who take shortcuts in weatherproofing are responsible for the issues they are experiencing with the alarms?
5. Are you or your clients worried about elevated radon levels in the house during freeze ups? — Tony McDonald

A frozen exhaust will usually start to begin at or below 5 degrees F - and again this also depends on how much humidity is being pushed out.

All mitigators in MN are mindful of the potential for frozen exhausts - I am really not sure if they are doing more or less.

Performance guarantees on all of our systems. I have yet to have a homeowner not understand the possibility of this condition when we discuss it. Its a short term issue not long term one.

Was there an alarm study conducted to answer #4 - this is the 1st winter these alarms have been required and so far we haven't had much of any polar air yet. I am shocked the committee didn't want to see at least a 12 month study done on these alarms before requiring them for everyone.

For number 5 - a frozen exhaust is a temporary condition due to severe winter weather and one that doesn't usually last long enough to be a large concern. If it was for months on end - then obviously that's a big problem.

David, this is part of an informative background section that is specifically inserted to help the system designer (mitigation specialist) consider some system specific items that may influence their choice for type of alarm. Prior to responding to your comment, I reviewed this section and it reminded me the most appropriate alarm type for the cold weather is likely a unit that monitors electrical draw of the motor. To me, this would be preferable in a northern climate because it would be unlikely to announce a false alarm due to freeze up if the impeller continues to spin when the system has a pressure and flow rate of zero. I will also add that I am unaware of any mitigation alarms currently on the market that function solely on electrical draw. I can remember one from years ago, but it is no longer made. — Tony McDonald

I will have to agree with you on this one Tony - "if" alarms / active notification devices are here to stay. Then one like you describe above would be appropriate for northern climates like MN. I am also glad to see you at least agree of the false alarm issue on what is currently available to us. There actually hasn't been a new alarm to hit the market since 2017.

Are you objecting to the concept of a notification alarm or just the current ones on the market? I can understand if you feel the current products underperform. I am also not super excited with the current ones on the market. Many seem to be designed and manufactured with a specific price point, not expected lifespan, as the primary goal.
I know you manufacture some of the products you sell. If you are so underwhelmed with the current products, why don’t you develop your own product? There appears to be a demand for it. I hope you (and others) are working on it right now. — Tony McDonald

Tony - if this is how you feel; then why is the standards committee not delaying the implementation of the alarm? It says right in the standard - the delay to January 1, 2019 was to allow product manufactures time to develop "improved and cost effective products". This clearly hasn't happened.

And yes - we have performance guarantees on all of our systems and always have.

Tony - I think the questions the radon mitigation professionals in this country need answers to right now are in David Smiths post.

Wow David - very well written... and couldn’t have hit the nail of this controversial requirement more squarely on the head!
Thank you for sharing this.

It seems there is a misconception on here that MN mitigators are installing a lot of exterior systems - not true.
Interior garage run systems are very common and preferred when we can - as the homes layout allows.
Now lets get back to the the freeze ups. Bottom line - it boils down to the amount of humid soil gas being pushed out the exhaust. Nothing else matters when you get down to temps that cold. When you are sucking on dry soil - freeze ups are not very common. Sucking on wet soil - you will have a freeze up at 20 below - guaranteed. I have seen with my own eyes interior system freeze as well. Example - I put a system alarm on a builder installed passive system a few years ago. Completely interior and well insulated. The home owner called me that winter during a polar vortex period telling me the alarm was going off. Remember the freeze up starts at the exhaust end and works its way down. Radon vent pipes produce condensation ( we all know that) as humid sub slab air cools to its dew point in the vent pipe. During prolonged periods of very cold weather, condensation can create ice crystals which can accumulate and block air flow, temporarily rendering the system inoperable until the temperature rises. A freeze up can be diagnosed by a major drop in the U-tube manometer. Freeze ups generally do not last for prolonged periods - but can depending on the severity of the what we call the polar vortex. This would create a large amount of nuisance alarms going off.

Now I am sure Tony will put what I just posted here in quotations and tell me why I am wrong and he is right or what I should have said differently. But that's my 2 cents...

Tony - you never did answer my question.

But I think it is safe to say you definitely agree with the active notification device!

I am quite aware we are required to follow all the rules - and you seem to definitely have all the answers. Being condescending on here I think is very inappropriate. This will be my last post on here. I wish you the best.

Thanks,
Andrew

Tony - what I am getting at is this.

In MN we are required to install these alarms on every system we install or face potential fines. We technically do not have the option to simply not use them. We are forced to.

In Ohio I don’t believe it is required - but I would hope because of how much you advocate for them about how great they are that you would be installing them on every one of your systems. That’s why I ask how they have been working for you since January of 2019. I would hope that any mitigator that is on the standards committee that voted to have these alarms required are actively following what they have required the entire mitigation community to follow.

When it gets 20 below zero like it can in MN - it doesn’t matter how the system is installed. When the 50 degree discharging air hits the below zero degree outside air ice forms on the exhaust end.
This is what we refer to as an extreme weather condition where the system could potentially not work. The same is true on plumbing stacks here that vent to a septic system. They freeze solid.

Tony - I really don’t even know where to start in a response without it being long winded.

But - can you please share with us on here your experiences with systems alarms and what good or bad experiences you have had with them. Or maybe they are all good. The positive way you talk about them I am guessing you have been using them for a few years.

And Wally - I have applied to be on the committee.
There is nothing wrong with voicing concern over a standard you don’t agree with. It doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate the time the committee members volunteer. In fact this is my first time ever on the listserv - commenting on this very controversial standard.

I completely understand what you are saying Bill regarding bias.
But when there is 90+% opposition by radon professionals and the committee passes it anyway.
That is a clear demonstration that the committee is out of touch with radon mitigation professionals and it is no longer a consensus standard.

Carolyn - you failed to mention you work for the company that sells the only viable option and so you have a clear bias.