Re: ASHRAE just doesn't get it

[Guest guest]

Folks,

Having just returned from the ASHRAE conferences in Chicago, I have another view

of the process. My view is similar to Bud Offermann's in some ways, but

different in others. Bud and I are serving on ASHRAE's Mold Position Document

Revision Committee along with Lan Chi Nguyen Weekes, Carl Grimes and other

experts, so Bud & I know each other well.

I share Bud's frustration with the idea that intermittent ventilation separated

by hours is adequate for residences. I really don't get that logic.

On the other hand, I note with some additional frustration that many here in our

iequality group seem to think that ASHRAE is some sort of authority " run by

others. "

ASHRAE is us. You, me and anybody who cares to participate.

ASHRAE is like IAQA and AIHA. In ASHRAE we often disagree with each other as

professionals tend to do. (Three ASHRAE members usually means ten or more

opinions)

If you don't like the results, then consider investing the time, money and

energy that Bud, and I do along with more than 1,000 other volunteer members of

ASHRAE technical committees, standards committees, handbook contributors and

hundreds of external commentors. It's long, hard hours of expensive time and

effort on nights and weekends, paid for almost entirely by volunteer efforts and

personal expenditure of funds for travel and meeting registration. Most of us

pay for this out of our own pockets... certainly Bud & I do.

But that's what it takes to improve things in a consensus mode... a messy

mixture of democracy and oligarchy, influenced most strongly by those who care

to donate their time, money and brain-space for many months or years. So

whenever anybody wants " ASHRAE to get it " ... (or if they want AIHA or IAQA to

get it) they need to get involved and stay involved, sometimes for decades.

[Please note that, like all who participate in ASHRAE activities, I speak only

for myself. The ASHRAE President alone speaks for the Society]

Lew

-----------------------------------------

Lew Harriman

Volunteer Chair - ASHRAE TC 1.12 (Moisture Management in Buildings)

Mason-Grant Consulting

Portsmouth, NH

Mobile:

LewHarriman@...

>

> Dear Colleagues:

>

> Bud's recent story provides an example to me of how ASHRAE doesn't get IAQ and

Indoor Environmental Health.

>

> Another example is in ASHRAE's Indoor Air Quality Guide, Best Practices for

Design, Construction and Commissioning.

>

> In the introduction to this document, " Good IAQ " is defined as the condition

where " virtually no occupants express dissatisfaction. "

>

> This can be contrasted with " Acceptable IAQ " in Standard 62.1 where up to 20%

can be dissatisfied.

>

> To me this indicates that achieving " Good IAQ " would require ventilation rates

in excess of the 62.1 minimums.

>

> And yet ASHRAE doesn't get it and merely states that " good IAQ results from

diligent compliance with both the letter and

>

> intent of ASHRAE Standard 62.1.

>

>

> Just my opinion (or is it?)

>

> W. Bearg, PE

>

> Life Energy Associates

> www.LifeEnergyAssoc.com

> 20 Darton Street

> Concord, MA 01742

>

>

>

> To: iequality

> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:58:05 PM

> Subject: Intermittent Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation [3

Attachments]

>

>

> IEQuality colleagues.

>

> I am sorry to report that my proposed change to limit the maximum cycle times

of residential mechanical outdoor air systems was rejected in Chicago this

weekend by the 62.2 committee

>

> I gave it my best shot but in the end I could not persuade the committee. The

committee consists primarily of mechanical engineers as this is of course first

and foremost a ventilation standard.

>

> For those of you interested in seeing my arguments I have attached the

following three files.

>

> Offermann Intermittent Ventilation - Chicago

>

> Offermann 62.2 Proposed Change Presentation

>

> Offermann 62.2 Addendum i - Proposed Change

>

> Basically my argument is that for an intermittently operated mechanical

outdoor air system to provide equivalent IAQ to that of continuously operated

system, the cycle times need to be kept short (e.g. a maximum of 2-4 hours, btw

the IRC and IMC have a 4 hour limit). ASHRAE currently allows intermittent

systems to be operated with a maximum of 24 hours. During the long off periods

of systems with long cycle times air contaminants with indoor sources such as

formaldehyde can accumulate to high indoor concentrations causing irritation.

>

> Two reasons that the committee members cite as for allowing intermittent

ventilation systems with long cycle times and hence long off periods are energy

and high outdoor air pollution.

>

> As I see it when there are concerns for energy costs because of cold or hot

outdoor climatic conditions or high time of day utility costs, then the response

should NOT be to shut off or reduce the outdoor air ventilation, but rather

energy conservation measures,

> such as heat and energy recovery ventilators, should be pursued. Similarly,

when there are concerns for

> high outdoor air contaminant concentrations, then air cleaning measures should

be pursued.

>

> Buildings are for people and thus health must trump energy.

>

> I would appreciate the groups feedback on this issue.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In response to Lew's comment:

Let me first say that I consider the individuals serving on ASHRAE's " Mold

Position Document Revision Committee " Lew, Bud, Carl and Lan Chi to be

outstanding professionals, they are respected members and contributors to ASHRAE

and deserve respect of the IAQ community. Lew knows well of my criticism of

ASHRAE's BOD and direction they have taken and the gaming of the ANSI system

that they have learned to employ.

The A$HRAe's " Mold Position Document Revision Committee " is a prime example of

the failure of A$HRAe to acknowledge the grass root of the organization that

they serve. Not a single member of the committee is a design engineer who bets

the farm every day designing projects, so much for balanced views. They cannot

understand the creative art and science that goes into designing building HVAC

systems nor understand the responsibility or personal liability that the state

laws place on a Licensed Engineer doing that task.

A$HRAe has named a cognizant committee for the position document TC 1.12

" Moisture Management in Buildings, " however, A$HRAe has redefined cognizant.

The committee listed on the document was not given the opportunity to review,

comment or vote on the final document submitted.

I can say as Lew, Bud, and Carl can probably attest to, I was extremely critical

of the document in the draft form, again it does not mean I do not respect them

and their effort, each has done outstanding work in their respective areas and

the IAQ field.

What is the definition of cognizant- according to definition's I found it means;

Fully informed; conscious; having or showing knowledge or understanding or

realization;

A$HRAe has apparently defined it as " merely noticing something or being aware of

something, anything such as a mention it that it is being rewritten. "

The grass roots design professional is no longer represented by the organization

they founded.

Ron 

B PE

Engineering Corporation

 

860 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1

Jupiter, Florida  33458

Telephone

Fax

Cell

www.baileyeng.com

[Guest guest]

Have the builders and equipment manufacturers gained the majority influence? An ex ASHRAE member.

>  >> In response to Lew's comment:>> Let me first say that I consider the individuals serving on ASHRAE's " Mold Position Document Revision Committee " Lew, Bud, Carl and Lan Chi to be outstanding professionals, they are respected members and contributors to ASHRAE and deserve respect of the IAQ community. Lew knows well of my criticism of ASHRAE's BOD and direction they have taken and the gaming of the ANSI system that they have learned to employ.

>> The A$HRAe's " Mold Position Document Revision Committee " is a prime example of the failure of A$HRAe to acknowledge the grass root of the organization that they serve. Not a single member of the committee is a design engineer who bets the farm every day designing projects, so much for balanced views. They cannot understand the creative art and science that goes into designing building HVAC systems nor understand the responsibility or personal liability that the state laws place on a Licensed Engineer doing that task.

>> A$HRAe has named a cognizant committee for the position document TC 1.12 " Moisture Management in Buildings, " however, A$HRAe has redefined cognizant. The committee listed on the document was not given the opportunity to review, comment or vote on the final document submitted.

>> I can say as Lew, Bud, and Carl can probably attest to, I was extremely critical of the document in the draft form, again it does not mean I do not respect them and their effort, each has done outstanding work in their respective areas and the IAQ field.

>> What is the definition of cognizant- according to definition's I found it means; Fully informed; conscious; having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization;>> A$HRAe has apparently defined it as " merely noticing something or being aware of something, anything such as a mention it that it is being rewritten. "

>> The grass roots design professional is no longer represented by the organization they founded.>> Ron > B PE> Engineering Corporation>  > 860 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1

> Jupiter, Florida  33458> Telephone> Fax> Cell>> www.baileyeng.com>> -- C. HannerBuilding Diagnostics, LLC

1143 45th Avenue NESt sburg, FL 33703

If voting could really change things it would be illegal.

[Guest guest]

Everybody,

Preamble: Nobody could ever accuse Ron of not caring enough to get

involved with the ASHRAE mission!

Ron's been a very faithful and attentive ASHRAE member, and has always been

eager and willing to provide feedback and criticism of what happens in ASHRAE.

He has also been very generous with his time and effort in reviewing ASHRAE

publications with which I have been associated. He and I have been friends and

colleagues for many years, and I expect will remain so until we are both in the

ground.

But as Chair of ASHRAE's Committee for revising the Society's Position Document

on Limiting Indoor Mold & Dampness in Buildings, I need to correct a few items

in his recent post, for the record:

1.The current [two years early] revision of the ASHRAE position document on

indoor mold was done largely at Ron's insistence. He did not believe the

previous version (October 2010) was sufficiently protective of mechanical

engineers and did not properly limit their professional risks. So in that

respect, ASHRAE has been quite attentive to Ron's perspective.

2. The Board of Directors appointed a group of seven professionals to review the

document and recommend revisions to the Board. That has been done. It took 14

major revisions, and a full year's effort of seven unpaid volunteers, all of

whom have more than 20 years of experience dealing with all aspects of moisture

and mold in buildings. Of these seven, three are registered professional

engineers, one is a medical doctor and public health official, one is a

registered architect another is a Certified Industrial Hygieniest. None are

manufacturers, and none are builders. The composition of the committee was

reviewed and approved by ASHRAE's Tech Council and also the Board of Directors

for balance, professional qualifications and relevant professional experience.

3. Currently, the cognizant technical committee within ASHRAE for the subject of

indoor mold is the Environmental Health Committee, not Technical Committee 1.12

(Moisture management in buildings). Technical committee 1.12 has been the

cognizant committee for mold in the past, but now serves in an advisory role to

the EHC with respect to the Society's position document.

4. Although *not* a requirement of the position document revision process, as

Chair I decided it would be useful to gain the perspective of ASHRAE technical

committees 1.12 (Moisture management) , 9.1 (Large building AC systems) and the

Environmental Health Committee. We received extensive input from those

committees, including many comments from Ron, many of which have been included

in the final document. The revised document is currently being considered for

approval by the Board of Directors. Ron's statement that members of these

committees did not have an opportunity to review and provide input to the

revised document is not correct.

5. An ASHRAE position document is the position of the society on a given issue

of public importance. It is not guidance, nor a standard, nor a building code.

It simply informs the members and the public about what is known within ASHRAE

on a particular subject that might be useful to those seeking to make public

policy, or regulations in a given area.

Finally, I would like to encourage anybody to help ASHRAE make better, more

useful documents. The effort to lead is neither easy nor personally inexpensive

in time and effort, as both Ron and I are fully aware. But it is satisfying to

be part of making things better, through the application of hard-won experience

to issues of public importance. ASHRAE, for all of it's shortcomings (and I

agree there are many) is a noble and effective effort, by unpaid volunteers, in

the direction of " making things better " for all of the building professions,

building owners and for the public at large, throughout the world.

Please note that I speak only for myself, not for ASHRAE. Only the ASHRAE

President speaks for the Society.

Lew

--------------------------------------------

Lew Harriman

Mason-Grant Consulting

57 South St.

Portsmouth, NH 03801 USA

Direct:

Mobile:

LewHarriman@...

> In response to Lew's comment:

>

> Let me first say that I consider the individuals serving on ASHRAE's " Mold

Position Document Revision Committee " Lew, Bud, Carl and Lan Chi to be

outstanding professionals, they are respected members and contributors to ASHRAE

and deserve respect of the IAQ community. Lew knows well of my criticism of

ASHRAE's BOD and direction they have taken and the gaming of the ANSI system

that they have learned to employ.

>

> The A$HRAe's " Mold Position Document Revision Committee " is a prime example of

the failure of A$HRAe to acknowledge the grass root of the organization that

they serve. Not a single member of the committee is a design engineer who bets

the farm every day designing projects, so much for balanced views. They cannot

understand the creative art and science that goes into designing building HVAC

systems nor understand the responsibility or personal liability that the state

laws place on a Licensed Engineer doing that task.

>

> A$HRAe has named a cognizant committee for the position document TC 1.12

" Moisture Management in Buildings, " however, A$HRAe has redefined cognizant. The

committee listed on the document was not given the opportunity to review,

comment or vote on the final document submitted.

>

> I can say as Lew, Bud, and Carl can probably attest to, I was extremely

critical of the document in the draft form, again it does not mean I do not

respect them and their effort, each has done outstanding work in their

respective areas and the IAQ field.

>

> What is the definition of cognizant- according to definition's I found it

means; Fully informed; conscious; having or showing knowledge or understanding

or realization;

>

> A$HRAe has apparently defined it as " merely noticing something or being aware

of something, anything such as a mention it that it is being rewritten. "

>

> The grass roots design professional is no longer represented by the

organization they founded.

>

> Ron

> B PE

> Engineering Corporation

>

> 860 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1

> Jupiter, Florida 33458

> Telephone

> Fax

> Cell

>

> www.baileyeng.com

>

[Guest guest]

All, Lew's comments are somewhat correct however he states, That I " did not believe the previous version of the document was " (October 2010) was sufficiently protective of mechanical engineers and did not properly limit their professional risks. " This is incorrect, I felt that the previous document gave undue liability to the design engineer in its statements that were unnecessary. Lew also stated that " Of these seven (on the position document committee), three are registered professional engineers " . I stand by my criticism of the BOD of not placing a " Design Engineer " on the committee, none of the PE's on the committee are in responsible charge of design projects on a daily basis and therefore lack the perspective required for a balanced document, nor do they deal daily with the personal liability given to a design engineer spelled out by state laws on responsibility rules for design. Of the three PE's, one directs a laboratory and research, one acts as an environmental engineer, the other is a governmental employee that directs guidelines for governmental facilities but does not do design. In response to point 3: My statement was that the cognizant committee(s) did not review , vote on or approve the final document. So define Cognizant and the purpose of having cognizant committee(s) listed, the document submitted is quite different than the draft reviewed by some of the members of the stated committees. As to the EHC being the Cognizant committee, that is not what the final document sent to Tech Council states; it identifies both TC 1.12 and EHC as " cognizant committee(s) " . It would not surprise me that the BOD would change the Cognizant committee due to the criticisms of people who attend the 1.12 meetings. As past Chair of both TC 1.12 and the EHC, I am familiar with the works of both committees(both excellent) and the first Mold Position Document and the position document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke were reviewed by the full committee when I was Chair before it went to Tech Council and the BOD. But that is when the meaning of " Cognizant " was apparently different. And though ASHRAE can state the purpose of the document as not Guidance nor a standard, and qualifiers can be stated in the body of the document, inflammatory statements made within the document do carry the weight of the position of the society and therefore must be carefully considered before design engineers and building owners are thrown under the bus; as I envision they are in the present document. Thank you for allowing me to vent. Ron B PE Engineering Corporation 860 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458 Telephone Fax Cell www.baileyeng.com -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Lew HarrimanSent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:16 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: ASHRAE just doesn't get it Everybody, Preamble: Nobody could ever accuse Ron of not caring enough to get involved with the ASHRAE mission! Ron's been a very faithful and attentive ASHRAE member, and has always been eager and willing to provide feedback and criticism of what happens in ASHRAE. He has also been very generous with his time and effort in reviewing ASHRAE publications with which I have been associated. He and I have been friends and colleagues for many years, and I expect will remain so until we are both in the ground. But as Chair of ASHRAE's Committee for revising the Society's Position Document on Limiting Indoor Mold & Dampness in Buildings, I need to correct a few items in his recent post, for the record: 1.The current [two years early] revision of the ASHRAE position document on indoor mold was done largely at Ron's insistence. He did not believe the previous version (October 2010) was sufficiently protective of mechanical engineers and did not properly limit their professional risks. So in that respect, ASHRAE has been quite attentive to Ron's perspective. 2. The Board of Directors appointed a group of seven professionals to review the document and recommend revisions to the Board. That has been done. It took 14 major revisions, and a full year's effort of seven unpaid volunteers, all of whom have more than 20 years of experience dealing with all aspects of moisture and mold in buildings. Of these seven, three are registered professional engineers, one is a medical doctor and public health official, one is a registered architect another is a Certified Industrial Hygieniest. None are manufacturers, and none are builders. The composition of the committee was reviewed and approved by ASHRAE's Tech Council and also the Board of Directors for balance, professional qualifications and relevant professional experience. 3. Currently, the cognizant technical committee within ASHRAE for the subject of indoor mold is the Environmental Health Committee, not Technical Committee 1.12 (Moisture management in buildings). Technical committee 1.12 has been the cognizant committee for mold in the past, but now serves in an advisory role to the EHC with respect to the Society's position document. 4. Although *not* a requirement of the position document revision process, as Chair I decided it would be useful to gain the perspective of ASHRAE technical committees 1.12 (Moisture management) , 9.1 (Large building AC systems) and the Environmental Health Committee. We received extensive input from those committees, including many comments from Ron, many of which have been included in the final document. The revised document is currently being considered for approval by the Board of Directors. Ron's statement that members of these committees did not have an opportunity to review and provide input to the revised document is not correct. 5. An ASHRAE position document is the position of the society on a given issue of public importance. It is not guidance, nor a standard, nor a building code. It simply informs the members and the public about what is known within ASHRAE on a particular subject that might be useful to those seeking to make public policy, or regulations in a given area. Finally, I would like to encourage anybody to help ASHRAE make better, more useful documents. The effort to lead is neither easy nor personally inexpensive in time and effort, as both Ron and I are fully aware. But it is satisfying to be part of making things better, through the application of hard-won experience to issues of public importance. ASHRAE, for all of it's shortcomings (and I agree there are many) is a noble and effective effort, by unpaid volunteers, in the direction of " making things better " for all of the building professions, building owners and for the public at large, throughout the world. Please note that I speak only for myself, not for ASHRAE. Only the ASHRAE President speaks for the Society. Lew --------------------------------------------Lew HarrimanMason-Grant Consulting57 South St.Portsmouth, NH 03801 USADirect: Mobile: LewHarriman@...