Standards Committee Minutes from March 13, 2014 Conference Call

Approved by StdC June 28, 2014

1. Call to Order

The StdC Conference Call was called to order onMarch 13, 2014, at 2:00 pm ET. Participants were as follows:

Members Present
William F. Walter, Chair
Richard L. Hall, Vice-Chair
JR Anderson
James Aswegan
Charles S. Barnaby
Steven F. Bruning
Waller S. Clements
David R. Conover
John F. Dunlap
Steven J. Emmerich
Julie Ferguson
Rita M. Harrold
Adam W. Hinge
Debra H. Kennoy
Malcolm D. Knight
Rick A. Larson
Douglas T. Reindl
Julia Keen ExO / Members Not Present
Karim Amrane
John A. Clark
James W. Earley, Jr.
Krishnan Gowri
Mark P. Modera
Cyrus H. Nasseri
Janice C. Peterson
Heather L. Platt
Staff Present
Susan LeBlanc, Standards Administrator
Tanisha Meyers-Lisle, Procedures Administrator
Stephanie Reiniche, MOS
Guests Present
Ross Montgomery

2. Minutes

It was moved by Rick Hall and seconded by Waller Clements:

1That the Standards Committee New York Winter Meeting 2014 Minutes be approved as presented.

Motion 1 Passed: 14-0-0, CNV

3. SPLS Report

The SPLS report was presented by Steve Emmerich. For additional information on this report please see Attachment A.

A. Title, Purpose and Scope Changes

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

2That the title, purpose and scope for SPC 23.1, Methods of Testing for Performance Rating Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units That Operate at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant, be approvedas shown in Attachment B.

Motion 2 Passed: 14-0-1[1], CNV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

3That the title, purpose and scope for SPC 41.2, Standard Methods for Air Velocity and Airflow Measurement, be approvedas shown in Attachment C.

Motion 3 Passed: 14-0-1[2], CNV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

4That the title, purpose and scope for SPC 41.7, Standard Methods for Gas Flow Measurement, be approvedas shown in Attachment D.

Motion 4 Passed: 14-0-1[3], CNV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

5That the title, purpose and scope for SSPC 62.1, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, be approvedas shown in Attachment E.

Motion 5 Passed: 11-5[4]-1[5] CV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

6That the title, purpose and scope for SSPC 62.2, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings, be approvedas shown in Attachment F.

Motion 6 Passed: 11-5[6]-1[7] CV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

7That the title, purpose and scope for SPC 188,Prevention of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems, be approvedas shown in Attachment G.

Motion 7 Passed: 16-0-0, CNV

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

8That the title, purpose and scope for SPC 204, Method of Test for Rating Micro Combined Heat and Power Devices, be approvedas shown in Attachment H.

Motion 8 Passed: 16-0-0, CNV

B. Membership Changes

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

9That the following revision to the membership roster for SPC 172, Method of Test for Insoluble Materials in Synthetic Lubricants and HFC Refrigerant Systems,be approved:

  1. Appointment of Edward Hessell as Chair and PCVM-Producer

Motion 9 Passed: 15-0-1[8], CNV

C. Work Plans

It was moved by Steve Emmerich:

10That the work plan for SSPC 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, be approved as presented.

Motion 10 Passed: 14-0-2[9], CNV

4. New Business

It was moved by Doug Reindl and seconded by Waller Clements:

11That ASHRAE jointly sponsor the revision of the ICC 700, National Green Building Standard, Title, Purpose, and Scope as shown below,with the International Code Council (ICC) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) with the NAHB being the lead organization.

101.1 Title. The title of this document is the National Green Building StandardTM, hereinafter referred to as “this Standard.”

101.2 Scope. The provisions of this Standard shall apply to design and construction of the residential portion(s) of any building, not classified as an institutional use, in all climate zones. This Standard shall also apply to subdivisions, building sites, building lots, accessory structures, and the residential portions of alterations, additions, renovations, mixed-use buildings, and historic buildings.

101.3 Intent. The purpose of this Standard is to establish criteria for rating the environmental impact of design and construction practices to achieve conformance with specified performance levels for green residential buildings, renovation thereof, accessory structures, building sites, and subdivisions. This Standard is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques. This Standard is not intended to abridge safety, health, or environmental requirements contained in other applicable laws, codes, or ordinances.

Motion 11 Passed: 16-0-1[10], CV

It was moved by Adam Hinge and seconded by Waller Clements:

12That ASHRAE not approve the request by Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) to consider adding them as a cosponsor to ASHRAE Standard 211P, Standard for Commercial Building Energy Audits.

Motion 12 Passed: 14-0-1[11]

5. Next Meeting

  • ASHRAE Annual Meetings, June 28 and July 2, 2014, Seattle

6. Adjournment

The conference call adjourned at approximately 3:10pm ET.

Attachments

Attachment A / Attachment B / Attachment C / Attachment D
Attachment E / Attachment F / Attachment G / Attachment H

[1]Rick Hall abstained because he is a member of the SPC.

[2]Rick Hall abstained because he is a member of the SSPC.

[3]Rick Hall abstained because he is a member of the SSPC.

[4]Jim Aswegan, Doug Reindl, Steve Bruning, J.R Anderson, and Dave Conover voted no. Jim Aswegan stated, “I voted NO because I think there were enough questions raised that I would prefer to see the motioned cleaned up before approving rather than approving with questions to be resolved.”Doug Reindl voted no stating,” I voted note on both of the 62 TPS changes because I felt there were enough open issues with both TPS’ that needed closure to ensure they will be properly positioned as code-intended standards.” Steve Bruning voted no stating, “The TPS changes proposed transfer large high rise “residential” structures from 62.1 to 62.2. This is not consistent with the ICC Residential Code which is defined as for “One- and Two-Family Dwellings”. The proposed changes are ambiguous and confusing. A better approach would be to follow the example of the ICC.”J.R Anderson stated, “A project of renovating a 103 year old 3 story building 20,000 sq ft into two condos was desired to meet the LEEDNC Platinum criteria. Since this was being done by a design--build contractor, he selected the team. The LEED rating system for a mixed use building resulted in having to evaluate the ventilation requirement two way:as a LEED NC or as a LEEDfor homes. This required different technologies regarding energy and ventilation. We chose the ASHRAE 90.1 pathanddeveloped the energy model which was showing a 37% improvement from an existingbuilding configuration. The ventilation calculations was attempted to be done accordingto ASHRAE62. The question was raised in the situation where two differing codes were being applied. Rather than fighting the LEED review process it was decided to use ASHRAE 62.1. There is a calculation difference for the amount of outside air required for each system. By using 62.1 more outside air was being required which required an ERV.” Dave Conover voted no stating, “The effort to better coordinate 62.1 and 62.2 to more effectively address ‘residential’ versus non-residential buildings/spaces and ventilation needs is commendable. That said I believe the proposed revisions to the TPS of both documents can be improved and need to better align with building codes to foster their ability to be adopted.

  • The titles are not consistent – one covers ventilation for IAQ and the other the same but for residential buildings.
  • The terms transient and non-transient are unclear and in approving both proposals one would need to see the definition of those terms and confirm they are identical in both documents and as noted above ensure they are consistent with how the terms are defined in building codes.
  • Regardless of the length of stay or use – it would seem if a space were defined as a dwelling unit (e.g. complete independent eating, living, sanitation facilities) the occupants regardless of duration of stay should be provided with the same level of ventilation and IAQ consideration.
  • The term residential is not defined – while the term dwelling unit is defined and has a specific meaning (complete independent eating, sanitation and living facilities) the term residential occupancy further limits the scope – for instance a dwelling unit or something that meets that definition but is located in an assisted care facility is more likely to be considered an institutional occupancy. This lack of coordination with building codes would make it difficult to apply the resultant standards with those codes (a reason for adaptation of the technical provisions of the standards into codes and not to adopt them by reference).
  • There will continue to be challenges in TPS as long as there are multiple standards covering buildings, with one applying to some and the other applying to the rest. The best way to address that issue and arrive at a document that is more in line with building codes and adoptable by reference in my opinion is to merge both standards back into a singular 62 and then deal with different space needs, etc. within that document.

[5]Waller Clements abstained because he is a member of the SSPC.

[6]JR Anderson, Jim Aswegan, Steve Bruning, Dave Conover, and Doug Reindl voted no for the same reasons as given for the proposed TPS changes to SSPC 62.1.

[7]Steve Emmerich abstained because he is past Chair of the SSPC.

[8]Debbie Kennoy abstained because she is a member of the cognizant TC.

[9]Rita Harrold abstained because she works for IEC, the cosponsor of the standard. Dave Conover abstained because he has co-workers and DOE clients on 90.1 or subcommittees of the SSPC.

[10]Steve Emmerich abstained stating, “I am concerned because 189.2 was proposed to provide minimum requirements (similar to 189.1) specifically because ICC700 is a point counting rating system (similar to LEED).”

[11]Adam Hinge abstained because he is a member of the SPC. Note: Doug Reindl and the Chair left the meeting.