These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
ASHRAE 62.2 SSPC Meeting
Seattle, WA
June 27 – 28, 2014
Members in Attendance:
Guests:
Francisco, Paul (Chair)
Bean, Robert
Walker, Iain (Vice-Chair)
Emmerich, Steve
Raymer, Paul (Secretary)
Craw, Gary
Baylon, David
Denton, Don
Brennan, Terry
Greist, Henry
Crawford, Roy
Hirigorani, SanJeev
Drumheller, Craig
Jacobs, David
Fairey, Phillip
Johnson, Tim
Jackson, Mark
Larson, Ben
Lubliner, Michael
Lstiburek, Joe
Mason, Stephany
Nelson, Gary
Meyers, Darren
Olson, Collin
Moore, Mike
Opalka, Mary
Musser, Amy
Papageorge, Andrea
Proctor, John
Piak, Thad
Rudd, Armin
Rose, John
Stevens, Don
Sherman, Max
Werling, Eric
Singer, Sarany
Wilcox, Bruce
Stroud, Tom
Williams, Ted
Springer, David
Members Absent:
Karg, Richard
Chair, Paul Francisco, called to order at 1:15PM
Introductions/attendance/agenda/minutes
Introductions
Agenda - no changes
Minutes from NYC meeting – approved
Actions taken by ASHRAE since last meeting
Addendum a: approved and accepted
Addendum b: sent for publication
Addendum c: to be discussed today
Welty, Steve
Widder, Sarah
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Addendum d: to be discussed today
Addendum e: no comments
Addendum f: no comments
Addendum g: public review, 2 comments - may close the loop on that here. Meeting
with 62.1 on Saturday
Subcommittees:
Roy Crawford: Systems (absent)
Inconsistency with the default infiltration credit – address on Saturday
IAQ – Mike Moore:
Sarah – more in depth discussion tomorrow about introducing pollutants into the space
Lubliner – source control? Ambiguity of what is being addressed.
Mike – there are going to be some limits
David Jacobs will provide info regarding health impacts of renovations, green,
affordable housing units
New study including bio monitoring, energy, and water efficiency
All the studies complied with ASHRAE 62.2
Medicaid data & medical costs
6.4 rewrite
 Makeup air is being provided for the exhaust from the appliance not combustion
air. It is air for the exhaust appliance;
 Existing on a static reference – needed a more dynamic reference;
Ted – what happened to the term reference of natural draft? I don’t think this language is
any better
Mike – Max was uncomfortable with the term, description is improved because it doesn’t
bring in other people’s definitions.
Ted – this is substantially changed since what we talked about on Monday. I think there
are some definition confusion issues. If the intent is to capture mechanical draft appliances,
venting systems shouldn’t be in the definition. I don’t know what a mechanical draft venting
system.
Max you could just leave the definition out.
Mike – rolled in the two definitions for natural draft
Amy – is fireplace a part of this?
Mike – Yes
Amy – what is direct vent fireplace? This applies to many people.
Mike – if they’re direct vent, they are excluded. Wood burning fireplaces would be
impacted by this.
Tom – makeup air is required. It’s just an opening in the fireplace.
Amy – this sounds like it would be additional makeup air
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Lubliner – assumption based on all these devices?
Ted – comes out of Canadian research in the ‘80s
Joe – based on water heaters – number was a political issue
Ted – no certification testing done in the US on depressurization testing. The numbers
are simulation testing.
Joe – Canadians gave up and figured that the water heaters would spill periodically. So
the conclusion was that we were looking at the wrong issue.
Lubliner – It might be an interesting area.
Phil – we don’t have any test data? Is the pressure between the indoor and outdoor?
Ted – testing is done under neutral conditions – makeup air shall be considered
Gary – what is a reasonable allowable negative pressure? But they don’t do any testing.
I think this a good start. Change the .22 to .16.
Armin – avoid all this infiltration guessing and come up with a factor. The difference in
net exhaust flow – throw out a number – better to have a number.
Paul F – that is just a different set of numbers that doesn’t take into the account whether
houses are tight or leaky. Existing building programs are really struggling with this section. The
existing section is virtually meaningless. We need something that will work for both.
Joe – why not have two paths – one for new and one for existing?
Max – every new house is going to have a leakage test. We could put in a default of 1
ACH50
Proctor – I’m with Joe on having two paths.
Paul F – some disagreement on the draft definition, there are questions about some of
these numbers, performance and prescriptive metrics
Mike – I don’t think we’re going to get there on the definitions. Tried to keep it so
simple that the definitions are avoidable all together. Round the factor to .2. I think this is
usable for both new and existing. There are lots of options here for both new and existing
construction. I don’t think it is particularly onerous. So I’m good to go with it. Change to 8 cfm
per square foot.
Ted – if you have a common vented furnace and water heater they are mechanical draft?
Mike – lets reduce the 8 to 3? That would work out to 1 ACH50.
Amy – wood burning fireplaces would rarely need this.
Mike – what is your interpretation of the standard now
Armin – I think the word exhaust makeup air should be in every situation.
Paul – seems like there is still work to be done.
Iain – could you summarize the things that the subcommittee will address
Mike’s issues for subcommittee meeting re paragraph 6.4:
Reducing the infiltration credit
Clarifying the exhaust
Reducing the tightness limit
Other means of addressing solid – fuel combustion appliances
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Dilution of venting air
Having different paths for new vs existing
Don S: do we need to specify the makeup air rate
Bruce – gravity or barometric damper sentence is a double negative – rated at 5 pascals or
less?
Mike – unvented combustion, within the scope but not addressed, looking for input on
how to address all unvented combustion appliances. I don’t have an agenda.
Paul – we are allowed to address unvented combustion appliance in the standard although
it didn’t get into the 2013 version of the standard. Now it’s time to write the
requirements.
Envelope: Amy:
Develop a work plan around this multi-family stuff. That problem only gets worse as we
bring in all these other building types. Need the notes from this morning.
Existing buildings:
Raymer – read and annotated Rick Karg’s report
Amy let’s make the control issue clearer.
Lubliner: put a key into it to adjust it.
Terry: the electrical code is not clear. Code covers it in multiple locations.
Max: if the purpose is ventilation we should be able to write that.
Terry: make sure you follow all applicable codes.
Break at 3:03
Restarted 3:19
Mike – any proposals in on the 2018 code by January
Bruce – California version next week – 2010 version of standard is being endorsed.
John P – any proposal for the next round?
Bruce – nothing
Guideline 24 revision:
Paul F: Guideline is something more than the minimum. This is vision that was started a few
years ago. Not a charge to change the intent of the guideline
Mike M: summarized Reference updated, language has been updated.
Range hoods more addressed thoroughly, fecal cloud, carbon monoxide alarm section has been
expanded. Pressurization in the living space.
Rick updated the draft
Get a vote on the guideline as it stands so we can get it out there.
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
5 year cycle. We would need to revise or reaffirm or withdraw the standard by 2019.
Eric – I had similar issue with Armin. Reference change Indoor Air Package to Indoor Air Plus.
Are we voting to put it out to public review?
Paul F – we could vote for public review with one reference change.
Eric – Do we have an indication on how this is used?
Max – if we don’t think it’s of value, then we should withdraw it. But we should be able to find
out from ASHRAE.
Mike L – could we put the money into the handbook.
Max – should we put it into the Infiltration section of the handbook.
Armin – A lot of stuff that needs to be changed. I was just given it to peer review it. Surprised
that no one commented out there.
Max – send out a letter ballot
Paul F asked for a motion to move the process forward.
MOTION 1: Mike Moore – move to send Guideline 24 out for publication and public review.
Iain – second motion
Motion withdrawn
Mark J: we have been through this document a whole lot of times.
Armin – if this goes out for public review. Would they accept my line numbers?
Paul F: I would like the committee to review of those comments.
Mark J: If they give you back the comments – seems like there are a number of changes.
Max – If Armin voted no, his justification of that could list his redline version
Paul F – We could send it out for public review, etc.
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Proctor – it would be incumbent upon all of us to read the document, make the changes, and put
it together.
Welty - We don’t want to have an ASHRAE document out there that has incorrect information. I
don’t want it going out with incorrect information
Mike L – I wouldn’t characterize Armin’s comments as an error. We need to have that dialogue.
Terry – Armin’s proposed changes – I like a lot. His changes are ones that need to be made.
Welty – I don’t think Rick is going to mind one or two more meetings – maybe 4% of the
document needs to be corrected.
Mark J – I think it is exciting to get the whole committee energized about this document.
Mike M: I withdraw the motion.
Max: Can’t really do that.
Iain – agree to have the motion withdrawn
Paul F - People had been given a month to read it. You have a month until July 27th then the
revision committee should take the corrections and move it forward. On July 28th assimilate the
comments – get a new version out, see how soon we can get to a vote for publication public
review as a letter ballot. End of September is the deadline to get it out for a vote before January.
Mike L – Discussion of the HUD housing meeting. There was a discussion of the GAO finding.
How do you measure the ventilation flows in a factory? Stay abreast of the rule making and stay
in touch with the process. GAO report: #?
Paul F – ASHRAE office – is there some action the committee should take on this?
Mike L – we should be a greater participant in this
Paul F – Scope change. There were some comments. The bulk of the discussion this morning
had to do with sleeping units not dwelling units. 62.1 said they would keep the sleeping units,
we would keep the dwelling units.
Motion to accept the following response to the commenter:
Moved by Iain, seconded by Phil
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
The committee voted to reject the comment that the TPS harmonization among ASHRAE
Standards 62.1 and 62.2 lacks technical merit. Rather, after discussion, the consensus opinion
was that there should be consistency; not only among terms defined in other ASHRAE
Standards and national model construction codes, but also among occupancies which can
clearly be declared commercial versus residential, and transient versus non-transient. While
there can be cases where the combination of residential or commercial transience, frequency
and duration of cooking operations, and the presence or absence of sanitary facilities overlap,
the consensus opinion was that the three definitions proposed clearly demarcate dwelling units
and non-transient residential conditions within the scope of Standard 62.2, while sleepingrooms, guest-rooms and transient residential conditions reside wholly within the scope of
Standard 62.1.
Hand vote 16, 0, 1
---------------------------------------------------------------Max – Filtration working group.
Most of the work mostly by email
Standard has ignored outdoor air conditions. Should there be outdoor air treatment? If it’s bad
outdoors, should we deal with it indoors?
Basis for how we were going to decide these requirements.
Start with PM2.5
How do we move forward with this? Setting a requirement for clean air delivery rate. Some sort
of recirculating system. We can define a requirement based on that.
The Appendix has a way to do that with the basic equations. CADR is the clean air delivery rate.
The rate would be cut by the filtration.
If the committee likes this, it can be turned into some appropriate language.
Group – maybe we should separate the issues of indoor and outdoor requirements. There’s a real
advantage to separating them.
Encourage the volunteers of the working groups to get some work done. Maybe this should be
combined with the equivalents group.
Collin – I think the physics is wrong to trade off whole building ventilation rate with filtering.
You can’t make the PM2.5 problem small enough to reduce the ventilation rate.
Max – I need it resolved in order to move forward.
Paul F – I don’t think we need to look at the trade-off issues at this point.
Max – if it is going to be a requirement, all systems have to be able to comply with that.
Mike L – How much of reduction in DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years)
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Paul F – We haven’t given any direction to the filtration group.
Armin – what about an absolute concentration level.
Mark J - 7 million people died last year from PM2.5 and other similar particles! The biggest
impact we can have on health in the US is moving filters from a MERV 6 to a MERV 10.
Filtration group – Mark, Phil Fairey, Jeff Siegel, Max Sherman, Armin Rudd
Paul – we have generally agreed to focus on indoor air.
Proctor – there are some really divergent views. What if it’s okay if they come back with two
views. But limit it with two proposals
Paul – we need to have real proposals
Proctor – the biggest piece has too many variables. I don’t know how we move forward.
Welty – give me a number and that’s what I’ll put in.
Max – last year I put down a proposal and it got nitpicked to death!
Paul F – we don’t have enough with this document. We need to get a proposal that we can vote
on.
Adjourn: 5:20 PM
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Convened 12:10 PM
Introductions
Mike – IAQ actions from the subcommittees
No specific actions from the sub. Made some progress. But it’s not fully developed at this point.
Did go through a lot of the changes. Makeup air infiltration credits. Are we double counting.
Work with Ted on calculating makeup air for combustion appliances. Straw poll: how we should
address solid fuel burning appliances. Question is whether we should give an exception to those
because the contaminants would be visible.
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Tom S- designed to be burned in a balanced situation. If it’s necessary to balance the house, . . .
I don’t see a reason for them to be excepted.
Amy – I would like them to be seen as excepted. You need to decide when they are direct vent
fireplaces.
Tom S – they are never direct vent.
Amy - I’ll probably vote against it because it is used so seldom
Armin – it’s the use of the device. Solid fuel appliances are used so seldom. We could consider
something in the middle.
Tom S – they are not required to have sealed doors
Paul F – sense of the committee do we give an exemption to all solid fuels. Whether you believe
that this change proposal should include solid fuels.
12 for, 1 against
Max – some people want to heat with their fireplace
Paul F – committee will decide any distinction between solid wood burning appliances
MM – be good to get the issue out to the letter ballot.
Armin Tom, Gary added to the ad hoc working group
Tom – UL 127 fireplace are designed to have the necessary air. Where we have an issue is for
masonry fireplaces to balance their air or maybe the IMC is the place to do it.
MM – regardless of home tightness?
Tom – can’t say that, designed for -5Pa.
Short term assignment is changes to section 6.1 about location of ducting etc. And then a longer
term approach that would develop an IAQ protocol?
Phil – 6.1?
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Sarah – separate issue, smaller more concrete step, re the introduction of pollutants through
adjacent spaces. Source contamination in the standard is a bigger more unwieldy beast.
Amy to coordinate with Sarah and Stephany
Stephany – add something not only the standard but to the guideline in the next month.
MM – David Jacobs gave an overview report on some of the findings from his research. It will
be good to integrate 62.2 issues into some of the future studies.
David Jacobs – National Healthy Housing Standard was recently released. NCHH web site.
Mary, Don, Ted (ref IAQ committee) working group on combustion appliances Proposal on how
to address unvented combustion space heating appliances. . .
Darren – could consider UL 127 fireplaces? Only unvented space heaters
Max – could be decorative appliances
MM – possibilities – ban them entirely, performance requirements, laboratory test results (ANSI
test), could be the option of bringing along the EPA limits, few other ideas
We were remiss in not getting to Max’s proposal
Max’s proposal –
Simple way to do what we want to do in reference to filtration.
Hoping to know if in principal this is what we want.
You have to have a ducted system, it would be required.
Proctor - I‘ve heard that 2.5 largely comes from outside unless you cook. Filtration on supply
side ventilation could be one option. Filtration scattered about the house.
Roy – How much would this reduce the PM 2.5.
Max – I think the reduction of 2.5 is the big one.
Paul F – other comments
Eric – why 3 times?
Max – the equation that I circulated yesterday had an equation that come up with the 3. The key
other number is the filter efficiency. I wouldn’t want to go below MERV 12.
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Mark J – If you go to MERV 13 you get some improvements in ultra-fine particles.
Max – we believe that ultra-fines are more important, but we don’t have any numbers.
Paul F – a few comments, not all supportive, a little more supportive than yesterday. Straw vote.
Does the committee in principal support this basic approach.
13 yes, 2 no
MM – there shouldn’t be a filtration requirement with tradeoffs. I don’t want to tradeoff one
pollutant for another. Maybe you can trade-off. Address infiltration and leave ventilation as it
is.
Darren – I’m sympathetic to Mike’s concerns about trading off.
Max – this is optional recirculation approach.
Eric – it wouldn’t require a central forced air system
Mike L – I could put this in and it would reduce the amount that would be required by the whole
building ventilation system
Dave Baylon – I don’t like running the HVAC just for filtration because of the cost. I’d like to
see more work done.
Dave Jacobs – We doing a comparative risk assessment. By hoping that we get a reduction in
one pollutant for another. PM2.5 is an inflammatory. Formaldehyde is carcinogenic.
Eric – addressed by adding a requirement for duct tightness (fourth point to Max’s proposal). In
most jurisdictions this is a voluntary standard. Struggle is getting it universally applied. This is
taking a step that includes enough design flexibility.
Terry – The reason this has come up is because the DALY information. In a lot of ways it’s our
first cut at it and we have to figure out how comfortable we are with the uncertainties that have
come up in the DALYs.
End of MM report
Systems subcommittee – Roy
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Motion would be to reject comment.
Vote in favor to reject this motion
15. 1. 1 chair not voting. Approved rejection
Paul F.
Accept all the comments by making these changes
MM – language should be wordsmithed. Unless you forbid it, it’s permissible.
Bruce – do we need to accept these comments in principle?
ML – motion to accept the comments in principle Amy seconded
16, 0,1, Chair not voting
Envelope Amy – change proposal we voted on last time. We are voting on the response as to
why.
[Paul has text]
Subcommitte vote 5,0,0
Response to Phil why it was rejected (change in indoor air quality definition)
15, 0, 1, Chair not voting
Amy - Developed a work plan that will send out regarding taking on all multifamily.
We don’t own the corridor and we don’t want to own the corridor. That air does become part of
our system and we need to address and work on.
------------------------------------------------------John Dunlap Your work plan and roster all got approved. Everything seems to be pretty
smoothly.
ML – how many copies of Guideline 24 have been sold?
JD – will find out
Amy – ventilation rates for the dwelling –
If it’s attached can’t take a credit at all, could be barely attached
3 possible category – single family attached one dwelling high attached to another dwelling unit
high. Do your blower door test with all the leakage figure out percentage is attached Probably do
that without
2nd category – low-rise stacked units
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
3rd category – high-rise we will never be able to offer an infiltration credit
We have some concerns that we don’t have a lot of expertise on very tall buildings, maybe
cosponsor a forum in Chicago – Amy will try to look them up and try to make contact on a
forum Dwelling Unit Ventilation Compartmentalization and IAQ in Buildings over 10 Stories.
Voting on putting forward the forum defined above.
17, 0, 0 Chair not voting
Terry will work with Amy to pursue the people involved
Amy – ventilation parking garage – covered else
Transfer air and isolation – issues covered yesterday with party-walls, hard to meet with fire
codes, got some ways, committee write some sort of position paper to get through the codes.
Importance of compartmentalization including fire code issues.
Stephen Emmerich – code interaction sub-committee?
Amy – once we have it
Enclosure requirements, Terry and Joe are going to draft something really basic, not a whole
enclosure design manual, basic information
Amy – Something that Darren is willing to take a look at, parking issues,
You open it up, you bring it up to standards
Amy is all done!
Break – 1:55
Back 2:08
Grand ballroom A - 1PM tomorrow? doesn’t require a badge – about the scope change
Ratings & Testing – Paul R – nothing to report
Terry – Radon – Mike & I reflected on this, one email, reflecting EPA policy, put in the radon
system in high risk areas put in a passive system.
MM – MN is putting something on this
Darren – all new construction in IL need to put in passive systems
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
Don – had it here in WA since 1991. Certain counties
Equivalency – Mike Lubliner
Scope and rules
Who’s going to use this, Innovative control systems, computer models, to guide them through
Charlie represented software developer
Paul had laid out four scenarios
Talked about benchmarking. What are we benchmarking against?
Operational equivalency
Making sure that we’re all in agreement on baseline
All based on annual exposure
What about acute exposure as we look at more innovative systems
Eric – ventilation equivalency? Not IAQ equivalency
Could move forward to establishing a more robust equivalency.
ML – just focused and ventilation equivalency
Gary – talks about the system but doesn’t talk about the house. The house has to have a lot to do
with the equivalency.
ML – the fundamental issue is that the standard is focused on a single zone system. Is it driven
by other transport mechanisms and other formulations. And system design.
Paul F – anything in the 2016 edition has to be approved by ASHRAE process by the January
2016. We have until next June to get the information published in the next edition.
Eric – If we agree to accelerate the schedule for Sarah’s ad hoc committee. I’m not at all in
favor of sidelining things forever. I don’t think that what they are focusing on now is a new
issue. If we can address that one through another committee, I think we would welcome Armin’s
input.
Paul F – I don’t think we’re trying to sideline anything. Somebody’s got to be a champion.
Mike L – Did an interpretation on occupancy. Now we have to determine how to use that
information. What is really occupancy?
Paul F – if there is a proposal to be put forward, put it forward. Not stop progress on other
things.
These draft minutes have not been approved and are not the official, approved record until approved by this
committee.
One final order of business, is the voting to approve the minutes.
Armin did have a couple of minor edits. Will send them out
Amy moved
Don seconded
All in favor
13, 0, 2 chair not voting.
January 23, 24, in Chicago
Meeting adjourned 2:57 PM
Phil, Terry seconded motion to adjourn