Task Group on Products & Environments
Meeting Summary
January 10, 2013
This document is part of the NSF International and Underwriters Laboratory process and is for NSF/UL
Committee uses only. It shall not be reproduced, or circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of
NSF/UL activities, except with the approval of NSF/UL.
Products and Environments Task Group Chairs:
Stephany Mason (Eurofins), Stan Wolfersberger (Owens Corning)
NSF/UL Standards Development Staff:
Tim Corder (UL), Dan Ryan (UL), Maureen Sertich (NSF)
Participants:
Martin Bennett (Materials Analytical Services, LLC (MAS)), Phil Brondsema (Celanese), Laureen Burton
(EPA), Kent Carlson (US CPSC), Randy Carter (Steelcase Inc.), Wenhao Chen (CDPH), Scott Clipper
(NSF International), Amy Costello (Armstrong), Steven Danielpour (Perkins & Will), Amy Ferryman (Johns
Manville), Bill Freeman (Resilient Floor Covering Institute), Dwayne Fuhlhage (Prosoco), Al Hodgson
(Berkeley Analytical), Bill Hoffman (UL), Donald Horn (US General Services Administration), Robert Hupe
(Virco Mfg. Corp.), Josh Jacobs (UL), Kari Luth (Steelcase Inc.), Ann Mason (American Chemistry
Council), Dave Panning (BIFMA), Scott Randall (NSF), Timothy Serie (American Coatings Association),
Aaron Swartley (Greenfiber), Denise Van Valkenburg (Herman Miller Inc.)
Discussion
Tim Corder took roll call and read the anti-trust statement.
Summary of December 12 Meeting/Call of Task Group chairs with NSF/UL 440 Steering Committee
Stan Wolfersberger summarized the December 12, 2012 meeting that the Toxicology and Environment and Products Task Group Chairs had with the NSF/UL 440 Steering Committee. The progress of the task groups was discussed at this meeting. The Task Group Chairs agreed to target May 2013 to have written proposals ready to submit to the Joint Committee for consideration. Stan noted that multiple, competing proposals may be submitted to the Joint Committee for consideration. It is not expected that every issue covered by the Task Group charges will be resolved by May. The plan is to begin working now to develop written requirements for Joint Committee consideration so that the Joint Committee can vote on which competing proposals should be further pursued and developed by the Task Group.
Stephany Mason noted that, while achieving consensus within the Task Group on proposals is a goal, consensus is not necessary for advancing a proposal to the Joint Committee. Any member, or members, with dissenting opinions may devel op proposals they support for the Joint Committee’s consideration.
Dan Ryan confirmed that is his understanding of the NSF Standards Development Process as well.
Dwayne Fuhlhage asked if the Joint Committee has met since this standards development effort had restarted. He suggested that a review of the Joint Committee’s membership begin now to ensure that the
Joint Committee members are well versed in the issues being considered by the Task Groups. In response, Dan Ryan noted that proposals being advanced to the Joint Committee should be clear and include supporting rationale. This will enable Joint Committee members that may not be well versed now in the issues being discussed within the Task Group to become well versed when the Joint Committee actually considers proposals. Mr. Ryan suggested that Task Group members not expect that all Joint
Committee members will have an in depth understanding of the internal workings of the Task Group prior to proposals being submitted to the Joint Committee. Mr. Fuhlhage reiterated his concern that Joint
Committee members may never have participated in any of the Task Group meetings prior to considering
1

proposals advanced to the Joint Committee. Mr. Ryan noted that it is not uncommon for members of a consensus voting body, regardless of the standards development organization, not to have participated in task group discussions. Stan Wolfersberger noted that in this case, many members of the Joint
Committee have indeed been participating in the task group meetings. But, Mr. Wolfersberger agreed with Mr. Ryan’s suggestion that proposals be supported by rationale sufficient to explain the proposals to uninitiated Joint Committee members.
Josh Jacobs asked if prior to a Joint Committee vote being taken a face-to-face meeting would occur so that proposal supporters may present and explain their proposals to the Joint Committee members. Dan
Ryan responded that this is indeed the case; a face-to-face meeting of the Joint Committee will take place to consider proposals developed by the Task Groups. D. Ryan also noted that a vote by the Joint
Committee would not take place prior to a face-to-face presentation of proposals to the Joint Committee.
Maureen Sertich noted that the Steering Committee is considering holding two meetings of the Joint
Committee in 2013. Stan Wolfersberger noted that all the Task Group Chairs supported holding a Joint
Committee meeting when Task Group proposals are ready for consideration by the Joint Committee. Al
Hodgson agreed, and noted that completely polished proposals may not be ready in May but that the target is to have the proposals developed sufficiently so that the Joint Committee can provide direction on how the Task Group’s work should continue. M. Sertich noted that at the Joint Committee meeting proposals may be motioned to move forward to ballot if they are ready to be balloted; otherwise, the Joint
Committee can provide guidance on which competing proposals should be further developed prior to
Joint Committee balloting.
Development of a Single Environmental Modeling Scenario Proposal
Stan Wolfersberger noted that a majority of those that participated in the Environment and Products Task
Group poll indicated that they supported the development of multiple modeling scenarios. However, a number of task group members also indicated that they would support a single modeling scenario. He noted that he, Stephany Mason, and Reinhard Oppl have volunteered to develop a single modeling scenario proposal and would welcome other volunteers interested in developing this proposal. He noted that a single modeling scenario proposal does not necessarily have to be the European approach to a single model - the single model that is developed should be appropriate for North America.
Stan Wolfersberger noted that volunteers will be needed to develop a multiple modeling scenarios proposal.
Randy Carter confirmed that the majority of those voting on multiple versus single modeling scenarios supported multiple modeling scenarios. He noted that a single modeling scenario might be acceptable to more people if its appropriateness were supported by sufficient data, but that gathering supporting data may likely be impractical to gather. R. Carter asked if the single modeling scenario proposal would address all products. In response, S. Wolfersberger stated that that has not yet been decided. However, he expressed his opinion that the current multiple models, with regard to the modeled concentrations, are already similar enough that it is feasible they can be collapsed into a single modeling scenario. S.
Wolfersberger did note that while a single model may work for many products, it may not work for all products (such as a gymnasium floor).
Martin Bennett expressed confusion and concern that a single model proposal is going to be developed when the results of the poll indicated that a majority of the task group supported developing multiple models. Stan Wolfersberger reiterated that multiple proposals may be submitted to the Joint Committee.
S. Wolfersberger noted Task Group members that support development of multiple modeling scenarios should develop the proposal for the Joint Committee ’s consideration.
Randy Carter noted that while he supports multiple proposals being able to be developed, he is surprised that the first announced group to develop a proposal will focus on a single model, contrary to the majority opinion in the poll. Dave Panning supported R. Carter’s statement and that this Task Group’s leadership supporting a single model might impact how the competing proposals are considered by the Joint
Committee membership. In response, S. Wolfersberger noted that the Joint Committee should consider
2

proposals on the merits of the supporting rationale and data that accompanies a proposal, not whether the Task Group leadership supports certain proposals.
Josh Jacobs asked if proposals are voted on by the Task Group then would the proposals with majority support be submitted to the Joint Committee as “the” Task Group’s proposal. Then, dissenting proposals may be submitted to the Joint Committee on their own, but not be represented as the Task Group’s proposal. Maureen Sertich responded that this isn’t exactly the case. If competing proposals are advanced from the Task G roup to the Joint Committee, the results of the Task Group’s voting on those competing proposals are also shared with the Joint Committee.
Stephany Mason noted that volunteers are needed to develop the multiple modeling scenarios proposal that was supported by the majority of those that returned votes on the survey. Martin Bennett asked if the
Task Group leadership should be involved in the drafting of requirements that had majority support. S.
Mason responded that the Task Group leadership can be involved in the development of the proposal with majority support, but, the Task Group leadership does not have to lead the development of that proposal. Martin Bennett again expressed concern and surprise that the first announced development effort of this Task Group does not reflect the majority’s opinion in the task group survey.
An attendee asked what would happen if no one volunteers to develop the majority’s opinion. Maureen
Sertich responded that the proposal’s development would be halted until volunteers agree to develop the proposal. Stephany Mason noted that in this case, the existing models in Cal 01350 could represent the multiple model proposal.
Bill Freeman asked for clarification if the Steering Committee will be considering not only the proposal that has majority support by the task group but also other proposals that have minority support. Maureen
Sertich clarified that the Steering Committee will not be reviewing proposals; consideration of proposals is the responsibility of the Joint Commit tee. The Steering Committee’s function is to ensure that NSF’s standards development process is followed. The Joint Committee indeed will consider competing proposals, if competing proposals exist. B. Freeman noted that the majority opinion of the Task Group can then be disregarded by the Joint Committee. M. Sertich responded that this is possible but somewhat rare in her experience.
An attendee stated that they believe the Joint Committee should only approve or disapprove the proposal that has majority support in the Task Group. Maureen Sertich responded that anyone with a proposal may have that proposal considered by the Joint Committee.
Martin Bennett noted that competing proposals coming from the Task Group does not reflect a consensus process. Dan Ryan responded that this Task Group provides an opportunity for stakeholders to come to consensus. D. Ryan noted that the best case scenario is that a single proposal be developed by the task group that everyone on the task group supports. However, in practice this is a rare occurrence. It is not at all rare for competing proposals to be the result of a Task Group’s work. D. Ryan further noted that it is the Joint Committee that is the balanced consensus body with regard to this standards development effort. The Task Group is not a balanced consensus body. Polls that the Task Group conduct are not binding but instead provide for a general sense of direction. Maureen Sertich also noted that it is the responsibility of the Joint Committee to consider the work of both Task Groups as a whole and determine what requirements are appropriate for the entire standard.
Randy Carter asked if there is a current roster of the Joint Committee available. Maureen Sertich responded that there is a roster available, but, membership of the Joint Committee is still being considered. Currently, a new Joint Committee Chair is being identified. A roster of the current Joint
Committee is at the end of this meeting summary. R. Carter asked if the Joint Committee currently meets the minimum balance requirements to be able to conduct a vote. M. Sertich responded that the Joint
Committee does not currently meet the balance requirements.
Wenhao Chen asked if Cal 01350 as-is would be the multiple scenario proposal considered by the Joint
Committee if no volunteers step forward to revise it. Stephany Mason responded that that would be the
3

case, if some Task Group members wish the Joint Committee to consider a multiple scenario proposal without modifying the existing method. Following the meeting, Wenhao Chen volunteered to serve as
Chair for a sub-task group to develop a multiple scenario proposal. Stan Wolfersberger and Stephany
Mason also volunteered to participate on this sub-task group. Josh Jacobs noted that someone from
GEI would like to participate at least in the development of a residential model.
As there had been multiple questions regarding Task Group procedures, Maureen Sertich emphasized that Task Groups are not required to be balanced. Al Hodgson asked if the Task Groups then should not, or do not have to, conduct ballots as part of their work. M. Sertich responded that any ballots done should be considered as general guidance and not formal ballots. Dan Ryan noted that when competing proposals are considered by the Joint Committee, the Joint Committee may endorse proposals that have minority support within the Task Group. The Joint Committee should consider the merits of each proposal on its own as the Task Groups are not balanced consensus bodies. Al Hodgson noted that when competing proposals are advanced to the Joint Committee, a breakdown of votes conducted by the Task
Group should accompany the proposals. M. Sertich responded that this could be done.
It was noted that the September 27, October 18, and November 29 for comment in the documents section of NSF’s NOW system. th meeting summaries were available
4

Joint Committee on Health Based Emissions Roster
*Boatright, Dr. Daniel
*Aye, Elaine
University of
Oklahoma
Green Building
Services
Materials Analytical
Services, LLC (MAS) *Bennett, Mr. Martin
*Bernheim, FAIA, LEED
Fellow, Mr. Anthony
*Carter, Randy
*Chen, Dr. Wenhao
*Cik, Barry
Sustainable Built
Environments
Steelcase Inc.
California Department of Public Health
Naturepedic
*Collins, John
*Costello, P.E, LEED® AP,
Amy
*Danielpour, Steven
American Hospital
Association (AHA)
Armstrong
Perkins & Will
Resilient Floor
Covering Institute
(RFCI) *Freeman, Bill
*Gebhart, Dr. Ann Marie ToxServices LLC
*Harding, Madelyn
Sherwin-Williams
Company
*Hartridge-Beam, Mr.
Stowe
Scientific Certification
Systems (SCS)
*Hodgson, Alfred
*Hoffman, Dr. William
*Horn, Donald
*Hurd, Mr. Frank
*Jacobs, Dr. David
*Lent, Mr. Tom
*Little, Dr. John
Berkeley Analytical
Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
US General Services
Administration
The Palmer Group
National Center for
Healthy Housing
(NCHH)
Healthy Building
Network
Virginia Tech
Public Health /
Regulatory
User
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
User
Industry
Public Health /
Regulatory
Industry
User
Industry
User
Industry
User
Industry
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
Public Health /
Regulatory
User
Public Health /
Regulatory
Public Health /
Regulatory
Academia / NGO
Joint Committee
Chair
---
Member Yes
Member Yes
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5

*McLellan, Clif
*Ogden, Jim
NSF International
3QC, Inc. /
Collaborative for High
Performance Schools
(CHPS)
*Oppl, Mr. Reinhard
*Ryan, Dr. P. Barry
Eurofins
Emory University
*Schoen, Deborah
*Steinemann, Dr. Anne
*Wolfersberger, Stan
*Bloech, Mr. Henning
*Brondsema, Phil
*Bruursema, Tom
*Carlson, Dr. Kent
Health Canada
University of
Washington
Owens Corning
Greenguard
Environmental
Institute (GEI)
Celanese
NSF International
US Consumer Product
Safety Commission
Carpet & Rug Institute
(CRI) *Carrier, Mr. Jeff
*Darling, David
*Dekovic, Ariel
American Coatings
Association
3QC, Inc. /
Collaborative for High
Performance Schools
(CHPS)
*Espinosa, Mr. Ricardo Kimball International
*Ferryman, Dr. Amy
*Fuhlhage, Dwayne
*Hedge, Alan
*Howard Reed, Dr.
Cynthia
Johns Manville
Prosoco
Cornell University
Consultant - User
*Jacobs, Mr. Josh
*Kuebart, Dr. Frank
*Kuntz, Mr. Greg
*Levin, Hal
Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
Kimball International
Building Group
Ecological Research
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
User
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
Academia / NGO
Public Health /
Regulatory
Academia / NGO
Industry
General Interest
Industry
General Interest
Non-voting Liaison
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
Non-voting Liaison
Non-voting Liaison
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
6
Member
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Yes
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

*Lioy, Dr. Paul
*Mason, Ms. Ann
Rutgers
American Chemistry
Council
*Mason, Dr. Stephany Eurofins
*Mow, Clarence Community Playthings
*Munoz, Ms. Nicole
*Nicolow, Jim
Scientific Certification
Systems (SCS)
Lord Aeck & Sargent,
Inc.
*Perdue, Mr. Bill
*Phelka, Amanda
*Randall, Scott
American Home
Furnishings Alliance
NSF International
NSF International
Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. *Ryan, Daniel
*Schmeida, MSc., LEED-
AP, Michael Tremco Incorporated
*Serie, Mr. Timothy
*Shank, John
*Smith, John
*Van Valkenburg, Ms.
Denise
*Widdowson, Dr.
Caroline
American Coatings
Association
Kimball International
3-A Sanitary Standards
Herman Miller Inc.
Markes International
Air Quality Sciences,
Inc. (AQS) *Worthan, Tony
*Corder, Tim
Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
*Sertich, Ms. Maureen NSF International
General Interest
General Interest
Product Certifier /
Testing Lab
General Interest
User
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
General Interest
Other
Other
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Secretariat
Secretariat
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
Observer
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
7