Task Group on Products & Environments
Meeting Summary
August 16, 2012
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 (UL AQS), & Stan Wolfersberger (Owens Corning)
NSF/UL Standards Development Staff:
Tim Corder (UL), Dan Ryan (UL), Maureen Sertich (NSF)
Participants:
Anthony Bernheim (AECOM), Randy Carter (Steelcase Inc.), Wenhao Chen (California Department of Public Health), Amy Ferryman (Johns Manville), Bill Freeman (Resilient Floor Covering Institute), Dwayne Fuhlhage (Prosoco), Al Hodgson (Berkeley Analytical), Robert Hupe (Virco Mfg Corp), Josh Jacobs (UL AQS), Kari Luth (Steelcase Inc.), Reinhard Oppl (Eurofins), Dave Panning (BIFMA), Scott Randall (NSF), Timothy Serie (American Coatings Association), Denise Van Valkenburg (Herman Miller Inc.)
Discussion
Tim Corder took roll call and read the anti-trust statement. He also noted that the straw poll regarding the meeting time had the following results:
Option / % of those voting in favor1. Keep the day and time as is, Thursdays from 1:00 -2:00 PM. / 35%
2. Move meeting time to 2:30 - 3:30 PM on Thursdays. / 18%
3. Move the meeting day to Wednesdays 1:00 - 2:00 PM. / 12%
4. Move the meeting day and time to Wednesdays 2:00 - 3:00 PM. / 35%
Another poll will be conducted with options 1 and 4, above, with a third option to alternate between options 1 and 4.
Stan Wolfersberger discussed a spreadsheet “Insulation Modeling per CA SM – HCOH SJW” (available in the task group’s 8-16-12 document folder). The spreadsheet compares the product emissions required to achieve a modeled HCOH concentration of 9.0 µg/m3 in the school classroom, private office, and single-family residence scenarios. He noted that there is a factor of 10 difference in these emissions. He noted that the situation is worse for drywall. Mr. Wolfersberger concluded that the Toxicology Task Group should consider the impact that low emission limits have on products with high loadings as this could lead to overly stringent product requirements. In addition, the required emission limits may be at or below the limit of detection, complicating compliance demonstration for any affected product.
Mr. Wolfersberger then discussed a document entitled “AirSealing_buildingenvelopes EnergyStar Brochure” (available in the task group’s 8-16-12 document folder). He referred to Figure 1 of the brochure which diagrams some of the leaks a house might have. Mr. Wolfersberger noted that factors impacting air leakage of a house include:
a) The temperature difference between the inside and outside of the house;
b) Wind direction and speed;
c) House alignment, and;
d) HVAC component locations.
Mr. Wolfersberger noted that ventilation, such as that which occurs in the attic, or barriers such as a vapor barrier, drywall and paint, reduce the amount of emissions from products outside of the occupied space infiltrating the living space. If this is not accounted for it may lead to an unrealistic emission limit for products outside of the living space (such as insulation). Mr. Wolfersberger noted that the current Cal Spec is good for comparing products but simplistic models don’t necessarily reflect what happens in the real world.
Mr. Wolfersberger then discussed a chromatogram, “Aldehyde Standards TO-11A Chromatogram” (available in the task group’s 8-16-12 document folder). This is an example of a standard run during a routine environmental method for aldehydes which uses liquid chromatography. Liquid chromatography and gas chromatography are “workhorse” methods in widespread use. The conditions of these chromatography methods are adjusted to get the required separation of the analytes, running standards to establish the retention times and response factors for each compound. Mr. Wolfersberger noted that the aldehydes are shown as peaks on the chromatogram, with each peak corresponding to a different aldehyde (or ketone). The y-axis is detector response, and the x-axis is elapsed time after sample injection. Aldehydes are identified by their retention time. For instance, formaldehyde is associated with detection occurring at approximately 5.8 minutes into the test. It is important to note that any other compound which elutes at the retention times of the target compounds constitutes an interference.
The chromatogram “Aldehydes Method Blank TO-11A Chromatogram” (available in the task group’s 8-16-12 document folder) shows a method blank from an environmental aldehydes analysis. Note that the test media has some background level of contamination. In addition, trace contaminants in solvents used, contamination during sample handling, the level of air purification achieveable for the chamber, etc. can all impact the routine blank levels for aldehyde analysis, and formaldehyde in particular. Mr. Wolfersberger noted that contamination impacts uncertainty in the test results. Precision worsens appreciably near the detection limit, such that uncertainty can be as high as +/- 50 - 100%. These aspects of method performance reinforce comments that Reinhard Oppl made in the Toxicology Task Group.
Mr. Wolfersberger then shared a PowerPoint slide, “2011_FA air concentrations” (available in the task group’s 8-16-12 document folder). This slide illustrates that the EPA’s proposed risk value of 0.008 ppb of formaldehyde is even lower than the concentration associated with remote air.
In summary, Mr. Wolfersberger noted that the task group must understand the impact of different product loadings for different scenarios. Also, the Environment and Products Task Group should monitor the activities of the Toxicology Task Group and consider it in relation to what is actually achievable in test labs.
After Mr. Wolfersberger’s presentation a general discussion was held. Reinhard Oppl noted that the task group has to be clear what loading factors apply to which products so that there is a level playing field for all products.
Bill Freeman asked how to handle insulation in these scenarios. In response Mr. Wolfersberger noted that insulation should be considered in respect to its likely impact on interior conditions. He noted that attic insulation will have very little impact on interior conditions as attics are generally, by code, required to be vented to the exterior. Air is typically drawn through a soffit vent and exhausted through a vent at the top of the attic. Regarding insulation in walls, he responded that it should be considered as part of the wall assembly. He noted that wall insulation’s impact on interior conditions is restricted by drywall, paint, and a vapor barrier. Dr. Chen agreed that all VOCs emitted by products used in building construction may not enter the occupied space. However, she noted that the task group will need scientific data to appropriately address the interior impact of products outside of the occupied space.
Al Hodgson noted that emissions can diffuse through drywall and that the task group needs scientific justification for attenuation factors for insulation. He further noted that Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) may be able to advise the task group of literature related to this issue. Stan Wolfersberger agreed to contact ORNL in this regard.
Mr. Wolfersberger noted that combined products emit at a different rate than the simple sum of each component’s individual emission rates. There was general agreement from those in attendance that this is indeed the case.
Reinhard Oppl suggested that a comparison of the real-world and the various scenarios and rooms being considered be done product group by product group. It was noted that the spreadsheet developed by Mr. Wolfersberger is a good start in this regard.
Task Group members as asked to consider Mr. Wolfersberger’s spreadsheet and provide loading input to the Task Group Chairs.
Anthony Bernheim commented that a roadmap for the task group’s work should be completed, indicating tasks that need to be completed by the end of the year. The Task Group Chairs would like to develop a roadmap and will be moving in that direction.
It was noted that the next task group meeting is scheduled for the week of the Labor Day holiday in the U.S. A poll will be circulated requesting input on whether this meeting should be cancelled or rescheduled.
1