Hi Application note: easing the audit trail with ISO-certified lubricants.

Hi Application note: easing the audit trail with ISO-certified lubricants.

‘Easing the audit trail with ISO-certified lubricants’

ISO 21469 is a globally recognised certification that provides credible, independent assurance that ROCOL products — supplied by ERIKS — are formulated, manufactured and supplied hygienically and safely. This is a vital step for manufacturers that need to conform with the audit requirements of major supermarkets, the European Food Safety Inspection Service and the British Retail Consortium. The certification also builds on the existing NSF H1 registration of ROCOL FOODLUBE products (safe for incidental contact with food).

!!!THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIEWING!!!

Hi Standards Leave Their Mark on Engineering.

Hi Standards Leave Their Mark on Engineering.

World Standards Week takes place the week of October 20, and it presents an opportunity to reflect on how standards are used in engineering and impact almost every facet of modern life.

For example, standards make it possible for the Internet to exist and for Engineering360 to be shared seamlessly worldwide. Likewise, banking institutions function on a set of standard protocols that enable global trade to take place.

As this article’s main photo suggests, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2011 published a revised biometric standard that vastly expands the type and amount of information that forensic scientists can share across international networks to identify victims or solve crimes.

But even something as simple as a screw has thousands of standards associated with it. These ensure that the manufactured product is usable everywhere, says Robert Russotti, senior director for online marketing at theAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Standards cover testing, performance, quality and procedures, Russotti says. They help a specifying engineer determine, for example, how many times a door hinge will open and close before it’s likely to fail, or if a particular metal is suitable for grinding.

A more ( shall we say) standard definition from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IECA) defines a standard as a document, established by consensus that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results.

ISO says that it does not decide when to develop a new standard. Instead, ISO responds to a request from industry or other stakeholders. Typically, an industry sector or group communicates the need for a standard to its national member (such as ANSI in the U.S.) who then contacts ISO. 

ISO standards are developed by groups of experts from all over the world, that are part of larger groups called technical committees. These experts negotiate all aspects of the standard, including its scope, key definitions and content.

Developing ISO standards is a consensus-based approach and comments from stakeholders are taken into account. So-called Draft International Standards are circulated among ISO members who have three months to comment and vote on the draft. ANSI coordinates the U.S. voluntary consensus standards system. In that role it provides a neutral forum for the development of policies on standards issues and serves as a watchdog for standards development and conformity assessment programs and processes.

ANSI also accredits qualified organizations, whose standards development process meets all of ANSI’s requirements, to develop American National Standards. However, ANSI itself does not develop standards. In addition, ANSI represents U.S. interests in regional and international standardization activities while overseeing conformity assessment activities that promote the global acceptance of U.S. products, services, systems and personnel.

In the U.S., standards are voluntary and consensus based, which means that product designers and manufacturers can decide whether or not to follow them. The marketplace helps decide whether or not a non-standard product achieves success. In other countries, standards carry the force of law. Standards also may be used as a defense in a legal challenge. A product that fails may be defensible if it can be proved that it conformed to specific standards, Russotti says.

American National Standards (ANSs) are essential tools used in every industry. Today, there are some 9,500 ANSs that have been developed and approved in accordance with ANSI essential requirements. American National Standards are voluntary and serve U.S. interests well because all materially affected stakeholders have the opportunity to work together to create them. ANSI-approved standards only become mandatory when, and if, they are adopted or referenced by the government or when market forces make them imperative.

ANSI says that globally relevant standards make it easier for many companies to get their products certified and on the shelves in countries around the world, allowing them to take part in global value chains, benefit from technology transfer and compete on a more equal footing. Similarly, nations that incorporate international standards into their policies and regulations can allow their citizens access to a wider selection of high-quality goods, while also providing protection against dangerous or faulty products and services.

Hi Visit Events Eye "Green Build."

Hi Events Eye "Green Build."

!!JOIN THE GREEN REVOLUTION IN THE BIG EASY!!

In 2014, we're joining together in New Orleans from Oct. 22-24 for Leadership Jazz. 

The music of the green movement is undeniable – its lyrics are engaging individuals across the world, its innovation is reviving our spirit and its passion is fueling the future. 

Together our unique ideas are improvising a melody that is leading a successful transformation of our building and communities. 

The Big Easy is the perfect setting to celebrate this global impact, while also embracing the essence of community, culture and soul. In 2013, USGBC turned 20, and we invite you to join the revolution as we build momentum and march into the next 20 years.

Hi Event Intro...,

Hi LEED vs. Green Globes: A Comparison!.

Dec 9, 2013

Article Source: Lawrence (Larry) Clark, QCxP, GGP, LEED AP+ | Contracting Business.

Being a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP) for six years and a certified Green Globes Professional (GGP) for a year, I have noted first-hand both the similarities and the differences between the LEED and Green Globes systems. 

Both systems serve to drive green/high-performance-building design, construction, and operation. Both LEED and Green Globes rely on an independent third-party verification process although, as we’ll see, their approach is much different.

First, as one would expect, the primary focus of both systems is in the same basic areas. Both systems address factors such as the site characteristics, energy and water consumption, the use of resources/materials, and the indoor environmental quality (IEQ). LEED and Green Globes both offer 

different tracks for new construction and existing buildings. 

They both acknowledge the unique requirements of healthcare facilities and offer specific rating systems for them. Although LEED is the better known of the two, they’re both recognized and accepted by the General Services Administration (GSA) and other agencies of the Federal government, as well as many state and local jurisdictions.  

Both rating systems have been recently updated. The newest version of LEED (v4) was rolled-out at Greenbuild 2013 and features increased thresholds in energy, water, waste and IEQ; a new Location and Transportation credit; and a requirement for environmental product declarations and material ingredient reporting. 

Green Globes released its new NC (New Construction

) update earlier this year. It’s based on the ANSI/GBI Standard 01-2010: “Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings”, which meets the Guiding Principles mandated by Executive Order 13514. 

For those not familiar with the history of Green Globes, th

e first environmental certification system was created in the United Kingdom in 1990. Known as BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), the Canadian version was adapted and launched in the U.S. by the non-profit Green Building Initiative (GBI) in 2005, becoming the first green building organization accredited as a standards developer by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). LEED, the better known of the two systems, was also based in large part on BREEAM.

Although there are similarities between the programs, the methodology between the two is somewhat different.  For example, both use online tools; however, Green Globes is interactive, while LEED requires data uploading and waiting for results. 

While both require a minimum number of points, LEED has mandatory prerequisites — that have no point value — while Green Globes does not. In fact, Green Globes allows non-applicable categories to be excluded from the total point count, so that buildings are not penalized for those categories that truly have no applicability, and the expensive “point chasing” sometimes associated with LEED projects becomes unnecessary.

Perhaps the most significant differences are the time and cost to complete 

a Green Globes certification, both of which can be substantially less than for LEED. 

The GBI estimates that its certification is typically completed in three-to-five months, at a cost of one-third to one-half of a comparable LEED certification.

My own experience has shown that, for the existing building projects that we’ve directly compared, the cost — including our fee — for Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) averaged approximately 40% of the comparable cost for LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings (EBOM). 

For New Construction, the difference — including the commissioning requirements for Green Globes and both Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning for LEED — was even more significant.

Interestingly, “From the Field News & Notes” (HPAC Engineering, Feb. 2013, p.12), cited the Turner Construction Company’s Green Building Market Barometer 2012, which found that the cost and time required were among the primary reasons for respondents not seeking LEED certification for their high performance buildings.

 

Possibly the most important advantage of Green Globes, based on my personal experience with LEED projects, is their on-site assessment process, where an independent assessor visits the site and meets with the owner and consultant to review the project. With LEED, the information is submitted and an anonymous review team, engaged by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), reviews the submission and provides comments. This can result in a serious lack of consistency and quality in the reviews provided by different teams. 

For example, there was an EBOM project involving several nearly identical commercial office buildings on an urban campus. The first two buildings, both of which were apparently reviewed by the same team, sailed through the LEED certification process with relatively few issues to be resolved.

The third building, however, was mired in negative comments that clearly showed a lack of understanding by the (obviously) different review team and resulted in the additional cost of appeals and a long delay in the schedule for the owner. Although the project was eventually certified, no one associated with the project was happy with the process. And having to provide allowances in the LEED consultants’ fees for appeals and interpretations only serves to inflate the total cost to the owner without adding any value to the process. It may also give the owner the perception that the consultant is not as competent as he or she ought to be, and generally reflect poorly on everyone — but particularly the LEED consultant — involved in the project.

This is not to say that LEED doesn’t have its advantages.  LEED is the most recognized and most implemented green building program in the world. 

It has arguably been the single-most influential advocate for sustainability in the built environment. And LEED has convinced many corporate leaders that green building isn't just for “tree huggers”, but is about social, environmental and economic benefits. It has also inspired tens of thousands of individuals — myself included — to share in that vision. 

Many large national and international enterprises have mandated LEED as the standard for their facilities and there is no question that a LEED-certified building has the potential, if operated properly, to outperform a non-certified building.

So let’s agree that, like everything else in our industry, there is no “one size fits all” solution. Each project should be evaluated based on its own goals and objectives, and the most beneficial outcome to the owner should be the deciding factor in selecting which green label to pursue…which, by the way, may not be just limited to LEED and Green Globes.   

Lawrence (Larry) Clark, CEA, GGP, LEED AP O+M, a member of HPAC Engineering’s Editorial Advisory Board, is principal of Sustainable Performance Solutions LLC, provider of energy audits, general energy-efficiency and sustainability consulting services, and metering and submetering solutions. He has more than a dozen published articles on HVAC- and energy-related topics to his credit and frequently lectures on central-energy-plant optimization, metering/submetering, and advanced ventilation.

Hi Court; "Upholds EPA Emission Standards."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's first emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

In its ruling, the court rejected state and industry challenges to rules designed to clean up chromium, arsenic, acid gases, nickel, cadmium as well as mercury and other dangerous toxins.

The EPA's determination in 2000 that regulating emission standards is appropriate and necessary, and the agency's reaffirmation of that determination in 2012, 'are amply supported by EPA's findings regarding the health effects of mercury exposure,' said the court.

Congress did not specify what types or levels of public health risks should be deemed a hazard under federal law. 

By leaving this gap in the statute, Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to give reasonable meaning to the term 'hazard,' said the court.

In the majority were chief judge Merrick Garland and judge Judith Rogers, both appointees of President Bill Clinton. 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, joined most of the decision, but he parted company with his colleagues on the issue of cost - specifically, whether the EPA is obligated to consider industry costs in deciding whether regulation of hazardous air pollutants from power plants is appropriate.

'The problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs,' Kavanaugh said. 'And the costs are huge, about $9.6 billion a year - that's billion with a b - by EPA's own calculation.'

In response, the majority said the EPA properly decided that the decision whether to regulate mercury should be based on health risks, not compliance costs. 

The majority added that the EPA had determined that benefits of the rule exceeded costs by a factor of at least 3 to 1. Some industry groups have said the EPA was overstating the benefits.

It is only in the first stage of rulemaking that the EPA doesn't industry costs, said the majority opinion. 

It added that the second stage leads to standards that are more restrictive and that, when setting those, the EPA does consider costs.

The new regulations are designed to remove toxins from the air that contribute to respiratory illnesses, birth defects and developmental problems in children.

Most companies operating power plants will have until March 2015 to meet the standards, but a state could grant an additional year and the EPA could extend the deadline until 2017 if the unit was critical for reliability.

- "The EPA proposed the rules in 2011."

Tuesday's ruling is 'a giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air,' said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which was a party in the case.

The EPA called the decision 'a victory for public health and the environment.'

'These practical and cost-effective standards will save thousands of lives each year, prevent heart and asthma attacks, while slashing emissions of the neurotoxin mercury, which can impair children's ability to learn,' the EPA said.

Laura Sheehan, senior vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said that due in part to regulations like the one in Tuesday's ruling, almost 300 coal-fueled generating units in 33 states have announced they will shut down, costing the electricity sector roughly $200 billion in compliance costs and destroying at least 544,000 jobs.

Sheehan said that impacts of EPA's rulemaking processes aimed at coal have already been seen this past winter, with coal power plant retirements leading to increased reliance on natural gas - a just-in-time fuel source subject to volatile price spikes that many consumers and small businesses bore the brunt of. 

She said such impacts will only increase as more coal units are retired, especially next spring, the deadline for complying with the mercury standard.

The coalition says industry has invested $130 billion to reduce major emissions from coal-fueled power plants by nearly 90 percent and that it plans to invest another $100 billion over the next decade on clean coal technology.

National Mining Association President and CEO Hal Quinn said the federal rule 'imposes enormous costs upon households and businesses but provides little additional environmental benefit. The court recognized the EPA has the authority to consider costs but upheld EPA's decision to ignore them.'

Hi LEED STANDARDS Defined & Resources Highlighted!.

Hi LEED STANDARDS Defined & Resources Highlighted!.

ASHRAE:

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers advances technology to serve humanity & promote a sustainable world.

http://www.ashrae.org/

ASHRAE 52.2:

Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size

ASHRAE 62.1:

Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy

ASHRAE 62.2:

Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

ASHRAE 90.1:

Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings

ASHRAE 90.2:

Energy Standard for Building Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings

ASHRAE 189.1:

Energy Efficient Design of Low-Rise Residential Buildings

ASHRAE 189.1:

Standard for Design of High-Performance Green Buildings

ASHRAE 192:

Standard for Measuring Air-Change Effectiveness

ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2010:

Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems

ANSI/ASHRAE 34-2010:

Designation and Classification of Refrigerants

ASTM International:

Formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is a globally recognized leader in the development and delivery of international consensus standards.

http://www.astm.org/

Video ASHRAE: What It Is? & Where Its Going? Advancing The Arts & Sciences of HVAC Technology; Standards Developer "Educators & Research Volunteers"

ASTM E408:

Meter Techniques

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E408.htm

ASTM E903:

Standard Test Method for Solar Absorptance, Reflectance, and Transmittance of Material Using Integrating Spheres (Withdrawn 2005)

http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WITHDRAWN/E903.htm

ASTM E1903-97:

Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process (Historical Standard)

http://www.astm.org/search/site-search.html?query=ASTM+E1903-97+&cartname=mystore

ASTM E1980-01:

Standard Practice for Calculating Solar Reflectance Index of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Opaque Surfaces (Withdrawn 2010)

CERCLA:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

EPAct:

U.S Energy Policy Act of 2005

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/ene-pol-act.asp

IBC:

International Building Code published by the international Code Council (ICC)

http://www.strategicstandards.com/files/InternationalBuildingCode.pdf

ICC:

The International Code Council that develops the building codes and standards.

http://www.iccsafe.org

RCRA:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the principle U.S Fedral Law governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/online/index.htm

UBC:

The Uniform Building Code was a building code replaced in 2000 by the new International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council (ICC).

EPA Energy Star Roofing Guideline:

ENERGY STAR program identifies roofing products that reduce the amount of air conditioning needed in buildings, and can reduce energy bills. Roofing products with ENERGY STAR logo meet the EPA criteria for reflective and reliability.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/rooffactsheetcontractor.pdf

EPA 840-B-92-002 January 1993:

Discusses a variety of management practices that can be incorporated to remove pollutants from storm-water  Chapter 4, Part II addresses urban runoff and suggests a variety of strategies for treating infiltrating storm-water volumes after construction is completed.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/MMGI/

IESNA RP-33: IES RP-33-99:

Lighting for Exterior Environments; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America; provides general exterior lighting design guidance and acts as a link to other IESNA outdoor lighting Recommended Practices.

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?doc_no=ies%7Crp_33_99;product_id=224967

Click this link which Contains the complete library of ASHRAE standards, guidelines, and user's manuals to View & Download .pdf file.

Hi Clean Rooms - "Air Shower"

Hi Clean Rooms:

"Check out Hammam Industries & CO. Air Shower Link"

Clean room maintained virtually free of contaminants, such as dust or bacteria, are used in laboratory work and in the production of precision parts for electronic or aerospace equipment.

In the clean room standard ISO 14644-1 "Classification of Air Cleanliness" the classes are based on the formula:

Cn = 10N (0.1 / D)2.08 (1)

where

Cn = maximum permitted number of particles per cubic meter equal to or greater than the specified particle size, rounded to whole number

N = is the ISO class number, which must be a multiple of 0.1 and be 9 or less

D = is the particle size in micrometers

ISO
Class Maximum Number of Particles in Air
(particles in each cubic meter equal to or greater than the specified size)
Particle size
> 0.1 μm > 0.2 μm > 0.3 μm > 0.5 μm > 1 μm > 5 μm
ISO Class 1 10 2
ISO Class 2 100 24 10
4

ISO Class 3 1000 237 102 35 8
ISO Class 4 10,000 2,370 1,020 352 83
ISO Class 5 100,000 23,700 10,200 3,520 832 29
ISO Class 6 1,000,000 237,000 102,000 35,200 8,320 293
ISO Class 7 352,000 83,200 2930
ISO Class 8 3,520,000 832,000 29,300
ISO Class 9 35,200,000 8,320,000 293,000
ISO Cleanroom Standards

ISO-14644-1 Classification of Air Cleanliness
ISO-14644-2 Cleanroom Testing for Compliance
ISO-14644-3 Methods for Evaluating & Measuring Cleanrooms & Associated Controlled Environment
ISO-14644-4 Cleanroom Design & Construction
ISO-14644-5 Cleanroom Operations
ISO-14644-6 Terms, Definitions & Units
ISO-14644-7 Enhanced Clean Devices
ISO-14644-8 Molecular Contamination
ISO-14698-1 Biocontamination: Control General Principles
ISO-14698-2 Biocontamination: Evaluation & Interpretation of Data
ISO-14698-3 Biocontamination: Methodology for Measuring Efficiency of Cleaning Inert Surfaces