ASTM withdrawn after CD's issued

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 610 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 05:42 pm:    If a ASTM standard is withdrawn without a replacement (in this case, E985 was withdrawn in 01/15), but was in effect when the Construction Documents are issued, then it is still enforceable as a standard, correct? David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 170 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 06:32 pm:    Robin, generally they are still enforceable. As an example in California, DSA is requiring the use of the dates of standards in CBC Chapter 35, even though many ASTM standards show dates that are in excess of 8 years old, which is the limit to which ASTM will allow their standards to be published. If the state is enforcing Chapter 35 dates, at least in California it would have to be enforceable. ASTM will extend the old date with the added (year) suffix to the original date, but will withdraw the standard if not extended or updated. It's one good reason to keep track of ASTM dates to be aware of withdrawn standards. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 863 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 11:26 pm:    One of the advantage of using standards is that by incorporating one, you don't have to specify everything in the standard; a single paragraph can replace hundreds of words - or pages. Another advantage is that someone else has done all the research, and stands behind the standard. Although it's not good practice, nothing except common sense prohibits you from using any version of any standard you want. If a standard is withdrawn, it still exists, and still can be used if you can find it. Using an old standard has its problems. If it's no longer available, the people who have to use it won't be able to find it. Manufacturers usually keep up with changes in standards, so if a standard changes, you won't know if products still comply with it. A recently withdrawn standard should not present a problem, but an updated one can be. I remember when ASTM C90 was revised by eliminating Grade N and Grade S (ten, fifteen years ago?). Although manufacturers still could produce block that met those standards, they don't, so it would be pointless to continue to use that version of the standard. Another problem with using a withdrawn standard is that you are responsible for everything in the standard. In your case, because the standard was only recently withdrawn, I wouldn't expect any problems. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1318 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 01:43 am:    One thing to keep in mind, the standards referenced by the building code are probably not the most current editions published, and some may be withdrawn. So, in many cases, you may be required to comply with an older standard per the building code. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 848 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 07:23 am:    Ron, what if the code requires products that no longer exist? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1319 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 11:32 am:    Peter: If you look closely, the code, with very few exceptions, does not require any specific type of product to be used--there are always options. The ICC does a fairly good job of keeping up with industry standards, but they usually only reference those in existence at the time of editing for the next cycle (sometimes they anticipate an edition coming out and they are wrong and have to post an erratum). Also, of course, the standards may change in between publication of code editions. The real problem is with jurisdictions. Many seem to have an aversion to updating on a regular basis the codes they adopt. The City of Tempe, for example, was using the 1994 UBC long after the IBC was published. I've recently come across a jurisdiction that was still using the 2000 IBC. In those cases, an AHJ would be hard-pressed to enforce old standards--especially if the industry as a whole has moved on with the new standards. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 11:40 am:    Have you ever know an architect or builder to check the edition date of a reference standard when processing submittals? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 257 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 11:42 am:    Yes, I have known (and know) architects and engineers who check the edition date. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 496 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 12:53 pm:    The A/E firm I work for has its corporate headquarters in Canada. Our computers are all linked with servers in Canada. This creates some interesting opportunities for mistakes to occur. On a light note, if I, sitting in San Francisco typing this, were to google "show times for Jurassic Park", I would get the listings for Edmonton, Alberta. If I want to day dream about a vacation and search Expedia for SFO to CDG-Paris, my flights will be quoted in Canadian Dollars. But on a serious note, if I search for various bits of building technical info, I may find something that is just what I need, but I need to make sure this isn't a Canada only solution with the dreaded "CA" in the file name. Several years ago someone in the office was trying to solve a tricky fire assembly problem for a California project and found what seemed to be the perfect solution on line. That UL assembly got burned into the drawings only for us to find several months later that it only applied to Canada. That kind of problem makes the other problems, like all of your emails being date-stamped Canadian Mountain Time, minor in comparison. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 193 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 07:58 pm:    A question a bit off track, but related to the topic of withdrawn standards: The sustainability consultant's "Construction Waste Management and Disposal" spec for a project I'm working on references ASTM E 1609. (So does MasterSpec's.) It was withdrawn in 2010 and there's no replacement. Its title is "Standard Guide for Development and Implementation of a Pollution Prevention Program." What are other people's experiences with this? Does anyone know some history of this, such as why it was withdrawn without replacement? Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 118 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 08:17 pm:    Below is the reason the ASTM site says they withdrew the standard. It seems to be saying that it was withdrawn because their rules required it to be updated within an 8 year period. Apparently, it was not updated within that period. Seems a bit extreme to me. Their website says as follows: Formerly under the jurisdiction of Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management, and Corrective Action, this guide was withdrawn in January 2010 in accordance with section 10.5.3.1 of the Regulations Governing ASTM Technical Committees, which requires that standards shall be updated by the end of the eighth year since the last approval date Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 194 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 08:20 pm:    Thank you, Richard. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 119 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 08:21 pm:    Actually, thank you. I had no idea the standard had been withdrawn. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 27 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 10:19 am:    This has come up a couple times when updating MasterSpec sections. Most recently it was with electricity metering or power factor correction equipment. Typically, the standard is withdrawn, but hasn't been replaced. However, that doesn't mean that it is not still applicable or available (1609 is available for $58.80 on IHS). Referencing the withdrawn standard is evaluated on a case by case basis, part of which includes seeing if there is an updated or better reference or if it is still being used -in this particular case, the manufacturers were still building to the standard because it assured interopability. If there is no replacement, the reference is retained, with an editor's note stating that the standard was withdrawn, but not replaced. Between PDF, IHS/TechStreet, and the Library of Congress, it seems likely that the days of historical standard not being easily available may be gone.