Withdrawn Standard ASTM E 548

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

Author Message James M. Sandoz New member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:37 am:    Recently, I learned that ASTM standard E 548, Standard Guide for General Criteria Used for Evaluating Laboratory Competence, had been withdrawn with no replacement. This standard is often cited in the Quality Assurance article of master specifications with this or similar language: "Testing Agency Qualifications: An independent testing agency qualified according to ASTM X ### to conduct the testing indicated, as documented according to ASTM E 548.” In my opinion, it would be appropriate to delete the last clause above and write, “Testing Agency Qualifications: An independent testing agency qualified according to ASTM X ### to conduct the testing indicated.” The issue becomes more complicated when dealing with Section 014300 - Quality Assurance where a paragraph under the article also named “Quality Assurance” reads, “Testing Agency Qualifications: An agency with the experience and capability to conduct testing and inspecting indicated, as documented by ASTM E 548, and that specializes in types of tests and inspections to be performed.” Here removing the words “as documented by ASTM E 548” would render the paragraph meaningless. I checked and found ISO had a similar standard that was also withdrawn and not replaced. I don’t believe I should be specifying an abandoned standard although I realize it is still possible to require compliance with it. I think I will modify the language in Section 014300 to read: “Testing Agency Qualifications: An agency with the experience and capability to conduct testing and inspecting indicated in each respective Section of the Specifications.” and remove any subsequent references to ASTM E 548. Of course, the standard for documentation of this experience and capability is no longer indicated since there isn’t one. I do not think it is necessary to write “and that specializes in types of tests and inspections to be performed.” I do not care what the lab’s “specialty” may be. I am only concerned that its employees know what they are doing regarding the test(s) to be performed. I welcome your comments? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 189 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:31 am:    I just took a quick look at ASTM E 548 scope: "This standard sets forth general criteria (harmonized with ISO/IEC Guide 25-1990) for evaluating the competence of calibration laboratories or testing laboratories." I'm wondering if the withdrawn ISO standard you mentioned is Guide 25? If so, I understand that ISO/IEC Guide 25 has evolved into ISO Standard 17025, and perhaps that should be the new reference used. Leon Ruch, RA, CSI, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:51 am:    My testing specification references ASTM E329 (Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in Construction Inspection and/or Testing) which appears to be more specific to the construction industry than E548 was. The scope includes references to other ASTM standards for qualifications for individual types of testing, such as C1093 (Practice for Accreditation of Testing Agencies for Unit Masonry). Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 288 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:21 pm:    If you look closely at ASTM E 329, you'll notice that it also includes ISO Standard 17025, which appears to be the core of all laboratory accreditations. Another option is to require accreditation from the International Accreditation Service (www.iasonline.org), which uses ISO Standard 17025. I believe IAS is a subsidiary of the International Code Council...if not, it is definitely affiliated with the ICC. James M. Sandoz Junior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:15 pm:    George, Leon, and Ronald, Thank you all for the very useful (and quick) response. I was sure that I would get some feedback but I'm pleasantly surprised that it is so clear and well documented. I wonder why, though, ASTM made no mention of E 329 on the Document Summary page that announced the withdrawal of E548. Yes, George, the ISO Standard was ISO/IEC Guide 25. Again, the web page stating that standard had been withdrawn made no mention of ISO 17025. So, are any of you citing ASTM E 329 or ISO 17025 where you may have cited ASTM E548 before? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:31 pm:    James: Are there any reasons given for ASTM E548's withdrawl without a replacment? Is it "flawed" or just "out-of-favor" by particular groups? James M. Sandoz Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 03:28 pm:    No reason given that I can find. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 88 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 02:06 pm:    I would suggest that you contact your local testing agency. The head person there should have more background on why the standard was withdrawn and what standards should be envoked. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:32 pm:    I passed this question on to the ASTM committee chair, who confirmed that ASTM E 329-06 is intended to serve in the place of E 548 (now withdrawn) for the construction industry. I expect that local testing agencies are in the process of digesting E 329 and will be able to respond to its being incorporated in project specifications - but it won't hurt to ask. Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 90 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:35 pm:    does anyone have a copy of the ASTM e329-06, and willing to share? mmiller@usaarchitects.com Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 201 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 05:41 am:    ASTM standards are copyrighted documents sold under limited license at www.ASTM.org. James M. Sandoz Intermediate Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:08 pm:    Phil, Thanks for the follow up on ASTM E 329-06. Yes, Mitch, copies of the standards are available from ASTM. A full set would be largely wasted in most architectural/engineering offices. Buying copies of the individual standards makes more sense, can be done on-line (downloaded once payment is confirmed), but becomes really expensive in short order. Maybe some day ASTM will offer an economical, limited use subscription service. Or do they already? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 315 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:32 pm:    You can order the online subscription service for just the "ASTM in Building Codes" standards, which actually includes more than those just in the building codes. It also includes standards referenced by MasterSpec, BSD Speclink, and SpecText. The cost is $1225 for a single user for the basic service (about $300 more than the book version). This is much less than the $8000+ for the complete set of books. You can also have a subscription where you're allowed to download 25, 50, or 100 standards per year for $625, $1050, and $1575, respectively, for the basic service. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 135 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:08 pm:    I haven't used ASTM's online service, but I had a bad experience with the quarterly CD version, after which I decided that in the future, the 4-volume print version would be the way to go. It's much easier to use. None are cheap--books, $899; CD, $995, CD with quarterly updates, $1,225; 1-user online, $1,225; 2-5 user online site license, $3,200. Some discounts are available. The following is adapted from a memo I wrote awhile ago: The single-user CD is for only one computer and requires installation plus insertion of various CDs. Computer glitches may render it inaccessible, requiring a call to tech support, possible delay, maybe even time-consuming remedial uninstallation and re-installation (it’s happened to me). Each update requires that the old version be uninstalled first. Since ASTM estimates 40 to 75 minutes for that (my “remedial” uninstall/reinstall after the glitch took 25), updates alone could take a few hours per year. Standards can be viewed any number of times onscreen (on only one computer), but the license allows only one copy of each to be printed, and for internal use only. The CDs are non-transferable. ASTM takes “a very proactive stand on copyright protection and enforcement of its license agreement. Nonconformity...will jeopardize your company’s position...” By contrast, the print version is as easy to use as, well, a book... Though covered by copyright law (including “fair use”), it is not, to my knowledge, subject to additional EULA (end-user license agreement) restrictions. Of course, superseded versions would need to be purchased separately. Get the print version...it's much easier to use, and costs less to boot. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 203 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 05:40 pm:    I find the download license for a pack of 25 suits me very well. I don't often need an individual standard, but when I do, I can download it faster than find the book.