Transcript Standards participation and consensus: ASTM*AARST*ANSI

STANDARDS PARTICIPATION AND
CONSENSUS: ASTM*AARST*ANSI
Presentation Purpose:
 Educate on similarities and differences
between standards organizations in North
America.
 Ultimate goal: Enhance the effectiveness for
saving lives from within the common
community of radon stakeholders including
EPA, States, Tribes, and AARST.
Background on Consensus
 Generally, Standards Developing
Organizations develop document content
based upon the consensus of those
participants that make the effort to be
involved.
 Without hearing a voice on a concern, the committee
likely cannot know if they are off-base or missing an
important viewpoint.
Living documents:
 Drafts are created and approved subsequent
to amendments that result from review,
comment and voting procedures.
 Maintenance entails consideration for
revisions or withdrawal. Revisions can occur
whenever a need is identified.
 Initiation to consider revision is typically
required within each five-year period.
Background: Organizations
 There are many international standards
organizations. Highest recognition:
 International Standards Organization (ISO),
 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
 International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
 Each country or economy has a single
recognized standards body for ISO
participation (i.e. ANSI for the U.S.).
International Overview
Government Standards:
 EPA staff for an urgent situation initially
developed Radon standards. However,
voluntary standards are not typically
developed or maintained by federal or local
government.
Government Standards:
 The National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, passed in 1995, requires
the federal government to use privately
developed consensus standards whenever
possible. The Act reflects what had long been
recommended as best practice within the
federal government.
 (Quoted from the ASTM website)
Standards Implementation
 Standards are developed voluntarily and used
voluntarily unless cited in a contract, or
mandated through a governmental body.
 Contracts, corporations or government may
choose to reference single documents,
multiple documents and often even stipulate
to add text deletions or additions to a
referenced document.
Background on Organizations
 A variety of mechanisms exist at different
organizations for procedures, participation,
voting and balance.
 The following slides illustrate key
components and examples of accredited
structures that vary in structure depending
upon scope of participants and projects.
Oversight
Participation
Formal Consensus
ANSI
 The American National Standards Institute
plays a central role in coordination of
American National Standards and with
international standards (ISO).
 Not all standards or documents developed by
ANSI affiliated organizations are American
National Standards. There are times where
the purpose, scope or intent may not apply.
ANSI Accreditation & Audits
 Openness
 Lack of dominance
 Balance
 Coordination and harmonization
 Consideration of views and objections
 Consensus vote
 Appeals
 Compliance with normative ANS
policies/procedures
Scope: ASTM * Consortium
 ASTM maintains 12,000+ standards with
participation of over 30,000 members.
Membership is open to anyone with an
interest.
 Consortium documents are specific to radon
activities. There are no members since there
are no membership requirements associated
with participation or voting rights.
Committee Structure:
Committee Structure: ASTM
 Nearly 140 technical committees covering
diverse industry areas ranging from metals to
the environment. Under each committee
there are several subcommittees, and there
may be dozens of “Task groups” that create
and maintain each standard. Committee E06
was formed in 1946 and has approximately
245 standards. E06 has over 1,000 members.
Committee Structure: ASTM
 There may be one or several standards
assigned to a task group or technical contact.
Task groups often function informally for
creation of draft text and in deciding content
and persuasiveness of comments reviewed.
 The first formal consensus body is the larger
subcommittee where balloting occurs.
 The next level of formal voting takes place at
the main committee level.
Committee Structure:Consortium
 By comparison, each Consortium committee
is an independent consortium group
comprised of about 7-14 volunteers with a
non-voting chairperson to facilitate progress.
 The Executive Stakeholder Committee
addresses policy, oversight and facilitative
issues.
 Each subcommittee addresses a specific
standards document.
Committee Structure:Consortium
 Primary stakeholder groups represented with
a vote in all committees and decisions
 Primary Stakeholder groups are those that deal
directly with the public to include………..
Regulated States * Non-regulated States *
Home Inspectors * Proficiency Programs *
Educators * Measurement Professionals *
and Mitigation Professionals.
Committee Structure:Consortium
 To the extent possible, nominations for
delegates to render formal consensus
throughout the process are sought from the
stakeholder group being represented.
 Where organizational structure for a
stakeholder group does not exist in a manner
to officially offer nominations, nominees are
sought and names published to allow
stakeholder groups to object to a nominee.
Committee Structure:Consortium
 Much like today’s EPA sponsored forum and
Wikipedia ‘s reference to industry consortia
(i.e. consortia standards for HTML, CSS, and
XML used universally throughout the world):
The Consortium was also envisioned as a truly
needed ongoing forum for resolution to
problems that crop up almost monthly by
rendering consensus resolution statements.
Formal Consensus Process:
Formal Consensus: ASTM
 At ASTM: Formal voting, balance or detailed
minutes of the deliberations are not required
of Task group activities.
 Subcommittee and main committee rosters
must be balanced where the voting producers
cannot outnumber the combined voting users
and general interest members.
Formal Consensus: ASTM
 A 60 % return of voting members ballots is
required.
 A 2/3 % affirmative vote (not including
abstentions) is required for subcommittee
ballots, and a 90% affirmative vote is required
for main committee.
Formal Consensus: Consortium
 By comparison, Consortium consensus
requirements apply throughout all policy and
document content decisions.
 Consensus is deemed to have been achieved
with no less than 60% majority of a full 100%
of voters on the specific committee.
Balance: ASTM & Consortium
 Throughout nationally accredited
organizations, a line is drawn between:
 PRODUCERS of products that are used as a result
of a standard
 and USERS of standards ( i.e. user industry, user
government or general interest).
 Typically producers of products related to the
document cannot outnumber general interest
participants and end-users of a document.
CONCLUDING NOTES/SUMMARY:
 Document content is based upon the
consensus of those participants that make
the effort to be involved.
 Formal consensus mechanisms like these
organizations create the first and respected
reference material traditionally sought by
both public and private sectors as
precedence.
 Where jurisdictional authority is extended by
legislation for regulation, a different dynamic
in responsibility and consensus exists than for
voluntary programs & voluntary standards.
 Where jurisdictional authority is not
mandated by legislation, voluntary programs
and standards are tools and the only legal
precedence to affect “market regulation”.
 Even where jurisdictional authority exists,
precedence for related topics that are outside
the legislated scope is traditionally sought
from voluntary standards.
 In contracts (i.e. RPP credentials), voluntary
standards can be contract requirements yet
the recourse for abuse is usually limited to
termination of contract (i.e. credential).
 Industry volunteerism and urgency to
establish responsible and “level field”
practices is a critical component in almost all
existing standards on almost any topic.
 Where no government funding or interest is
extended, industry is sometimes the only
attendee at the table for many standards.
 Six months of Consortium initiative towards
cooperative harmonization of competing
efforts in mitigation standards demonstrates:
1) The Consortium does not care who hosts the
document.
2) It cares about stakeholder support second
only to functional consensus.