Racine  Industries,  Inc.

  1405  Sixteenth  Street   Racine,  Wisconsin  53403  

 
 

October  6,  2010  

 
Mr.  Lane  Hallenbeck  
American  National  Standards  Institute  
1819  L  Street,  Northwest  
Washington,  DC  20036  
 
Dear  Mr.  Hallenbeck,  
 
We  at  Racine  Industries  understand  that  Carpet  and  Rug  Institute  (CRI)  has  applied  for  
ANSI  Accreditation  of  their  Seal  of  Approval  Vacuum  Cleaner  Program.    As  a  product  
manufacturer,  client  of  CRI  and  as  a  directly  and  materially  affected  industry  
stakeholder  in  CRI  activities,  Racine  Industries  objects  and  urges  ANSI  to  deny  the  CRI  
application.  
 

The  ANSI  name  lends  credence  to  standards  activities.    The  ANSI  name  indicates  to  the  
public  that  a  standards  developer  has  followed  the  stringent  steps  necessary  to  create  
and  maintain  trustworthy,  scientific  standards  that  the  public  may  have  confidence  in.      
     
Alternatively,  the  ANSI  name  may  be  used  to  make  it  appear  that  these  things  have  
been  done.    For  example,  CRI  publicly  and  with  no  retraction  claims  to  already  have  
ANSI  accreditation  for  its  vacuum  cleaner  testing  program:      
 

³&5,LVDQ$16,-­accredited  product  certifying  body  and  has  placed  the  SOA/Green  

/DEHOYDFXXPFOHDQHUSURJUDPZKLFKXVHV;5)WHVWLQJXQGHUWKH$16,XPEUHOOD´
(Appendix  F)  
 

³«7KHYDFXXPFOHDQHUSURJUDPZKLFK\RXNHHS  alluding  to  and  trying  to  disparage  is  

actually  certified  under  the  American  National  Standards  Institute  so  you  know  if  you  
think  that  this  program  is  so  bad,  then  you  may  want  to  consult  with  the  American  
National  Standards  Institute  to  see  what  their  oSLQLRQLV´Appendix  O)  
 

:HDFFHSW&5,¶VFKDOOHQJHWRVHHZKDW$16,¶V  opinion  of  this  program  is.      

  
 

 
3DUWRI$16,¶VPLVVLRQLV³VDIHJXDUGLQJWKHLQWHJULW\RIWKHYROXQWDU\VWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ
V\VWHP´    ConsidHULQJ&5,¶VGLVUHJDUGfor  the  ANSI  brand  name,  as  indicated  by  using  
erroneous  claims  to  gain  credibility,  and  considering  CR,¶VODFNRI  evidence  supporting  
their  standards  RU$16,¶V,  we  H[SHFWWKDW$16,¶VRSLQLRQRIWKLVSURJUDPLVWKDW&5,KDV
not  fulfilled  the  requisites  in  ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  General  requirements  for  bodies  
operating  product  certification  systems,  First  Edition  1996.      
 
Specific  examples  of  CRI  failures  to  fulfill  the  criteria  in  Guide  65  and  other  relevant  
guides  and  standards,  include  but  are  not  limited  to:  
 
I. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  4.1.3,  states  that  the  criteria  against  which  the  products  
are  evaluated  shall  be  those  outlined  in  specified  standards,  suitable  per  
ISO/IEC  Guide  7,  which  has  been  revised  into  ISO/IEC  17007-­2009.    CRI  fails  
to  meet  Guide  7  and  17007  criteria  in  numerous  ways.  
 
A. Guide  7,  4.4  and  ISO/IEC  17007,  5.2.2  state  that  a  standard  should  result  
in  accurate  and  uniform  interpretations,  and  that  parties  using  a  standard  
should  be  able  to  derive  a  common  understanding  of  its  meaning  and  
intent.      
 
1. CRI  has  supplied  no  document  that  is  labeled  D³VWDQGDUG´
ThHUHDUH³VWDQGDUGWHVWPHWKRGV´  and  there  is  a  list  of  
³FULWHULD´LQFRUSRUDWLQJWKRVHWHVWPHWKRGV  
 
2. There  are  various  web  site  pages  marketing  the  program,  each  
with  different  language  that  implies  different  meanings.    If  the  
YDULRXVZHESDJHVDUHWDNHQWRJHWKHUWREHWKH³VWDQGDUG´
accurate  and  uniform  interpretations  are  impossible.    Some  
examples  of  lack  of  clarity:  
 

2  
 
  
 

a.  OQHSDJHGHVFULEHVWKH³WRXJKVWDQGDUGV´DQGGHOLQHDWHV
two  categories  IRUSURJUDPLQYROYHPHQW³JHQHUDO
SXUSRVH´DQG³ORZSLOH´$QRWKHUSDJHGHVFULEHVWKRVH
WZRFDWHJRULHVDV³KRXVHKROG´DQG³FRPPHUFLDO´<HW
another  page  lists  products  that  have  passed  ³KRXVHKROG´
³FRPPHUFLDO´DQG³KRXVHKROGDQGFRPPHUFLDO´  tests.    
The  categories  are  inconsistent  and  definitions  unknown.  
 
b. Meanwhile,  in  one  place  it  is  stated  that  carpet  samples  
XVHGIRUVRLOUHPRYDOWHVWVDUH³HLWKHUR]V\
FRPPHUFLDOFXWSLOHFDUSHWRUR]V\ORRSSLOHFDUSHW´
Yet  another  page  lists  four  carpet  samples  in  the  testing,  
but  GRHVQ¶WLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHUHLVDchoice  between  them  
for  participating  manufacturers.    And  still  yet  another  
page  lists  three  potential  samples  with  a  choice.    Anyone  
looking  at  this  program  as  presented  would  not  be  able  to  
discern  what  was  actually  tested.    Further,  approved  
products  are  not  differentiated  by  what  carpet  they  were  
tested  with  and  for  what  purpose.  This  makes  any  
performance  rankings  incomparable.    ISO/IEC  17007  4.5  
Principle  4  requires  comparability.    
 
3. The  vacuum  cleaner  testing  program  incorporates  the  name  
µGreen  Label¶.    The  carpet  testing  program  also  uses  the  name  
µGreen  Label¶%XWRQO\WKH  carpet  testing  programs  are  within  
the  scope  of  &5,¶V  current  ANSI  accreditation.    The  use  of  the  
same  name  for  both  scopes  is  misleading  and  obscures  the  
meaning  and  intent.  
 
4. &5,FODLPVWKDW³WKHHQWU\OHYHORI%URQ]H(in  the  new  testing  
program)  requires  a  10  percent  improvement  of  soil  removal  
over  the  Green  Label  program  and  the  standards  are  even  higher  
3  
 
  
 

IRU6LOYHUDQG*ROGOHYHOV´This  is  fallacious  and  misleading.    

The  passing  score  for  the  new  testing  was  simply  raised  four  
percentage  points;;  it  does  not  mean  that  performance  has  
improved.    Removing  40%  of  a  tiny  amount  of  soil  of  one  soil  
blend  does  not  indicate  or  reflect  a  performance  improvement  
over  removing  36%  of  a  much  larger  amount  of  a  different  soil  
blend.    An  analogy  to  indicate  the  statistical  fallacy:    spending  
40%  of  a  hundred  dollars  gets  you  less  than  spending  36%  of  a  
thousand  dollars.    However,  this  analogy  presumes,  as  CRI  
implies,  that  the  tests  are  correlated  and  comparable,  which  they  
are  not.    Increasing  the  percentage  required  to  pass  one  test  
does  not  increase  vacuum  cleaner  performance;;  there  can  be  no  
MXGJPHQWVWDWLQJ³LPSURYHPHQW´    Such  CRI  claims  are  
misleading  and  inaccurate,  and  this  represents  another  example  
of  how  Guide  7,  4.4,  still  needs  to  be  followed.  
 
B. Guide  7,  5.1,  states  that  standards  should  be  written  in  such  a  way  as  to  not  
retard  technological  developments.    The  conformity  assessment  in  
question  here  retards  technological  developments.  
 
1. The  texture-­retention  part  of  the  testing  (Appendix  A)  that  was  
deemed  necessary  by  CRI  in  order  to  make  sure  vacuums  do  not  
damage  loop  pile  carpet  is  performed  on  cut  pile  carpet.    Not  
only  does  this  not  make  scientific  sense,  but  it  penalizes  and  
locks  out  technologies  that  make  use  of  more  powerful  agitation  
(i.e.  brushing).    For  instance,  a  vacuum  built  for  use  on  loop  pile  
carpet  should  not  be  tested  on  a  cut  pile,  where  it  would  fail  this  
deliberately  limiting  conformity  assessment  and  be  
marginalized  in  the  marketplace  unfairly  and  inappropriately.  
 
a. The  given  CRI  reasoning  for  this  dichotomy  is  that  the  cut  
pile  carpet  ³ZDVFKRVHQVSHFLILFDOO\WRVKRZGDPDJHWR
4  
 
  
 

texture  from  cleaning  processes,  as  the  loop  pile  would  be  
YLUWXDOO\EXOOHWSURRILQWKLVUHJDUG´  In  other  words,  
items  submitted  for  testing  in  one  category  would  all  pass  
unless  the  test  was  specifically  changed  to  fail  a  number  
of  them.    This  is  unreasonable.    If  an  efficacy  test  is  
performed  on  loop  pile  carpet,  the  texture  retention  test  
should  also  be  performed  on  loop  pile  carpet.      
 
b. This  testing  is  especially  unreasonable  given  the  base  
quality  of  the  carpet  samples  used.    Despite  a  relatively  
high  market  share  due  to  its  low  price  point,  the  former  
CEO  of  Shaw  Industries  admits  that  this  quality  of  carpet  
LV³JXDUDQWHHGWRZDONRXWLQIRXUZHHNV´Appendix  N)    
To  deliberately  create  a  test  for  the  purpose  of  showing  
texture  damage  to  a  carpet  sample  by  a  cleaning  process,  
when  that  carpet  sample  would  be  damaged  by  walking  
on  it  for  a  month  anyway,  amounts  to  shifting  warranty  
blame  inappropriately.    It  also  amounts  to  a  commercial  
interest  in  the  certification  process  by  voting                                                                                                    
CRI  members  who  have  included  the  CRI  SOA  into  their  
warranties,  which  violates  Guide  7,  4.2.m.  
 
2. The  CRI  Seal  of  Approval  has  become  a  market  requirement  in  
several  arenas,  as  it  has  been  incorporated  into  warranties,  
various  pieces  of  legislation  and  national  standards.      
 
a. There  is  pressure  on  manufacturers  of  products  to  
enJLQHHU³WRWKHWHVWV´ZKLFK  retards  technological  
developments  (especially  in  the  commercial  arena).      
 

5  
 
  
 

b. One  consequence  of  the  continued  use  of  this  conformity  

assessment  is  the  filtering  out  of  equipment  built  for  
specific  carpet  constructions.  
 
C. Guide  7,  5.2,  states  that  requirements  should  be  clearly  specified.    They  are  
not;;  please  see  IA,  above  and  IIIA2,  below.      
 
D. Guide  7,  5.2  and  17007,  5.2.9  also  state  that  conformance  assessment  
requirements  be  free  from  subjective  elements.    They  are  not.  
 
1. The  evaluation  of  results  from  the  Standard  Laboratory  Test  
Practice  for  Measurement  of  Surface  Appearance  Change  of  
Textile  Floor  Covering  as  a  Result  of  the  Vacuuming  Process  
(ibid.)  is  subjective.    
 
a. Lab  technicians  judge  the  results  by  comparing  tested  
carpet  samples  to  reference  pictures.      
 
b. This  is  subjective  in  itself,  but  in  addition,  the  reference  
pictures  used  to  judge  the  carpet  samples  against  were  
created  via  subjective  opinion  in  the  first  place.    It  was  
decided  essentially  how  ³fuzzy´  a  carpet  could  be  before  it  
voided  the  warranty,  and  pictures  were  taken  of  that  
point.  These  pictures  were  created  from  carpet  
PDQXIDFWXUHUV¶GHVLUHGZDUUDQW\FXW-­off,  a  cost-­control  
PHDVXUH³Based  upon  current  appearance  retention  
warranties  a  maximum  level  of  appearance  change  
FDXVHGE\WKHYDFXXPLQJSURFHVVZDVHVWDEOLVKHG´ibid.,  
page  5)  
 
2. After  vacuuming,  the  yarns  in  a  carpet  sample  used  in  the  soil  
removal  test  (Appendix  B)  must  be  returned  to  the  positions  
6  
 
  
 

they  were  in  before  they  were  vacuumed.    This  is  because  
³&KDQJHVLQWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHFRPSRXQGVFKDQJLQJWKH
measured  amount,  in  (conjunction)  with  variation  in  carpet  
fiber  to  detector  distance  is  believed  to  be  the  largest  source  of  
YDULDWLRQLQWKLVWHVW´Appendix  C)    
 
a. Returning  yarns  back  to  their  original  positions  is  
technically  impossible  without  exacting  study.  
 
b. Nevertheless,  a  technician  brushes  the  yarns  with  a  rake  
in  order  to  attempt  to  return  the  yarns  back  to  a  
³XQLIRUPVPRRWKDSSHDUDQFH´Appendix  B,  6.8)    There  
is  no  definition  of  what  FRQVWLWXWHVD³XQLIRUPVPRRWK
DSSHDUDQFH´  there  is  no  proscribed  number  of  brush  
strokes;;  there  is  no  monitored  pressure  or  speed.    The  
technician  goes  through  inconsistent  and  subjective  but  
token  motions  in  an  attempt  to  do  the  impossible.    ³7KH
XRF  peak  intensity  drops  as  the  inverse  square  of  the  
distance  from  the  fiber  to  the  detector;;  hence,  it  is  
important  that  the  samples  be  brushed  or  combed  before  
they  are  scanned  to  maintain  a  constant  position.  «I)t  is  
essential  that  pile  orientation  and  its  distance  relative  to  
WKHVHQVRUEHPDLQWDLQHG´ibid.,  12.2.8)    Being  so  
essential,  a  non-­subjective  method  should  be  employed  
for  correction.  
 
3. In  calibrating  the  equipment  for  the  soil  removal  testing,  one  is  
directed  to  raise  the  carpet  sample  up  with  shims  until  it  
³DOPRVW´WRXFKHVWKHQRVHSLHFHRIWKH;5)XQLW(ibid.,  A1.1.4)  
³$OPRVW´LVQRWDGHILQHGWHUP.    One  is  directed  to  accept  the  
³DOPRVW´KHLJKWLIWKHUHDUH³QR´HOHPHQWVIURPWKHEDFNLQJ
detected  in  the  sample,  but  if  there  are,  one  must  incrementally  
7  
 
  
 

lower  the  sample  until  the  amount  of  backing  elements  is  
³QHJOLJLEOH´  ³1HJOLJLEOH´LVDOVRXQGHILQHGDQGthus  creates  
another  point  of  subjectivity  in  the  method.      
 
Because  this  testing  attempts  to  measure  trace  quantities,  
QXPEHUVUHSUHVHQWHGE\³DOPRVW´DQG³QHJOLJLEOH´DUHPRUH
VLJQLILFDQWWKDQWKH\PLJKWVHHP)RULQVWDQFHD³QHJOLJLEOH´
amount  of  strontium  found  in  the  backing  as  is  allowed  in  the  
calibration  would  add  to  the  strontium  used  in  the  test  soil,  thus  
adding  error  to  calculations  and  causing  false  positives.          
 
E. Guide  7,  5.3  states  that  standards  should  be  written  in  such  a  way  that  
variants  are  clearly  defined  and  indentified.    CRI  has  failed  to  do  this.  
 
1. &5,¶V%ronze,  Silver,  and  Gold  categories  are  described  as  based  
on  quantitative  analysis.    However,  with  all  the  issues  involved  
with  the  soil  removal  efficacy  testing  using  XRF,  these  categories  
are  qualitative,  misleading  and  unclear-­-­until  proper  validation  
and  other  method  requirements  have  been  proven.    (Appendix  
D)    
 
2. Passing  variants  are  listed  one  way  on  the  CRI  web  site,  but  are  
confusingly  stated  as  tested  in  different  ways  elsewhere  on  their  
site.    Please  refer  to  I.A.2.a  and  I.A.2.b  above.      
 
F. Guide  7,  6.1  states  that  test  methods  should  be  consistent  with  the  purpose  
of  the  standard.    At  least  one  of  the  specified  test  methods  for  conformity  
assessment,  Standard  Test  Method  for  Evaluation  of  Solid  Particulate  
Removal  Effectiveness  Using  X-­Ray  Fluorescence  Techniques  for  
Evaluating  Cleaning  Effectiveness  of  Residential/Commercial  and  
Central  Vacuum  Cleaners  (Appendix  B),  has  not  been  shown  to  be  
relevant  to  the  purpose  of  the  standard.    It  has  not  been  shown  to  be  
8  
 
  
 

correlated  to  real-­world  dirt  removal,  or  to  another  laboratory  test  method  
that  has.      
 
1. 7KHWHVWPHWKRGVWDWHV³7KLVWHVWPHWKRGLVQRWEDVHGRQKRPH
cleaning  tests.    There  is  no  established  correlation  between  field  
and  laboratory  results.    However  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  
in  most  cases,  a  vacuum  that  performs  well  in  the  laboratory  will  
SHUIRUPZHOOLQDFWXDOXVH´ibid.,  5.4.)  
 
a. It  is  not  reasonable  to  assume  a  correlation.  
 
b. Again,  this  test  method  is  replete  with  issues  that  make  
validating  and  correlating  paramount  before  any  
assumptions  should  be  allowed.    Please  refer  to  Appendix  
D.      
 
2. CRI  has  not  provided  any  proper  correlation  or  validation  
materials  to  show  that  their  tests  function  as  stated  and  that  
they  are  relevant  to  real-­world  experience.    This  test  method  has  
not  been  shown  to  be  consistent  with  the  purpose  of  the  
standard,  as  required  in  6.1.      
 
3. Further,  ISO/IEC  17007,  5.4.8,  specifies  that  test  methods  
³follow  metrological  principles  concerning  validation,  
measurement  traceability,  and  estimation  of  measurement  
uncertainty  GHVFULEHGLQ,62,(&&ODXVH´&5,
test  methods  (Appendices  A,  B,  and  E)  do  not.    None  of  this  
information  exists  or  is  available,  despite  private  and  public  
requests,  and  despite  a  public  CRI  response  to  the  contrary  
(Appendix  F).    When  validation  is  discussed,  inappropriate,  
incomplete  and  misleading  studies  are  referred  to.    Robust  

9  
 
  
 

validation,  traceability,  and  uncertainty  principles  should  be  

followed  as  is  required  by  17025.  
 
G. Guide  7,  6.1  also  states  that  WHVWVVKRXOGEH³«DFFXUDWHDQGSURGXFH
unambiguous,  repeatable  and  reproducible  results,  so  that  the  results  of  
WHVWVPDGHXQGHUGHILQHGFRQGLWLRQVDUHFRPSDUDEOH´  
 
1. Tests  have  not  been  shown  to  be  accurate.    Further,  outside  
experts  question  that  the  test  method  (Appendix  B)  can  be  
accurate.    (Please  refer  to  the  bibliography  included  in  Appendix  
D;;  additionally,  currently  anonymous  peer  reviewers  of  
Appendix  D  may  be  consulted,  upon  request  and  upon  approval  
by  them.)    
 
2. Test  results  are  ambiguous.    Treating  an  unproven  qualitative  
method  as  a  definitive  and  quantitative  method  creates  
unwarranted  trust  in  ambiguous  product  rankings  and  
certifications.    (Please  refer  to  Appendix  D  for  the  qualitative  
versus  quantitative  nature  of  this  test.)  
 
3. Repeatable  and  reproducible  results  are  not  available.    The  few  
other  laboratories  solicited  have  refused  to  get  involved.    
(Unanswered  technical  questions  and  cost  have  been  given  as  
reasons  for  non-­SDUWLFLSDWLRQ³1RSUHFLVLRQVWDWHPHQWPD\EH
PDGH´Appendix  B)    Further,  since  no  calculation  methods  are  
provided  in  the  test  method  protocol,  a  second  laboratory  would  
be  unable  to  follow  the  protocol  even  if  they  so  chose.  
 
4. If  three  samples  are  tested  and  averaged,  with  two  of  the  three  
tests  scoring  high  removal  percentages  and  one  scoring  low,  
there  is  no  consideration  that  the  one  low  score  may  be  an  
outlier.    All  results  are  averaged  without  thought  to  the  data  or  a  
10  
 
  
 

protocol  in  place  to  consider  such  errors.    The  low,  outlying  
score  would  bring  down  the  average  and  thus  create  a  false  
ranking  that  makes  the  results  incomparable.  
 
H. *XLGHVWDWHVWKDW³:KHUHWHVWHTXLSPHQWLVRQO\DYDLODEOHIURPRne  
VRXUFH«WKHVWDQGDUGVKRXOGLQFOXGHVXFKVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUWKH
equipment  as  to  ensure  that  comparable  testing  can  be  conducted  by  all  
LQYROYHGSDUWLHV´ISO/IEC  17007,  5.2.4  states  that  test  methods  should  be  
³H[SUHVVHGLQVXFKDZD\WKDWDQ\LQWHUHVted  party  may  carry  out  the  
WHVWLQJ´    Any  interested  party  may  not  carry  out  the  testing.  
 
1. The  CRI  standard,  which  in  the  absence  of  any  such  named  
document  is  taken  to  mean  the  various  criteria  and  testing  
protocols/methods,  does  not  provide  enough  information  to  
HQVXUHFRPSDUDEOHWHVWLQJE\³DOOLQYROYHGSDUWLHV´0LVVLQJfor  
example,  are:  
 
a. what  calculations  are  performed  by  software  
 
b. how  results  are  derived  from  raw  data  
 
2. CRI  publicly  states  that  no  one  besides  their  contractor,  
Professional  Testing  Laboratory,  has  shown  interest  in  doing  the  
testing.  (Appendix  F)    This  statement  is  untrue.      
 
a. On  one  hand,  CRI  states  that  others  are  using  the  
technology  for  testing.    (Appendix  I)  
 
b. Yet  others,  such  as  Racine  Industries,  have  expressed  
interest  but  have  been  denied  the  ability  to  perform  the  
testing.    (Appendix  Q)    CRI  disallows  certain  parties  from  
performing  the  testing,  with  the  justification  that  this  
11  
 
  
 

discrimination  is  to  ensure  the  credibility  of  the  program  

(Appendix  I).    This  justification  ensures  and  indicates  the  
failure  of  CRI  to  comply  with  Guide  7,  6.5  and  ISO/IEC  
17007,  5.2.4  to  ³HQVXUHWKDWFRPSDUDEOHWHVWLQJFDQEH
conducted  by  all  involved  parties.´  
 
II. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  4.2.j  requires  CRI  to  employ  personnel  to  have  the  
³QHFHVVDU\HGXFDWLRQWUDLQLQJWHFKQLFDONQRZOHGJHDQGH[SHULHQFHIRU
SHUIRUPLQJFHUWLILFDWLRQIXQFWLRQV«´  Guide  65,  5.5.1  similarly  requires  
competence  in  making  required  technical  judgments  and  framing  and  
implementing  policies.      CRI  has  shown  on  several  occasions  that  there  is  not  
a  sufficient  level  of  expertise  and  they  are  unable  to  properly  communicate  
technical  details;;  highly  important  technical  aspects  of  the  testing  are  not  
understood  by  CRI.    CRI  often  shares  incorrect  technical  information,  with  
both  the  public  and  CRI  committee  members,  who  vote  on  certification  issues.    
Some  examples:  
 
A. &5,WHVWGHYHORSHUVVWDWHWKDW³WKHUHLVDJHRPHWULFIDFWRUDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
the  design  of  the  instrument  that  decreases  the  signal  as  the  source  is  
moved  farther  from  the  instrument.    Hence  it  is  critical  to  present  the  
carpet  fibers  in  the  same  position  each  time  it  is  scanned.    The  carpet  must  
EHEUXVKHG«´Appendix  C)    In  other  words,  sample  distance  and  
brushing  are  critical.    However,  when  asked  why  a  carpet  sample  needs  to  
be  brushed  during  the  testing,  or  when  asked  about  concerns  of  sample  
distance,  &5,¶VUHVSRQVH  is  that  carpet  samples  are  ³«groomed  just  like  the  
IICRC  S100  standard.    It  is  part  of  the  cleaning  process,´  and  that  
³GLVWDQFHIURPWKHVDPSOHFDUSHWDVLWLVXVHGLVLUUHOHYDQW´(Appendix  J)    
7KHUHLVDODUJHGLVFUHSDQF\EHWZHHQ³FULWLFDO´DQG³LUUHOHYDQW´      
 
B. Press  releases  refer  to  the  accuracy  and  precision  of  the  efficacy  test,  
alternately  saying  that  the  CRI  testing  can  identify  or  quantify  soil  to  a  
precision  or  accuracy  of  four  decimal  places.      
12  
 
  
 

 
1. CRI  confuses  the  terms  accuracy  and  precision  and  seemingly  
uses  them  interchangeably.    (Appendix  K,  1  and  2)  
 
2. CRI  confuses  the  definitions  of  identification  and  quantification.    
(Appendix  K,  3)  
 
3. CRI  uses  aQHQWLUHO\GLIIHUHQWWHVW¶Vaccuracy  numbers  in  their  
marketing  and  given  technical  information  as  their  own.    
(Appendix  K,  4)    They  seem  to  assume  that  because  a  piece  of  
test  equipment  had  a  certain  level  of  accuracy  in  identifying  
elements  in  one  kind  of  test  method,  that  their  related  piece  of  
equipment  will  work  how  they  wish  an  SOA  test,  and  to  the  
same  level  of  accuracy  and  precision.  
 
4. Section  5.4.1  of  ISO/IEC  17007  asks  for  what  is  acceptable  in  
terms  of  uncertainty  of  measurement,  accuracy,  reproducibility,  
and  repeatability.    CRI  has  not  been  able  to  produce  this  
information.    Despite  the  above  precision  and  accuracy  
references  in  1,  2,  and  3  above,  no  statements  about  precision  
and  accuracy  may  scientifically  be  made  (Appendix  B,  page  8),  
due  to  lack  of  information.    
 
III. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  Section  6,  requires  a  certification  body  to  give  due  notice  
RIDQ\FKDQJHVLWLQWHQGVWRPDNHLQLWVFHUWLILFDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVDQG³VKDOO
take  account  of  views  expressed  by  interested  parties  before  deciding  on  the  
SUHFLVHIRUPDQGHIIHFWLYHGDWHRIWKHFKDQJHV´WREHSXEOLVKHG&5,KDVQRW
met  these  requirements.  
 
A.  CRI  does  not  procedurally  give  an  opportunity  for  interested  parties  or  
concerned  stakeholders  outside  the  CRI  to  comment  on  or  to  be  informed  
on  certification  requirement  changes.      
13  
 
  
 

1. CRI  does  not  publish  consideration  of  changes,  and  numerous  

stakeholders  are  ignorant  of  potentially  business-­changing  
decisions  happening  behind  closed  doors.    Stakeholders  submit  
no  views  on  changes  because  they  are  unaware  the  topic  is  being  
discussed;;  the  opportunity  to  comment  is  not  given.    Please  see  
the  blog  at  Appendix  G,  created  by  an  industry  professional  and  
stakeholder  discussing  being  excluded  from  participation.  
 

2. Seal  of  Approval  test  procedures  are  changed  without  notice  to  
customers.    Based  on  criteria  posted  on  the  CRI  web  site,  Racine  
Industries  participated  in  an  SOA  conformance  test;;  the  
equipment  submitted  was  expected  to  pass  easily.    However,  
when  we  received  our  report  (excerpt,  Appendix  S),  we  noted  
that  the  original  sample  specification  had  been  crossed  out  and  
replaced  with  a  handwritten  new  specification.    The  specified  
carpet  sample  for  testing  was  replaced  with  another,  without  
consulting  us.    The  result  being  that  the  equipment  was  failed.    
If  we  had  been  consulted,  we  would  have  refused  the  test  and  
would  have  avoided  being  invoiced  for  a  test  we  did  not  order.    
Following  Guide  65,  Sections  4  and  6  may  have  prevented  this.    
[It  is  unknown  if  equipment  tested  before  this  specification  
change  occurred  has  been  retested  so  that  it  would  be  more  
comparable  to  more  current  conformance  assessments;;  if  not,  
there  are  further  ISO/IEC  17007  4.5    issues.]  
 
B. CRI  also  neglects  to  give  due  notice  to  committee  members  who  vote  on  
related  matters.    For  example,  meeting  agendas  are  sometimes  sent  just  
before  a  meeting  and  contain  little  if  any  detail  to  review  (Appendix  H).    
Certification-­related  topics  are  frequently  voted  on  quickly  with  no  
VXSSRUWLQJGDWDJLYHQWRUHYLHZ³,ZRQ¶WERUH\RXZLWKWKHGHWDLOV´LVa  
sentence  heard  at  many  meetings.  
 

14  
 
  
 

IV. ISO/IEC  17007,  5.2.11,  requires  the  use  of  SI  units  for  measurements.    CRI  is  
inconsistent  in  this  regard.    See  test  methods  at  Appendices  A,  B,  and  E.  
 
V. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  4.2.p  requires  a  certifying  body  to  have  policies  and  
procedures  in  place  for  handling  certification-­related  issues  received  from  any  
SDUW\6LPLODUO\*XLGHPVWLSXODWHVWKDWDFHUWLI\LQJERG\¶VTuality  
PDQXDOVKDOOFRQWDLQRUUHIHUWR³WKHSROLF\DQGSURFHGXUHIRUGHDOLQJZLWK
DSSHDOVFRPSODLQWVDQGGLVSXWHV´:KLOH&5,UHSHDWHGO\UHIHUHQFHVD3ROLF\
and  Procedure  Manual  in  their  Carpet  and  Rug  Institute  Quality  Manual  and  
cites  it  as  part  of  their  Quality  System  (and  likely  has  submitted  this  document  
to  ANSI  for  approval),  CRI  also  states  that  there  is  no  Policy  and  Procedure  
Manual  available.    (Appendix  L)    Denying  the  existence  of  and  therefore  
access  to  a  Policy  and  Procedures  Manual  prevents  due  process  and  violates  
the  purpose  and  intent  of  numerous  requisites  in  Guide  65.    
 
VI. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  7.2  requires  that  a  certification  body  keep  a  record  of  all  
appeals,  complaints  and  disputes  and  remedial  actions  relative  to  
certification,  to  take  appropriate  subsequent  action,  and  to  document  the  
action  taken  and  its  effectiveness.    CRI  denies,  ignores  or  is  otherwise  unable  
to  provide  evidence  of  serious  questions  regarding  the  testing  program.  
 
A. $QH[DPSOHRI&5,¶Vresponse  to  a  question  asking  if  a  letter  existed  that  
contained  serious  technical  questions  regarding  some  of  the  SOA  test  
PHWKRGVWKH&5,UHVSRQVHZDV³1RWWRWKHEHVWRIP\NQRZOHGJHEXW,
FDQ¶WUHVSRQGWRUXPRUVDQ\ZD\´Appendix  O)    
 
B.  A  draft  version  of  A  Discussion  Regarding  a  Novel  Method:    the  Use  of  X-­
Ray  Fluorescence  for  Quantitative  Analysis  of  Elements  in  Carpet  
(Appendix  D)  was  sent  to  CRI  March  25,  2010.    (Appendix  P)    There  was  
no  response  from  CRI;;  that  is,  there  was  no  response  until  the  paper  was  
finalized  and  made  public  several  months  later.    The  response  finally  
elicited  from  CRI  consisted  of  a  dismissive  press  release,  which  included  
15  
 
  
 

no  offer  of  remedial  action  or  other  attempt  to  work  with  the  testing  
problems  (see  their  non-­substantive  public  response  at  Appendix  F).    As  is  
required  in  Guide  65,  7.2,  has  CRI  documented  the  ignoring  of  the  
Discussion  paper  until  it  was  published,  and  does  the  record  reflect  how  
they  voted  to  not  respond  further  after  their  press  release  and  how  
effective  their  response  has  been?    These  actions  and  inactions  cannot  be  
GHHPHG³DSSURSULDWHVXEVHTXHQWDFWLRQ´  
 

VII. ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  4.2m  and  4.2n  require  that  those  involved  be  free  from  
commercial,  financial,  and  other  influential  pressures.    Guide  65,  4.4  refers  to  
conflict  of  interest  in  subcontracting.      
 

A. CRI  owns  a  major  piece  of  prohibitively  expensive  testing  equipment  that  
a  CRI  contractor  uses  to  perform  testing  for  CRI.    CRI  has  a  vested  interest  
in  the  use  of  this  equipment,  and  thus  cannot  be  considered  independent  
from  its  testing  contractor.  
 

B. This  contractor  is  also  a  voting  CRI  committee  member;;  this  contractor  
controls  the  access  and  translation  of  (self-­generated)  technical  data  and  
therefore  has  strong  influence  regarding  committee  voting  on  certification  
program  issues.      
       
Conclusion  
 

Participation  in  CRI  programs  or  attending  CRI  meetings  does  not  equal  confidence  in  
the  testing²numerous  manufacturers  feel  forced  to  participate  because  of  market  and  
legal  pressures  such  as  warranty  requirements,  legislation,  and  other  standards  and  
procurement  specifications  that  have  agreed  to  incorporate  a  CRI  approval  as  a  
prerequisite.    According  to  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology,  
voluntary  consensus  standards  may  be  rendered  mandatory  when  referenced  in  
regulations  or  procurement  specifications,  and  may  be  rendered  quasi-­mandatory  due  
to  conditions  in  the  marketplace.    (Appendix  R)    These  qualifications  apply  here,  and  in  
effect  render  the  CRI  SOA  programs  non-­voluntary  for  manufacturers  who  desire  to  

16  
 
  
 

continue  selling  their  products.    These  pressures  keep  stakeholders  paying  for  testing  
when  they  otherwise  might  not  be,  and  keep  stakeholders  interested  in  seeing  rigor  in  
the  standards  process:    livelihoods  are  at  stake.    Interest,  presence  at  meetings,  and  
program  participation  do  not  indicate  that  a  stakeholder  condones  or  endorses  the  
process  or  outcome,  or  is  otherwise  in  consensus  with  CRI.      
 

The  outlined  examples  of  issues  above  indicate  that  much  work  still  needs  to  be  
attempted  and  accomplished.    However,  CRI  is  not  interested  in  pausing  and  doing  the  
scientific  work  required  first;;  they  have  instead  chosen  to  garner  popular  support  rather  
than  factual  data  to  further  their  program  acceptance.    7KLV³IODZHGWHVWLQJLVEHWWHU
WKDQQRWHVWLQJ´SRVLWLRQKDVSXWDTXHVWLRQDEOH  product  ranking  scheme  into  the  
marketplace,  with  no  successful  method  validation  studies  behind  it,  no  passing  peer  
review  by  independent  experts  in  the  specialized  lab  technology  utilized,  and  no  public  
due  process  used.        
 

Instead  they  DVN³:KDWGR\RXKDYHWKDW¶VEHWWHU"´      This  question  cannot  be  allowed  to  

sweep  aside  the  ISO/IEC  compliance  requirements  for  technical  rigor,  openness,  
consensus  and  other  process  safeguards  that  ANSI  stands  for.        
 
 

Sincerely,  
 
 
 
Deborah  Lema  
Research  and  Education  
Racine  Industries,  Inc.  
 
Cc:      
Reinaldo  Figueiredo,  Senior  Program  Director,  Product  Certification  Accreditation  at  ANSI  
Nikki  Jackson,  Program  Manager,  Product  Certification  Accreditation  at  ANSI  
Shahin  Moinian,  Chair,  ANSI  Accreditation  Committee  for  Product  Certifiers    
Ken  McIntosh,  Senior  Technical  Director  at  CRI  
Pat  Jennings,  Technical  Manager  and  Seal  of  Approval  Coordinator  at  CRI  

17  
 
  
 

 
APPENDICES  
 
Note:  ISO/IEC  Guide  65,  General  requirements  for  bodies  operating  product  
certification  systems,  as  well  as  related  and  incorporated  guides  and  standards  referred  
to  above  and  more,  are  available  at  www.ansi.org.    
 

Appendix  A  

CRI  TM  114:  Standard  Laboratory  Test  Practice  (f)or  Measurement  (o)f  Surface  
Appearance  Change  (o)f  Textile  Floor  Covering  (a)s  (a)  Result  (o)f  (t)he  Vacuuming  
Process.  
 
http://www.carpet-­rug.org/technical_bulletins/1003_Test_Method_114.pdf  
 
Also  perhaps  of  interest,  Assessment  of  Carpet  Appearance  Change  using  the  CRI  
Reference  Scales:    http://www.carpet-­
rug.org/technical_bulletins/0307_CRI_TM_101.pdf  
 

Appendix  B  

CRI  TM  112:  Standard  Test  Method  for  Evaluation  of  Solid  Particulate  Removal  
Effectiveness  Using    X-­Ray  Fluorescence  Techniques  for  Evaluating  Cleaning  
Effectiveness  of  Residential/Commercial  and  Central  Vacuum  Cleaners.      
 
http://www.carpet-­rug.org/technical_bulletins/1003_Test_Method_112.pdf  
 
 
 
 
 

18  
 
  
 

Appendix  C    
 
Asbury,  G,  and  Shannon,  RF,  Quantification  of  (f)oreign  (c)ontaminant  from  flooring  
surface  through  XRF  (t)echnology.    Attached  separately.  
 
Relevant  excerpt:  
 
³«7KHUHLVDJHRPHWULFIDFWRUDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHGHVLJQRIWKHLQVWUXPHQWWKDW
decre(a)ses  the  signal  as  the  source  is  moved  farther  from  the  instrument.  Hence  it  is  
critical  to  present  the  carpet  fibers  in  the  same  pos(i)tion  each  time  it  is  scanned.  The  
FDUSHWPXVWEHEUXVKHGWRUHPRYHPDWWLQJDQGVWDQGWKHFDUSHWILEHUVXS´Page  6,  
Discussion  of  Errors)      
 

 
Appendix  D  

Lema,  D,  A  Discussion  Regarding  a  Novel  Method:    The  Use  of  X-­Ray  Fluorescence  for  
Quantitative  Analysis  of  Elements  in  Carpet.      

Attached  separately;;  also  available  here:    http://www.hostdry.com/whitepaper.pdf.  

 

 
Appendix  E    
 
CRI  TM  115:  Standard  Laboratory  Test  Practice  (f)or  Determining  the  Power  Use  
Effectiveness  of  Residential  and  Commercial  Vacuum  Cleaners.  
 

http://www.carpet-­rug.org/technical_bulletins/1003_Test_Method_115.pdf  
 
CRI  TM  113:  Standard  Laboratory  Practice  (f)or  Quantifying  Respirable  Particulate  
Emissions  Generated  by  Residential/Commercial  Vacuums  and  Central  Vacuum  
Systems.  
 

http://www.carpet-­rug.org/technical_bulletins/1003_Test_Method_113.pdf  

19  
 
  
 

Appendix  F  
 
"There  is  nothing  [in  the  document]  that  has  not  been  addressed  either  before  or  since  
the  SOA  program  was  introduced  at  NASA's  John  F.  Kennedy  Space  Center  in  the  Fall  of  
2004(*),"  Braun  said.  "It  is  disappointing  to  see  questions  listed  as  unanswered  when  
we  have,  in  fact,  answered  Racine  Industries  on  multiple  occasions  in  writing."  
 
http://www.scrt.org/news/73-­cri-­defends-­validity-­of-­seal-­of-­approval-­testing  
 
([DPSOHVRIKRZ&5,DGGUHVVHV5DFLQH,QGXVWULHV¶FRQFHUQVin  the  above  press  release  
include:  
 
1. Having  been  asked  for  method  validation  studies,  CRI  replies  that  one  has  been  
done  but  is  in  the  peer  review  process  (and  is  therefore  unavailable).    That  is  the  
same  response  we  have  heard  for  years:  

-­-­-­-­-­Original  Message-­-­-­-­-­  
From:  Carey.Mitchell@shawinc.com    
Sent:  Friday,  November  07,  2008  12:17  PM  
To:  Debbie  Lema  
Subject:  Re:  Encapsulation  Study  

The  copyright  is  held  by  CIRI;;  don't  know  the  status  of  publication  

 
**********************************************************  
Privileged  and/or  confidential  information  may  be  contained  in  this  message.  If  you  are  
not  the  addressee  indicated  in  this  message  (or  are  not  responsible  for  delivery  of  this  
message  to  that  person)  ,  you  may  not  copy  or  deliver  this  message  to  anyone.  In  such  
case,  you  should  destroy  this  message  and  notify  the  sender  by  reply  e-­mail.  
If  you  or  your  employer  do  not  consent  to  Internet  e-­mail  for  messages  of  this  kind,  
please  advise  the  sender.  

20  
 
  
 

Shaw  Industries  does  not  provide  or  endorse  any  opinions,  conclusions  or  other  
information  in  this  message  that  do  not  relate  to  the  official  business  of  the  company    or  
its  subsidiaries.  
**********************************************************  
 
-­-­-­-­-­Original  Message-­-­-­-­-­  
From:  ss60@umd.edu  [mailto:ss60@umd.edu]  
Sent:  Friday,  November  07,  2008  8:21  PM  
To:  Debbie  Lema  
Cc:  jim@janitronicsinc.com  
Subject:  Re:  Shaw  and  CIRI  Encapsulation  Study-­  Paper.  
 
Debbie  Lema,  Host/Racine  Industries:    
 
D:-­  are  you  referring  to  the  separate  paper  Carey  M  presented  at  UNLV  in  2007?    If  so,  
pls.  provide  the  full  title  from  PowPt  as  the  actual  reference,  clarity.  
 
Note  however  that  the  detailed,  full  text  CIRI  2007  papers  have  not  [yet]  been  published  
or  made  available.  We  have  been  looking  for  an  approp.  peer  reviewed  research  journal  
capable  of  reviewing  and  publishing  the  lengthy  2007  papers,  as  such.  
I  have  finally  made  progress  this  year  toward  that  goal...  
 
In  any  event  I  do  not  have  them;;  assume  that  Jim  Harris  Sr,  CIRI  HQ  and/or  the  CIRI  
conf.  proceedings  reviewers  do  so.  It's  Jim  Harris'  to  reply  and  determine  their  public  
sale;;  [we  can  discuss  access  and  their  distribution].  
 
Did  receive  "Fritz@CRI"  PowPt  and  DVDs  for  post-­election  read.  
 
Steve  Spivak.  
 
[No  further  response  from  Jim  Harris.]  
 
21  
 
  
 

2. CRI  provides  pictures  of  some  of  the  designer  soils  used  in  the  testing  and  
collected  dirt  as  evidence  of  validation.    However,  these  pictures  contain  little  
useful  information  (e.g.  numerical  data  comparing  micron  size)  and  have  no  
relevance  to  a  measurement  method  validation.  
 
3. CRI  has  recently  provided  some  pages  of  undefined  and  untraceable  numbers  as  
evidence  of  correlations  between  tests.    These  numbers  are  useless  in  this  offered  
form,  but  moreover  appear  to  indicate  a  lack  of  correlation.  
 
*Correction:    the  program  introduction  at  the  Kennedy  Space  Center  happened  in  2005.  
 
 

Appendix  G  
 
http://realdirtoncri.wordpress.com/  
 
A  sample  quote,  illustrating  the  exclusion  of  a  main  stakeholder  type  by  CRI:      
 
³7KHUHDVRQWKLVEORJFDPHDERXWEHJDQZLWKWKHFRPSOHWHODFNRIGLDORJXHEHWZHHQ&5,
and  residential  professional  cleaners.  Cleaners¶  complaints  and  criticisms  were  being  
brushed  aside,  articles  by  authorities  in  our  industry  completely  ignored,  and  even  
officially  filed  complaints  ZULWWHQRIIDVDIHZLVRODWHGXQKDSS\SDUWLHV´  
 
 
Appendix  H  
 
1.    An  example  of  a  one-­day  notice  of  meeting  agenda,  amounting  to  about  four  or  five  
business  hours  for  preparation,  accompanied  by  review  material  for  only  two  of  ten  
WRSLFVGDWHVHPSKDVL]HG7KLVGRHVQRWFRQVWLWXWH³GXHQRWLFH´DVUHTXLUHGLQ*XLGH
65:  
 

22  
 
  
 

From:  Ken  McIntosh  [mailto:kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org]    

Sent:  Tuesday,  August  24,  2010  4:12  PM  
To:  (Relevant  Committee,  addresses  deleted)  
Cc:  (Addresses  deleted)  
Subject:  C&M  IMT  Meeting  8-­25-­10  
 
Agenda  and  review  material  for  the  subject  meeting.  

If  you  have  additional  agenda  items,  please  let  me  know  ASAP.  

Ken  McIntosh  

To  sign  up  for  CRI's  newsletter,  subscribe  on  our  website  at:    www.carpet-­
rug.org/newsroom.cfm#subscribe  
To  sign  up  for  CRI's  blog,  subscribe  at:  www.criblog.org    

****************************  
This  e-­mail  and  any  files  transmitted  with  it  are  confidential  and  intended  solely  for  the  
use  of  the  individual  or  entity  to  whom  they  are  addressed.    If  you  have  received  this  e-­
mail  in  error  please  notify  the  originator  of  the  message.    Any  views  expressed  in  this  
message  are  those  of  the  individual  sender,  except  where  the  sender  specifies  and  with  
authority,  states  them  to  be  the  views  of  The  Carpet  and  Rug  Institute.  
****************************  

2.    Below  is  an  email  example  of  how  certification  requirement  changes  may  be  
completed  at  CRI.    The  email  gives  committee  members  less  than  one  business  day  to  
UHVHDUFKDQGFRPPHQWXSRQDWHFKQLFDOWHVWFKDQJHWKDWZDVDOUHDG\³VXJJHVWHGDQG
DSSURYHG´E\WKHcommittee  chairman.      
 
-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­  
From:  "Ken  McIntosh"  <kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org>  
To:  (Relevant  Committee,  addresses  deleted)  
Sent:  Friday,  October  12,  2007  1:32  PM  

23  
 
  
 

Subject:  SOA-­GL  Vacuum  Cleaner  Testing  and  Certification  Program  

 
To:  C&M  IMT  Members  
 
The  following  issue  was  presented  to  Carey  Mitchell,  Chair  of  the  C&M  IMT,  regarding  
how  to  address  the  issue  and  move  forward  with  testing  vacuum  cleaner  machines  under  
the  SOA-­GL  Vacuum  Cleaner  Testing  and  Certification  
Program:  
 
           "The  XRF  soil  composition  contains  Zinc  Oxide  which  is  an  extremely  
           sticky  material  that  vacuum  cleaners  are  not  designed  to  remove  from  
           carpet.  The  rationale  for  using  Zinc  Oxide  in  the  XRF  composition  at  
           the  start  of  the  SOA  cleaning  program  was  based  on  chemical  and  
           extractor  cleaning  and  not  vacuum  cleaner  testing  which  are  designed  
           to  remove  dry  particulates."  
 
Carey  Mitchell  suggested  and  approved  using  the  XRF  soil  composition  in  testing  
vacuum  cleaners  but  to  determine  the  soil  removal  percentage  without  inclusion  of  the  
ZnO  component.    Real  world  soil  does  contain  some  sticky  component  which  affects  dry  
soil  removal;;  so  this  is  a  reasonable  approach.  
 
We  need  a  decision  quickly  to  allow  time  to  get  together  data  for  the  ISSA  show  in  
Orlando  in  less  than  2  weeks.  We  can  tweak  the  amount  of  the  ZnO  component  at  a  later  
date  if  it  appears  that  it  adversely  skews  the  pass/fail  criteria.  
 
As  per  Carey  Mitchell's  request,  please  call  me  at  706-­428-­2105  by  noon  Monday,  Oct  15  
if  you  desire  to  discuss  the  recommendation.  As  indicted,  time  is  critical  to  have  vacuum  
cleaner  test  data  to  discuses  at  the  ISSA  show.  
 
Thanks,  
 
Kmc  
24  
 
  
 

 
To  sign  up  for  CRI's  newsletter,  subscribe  on  our  website  at:    
www.carpet-­rug.org/newsroom.cfm#subscribe  
 
****************************  
This  e-­mail  and  any  files  transmitted  with  it  are  confidential  and  intended  solely  for  the  
use  of  the  individual  or  entity  to  whom  they  are  addressed.    
If  you  have  received  this  e-­mail  in  error  please  notify  the  originator  of  the  message.    Any  
views  expressed  in  this  message  are  those  of  the  individual  sender,  except  where  the  
sender  specifies  and  with  authority,  states  them  to  be  the  views  of  The  Carpet  and  Rug  
Institute.  
****************************  

 
Appendix  I  
 
The  following  excerpts  are  from  one  CRI  lobbying  effort  to  have  their  programs  written  
in  as  legislative  requirements:  
 
³7KHWHVWPHWKRGVXVHGLQWKHSURJUDPDUHLQWKHSXEOLFGRPDLQDQGFDQbe  and  are  
currently  being  performed  by  other  private  labs,  including  several  vacuum  cleaners  
PDQXIDFWXUHUV¶ODEV´Page  4)  
 
³9DFXXPPDQXIDFWXUHUVKDYHUHTXHVWHGWREHDOORZHGWRFRQGXFWWKHLURZQWHVWLQJIRU
certification  purposes;;  however,  the  program¶VFUHGLELOLW\UHVWVRQWKLUG-­party  testing  
DQGWKLVIRXQGDWLRQRIFUHGLELOLW\FDQQRWEHFRPSURPLVHG´3DJH  
 
 https://greencleaning.ny.gov/Docs/NewCleaningTechnology.rtf  
 
 
 
 

25  
 
  
 

Appendix  J  
 
Below  are  examples  of  CRI  statements  and  answers  that  show  the  lack  of  necessary  
technical  expertise  or  desire  to  communicate  the  information  that  members,  other  
stakeholders,  and  the  public  need  to  make  business  decisions  and/or  provide  input,  
perform,  or  vote  on  certification  matters.      
 
1.    Question  :    Why  does  the  carpet  sample  being  tested  need  to  be  brushed  so  that  the  
readings  are  more  accurate  if  the  readings  detect  all  the  soil  through  the  fibers?  

CRI  Answer:    The  carpet  is  groomed  just  like  the  IICRC  S100  standard.    It  is  part  of  the  
cleaning  process.    RQOLQHVWDNHKROGHUV¶³+RW6HDW´4 $LQWHUYLHZZLWK&5,
president  Werner  Braun,  available  at  www.mikeysboard.com)  
 
[The  correct  answer  would  have  been  that  ³WKHUHLVDJHRPHWULFIDFWRUDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
the  design  of  the  instrument  that  decreases  the  signal  as  the  source  is  moved  farther  
from  the  instrument.    Hence  it  is  critical  to  present  the  carpet  fibers  in  the  same  position  
HDFKWLPHLWLVVFDQQHG7KHFDUSHWPXVWEHEUXVKHG«´  (Appendix  C)]  
 
2.    Question:    Because  questions  of  fairness  to  differing  equipment  and  methods  have  
arisen,  why  does  not  CRI  publish  at  least  the  basics  of  their  test  protocol(s)?      
   
CRI  Answer:    Primarily  because  it  is  based  on  years  of  research  and  data  that  is  not  
easily  digested.    ³+RW6HDW´4 $LQWHUYLHZZLWK&5,SUHVLGHQW:HUQHU%UDXQ
available  at  www.mikeysboard.com)  
 
[CRI  also  stated  in  the  same  interview  WKDW³7KHWHVWLQJSURWRFROVDUHDYDLODEOHWR
DQ\RQHZKRZDQWVWKHPWKURXJKWKHODE<RXFDQJHWWKHPDVGHWDLOHGDV\RXOLNH´    
However,  those  contacting  the  lab  for  detailed  protocols  have  been  told  there  is  no  
written  protocol  available  from  them.    (Reference  below  at  Appendix  K.)]      
 

26  
 
  
 

3.    Question:    Why  are  there  no  water-­soluble  soils  included  in  the  test,  when  water  is  
used  to  suspend  soils?    
 
CRI  Answer:    Initially,  research  was  done  on  a  variety  of  soiling  compounds  and  a  
water  soluble  one  was  included.  What  we  found  during  the  early  research  was  that  it  
was  removed  essentially  by  everything  and  did  not  offer  us  any  manner  to  
differentiate  in  the  testing,  so  it  was  replaced.    ³+RW6HDW´4 $LQWHUYLHZZLWK
CRI  president  Werner  Braun,  available  at  www.mikeysboard.com)  
 
[The  correct  answer  would  not  have  been  that  it  was  removed  essentially  by  everything,  
but  that³We  beliHYHWKDWWKHµWRSOD\HUVRIVRLOXVXDOO\KDYHDOOWKHZDWHU-­soluble  
components  washed  out,  however  it  could  be  argued  that  table  salt  (NaCl)  would  be  a  
common  particle  found  in  carpets.    Chemically  Potassium  Bromide,  (KBr)  is  similar  to  
WDEOHVDOW¶  At  most,  only  62%  of  KBr  was  removed  in  trials.    µ«The  KBr  percent  removed  
after  chemical  extraction  is  two  percent  less  than  after  it  was  vacuumed.  This  of  course  
cannot  be,  and  is  likely  due  to  a  wicking  of  the  KBr  to  the  fiber  tips.  This  wicking  
problem  is  why  in  future  testing  KBr  is  not  used.¶´  (Appendix  C)]      
 
4.    ³:LWKVWDQGDUGL]HGSURWRFROWKHWHVWLQJODEFDQPHDVXUHWKHDPRXQWRIVRLODSSOLHG
to  a  carpet  sample,  clean  the  sample  with  a  vacuum  or  extractor  and  quantify  the  precise  
DPRXQWRIVRLOUHPRYHGIURPWKHFDUSHWGRZQWRIRXUGHFLPDOSRLQWV´(CRI  Press  
Release)        
 
[Quantification  and  precision  are  in  question  in  this  test.    Marketing  the  test  as  accurate  
RUSUHFLVHWR³IRXUGHFLPDOSODFHV´LVIDOODFLRXVAs  stated  previously,  no  statement  
about  precision  may  be  made  (Appendix  B),  and  XRF  experts  question  that  the  test  is  
quantitative  rather  than  qualitative  (Appendix  D))XUWKHUWKH³IRXUGHFLPDOSODFHV´
comes  from  a  different  test  method  not  used  in  the  SOA  program  (CRI  Press  Release).    
 
 
 
 
27  
 
  
 

Appendix  K  
 
From:  lisa  smith  [mailto:truckmountgirl@gmail.com]    
Sent:  Monday,  February  26,  2007  1:58  PM  
To:  Debbie  Lema  
Subject:  Re:  CRI  
   
Hi  Debbie,  
   
I  called  and  talked  to  Lloyd  Cooper  at  the  lab.  He  said  there  is  no  WRITTEN  protocol  
available,  that  you  would  have  to  get  that  from  CRI.  He  also  said  quite  a  bit  more  that  
was  interesting.  Too  much  to  type  for  me,  so  give  me  a  call  @  (number  deleted)  and  I'll  
fill  you  in.  You  can  call  in  the  evening  too,  it's  a  home  office.    
 
Take  care,  
Lisa  
 
 
Appendix  L  
 
From:  Deborah  Lema  [mailto:dlema@hostdry.com]    
Sent:  Wednesday,  August  25,  2010  10:05  AM  
To:  Ken  McIntosh    
Subject:  Polcies/procedures    
   
Hi  Ken,  
   
Will  you  please  send  me  the  CRI  policies/procedures?      
   
Thanks,  
Debbie  
 
28  
 
  
 

From:  Ken  McIntosh  [mailto:kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org]    

Sent:  Wednesday,  August  25,  2010  9:30  AM  
To:  dlema@hostdry.com  
Cc:  Louise  Dobbs  
Subject:  Fw:  Polcies/procedures  
   
Debbie:  
 
Please  note  that  your  request  is  being  referred  to  Louise.  She  is  the  expert  and  keeper  of  
this  information.  
 
Km  c  
 
From:  Deborah  Lema  [mailto:dlema@hostdry.com]    
Sent:  Wednesday,  August  25,  2010  3:48  PM  
To:  Louise  Dobbs  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
   
Thanks  in  advance,  Louise!  
 
From:  Louise  Dobbs  [mailto:ldobbs@carpet-­rug.org]    
Sent:  Thursday,  August  26,  2010  7:50  AM  
To:  Deborah  Lema  
Cc:  Ken  McIntosh;;  Werner  Braun  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
   
The  requested  document  is  attached.  
 
From:  Deborah  Lema  [mailto:dlema@hostdry.com]    
Sent:  Thursday,  August  26,  2010  10:14  AM  
To:  Louise  Dobbs  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
29  
 
  
 

 
Thanks  Louise!    
   
It  looks  like  the  procedures  are  separate,  in  the  by-­laws?    May  I  have  those  too  please?  
   
Thanks  some  more,  
Debbie  
 
From:  Louise  Dobbs  [mailto:ldobbs@carpet-­rug.org]    
Sent:  Thursday,  August  26,  2010  1:38  PM  
To:  Deborah  Lema  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
   
Requested  document  attached.  
 
From:  Deborah  Lema  [mailto:dlema@hostdry.com]    
Sent:  Thursday,  August  26,  2010  4:31  PM  
To:  Louise  Dobbs  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
   
3OHDVHGRQ¶WEHDQQR\HGZLWKPH    May  I  please  have  the  CRI  quality  manual  as  well?  
 The  documents  keep  referring  elsewhere;;  sorry!  
   
Debbie  
   
From:  Louise  Dobbs  [mailto:ldobbs@carpet-­rug.org]    
Sent:  Friday,  August  27,  2010  8:16  AM  
To:  Deborah  Lema  
Subject:  RE:  Polcies/procedures  
   
Requested  document  attached.  
   
30  
 
  
 

From:  Deborah  Lema  [mailto:dlema@hostdry.com]    

Sent:  Friday,  August  27,  2010  10:12  AM  
To:  Louise  Dobbs  
Subject:  RE:  Policies/procedures  
 
Louise,  
   
,¶PKRSLQJ\RXFDQFODULI\WKLQJVIRUPH    I  asked  for  the  CRI  policies  and  procedures,  
but  got  policy.    The  policy  referred  to  procedures  in  the  bylaws,  which  in  turn  referred  to  
procedures  in  the  quality  manual,  which  in  turn  refers  to  a  document  called  the  Policy  
and  Procedures  Manual,  which  sounds  like  what  I  wanted  before?    Will  you  please  send  
me  that  one?  
   
Thanks  again,  
Debbie  
   
From:  Louise  Dobbs  [mailto:ldobbs@carpet-­rug.org]    
Sent:  Friday,  August  27,  2010  9:18  AM  
To:  Deborah  Lema  
Cc:  Werner  Braun  
Subject:  RE:  Policies/procedures  
 
The  CRI  Bylaws,  CRI  Policies,  and  CRI  Quality  Manual  are  what  we  have.    :H¶UHQRW
sure  what  else  we  can  provide.  
 
 
Appendix  M  
 
Rather  than  properly  answering  technical  issues  regarding  an  SOA  conformity  
assessment  test  method,  CRI  FDOOHGWKHTXHVWLRQV³PHDQLQJOHVV´LQDpress  release  and  
the  CRI  Cleaning  and  Maintenance  Issues  Management  Team  voted  to  not  respond  
further:        
31  
 
  
 

 
Item  9,  MINUTES,  Cleaning  and  Maintenance  Issues  Management  Team,  Meeting  of  
July  15,  2010:  
 
³C  &  M  IMT  Response  to  Host  Press  Release  and  Close  the  Issues  of  
Responses  to  Host  Press  Release  ±  Ken  McIntosh  ±  The  C&M  IMT  draft  Response  
[immediately  below  in  italics]  to  the  Host  Press  Release  was  presented  for  review  and  
discussion.  Motion  made  and  seconded  to  accept.    Vote  taken  12  Ayes,  1  Nay.    Ken  
McIntosh  made  a  recommendation  that  based  on  the  number  of  responses  made  public  
relative  to  the  HOST  Press  Release  that  carpet  related  industry  groups  cease  and  desist  
from  issuing  any  additional  responses.  A  motion  was  made  and  seconded  for  the  carpet  
related  industry  to  consider  not  issuing  any  additional  responses  to  this  particular  Host  
Press  Release.  Vote  taken  13  Ayes,  3  Abstentions.´  
 
New  7-­7-­10  Proposed  Draft  

Draft  response  from  CRI  Cleaning  and  Maintenance  Issues  Management  Team  

The  CRI  Seal  of  Approval  program  was  developed  over  several  years  in  what  was  then  
viewed  as  a  very  slow,  methodical  process.    At  several  significant  stages,  input  was  
sought  from  external  scientists  to  ensure  that  our  direction  was  valid.    Input  was  
received  numerous  times  from  Dr.  Michael  Berry,  retired  US  EPA  scientist  and  
research  professor,  Dr.  Alan  Hedge  of  Cornell  University,  and  Dr.  Barry  Ryan  of  the  
Emory  University  School  of  Medicine.    [Note:    None  of  whom  are  XRF  experts.]  

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  during  the  development  of  the  SOA  program,  Racine  
Industries  personnel  were  members  of  the  committee  and  were  routinely  involved  in  
the  discussions,  the  approval  process,  and  the  votes.    No  concerns,  like  those  raised  in  
the  new  white  paper  by  Racine  Industries,  surfaced  during  the  process.    [Note:    this  
statement  is  misleading  and  incorrect.    CRI  apparently  has  kept  no  records  of  concerns.]  

7KHZKLWHSDSHUE\5DFLQH,QGXVWULHV³$Discussion  Regarding  a  Novel  Method:    The  

Use  of  X-­5D\)OXRUHVFHQFHIRU4XDQWLWDWLYH$QDO\VLVRI(OHPHQWVLQ&DUSHW´EULQJVXS
previously  raised  and  answered  issues  and  several  new  twists.  At  the  request  of  the  
32  
 
  
 

Racine  CEO,  Fritz  Rench,  in  2009,  the  C&M  IMT  listened  to  a  presentation  on  his  
perceived  problems  with  the  XRF  test  method.  [Note:    presentation  was  in  2008.]    The  
issues  he  raised  were  found  at  the  time  to  be  due  to  misinterpretations  and  a  general  
lack  of  understanding.    Each  of  his  issues  was  addressed  in  the  meeting  and  later  in  
writing.  [Note:    some  of  his  issues  were  indeed  addressed,  and  addressed  poorly,  
incompletely,  or  dismissively.    This  document  is  available  for  viewing  if  desired  by  
ANSI;;  it  is  largely  without  technical  relevance.]    For  instance,  the  claim  that  the  test  
protocol  was  not  available  to  Racine  is  preposterous,  because,  as  the  protocol  was  
developed  and  adapted  over  the  years,  it  was  routinely  distributed  to  the  entire  group,  
which  included  Racine  personnel.  [Note:    CRI  has  been  repeatedly  confused  by  the  term  
³SURWRFRO´:KDWZDVDYDLODEOHZDVDOLVWRIFULWHULDIRUSDVVLQJEXWQRWHVWLQJSURWRFRO
Please  refer  to  Appendix  J.2  and  Appendix  K,  showing  the  lack  of  availability  of  a  
protocol  to  review.]    The  collective  judgment  of  this  committee  is  that  the  Racine  white  
paper  appears  primarily  to  be  a  reflection  of  dissatisfaction  with  a  concept  that  does  
not  favor  a  particular  product.    

It  is  also  instructive  to  note  that  the  update  of  the  Institute  of  Inspections,  Cleaning,  
and  Restoration  Certification  (IICRC)  S-­100  Cleaning  Standard  is  currently  stalled  due  
to  an  appeal  by  Racine  Industries.  Since  this  is  an  ANSI  standard,  [Note:    draft  
standard]  the  process  is  clearly  defined  and  the  rules  for  achieving  consensus  are  quite  
stringent.    Racine  Industries  personnel  served  on  the  IICRC  committee  throughout  the  
process,  and  apparently  no  issues  were  raised.  [Note:    Untrue,  but  also  irrelevant.]    
Now,  the  IICRC  has  been  presented  with  a  100  page  appeal  questioning  the  standard  ±  
similar  to  the  situation  with  CRI's  SOA  program.  This  pattern  suggests  a  company  
with  some  personnel  that  are  not  working  for  the  betterment  of  the  carpet  industry  
when  given  the  opportunity  to  fully  participate  but  to  discredit  the  hard  work  of  other  
industry  members  after  the  fact  while  offering  no  better  alternatives.    [Note:    Rather  
than  answer  with  substance,  CRI  attempts  to  discredit  legitimate  requests  for  
information,  transparency  and  scientific  diligence.]  

The  focus  in  recent  years  on  the  indoor  environment  has  brought  attention  to  the  value  
of  identifying  cleaning  methods  and  systems  capable  of  maintaining  carpets  relative  to  
high  quality  indoor  environments.    While  &5,¶V62$SURJUDPVDQGWHVWPHWKRGVDUH
33  
 
  
 

always  available  for  improvement,  they  are  fair  ±  they  reasonably  replicate  real  
world  performance.    [Note:    how?]    These  programs  utilize  the  best  knowledge  in  the  
industry  today.    The  C&M  IMT  members  are  confident  that  the  various  CRI  Seal  of  
Approval  programs  have  contributed  significantly  to  measurable  improvements  in  
cleaning  equipment,  cleaning  agents,  and  systems  and  have  advanced  the  science  of  
cleaning.    [Note:    how?]  

 
Appendix  N  
 
³No  less  a  carpet  man  than  Bob  Shaw  once  stated  iQIURQWRIRYHUUHWDLOHUVµMy  28-­
ounce  Stainmaster  carpet  is  guaranteed  to  walk  out  in  four  weeks.¶´  >³:DONRXW´LV
industry  jargon  for  losing  texture  appearance  via  foot  traffic  or,  more  simply,  getting  
frizzy  from  walking  on  it.]  
 
http://www.fcnews.net/index.php/2010/06/salesmanship-­the-­lost-­carpet-­fiber/  
 
 
Appendix  O  
 
http://www.talkfloor.com/TalkFloorTVSegments.aspx?psGroupID=253  
 
 
Appendix  P  

From:  Fritz  Rench  <fritzrench31@yahoo.com>  

Subject:  Fw:  
To:  "ken"  <kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org>,  "Lee  Phillips"  <lee@optilink.us>  
Date:  Wednesday,  March  24,  2010,  11:38  PM  

Ken,  Lee...  
 

34  
 
  
 

You  are  first  class  gentlemen.  It's  in  that  spirit  I'm  sharing  
Debbie  Lema's  Draft  Discussion  re  SOA  testing  of  cleaning  systems  
ala  XRF  et  al.  She  started  it  a  couple  of  years  ago.  Then  I  stopped  it,    
only  to  ask  her  to  re-­start  recently.  She  finished  last  week.  
 
This  material  is  not  what  was  shared  at  the  IMT  session,  Oct  '  08.  
As  noted  then,  I  don't  know  anything  about  XRF  technology.  
My  expertise  is  carpet  performance  relative  to  traffic  and  soil,  
and  some  of  the  strategies  and  tactics  re  what  to  do  about  it.  
 
A  handful  of  people  have  received  copies  since  Monday,  
requesting  their  comments.  The  PR-­strategy-­survival  world    
is  going  to  scream  when  they  find  out  this  draft  has  been  sent  
to  you.  But  I  just  can't  operate  any  other  way.  
 
For  us  this  issue  is  about  survival,  not  about  personalities  or  agendas.  
 
Best  regards,  
 
f  
 
 

Appendix  Q  
 
The  following  series  of  emails  contradicts  the  repeated  CRI  position  that  no  one  besides  
their  contractor,  Professional  Testing  Laboratories,  has  indicated  an  interest  in  pursuing  
the  acquisition  of  XRF  technology.      

After  KeyMaster  copied  CRI  in  on  these  emails  indicating  our  interest  in  the  XRF  
equipment,  subsequent  repeated  calls  to  KeyMaster  (now  Bruker)  went  unreturned.  
 
The  XRF  equipment  specified  by  CRI  is  not  available  to  everyone.  

35  
 
  
 

 
-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­    
From:  Deborah  R.  Lema    
To:  lstarks@keymastertech.com    
Sent:  Wednesday,  July  27,  2005  4:52  PM  
Subject:  XRF  Research  
 
Hi  Lloyd,  
 
Per  your  request  this  afternoon,  I  am  emailing  to  give  you  my  email    
address  so  that  you  may  respond  with  quotes  for  us.    Thanks  in  advance    
for  putting  that  together.  
 
Regarding  the  NASA  habitat  research,  I've  been  pondering  a  bit  and  think    
our  product-­-­  at  least  our  method-­-­  would  be  a  brilliant  solution  for    
surface  cleaning  in  such  situations.    How  can  I  help  you  in  the  research    
of  this  idea,  with  or  without  XRF?    As  I  said  on  the  phone,  we  like  to    
share  information  here,  so  please  count  us  as  a  resource.    
 
I  will  serve  as  your  contact  at  this  juncture,  and  here  is  my  info:  
 
Deborah  R.  Lema  
Research  and  Education  Associate  
Racine  Industries,  Inc.  
dlema@hostdry.com  
800-­558-­9439  
262-­637-­4491  
FAX  262-­637-­0505  
1405  16th  Street  
PO  Box  1648  
Racine,  WI  53401  
http://www.hostcarpetcleaning.com  
36  
 
  
 

 
Thanks  again,  Lloyd.  
 
~Debbie  
 
-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­    
Subject:    Re:  XRF  Research  
Date:    
Wed,  27  Jul  2005  17:24:27  -­0400  
From:    
Lloyd  Starks  <ls_chemco@msn.com>  
To:    
Deborah  R.  Lema  <dlema@hostdry.com>  
References:    
<42E7F3F6.3050005@hostdry.com>  

 
Thanks  Debbie!  
   
Lloyd  
-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­  
Subject:                Fw:  XRF  research:  
Date:      Tue,  2  Aug  2005  13:03:36  -­0400  
From:      Lloyd  Starks  <ls_chemco@msn.com>  
To:          dlema  <dlema@hostdry.com>  
 
Debbie,  
 
Let  me  know  if  you  receive  this!  
 
Lloyd  
 
-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­  
*From:*  Lloyd  Starks  <mailto:ls_chemco@msn.com>  
*To:*  dlema@hostdry.com  <mailto:dlema@hostdry.com>  
*Cc:*  kmcintosh  <mailto:kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org>  ;;  John  Landefeld  
<mailto:jlandefeld@keymastertech.com>  
37  
 
  
 

*Sent:*  Tuesday,  August  02,  2005  12:24  PM  

*Subject:*  XRF  research:  
 
Debra,  
 
Thanks  for  your  interest  in  KeyMaster  Technologies  and  our  XRF  technology  and  
instrumentation.      
I  think  there  are  a  several  options  available:  
 
   1.    Create  your  own  in  house  methods  for  evaluating  your  cleaning  technology.  
   2.    Work  through  the  CRI  for  permission  to  apply  current  SOA  XRF  protocols.  
   3.    Purchase  instruments  for  your  own  in  house  use.  
 
If  you  choose  to  develop  your  own  protocols  it  would  probably  be  more  productive  to  
enter  into  a  R&D  agreement  with  KeyMaster  Technologies  to  assist  in  your  efforts.    The  
R&D  agreement  would  include  an  XRF  instrument  for  the  term  of  the  contract.    At  the  
end  of  the  contract  you  would  have  the  option  to  return  or  purchase  the  instrument.  
 
The  R&D  agreement  is  for  3  months  for  a  fee  of  $30,000.00  which  includes  safety,  
instrument  training  and  a  standard  TRACER  III  instrument  renewable  on  a  month  to  
month  basis.    If  it  is  determined  that  you  will  need  a  TRACER  III  V,  (the  NASA  
instrument),  the  fee  would  be  somewhat  higher.    Technical  assistance  is  also  included  
and  detailed  in  the  agreement.  
 
If  you  would  like  to  work  through  the  CRI  you  may  be  able  to  apply  the  protocol  of  the  
CRI  XRF  SOA  program.    You  would  need  to  speak  with  Ken  MacIntosh  for  details  as  a  
consideration  for  Professional  Testings  Labs  might  be  involved.  
 
If  you  would  like  to  purchase  an  instrument  for  in  house  use,  we  certainly  welcome  the  
opportunity  to  quote  your  requirements.  
 
           Budget  consideration:  
38  
 
  
 

 
                   KTI  TRACER  III  XRF  instrument    $35,000.00  
 
                   KTI  TRACER  III  V  XRF  instrument  $45,000.00  
 
Debra,  I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  to  address  your  needs.  
 
Regards  
 
Lloyd  Starks  
KeyMaster  Technologies,  Inc  

www.keymastertech.com    
(706)  270  0841      
 
 
-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­  Original  Message  -­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­    
Subject:    RE:  XRF  research:  
Date:    
Tue,  2  Aug  2005  14:35:23  -­0400  
From:    
Ken  McIntosh  <kmcintosh@carpet-­rug.org>  
To:    
Lloyd  Starks  <ls_chemco@msn.com>,  <dlema@hostdry.com>  
CC:    
John  Landefeld  <jlandefeld@keymastertech.com>,  Werner  Braun  
<wbraun@carpet-­rug.org>,  Joan  Seelaus  <jseelaus@carpet-­rug.org>  

Lloyd,    

 I  believe  you  have  composed  several  viable  and  interesting  options  for  Host  to  consider.  
CRI  will  be  glad  to  offer  suggestions  and  be  available  at  any  time  to  move  the  XRF  
testing  technology  forward  in  the  carpet  related  industries.  

Kmc  
 
[Silence  from  equipment  manufacturer  after  this;;  no  returned  calls.]  

39  
 
  
 

Appendix  R  

)URP1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHRI6WDQGDUGVDQG7HFKQRORJ\¶VA  Guide  to  Documentary  

Standards:  
 

 
http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/USGuide_DocStds_2001.pdf,  page  17.  
 
0RUHFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDERXWZKDWGHILQHVD³9ROXQWDU\FRQVHQVXVVWDQGDUG´UHODWLYHWR
"Non-­consensus  standards,"  "Industry  standards,"  "Company  standards,"  or  "de  facto  
standards,"  which  are  developed  in  the  private  sector  but  not  in  the  full  consensus  
process:  
 
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/#3.  
 

Appendix  S  
 

40