1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON PLUMBING PRODUCTS

February 28, 1996

Washington, D.C.

The Public Meeting was held in Room BE-069 in the

Forrestal Building,1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585 at 1:00 p.m., Bill Hui

presiding.

Present:

ED LEVY

BILL HUI

JIM RABA

MICHAEL MCCABE

BARBARA TWIGG

CYRUS NASSERI

DEBORAH MILLER

OSCAR DUFAU

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

GENERAL COUNSEL

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

OFFICE CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

FLUIDMASTER, INC.

DR. LAWRENCE GALOWIN NIST

CLIFFORD PUGH

STEVEN GERTZ

GARY TURNER

(202) 234-4433

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

BURNS & ROE ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES INC.

TELEDYNE WATER PIK

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
THOMAS KONEN

JAMES MILLS

JAMES SARGENT

JIM NEUMANN

BENNIE ELLISON

PETE DEMARCO

GEORGE SHILLINGTON

JOHN LAUER

SALLY REMEDIOS

WILLIAM NECHAMEN

MORRIE KLIMBOFF

DAN PEDERSEN

STEVE TREADO

R. MICHAEL MARTIN

MANUEL VILLEGAS

FERNANDO FERNANDEZ

ROBERT CURRY

JAMES BAILEY

RICHARD CHURCH

PATRICK J. HIGGINS

THOMAS HORNER

(202) 234-4433

2

STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

KOHLER CO.

ELJER INDUSTRIES

UNIVERSAL-RUNDLE CORP.

AMERICAN STANDARD

BRIGGS

SLOAN VALVE COMPANY

DELTA FAUCET COMPANY

NEW YORK STATE DEPT

ENV. CONS.

CRANE PLUMBING

AMERICAN WATER WORKS

NIST

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

MANAGER QUALITY ASSURANCE

TOTO KIKI

PLUMBING MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

AMERICAN STANDARD

PLUMBING MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

P.H. HIGGINS & ASSOCIATES

WATER MANAGEMENT INC.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
3

I-N-D-E-X

INTRODUCTION 4

DISCUSSION, STATISTICAL SAMPLING PLAN 11

DISCUSSION, MATHEMATICAL ROUNDING PROCEDURES 34

DISCUSSION, ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M 45

CONCLUSION 75

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:07 p.m.

MODERATOR HUI: Good afternoon. I am

Bill Hui, Program Manager of Plumbing Products in the

Office of Codes and Standards. On behalf of the

Department of Energy, thank you for taking the time to

participate in this public meeting concerning the

Department's program to conserve water, by improving

the efficiency of water use by certain plumbing

products.

We will begin with introduction around the

room. Please state your name, and your company, or

the organization you represent. I am Bill Hui

Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, Department of Energy,

Office of Codes and Standards.

MR. DEMARCO: Peter Demarco, American

Standard.

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California

Energy Commission.

MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

MR. KONEN: Thomas Konen, Stevens

Institute.

MR. CHURCH: Rick Church, Plumbing

Manufacturers Institute.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
5

1 MR. FERNANDEZ: Fernando Fernandez, Toto

2 Kiki.

3 MR. VILLEGAS: Manuel Villegas.

4 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, Delta

5 Faucet Company.

6 MR. NEUMANN: Jim Neumann, Eljer

7 Industries.

8 MR. ELLISON: Bennie Ellison, Universal9 Rundle.

10 MR. SHILLINGTON: George Shillington,

11 Briggs Industries.

12 MR. LAUER: John Lauer, Sloan Valve

13 Company.

14 MR. NECHAMEN: Bill Nechamen, New York

15 State Department of Environmental Conservation. Also

16 representing the American Waterworks Association.

17 MR. PEDERSEN: Dan Pedersen, American

18 Water Works Association.

19 MR. KLIMBOFF: Morrie Klimboff, Consultant

20 representing Crane Plumbing.

21 MR. GERTZ: Steve Gertz, Burns and Roe

22 Consulting, working for Plumbing Manufacturers

23 Institute.

24 MR. CURRY: Robert Curry, Plumbing

25 Manufacturers Institute.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

MR. HORNER: Tom Horner, Water Management.

MR. HIGGINS: Pat Higgins, P.J. Higgins

and Associates.

MR. BAILEY: Jim Bailey, American

Standard.

MR. DUFAU: Oscar Dufau, Fluidmaster.

MR. TURNER: Gary Turner, Teledyne Water

Pik.

MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, N.I.S.T.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, Department of Energy,

Office of the General Counsel.

MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, N.I.S.T.

MR. PUGH: Cliff Pugh, Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of

Energy.

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, Department of

Energy, Codes and Standards.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you. We've got that

done so please fill out the information requested on

your sign-in sheet.

I have been requested to let you know that

the mike in here is playing dead, so please, if you

have been recognized to speak, speak a little louder

than you normally would. That's so that the Court

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Reporter can pick up everything that you are giving to

this public meeting.

Let me go into the purpose of today's

meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss

issues raised by the Plumbing Manufacturing Institute

concerning proposed statistical sampling plans for

plumbing fixtures the manufacturing, rounding of

procedures and incorporation of the 1994 ASME/ANSI

Standard, A112.18.1M for Plumbing Fixture Fittings.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law

102-46, requires faucets, shower-heads, water closets

and urinals to meet certain standards of water use

efficiency as of January 1, 1994, when tested in

accordance with procedures prescribed in the statute.

The Department of Energy is drafting a

proposed notice to incorporate the statutory plumbing

requirement into the Code of Federal Regulations.

Statements submitted before March 31st on

the issues discussed today will be considered. Floor

of Department publishers is noted for its rule-making.

As the presiding official I will set the

guideline for conducting the meeting and provide other

pertinent information. In order to obtain as much

relevant information as reasonable, and to enable

interested parties to express their views, the public

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

meeting will be conducted conference style. A

verbatim transcript of the public meeting will be

taken.

The meeting format will be as follows. I

will state each agenda to be discussed, and then

invite statements on the item. Following that there

will be opportunity for informal discussion.

Participants who wish to speak must first

be recognized. Please state your name first, and your

organization, and the company you represent, and

again, please speak loudly.

Representatives from the Department of

Energy and the National Institute of Standards and

Technology may also wish to speak or ask follow-up

questions.

When someone is in agreement I would

appreciate an indication of that agreement, and in the

interest of time, comments need not be repeated.

I will summarize the main points after

discussion of an agenda item. If time permits, and

after all the agenda items have been covered,

participants may raise other topics regarding the

water use efficiency of plumbing products.

Again, please state your name, and the

organization your represent. In addition, please keep

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,.D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

side conversation to a minimum to avoid interrupting

the person who is presenting.

If a lengthy, private discussion is

needed, please move outside the room. It may also be

necessary to cut off discussion on some topic to

maintain the schedule.

I encourage all persons present to

participate so that the Department may get a full

spectrum of opinions on the agenda items.

Today's meeting is scheduled to end by

five p.m. Items not covered by five p.m. may be

addressed in written comment, submitted before March

31st, 1996.

In keeping with the regulation of these

building facilities, there is no smoking allowed in

this room.

In approximately two weeks, a written

transcript of this meeting will be available for

inspection at the Department of Energy's Freedom of

Information Reading Room, located in Room 1E-190.

Anyone who wishes to purchase a copy of

the transcript may make arrangements with the Court

Reporter.

All written statements will be available

for public inspection in the Department of Energy,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Freedom of Information Reading Room. Telephone number

is 202-586-6020. Written statements should be

addressed to the Department of Energy as noted in the

letter of invitation to today's meeting.

Ten copies of each statement are

requested. In addition, the Department will

appreciate an electronic copy of each statement

submitted.

The Department is currently using

Wordperfect 5.1, and Wordperfect 6.1. Comments

submitted by telefax will not be accepted.

Any persons submitting information that

he, or she believes to be confidential, and exempt by

law from public disclosure, should submit one complete

copy, and eight copies from the information claiming

to be confidential has been deleted.

In accordance with the procedure

established at 10 CFR 10004.11, the Department of

Energy shall make its own determination as to whether

the information shall be exempt from public

disclosure.

We appreciate the time and effort you have

taken to participate in today's public meeting.

Again, a reminder that the purpose of

today's meeting is to discuss issues raised by the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Plumbing, Manufacturing Institute concerning proposed

statistical sampling plans for plumbing fixtures,

mathematical rounding procedures, and incorporation of

the 1994 ASME/ANSI standard A112.18.1M for plumbing

fixture fittings.

I will begin by summarizing the first

agenda item which is the statistical sampling plan and

then I will invite statements on that item.

The Department understands the

relationship on a statistical confidence level to the

varying of vitreous china plumbing product resulting

from the manufacturing process.

The Department today proposes the

following statistical sampling plan for water closets

and urinals, which is for each basic model of water

closet or urinal a sample of sufficient size shall be

tested to ensure that any represented value of water

consumption shall be no less than the higher of (a)

the mean value of a sample or (b) the upper 90 percent

confidence level of the true mean value divided by

1.1.

The Department understands the Plumbing

Manufacturing Institute will accept this proposal.

According to the December 13, 1995 letter from Mr.

Rick Church, Managing Director of the Plumbing,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12

Manufacturing Institute, quote, "If DOE were to

publish in the upcoming rule that the D factor for

fixture will be 1.1, industry could support it." End

quote.

The Department believes that such a

statistical sampling plan for all plumbing fixtures

will allow manufacturers to test a minimum number of

units without undue burden, and at the same time

provide meaningful, statistical assurance to consumers

that such products comply with the Energy Policy Act

of 1992, Public law 102-486.

At this time, is there any public support

for this statistical sampling plan for plumbing

fixtures.

MR. CHURCH: Bill, could you repeat it?

I'm sorry could you repeat the plan?

MODERATOR HUI: Yes. The sampling plan

that we are proposing is. For each basic model of

water closet or urinal, a sample of sufficient size

should be tested to ensure that any represented value

of water consumption shall be no less than the higher

of (a) the mean value of the sample, or (b) the upper

90 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided

by 1.1.

25 II MR. PEDERSEN: 1.1?

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MODERATOR HUI: 1.1

MR. PEDERSEN: Dan Pedersen with AWWA.

Bill to respond to your question as to whether there

is public support. I would like to give our input.

AWWA does support the statistic sampling plan that DOE

has used in the past, and we would be supportive of

that.

Now, I do understand that there are other

proposals on the table, and we would like to see those

evaluated to prove that they are, at least, as

restrictive or statistically valid to correspond with

what the DOE as used in the past.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you Dan. Any other

comment.

MR. DEMARCO: Pete Demarco with American

Standard. I would support the proposed DOE sampling

plan by a 90 percent confidence level divisor of D

factor of 1.1.

MR. CHURCH: Rick Church of the Plumbing

Manufacturers Institute. I think that the industry

can probably support that 90 percent confidence level.

The D factor of 1.1.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you. Any other?

MR. NECHAMEN: Bill Nechamen, New York

State DEC. I would like to question why, in the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

agenda, the 1.05 was changed to 1.1, and get an

explanation of that change.

MODERATOR HUI: We believe that there is

a manufacturing variability in terms of vitreous china

ware that warrant a 1.1 divisor.

Any more discussion on this topic?

MR. KLIMBOFF: Morrie Klimboff, Crane

Plumbing. Bill, does this apply to fittings as well

as fixtures? Or is this just water closets and

urinals?

MODERATOR HUI: The 90 percent confidence

level at divisor at 1.1 will apply to fixtures.

MR. KLIMBOFF: Fixtures?

MODERATOR HUI: Yes. Recognize Jim

Sargent.

MR. SARGENT: Bill, Jim Sargent, Kohler

Company. We would be willing to back the proposal

also.

MODERATOR HUI: I'm sorry. What was that?

MR. SARGENT: We would be will to back

that proposal also.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you sir. Yes?

Michael Martin.

MR. MARTIN: You asked for people who were

supporting it. Now you ask for comments on the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
15

1 subject. I am not supporting it. May I speak.

2 MODERATOR HUI: Yes.

3 MR. MARTIN: Okay, I am Michael Martin.

4 I work for the California Energy Commission. I can't

5 speak for the Energy Commission because it consists of

6 five commissioners who meet.together every couple of

7 weeks and have never discussed this matter. So I am

8 speaking for myself in this case.

9 The California Energy Commission adopted

10 appliance efficiency deregulation in September 22nd,

11 1977 which took effect one year later, and I have been

12 closely involved with this ever since.

13 In my work I manage several contracts

14 which include the testing of hundreds of faucets,

15 shower-heads and aerators and also surveys to

16 determine the level of compliance.

17 I have had problems with the concept of

18 the -- this statistical method. Ever since it was

19 proposed, I believe in 1978 or thereabouts.

20 When I -- as I read this method, if there

21 is -- if I could suggest a scenario that might help.

22 If somebody in Yolo County, just across the river from

23 where I live, the District Attorney came up with a

24 complaint about somebody who was providing deceptive

25 labeling in claiming compliance. He would likely call

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

the Energy Commission, and somebody would put him on

to me, and I would be sent to go and do a test.

And if -- in order to -- if I follow this

routine in order to prove that this model does not

comply, I have to test an infinite number of plumbing

fixtures.

Therefore, I prefer, very much the PMI

proposal that PMI is apparently not supporting, which

has a limited number of tests.

MR. SARGENT : At least two.

MR. MARTIN: Two?

MR. SARGENT : At least two.

MR. MARTIN: At least two have to comply,

but -- so I can -- with doing two it would show that

something complies, and I can tell the District

Attorney, you had better find another case.

It takes -- how many does it take to show

that it doesn't comply?

Okay, Mr. Sargent says two. I can't read

the proposal that way. I certainly prefer something

that is simple and straightforward like the PMI

proposal which I came here to support, which

apparently PMI doesn 't support anymore.

(202) 234-4433

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: It would be helpful if

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

somebody could tell me whether I am correct or Jim is.

MR. TREADO: Well I think -- Steve Treado

of NIST. Jim, you probably were saying that it only

takes two according to the original PMI proposal.

MR. SARGENT: That would be the minimum

number that you would have to test.

MR. TREADO: To show that you were not in

compliance, but, in that case, you are free to test

even more, etcetera.

MR. SARGENT: Oh, yes.

MR. TREADO: I think Michael Martin's

point is that under this proposal there is no fixed

number of units to be tested. You simply test the

number that is needed to approve an appliance.

But I think it's important to distinguish

between demonstrating compliance with the regulations

as far as the Department of Energy, and compliance or

any sort of enforcement action taken by the State of

California, or by a local county, or however the set

up is.

In that case I think he would be

reasonable to take an approach similar to what DOE

does for their enforcement actions which does have a

fixed number. In that case 20.

Now maybe 20 is too much for that

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

application, but it would seem like that would be

under the guidance of the particular locality where

such an enforcement action is undertaken.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, Department of Energy.

Steve, I think also that there is a distinction

between the initial certification of compliance, even

at the federal level, on potential enforcement action.

In other words, what we are focusing on

here is what the manufacturers would have to do in

order to certify that a given product is in

compliance.

And I believe -- am I correct about this

Steve? -- that if the issue arose as to whether or not

products on the market are complying then we would be

looking at a different set of procedures where the

sample of 20 that is currently in the DOE regulations

would come into play.

MODERATOR HUI: Mr. Demarco?

MR. DEMARCO: A question. Under that

scenario, would the same statistical formula be

applied to that finite sampling of 20?

MR. TREADO: The enforcement procedure is

different. It involves a two-sided confidence limit

that is applied in a little different way.

(202) 234-4433

It's spelled out in the Code of the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Federal Regulations. I am not sure how to accurately

represent which one it is.

But basically, it involved taking the

standard and applying a 95 percent confidence limit to

determine upper and lower control limits which are

distinct from the upper and lower confidence limits in

that they use the standard deviation from the sample,

but they don't use the sample mean to take the

standard.

So they take the standard -- the standard

deviation determined from the enforcement sample. And

then, they test to see whether the mean is above or

below that band.

If it falls within that band there is a

determination of whether enough sample was -- the

sample size was large enough, and if the sample size

was large enough -- if it wasn't they increase the

sample size. If the sample size was large enough,

they see whether that value is above the lower of the

two. In which case compliance is demonstrated.

It's a little complicated to describe that

way but it is in the Code of Federal Regulations, and

it has been for quite some time.

MR. DEMARCO: Follow-up question. If that

were to happen, is it possible that the same data that

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

a manufacturer would use to certify the product could

result in a failure on the enforcement plan?

MR. TREADO: I haven't looked at all

different combinations, but I would say it's possible.

I don't think it's likely. But that's just my

opinion.

MR. MCCABE: Excuse me . Michael McCabe

with the Department of Energy. If DOE had the same

data. If the results were identical for enforcement

testing as what was used for certification testing,

and based on certification testing, it complied, it

would also comply in enforcement testing, using the

same data.

So it's actually a more rigorous test on

the part of the Department so that we would have -- so

that more certainty would have to be on the Department

side that there, in fact, was a violation.

Enforcement testing puts a burden, the

onus on the Department rather than on the

manufacturer. And in both cases, the certification

testing, and the enforcement testing, they provide

that -- individual units, that are tested , that one or

more, depending upon the variability could exceed the

standard. It does not require, neither of them

require, all units tested, to be equal to or less than

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
21

1 the standard.

2 MODERATOR HUI: Does anyone have further

3 comment or support for this position? Yes? Tom

4 Konen?

5 MR. KONEN: Thomas Konen, Stevens

6 Institute of Technology. I would like to ask the

7 Department of Energy if they considered the American

8 National standard ANSI-Z1.4 sampling procedures and

9 tables for inspection by attributes?

10 MODERATOR HUI: I am not aware of that

11 one.

12 MR. KONEN: It would seem reasonable that

13 in a question like this that one would look for some

14 common reference that would enable a manufacturer to

15 deal with lot size, acceptable quality level, and

16 variability in production, and it is all set out for

17 us.

18 MODERATOR HUI: Can you describe that for

19 us? The standard you are referring to?

20 MR. KONEN: It's equivalent to the MIL.

21 SPEC 105.D. It's been around for 20 years or more.

22 MR. TREADO: I'll make a comment on that.

23 Steve Treado, NIST.

24 I think some of those types of procedures

25 have been discussed at the Department of Energy, and,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

22

as a matter of fact, early on, in the early 80's, some

very detailed work was done comparing a number of

different sampling plans. 18 different sampling

plans, and a number of different representations of

population.

And what the Department is proposing

today, and has been proposing is consistent with what

has evolved down from the early portion of this

program.

It's fairly simple in that it allows the

manufacturer to determine what they consider to be

representative products, products that are

representative of their production.

It's fairly general in how it specifies

that. All we are doing here is saying that we need to

test a sufficient number of products that are

representative of production to prove, or to

demonstrate compliance within these statistical limits

here.

I don't think it is inconsistent with the

traditional approach to compliance demonstration. It

is consistent with the other -- the way the Department

of Energy has treated the other products.

MODERATOR HUI: Any other comment on this

25 II issue? Yes.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
23

1 MR. MARTIN: It looks like you are ready

2 to button up here. I came here with an express

3 purpose of supporting these industry folks, and I find

4 them on the other side of the table from me.

5 I, as I said, can not speak for the

6 California Energy Commission. I can, however, tell

7 you that if the California Energy Commission was going

8 to comment on this in any way at all, it would get

9 passed down the ladder until it reached my desk, and

10 then I would be drafting a response.

11 And I have no intention of drafting

12 anything to oppose any conclusion that you come to on

13 this sampling that has the consensus of everybody but

14 me. So put me down with the supporting folks, would

15 you ?

16 MODERATOR HUI: Any other comments?

17 MR. NEUMANN: Elger Industries supports

18 the DOE proposal.

19 MODERATOR HUI: Mr. George Shillington?

20 MR. SHILLINGTON: George Shillington,

21 Briggs Industries. Perhaps I am the only one in the

22 room that doesn't really understand what that is.

23 Would it be in order to just run through what you

24 would do on a two-piece samp l e ?

25 I am not clear. I am not a statistician.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

I don't thoroughly understand what the proposal is.

I can read it. I just don't understand it.

Can you just walk me through, or walk us

through taking two pieces? Is that what you are

saying?

MR. MARTIN: A lot of people don't

understand it.

MR. SHILLINGTON: I will admit it..

MR. TREADO: You don't -- you wouldn't

know in advance how many units you would need to test

-- you would have to have set aside , or have available

a number of units which you have randomly selected

from your available production.

MR. SHILLINGTON: Okay now. Can I just

ask a question there? Are you talking about one

particular unit.

Some place in here it seemed to infer that

you could have different colors and different shapes.

It's all the water closets at your facility. Is that

true?

MR. TREADO: We are not -- this would be

units of the same basic model. The basic model

definition we haven't -- been discussing and that's

another topic. But basically, all the ones that are --

(202) 234-4433

MR. SHILLINGTON: Of one model?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. TREADO: -- essentially the same.

MR. SHILLINGTON: Okay.

MR. TREADO: And you would test as many as

you needed to test so you could demonstrate

compliance.

The reason I say as many as you needed to

test is that the procedure for computing a confidence

limits involves computing the standard deviation from

a number of units that you have tested.

And it also involves getting a table -- a

value from a table out of a statistical textbook and

the number of samples.

As you test more, basically, that

confidence interval will get narrower and narrower.

Assuming that your standard deviation starts to get

under control because you are getting more repetitive

measurements.

So you would test one, you would test the

other one. You would compute the confidence limit.

If you were in compliance you would be done.

If you weren't, you might have to test a

third one, and if you look at the formulas, you find

that as you tested more, you'd be more likely to be

able to demonstrate compliance.

Assuming that the actual mean was less

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

than the minimum standard. Or in this case that the

standards is the maximum, but less than the standard.

In the case of water closets, as long as

the mean is somewhere less than 1.6, if you test it

enough, you would eventually get there.

MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe. Isn't it

true Steve, that the greater the variability in the

samples -- in the tests between the samples, it means

that the more units that you have to test.

If there is very little variability even

though you may be very close to the standard, that you

would have to just test two.

If you have more variability in the

testing of products, also the closer you get to the

standard, it could also be the more likely that you

would test more units.

The concern that we have with the industry

proposal was that it is -- the first two tests had to

meet the standard, and then you had to test eight more

units.

This approach , we felt was less burdensome

and allowed for variability, or allowed for a unit to

exceed the standard so long as you were either at the

mean , or the adjusted mean, or below the standard.

So we try to balance the amount of testing

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to reduce it now.

MODERATOR HUI: Yes. Bill Nechamen.

MR. NECHAMEN: Bill Nechamen. I had a

couple of concerns. I don't think they are major, but

they might be. Regarding the definition of the basic

model, and also what leads into variability.

I ' m looking at the attachment C5 that came

with the mail-out. I don't know where this sample

data came from. I guess it was, perhaps, PMI's

sample. But it indicates, at least, with this sample,

that the flushometer tank units appear to be less less

than the gravity units.

The gravity units, in turn, appear to be

less variable than the flush valve units. That raises

some issues about what lends to variability. That it

is perhaps just not the china ware. It's the other

parts of the water closet as well.

Which then brings us back to the

definition of a basic model that a manufacturer -- I

hope I'm saying this correctly -- that a basic model

would be the tank and bowl combination, or the bowl

and valve combination.

But even within a tank there is a flapper

valve, there is a ballcock which a manufacturer might

decide to replace with a different model, and I would

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

be concerned that a product that appears to be the

same basic model really isn't because some change in

the manufacturing process has happened.

I would like to see the regulation address

that and provide some assurance that what is tested

what is actually going to be on the market.

MODERATOR HUI: Yes, Larry. Go on.

MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin. NIST. The

point just raised is very, very important because the

trim ware control in term and internal parts, can be

a component of basic model as a manufacturer over time

may shift, and introduce changes into the

specifications, procurement cycle for that basic

model.

So I would suggest that, in the definition

of basic model, you request input from industry on how

to handle this downstream type change as they may

modify their specification, so that there should be no

confusion because George's point bears very much on

this.

And I think if you were to clarify -- Mike

McCabe, please correct me if I go wrong here -- the

testing units that you use to show conformance to the

regulation, do not have to be retained for re-testing

later on, and that if any question ever comes up, it's

(202) 234-4433

MEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

from your current production and stored warehouse unit

from which samples would be randomly selected which

may contain now, new control elements that weren't on

the original products that you used to demonstrate

conformance. So I think points of clarification to

assist industry, and avoid confusion as necessary as

you come out with the final rule.

MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, Department.

This is an issue that has been raised with many of the

other products which we have in the program with

similar language.

Central air conditioners is a very good

example where the manufacturers can change components,

and it may or may not affect the efficiency of the

product.

The approach you are proposing here is

consistent with what we have done with the other

appliances. That is, we give the responsibility to

the manufacturers to know their product, and to assure

-- to be in a position to assure DOE that if the

product that they are producing today, has the same

energy, or in this case, water-efficiency

characteristics, as what they had based their

certification on.

(202) 234-4433

If they do make changes in the product

MEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

design, either by putting a different flapper, or what

have you such that the -- in their quality assurance

testing you would know that the water-use

characteristics are different. Significantly

different from what you certified. That becomes a

different basic model.

Now, our sampling provisions and the

representation provisions that we have -- all right,

it's a one-sided sampling plan, so that if you made a

change that would reduce water efficiency, or in the

case of a central air conditioner, improve the energy

efficiency rating of that product, but, for some

reason, you wish to represent it as having the same

water use, or energy efficiency, the one-sided

sampling would allow you to make a conservative

rating.

So if you had rated a fixture at 1.6

gallons per minute, per flush, changes have been made

such that it is now 1.5, you can still rate it at 1.6

because the intent is to ensure, in this case, the

consumer gets a product that is at least as good as

what you represent.

Our initial proposal back in the late 70's

where we had a two-sided sampling plan. So

essentially, in order to get down to exactly what that

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

value was.

That is something that for purposes of

health and safety rules, is very appropriate, but when

you look at consumer benefits where you want to make

sure that the consumer gets, at least, as good as, we

weighed that against the impact on the manufacturer's

cost of testing, and went to the one-sided sampling

plan.

It is not as accurate as the two-sided

plan, but it ensures that compliance to the standard

that is measured. It ensures that the consumer gets

some product that is, at least, as efficient as what

is represented.

MODERATOR HUI: Do we have any other

supports or discussion?

It seems I was straying some times away

from what the topic is. Which is the statistical

sampling plan. I hope we can just get back on that

and try to come to some agreement, consensus as to,

this is what the industry has decided. Okay.

MR. KONEN: I received a -- Thomas Konen,

Stevens Institute. I received a hand-out with my

invitation. It's heading; Department of Energy,

determining the number of units to be tested.

(202) 234-4433

On the top it's a 90 percent confidence

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

level. On the lower half of the page, it's a 95

percent confidence level.

The first column lists N. The next column

lists units tested, and then it goes on to say, sample

mean sample standard deviation. Could you explain

this table to me?

MODERATOR HUI: Are you referring to

attachment B?

MR. KONEN: Attachment B is correct. Yes.

MR. TREADO: Tom, I think we should

point out that this was not the Department of Energy.

This was developed by PMI and submitted to us, and

they just used that as a description for the table.

But I will be glad to go through it, and

Rick Church can make comments on it also. These are

just some hypothetical water usage. What if you had,

in this case, 20 units of a particular basic model,

and one of them -- the first one was 1.4. The second

one was 1.8.

the means --

We went through this procedure computing

MR. KONEN: Under that heading that says,

"Units tested," it should really be --

(202) 234-4433

MR. TREADO: Gallons per flush.

MR. KONEN: Gallons per flush. Right.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

MR. TREADO: Then you go on and-compute

the mean, and the standard deviation, and the various

confidence limits.

And at what point if you had this

hypothetical distribution of water usage would you be

able to demonstrate compliance at the two different --

at the 90 and 95 percent confidence limit level, and

with various values for the divisor?

And it also doesn't consider rounding off

it carries through sampling curiously. Which is

another subject that we talked about today.

MR. KONEN: So if I read this correctly,

I should look under the column, under the proposal

that is on the table. D equals 1.10, and then under

the column UCL divided by 1.1. Right?

MR. TREADO: Yes.

MR. KONEN: And I go down that column and

I see that I go below 1.6 after four products are

tested.

MR. TREADO: Yes.

MR. KONEN: So my sample size, in this

particular example, would be four?

MR. TREADO: That is correct.

MR. KONEN: So any manufacturer wishing to

qualify on this product must generate a table very

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
34

1 similar to this?

2 MR. TREADO: Essentially.

3 MR. KONEN: And he goes down that column

4 until he reaches a value 1.6 or less.

5 MR. TREADO: Except he wouldn't have to

6 generate the whole table. He could test them one at

7 a time. But you are right. In the process -- agreed.

8 MR. KONEN: I think that is a good

9 explanation to George as to the working mechanism of

10 this procedure.

11 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. It's a good

12 explanation to me. I was trying to figure out how I

13 was going to test 1.4 anything.

14 (Laughter)

15 MODERATOR HUI: All right. May we proceed

16 to the second issue if there is no other discussion on

17 this topic.

18 The second issue on today 's agenda

19 concerns mathematical rounding procedures. Section

20 1231 of the Energy Policy Act, 1992 specifies a

21 standard maximum water use for faucets, shower-heads,

22 water closets, and urinals in terms of tenth of

23 gallons, or in the case of metering faucets,

24 hundredths o f a gallon.

25 It is the Department's view that simple

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

mathematical rounding procedures should be used to

convert water use test data for plumbing products into

recording data.

For example, five and above round up.

Less than five, round down. Gentlemen, ladies, what

are your views on this topic? Rick Church?

MR. CHURCH: Rick Church, PMI. Bill, we

subscribe to the ASME rules for rounding. Which are

used in the development of the standards for our

products, and we would recommend that those guidelines

be cited in your rule.

MR. TREADO: May I speak freely on this.

Rick we were familiar with the ASME rule. The only

thing we are a bit uncomfortable with there --

actually two things.

One is, they have a way -- there is a

slight bias in what we proposed here in that fives get

rounded up. The only major difference with the ASME

is you alternate rounding exactly fives. Up one time.

Down the next with the odd and even.

And we felt that since we are dealing with

a number here. A fixed standard. The method of

splitting the fives, up and down really applies when

you are dealing with a wide range of numbers, as you

expect to get, but we are always shooting for 1.6.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So we felt we shouldn't necessarily adopt that.

The other thing is. There is a provision

in the ASME rounding such that a minimum standard --

I can't remember the exact wording, but essentially,

it shouldn't be violated in the process of rounding.

Which we felt might cause problems with

allowing someone to round down to 1.6. So those were

our two major concerns of just adopting the ASME

standard.

There is a clause in there -- and I wasn't

clear if that clause strictly related to conversions

from metric to English.

MR. DEMARCO: That was going to be one of

my first comments but assuming that I take an example

then for how your proposal would work.

If I were to have a sampling conducted,

and I was at eight points, where I used my D factor

and it came up with a result of 1.645. Would that

round to 1.65 -- or how does this --

MODERATOR HUI: That would be 1.6.

MR. DEMARCO: 1.6?

MODERATOR HUI: Yes. 1.6.

MR. DEMARCO:

until you get to --

So you would round down

MR. TREADO: Actually that would have to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

be under. You would have to be just less than 1.645.

It could be --

MR. DEMARCO: That would be the break

point?

MR. TREADO: Yes.

MR. DEMARCO: 1.644 -- 1.64 rather, you

would pass. 1.65 wouldn't.

MR. TREADO: All the fours you want. Once

you get a five in there, you will not make it.

MR. DEMARCO: I understand.

MR. TREADO: This is essentially 2.75

percent?

MR. DEMARCO : Will this be spelled out in

the rule?

MODERATOR HUI: The language that we will

be putting in Section, I believe it's 430.23, will

specify that these numbers, or standards be stated in

reports in either tenths or in hundredths.

We are not going to go into detail as to

how you would round it. Again, we believe that

conventional rounding procedures is something that

everyone knows about. I don't think we are going to

insert that language in there.

The number digit will be cited and

referenced in 430.23. The how part we will not. We

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
38

1 don't feel there is a need to.

2 MR. PUGH: So i i s t the hundredth or the

3 tenth that it is going to be?

4 MODERATOR HUI: For certain types of

5 plumbing fixtures and fittings, and we are talking

6 about the urinal at 1.0, the water-closet at 1.6, and

7 at 3.5, and the faucets at 2.5.

8 Those should be stated in tenth of a

9 place. For metering faucets which is at 0.25. That

10 is a hundredth of a place.

11 MR. KLIMBOFF: Will that be spelled out --

12 Morrie Klimboff. Will that be spelled out somewhere

13 in the rule?

14 MR. TREADO: Yes. It will be spelled out

15 somewhere towards -- towards what Bill? Simple

16 mathematical rounding procedures. For example, five

17 and up, round up. Less than five, round down.

18 MR. GERTZ: Steve Gertz, Burns and Roe.

19 Did I understand correctly that within the rounding

20 procedure, you can go three decimal places, and then

21 you would round down to one decimal place for purposes

22 of the standard? Is that a correct understanding on

23 my part?

24 MR. TREADO: The number that you are going

25 to report -- the number that you would report would be

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

39

to the specified tenth or 100th. And at that point,

you would round to that number. Subsequent to having

made any measurements, averages, or calculations.

MR. GERTZ: Then would it be correct for

purposes of water closets, we are talking about one

decimal places. Am I correct?

MR. TREADO: Yes.

MR. GERTZ : And the measurement itself you

can't round twice. You can only round down once. So

if you have 1.644. That is still 1.6, is it not?

1.649 is also 1.6. Is it not? Am I correct in that

understanding?

MODERATOR HUI: Yes.

MR. GERTZ: Thank you.

MR. GALOWIN: Let me just change my hat a

little bit from the point of view of accredited labs

where-ever the testing is going to be done.

You should ensure that your

specifications' or purchase order with the laboratory

that demonstrates the data, is aware of this, and that

they have it documented so that there is this

traceability to measurement when the issue ever comes

up.

And to Morrie who pointed out plumbing

25 11 assessors . You may want to start watching that when

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it goes out to the lab.

MR. KLIMBOFF: Well right now at 1.64, you

know, the test lab fails the unit. It's over 1.6.

That's the statement that is being used, and it is

very confusing.

I would ask the DOE to be very explicit in

the rule or somewhere to explain this to the lab.

They made their judgment and they say, "Fail," right

now at 1.64.

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. I would

support what you are saying that you will do in

Section 430.23. Is that the right number?

The key is that you state to what position

this is going to be so that I don't get into a hassle

as I did with the refrigerator folks once where it

wasn't stated, and this became an issue.

I also support your proposal that you

would put it -- how you would round it. That you will

not get into the details of what complies and what

doesn't.

I think what you suggested is totally

adequate and I want to support it before anybody at

PMI changes their mind.

(202) 234-4433

(Laughter).

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

MR. SARGENT: Kohler Company. Jim

Sargent, Kohler Company. We would support that idea

if, in fact, it is spelled out in the rules on the

rounding. I think that is very important.

MODERATOR HUI: You are talking about the

number of digits?

MR. SARGENT: Yes.

MODERATOR HUI: Okay. Thanks.

MR. HORNER: Tom Horner with Water

Management. Will it be -specified what type of

metering or measuring device will be allowed in the

laboratory report? As most people know, the

difference in the metering is quite significant.

You can change the flow, the flow rates,

anything you want to do by changing the meter, or the

quality of the meters that are in the lab.

MR. TREADO: Steve Treado of NIST. Right

now we are just specifying the relevant ASME test

procedures, and whatever requirements for metering or

measurement accuracy are in there are what will be

enforced.

Now, if you think that is not sufficient

that is another question. But if that is sufficient

to describe what is required for a lab to make this

measurement , then we will just be relying on that.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MODERATOR HUI: Peter Demarco.

MR. DEMARCO: Pete Demarco, American

Standard. Just to clarify about the standard. The

ASME Standard does require that a -- that water be

collected, in the case of a water closet, in a vessel

with a certain degree of calibration, and so forth.

So it's not that -- it's not something, I

don't think, that is going to vary from lab to lab.

There is pretty straightforward type of measuring.

MR. HORNER: Right. I knew they were

using the vessel from which you could almost get

thousands of decimal points if you wanted to. But I

believe on the faucets and the like, and what their

metering device is --

MR. DEMARCO: Is per minute. Yes.

MR. HORNER: So I was -- I don't know what

that standard was. I will check it out.

MR. TURNER: Bill, on your procedure

sample --

MODERATOR HUI: Please say your name.

MR. TURNER: Gary Turner, Teledyne Water

Pik. I'm sorry.

With respect to your testing procedure, it

is normal protocol to take one order of magnitude more

precise than what your standard is.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

So if the standard is 2.5 gallons per

minute. We will be measuring in hundredths. I think

that should be specified. You shouldn't -- you should

make it at least a hundredths.

If you want to go to thousandths, I

suppose you could, but should not be in tenths. So

whatever metering device is used should measure --

should be to one order of magnitude more precise, and

then you round up.

I would suggest that that be clarified in

that rule.

MR. TREADO: That's something which hadn't

come up before so --

MR. GERTZ : And that may take care of some

of the variability.

MR. TREADO: I would be in favor of that

but I don't know if anybody else is.

MR. HORNER: Yes. Metering devices are

innately inaccurate. That was my point. That you can

fiddle with all these numbers that you are rounding by

changing the metering device. But, good point.

MODERATOR HUI: Michael Martin.

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. I have been

very much involved in this standard we are going to

talk about. The one for plumbing fixtures, fittings.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

It talks about the test procedure, and I would suggest

that if we are getting into the details of the test,

that we ought to be doing that within the standard if

we consider it inadequate.

We have been testing, the California

Energy Commission, to this standard, and we weigh the

water over a period, and I think it' s -- you would

have to run it for a minute, and I think we probably

run it a little longer than that.

I would tend to advise against getting in

the -- into your regulations on the details of how to

measure, but, if you have a concern, we are getting

the Al. 12 committee to f ix it. I'm not sure we do

have a concern.

MR. PUGH: Cliff Pugh, Bureau of

Reclamation. I would suggest, and I am not sure

whether it has been spelled out here or not. I would

have to read back through it.

Each sample that you take, you shouldn't

round it until you do the statistics, and then round

it. Go to the extra digit that was discussed by

Teledyne here, and write all those numbers down, and

then do the statistics, and then do your rounding.

Don't round each particular sample as you

go along, and then round it again at the end.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MODERATOR HUI: So you are saying round

it--

MR. PUGH: You just round it once. At the

end when you look at what the average is and the mean.

MR. LEVY: Okay. Is there general

agreement on that point?

(No response)

MR. LEVY: Say something.

MODERATOR HUI: Yes. Sally.

MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios at Delta

Faucet Company. Going back to the testing issue. We

shouldn't really be getting into issues like that. We

could go down to saying things like, how accurate is

your ruler, if you want to say things like that.

Everybody who does testing has to have

their meters and so on calibrated, and have to have

proof to show that they are in compliance. And that

is a quality issue. I don't think we need to get into

this ruling.

MODERATOR HUI: I agree. Mr. Martin? All

right. Let' s proceed to the third issue.

The third issue on today 's agenda concerns

the adoption of ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M, 1994 test

features, plumbing fixture fittings, which require

faucets do not exceed 2.2 gallons per minute flow rate

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

when measured at 60 pounds per square inch pressure.

According to the November 20, 1995 letter

from Mr. Rick Church, Managing Director of the

Plumbing Manufacturing Institute. Quote, "Because of

the issue of market place confusion, the industry

feels that it is very important that Federal law and

the ANSI standards are brought to conformity." End

quote.

The Department agrees with this point of

view and intends to incorporate by reference, the

flow, capacity, and test procedures contained in

ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M, 1994.

However, the Department is concerned that

the requirement of 2.2 gallons per minute at 60 PSI

could be considered more stringent than the 1989

requirement of 2.5 gallons per minute at 80 pounds per

square inch.

And may adversely affect the manufacturers

variable orifice license installed in faucets.

Manufacturer test data provided by the Plumbing

Manufacturing Institute indicates the existence of

variable flow control faucets that comply at 2.5

gallon per minute at 80 PSI but not 2.2 gallon per

minute at 60 PSI.

In order to adopt the flow rate of 2.2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

gallons per minute for faucets, the Department

requests statements for the public record that for

fixed orifice flow control devices, the efficiency of

water use at 2.2 gallon per minute at 60 PSI is

equivalent to 2.5 gallon per minute at 80 PSI.

Number two. For variable orifice flow

control devices, such devices meet the efficiency of

water use requirements of 2.2 gallon per minute at 60

PSI in ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M, 1994.

And, at this time, I would like to ask the

view of today's audience as to the Department's

proposal. Michael Martin.

MR. MARTIN: I support the Department's

proposal. We had a meeting in June. I think, maybe

in this very room. When I promised to send you the

Minutes of the ASME A112 panel 18, and I sent those to

you. You have them on your record, I think.

MODERATOR HUI: Yes.

MR. MARTIN: In those, it indicated that

Panel 18 had this same opinion that 2.2 at 60 PSI was

equivalent to 2.5 at 80 PSI.

So it was Panel 18's recorded opinion back

in 1980 when we were coming up for this decision, that

this was the case.

(202) 234-4433

The California Energy Commission,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

thereupon adopted the same standard. This went

through the Public Hearing process, and it was

accepted on that basis through that same process.

You have very strong evidence that for

fixed orifice units this is the equivalent. When it

comes to adjustable orifices, I instructed my testing

contract had to do a survey as to what was available.

He contacted ten manufacturers of aerators and I don't

have the number here, but I think it was 69

manufacturers -- whether you say 69 manufacturers of

faucets, I got this by fax just before I left. I

didn't know there were 69. I thought it was 49.

But he has contacted every manufacturer

who has an address in the United States, and finds

nobody who opposes this proposal from DOE . He finds

that, in general -- well, he finds that manufacturers

have to comply with 2.5 and 80 PSI in order to meet

Federal law.

They also have to comply with 2.2 at 60

PSI, in order to meet the requirements of the ASME

standard which is in the Model Building Codes, and

therefore required to be installed in new buildings.

Therefore nobody is manufacturing anything

that they may sell, but not install. Which would be

kind of stupid to say the least.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

And I don't have the full report in a form

that I can give to you right now as I mentioned to

you before the meeting, it came in by fax with 22

pages of it on at the last end of the roll, and it

came out like little pieces of toilet paper, and I am

going to have -- will have a clean edition for you if

you can give me a few extra days. I would like to

give that to you.

So I think you do have the evidence that

there is nobody who is going. to object to this change

you make. Unless somebody speaks up right now.

MR. LEVY: You didn't make this explicit,

but I take -- I'm sorry. Ed Levy, DOE. I take it

what you are saying is that all the manufacturers who

were surveyed are saying that their variable orifice

faucets are going to be able to meet the 2.2 at 60 PSI

standard.

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I think I am saying

that. Now the situation with some people is that they

are making components of faucets which control flows,

and you are not regulating those.

You are only regulating entire faucets, or

replacements aerators. So it will be possible, if you

went to some of these people who make flow control

devices that are within the faucet, it would be

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
50

1 possible, I am sure, to purchase from them, anything

2 you asked for.

3 But the faucet manufacturer is not about

4 to do that because, if they do it, they can't install

5 it in a new building.

6 MODERATOR HUI: Rick Church?

7 MR. CHURCH: Rick Church, PMI. It's the

8 consensus of our association that the 1994 version of

9 the standard be updated in DOE's rule-making.

10 And I would like to say that the graphs

11 that we provided DOE eight or ten months ago that

12 caused a concern which I very much appreciate DOE

13 acknowledging about what manufacturers are making, are

14 no longer valid because the manufacturers are going

15 with the 1994 version of the standard. They are

16 making their products to 2.2 GPM.

17 MR. PEDERSEN: Dan Pedersen, AWWA. Just

18 a point of clarification on what DOE is considering,

19 and you are considering using a 2.2 gallons per minute

20 at 60 PSI because it is more restrictive?

21 PARTICIPANTS: Not at all.

22 MR. PEDERSEN: It's equivalent with the

23 fixed, but it would be more restrictive with the

24 variable orifice.

25 MR. GALOWIN: That's an incorrect

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

statement.

statement.

then?

MR. PEDERSEN : Excuse me?

MR. GALOWIN: That's not a correct

MR. PEDERSEN: Could you correct if for me

MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin. NIST. A

variable orifice controller may have, perhaps, unusual

properties. The fact that it operates at a fixed,

designated point does not ensure , for example, that

flow rate falls off when you go from 60 to 80.

It may indeed actually curve up. I

haven't seen any. But the speculation is, that

depending on the designer's choice of how that

variable controller is made, anything could happen.

It will satisfy 2.2 at 60, but it does not

ensure anything outside that point.

MODERATOR HUI: Yes, Bill?

MR. NECHAMEN : Bill Nechamen . Further

clarification of that. Even if it doesn 't assure what

happens above 60, it will, in no respect go above 2.5

at 80 if it meets 2.2 at 60. Correct?

MR. GALOWIN: I would like to say I can

support that statement but I can not . For example, if

I had a digital controller that after 2.2 at 60, for

NEAL R. GROSS .

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

whatever reason, went exponential. It's an electronic

chip type control. I don't speculate Bill.

It does not necessarily have to meet the

80 PSI at 2 1/2 per minute. I doubt if any

manufacturer would ever make anything like that, but

it's in the realm of possibility.

MODERATOR HUI: Michael Martin?

MR. MARTIN: As I reported, I instructed

my testing man to get such a device and test it. So

that I could come here and tell you exactly what

happened.

He has documented that it doesn't exist.

However, there is no question whatever that it

wouldn't take a great deal of imagination for a

designer to design and build such a thing, if there

was any need for it. Which there isn't.

But it's also important, I think, under

the best political climate to make it clear that this

is not an increase in standard because there are

people in Congress who have a feeling that, DOE

shouldn't be publishing new standards.

This is updating a test method, and I

would like to mention why in the old test method it is

also unsatisfactory.

And one of the reasons is, the old test

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

method that requires testing and standards of 20, 50,

and 80 PSI, the statute requires meeting a standard of

80 PSI only.

So you are inconsistent with that. With

the old standard. There is also the problem that

there are marking requirements to put the flow rate on

the device, and the manufacturer has to put the flow

rate on the device based on the 1994 standard, in

order to install it, and the flow rate on a device

based on testing of 80 PSI in order to sell it.

He has got two flow rates on the device which is

unacceptable to anybody.

So sticking with -- as well as doing the

right thing by going to '94, you are doing the right

thing by abandoning '89.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, Department of Energy.

On your point about the appearance of a more stringent

standard. The Department is required to make a

determination under the statute that the standard is

not more stringent. Otherwise it would have to

undertake a ruling. So presumably, we will address

that point.

MR. MARTIN: Hopefully we will address

that point, but not now. I mean, hopefully there will

be a more stringent standard because, if there isn't

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

one, within five years, that gets me back in the

business in California, and I don't want that to

happen.

MR. LEVY: I suggest we address it

currently. We don't need that situation.

MR. SARGENT: We don't either.

MR. MARTIN: We have got a consensus on

that too.

MR. MCCABE: This is -- Michael McCabe,

DOE. If the standard were more stringent we would

also be under the existing legislation, the

Administrative Procedures Act or executive order, be

looking at a variety of impacts including the economic

impact of such a standard on the manufacturers. The

impact of such a standard on the consumers, and the

process would be drawn out.

And with the assertions that have been

made by some, questions that arose when we looked at

those, we are hoping to hear everybody's input, but it

appeared that there was strong opinion that there were

equivalent.

There are certainly. I think most

everybody around here is either technical or has a

engineering degree, as do I. I tend to look for those

exceptions so I can make "them into the fact and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

probably appear to be the majority of the instances.

What we are looking for is are these two

equivalent, nearly equivalent to products that meet

the 2.2 at 60, meet the 2.5 at 80. What is the effect

of going to the '94 standard, and we would hope that

all would agree that they are identical, equivalent,

so as not to trip on the requirements.

MODERATOR HUI: Again, even though we have

received a statement from PMI, and I believe American

Standard, and the California Energy Commission that

verify that this relationship is -- the new equation

is applicable for these types of faucets with fixed

orifice. We would still appreciate if you,

manufacturer, or collectively, send to us the

statement that I have just stated earlier.

Which is again, that the fixed orifice at

2.2 at 60 is equivalent to 2.5 at 80, and that there

are no variable orifice device that you know of or you

still manufacture, that are not in compliance with the

2.2 at 60.

Again, this is for the public record, and

we will appreciate if you would send us that

information. Yes.

MR. LAUER: John Lauer from Sloan Valve.

We manufacture commercial faucets that have variable

DEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

flow control orifices. When the ANSI standard

changed, the ASME standard changed, at that time we

changed over to 2.2, and I believe that most

manufacturers have done the same.

So it does not putting a burdensome

requirement on manufacturers.

MR. LEVY: So do I take it -- Ed Levy,

Department of Energy. I take it what you are saying

is that those faucets will be 2.2 at 60 as well as 2.5

at 80?

MR. LEVY: Right , and 2.5 is a maximum so

if there are 2.2 across the board, you have no

problems meeting the 2.5 at 80.

MR. PEDERSEN : This is Dan Pedersen,

American Water Works Association . We would be

supportive of the change to the updated standard.

MODERATOR HUI: Okay. Sally.

MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios from Delta.

Delta is supportive of the change . Over the past

years we have been subjected to many different flow

rights across the country, and the difference between

DOE Is proposed rule and the 1994 standard was creating

a read problem in the industry , and we really look

forward to having them both the same from now on, and

it will solve most of our problems . Thank you.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you Sally. Jim?

MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

The last meeting of the ASME Panel 18 unanimous y

reaffirmed that the committee wanted to go to 2.2 at

60 PSI for faucets, and 2.5 at 80 for showers.

And with that statement I'll ad that

Kohler Company will also back the 2.2 at 60.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Jim Bailey, American

Standard. Just want to say that we also back the 2.2.

MR. GALOWIN: I would like to just put a -

- Larry Galowin, NIST. I would like to put a question

to you manufacturers primarily. We do build variable

orifice controllers, and the fact that, at times, at

low pressures at 60, the controller may permit greater

than 2.2 gallons per minute, and then come back down

to that point.

Do you see any problems? Do you see any

challenges if the flow rate (a) exceeded 2.2 at some

lower pressure (b) if it peaked at some value above 2

and a half gallons a minute but then came down to the

appropriate point? Do you need any qualifications in

the ruling concerning this?

MR. RABA: Recognize Michael Martin of the

California Energy Commission.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

MR. MARTIN: Actually, the question about

how -- what pressures it tests at has kind of an

interesting history in that the California Energy

Commission said you had to comply at every level

between 20 and 80 which implies an infinite number of

tests.

The Z21 -- not Z21 -- the A112 committee

in the 1989 standard decided to reduce this to 20, 30,

40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 PSI. Later on, I suggested

that there was no need to test it at all those rates,

and we reduced it to 20, 50, and 80 which is what is

in the 1989 edition.

We produced enough data to the Panel 18 in

1990 to indicate that one test was adequate in order

to show compliance, and anything that didn't comply at

some other pressure, was unusual and insignificant.

So the Panel 18 did consciously make a

change to ask for a test at 60 PSI only, and changed

it from requiring it at more pressures because they

felt this was a reasonable thing to do.

Panel 18, at least as of 1990, supported

that so there will be no action on Panel 18 to

indicate anybody is concerned about it.

MR. KLIMBOFF: Morrie Klimboff of Crane.

A little levity -- you might want to ask Kramer on

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

Seinfeld. You saw what happened to his hair with

those low flow devices.

(Laughter)

MR. KLIMBOFF: It was good publicity

anyhow. Or negative publicity. They didn't go that

far, but they surely went far enough.

MODERATOR HUI: Anymore discussion on this

topic?

(No response)

MODERATOR HUI: So it seems that there is

general agreement that the audience here today will

support an updating to the 1994 standard. Is that

true?

PARTICIPANTS: Yes.

MODERATOR HUI: All right, good. Are

there anymore topics concerning water efficiency that

anyone wishes to discuss at this time.

MR. MARTIN: Yes. One of the things that

results from this is an FTC requirement about labeling

which, presumably, they will not be interested in

changing until something -- a final rule gets

published by DOE.

Do you have a feel for your schedule as to

what might happen? Are you decided that this is not

banned by Congress?

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

MODERATOR HUI: Well, the input that we

received today, and those submitted in before March

31st will obviously set us back a few months until we

incorporate everything into this ongoing Notice of

Proposed Rule-making.

I would say that we may have the Notice of

Proposed Rule-making ready to be published sometime in

the summer.

MR. MARTIN: This would be a proposed --

a Notice of Proposed Rule-making that actually

publishes a proposal?

MODERATOR HUI: This will be a Notice of

Proposed Rule-making to incorporate, by reference, the

statutory definition, test procedure, and standard,

and it will include the proposal regarding the other

issues such as the statistical sampling plan and

certification issues.

MR. MARTIN: Then this will be open to

public comment at that time, and maybe a hearing?

MODERATOR HUI: The proposal will be

opened for public comment, and discussion.

MR. MARTIN: So we go final as early as

this fall?

MODERATOR HUI: Unless we have another

public hearing again.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

MR. MARTIN: I think you just told us you

are going to have one, didn't you?

MODERATOR HUI: No.

MR. MCCABE: We're going to -- this is

Mike McCabe. With these issues being resolved we

expect to pursue the Notice of Proposal Making as

expeditiously as possible. It's in our interest and

everybody else's interest to get it published in the

Register as quickly as possible.

The comment period, public hearing we

anticipate a 75-day comment period. Given that date

that period we are adhering for all of our proposed

rules based on a NAFTA agreement, and are not

anticipating any issues in the proposed rule, or on

the proposal rule that we will expect we couldn't go

to a final very quickly after that.

MR. MARTIN: Great.

MODERATOR HUI: Pete Demarco.

MR. DEMARCO: Pete Demarco, American

Standard. A question. After the final rule is

published, what is the Department's thinking as to a

time-frame to allow manufacturers to conduct a testing

for certification purposes. I would like to find out

what your thinking is along those lines?

(202) 234-4433

MODERATOR HUI: I believe the language in

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

there states that -- okay. Go ahead Michael.

MR. MCCABE: I dread to answer that

question. I think it's a very good question and I

don't believe we have actually discussed . I'd like to

put it to you, as far as what would you suggest? You

are the industry.

MR. DEMARCO: The most burdensome, or

troublesome aspect of the whole thing is doing the

testing for the water closets, obviously.

The testing is a long test. It is laborintensive, and there is a lot -- especially for the

larger manufacturers. We have got models coming out

of our ears.

I would recommend a year's time. Nine

months at a minimum, to a year in order to do the

testing to make the certification.

MR. MCCABE: The legislation this is Mike

McCabe of the Department. The legislation requires a

test procedure. This is the existing legislation, for

the appliances, which I believe would apply in this

case as well, that a test procedure, be effective, 120

days, after the date that is published in the final

rule.

(202) 234-4433

MR. NASSERI: It's 180.

MR. MCCABE: 180? 180. Okay. What we --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63

but separate from that would be making a certification

representation to the Department. Given the -- where

we stand, I understand you to say they will need a

year to complete the testing, and that the

certification could come in almost instantaneously

after the testing is done.

So that would probably make the test

procedure effective if it was 120 days. Yet that

would not prohibit the manufacturers from starting the

testing the day the final rule is published. Right?

And reporting requirements for

certification would be for one year after the

effective date. Would that make sense?

MR. DEMARCO : Absolutely.

MR. MCCABE: That's something we will talk

to Counsel and others within the Department, and I

think that we should be able to include that in the

Notice of Proposed Rule-making.

MODERATOR HUI: Thank you. Yes, Morrie

Klimboff?

MR. KLIMBOFF: I just want to ask, Michael

you are saying 120 days for the final rule, roughly?

MR. MCCABE: No, no. Once the final rule

is published. I mis-spoke when I said 120 days. It's

180 days till when the test procedure would be

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

effective.

We have to work that one out because

according to the letter of the law, all

representations after the effective date will have to

be based on the test procedure.

MR. LEVY: That's when the 180 comes in?

Within 180 days all representations have to be based

on the test procedure?

MR. MCCABE: But the legislation also

allows for an extension for an additional 180 days.

So you get to the full year.

What would help us is formal written

comment right now is statements from manufacturers or

others as to whether or not it should be the full 360

days provided for in the effective date of the test

procedure.

180 days effective date again. All

representations would have to be based on the new test

procedures. It takes a year to test all the water

closets, for example, that would mean, for the second

180 day period those representation would have to be

made on no representation made, or on the new test

procedure.

And they may be products that may have not

been tested, and would not be in a position to make

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

representation. So if that is a burden on

manufacturers a 360-day period is need. Two 180-day

periods. If you would just in such a written

statement to the Department make such a request.

MODERATOR HUI: The Chair recognizes Mike

Martin.

MR. MARTIN: I would request, if you do

feel that water closets need an extension, and it is

quite possible that you separate this concern from the

other plumbing devices where shower-heads and faucets,

for instance, it is a very simple test, and it is

already being complied with through the building

standards.

They certainly don't need to go beyond the

normal time for those, but water closets? Possibly

so. I don't have experience with them.

MODERATOR HUI: So what would be a good

time frame for submitting this information, at least

for fixture fitting.

You are saying that for fixture it may

require 360 days, and for fitting you feel that -- how

many days will be necessary for manufacturers to

submit this information to us?

MR. MARTIN: It could be done within seven

days of today, because if manufacturers wanted to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

authorize us to certify as a third party organization,

we could do that for the entire industry within seven

days from today.

I don't suggest that you ask them to do

it. We are pretty friendly now but it wouldn't last

very long. But there is certainly no -- whatever the

routine thing is for testing procedures . I would go

with it.

But the tests -- you are putting a Federal

test procedure on something everybody is doing

already. So they really don't need a lot of time on

the test procedure.

In California, at least, they are already

reporting this data to us, and I am not clear about

the water closets. So whatever is the regular thing

that you do.

MODERATOR HUI: Jim Sargent?

MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

Taking into consideration a company like Kohler, or

American Standard, or somebody that does both water

closets and faucets, and you take a look everything

that's in at your existing inventories, and you take

a look at your R & D process coming on line, we will

need one year to go through the statistical testing of

all of our faucets, and all of our water closets and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
67

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

urinals.

We just physically are not going to be

able to do it in less than one year. Within that one

year time frame we won't get the testing done on all

of our existing products, new products, and the

submissions into the DOE, boy I don't think we can do

it in less than a year.

That is going to take a tremendous amount

of laboratory time, and technicians because we are not

going to bank on a past test. It's going to be all

new testing.

MODERATOR HUI: Morrie?

MR. KLIMBOFF: Maybe this is out of line,

but how will this affect commercial water closets with

the ruling that they are supposed to be available

1/1/97. If it's going to be about a year for the

current water closet situation, will that be set back

somewhat too, at that time?

MODERATOR HUI: I seem to think that by

the time we come up with the final rule that may

become a moot issue.

MR. KLIMBOFF: Yes, okay. Let's keep it

in the back of our heads anyhow.

(202) 234-4433

MODERATOR HUI: Oh, okay. Bill Nechamen?

MR. NECHAMEN: Bill Nechamen. I have,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68

well, basically two closing comments. One wearing the

AWWA hat which is to reiterate that our support of the

sampling proposal is contingent on some outside expert

advice that we will be receiving on that whole issue.

Comments on that at the time.

My other is wearing my New York State hat.

I would urge the DOE to consider either publishing, or

allowing to be published, a list of approved products,

and model numbers.

Before we had intend with our State law to

back off of our own listing process that we are

assured that there is a Federal listing process that

does the job at least as well.

That would decrease the burden on the

manufacturer because, as much as I like these guys,

they won't have to deal with me anymore , and I think

it would increase assurance of compliance nationwide.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, DOE. What kind of a

list are you referring to?

MR. NECHAMEN: In New York State we

publish a list of products that are represented to us.

We do no independent testing. We look at their lab

test reports and we publish a list of products that

are represented to us as complying with New York

State's water conservation plumbing law.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin. On that

subject. I don't believe, and Mike, correct me if I

am wrong, but I don't believe that DOE would be

looking at test reports. They would be dependent upon

manufacturers declarations for conformance.

I don't know how that may or may not

impact on a DOE listing, but --

MR. LEVY: But I believe, at least, the

DOE knows certifications or declarations, however,

must be based on test reports.

MR. MCCABE : Michael McCabe with the

Department. Over the years we have worked with a

number of industries to encourage them to develop, and

make available such product listings.

An example is the GAMA. The Gas Appliance

Manufactures Association, Directorate of Furnaces and

Water Heaters. We will look at the issue, but in the

past what we have encouraged, and worked with other

industries to do is to come up with industry sponsored

programs.

One of the reasons is that we can be more

responsive to the changes in the products. The second

very significant one is just the cost of administering

it. With the limited resources that we have, we have

relied on the industries to bear some of that cost.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
70

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MODERATOR HUI: Rick Church?

MR. CHURCH: Rick Church with PMI. I

might just interject with a couple of comments. PMI

is in the process of planning such a document and I

mentioned it to Bill and Jim Raba on occasion so we

are planning to doing something to the GAMMA that you

mentioned.

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California

Energy Commission. I think you might be interested to

know that we have been publishing directories of a lot

of different appliances.

About two weeks ago the Commission

approved an order to accept -- to approve the GAMA

Directory, or portions of the GAMA Directory, the Gas

Appliance Manufacturers Association, that apply to

furnaces, boilers, and water heaters.

As a method for building officials to

determine compliance with the Commission's building

regulations, and part of the arrangement that we have

with GAMA, is that certification that is required by

the manufacturing people who are a part of that

program is supplied by them -- by the manufacturers,

to ETL testing lab who is under contract to GAMA.

GAMA is providing monthly, to the editing

commission, an update on everything that is in their

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

program. So we now have, for those appliances, data

that should be consistent with what is in the GAMA

program.

On the basis of that the Commission has --

and also the promise of GAMA to send copies of their

directories for 1996 to all the building officials in

California, and there's a whole slew of them.

On the basis of that we have approved the

GAMA directory, and we will be delighted to do

something similar with the plumbing industry, and

anything that we can do to help you in developing this

program would be very well accepted by the Commission.

We recognize the trade associations are in

a position to do a much more thorough job of testing

and verification task that me can possibly justify and

we would love to work with you with that, and I am

most encouraged to hear that you are working on it.

Anything that we can do to help, just let us know.

MODERATOR HUI: The Chair recognizes Mr.

Jim Neumann.

MR. NEUMANN: Jim Neumann, Eljer

Industries. It is my understanding that the

Department of Energy in this listing will apply, or

speak only to water consumption.

In Bill's case, your listing takes in more

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

than water consumption. For example, if it were a

refrigerator, this list would tell how much energy it

used. Not only that it kept the food cold.

MR. NECHAMEN: Bill Nechamen. You are

correct in water closets. In water closets we do ask

for the whole range of ANSI tests.

In the faucets and shower-heads we would

be quite satisfied just to look at the flow rate

alone.

MODERATOR HUI: Larry Galowin.

MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, NIST. If I

may I would like to put on my Department of Commerce,

International Trade Office hat.

We have severe problems in writing mutual

recognition agreements in the narrow area of

acceptance of the credit of laboratory test data

between the rest of the world and the United States.

One of the foremost challenges, to that

process, I believe, in National Standards organization

guides are the delisting of accredited laboratories.

This makes me put the question to my DOE

colleagues, and to the industry. What is to be done

in the rule that called for a processed procedure and

methodology on delisting a product that may, at some

point, be found, by whatever means, not to fulfill the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

73

conformance requirements. Does the rule -- does the

plan for the rule include some detail on delisting, or

dropping of a conference recognition.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, The Department of

Energy. Unless I missed something, I think we are

getting ahead of ourselves because it is not even been

established that there is going to be any list.

So to talk about delisting before we have

some notion of what the contours of a list might be in

the first place. It seems kind of premature.

MR. GALOWIN: The manufacturer has to

declare a given basic model in conformance by some

written document to DOE. Maybe a format could be

developed at some point, assuming that same product

line is modified for whatever reason, and now it no

longer conforms will there be a procedural method

described on how that gets dropped?

MR. LEVY: Well, Ed Levy again. If the

product is modified then they have to certify the

modified product.

If it's a new basic model, they have to

certify it again, and they can't sell it unless they

do. So they are not selling the product under your

scenario.

25 JJ MR. GALOWIN: Take a very simple case.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

Some of our colleagues in the environmental community,

I think downstream, they find good or bad reason to

challenge a given product. Let's say they are

successful in doing that.

The manufacturers declared it conformed.

Somehow it is determined and found it no longer

conforms, or was mis-represented. Therefore that

product should not be on the market.

MR. GALOWIN: Can not be.

MR. LEVY: Can not be. Will there be some

requirement contained in the rules on what happens?

MR. GALOWIN: It's already there. I

assume the procedures that we have in the rule, at the

present time which address that situation for other

products, will apply to these products.

MR. MCCABE: Mike McCabe with the

Department, and I would agree with Ed to that respect.

Just to say that the experience that we have had to

date, that we have had for the appliances we had some

complaints. Manufacturers who provided data with

respect to a competitor and their product.

Others have complained about products, and

we have gone through and met with manufacturers, and

I think, in every instance -- probably also with the

FTC rules -- the problems have been corrected, or in

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

75

certain cases they found that there was not a problem.

It was just a misunderstanding on somebody's part.

But where there was a problem, the product

was either pulled off of the market, pulled back from

distribution where it was still under the

manufacturer's control, or, and, if the manufacturers

made modifications to it, re-entered as a product.

But it was a case by case in every

instance where we met with them, the particular

manufacturers, and agreed to appropriate avenues.

MODERATOR HUI: Any other discussion on

this topic of national listing?

(No response)

MODERATOR HUI: Are there any other topics

concerning water use that anyone would like to bring

up at this point?

Okay earlier today, Mr. Rick Church

indicated that he might want to address -- okay, he

will decline. All right. In that case. Thank you

again for participating in today's public meeting.

The Department looks forward to your support

throughout the rulemaking process, and therefore,

ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

(Whereupon, the proceedings adjourned at

25 11 2:50 p.m.)

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C
76

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the

matter of: OFFICE OF ENERGY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON PLUMBING PRODUCTS

Before: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Date: FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Place: WASHINGTON, D.C.

represents the full and complete proceedings of the

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to

typewriting.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

 EE-DET-93-003 COMMENT 00C