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) 234-4433THOMAS 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) 234-44333 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) 234-44334

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) 234-44335

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331



### 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) 234-443313



### 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 wewould 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) 234-44331

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) 234-443315

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443321

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443323

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 l ? t - i d d 24 ece samp e wo p o on a woul 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) 234-44331

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) 234-443325

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443327

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

### 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 

### MEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443334

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, ll f 24 a ga on.

hundredths o 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) 234-44331

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) 234-443336



### 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) 234-44331

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-443338

1 

### don't feel there is a need to. dth th d h h i i 2 

### MR. PUGH: e re or un t t e So s 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) 234-44331

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) 234-443340

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.



### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331

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) 234-443342

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443345

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443349

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) 234-443350

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) 234-443351

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 NEALR. GROSS . COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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

### 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) 234-44331

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) 234-443357

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443362

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443364

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443367

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443370

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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) 234-44331

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44332

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) 234-44331

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) 234-443376 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