UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR 

PLUMBING PRODUCTS 

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Room 8E-089 Review Center 

Tuesday

July 24, 2012 

Facilitator: 

Doug Brookman

Public Solutions 

Baltimore, MD 
2 

Participants Identified: 

Stephanie Salmon

Plumbing Manufacturers International 

Kristine Heine 

Kohler Company 

Ed Osann 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Karen Hobbs 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Joanna Mauer 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

Webinar Participants: 

Shabbir Rawalpindiwala

Kohler Company 

Shawn Martin 

International Code Council 

Daniel Glieberman 

Sloane Valve Company 

Heidi Havenstein 

Energy Solutions 

Larry Himmelbloud

Chicago 

Len Swatkowski 

Plumbing Manufacturers International 

Mary Ann Dickinson

Alliance for Water Efficiency 

Chris Menduza 

Christina Haduc 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
3 

Jeff Baldwin 

Maryanna Nicole 

Michael Woodford 

Participants from DOE: 

Lucas Adin 

Ashley Armstrong 

Laura Barhydt 

Jennifer Tiedeman 

Joshua Cocciardi 

DOE Contractors Present: 

Jennifer Williamson 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Kate McMordie 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Presenters 

Lucas Adin 

Jennifer Williamson 

Kate McMordie 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

AGENDA 

ITEM PAGE 

Welcome, Doug Brookman 5 

Welcome for DOE, Mr. Adin 5 

Introductions 6 

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 7 

Opening Statements 11 

Regulatory History, Mr. Adin 12 

Scope, Mr. Adin 16 

Rulemaking Overview, Mr. Adin 28 

Proposed Changes in Test Procedures

 Ms. Williamson 20 

Proposals Regarding Dual Flush Toilets,

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves,

And Showerhead Flow Controls 

 Ms. McMordie 31 

Proposed Changes to Product Definitions

 Ms. McMordie 49 

Proposals Regarding Basic Models and

Statistical Sampling, Mr. Adin 58 

NOPR Analysis, Ms. Williamson 69 

Closing Remarks 70 

Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Mr. Adin and Mr. Brookman 74 

Executive Court Reporters

 (301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

 

10 

 

15 

20 

 

25 

5 

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

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let’s start. Good 


3 morning everyone and welcome. This is the U.S. 


4 	 Department of Energy’s public meeting on Test 

Procedures for Plumbing Products. 

6 Today is Tuesday, July 24, 2012 here in the 

7 Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. My name is Doug 

8 Brookman from Public Solutions in Baltimore. We’re 

9 going to start off with welcoming remarks from Lucas 

Adin. 

11 	 Welcoming Remarks 

12 MR. ADIN: Can everyone hear me okay? Good 

13 morning. I’m Lucas Adin, from the U.S. Department of 

14 Energy in the building technologies program, and I 

manage the plumbing products rulemakings for our 

16 office. And I welcome you all here for this meeting. 

17 We’re glad you’re able to attend and participate. 

18 We’re going to present some information about proposed 

19 changes to our test procedures for these products and 

a few other related items, so it’s very useful for us 

21 to have a chance to do that and also for us to be able 

22 to receive information and comments from all of you. 

23 So thank you for coming. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 

tradition to start with introductions while you’re 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

6 

1 working on advancing that. So I’ll start over here to 

2 my left and please say your name and organizational 

3 affiliation. You can get used to pulling the mic 

4 close to your face and turning it on and off. The 

little illuminated green – yes, now it’s on. Yes. 

6 Introductions 

7 MS. SALMON: Hi. Stephanie Salmon with the 

8 Plumbing Manufacturers International. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And we also need to get in 

the habit of turning them off and we have less 

11 feedback that way. Please, if you would. 

12 MS. HEINE: Kristine Heine for Kohler 

13 Company. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann with the Natural 

16 Resources Defense Council. 

17 MS. HOBBS: Karen Hobbs, Natural Resources 

18 Defense Council. 

19 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project. 

21 MS. TIEDEMAN: Jennifer Tiedeman, DOE, 

22 Office of General Council. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please. You can 

24 just stand. 

MS. WILLIAMSON: Jennifer Williamson, 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

7 

1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

2 MS. MCMORDIE: Kate McMordie, Pacific 

3 Northwest National Laboratory. 

4 MR. COCCIARDI: Josh Cocciardi, Department 

of Energy. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And our web 

7 master is sitting over there. Okay. 

8 Agenda Review 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: All of you received a packet 

of information when you signed in this morning. I’m 

11 going to go do a brief agenda review. Immediately 

12 following this agenda review, there’s an opportunity 

13 for anybody that wishes to do so, to make opening 

14 remarks, to make brief summary statements about issues 

that are important to you. 

16 Following that, we will move straight into 

17 the presentation material. All of you received a 

18 packet of information with these colorful PowerPoint 

19 slides that will be the basis for the presentation. 

Lucas Adin will start off talking about the regulatory 

21 history and then the scope. Following that, a 

22 rulemaking overview. 

23 We’ll take a break mid-morning, round about 

24 10:30 or so, it’s not listed on the agenda, but 

somewhere in there, when we get there, that’s when 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

8 

1 we’ll break. Following that we’ll hear from Jennifer 

2 Williamson, proposed changes to test procedures, and 

3 then directly following that, proposals regarding dual 

4 flush toilets, commercial prerinse spray valves, 

showerhead flow controls. And then proposed changes 

6 to product definitions. Following that, proposals 

7 regarding basic models and statistical sampling. 

8 Round about noonish, depending on the 

9 timing, we’ll take a lunch break if that’s needed. 

And then whenever we get there, we’ll hear about the 

11 NOPR analyses and then finally, at the end of the day, 

12 whenever that is, whether that’s noon or 1:30 or even 

13 later, we’ll talk about next steps and there’ll be an 

14 opportunity for anybody that wants to to make 

additional remarks, closing remarks, additional issues 

16 to be captured for the record. 

17 Any of you who have been here before, some 

18 of you have not, what have emerged as matters of 

19 courtesy, if you would, please speak one at a time. 

Please, say your name for the record each time you 

21 speak. 

22 If you can keep the focus here. Please turn 

23 your cell phones on silent mode. Limit the sidebar 

24 conversations. Please be concise and share the air 

time. I’m going to be cueing individuals as best I 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

9 

1 can to speak. I also wish to encourage follow on 

2 comments. Sometimes that’s useful for the Department 

3 as they’re reviewing the transcript of this meeting. 

4 There will be a complete transcript of this 

meeting available on the web. We have several 

6 individuals joining us via the web. The Department 

7 wishes to encourage web participation. If you are 

8 joining us by the web, welcome. I would ask you here 

9 at the outset to mute your phones. That will limit 

the feedback we have here at this meeting room, and if 

11 you wish to join the conversation, ask a question or 

12 make a comment, please raise your hand in the software 

13 and then we will find a place to insert you in the 

14 meeting and you will be speaking live to everyone 

who’s in the room here in the Forrestal Building. 

16 Let me see – 

17 MR. OSANN: Doug? 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ed. 

19 MR. OSANN: Is there a list of names of 

those that are participating by webinar? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: We – in fact, I was thinking 

22 maybe we would ask – can you read the names of the 

23 individuals participating, Marcus? We’ve done that 

24 previously. Do you have a microphone over there? 

WEBMASTER: On line we have Chris Menduza – 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

10 

1 I apologize if I don’t pronounce this correctly, 

2 Christina Haduc, Daniel Glieberman, Heidi Havenstein, 

3 Jeff Baldwin, Larry Himmelbloud, Len Swatkowski, 

4 Maryanna Nicole. Maryann Dickenson, Michael Woodford, 

and Shawn Martin (all spellings phonetical.) 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And thanks, Ed, 

7 that’s a good catch. We want to have those 

8 individuals noted. So I think that is the preliminary 

9 stuff that I intended to cover. We’re going to go 

straight now to an opportunity for individuals to make 

11 opening remarks, opening statements for the record. 

12 And Stephanie, I see you’ve got notes in front of you. 

13 MS. SALMON: I do and I’m happy to make some 

14 opening comments, but I thought it would be more 

helpful, you know, to hear from DOE first and then I’m 

16 happy – we’ve already submitted our comments for the 

17 record on the proposed changes, but it’s up to you as 

18 moderator here what you feel is best. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I note as I’m looking over 

there that you’ve got several pages of typed comments. 

21 MS. SALMON: I wasn’t going to read them 

22 all. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

24 MS. SALMON: Let me go ahead and just make 

an ---

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

11 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You can summarize. 

2 MS. SALMON: I can make an opening comment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: That would be helpful. 

4 MS. SALMON: I can add on later. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

6 Opening Remarks 

7 MS. SALMON: Again, this is Stephanie Salmon 

8 with the Plumbing Manufacturers International. We 

9 have submitted comments for the record in regards to 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. And overall, PMI 

11 supports updating of the referenced American National 

12 Standards in the document. However, we also support 

13 the elimination of duplicate referencing to the 

14 American National Standards in any modification of the 

language in these standards that will create confusion 

16 in the marketplace and unnecessary complexity to the 

17 standards that have been drafted, edited, and approved 

18 through a national consensus process. 

19 So in our comments, we go through the 

different sections that you’re going to talk about, 

21 one through eight, and made references to that, so I 

22 would like to hold off until you sort of go through 

23 that before, so we’re not objecting strongly to 

24 anything that was put in here, but there were a few 

things that we had made suggestions to for changes. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

12 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Good, that makes sense. 

2 Okay. Great. Other comments here at the outset? 

3 Kristine? No comment? Ed Osann. 

4 MR. OSANN: Yeah, Ed Osann with NRDC. 

Simply to say that we welcome the publication of the 

6 NOPR and we appreciate that DOE is recognizing its 

7 obligations to oversee water use efficiency for 

8 plumbing products. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Cast my 

eyes around. No additional comments here at the 

11 outset? Okay, then, so then we’re going to proceed 

12 with the PowerPoint slides as you have them, and Lucas 

13 Adin is going to be our first speaker. 

14 Regulatory History 

MR. ADIN: So very simply to start, this is 

16 just a general overview of the purpose of this 

17 meeting. Hopefully it’s fairly self-explanatory from 

18 the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking itself, but we’re 

19 essentially here just to give a broad overview of what 

was proposed, hopefully clear up any details that any 

21 of the folks in this audience had questions about, or 

22 any other related items, and provide a general forum 

23 for discussion about these issues, and provide an 

24 opportunity for you to present any related information 

about them that you feel we may need to know in the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

13 

1 course of making our final decisions about the items 

2 that we’re proposing in the NOPR. 

3 As we go through the meeting, you’re going 

4 to see these issue boxes pop up from time to time. 

These just capture items that we’re looking for more 

6 information about. I think all the ones that we have 

7 in this particular presentation are requests for 

8 comment on the NOPR itself, so those are also in the 

9 NOPR document. We don’t have any additional ones 

today, but we did put them throughout the presentation 

11 just to highlight where we’re looking for comment. 

12 So I’ll start off with the content of the 

13 presentation for today with a brief overview of the 

14 regulatory history for these products. The first – 

well, the beginning of the energy conservation program 

16 that DOE administers actually started with the Energy 

17 Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. So that 

18 essentially formed the legal basis for the program 

19 that we have today. The water conservation standards 

themselves and the test procedures that DOE initially 

21 used to enforce them were established through the 

22 Energy Policy Act of 1992. And that initially used 

23 the two ASME standards that you see up there, the 

24 A112.18.1M 1989 version for faucets and showerheads, 

and the ASME A112.19.6 1990 version for water closets 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

14 

1 and urinals. 

2 A few years after those initial regulations 

3 took effect, ASME made amendments to those standards, 

4 and in keeping with its statutory obligations, DOE 

conducted a rulemaking to update its regulations 

6 accordingly. And in 1998 that final rule was 

7 published. It adopted the 1996 version of the 

8 A112.18.1M procedure for faucets and showerheads, and 

9 the 1995 version of A112.19.6 for water closets and 

urinals. And as we note there, that rule did not 

11 change the relevant water conservation standards. 

12 They remain the same as the ones that were put in 

13 place in 1992. 

14 For commercial prerinse spray valves, those 

came into DOE’s regulatory sphere as part of the 

16 Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established a 

17 national water conservation standard for those 

18 products and also established the test procedure for 

19 those, which was ASTM F2324, and that was put into 

DOE’s regulatory code as part of a 2006 final rule. 

21 Since that time, ASTM has reissued that standard 

22 without any substantive changes. They basically just 

23 reapproved it in 2009. 

24 Since the last rulemakings that DOE 

conducted in 1998 and 2006, this slide essentially 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

15 

1 covers what DOE is doing today through its statutory 

2 obligations. Essentially what the statute says in the 

3 Energy Policy and Conservation Act – 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, Lucas. 

MR. ADIN: Yes. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Put the microphone on your 

7 tie and get it six inches from your mouth. 

8 MR. ADIN: Oh, I’m sorry. Are you catching 

9 what I’m saying? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, it’s kind of a – and 

11 speak up just a tad. 

12 MR. ADIN: Is that better? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, better. 

14 MR. ADIN: Okay. So the statute essentially 

says that if DOE – excuse me, if ASME revises either 

16 of the standards that DOE references for water 

17 closets, urinals, showerheads or faucets, which are 

18 captured in those two citations you see there, DOE has 

19 to accordingly amend its regulations to reference the 

newly amended ASME standards. Since that time, ASME 

21 has adopted amended versions of both of those 

22 standards. There was a 2011 version which was just 

23 recently adopted for showerheads and faucets, and then 

24 a 2008 version of the A112.19.2 procedure for water 

closets and urinals which – the number did change 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

16 

1 because it was a combining of two previous test 

2 procedures, the A112.19.6 procedure and A112.19.2 were 

3 combined to form the new A112.19.2, so it is the same 

4 basic procedure, just updated. 

There have been no substantive changes, as I 

6 mentioned, for commercial prerinse spray valves, that 

7 procedure, so DOE is proposing to retain the existing 

8 procedure with no changes, but to reference the 

9 reapproved versions, the 2009 version. So that 

essentially covers the regulatory history. 

11 Scope 

12 I’m going to briefly cover the scope of this 

13 rulemaking. Essentially, the purpose of this 

14 rulemaking is to review the existing procedures and in 

accordance with DOE’s statutory obligations, to 

16 determine if the ASME standards have been amended in a 

17 way that is appropriate for DOE to adopt. So in doing 

18 that we essentially conducted a comparison of the 

19 existing ones that we reference and the newly amended 

versions to insure that we understand all those 

21 differences and we’re incorporating something that 

22 will accomplish the intent under EPCA for us to use 

23 them as official uniform national procedures. 

24 We did review the product definitions for 

these products to insure that we’re providing 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

17 

1 necessary clarity in the scope of coverage. A few of 

2 the definitions in particular were rather vague and 

3 we’ve received a lot of questions in the past as to 

4 how far they go in covering some of these products, 

and the intent of those amendments is to try and clear 

6 up those issues. 

7 There’s a design requirement for showerheads 

8 involving a flow restrictor. This is actually a part 

9 of the original A112.18.1M procedure which has just 

been passed down through time. It hasn’t actually 

11 changed, we’re just addressing a couple of items 

12 there, and incorporating it into the standard in a 

13 more specific way. 

14 And then we covered a couple items regarding 

basic model definitions and it’s not mentioned here, 

16 but it’s a statistical sample for certifying products. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we’re having a – 

18 we’re getting feedback. For those of you who are 

19 joining us via the web, we’re getting feedback that 

Lucas – that his lavaliere mike is fading in and out 

21 so we’re going to try this podium-based mike to see if 

22 that works better, and let’s get that fairly close to 

23 your face. 

24 MR. ADIN: Okay. That better? Okay. For 

the folks on the webinar, if there’s anything in 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

18 

1 particular that you missed that you’d like me to cover 

2 again, just let me know, but we’re going to go through 

3 all these items in more detail throughout the 

4 presentation, so hopefully we don’t miss anything that 

you were hoping to hear. 

6 So the last item was just for regulatory 

7 review. We have some statutory obligations to insure 

8 that our rulemakings meet various statutory 

9 requirements, things regarding small businesses and 

things of that sort. So we did conduct analysis 

11 accordingly, and we’ll discuss those in more detail. 

12 So that’s essentially the overview. 

13 Rulemaking Overview 

14 The next item we have is getting into the 

rulemaking itself. Just very quickly, the process for 

16 conducting this rulemaking is actually relatively 

17 simple, especially compared to a standards rulemaking 

18 that some of you might be familiar with that has many 

19 stages, a test procedure rulemaking essentially is 

just two stages. We do a Notice of Proposed 

21 Rulemaking which we published on May 30th. I’m sure 

22 everyone in this group has seen it, and so this 

23 meeting is essentially just to cover what we put in 

24 the NOPR and to receive comments, and written comments 

as noted here are also welcomed. They must be 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

19 

1 submitted to DOE by August 13, 2012. And I also 

2 always like to point out that it’s actually midnight 

3 on August 13th, so you have the full day that day to 

4 get them in. 

The NOPR itself has more details on how to 

6 send them in, but you can send them in via e-mail, or 

7 hard copy. Just be aware that if you send them in via 

8 hard copy, we won’t get them for at least two weeks 

9 because they go through the whole mail sanitation 

process. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re going to be at your 

12 desk until midnight. 

13 MR. ADIN: Yeah. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Just thought I’d confirm 

that. Okay. So. 

16 MR. ADIN: So that’s the basic overview. 

17 Are there any questions at this point? Okay. So 

18 we’ll proceed from here with the substance of the 

19 proposal. Our first presenter on that is Kate 

McMordie. No, sorry, Jennifer Williamson. I knew I’d 

21 get that backwards. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer first. No questions 

23 until now? How are we doing with everybody – they’re 

24 still with us on the web? Yep? Okay. So, get that 

microphone fairly close to your face. Yeah, let’s not 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

20 

1 use the Lavaliere because it was fading in and out. 

2 Proposed Changes in Test Procedures 

3 MS. WILLIAMSON: Hi everybody. I’m Jennifer 

4 Williamson with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

and I’m just going to go over the changes that we 

6 identified between the currently referenced standards 

7 and the standards that we’re proposing to incorporate 

8 by reference. 

9 And we’re going to start with faucets in the 

A112.18.1. There is a typo on this slide on the next, 

11 where it says no specification for test pressure 

12 tolerance – that should say – oh, we got it changed. 

13 So there isn’t a typo. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re talking about the 

first bullet there. 

16 MS. WILLIAMSON: Yeah, in the printed 

17 slides, it’s different than what we have up here. For 

18 faucets there was a tolerance of either plus or minus 

19 one psi to the test pressure set up. The test 

procedure temperatures were modified very slightly – 

21 they went from four to 66 degrees C to five to 71 

22 degrees C. And then there’s a new requirement in the 

23 2011 version that you have to use a container that’s 

24 large enough to hold the flow that you’re expecting 

over a one minute interval. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

21 

1 So, showerheads are covered in the same test 

2 procedure and there are similar changes. The 

3 tolerance is a plus or minus two psi. The 

4 temperatures changed fairly significantly on this one, 

from four to 66 degrees to 32 to 44, most likely 

6 because there aren’t very many people who are going to 

7 be taking showers at – 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m just now getting it, so 

9 would you back up one slide? You’re comparing and 

contrasting 1996 to 2011. 

11 MS. WILLIAMSON: Correct. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: You were moving quickly and I 

13 like that, but let’s not move too quickly. 

14 MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Sorry. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s back up to the first 

16 slide and give everyone a chance to look at the 

17 proposed changes. You were doing a good job of 

18 explaining. 

19 MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Does anyone have any 

questions on this one? Comments? No? Okay. 

21 So we covered the test pressure and the test 

22 procedure temperature. The showerhead has a unique 

23 requirement that you’re required to maintain the flow 

24 for a minimum of one minute, but it also has the 

requirement to have that container that can hold the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

22 

1 flow for that one minute. 

2 So questions and comments on the showerheads 

3 and faucets? 

4 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann, NRDC. A 

couple points regarding the showerhead test 

6 procedures. The ASME – the latest ASME A112.18.1 

7 allows for two possible approaches to testing these 

8 fittings. I think the same is true for faucets as 

9 well, either using a fluid meter or using the timed 

volume method. 

11 MS. WILLIAMSON: Correct. 

12 MR. OSANN: And you noted some word changes 

13 relating to the timed volume test procedure. I’m 

14 wondering if DOE has reached any conclusions about the 

relative efficacy of those two approaches, whether 

16 they really are interchangeable, whether the timed 

17 volume method may be potentially open to a wider range 

18 of error. I make two observations about that. One is 

19 that for showerheads that are to be tested at a 

flowing pressure of 80 psi, which is really at the 

21 high end of normal pressure for residential service. 

22 Which means that it’s coming out pretty hard. And I 

23 would say more forceful flow than certainly the 

24 average consumer experiences. So the potential is 

there for splash and the test procedure does not seem 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

23 

1 to be explicit, unless I’ve missed something, about 

2 the positioning of the container, about determination 

3 that all the flow is being captured, any notation of 

4 splash or overage, and it’s not hard to imagine that 

there could be losses associated with that. 

6 The other point is that the specification 

7 also – the ASME standard also contains a limitation on 

8 leakage from ball joints, and that’s in 5.3.5, without 

9 any separate test procedure for determining the rate 

of leakage, or verifying whether leakage is present or 

11 not. So presumably that’s to be captured in the flow 

12 rate test procedure. But it’s quite possible, 

13 depending on the orientation of the spray head, that 

14 leakage from a ball joint would drop vertically while 

the spray from the showerhead itself may be going in a 

16 different direction and the receptacle being 

17 positioned to capture the flow, not capturing the 

18 leakage. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, are you suggesting that 

the Department should change or expand what they’ve 

21 written here to accommodate that information? 

22 MR. OSANN: I’m suggesting that the 

23 Department consider the relative efficacy of the two 

24 approaches that are currently – that are authorized in 

the ASME standard, and consider the possibility of not 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

24 

1 carrying the timed volume method into the CFR. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

3 MS. WILLIAMSON: So now we’re going to move 

4 into the A112.19.6 1995 updated to A112.19.2 2008. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Before you move on, Jennifer, 

6 Shawn Martin has raised his hand, let’s hear from 

7 Shawn, presuming it’s on this last issue. Yes. 

8 Shawn, you’re on. 

9 MR. MARTIN: It is indeed. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Please speak. 

11 MR. MARTIN: Can you hear me? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re sounding good, keep 

13 going. 

14 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Very good. I just 

wanted to just follow on Ed’s comment, which was a 

16 good one. The key for the timed volume, by the way, 

17 is related to the overall size of the volume that’s 

18 collected. The more you collect, the more accurate it 

19 becomes. That said, Ed alluded to an issue that has 

existed with this for some time, and that is the 

21 pressure. The 80 psi is not reflective of the 

22 extremes of the showerhead. I can hear myself there, 

23 so I’m trying to speak slowly. At the showerhead, 

24 after having gone through the water meter, various 

lengths of pipe, and the shower valve, it will have 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

25 

1 reduced significantly, to the point that it could 

2 easily be 30 psi or below. The ASME committee has not 

3 made any move to correct this, despite the fact that 

4 they know that it’s excessively high, because it has 

been in use for so long. My question or comment would 

6 be that the DOE might wish to work with ASME to 

7 correct this obviously excessive number. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Shawn, are 

9 you – could you be more specific? Since you’re 

commenting, what would you suggest the Department do, 

11 specifically? 

12 MR. MARTIN: Well, there’s an 

13 acknowledgement by the ASME committee which I’ve 

14 participated in for some time that the number is too 

high, and in fact if you look at the test values for 

16 shower valves, they’ve added an intermediate pressure 

17 for testing in the latest version of the shower valves 

18 specifications for temperature computation. My 

19 recommendation would be that the DOE consider working 

collaboratively with the ASME committee to examine the 

21 possibility of revising that 80 psi number to 

22 something more reflective of actual usage pressures. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: And those usage pressures 

24 would be what? 

MR. MARTIN: Conceivably far less, probably 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

26 

1 somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 psi. It can range 

2 anywhere from say in the low 20s upward to maybe 40 or 

3 50. It depends on the supply pressure and that varies 

4 significantly as you move across the country, and 

depends significantly on the shower valve and the 

6 plumbing system. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you for 

8 those detailed commends. Ed Osann. 

9 MR. OSANN: Yeah, this is Ed Osann, just a 

point in follow up. I just observe that the standard, 

11 the statutory standard is expressed as a flow rate at 

12 80 psi and that for showerheads with a fixed orifice 

13 restrictor, there will be a relationship between flow 

14 rate and psi so that if a lower test pressure were 

used to validate compliance with the federal standard, 

16 there would have to be some adjustment for the fact 

17 that this product could flow at a higher flow rate and 

18 perhaps a non-compliant flow rate, at a higher 

19 pressure than it’s being measured at. It’s the 

relationship between pressure, particularly flowing 

21 pressure, and the flow rate that needs to be attended 

22 to. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: When Shawn was speaking 

24 earlier, Shawn I want you to get back on the 

microphone and say your organizational affiliation so 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

27 

1 we know who you’re representing. Shawn, can you do 

2 that for us? 

3 MR. MARTIN: Of course, my apologies. My 

4 name is Shawn Martin and I’m here on behalf of the 

International Code Council. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So far the 

7 webinar is working well, that’s good news. Now we’re 

8 going to keep going. 

9 MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So urinals and water 

closets, again, the 1995 is what’s currently in the 

11 CFR. We’re proposing to incorporate by reference 

12 A112.19.2 2008, and again these are just the changes 

13 from one to the other. 

14 In 1995, there was a note on the setup 

figure that indicated a filter was optional. That 

16 filter is now required. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, pardon me. Ed Osann, go 

18 ahead. 

19 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, sorry to interrupt. I 

actually had another point on showerheads. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. We want to keep 

22 this in sequence. Go ahead. 

23 MR. OSANN: DOE observed in the text of the 

24 NOPR that while the ASME standard has long had a – 

made reference to the force required to remove a 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

28 

1 restrictor – 

2 MS. WILLIAMSON: We’re going to get to that 

3 a little bit later. 

4 MR. OSANN: You’re going to deal with that 

separately? 

6 MS. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so let’s hold on that 

8 for the moment. Okay. Okay. 

9 MS. WILLIAMSON: So we’ve covered the 

filter. The calibration requirement for the receiving 

11 vessel used has changed from point one gallons to 

12 point one seven gallons. This was part of the 

13 harmonization with the Canadian Standards Association, 

14 so that the increments would be in quarter of a liter. 

And in the new standard, you have to use a timer to 

16 verify that the actuator is not held for more than one 

17 second and the increments of that timer have to be no 

18 more than a tenth of a second. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Hold on there. Another 

person has raised his or her hand – I think it’s a he 

21 in this case, Shabbir Rawalpindiwala. Sorry if I’ve 

22 butchered that. Shabbir, please speak. 

23 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Yes, can you hear me? 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, you’re sounding good. 

MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Okay. I had a comment 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

29 

1 regarding the showerhead. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Go ahead. 

3 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: The 80 psi has been 

4 there since when the DOE adopted the original 

standard, and when you test the flow rate, they are 

6 tested at different pressures, up to 80 psi, and after 

7 a certain amount they reach a flat curve. As regards 

8 to the ball joint, it is really well spelled out how 

9 to test them, and I don’t know for what reason Ed 

Osann has problem that it is not adequate. These 

11 standards just got revised and published in 2011. Ed 

12 and other people had all the liberty to comment if 

13 they had any problems and nobody – and I’ve not seen 

14 him comment at all. Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We’re trying to 

16 get to the issues at hand here, and not the persons 

17 involved, but maybe there is something additional to 

18 be said on this point before we move on. Okay. So 

19 we’re going to move on. Thank you for your comment. 

MS. WILLIAMSON: Is everyone okay with 

21 these? So two more changes for urinals and water 

22 closets. The first is for assemblies that have a 

23 flushometer valve. The test pressures have changed. 

24 A 50 and 15 psi are now 35 for a siphonic bowl and 50 

and 35 are now 45 for a blowout bowl. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

1 And finally, the rounding of the total flush 

2 volume has now been changed to match the vessel 

3 calibration. So are there any comments or questions 

4 on urinals and water closets? 

MR. BROOKMAN: You can see that the 

6 Department has included a specific comment box here. 

7 DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by 

8 reference ASME ANSI standard A112.19.2 2008 for water 

9 closets, urinals, specifically the impact of changes 

outlined. 

11 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ed Osann. 

13 MR. OSANN: There’s data in the literature 

14 that indicates that while differences in static 

pressure may have relatively little effect on the 

16 flush volumes of valve type toilets, the differences 

17 in flowing pressure can have substantial difference. 

18 And I think DOE should take cognizance of that. We’ll 

19 provide some of that information for the record. 

MS. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. It seems 

22 as though Shabbir has raised his hand again. Shabbir, 

23 please speak and also say your organizational 

24 affiliation, Shabbir. 

MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Yes, Shabbir 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

31 

1 Rawalpindiwala, Kohler Company. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Kohler, yes. 

3 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: If you are talking 

4 about the measurements of the flush volume whether of 

the urinal or the water closet, yes, the standard 

6 gives the option of measuring it by the bucket and 

7 weighing it, but however that is the archaic way of 

8 doing it. Most of the laboratories, including ours, 

9 and the test laboratories, measure it with the digital 

flow meter. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

12 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: So I just wanted to 

13 bring that out. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments in 

response to item two as listed on the slide before we 

16 move on. 

17 MS. WILLIAMSON: I’m going to turn it over 

18 to Kate. 

19 Proposals Regarding Dual Flush Toilets, Commercial 

Prerinse Spray Valves, And Showerhead Flow Controls 

21 MS. MCMORDIE: Can you hear me okay? So I’m 

22 Kate McMordie with PNNL as well. And so now we’re 

23 moving into some more of the details of the NOPR. 

24 This slide is presenting information on dual flush 

toilets. So, dual flush water closets were not around 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

32 

1 during the 1995 version of the ASME standard, so DOE’s 

2 test procedure does not address dual flush toilets. 

3 So DOE is proposing to include the requirements for 

4 maximum flush mode for dual flush toilets to meet the 

ASME standard, the 2008 standard. But because there 

6 are new metrics that have been formulated around dual 

7 flush toilets so that the manufacturers who are 

8 producing these products can show that they have 

9 reduced volume, DOE is recognizing the need for that. 

So DOE is proposing the measurement of an average 

11 representative water use for dual flush toilets, and 

12 that would be to follow a similar metric to what Water 

13 Sense has, and that is essentially a weighted average 

14 of two reduced flush and one full flush, to show the 

average representative water use for dual flush 

16 toilets. 

17 So DOE specifically – and I’m going to flip 

18 back – I can go back to that slide, but I just wanted 

19 to mention that item three in the NOPR, the comment is 

specifically asking for information if this two to one 

21 ratio is appropriate, and if it is representative of 

22 the average water use for these products. So I’m 

23 going to flip back just so you can see the more 

24 technical points that are being made in the NOPR. Are 

there any questions on this? 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

33 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Or comments? 

2 MS. MCMORDIE: Yes, thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna Mauer. 

4 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I guess a 

question. If DOE adopts this in the test procedure, a 

6 representative average use for dual flush water 

7 closets, does that mean that, for example, the Water 

8 Sense Program would have to use that specific ratio 

9 that would be adopted in the DOE test procedure, even 

if, for example, new data became available that showed 

11 that that ratio should be changed? 

12 MS. MCMORDIE: I think I might let Lucas 

13 answer that one. 

14 MR. ADIN: This is Lucas Adin. That’s 

something that we might have to look into a little bit 

16 more carefully. Water Sense is not covered under the 

17 same legal provisions or the Memorandum of 

18 Understanding such as Energy Star. So it’s a bit of a 

19 different arrangement. We’d have to look at that more 

carefully. I can’t answer that with certainty at this 

21 time. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

23 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, NRDC. I would make 

24 one important distinction here between the scope of 

use of this usage factor that EPA is using – is 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

34 

1 employing, and how you’re intending to use it here. 

2 The DOE standards under NAECA apply to all water 

3 closets. The EPA Water Sense specification applies to 

4 tank type toilets, which not exclusively, but 

primarily are the product of choice in residential 

6 settings. Valve type toilets are not covered by the 

7 Water Sense specification and are used almost 

8 exclusively in commercial type settings. 

9 I think there is little data in the 

literature about the usage factors for dual flush in a 

11 commercial setting for a valve type toilet, and what 

12 information there is suggests that the frequency of 

13 the reduced flush is substantially more limited. So I 

14 think DOE needs to take this into account before 

simply applying this across the board for all products 

16 that are covered by the DOE standard. Certainly more 

17 data would be helpful, meaning more research would be 

18 helpful, in both the residential and the commercial 

19 usage of these products. And if DOE or its 

contractors could participate in that, that would be 

21 great. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: That was the obvious 

23 question. Is there data out there? Is there data to 

24 be obtained? Does it exist? Several individuals 

shaking their heads. They don’t know. Laura, do you 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

35 

1 want to comment here? 

2 LAURA: I just wanted to make sure I 

3 understood. So the dual flush toilets in the 

4 commercial setting, are they both tank type and the 

flushometer or – I just want to make sure I understand 

6 what – 

7 MR. OSANN: Well, tank type toilets can be 

8 installed in commercial settings. They can be 

9 installed in both. They’re predominant in the 

residential sector, but they are certainly used in 

11 some commercial applications. Valve type toilets are 

12 used almost exclusively in commercial applications --

13 LAURA: And they’re dual flush – 

14 MR. OSANN: -- occasionally in some high 

rise residential. 

16 LAURA: They’re dual flush commercial valve 

17 toilets. 

18 MR. OSANN: Yes. 

19 LAURA: Okay. 

MS. MCMORDIE: Typically diaphragm flush 

21 valve dual flush toilets. There’s one study if I 

22 could comment on, a study that was done that’s out on 

23 the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s website, that 

24 looks at water use of dual flush toilets. So it is 

not a DOE-commissioned study, but there is some data 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

36 

1 on commercial setting for dual flush toilets. There’s 

2 also a study done by PNNL a while ago on dual flush 

3 toilets when it first came out in the early 2000s in a 

4 residential setting, and that actually is what set the 

1.28 gallon per flush – was the result of that study. 

6 So there is some data out there on this, but I just 

7 wanted to mention it. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there any additional data 

9 gathering currently, or is what you have what you 

have? 

11 MS. MCMORDIE: Would you restate that? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there any additional 

13 research being done presently? 

14 MS. MCMORDIE: Not that I know of. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We have several – 

16 MS. MCMORDIE: It could be, though. There 

17 could be somebody on the webinar that might know. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, two individuals have 

19 raised their hands. We’re going to hear from Shawn 

Martin first and then from Daniel Glieberman. Shawn, 

21 please proceed. 

22 MR. MARTIN: Shawn Martin, International 

23 Code Council. Daniel Glieberman is with Sloane Valve, 

24 so he may be able to speak better to the availability 

of data. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

37 

1 Two things I wanted to address. The first 

2 was the fact that there are two aspects to be 

3 considered when looking at these data and these 

4 studies. And the one is the theoretical water 

consumption which is based on the frequency of various 

6 usage types. And the second pertains to behavioral. 

7 And that’s information because the awareness of the 

8 individual on the proper usage of the equipment is 

9 critical, and so I would urge that any data that’s 

reviewed not only with respect with what could be 

11 done, but also through the lens of behavioral aspects 

12 as to the knowledge of the individual in the proper 

13 operation of the device. 

14 The second point I wanted to make and wanted 

to put on the record is the fact that there are now 

16 available, another type of device, a subset, and that 

17 is retrofit dual flush device, which allows an older 

18 toilet that consumes – that is a single flush toilet, 

19 to be retrofitted with a dual flush device. They’re 

marketed – several are marketed as being universal, 

21 meaning it can be applied to many different 

22 manufactured devices, and the DOE may wish to consider 

23 whether any of these requirements should apply to that 

24 circumstance. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Daniel 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

38 

1 Glieberman, you’re next. Please say your 

2 organizational affiliation. 

3 MR. GLIEBERMAN: Thank you. I don’t know if 

4 you hear feedback or not. 

MR. BROOKMAN: We can hear a little bit of 

6 feedback, but you’re coming through clear, so keep 

7 going. 

8 MR. GLIEBERMAN: Sloane Valve Company. I 

9 want to reference first of all the DOE’s statutory or 

regulatory authority. My understanding and my comment 

11 on this specific issue would be that 1992 was water 

12 closets not to consume more than 1.6 GPF is really 

13 what should be considered here, as PMI I think noted 

14 and some other manufacturers may have noted. There’s 

really no need to develop a separate test procedure to 

16 measure average representative water use of a dual 

17 flush water closet, because the focus of this 

18 rulemaking should insure that any water closet doesn’t 

19 exceed the maximum. I think there’s been some really 

good comments about data and the need for additional 

21 data. As one manufacturer focused primarily in the 

22 commercial sector, we would support additional data 

23 gathering, but we don’t think that it’s relevant for 

24 this rulemaking where water closets are intended to 

make sure that they comply with the 1.6 maximum GPF. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

39 

1 This goes to other comment, including 

2 Shawn’s regarding behavioral aspects of these types of 

3 fixtures. And I think that if, in fact, there is to 

4 be a standard or a testing for the dual flush, it 

should be, as another commentator mentioned, ... water 

6 closet such as ASME, the National Standard Development 

7 Process that insures that all stakeholders are 

8 represented. Thank you. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We’re going to 

hear from Lucas Adin next, and then after Lucas, we’re 

11 going to hear from Heidi Havenstein and then back to 

12 Shabbir. Lucas. 

13 MR. ADIN: I just wanted to offer a brief 

14 response to the last comment. This is really more of 

a point of clarification. We have it on this slide 

16 and it is discussed in the NOPR, but we might have 

17 caused a little bit of confusion with this particular 

18 topic. The intention with proposing the use of this 

19 test method really doesn’t have any bearing upon 

measurement of the maximum flush volume. It is 

21 correct that the 1.6 gallons per flush for water 

22 closets is the statutory standard, and it will remain 

23 the standard and the test method for verifying that 

24 that standard is met will still be the existing A112 – 

well, in this case we’re proposing it to be the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

40 

1 A112.19.2 2008, essentially the same method as before. 

2 So the value of water consumption that’s reported to 

3 DOE to insure that any given product, whether it’s a 

4 dual flush toilet or a conventional water closet meets 

that standard will be the same. It’s still the 

6 maximum flush volume. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You may – some 

8 individuals may wish to raise their hand to follow on 

9 with that comment, but Heidi, you’re next. Please say 

your organizational affiliation. 

11 MS. HAVENSTEIN: This is Heidi Havenstein 

12 from Energy Solutions and the California Investor13 Owned Utilities. And this is actually – I think Lucas 

14 just may have clarified this, but the question was can 

you clarify if you use the bridge method that the full 

16 volume flush does not exceed 1.6 gallons per flush. 

17 The alternative would be the average of two volume 

18 flushes in a .. bowl per flush. 

19 MR. ADIN: Yes, this is Lucas. I can 

confirm that it will still be, for certification 

21 purposes, it is still the maximum flush volume in the 

22 full flush mode. The intent with proposing this 

23 method – it will not be required if we adopt it, it is 

24 really more of a means to permit manufacturers to make 

representations of that average use, but it’s not for 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

41 

1 certification purposes. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for the 

3 question. Shabbir, you’re next. 

4 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: I had the same comments 

that Danny did, so thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay, then 

7 – yes, Ed Osann. 

8 MR. OSANN: With regard to the utility of 

9 incorporating a usage factor in for dual flush 

toilets, it was noted at the outset that DOE is 

11 conducting this rulemaking because it has a 

12 responsibility for a periodic review of test 

13 procedures. DOE also has a statutory responsibility 

14 now for periodic review of standards, and if the 

standard were subject to evaluation, a test method 

16 that credited dual flush toilets with some additional 

17 savings based upon the ratio of high volume to low 

18 volume flushes, could be a foundation for such a 

19 standard revision without having to reopen the test 

procedure at that time. Is that a fair statement? 

21 MR. ADIN: This is Lucas Adin. I think 

22 that’s something that we have to look at a little more 

23 carefully. I mean we’re certainly interested in 

24 receiving comments, perspectives, on that issue and 

any views on any impacts or benefits that might 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

42 

1 provide. That’s something that we need to look at 

2 separately. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

4 comments on these issues as you see them on slide 22 

before we move on? Okay. 

6 MS. MCMORDIE: So now we’re moving to 

7 prerinse spray valves. It has been mentioned now a 

8 couple times by Lucas, so I’m just essentially 

9 reiterating something that has already been stated 

today, that the ASTM standard was reapproved in 2009 

11 and DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the 

12 new test procedures for commercial prerinse spray 

13 valves, or the new standard which has the same test 

14 procedure. So the comments that are requested are on 

the inclusion of this 2009 ASTM standard. Any 

16 questions related to that? Okay. 

17 Now we’re moving to the design requirements. 

18 Is there a question. 

19 MS. SALMON: Uh, no. This is Stephanie 

Salmon. I’m with Plumbing Manufacturers, that we 

21 agree strongly with the adoption of the ASTM F2324 

22 standard in its entirety without any edits or 

23 modifications. Again, this was thousands of hours of 

24 effort in review from manufacturers, government 

agencies, and others here at the table who were all 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

43 

1 interested parties in approving this. So any 

2 deviation from that standard would create confusion in 

3 the marketplace. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that 

comment. Thank you. Ed Osann. 

6 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. The ASTM 

7 standard is currently under revision, is it not? 

8 MS. MCMORDIE: It’s currently under 

9 revision? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying yes? 

11 MS. MCMORDIE: I was asking my colleague. 

12 MS. WILLIAMSON: (off mic) I believe it is 

13 currently under revision, yes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer says she believes it 

is under review. 

16 MR. OSANN: I believe it’s being balloted. 

17 It’s far along in the process, where there are 

18 proposals being considered. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephanie, yes? 

MS. SALMON: Yes. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephanie says yes. Keep 

22 going. 

23 MR. OSANN: And I understand that while part 

24 of the revisions relate to a revised cleanability 

test, there are also changes proposed in the flow rate 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

44 

1 test as well. So DOE should be aware of the status of 

2 the revisions of this test and consider the alignment 

3 of the scheduling between the finalization of the ASTM 

4 standard revision and the completion of this 

rulemaking. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Stephanie, do you wish 

7 to comment here? No? No comment. Okay. Thanks for 

8 that information. 

9 MS. MCMORDIE: So now we’re going to move to 

the design requirements for showerheads. So DOE is 

11 retaining – yes. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me put you on hold there. 

13 We have – Larry Himmelbloud has raised his hand and 

14 perhaps it’s on this subject, before we move on. 

Larry, you’re on. 

16 MR. HIMMELBLOUD: Thank you. This is Larry 

17 Himmelbloud from Chicago ... I could probably confirm 

18 that the EPA Water Sense is working with ASME and ASTM 

19 on a revision to the F2324 standard. Even the draft 

that is being finalized ... so there’s some more work to 

21 be done to revise this standard, specifically ... 

22 different ... test. Also, I believe that the federal 

23 law only addresses the flow rate and not ... 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Larry, the 

last bit of your statement kind of got garbled here. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

45 

1 Could you restate that again, please, just the last 

2 sentence. 

3 MR. HIMMELBLOUD: I said I believe the 

4 federal law only applies to flow rate and not 

cleanability. 

6 MS. MCMORDIE: That’s correct. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that 

8 clarification. So now we’re going to move on. Kate. 

9 MS. MCMORDIE: So DOE is retaining the 

design requirement for showerheads which states that 

11 showerhead – the flow control insert in the showerhead 

12 has to be mechanically retained. And mechanically 

13 retained means that with a force of 36 Newtons or 

14 eight pounds or more is what’s required to remove the 

flow control insert. It’s in a new section of the 

16 2011 standard, the ASME standard. It’s in 4.11.1 now. 

17 The major unit of measure in the ASME standard is 36 

18 Newtons, but DOE is proposing to maintain eight pounds 

19 force as a primary unit, just to maintain consistency 

with the current design requirements, so really no 

21 changes there. The ASME standard has switched over to 

22 SI units, but DOE is going to use eight pounds force. 

23 They’re essentially the same force. 

24 DOE did a little investigation here to see 

if there’s a standard procedure for the removal of the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

46 

1 flow control insert, and there was not a standardized 

2 approach that was found in the industry. And that is 

3 because of the way that the manufacturers make these 

4 products is that the flow control inserts are inserted 

differently in different types of products. And so 

6 therefore, the testing laboratory that does this test 

7 has to be fairly creative at time to either do a 

8 pushing or pulling or even a torque force on the flow 

9 control insert to remove it. So there’s really no 

industry standard on that. 

11 So DOE is requesting comments on the eight 

12 pounds force required to remove the insert, and also 

13 the test procedure that is used for that. So any 

14 questions, comments on this? I think, Ed, you were 

saying something earlier that you had a question on 

16 this one. 

17 MR. OSANN: Yeah, this is Ed Osann with 

18 NRDC. I think this is a significant gap in the ASME 

19 test procedure. While this requirement has been in 

the standard for a long time, the lack of an effective 

21 test procedure for certifying compliance has been 

22 evident by the marketing of products that allow for, 

23 and in fact promote, easy removal of the test 

24 restrictor, the flow restrictor. I’ve seen products 

in the marketplace at retail, where the outside of the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

47 

1 packaging promotes the ease of removal of the flow 

2 restrictor for, quote, “cleaning” close quote. So 

3 clearly some manufacturers have sought to gain 

4 competitive advantage by the ease with which the 

restrictor is removed. So this is a gap that really 

6 should be filled in the test procedure. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I’m 

8 looking over there to Marcus, are we doing okay? 

9 Shabbir would like to comment. Shabbir, you’re next. 

MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Yes, regarding the 

11 retaining of the flow control, it has been left like 

12 that to allow manufacturers various designs to 

13 incorporate in the showerhead. If the whole test were 

14 to be standardized, it will restrict innovation and 

design. As regards to Ed’s comment that the 

16 manufacturers are showing on the carton in the retail 

17 stores how to remove the restrictor, no reputable 

18 manufacturers in the United States or from Europe are 

19 doing that. There are a lot of overseas manufacturers 

that are not reputable that operate from the garages, 

21 and sell them, and there’s no way of monitoring or 

22 controlling them. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

24 comments on this subject. Ed Osann. 

MR. OSANN: Yeah, this is Ed Osann. I think 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

48 

1 the purpose of having a written test procedure is to 

2 be able to facilitate verification, certification, and 

3 enforcement if necessary. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Shawn Martin’s in the 

queue. 

6 MR. OSANN: Oh, and just one other point 

7 with regard to limitations on manufacturers design, 

8 creativity and flexibility, just as the ASME standard 

9 has had – for some time has had alternate test 

procedures for measuring the flow rate, it’s certainly 

11 conceivable that a test procedure regarding the force 

12 -- to verify the force of removal of the restrictor 

13 could have alternative approaches, depending upon the 

14 nature of the installation of the restrictor itself. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ed. Now we’re 

16 going to Shawn Martin. Shawn, you’re up. 

17 MR. MARTIN: This is Shawn Martin from ICC. 

18 I think there may be some confusion on the point of 

19 whether manufacturers provide information on removal 

of these devices. There is an inherent conflict 

21 between the need to retain the devices and also the 

22 need to provide a means of repair. And it’s very 

23 common for manufacturers to provide exploded views of 

24 their devices for the purposes of indicating part 

numbers and repair parts and procedures. So we may 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

49 

1 need to recognize that if we make it difficult or 

2 impossible to remove these flow restrictors that the 

3 devices – if the flow restrictor becomes clogged, will 

4 become disposable in that circumstance, and that will 

have cost implications for the marketplace. So again, 

6 I’m not advocating for one position or another, but 

7 just would call to your attention that repair issues 

8 also come into play, even for manufacturers in home 

9 garages. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 

11 comments on this subject? 

12 

13 Proposed Changes to Product Definitions 

14 MS. MCMORDIE: Great. So now we’re moving 

on to Definitions. So DOE is proposing to add some 

16 new definitions that are in the ASME, the current ASME 

17 standard for the 2011 – the 18.1 2011 and 19.2 2008. 

18 And those are accessory, body spray, dual flush water 

19 closet, and fitting. 

These definitions are to provide more 

21 clarity in DOE’s coverage of the products, as well as 

22 conforming with industry standards. I’m not going to 

23 read them verbatim unless – would that be helpful? I 

24 don’t think they’re needed to be read – everyone can 

see them on the screen, and folks on the webinar, they 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

50 

1 see this, right? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s correct. 

3 MS. MCMORDIE: And then DOE is also 

4 proposing to add a hand held shower definition as 

well, and this is actually based on the basic 

6 definition that’s used by Water Sense. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s just leave that 

8 slide there for everyone to read for a moment, and 

9 then we’ll see if we have comments. Ed Osann. 

MR. OSANN: The slide doesn’t include the 

11 definition of showerhead. 

12 MS. MCMORDIE: Yeah, that’ll be on the next 

13 slide. 

14 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

MS. MCMORDIE: These are new definitions, 

16 and showerhead is not a new definition, it’s a 

17 modified. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Someone via the web has 

19 raised his hand. Shawn Martin, you’re next. Shawn? 

Maybe you’re still muted. Shawn, we can’t hear you. 

21 MR. MARTIN: My apologies. Shawn Martin, 

22 ICC. Question for the speaker, Kate. Based on the 

23 definitions I see here, it is not clear to me whether 

24 a body spray should be considered a showerhead or not. 

The hand held showerhead definitions indicate that the 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

51 

1 hand held showerhead is a showerhead. The body spray 

2 is more ambiguous. Is there any clarification that 

3 could be provided regarding whether the DOE intends 

4 that a body spray to be a type of showerhead? 

MS. MCMORDIE: Yeah, that will be on the 

6 next slide, Shawn. We’re going to talk about that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s go to that now, since 

8 that was also a question that Ed had, and we can 

9 return to this slide as needed. So to showerheads, 

then. 

11 MS. MCMORDIE: Okay. So there is a 

12 definition of showerhead that DOE has in the CFR, and 

13 the NOPR is proposing – DOE is proposing to change the 

14 showerhead definition that actually takes the current 

ASME showerhead definition that was added to the 2011 

16 version of the standard, but it’s modified it to 

17 provide some clarifications on DOE’s coverage of their 

18 product. 

19 There’s three basic things that have been 

added to this definition to help provide this 

21 clarification: 

22  That is that safety showers are not included in 

23 the definition; 

24  And hand-held showers – and this is pointing to 

Shawn’s question – and body sprays are considered 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

52 

1 a showerhead. 

2 So DOE is asking for comments related to 

3 that as well. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

MR. ADIN: Yes, just to add one item to 

6 that. We didn’t put it in the slides here, but I had 

7 received a question about it separately, just to 

8 provide some contrast with the existing definitions, 

9 since we are amending it, or proposing to amend it. 

The existing definition for showerhead in the Code of 

11 Federal Regulations says, “showerhead means any 

12 showerhead, including a hand-held showerhead, except a 

13 safety shower showerhead.” So this definition is 

14 being proposed as part of an effort to bring some more 

clarity to the meaning of the term showerhead itself, 

16 since the existing definition really does not do that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. 

18 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. It was said that this 

19 definition draws from the definition of showerhead in 

the current ASME standard? I wonder if you could 

21 crosswalk us to the – 

22 MS. MCMORDIE: I have it here, do you want 

23 me to read it? 

24 MR. OSANN: Providing the – starting with 

the citation – the paragraph citation. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

53 

1 MS. MCMORDIE: In the – it’s in the 

2 definition section of the standard which was actually 

3 -- ASME did not publish that and it was just a 

4 mistake, so I think they’re – I apologize for not 

knowing the exact answer, but they’re in the process 

6 of putting out an addendum on that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: It simply was – it didn’t 

8 make it into the final – 

9 MS. MCMORDIE: First version. 

MR. BROOKMAN: First version publication. 

11 MS. MCMORDIE: Yes, of 2011. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: It was perhaps an oversight? 

13 MS. MCMORDIE: Yes, it was an oversight. 

14 MR. OSANN: So, just for clarification, the 

current version that you’re citing to does not have a 

16 definition for showerhead in it. 

17 MS. MCMORDIE: It does. It does have it. 

18 It will be included in an addendum. So it was – it 

19 went through a committee process, the showerhead 

definition was finalized, but it was – it wasn’t 

21 included in the final publication out of just an 

22 error. So there is a final – ASME does have a final 

23 version of the showerhead definition. 

24 MR. OSANN: Has that been made available for 

public comment? 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

54 

1 MS. MCMORDIE: Yes, it went through a public 

2 comment period. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: And so do you have it there? 

4 MS. MCMORDIE: Yes, I can read it. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s read it. 

6 MS. MCMORDIE: “An accessory to a supply 

7 fitting for spraying water onto a bather, typically 

8 from an overhead position.” 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And that is what version? 

MS. MCMORDIE: The 2011. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: 2011, okay. Stephanie? 

12 MS. SALMON: Can we go back to the previous 

13 slide in regards to the hand-held shower. I just 

14 wanted to make a comment that for Pluming 

Manufacturers International, rather than adopting the 

16 definition of hand-held shower from the EPA Water 

17 Sense specification for showerheads, PMI is requesting 

18 that DOE adopt the proposed definition, “An accessory 

19 to a supply fitting that can be held or fixed in place 

of spraying water onto a bather, and which is 

21 connected to a flexible hose,” which is being 

22 developed by ASME/CSA which is in the balloting 

23 process right now. We do agree with adopting the 

24 definition of accessory, but do not agree with the 

proposed revision that would consider a body spray to 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

55 

1 be a showerhead for the purposes of regulatory 

2 coverage. A showerhead is an accessory, whereas a 

3 body spray is not. When the definition was being 

4 developed, it was noted that body sprays are not for 

bathing purposes, but for therapeutic purposes, and 

6 the definition reflects that. A body spray is not 

7 easily added or removed by the user like a showerhead 

8 that is mounted on the wall. And that is in our 

9 written comments that we submitted for the record. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. 

11 MS. MCMORDIE: Any other questions? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, pardon me. We have two 

13 individuals that have joined us via the web, and I had 

14 to be reminded. Shawn Martin is first, and then 

followed by Len Swatkowski. 

16 MR. MARTIN: Shawn Martin from ICC. Thank 

17 you for going back to the previous slide, Kate. 

18 Revisiting my previous comment, in light of the 

19 definition for showerhead that includes body sprays 

and hand-held showerheads, I would recommend that the 

21 body spray definition be revised to read in a manner 

22 similar to that for hand-held showerheads where it 

23 clearly indicates that body sprays are considered a 

24 form of showerheads, where it would read “body spray 

showerheads means a showerhead for spraying water.” 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

56 

1 I’d also like to express my support for the 

2 revised definition which reflects the definition I 

3 advocated for on the ASME committee but was not 

4 ultimately reflected in the final version. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any of you that have 

6 been involved in legislative matters will tell you, 

7 things like definitions and the written work can get 

8 complicated. So I just want to be very clear that 

9 your comments here are very important. They’re 

captured on the record, but you really need to send in 

11 written comments to the Department if you want to 

12 affect these definitions. So please send in your 

13 written comments, not to diminish your capacity to 

14 speak now. Len Swatkowski, you’re next. Please say 

your organizational affiliation. 

16 MR. SWATKOWSKI: This is Len Swatkowski from 

17 Plumbing Manufacturers International. Stephanie 

18 Salmon pretty much stated what our comments were, but 

19 in deference to Mr. Martin’s comments, I would note 

that the development of American National Standards is 

21 done with thousands of hours of effort and time, and 

22 like you said, pouring over a single word can take 

23 hours sometimes. It’s not a unanimous decision. It’s 

24 a consensus standard and it goes through a public 

review, so I would, you know, we have definitions for 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

57 

1 all this and body spray is a therapeutic device. It 

2 is not meant for showering. We’ve defined this and 

3 discussed this within committee for years now, so I 

4 would ask that as we move forward we give some 

credibility to not only the standards as they sit 

6 today, but moving forward, we would encourage all 

7 government agencies and all interested parties to help 

8 in the development of these standards, to make them as 

9 accurate and as flexible as possible. Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Len. Now we’re 

11 going to hear from Shabbir. 

12 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Just wanted to inform 

13 everybody that the definition of showerhead has been 

14 published and it was published as a supplement to the 

existing standard, dated November 2011. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So we have 

17 had good comment on these different definitions 

18 proposed to be added to 10 CFR 430.2. Additional 

19 comments on these proposed definitions and 

modifications? Do you have any additional question 

21 you want to pose or are you all set? 

22 MS. MCMORDIE: I’m all set. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s keep going, 

24 then. Ed Osann, before we proceed. 

MR. OSANN: Yeah, Ed Osann with NRDC. I’d 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

58 

1 like to enter into the record that we support the 

2 incorporation of body spray into the definition of 

3 showerhead and coverage of body sprays under the 

4 standard. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. We’re 

6 going to move on then to basic models definition. 

7 We’re at a point now where in this general time frame 

8 we could take a break, but we’re very close to the 

9 finish line, so you tell me whether we’re due for a 

break or whether we should just keep going for the 

11 next half hour or so. 

12 MR. ADIN: I’m comfortable with moving on, 

13 if it’s acceptable to the group. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I think I’m casting my 

eyes around the room, everyone seems inclined to keep 

16 going. 

17 Proposals Regarding Basic Models and 

18 Statistical Sampling 

19 MR. ADIN: Okay. Great. So we’ll press 

forward here. The next item that we’re going to 

21 discuss is basic models, and as we note here, DOE is 

22 not actually proposing to make any changes to the 

23 existing definitions of a basic model of any of the 

24 products, and for anyone participating today who is 

not generally aware of what that means, the basic 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

59 

1 model definitions essentially just cover what DOE 

2 considers as a basic model for the purposes of 

3 certification. So individual models are all subject 

4 to the standard, but they only have to be certified 

individually if they differ in a way that affects 

6 their water consumption from a design standpoint. So 

7 products that differ in superficial features like 

8 color, or other esthetic characteristics are not – 

9 they can all be considered the same basic model. The 

definition itself is more clear about what that means, 

11 but that’s essentially the gist of it. 

12 So for these products, we’re not actually 

13 proposing to change any of those definitions, but we 

14 have received questions from manufacturers about how 

to appropriately group individual models as basic 

16 models in the water closet and urinal categories for 

17 the purposes of certification. And the reason this 

18 came up is because water closets and urinals can be 

19 assembled as pairings of the porcelain or ceramic 

fixture and a flushing device. So in the case of a 

21 gravity water closet, it would be the bowl and the 

22 tank and flushing mechanism. For urinals and flush 

23 meter type devices, it’s the bowl and the flushometer 

24 device. And sometimes there’ll be a bowl from one 

manufacturer and a flushing device from another, or 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
5 

 

10 

 

15 

 

20 

25 

60 

1 something like that. So the purpose here was to 

2 provide – and we explain this in much greater detail 

3 in the proposed rule, but just to ensure that those 

4 things can be reported as certain pairings and grouped 

together that way for purposes of certification. 

6 So hopefully the proposed rule itself is 

7 clear enough about that, but we’re certainly 

8 interested in any comments that any of the 

9 participants or others have about that particular 

aspect, about what DOE accepts for certification 

11 purposes on those products. 

12 So I don’t know if there’s anything people 

13 have questions about or comments on right now, but 

14 written comments, obviously, are welcome. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

16 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann with NRDC. Reviewing 

17 the text of the NOPR on this subject, it was really 

18 unclear as to how DOE expects the pairing process to 

19 be worked in practice for the valve/bowl combination. 

There’s language in here indicating that the 

21 manufacturer – for the water closet bowl and the 

22 urinal – I’m reading from 317 – page 31748 of the 

23 Federal Register notice, the center column – “and 

24 that it could not be paired with a flushing device or 

tank that would provide a higher flush volume and 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

61 

1 still function properly.” It’s as though DOE expects 

2 that a valve that would operate with say, a volume 

3 that was 20 percent above the standard, would somehow, 

4 when combined with a bowl which has no moving parts, 

would somehow prevent that bowl from functioning 

6 properly. 

7 MR. ADIN: Well, I can say – 

8 MR. OSANN: It’s not clear what functioning 

9 properly means here. 

MR. ADIN: Right. I understand, the point’s 

11 well taken. I mean that’s something that we can try 

12 and explain more carefully in the final rule. 

13 Certainly if there are others who have points about 

14 that or information about how that aspect bears upon 

this issue, I mean, obviously, we’re interested in 

16 that and we’ll consider it. 

17 The intention really was to try and get to a 

18 point where manufacturers are able to certify a 

19 product as – representing in their certification that 

the maximum water consumption that product is designed 

21 to consume. So if it could physically be paired with 

22 another flushing device which provided a higher volume 

23 but caused it to overflow, or not function at all as 

24 designed, that’s sort of our general understanding of 

the framework within which this would work. But if 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

62 

1 that’s flawed or if it simply won’t work for the 

2 purposes of accurately capturing the true maximum 

3 water consumption of a product, we’d certainly be 

4 interested in knowing what those factors are, or what 

things we should consider in adequately explaining 

6 that to certifying organizations or to manufacturers 

7 for the purposes of covering this issue. 

8 MR. OSANN: Well, we will provide some 

9 comment on that for the record along the lines that we 

have here today. A follow up question. It is also 

11 not clear whether a valve alone is a basic model. New 

12 valves are provided in commerce, shipped without 

13 bowls, perhaps for replacement parts, perhaps to be 

14 married up on a job site with a bowl. 

MR. ADIN: Right. It’s a good point. I 

16 don’t know that that’s something that we adequately 

17 evaluated in the NOPR. At least we didn’t discuss it 

18 in detail. I mean, the general approach as proposed 

19 treats the basic model as the combination of those two 

items, the bowl and the flushing device, whether it’s 

21 a flushometer or a tank or whatever it is. But if we 

22 need to evaluate that more carefully and consider 

23 those replacement devices or something to that effect, 

24 that’s something that we’ll certainly look at more 

carefully. 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

63 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Daniel Glieberman has 

2 requested a chance to speak. Daniel, you’re next. 

3 MR. GLIEBERMAN: Thank you. Hopefully 

4 there’s not a lot of reverberation. But again, Daniel 

Glieberman, Sloan Valve. I think Ed’s comment was 

6 instructive. I would also go back, however, to my 

7 comments previously, when the dual flush conversation 

8 was mentioned, my understanding is that DOE’s 

9 regulatory authority here is to establish and certify 

water closets that use no more than 1.6 gallons per 

11 flush, and urinals that use no more than 1.0 gallon 

12 per flush. So this conversation in the NOPR on page 

13 31748 regarding theoretical examples of water closets, 

14 and I guess it could also be applied to urinals that 

go lower than that requirement is very informative, 

16 but I’m not sure that it’s within DOE’s actual 

17 regulatory authority. Because manufacturers are going 

18 to certify that their products do not exceed the 1.6 

19 and the 1.0 respectively. 

I think it’s also instructive to look at 

21 what Water Sense has done with flushing urinals, where 

22 they do require manufacturers to provide testing for 

23 lower than the 1.0 per the Water Sense specification. 

24 That’s a voluntary program. It’s not required, and I 

would suggest that this discussion of a basic model 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

64 

1 also leans more towards the voluntary rather than the 

2 actual requirement is under DOE’s purview. Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna. 

4 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a couple of 

clarification questions. So certification 

6 responsibility would lie with the manufacturer of the 

7 bowl and regardless of whether they’re pairing a valve 

8 that they manufacture or a valve that another 

9 manufacturer produces. And on the other hand, if 

you’re a manufacturer that’s just producing valves, 

11 you would have no certification responsibility to DOE. 

12 Is that fair to say? 

13 MR. ADIN: I think that’s something that we 

14 might have to look at a little bit more carefully. 

Our – I mean in the most general sense, obviously, the 

16 statutes and our existing regulations cover water 

17 closets, so that doesn’t offer much of a clue about 

18 whether the valve is a covered product and thus has to 

19 be certified. But I understand that there is 

confusion about that and I understand why. So I think 

21 that’s something that we just have to look at more 

22 carefully. And, you know, to the extent that there 

23 are particular views from anyone in this group, 

24 manufacturers or otherwise, about the appropriate way 

to do that or how the market supplies these products, 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

65 

1 all those things are helpful to us in considering that 

2 aspect. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed? 

4 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. In the Federal 

Register notice, DOE just makes the clear point that 

6 water consumption of a given model of bowl for a water 

7 closet or urinal can be directly affected by the 

8 specific flushometer valve or tank type flushing 

9 device that’s paired with the bowl. So it seems that 

it’s really incumbent upon DOE to find a way to verify 

11 that products that are shipped to commerce can – will 

12 reliably meet the standard, given what you have found 

13 about the variability of the flush volumes based upon 

14 the pairing. 

MR. ADIN: Right. So I should probably 

16 reiterate perhaps a little bit more succinctly, but 

17 what’s in the proposed rule is a reflection of DOE’s 

18 best understanding of how these products function, of 

19 how the market is organized and that sort of thing. 

So it’s entirely possible that we have a flawed 

21 understanding or reasoning that is not fully 

22 reflective of how things are – how things actually 

23 work from a technical perspective, or as far as how 

24 products are actually paired. 

So if there are certain aspects that we need 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

66 

1 to consider that we haven’t, and this proposal in the 

2 eyes of anyone in this group reflects a gap in 

3 coverage or in some way may not completely account for 

4 any of these variabilities, then again, that’s 

something, of course, that we’ll consider. And we 

6 welcome any more specific comments about it. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other perhaps final 

8 comments on basic model definition? Okay. 

9 MR. ADIN: So the next item we have is on 

the statistical sampling and rounding requirements, 

11 and these address the numbers that are reported to DOE 

12 for the purposes of certifying a given basic model of 

13 any of the products that we’re discussing today. 

14 So just as a general overview, products are 

tested using the DOE test procedure as individual 

16 products and manufacturers have to test at least two 

17 of each basic model as part of their statistical 

18 sample in order to come up with a number that’s 

19 representative of the average water use for that 

product. And there’s a mathematical statistical plan 

21 for each individual product in the regulations. Those 

22 have been around for quite a while. We’re not 

23 proposing to change them. Of course we’re interested 

24 in any comments about the appropriateness of those 

statistical methods, the confidence intervals, all 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

67 

1 those sorts of things. Are they still reflective of 

2 the accuracy of the test or the range of variability 

3 that you get when you test these products? Any of 

4 those things are of interest to us. But as I said, we 

are not proposing to change them now. 

6 And then we also added some specific 

7 rounding requirements for the final value of water 

8 consumption that’s reported for each product. The 

9 reason we did that is because the test procedure 

itself does have some rounding requirements but then 

11 of course you put all these – the individual models 

12 you tested, that value you put through this 

13 statistical sampling calculation, whether it’s just an 

14 average or a confidence interval, and then that gives 

you another number. So we want to make sure that that 

16 number is rounded appropriately when it’s reported to 

17 DOE. So those are in the proposed rule, and we 

18 welcome any comments about those. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the details 

listed there in comment box number eight. No 

21 questions or comments? Okay. 

22 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, one question. For – 

23 when a manufacturer has a valve/bowl combination and 

24 is testing different pairings, do these requirements 

apply to the testing of each pair? 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

68 

1 MR. ADIN: So that depends somewhat upon how 

2 the manufacturer chooses to group those pairings as a 

3 basic model. If they’re all grouped together as a 

4 single basic model, then these requirements apply to 

the pair that they tested as a representation of the 

6 water consumption of that basic model. If they choose 

7 to report them individually, then they would have to 

8 apply these sampling procedures to each pair that they 

9 test and report. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Shabbir has raised his hand. 

11 Shabbir, you’re next. 

12 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: No, I meant to lower 

13 the hand. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Lowered it. It was not 

16 raised. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Sorry, we misinterpreted your 

18 signal. 

19 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: My thing shows red. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then any additional 

21 comments on statistical sampling and rounding 

22 requirements? 

23 

24 NOPR Analyses 

MR. ADIN: So our next item is just an 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

69 

1 overview of the NOPR analysis, and Jennifer Williamson 

2 will be discussing this part. 

3 MS. WILLIAMSON: So one of the reviews 

4 required by the Small Business Administration is to 

look at whether or not the changes proposed in the 

6 test procedure are going to impact a substantial 

7 number of small entities from a cost standpoint. So 

8 we did an analysis and identified two of the NAICS 

9 codes that could possibly manufacture these products: 

the fixture fitting and trim, and then the china 

11 manufacturing. And you can see here that for the 

12 fixture fitting and trim manufacturing, it’s 500 

13 employees or less to be considered a small business, 

14 and for the china, it’s 750 or less. 

Using publicly available information, trade 

16 associations, Dunn and Bradstreet reports, product 

17 databases, and manufacturer websites, we identified a 

18 total of 83 businesses that were considered – that 

19 fell into these categories that actually manufactured 

the products that are being covered in the rulemaking. 

21 And of those, 48 were considered to be small 

22 businesses, which is 58 percent. And even though 58 

23 percent is a significant number, based on the changes, 

24 that DOE has determined that there aren’t enough 

alterations to the testing procedure to have a cost 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

70 

1 impact. 

2 So DOE is proposing to certify that there 

3 are no substantial impacts to a significant number of 

4 small businesses. And we’ll take questions or 

comments. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments or 

7 questions? Okay. 

8 MS. WILLIAMSON: I think Lucas is going to 

9 finish us up. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So that takes us then to the 

11 concluding slide and as I promised at the outset, 

12 there is yet another opportunity for anyone to make 

13 closing remarks, raise issues that haven’t been raised 

14 fully so far. Stephanie. 

MS. SALMON: Oh, I just wanted to thank 

16 everyone at DOE for doing this today. It was very 

17 helpful. I know that PMI will go back and be able to 

18 expand on some of the things that we’ve already 

19 commented on and help clarify, so thank you very much 

for doing this today. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed Osann. 

22 Closing Remarks 

23 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann with NRDC. A couple 

24 points that didn’t – that we wanted to make that 

wasn’t quite sure where they fit in during the flow of 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

71 

1 the presentation. 

2 One has to do with regard to the fixtures, 

3 field adjustability. The Water Sense specification 

4 provides for the testing of field adjustability with a 

separate set of maximum flush volumes with the 

6 components set at their maximum. It’s – we think it’s 

7 a good idea to test field adjustability, but we don’t 

8 see that DOE is really authorized to provide for a 

9 procedure that will allow the product to perform above 

the maximum flush volume specified in the standard. 

11 So this is an area that I think could use some 

12 attention at this point in the test procedure, 

13 particularly as you consider the elements that are in 

14 the Water Sense specification, or that support the 

Water Sense specification. And as those elements are 

16 also being considered by ASME for potential 

17 incorporation into the next version of this standard. 

18 Another issue that hasn’t come up has to do 

19 with phantom flushes or superfluous flushes that 

result from sensor operation that is, you’d have to 

21 say, faulty. And there is no current test procedure 

22 either adopted by DOE or Water Sense, or ASME, 

23 regarding the accuracy of sensor operation. The 

24 effect of that is to allow for substantial excess 

usage per user experience you might say, and this is 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

72 

1 not just an ancient history. There are plenty of 

2 instances of relatively new products that perform in 

3 this way. There’s also literature indicating that, in 

4 before and after comparisons of facilities that have 

had sensors installed, that water consumption in water 

6 closets has gone up like 50 percent. So this is a gap 

7 in the current test procedure, that we think DOE ought 

8 to consider addressing. 

9 And one way of considering some of these 

issues – and leakage is another issue that’s been well 

11 known for a long time in the industry, both 

12 manufacturers and also the utility industry, that a 

13 lot of toilets leak for a variety of reasons. There 

14 is a leakage test that ASME has adopted in ASME 

A112.19.5-2011, flush valves and spuds for water 

16 closets, urinals and tanks – has a leakage procedure 

17 that DOE could consider incorporating by reference as 

18 well. 

19 This leads to kind of a larger question of 

how the standard is expressed and whether a test 

21 procedure could be developed that would perhaps be 

22 based on annual water use with some assumed usage 

23 factor that would capture losses between the 

24 intentional user-activated flushing events, somewhat 

analogous to an annual requirement for dishwasher 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

73 

1 that’s based upon a DOE assumed numbers of annual 

2 dishwashing events, and the tested results of power 

3 consumption that take place between those purposeful 

4 user activated events. The same with clothes washers. 

And as DOE has responded to the directive 

6 with regard to power losses, there’s really an 

7 analogous area of concern regarding the water 

8 consumption that is above and beyond the specific 

9 user-activated event. And this might be an 

appropriate time for DOE to consider whether a test 

11 procedure could be framed up that could capture more 

12 fully the water consumption of these products, which 

13 is really what it’s all about. 

14 We’ll provide some additional 

recommendations along those lines for the record. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments as we 

17 move towards closure? Shabbir, your comments please. 

18 MR. RAWALPINDIWALA: Yes, Shabbir 

19 Rawalpindiwala, Kohler Company. The ASME/CSA 

harmonization committee and subsequently the 

21 respective technical committees, as recent as last 

22 week of the ASME, they sanctioned the incorporation of 

23 the EPA Water Sense water closet specification into 

24 the standard, so that will be balloted, and hopefully 

when the new edition of the 19.2 standard will be 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

74 

1 published in 2013, it will have the requirements of 

2 EPA Water Sense which will include the maximum 

3 capacity of the water closet tank, and the 

4 adjustability also. 

As regards to the leakage, the 19.5 standard 

6 which is for trim, had that since about close to ten 

7 years ago, the leakage rate where the flapper has to 

8 meet the chemical requirement resistance test, which 

9 has considerably almost stopped the leakage of the 

water closets due to the faulty or deteriorated 

11 flappers. Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s it. Okay, 

13 then, back to Lucas. 

14 Next Steps and Closing Remarks 

MR. ADIN: Thank you all for your comments 

16 and participation today, we greatly appreciate it. 

17 This is all very helpful to us as we move forward 

18 towards finalizing an approach for these products and 

19 the test methods. So we of course encourage you to 

submit written comments and include as much detail as 

21 you’re able about your views, and any other data or 

22 analyses that might help us adopt an appropriate final 

23 approach for these products. 

24 There’s some information here about how to 

submit the comments. This is also in the NOPR notice 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

75 

1 itself. And some points of contact and places to find 

2 information about them. So that’s about it, unless 

3 there are any other – 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: I would make one more 

comment. For those of you that are not familiar with 

6 the Forrestal Building, we didn’t take a break so I 

7 didn’t say this. You must wear this visible, these 

8 name badges, while you’re walking around the Forrestal 

9 building. There are rest rooms on both ends of the 

hall if you’d like to head in that direction now, and 

11 if you’re going to hang around here for lunch, then 

12 there is a Subway shop on the ground floor and there’s 

13 a big cafeteria about 100 yards in that direction. Go 

14 down to the ground floor and go that way if you’re not 

leaving. 

16 So I’ll just echo Lucas’ thoughts and say 

17 thank you. We had a very productive meeting. Thanks 

18 for your participation, and safe travels. 

19 MR. ADIN: And thanks to all the web 

participants for you participation as well. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: That as well. 

22 (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the meeting in the 

23 above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

24 

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064 
 

 

 

76 

1 

 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 

This is to certify that the attached proceedings
 

before: 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 


In the Matter of: 


PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR 

PLUMBING PRODUCTS 

Were held as herein appears and that this is the 


original transcript thereof for the file of the 


Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 


or the Agency. 


Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 


party to the above proceedings. 


Wendy Greene 

Official Reporter 


Dated: July 27, 2012 


Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064