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, MD2 **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) 565-00643 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) 565-00644 **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) 565-00645

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) 565-00645

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) 565-00645

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) 565-00645

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) 565-00645

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 8

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 30 th . 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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 1 9

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 13 th , 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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 8

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 2 9

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 8

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 3 9

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 0

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 Investor

13 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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 8

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 4 9

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 8

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 5 9

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 5

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 6

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 7

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 8

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 6 9

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 0

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 1

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 2

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 3

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 4

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) 565-00645

10

15

20

25 7 5

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) 565-00647 6

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 appe ars and that this is the original transcript ther eof for the file of the Department, Commissio n, Board, Adminis trative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neith er counsel for or related to any party to the abo ve proceedings.


### Wendy Greene Official Reporter Dated: July 27, 2012

Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064