1 Page | 1 

### U.S. Department of Energy

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group Meeting Summary—Second Meeting Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C. January 30-31, 2014

Members in Attendance Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) Robert Barbour TACO, Inc. Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process Greg Case Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics (Hydraulic Institute) Gary Fernstrom California IOUs Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation Albert Huber Patterson Pump Company Paul Lin Regal Beloit (alter nate for Howard Richardson) Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Doug Potts American Water Charles Powers Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps

Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Greg Towsley Grundfos USA Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council

Doug Brookman Facilitator, Public Solutions, Inc.

Additional Attendees Bob Asdal, Robert Boteler, Abigail Chingas, Da niel Cohen, Charles Fost er, Elizabeth Kohl, John Masters, Laura Petrillo-Groh, Douglas Potts , Doug Rawland, Callie Reis, Steve Thompson, Daniel Weintraub, Benjamin White, John White , Jr., John White III, Sarah Widder, Alison

Williams

Day 1—Working Group Meeting #2, January 30, 2014 Facilitator Doug Brookman called the Working Gr oup (WG) meeting to order and welcomed all present at 10:25AM.

The WG proceeded with introductions around the room. The facilitator described the proposed agenda for the next two days, with the follo wing agenda elements compiled by DOE and the

consultant team:

 Definition of covered product

 Scope of the negotiation

 Metric for pump efficiency2 Page | 2  Data requests and data needs

 Agenda-setting looking ahead (logistics, etc.)

In opening remarks, one member made appreciative comments about the information packet that

DOE had sent to members in advance. He continued, asking whether this information represented ‘recommendations’ from DOE. Lucas Adin clarified that this information was not to be “characterized specifically as recommendations, but more as general proposals for the purposes of stimulating discussi on”, not a predetermination on th e part of DOE. He continued that the presentation slides were intended as in formational, a starting po int for discussion based

on both research and the Framew ork meeting. What followed wa s discussion on the quality and importance of the data and a request that any pr e-meeting send-out material be sent earlier if possible.

Definition of a Covered Product (p.20)

Discussion turned to the definition of covere d product and whether the definition should be broad or narrow. DOE presented a draft proposed definition on the screen: “Pump is a device, inclusive of mechanical equipment, driver, an d—when present—controls, that moves fluids by physical or mechanical action”.

One member advocated for a narrow definition because DOE’s definition of a covered product could preempt states from implementing their own energy efficiency regulations. Another member raised the issue of scope of inclus ion, whether, for example, distributors could effectively buy parts of pumps and, in an asse mbly process, create f unctioning pumps but evade regulation. Betsy Kohl clarifie d that DOE’s regulatory authority applies to manufacturers.

Alison Williams clarified that “the definition of the covered product does not necessarily refer to what you’re (the WG) is going to set standards on ”. Lucas Adin laid out DOE’s general approach to definitions: typically DOE cr eates a broad definition but then chooses various classes or types of products for which standards will apply.

Discussion continued on the array of possible pump configurations , variations and definitions. One member suggested that a helpful approach might be to determine the scope of coverage first,

then create a definition that f its with the products included in that scope. Returning, the

discussion turned to the definiti on being centered on clean water vs . fluids. Several individuals clarified, again, that the definition of covered pr oduct (pump) could be quite broad—and there is a utility in that approach—and that would not pre-determine the product classes that the WG

would or could set standards for. Detailed discussion continued on various approaches and configurations and how they would be included in a definition. Several members indicated that they were probably not ready to vote for a defi nition during this meeting. A member raised again the concern that a broad definition of a covered product could preempt or prohibit state

action.

Returning to the previous issue of whether a distributor independe ntly doing assembly would be subject to standards, Betsy Kohl clarified th at the definition of ‘manufacture’ could be interpreted broadly. She conti nued, “the definition of ‘manufact ure’ in Section 6291 of EPCA means to manufacture, produce, assemble, or im port. So we would have some additional flexibility”.3 Page | 3 Discussion continued referring to DOE’s list of proposed definitions. One member stated, and

other members of manufacturer’s caucus confir med, that ‘bare pump’ was term both useful and acceptable. Next the WG confirmed the use of term ‘driver’ as the mechanical mover and generally confirmed the proposed definition for ‘c ontrols’. Both general and more specific discussion ensued, however, this was a still pre liminary discussion and there was no more than general agreement. The WG returned to making specific edits to the draft definitions. The specific edits were sent to members for their review over the lunch hour.

Scope of the Negotiation (p.104) Discussion began on the scope of the negotiation. One member suggested that the discussion start with the list of exclusions and parameters on slide page 6 & 7 and then return to the more detailed listing of pump types on page 5.

As an overview, Lucas Adin provided a general sense of DOE’s thinking about the types of pumps that might be included or excluded in the draft Scope for Negotiation chart on page 5. He continued, that what DOE was offering for the WG’s review for coverage “was a group of pumps that are in relatively wide use that ha ve significant energy consumption for which we could likely achieve cost-j ustifiable energy savings”.

The discussion turned to the listed potential ex clusions (handout p.6) with specific comments and edits to list. Lucas Adin clarified that the pu rpose of this discussion was to get some general agreement on whether the WG agreed to categorically include or exclude cert ain types of pumps. In detailed discussion, the WG generally agreed to the listed exclus ions (although specific definitions were still needed), including:

 Wastewater, sump, slurry, solids handling

 API 610 pumps

 ASME/ISO Chemical pumps

 UL& FM Fire Pumps (which meet FPA 20)

 Self-priming pumps

 Prime-assisted pumps

One member reminded the WG that the Hydraulic Institutes (HI) original recommendations were focused on harmonizing with the EU Lot 11 and clean water pumps.

Parameters (p.140) Upon returning from lunch the Working Group revi ewed handout slide p. 7. One member added that he wanted to add positive displacement pumps to list of exclusions. A member of the energy efficiency caucus confirmed they agreed with adding it to the list of exclusions. Discussion returned to slide 7. The listed parameters were co nsistent with HI’s proposal (for Lot 11 pumps). One member noted that harmonizing with the EU’s lot 11 made sense where possible. With a brief survey, the facilitator confirmed that members generally accepted harmonization as a concept/goal. A member noted that the EU a pproach would not adequately account for/include circulators, which he had stated earlier could be a possible c overed product.

The discussion turned to clarificat ions and edits to each specific parameter. After considerable discussion one member clarified that these para meters applied only to Lot 11 pumps, “we can4 Page | 4 decide if there’s another parameter list for ot her things”. There was lengthy discussion on whether 3 inch pumps or other non-four inch or non-six inch pumps woul d be covered based on this list of parameters. That lead to a reiteration of the possi bility of a phased approach: the scope of this rulemaking would be largely consis tent with the HI propos al (and remain aligned with Lot 11); then, given a schedule and a commitment from DOE, commence a second rulemaking to take up other products, such as circ ulators, not included in the HI proposal. Members of the EE caucus expressed concern about the time lapse, and energy savings lost, between the two proceedings. Adding on, anothe r member suggested that the WG be guided by the greatest opportunities for savi ngs, as DOE would typically do.

The discussion turned to the adequacy of cove rage for 3 inch pumps, whether “6 inch and smaller” covers it and/or whether the speed need s to be modified. Sarah Widder clarified that these parameters have important implications for the test procedure. On e member suggested that Best Efficiency Point (BEP) needed to be inse rted. The manufacturer’s caucus requested an opportunity to meet and the meeti ng paused for its afternoon break.

Returning from the break, a member of the manu facturer’s caucus conf irmed their agreement that horsepower be defined as one to two hundr ed horsepower at BEP and also confirmed that the measure should be shaft power. The member al so clarified that flow and head are also at

BEP. In extensive extended discussion members described the differences and gaps between the parameters that HI proposed (and DOE listed) an d the possible/real disc onnects with the EU’s technical specifications. Members agreed th at the parameter listing on page 7 was more categorical, maybe not specific enou gh and clearly not as specific/d escriptive as the detailed EU documentation. Greg Case representing HI volunteer ed to “take on the task of recreating this document with the correct speeds for the U.S. industry and we will submit to the DOE consultants”....to be uploaded on the SharePoint site . He indicated the task will be completed by the middle of February. Following on, a member of the manufacturer caucus made another appeal for the WG to use the HI nomenclature in the future. Alison Williams responded that, to date, the consultant team had not done that because the HI labels would not be inclusive enough. She suggested for the time being the consultant t eam would need to continue to ‘dual label’ individual pump types.

Continuing the review of the presentation sl ides, Alison Williams described how the GreenYellow-Red Chart labelled Scope for the Negotia tion (handout page 5) was created. The green items are essentially HI’s proposed scope; th e yellow items were pumps that DOE has considered for coverage in the Framework Docu ment, including a few recent clarifications; and, the red items, generally, did not fit into the general scope of clean water centrifugal pumps

and/or were on the exclusions list. Members questioned the in clusion of the item ‘non-clean water pumps’ in the red list. After discussion th at item was removed and ‘clean water pumps’ was added to the list of para meters on page 7 of the handout.

Circulator Pumps (p.264) Alison Williams began to describe the data that DOE had compiled on circulators, comparing HI’s estimate with information submitted by the Ca lifornia IOUs. The consultant team arrived at

an estimate of 1.5 million wet rotor units shi pped annually and, maybe, annual operating hours of 2,160 hours. She summarized these data as .57 terawatt hours annual energy use “based on 1.75 Page | 5 million shipments, 2,160 hours, one-tenth horse power hydraulic and assumed 50 percent motor and pump efficiency”. One member commented th at these estimates alone of annual energy use make circulators comparable to some other prom inent pump categories, and, therefore, “it strikes me we’re in a range of being very careful a bout excluding it”. Anothe r member added, that it seemed “there’s a lot of opportunity in these smaller type pumps”.

Another member commented that he had fourteen circulators on a test stand, so “in the next month or two we’ll have some actual perfor mance measurements”. A member asked for clarification, if testing circulators was easy or ev en possible. Sarah Widd er replied that the EU

had a test method and the consultant team wa s utilizing it to do some measurements on the hydraulic output and power input to the motor, sort of a wire to water test. Continuing, she clarified that “there’s probably intricacies to th e test procedure to desi gn a representative test procedure for circulators versus clean water pum ps.....but it is certainly feasible to” do these

measurements.

Continuing, a member asked if an ‘official’ te st procedure was established or could be established during the time frame of the rulema king? A manufacturer confirmed that “HI does not currently have a circulator test standard”, but work is underway to create one. The member estimated that it would take four years to complete one. Lucas Adin confirmed that DOE expected that a test procedure would need to be completed du ring the negotiation, that a test procedure was necessary to establish a cost-justifia ble standard. The manufacturer clarified that HI was in the process of finishi ng its pump test procedure standa rd (40.6) and that would address the pumps included in HI’s proposed scope.

Returning to circulators, a manufacturer said that an EU test procedure is not workable for the U.S. because the applications are so different. In considerable discussion, several members described the complexities, the multiple variables and issues involved in establishing an effective test procedure.

Following on, there was considerable discussi on the number of hours th at circulators would typically be in use. Estimates ranged from 2,160 hours (HI estimate) to one European study which documented 2,250 of use, to 4,000 hours for commercial applicati ons (P. 299). The discussion expanded to include estimates of terawa tt hours saved. Greg Case clarified that HI’s estimates were for 1.9 terawatt hours per year savings for the MEI (HI proposal) and an additional 9.7 terawatt hours per year based on the extended product approach; a total of 14 terawatt hours savings per year by 2035.

Mark Handzel gave a brief ove rview presentation on circulat or pumps (p.313) providing: a definition, which referenced residential and commercial uses; potentia l applications/uses; differentiating between a typical American and Eu ropean system and pump types; typical wet rotor systems range from 40 – 240 watts motor output, single or multi-speed, flange sizes from three-quarters to one and a half inches and flow range about 130 gpm to a maximum foot head of 55 feet. He described a second type: dry rotor pumps, not as widely used, with more limited horsepower. A third type is CP3, also a dry roto r that requires lubrication. He described the European market and regulatory scheme, impl emented in 2013, on rotor circulators up to 2,500 watts. He closed by urging that circulators be considered in a separate rulemaking.6 Page | 6 In a discussion about the potential for switching to ECMs, a manufacturer said that domestic manufacturers were moving toward ECMs; howev er, he cautioned that switching, even over a 5 – 7 year period, would create a large burden on manufacturers and would result in closing manufacturing facilities in U. S. and importing pumps from overseas. Another manufacturer echoed this statement (p.337)

The discussion turned to timing of a prospectiv e rulemaking. Lucas Adin confirmed that once a

rule was finalized manufacturers would have five years to meet the new standard. He did not know whether it was possible for DOE to extend the start of the compliance period beyond five years. A member asked if the WG decided to pursue a limited scope for this rulemaking, could DOE initiate another rulemaking in within the next year for product classes not covered? Lucas replied that he thought that wa s possible, but needed to ge t confirmation. A manufacturer advocated for the WG to consider a ‘tiered’ appro ach to standard setting. In this case, like the EU, a standard would be set and also establish a schedule for the efficiency levels to increase

over time.

The discussion turned to a review of some additi onal slides and clarifications on descriptions of individual pumps and the nomenclature (labelle d Lot 11+ Parts 1 & 2—pages 9 & 10) that the WG might consider for inclusion. Manufacturer s made detailed comments about specific pump types and how they would be characterized and categorized.

The focus turned to a preliminary estimate of shipments (handout page 12) (page 363). Alison

Williams described that the estimates were deri ved from individual manufacturer’s estimates of their market shares on different pump types. Alison described other features of the estimates and acknowledged that there were ‘huge ranges’ for some of the estimates. Members expressed many concerns about the numbers presented an d detailed why these estimates could be significantly flawed.

Moving to slide 13 Shipment Distribution by HP, one member commented that the distribution looked “reasonably accurate”. Two additional manufacturers agreed with that statement (p.390). Then Alison reviewed slide 15, referring to th em as “super-rough estimates” and detailed the methodology and some of the anticipated defici encies. There was detailed and lengthy discussion on gaps and potentia l errors in the estimates.

The facilitator and Lucas Adin both made rema rks looking ahead to Day 2. Both referred to Page 5 of the handout as being a significant pl ace holder and reference point for the discussion on scope. The Day 2 Agenda will also include di scussions on a potential metric to rate pump efficiency as well as the test procedure.

The WG adjourned at 6PM.

Day 2—Working Group Meeting #2, January 31, 2014 Attendance: All members present for Day 1 were also present for Day 27 Page | 7 Meeting facilitator Doug Brookman welcomed th e WG members at 8:05AM. All members and attendees present introduced themselves. The facilitator reviewed the Day 2 Agenda:

 Opening remarks

 Testing overview

 Test procedures

 Data requests

 Agenda setting looking ahead

 Closing remarks

In opening remarks, one member commented th at yesterday’s convers ation was beneficial— ‘some of it was tough and frank but we made progress’.

Testing Overview (p.9) Lucas Adin provided a brief conceptual overview: how a metric to measure efficiency will be used and the linkage between the metric to the ac tual testing to comply with a standard. One member expressed a specific in terest in understanding “the tes ting opportunities and complexity

relative to circulators”.

Alison Williams started with presentation material (handout slide 20), noting that a metric for DOE must describe energy efficiency or ener gy use and must be a si ngle descriptor. She continued referring to various possible pump conf igurations, potentially including a bare pump, a bare pump + motor, or a bare pump + motor + co ntrols combination. One member stated that manufacturers typically don’t test every pump. Alison clarified that a manufacturer would not need to test every pump, but would have to take data on the ‘whole or basic model’ so that then you can ‘certify’ that you have complied. She went on to describe many possible ways to measure based on the different pump configuratio ns—one of which would be to take your pump model data an combine it with, for example, the efficiency of the motor you are pairing it with. Members raised several issues regarding th e complexity of making these measurements, especially when pairing takes place—when going beyond a stand-alone bare pump configuration.

A wide-ranging discussion followed, which covered practicalities. Members raised the issue of integration—should these units be tested as a w hole unit? Would wire to water testing be a practical way, with an understood margin of erro r, to diminish the testing burden and still get

reliable results? Could you use a standardized value to repr esent motor efficiency so you could then make comparisons across different pumps ? How would extended product be measured?

In discussion, the members and th e consultant team described th e elements of a basic testing

construct: a manufacturer would test a bare pump by whatever m eans are established; then, you would assume a motor efficiency (for some comp liant, certified motor) and calculate a combined efficiency. You would pull that efficiency rating for the motor out of the DOE tables. (DOE would probably specify the kind of motors to be used in the calcula tion if this method is used.) This would be an accurate test for the bare pum p because every other aspect of the test is standardized (p.60). There was lengthy discussi on on how this construct would or could work and the impacts on HI’s MEI/EEI proposal, domesti c manufacturing jobs and many other issues. The manufacturers requested a caucus.8 Page | 8 Returning from caucus, the manu facturers requested more info rmation. A member of the EE caucus reiterated that their principal goal is si gnificant energy savings and there seems to be significant potential in encourag ing extended product applications with variable speed drives (VSD).

Referring to slides, Sarah Widde r described a basic extended pr oduct testing construct, as follows (p.94): “you set up a pump; you’re m easuring the energy use of a pumping system, including the driver and controls at 100 percent of BEP flow; then, measure that same energy use at 75 percent of BEP flow, allowi ng the VSD to reduce the speed of the motor and attain a lower energy use condition......and then measure again at the energy use of the system at 50 flow condition and 25 percent flow condition...not actua lly measuring every single combination of motors, controls and pumps, (but rather,) “all th ose three components at these four rating points. And we are considering doing that with a calculat ion method, so that the different combinations

of motors and drivers an d controls and pumps can be considered analytically or be a calculation. You don’t have to test every....all the thous ands of combinations you might have”.

Sarah continued “theoreticall y, you would just measure the sh aft horsepower provided to the pump at these rating points. Then you would ha ve your standardized motor nameplate efficiency that would be applied to that brake horsepower supplied to the pump, and then a determination of VSD efficiency that would need to be accounted for. So additional, you know, losses that are associated with the controls (p.97)..... And then fo r an uncontrolled system, so if we take it back, we have a motor and a pump, or a driver and a pump with no controls, you would start at the same location, but you would be moving on the pump curve, not on the system curve, at those same four load points. And this would just be what -- essentially what you would achieve if you throttled the system back to thos e same four flow conditions”. In the bare pump case, it could be sold with any number of motors, and you are ju st certifying the bare pump and then using a number that is provided as part of the test procedure (p.99). Continuing, she explained that the idea is to capture input power to the input ener gy to the pump which includes a motor/driver and controls (p.102). Sarah confirmed that th is proposal was based on HI’s EEI metric.

Lucas Adin, answering a question about whether this method simply confirms affinity laws, summarized: “we are providing a standardized way to quantify the difference, and understanding that specific installations and systems are going to be different in actual application. But it provides a numerical energy saving s estimate of what that actua l difference is for those two different” (conditions).

Detailed discussion continued on the metric and how it would be applied. One member laid out several limitations/problems, both measurement issues and cost, that could emerge in real world usage (p.120). Another member questioned how testing could be done with VFDs since no

standards exist for them. An AHRI staff member contribut ed that AHRI 1210 does provide a way to find the VSD or VFD efficiency. Lengthy discussion continued on the difficulties of applying VFDs.

Definitions and Scope (p.157)9 Page | 9 In discussion, members raised several pump types that they thought should be on the exclusions list (handout p. 6) but were not. They include d marine/Navy/nuclear and food and beverage plant pumps. HI volunteered to do some resear ch and come back with more information.

The facilitator offered an approach for furthe r consideration of scope : following Tom Eckman’s suggestion, that “everything is guilty until proven innocent”, consider that all pump types are in scope until the WG decides, using our decision rules, they should not be in scope. After discussion, the facilitator offered the same fundame ntal scoping concept/logic as a proposal for a

vote.

Noting that a quorum was present, the WG voted unanimously to accept the proposal.

Returning to handout slide 6, the WG reviewed the list of pumps (included in red) that were discussed on Day 1 as possible items to be ex cluded from the WG’s scope. The facilitator offered that these pump types seemed fully vett ed on Day 1 and were probably ready for a vote to see if they should all be excl uded. One member offered that th e categories seemed ready to be

excluded but that more detailed definitions we re needed so the WG knew what specifically would be excluded. After more discussion, the faci litator identified the pu mp types in red that were proposed to be excluded, including**:

 Axial/mixed flow

 Positive displacement

 (The non-clean water was moved to the parameter slide)

 Wastewater, sump, slurry, solids handling pumps

 API 610 and ANSI chemical process pumps

 Fire pumps

 Self-priming/prime assist pumps

Not included for exclusion at this point were other pump types listed or added: marine/Navy/nuclear, sanitary pumps and pumps out side certain parameters of power, flow head,

temperature etc.

Next Betsy Kohl, from DOE GC, described tw o legal issues. Rega rding preemption, she reported that the issue was complicated enough that individuals outside of the WG need to be consulted. As a result, DOE did not have an answer today but will convey something prior to the next meeting. She continued on the issue of a di stributor potentially se rving as a manufacturer:

the definition in EPCA of manu facture includes assembly. However, DOE wants to get more

information from members about the nature and numbers of i ndividuals/groups who might be doing the assembling—the ramifications of includi ng them in the definitio n. She requested that members provide DOE with more information. The discussion that followed was a detailed description of manufacturers experience, and the roles thei r distributors play. (p.204)

Next, Gary Fernstrom gave a brief presentati on on testing work underway on some circulator pumps. The slides showed the pumps mounted on pump stands. Gary said that they would measure all the electrical variables: voltage, cu rrent, watts, power factor, volt-amps, harmonics, etc. and that they were planning to use the EU co ntrol test and determine the intrinsic efficiency of the pump and motor.10 Page | 10 Possible Definition of a Covere d Product (handout p. 3, p.218) Lucas Adin provided context for the definition: it is intended to be broad, to encompass the range of pumps DOE has the authority to regulate. One member raised objections to establishing a very broad definition, as it would preempt the st ates from regulating any pump type for which DOE did not specifically set standards. He was in favor of a definition th at would conform more precisely to what DOE chooses to regulate. A member of the ma nufacturer caucus restated that their preference was “commonality across the market, so we don’t have to deal with different requirements from one state to the next to the next”.

The discussion turned to the definition of clean water and a review of the EU definition which

clarified that various additions c ould be made. Gray water, sea water and glycol, etc. would still

be covered in clean water de finition, but to limit the incl usion of solids-handling pumps.

General Description of Pump Components (handout p.4, p.234) The members returned briefly to a discussion on definitions of pump components, although they were discussed quite thoroughly on Day 1. A me mber raised again whether marine, Navy and

nuclear could be excluded. Various members said they were receptive but wanted more information. A HI representative said they would create more complete definitions for the next meeting.

The discussion returned to the table listing pumps in red on handout page 5. The WG considered

whether to exclude almost all of those listed. Three classes of pumps were removed from consideration at this point, wait ing on more information: marine /Navy/nuclear, sanitary pumps and pumps outside certain parameters of power, flow head, temperature etc.

The facilitator asked the WG memb ers to vote on the listed pump types, to exclude them from the scope of the negotiation. The WG unanimously agree to exclude the six items listed (see ** above).

The discussion turned to items listed in yello w on table on handout page 5. One member suggested the WG adopt/accept the green listed pumps as being in scope and wait on more data before it considers the yellow listed items. A nother member, reflecting on the shipments data, said there was so much variation for both yellow and green categories, that he was reluctant to decide on any of it until better sh ipments data emerged. Other members agreed that more data

was needed before a decision co uld be made. Two members aske d DOE about their capacity to conduct the necessary analysis: if asking for in formation on both yellow and green items would slow down getting some part of the analysis don e? Another member provided a lot of very detailed comments on definitions (p.264). Several members commented on deficiencies of data and wondered about whether the survey provide d sufficient detail. The consultant team described difficulties in obtaining data.

A member of the manufacturer’s caucus said that data would con tinue to be an issue because much of the industry does not track data in the wa y DOE requested it. He reiterated that if DOE could say they would support a ‘phased approach’ (and accept as scope HI’s proposal for this rulemaking)11 Page | 11 and commit to start another rulemaking “starting ne xt year for all the other items here we can’t seem to get to, then I think we can reach an agreement and get moving with this thing and get something accomplished”.

Lucas Adin responded, “that at least from legal st andpoint there is no problem with that, we can do that” (commit to doing a phased approach)....”we can finish th is rulemaking and immediately go into that one. It is really a question of the pr actical aspects, the feasibility for the program and our resources. That is something we would n eed to look at more carefully”.....before we could make some kind of commitment (p.275).

Exclusions & Parameters (p.283)

The discussion turned the list of potential excluded items on page 6 of the handout. Alison confirmed that she had been making edits to th e handout as the conversation had proceeded and that the revised document would be posted. In discussion, there was further clarification on how to accurately describe fire pumps. In addition, me mbers returned to the other elements that could be a part of clean water and whether they would affect the test procedure.

In summarizing, the facilitator conc luded that after these very deta iled discussions a lot had been accomplished. While some definitional work still need to be done and the definition of a covered product may not be resolv ed, the other subsequent slides: the general description of the pump components, exclusions and paramete rs are quite close to resolution.

The discussion continued on the definition of cl ean water and whether it was suitable as a parameter. Discussion included the that on purpose of an effectiv e definition was verification and

enforcement. Several manufacturers noted that there was no confusion in the industry and among their customers about what a clean water pu mp is and what is not a clean water pump.

Following up from the last meeting, the WG c onsidered changing its meeting times. One

member said the manufacturers were all in DC th e night prior to the meeting, so starting at 9AM would work for them. In surveying the room ev eryone agreed that subsequent meetings should start at 9AM on end at 5PM on Day 1 and start at 8AM and end at 3PM on Day 2.

Finally, at the WG’s last meeting a few individuals offered to host meetings of the WG, specifically in San Francisco or Chicago. The WG decided it would discuss this further in its March 4-5 meeting.

The WG adjourned at 3PM

Meeting summary prepared by Doug Brookman publicsolutions@earthlink.net March 1, 2014