1

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com #2GG
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

+ + + + + DISHWASHER TEST PROCEDURE
PROPOSED RULE

+ + + + + PUBLIC WORKSHOP

+ + + + + Tuesday, November 2, 1999

+ + + + +

The workshop met in Room 1E-245, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Edward Pollock presiding.
PRESENT: EDWARD POLLOCK, DOE LOU KERESTESY, Facilitator NATASCHA CASTRO, NIST BARBARA TWIGG, DOE RANDY COOPER, Maytag ROBERT DuPONT, Product Vision and Reality TOM ECKMAN, Northwest Power Planning Council MARK EDWARDS, BSH Home Appliances2

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com CHRISTINE EGAN, ACEEE ERNST GRUNEWALD, Whirlpool3

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com PRESENT (Continued): KYRAN HOFF, General Electric TOM JOHNSON, Maytag ROBERT JUDD, Whirlpool CHRIS KAESER, BSH Home Appliances TED KLECZKO, Miele EUGENE MARGOLIS, DOE JAMES MILLS, FTC WAYNE MORRIS, AHAM STEVE PETERSON, Whirlpool DENNIS POINTER, Frigidaire GLENN SCHLEEDE, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. CHARLES STEPHENS, Oregon Department of Energy4

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S
PAGE Welcome, Edward Pollock, Jr. ......................4 Introduction of Proceedings, Barbara Twigg ........5 Introductions and Agenda Review, Lou Kerestesy ...11 Presentation and Discussion of Issues: Average Yearly Number of Cycles ............18 Repeatability of Testing ...................32 Definition for Compact and Standard Models..61 Test Procedure for Soil Sensing Models ...........67 Discussion of Weighting .........................204 Closing Remarks ................................2335

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (9:08 a.m.) MR. POLLOCK: Shall we get started? Good morning. My name is Ed Pollock. I am Director of the Office of Research and Standards, which has responsibility for developing the test procedures and standards for the appliances and for other products. I want to welcome all of you here this morning and thank you for all coming. It was what, about two years ago I remember standing around a couple of dishwashers out at NIST with Natascha as we went through some of the early test procedure steps to try to determine what is the most appropriate way to test these dishwashers would be. So it has been a fairly intensive amount of effort on the part of a number of you, and we appreciate the time that you have put in developing this test procedure. We look forward to moving now to discussing the final issues and getting this rule finalized and out there so that it can be used in certifying the efficiency of the different dishwashers that are on the market. And with that I'm going to turn it over to6

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Barbara. MS. TWIGG: Good morning. I'm Barbara Twigg. I am the team leader for the dishwasher project here at the Department of Energy. And you have already been introduced to Ed Pollock, the Director of our o ffice. This is Natascha Castro, who is our engineer consultant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Eugene Margolis from the Office of General Counsel here at the Department of Energy, and Mark Friedrichs is also on the team for our Policy Office, but I don't see him here yet. Please bear with me while I read some fairly standardized and a little bit boring remarks, but we need to enter this into the record. So on behalf of the department, I would like to thank you all for taking to participate in this public workshop. We've chosen the format of a public workshop for today's public hearing on our proposed rulemaking in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information in a more informal manner hopefully. This workshop is a forum for discussing the changes we proposed to the dishwasher test7

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com procedure published in the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on September 28th, 1999. The notice included an announcement of today's workshop. In addition to that notice, the department sent a letter on October 11th, 1999, to organizations who might have an interest in this rulemaking. Anyone attending this workshop or submitting written comments will be added to our list for future mailings. Materials related to this rulemaking will also be posted on our Web site at http, and I'll enter that into the record, but it's listed in the Federal Register notice that you have picked up today. Today the department is seeking comments on all facets of the proposed test procedure, including the new procedure and formulas for testing dishwashers using soil sensing technology, revised definitions for compact and standard models, some changes to the inputs for calculating the estimated annual operating cost, some new specifications to improve testing repeatability, and any other pertinent issues that you wish to bring to DOE's attention. The comments received here today, along with those submitted during the written comment8

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com period, will assist the department in developing the final rule for dishwasher test procedures. I am the presiding officer for the workshop. Lou Kerestesy will facilitate and set the guidelines for conducting the workshop. In approximately two weeks a complete copy of the transcript will be available for inspection and copying at DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room, located in Room 1E-190, which is right down the hall from here. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript may make arrangements with our court reporter up front. To provide the department with as much pertinent information and as many views as can be reasonably attained, and to enable inte rested persons to express their views, the workshop will be conducted in accordance with the following procedures. We will begin with introductions and review the agenda. We invite you to add issues you think are important but not already covered. Following the agenda review, we will move to the discussion topics. Natascha will make a brief statement about the proposed changes, and I will9

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com summarize any written comments we have received to date. Then we will open the floor to discussion. We will move through each topic identified by the department the same way and see what makes sense for any topics you might add to the agenda. We should have ample time to raise and discuss all important issues, but we would ask, however, that all participants refrain from making overly lengthy remarks so that everyone gets the floor time they need. A facilitator will enforce this ground rule and will also limit debate when speakers' points have been made and are clear. Questions are welcome throughout these presentations unless you are advised otherwise. It may be necessary, however, to cut off debate on some topics to remain on schedule, although there may be time at the of the workshop for additio nal discussion of significant issues. I encourage everyone present to participate as much as possible so that we can get a full spectrum of opinion on these issues. The workshop is scheduled to end at four10

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com o'clock today unless, of course, we finish early, which is likely I would think. Topics which have not been completely discussed by that time can be addressed in additional written comments, which are due by December 13th, 1999. All written comments and data submissions will be available for public inspection at DOE's Freedom of Information Room. The phone number there: (202) 586-6020. Please send your comments to Brenda Edwards-Jones here at the department, referring to Docket No. EE-RM-TP-99-500 when you respond. We would like to have ten copies of your comments and support data, along with an electronic copy of the comments or data using Word Perfect or Microsoft Excel. No fax comments will be accepted. Any person s ubmitting information which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete signed copy, plus ten copies and a copy on a disk from which information claimed to be confidential has been deleted. In accordance with the procedures established in 10 CFR, Part 1004.11, the Department of Energy will make its own determination as to whether11

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the information shall be exempt from public disclosure. Again, we appreciate the time and effort you've taken in preparing for this workshop, and we are pleased to receive your comments and opinions. Our purpose today is to listen to your views. This rulemaking stands as a good example of the need for test procedures to respond to changes in technology. When a new type of product enters the market, in this case dishwashers with soil sensing technology, we may need to update certain aspects of test procedures in order to continue to measure energy consumption accurately for all models. The new formulas for testing soil sensing machines provide the core of our proposal. In addition, we are proposing changes that would improve the accuracy and repeatability of some of the steps of the current test procedure, such as installation, conditioning, cycle requirements, for example. We also propose to bring a consistent federal definition to compact and standard size machines and to update the number of cycles per year to reflect current use patterns. Today, however, we are not planning to12

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com address the issue of standby power consumption in dishwashers, although the department recognizes the importance of this issue. We plan to develop consistent policy for all covered appliances on a program-wide basis and will not include standby power as part of an individual test procedure rulemaking at this time. As you can see from the agenda, we plan to start with the smaller issues and progress to the new procedure for testing the soil sensing machines, leaving plenty of time this afternoon for full overflow discussion as we grapple with such hard to pin down topics as how well does American rinse its dishes. The pretreatment percentage is an important component of measuring the energy and water consumption of soil sensing dishwashers, and it needs to be quantified as accurately as possible. We also need to understand the connection between pretreatment and the number and type of wash cycles. I would now like to introduce our facilitator, Lou Kerestesy, who will review the agenda, provide some housekeeping details, and13

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com describe how we're going to conduct the meeting.

Lou. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you, Barbara. Good morning. My name is Lou Kerestesy. I'll be the facilitator for the day. I'm going to just jump right into a few things. Yeah, let's do some introductions, and then we've got a couple of things to cover before we get to the work. Wayne, why don't we start with you? Let's go around and introduce yourself, name and affiliation. MR. MORRIS: I'm Wayne Morris with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. MR. COOPER: Randy Cooper with Maytag Appliances. MR. KERESTESY: Yeah, just shout it out. MR. JOHNSON: Tom Johnson with Maytag. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks. MR. POINTER: Dennis Pointer with Frigidaire. MR. JUDD: Bob Judd with Whirlpool Corporation, and I have with me Steve Peterson, Ernie Grunewald and Wayne Klug.14

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. MR. KLECZKO: Ted Kleczko, Miele, Incorporated. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon Office of Energy. MS. EGAN: Christine Egan, American Council for Energy Efficient Economy. MR. EDWARDS: Mark Edwards, BSH Home Appliances. MR. GAZER: Chris Gazer, BSH Home Appliances. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Did Gene and Beverly here -- MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, counsel for the program. MS. CASTRO: Natascha Castro, National Institute of Standards and Technology. MR. KERESTESY: Now we'll go in the back here. MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Planning Council. MR. DuPONT: Ron DuPont, representing Natural Resources Canada. MR. MILLS: James Mills, Federal Trade15

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Commission. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede, citizen, consumer, and taxpayer. MS. HOFF: Kyran Hoff, G.E. Appliances. (Inaudible introductions.) MR. KERESTESY: Thank you very much. And we also have a recorder today keeping everything micked and recorded for the record, and your name is? THE REPORTER: John. MR. KERESTESY: John. Thank you, John. A couple of quick housekeeping details. You probably have already found where the bathrooms and coffee is. Bathrooms are down the hall to the left. Either way? I found them down to the left, and there are some down to the right. And coffee shop or the snack bar where we can get some coffee and some things is one floor below this room. So if you can get the elevator and make your way around the corner, that will orient you to where that shop is and we'll talk about what lunch opportunities are at that time. When you speak, please do -- if you're at the table, be sure you pull a mic in front of you, and16

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com if you're not at the table, we want to get you to a mic to make a comment so it's recorded. I'll just take a minute to go over the morning part of the agenda. You have a package with you, and this is pretty clean. So there's not a lot to this. We're going to start with a brief presentation on each topic, a brief presentation by Natascha just to give some context for the discussion of that issue. She's got some Power Point slides, which are also printed for you; go over a few points, and then if there have been any written comments submitted relevant to that subject, Barbara will summarize those so that everybody knows what has been submitted. And then we will open it up to discussion. You understand the purpose of these workshops is to exchange information, identify some issues, have some discussion about the issues. We want to be sure that everybody has had a chance to make their points, have some time to make the points that you think are important. Some people have some slides with them or some overheads that we're going to use. We're not17

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com trying to do two things. There are two things we're not trying to do. One, we're not trying to reach agreement today on any of these particular points. The purpose of the workshop is information exchange and the identification and discussion of some issues. That doesn't mean we're going to reach agreement or consensus on the topics that we discuss. That's not the point of the event. And, two, there comes a point that there's a line that I'm going to watch for that I want to give you fair notice of now. When you've made your point and maybe you've made it twice, and maybe I let you make it two and a half times, but we're not looking to persuade each other in this day today. Especially the members of the department are here to hear information to take into consideration for the rulemaking. When your point has been made to the listeners, I'm going to cut you off, and we're going to move on. Fair enough? Fair enough, for everybody's sake so that everybody has some air time. Any questions before we start? I think that we -- yes, sir. MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris.18

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com I'd just like to ask if Barbara or Natascha could discuss at some point in time the procedure or the timetable as we move forward, what the next steps would be, and particularly with respect to implementation vis-a-vis the FTC. Since we've got James here, maybe he can talk to us a little bit about how this would correspond to the phase-in cycle for actually labeling the product. MR. KERESTESY: Do you want to cover that now or make a few notes about it and we'll cover it later? MS. TWIGG: Let's do that later. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. We'll do that later. Thanks, Wayne. We will do that. MS. TWIGG: It sort of depends on what we discover here in terms of where we're going and if we have new wrinkles MR. KERESTESY: Okay. We actually started a few minutes late, and we're actually now ahead of schedule by a few minutes, which is nice. We'll go to the 9:30 slot on the agenda, presentation and discussion of issues, and Natascha will. We're going to go through those one by one. So Natascha will show some slides on the average yearly19

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com number of cycles. If there are any written comments submitted, Barbara will read those, and then we'll have some discussion about that issue. I'm not sure who among you have -- I mean, if you've got comments, we're just going to have you raise your hand and we'll go in order and get everybody's comments. I know some of you have some material to show, and I'm not sure who that is. So let me know if you've got some slides or something that you want to put up.
PARTICIPANT: Are there other agenda items besides the one that Wayne brought up? MR. KERESTESY: Good question. Thank you. Is there any way in which you want to add to the agenda? Any topics that aren't on there that you want to add? PARTICIPANT: The NRC position on this. MR. KERESTESY: NRC position on these issues. Where would that most logically come? PARTICIPANT: I think it's at the end. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. Anything else to add to the agenda? (No response.) MR. KERESTESY: All right. So we have20

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com added NRC position and the timetable of the events to follow this workshop. Very good. MS. CASTRO: The first topic that I'd like to cover is the updating the average yearly number of cycles, and this number was last updated in 1983, and we've since had changes in consumer use of dishwashers, and we'd like to update that to reflect

current consumer use. Data was solicited for more recent survey years, and some data came forward from the Soap and Detergent Association. The average that came forward out of that data was 264 cycles per year, and that was an average of data representing survey years 1986 to
1996. And here in the chart, you'll see that there has been a downward trend. We're currently using an average use value of 322 cycles per year. An additional, more recent survey from Oregon reported 280 cycles per year. That also showed some variation depending on the household size, but currently we're looking at a new value of 264 cycles per year, which is that SDA average. And I'd like to open up the floor for discussion. I don't believe we have any comments.21

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: Any comments on that?
MS. TWIGG: No. MR. SCHLEEDE: My name is Glenn Schleede, citizen, consumer, and taxpayer. I've got about four questions that I can just lay them out, and then you can respond however you wish. The first question, on the public availability of the data from SDA. Are the data publicly available, and are data available that will permit judging the validity, reliability, and representativeness of those data? That's two questions. The third question is I notice in the data that there's a distinct downward trend in the numbers, going from 286 to 244 or 14 and a half percent, something like that, over a few years. Question: does SDA have any explanationfor that? Is it trends from eating out or preprepared food or what? And a question for DOE related to that: why pick the average of those numbers when there seems to be such a distinct downward trend? As far as the Oregon survey, since those people have such low subsidized electric rates out22

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com there, I can see why they would use the ir dishwashers more than people with higher rates. So I guess I wouldn't give that a whole lot of credibility. Fourth question is dispersion around these averages. Averages are useful in an economy where everyone wears size seven hats, but we have fairly wide differences in practices in this economy, and the question: is there date available on the dispersion around these averages so that one can see how much people would benefit or how much they would lose by forced to use an average weight for a number of cycles if a standard is based on that? That's the end of my questions. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you very much. I think we've been copying those down. Data availability; explanation of cycles; the rationale for picking the average; and the range or dispersion around the average. Do you want to start going through those and then we'll have some more discussion or do you want to get -- do you just want to list some topics? There are other hands. Why don't we put some topics up and then we'll -- Robert and then Wayne.23

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com PARTICIPANT: Go ahead. MR. MORRIS: Okay. Wayne Morris. We would like to make a comment about this, not a question. So I don't know whether you find it appropriate at this moment or you want to -- MR. KERESTESY: That's fine. Yeah, that's fine. MR. MORRIS: AHAM agrees with the number that the department has chosen, 264 cycles. We think it is indicative of the trends that we're seeing and in other data that is available of the use of dishwashers and, for that matter, other types of kitchen appliances. It is data that has been made available from the Soap and Detergent Association, graciously from them, to AHAM and thus to Department of Energy. Beyond the data that is available, I don't believe they had indicated they would be willing to provide additional data or break that data down. We do not have data as such to support the number. The number that the department chose is slightly more number of cycles than what AHAM had suggested, but we are willing to accept this. The information that we have had through24

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com customer surveys is that dishwashers are in larger capacity than they have been previously. Families do eat out more often than they do or did previously. There is more use of disposable containers for food packaging that are not placed in dishwashers, and in fact, we find that families are of slightly smaller size, as well, as dishwashers are beginning to be used more often in one and two-person families than they were traditionally, where they were found more often in large family homes or dwellings. So we think it is indicative of the overall situation. We do not have data to support whether this trend is going to continue or not continue. It is merely what is happening at the present time. Thank you. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Let me get some other questions for discussion. Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Natascha, is there fairly strong correlation in the data between family size and cycles? MS. CASTRO: I don't have information on25

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the family size from the SDA data. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So you really
can't -- MS. CASTRO: It was a national survey. I don't have -- MR. STEPHENS: And it didn't have family size in it? MS. CASTRO: No. It might have been asked. I haven't seen that data. The only data that was made available was the number of cycles per year. The question was asked on average how many cycles or how many loads are washed per week, and it was extrapolated for the year. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Is there any way to find out or get that data? Because I think when it comes time to talk about standards for dishwashers that data is going to be important. MR. KERESTESY: Other topics to get out? We had several that were mentioned, and I want to complete the list and then get to those. Christine. MS. EGAN: My question is whether or not the 280 number is included in the average. MS. CASTRO: It is not.26

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: Do you want to start the topical list? You've touched on a couple of things, but do you want to just go down that list now, those four questions? MS. CASTRO: Okay. MR. KERESTESY: And address those and we'll have some discussion about those. MS. CASTRO: All right. With regard to data availability, the informa tion that I got just for various survey years what the number of loads were week -- the average number of loads per week washed for the families that were surveyed. I believe ad ditional information was taken that hasn't been made available yet that I will request information regarding the family size. The explanation of cycles, I have heard the same reason for the number, the decrease in the number of cycles: more people eating out, but I've also heard that more recently that that trend might pick up, and that's why originally I looked at a trend line, and it projected a number even lower. But recently there's more interest in people starting to look at home. There's more use, and so that's one of the reaso ns we decided to go with27

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com an average. It's a bit more conservative. And I'd like to add that a reason that our average is higher than the AHAM data or the SDA data that came through AHAM was that I eliminated some intermediate points. I'll just point out that there was some additional data available for a '90-'91 survey and '92-'93 survey, and since that was imbalanced, I did not take a look at those, and that's why we came out with the average of 264. And the last question regarding dispersion around the averages, as I said, I only have a single point, a single data point for each survey year. If I have more information available, I'll make that available through Barbara Twigg. Okay? MR. KERESTESY: Yes, sir. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede again. If I could ask for further clarification, one is a question of availability of this data. Will it be available to the public? And second, with respect to the data, what do we have on the way the survey was conducted to know whether it is, in fact, representative, valid, and reliable? Lots of people can product lots of data,28

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com and it isn't necessarily any good unless you can tell whether it is, in fact, valid statistical data. You mentioned that there is information indicating that people are cooking at home more and so on. What basis is there in that? Are there data available to demonstrate that, statistical data, or what do you have that would justify that point and to suggest that the trend will change from what it apparently has been over the last seven or eight years? MS. CASTRO: Okay. I believe the data should be available. I have a few copies of it here, and if DOE agrees, I can just make that available today. Let me see. With regard to data available showing an increased cooking at home, I don't have data available. That came out of discussions trying to come up with possible reasons for this more recent upswing and explanations for the decreasing average dishwasher use. So I'm not aware of any survey that has those results available at this point. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede again. Where is the most recent upswing? I don't see that in the data.29

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. CASTRO: The '95-'96 survey year. MR. SCHLEEDE: Oh, okay. I see that. I confused that with the Oregon data. Okay. How about data on dispersion around the averages? MS. CASTRO: I do not have that data at this point. I think it will be a lot clearer. For those who are interested, I can make the SDA data available, and you'll see it's just single data points for each of those survey years. MS. TWIGG: There isn't anyone here from SDA related company, is there? Because we had invited them. I was hoping someone would come. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. May I make a comment in regard to this? Glenn, I know that your questi ons in regard to looking for additional data are someth ing that everybody would like to have. We don't, and we're not going to get it because Soap and Detergent Association was asked for additional data, and they don't have it from the manufacturers that presented it to them, and they're not going to make it available. Data has been used very successfully for many, many years in not only dishwashers, but also in30

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com clothes washers. The information from the Soap and Detergent Association on clothes washer cycles triangulated very well with the data that was presented in other usage surveys and was used for the setting of the cycles in the clothes washer rulemaking that was done previous and, indeed, was done in the test procedure work that was done about three years
ago. The manufacturers of dishwasher detergent have, if you will, a vested interest in making sure that that data is absolutely as accurate as they can do because they use it for inventory tr acking, and to them it is extremely important to know exactly how much dishwasher detergent is going to be used. So to our knowledge, there would be no reason why the number would be either overstated or understated on their part to present such data, and I think that that's why AHAM has suggested that it is a good use of material or data that is available. It is limited. It does not have all of the traditional data resources that we would normally like. That is not going to be made available because the companies consider that to be proprietary in

nature.31

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com I would agree with Charlie's comment that if the department does go forward with any rulemaking activities or wishes to do this in the future, that the department may wish to look at other ways of capturing the data. We would support anything that is a good, solid data set. This is the only thing we have right now, and it's the best we can come up with. MR. KERESTESY: Yes, sir. MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Plant Council. It would be helpful at least if we could get from the detergent manufacturers a description of the survey technique or process by which they collect the data so that we know sample size and things like that. The questions that were asked, unless it's basically an inventory tracking process where they fundamentally said, "We sold so much soap. This means that there are so many dishwashers out there and so many cycles a year," but if it was simply survey data, that would be useful to know the process by which the data was collected. And you know, if there are associated32

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com things like household income so that we can calibrate it with the Oregon survey, that would also be helpful. MR. KERESTESY: And that was part of your point about methodology. Christine, did you have your hand up to get in? MS. EGAN: I did. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. Other questions or comments about this topic, cycles, about the data? MR. JUDD: We applaud the DOE proposal to revise the average annual use of dishwashers to 264 cycles per year. We agree with DOE that revising the annual use of dishwashers to a number of cycles as representative of actual consumer use is not only appropriate, but necessary to maintain the dishwasher test procedures consistent with statutory requirements that are included in 42 U.S. Code 6293 that basically says "test procedure prescribed or amended shall be reasonably designed to use test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating costs during representative average use cycle or period of use," and so on. So I think this is a very appropriate step and something that DOE should proceed with.33

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. TWIGG: Could you add your name? Did you say your name before? MR. JUDD: Bob Judd, Whirlpool. Excuse

me. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. I'm like an auctioneer. Going once, going twice. Any last comments on this topic? Charles? MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, just one last plug for trying to figure out what's behind the data. I think you'll find we've just been doing some plotting here and you'll find that the Oregon data actually fits rather nicely with the V that you've got there in the data. If you take one more year out and look at 280, it's right on that trend line from 244 to 260 to
280. And the average falls somewhere between 260 and 270 at the moment, but I wouldn 't necessarily suggest that there's a definite downward trend. Before I made that forecast, I 'd want to know why it's doing what it's doing or if there's some other factors that one could correlate that you can use to forecast into the future or not. I mean maybe you can't, but I would like to know that. So I think before you go ahead and34

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com settle on a number, I think I'd want to know, for instance, is the family size -- I mean, our data suggests that cycles per year is strongly correlated with family size, and there is a national average family size. I don't know whether the survey data has that same family size and, therefore, you could correlate that with any trends you see in national average family size or whatever. But I would want to know that data before I settled on a number. MS. CASTRO: Okay. There's one thing I wanted to add. This is just some notes from the survey. It says, "The data below comes from our study contacting nationally representative panelists from the standpoint of geography, family size, age of homemaker, gender, income, and employment status. The data are obtained through an independent, outside research organization. This survey is run annually and has a base size of 1,500 to 1,800 respondents." I will try to contact SDA to see if we can get that data available. If anything does come forward, I'll take a look at family size and see if there's any correction that needs to be made. MR. KERESTESY: Anything else you want to35

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com add before we move on? Good. Thank you. Second topic. Repeatability of testing. MS. CASTRO: Okay. This second issue encompasses a number of changes we made to improve the test clarity and the repeatability of the test procedure. I did some studies a few years back to take a look at the effect of the ambient conditions to see its effect on energy consumption. First off, DOE proposes to reduce the range of ambient temperature that's acceptable. Currently it's 70 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's proposed to be reduced to 75 plus or minus five degrees Fahrenheit. The results of the study that I did showed that the average total energy consumption was 17.6 percent lower for a test conducted at an ambient condition of 85 degrees compared to an ambient test of 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The second change is to include more detailed installation requirements to try and standardize it across the various testing laboratories. It was taken from the UL standard for36

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com dishwasher. And the third topic is to add a conditioning cycle as part of the test method to better approximate household conditions, and that would be to prime the lines to make sure that there is water in the sump area of the pump, which is more typical. It's what we expect for a typical household condition. And then finally, this isn't really a change to any of the instrumentation tolerances, except we're consolidating all of the specifications for the different instrumentation. We're basing tolerances on nominal values so that all of the manufacturers have a target, are going for the same target value, and to introduce new specifications for temperature measurement devices. So those are the four items we're looking at to improve test clarity and repeatability. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks, Natascha. Let's just list some issues for discussion, and then we'll have comments and question and answer. Just issues to put on the table for discussion about test repeatability. Wayne.37

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris at AHAM. If we could just talk briefly about the conditioning cycle situation. MR. KERESTESY: Yes, sir. MR. ECKMAN: The plus or minus tolerances on temperature testing. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Temp. tolerances. Anything else?

MR. JUDD: We have a comment or suggestion on the truncated drying cycle. MR. KERESTESY: Truncated -- conditioning cycle, temp. tolerances, the truncated cycle. Any others? We can add to this as we go, but I just thought it would be good to put on the table what some of the subjects were for discussion. So anybody want to add one before I turn to Wayne? Wayne, why don't you pose your question or comment about the conditioning cycle? MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne Morris. All four of these areas are ones that AHAM suggested to the department to tighten up the test procedure and also to deal with some uniformity of38

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com testing and allow the manufacturers a little more flexibility in the way that they're doing this testing versus other testing that they need to do. In terms of the temperature situation, we agree with the department's re setting of the tolerance range. It's in keeping with what AHAM had suggested. This assists manufacturers who have now been able in laboratories to achieve greater tolerance restrictions in the testing. Going to tighter tolerances of this would be extremely difficult in laboratory environments to mai ntain throughout a cycle because the dishwasher, of course, does heat the environment as it's being tested. The second area in regard to the installation requirements, just to point out for clarification it's a reference actually to the UL and CSA, which are harmonized standards, which allow the manufacturer to do the same testing in both the U.S. and Canada in the same way. In terms of the conditioning cycle, there's only one small difficulty with the way the description is made in the test procedure as proposed, and that is that we think it needs to be clarified that the entire cycle does not need to be run in order39

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to do this. So, indeed, you would not have to run two dishwasher cycles. We do believe it's important to have water in the pump to represent the way that a consumer actually finds the dishwasher when they run their cycle on a typical evening, but we believe that the manufacturer should be allowed to find some methodology to do that. It may involve simply filling, rinsing, and draining the dishwasher quickly prior to running the actual energy cycle, but it does not need to run an entire wash cycle through an hour or whatever in order to prime the pump, and we just think it needs to be clarified in there that any methodology that would allow water to be entered into the pump area would be acceptable. In terms of -- and Bob brought up the truncated. I'll let him open it up, but I think we're in concert with what Bob would want to present. So I'll let him speak to the truncated normal. MR. KERESTESY: You all done then? Go ahead, Bob, and then we'll go back. MR. JUDD: Bob Judd for Whirlpool.To add to Wayne's comment on the pre40

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com conditioning cycle, I think a good way to write that would be to pre-condition the machine using any cycle that fills, circulates, and drains water. For Whirlpool, that's a rinse and hold cycle. Other manufacturers may call it some thing else, but we would see that as a minimum requirement because that would fill the water lines, fill the sump, run the pump, circulate water through the dishwasher and drain it. The advantage of that kind of a cycle is that it wouldn't add heat because if it's anything that has heat in it, then you've got to let the dishwasher cool to come back to ambient to run the test, and it's strictly an issue of how much time it takes to get these tests done. So I think if you come with a test procedure that says any cycle that does those three things, it should be preconditioned. To the truncated dry cycle for that, we support clarifying how tests are performed to determine the energy use of dishwashers having a truncated cycle. However, we oppose any change in the test procedure that would require addit ional testing. Three points under that. Today Whirlpool obtains truncated cycle normal energy consumption41

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com during a full normal cycle by recording the energy consumption at the end of the final rinse. In other words, we record the energy used at that point, let the machine run through the dry cycle, record it again for a full cycle. So with one test cycle, we get two data points. We get the truncated dry cycle. We get the full dry cycle with running one test. The energy consumed by the dishwasher during the truncated cycle while the timer is running out is inconsequential. For our machine it's .002 kilowatt hours, whether it's an electronic or an electromechanical timer or machine. That's in comparison to two kilowatt hours for the full cycle. So it's that kind. You know, it's .002 kilowatt hours compared to two kilowatt hours for a whole cycle. That small amount of energy used, if you correlate that back to 264 cycles a year at eight cents or eight cents per kilowatt hour, you're talking about four cents of energy a year for all 264 cycles for the energy used by the timer during that truncated dry cycle. So that does not warrant ru nning two full tests because it doubles the test and time that it takes to go through the light because not only do you42

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com have to run the test again. You have to let the dishwasher cool down. So it's the time for the cycle; it's the cool-down time to get back to ambient to start and run it again; and it adds no value. And our guess is that most machines are going to con sume a very small amount of energy during that period, and it's not worth running two full tests. So we would propose that the test procedure provide that if the truncated dry cycle uses some very minuscule amount of energy, that you can combine those steps. We don't have exact wording, but I think the concept that is merits clarification. MR. KERESTESY: Did you capture that?
MS. CASTRO: Yes. MR. KERESTESY: Do you want to respond on any of these issues or ask any questions? MS. CASTRO: Not at this point. MR. KERESTESY: All right. I'll see if there's other comments on this topic before I go to tolerances. So you don't have anything. Barbara, do you have anything? MS. TWIGG: No. I think it's an43

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com interesting point. You know, our role here today is to hear all of this, and then we'll figure out what to do with them after we finish the meeting, but that certainly seems like a good point.
MR. KERESTESY: Some more comments on this general truncated cycle topic? Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Wayne touched on an interesting topic there when he was going over all the changes AHAM had recommended, and that is the NRC requirements for the inter-guide label I've noticed myself in some of the dishwashers we've been qualifying for our tax creditprogram lately that the numbers on there on the interguide and the energy guide are not the same. To what extent are we changing this test procedure or recommending changes here that make this consistent with the Canadian test procedures for CSA? MS. TWIGG: Well, we invited the Canadians to come today, but -- PARTICIPANTS: We are here. MS. TWIGG: Oh, we did get one. Oh, great. MR. DuPONT: Hi. I'm Ron DuPont representing Natural Resources Canada and also44

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com observing for CSA. Our role here just today is to observe, and they have the intention to take this information and try to make the standards consistent and harmonized. So I don't have any input to the meeting, but I have been asked to give a full report back on all of the factors necessary. MS. TWIGG: Great. Well, thank you for coming. MR. STEPHENS: I guess I still would like to hear from DOE or from Wayne as to what extent are we going to end up with a test procedure here that's consistent with what CSA requires. MR. KERESTESY: Do you want to respond to anything or let Wayne? MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne Morris. I would like to respond for the manufacturers, I guess, that it is absolutely our intent that the test procedures be in as much concert as is entirely possible, and indeed, when AHAM started out this process of suggesting changes to the department about the test proc edure on dishwashers, we encouraged the department as they have done to keep NR-CAN and CSA informed at eve ry step, and we have had45

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com assurances from NR-CAN that th ey would take everything under advisement. I can't speak for them to say that they're going to do it, but that they have assured us that they would take everything under advisement. Their intent is, as Ron said, to make sure that the test procedure is the same. Currently there are some slight differences, and we would like to work those out and have the labels read as much the same as is possible to do. We think that this will go somewhat to that situation, although the r eason for these were not because the CSA standard does this and the U.S. does not. That wasn't the purposes of doing these recommendations originally. They were, in fact, to tighten the tolerances, to allow for better testing of the units, more uniformity, that type of thing. We will seek to do the same thing with the CSA standard as well. So that is the intent at least. That has been all along. MR. STEPHENS: So we're not using the current procedures in Canada at all as a guide for what we're doing here? MR. MORRIS: I can't speak to that. Does46

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com anyone from -- MR. EDWARDS: I think the procedures are very much the same. MR. KERESTESY: Your name, please. MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards, BSH. I think the procedures are very much the same, except for the metric conversions. That's my understanding, and I would even like to -- we haven't discussed this with the other manufacturers, but I don't see any reason we couldn't narrow it down to one energy label on the dishwasher, the same label for both. MR. KERESTESY: Yes, sir, please. MR. GRUNEWALD: Ernst Grunewald, Whirlpool. I am also on the Canadian Energy Committee for the CSA, and prior to I believe it was 1992, '93, we had a different standard, a fivefold (phonetic) different and the temperature was sligh tly different. We always had problems. The standards were harmonized. The test procedures are identical. So if there are differences, it may be something in the declaration, but as far as the test procedure is concerned, I mean, we are certified by47

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com CSA at Whirlpool with exactly the same test. That is the very important thing, and Mr. Judd will address that a little bit later. We're very concerned that we keep dates together because it doubles the testing. I can guarantee you that, but if there is a difference that you see in the number, somebody put another number of cycles per year on or what have you because the intent of CSA was to harmonize exactly to the DOE. CSA is in possession of the proposed rulemaking. I sent my committee chair a copy, and he said that he was taking a look at it, and I think you're saying the same thing. So, you know, you should pursue why there seems to be a difference in that number. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I'm not seeing a difference in every case, but I'm more concerned that we're proposing changes here, and I want to make sure that CSA is also proposing the same changes. So -- MR. KERESTESY: It sounds like -- PARTICIPANT: Violent agreement. MR. KERESTESY: In violent agreement? Is that what you said? (Laughter.)48

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: It sounds like there is not a definitive answer to the question, but certainly the point has been noted, and it's something that can be examined further as the rulemaking proceeds. MR. MORRIS: Lou, we kind of got sidetracked on that one, but I wanted to raise a question for Natascha or Barbara. The second that you have changed in your proposed changing to the truncated normal cycle, was there a reason for this? I don't understand why the change was proposed. There doesn't seem to be an explanation of why it was necessary. MS. CASTRO: Using the word "preset?
MR. MORRIS: Yes. MS. CASTRO: That doesn't actually affect the way it was conducted, just to clarify that this is something that's done. The whole cycle needs to be set before the test has begun so that all of the buttons are pressed prior to administration of the cycle. MR. MORRIS: So this is Wayne again. So for clarification, it wasn't the department's intent by changing that word to require manufacturers to run two tests in a five or six-hour49

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com hold-down period in between. Is that what you're telling me? You were trying to do it for clarification purposes but not necessarily to require manufacturers to run two tests? MS. TWIGG: I think the prime thing there was clarity of definitions somehow. MR. MORRIS: Okay. Well, I think that if that's the reason, then I would suggest that we can look at perhaps modifying a word slightly because as Bob brought out, the point that we're finding is that by changing a word here, you could require manufacturers, depending on how they interpret it, and we would hope everybody else w ould do it the same way, is that you would require a manufacturer to run an entire truncated cycle, stop, allow a machine for five or so hours to cool down, then turn around and run a full test again or vice versa, but you'd have to run two full tests. In an audit sequence, in a production line when you're trying to run hundreds of machines, you know, an extra day of testing on individual machines that would yield essentially no additional valuable information seems to be, you know, unwieldy. So if that's really what was done, we'd50

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com just like to work together on the wording.
MS. CASTRO: Yes. It was my understanding that when I studied the test procedure initially, I believe that the manufacturers did, in fact, run two test cycles. I did not realize that you just measured the energy at the end for the truncated portion. Sure, I do see now how that does change it. MR. JUDD: That's why we reacted. MS. CASTRO: Yes. Okay. MR. KERESTESY: Okay? That's clear? Good. I like that. I think we've covered the cycle issues pretty clearly, pretty thoroughly. We still have a question about tolerances. Do you want to address that again? MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. It looks from the analysis that was done that given the range in efficiency that you get by testing at different ambient temperatures, there's a ten degree range that shows up to be an almost 18 percent difference in efficiency, and basically you're providing a ten degree range with those tolerances. From 75 plus or minus five, there's still51

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com a ten degree range. So you can get an 18 percent difference by testing at low temperatures or at the high temperature, depending on where the ambient start

was. My question is whether or not it's better to set a start temperature given that t he environment is going to heat up as the cycles go through or whether you want a mean temperature for the entire test. What's more important? MR. KERESTESY: Did you understand that question? MR. ECKMAN: Is that clear?
MS. CASTRO: Yes. MR. ECKMAN: Do you want an ambient start temperature given that the room is going to heat up or the test chamber is going to heat up while you do the test, or do you want a mean temperature during the entire test? Which is more critical to getting consistent results? MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards, BSH. I think if you only established a start temperature of the room, the thermal mass of the room could be different and, therefore, your results would be different.52

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. ECKMAN: So you want a mean temperature during the test. And that mean temperature during the test is ten degrees potentially, which is basically what you pointed out here provides a differential of 18 percent in efficiency. That's a fair tolerance. MR. EDWARDS: I can even offer some comments to that. To control the room temperature to a greater extent, the only way that I can think of as I've gone through setting up the laboratory is to go into environmental chambers, and they have moving air, and then that has a negative effect on the length of time the dishwasher would run. So to tighten the tolerances up any more, it would be very difficult and very costly. MS. CASTRO: Yes. I'd like to add just that one of the reasons that DOE just looked at a five degree reduction is test burden for the manufacturers. We also took a look at the IEC standard and looked at their high end temperature. The warmer it is, the more the machine is affected by it. So the upper end of the proposed temperature range is comparable to that of the IEC. MR. KERESTESY: Let's see. We had Randy53

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com and then, Ted, did you or someone behind you? And then Charlie. Okay. Randy. MR. COOPER: This is Randy Cooper, Maytag. Natascha, could you clarify, I guess, how this 17.6 percent was generated? Was it based on mini-machines, broad I guess machine analysis, or how that was determined? Because I'm not sure that's typical of all machines. MS. CASTRO: Yes. This was actually just conducted on two machines, and the exact number was not critical. It just showed that machines are affected by the ambient conditions and that we saw reducing the allowable ambient temperature range as one means to improve repeatability. So this number just shows that the machines are affected by the ambient temperature and that it can significantly affect the energy consumption. MR. COOPER: This is Randy again. So is that 17.6 then based on one machine run at 85 and the other one run at 75 or is that based

on -- MS. CASTRO: No.54

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. COOPER: -- one at 85 and then the other one at 75? MS. CASTRO: It is the same machine run at both conditions. MR. GRUNEWALD: This is Ernie Grunewald. I have a question.
MR. KERESTESY: Is it a follow-up to this? MR. GRUNEWALD: Yes, sir. When you did that test, did you have them in the enclosure that you're proposing to use, the UL enclosure? MS. CASTRO: No, not exactly, no. MR. GRUNEWALD: That makes an extremely significant difference because the temperature sensing of the devices of our machines are external.
MS. CASTRO: Yes. MR. GRUNEWALD: And to Mike's air flow, to Randy's question how did you run it, if there is air flow there or the ambient affects the thermostats, then you get false readings. You know, I will wager a cup of coffee from the DOE for the fact that if these were done in an enclosure, our experience is you will not see that kind of difference. MS. CASTRO: It was tested in an enclosure. It was not tested under the UL standard.55

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com It was tested following installation requirements suggested by the manufacturers. So it did have an enclosure. It did have sides, but the new proposed language for the installation requires that it have the tightest possible enclosure, and there was a small
gap. So it was just following the manufacturer's installation instructions and not free to open air. MR. KERESTESY: But was it that would be consistent: MR. GRUNEWALD: That is consistent with our experience. Even a half inch gap all the way around -- this is Ernst Grunewald again. It is consistent with what Natascha found. Any time you allow air flow to come around the machine, especially in the sub area under the door line, you can fool the thermostats into reading a lower temperature and causing it to be cranked up. So I would say my estimate would be with the UL enclosure that that difference would not be that significant, and that the plus or minus five is as tight as we ever want to go because if you're looking at a laboratory and there's 700 square feet,56

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com other machines running, only in a factory setting, there is no way you're going to go less than five, and it's going to create from a nightmare of having to include an environmental chamber. So I'd say five is tight, and you know, when you take a look at ISO standards and all of the international standards, plus or minus two degrees Centigrade, which is just about plus or minus five, it's very common. Thank you. MR. KERESTESY: Randy, okay, and then Charlie and, Chris, did you want to? Okay. Charlie? MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I still have to wonder how much we're going to improve repeatability given the range. I mean it sounds like Natascha was testing in an enclosure that's currently used by the manufacturers even though it may not be exactly what's being recommended in these changes, and it still gives a fairly hefty range of outcomes. I guess I'm not sure how much we're going to improve repeatability, I mean, given that you can test at either end of that range and get that much of57

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com a difference. I mean even if it's a 15 percent or even ten percent, that's a fairly big number.
MR. COOPER: Charlie, this is Randy Cooper from Maytag. I guess based on our experience, I guess we have never seen 17.6 variation on that with the units we have from the standpoint of it's a set cycle. The ambient is not going to have that large of an impact, and I guess we really question where this number came from, and I guess this is the first time we have seen this number. Like I said, I would like further investigation if you feel deeply about it. MR. KERESTESY: Bob. Oh, go ahead. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I mean, like I say even if it's not 17 percent, even if it's half of that, you're still talking a big number. So I guess I'd be concerned about what you see. I mean, okay, you don't see 17.6 percent. What do you see over a ten degree range? I mean, we've been talking about fooling the thermostat here. So it's obvious that it can happen, and if an air gap of half an inch around the machine makes a big difference, then I guess I've got to wonder if these58

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com machines aren't a little overly sensitive to ambient temperature, but eight percent is a big number. I mean that's a big number of kilowatt hours. That's 50 kilowatt hou rs on a typical machine. MR. KERESTESY: Did you want to break in, Bob? MR. JUDD: Bob Judd from Whirlpool. The discussion has been that we're running these in lab settings, and one, we're not smart enough to be able to make the room be 70 or 80. We're trying to hold it within that plus or minus five degree range, and I think we're saying we're agreeing with Randy that we're not seeing that kind of variability because if we were, we'd have a hard time getting our test results to cluster, and I think we don't see that kind of a change. I don't think it's half, but we haven't run it. So to the extent I don't know that we can hold a test room to one or two degrees though over time. It's going to be what it is,a nd I think plus or minus five is about there. MR. MORRIS: this is Wayne Morris. I've just got a quick question and comment in terms of this to Charlie. Understand that it is to59

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the manufacturer's benefit to have that tolerance as tight as is humanly possible so that their repeatability is extremely good because if it is not good, then they have to run quite an additional survey of units in order to prove what the mean and standard deviation is of the energy values. So I mean, if it's really to the benefit of the manufacturers to keep the tolerance down and also to have that variability as small as is possible, that's really what we're trying to do with a lot of these changes that we suggested, is to get that variability down. It benefits you, and it benefits

us. So I think that, you know, certainly anything that I've ever seen in terms of manufacturing would never suggest, you know, probably anything more than a three or four percent range of temperature over that ten degree difference. And in fact, it's really not ten degrees because in fact, the way it was previou sly described, a manufacturer would normally hold the media value somewhere in the 77 degree ran ge and try and keep that tolerance narrow so that they could then improve the variability.60

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com So we're going really from 77 degrees, the media point of 70 to 85, to really 75. We're really not changing that as much as we're changing and we're reducing the tolerance. It's a function of what we can actually do in the settings where the units are tested, and it's also to try and get the greatest reputability that we can because it's to our benefit as well as everybody's. MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards, BSH again. I think to Wayne's point, is this not captured in -- we have to record the higher of the two, the average or the confidence level, and if we were able to control the room temperature precisely, I think the energy figures would possibly even improve. And one other point. In Natascha's study, would you not have been subjected to the same thing? I mean, your air conditioner or your heat system would heat up and cool down, and you're saying that you ran at precisely 85 and precisely 75? I think you would have probably had some of the same variation in your

test.
MS. CASTRO: Yes. It was an environmental chamber, but it's a large environmental chamber, and the area immediately around the machine would heat up.61

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. EDWARDS: Environmental chambers circulate air though to maintain the air temperature. So that throws a whole different thing in. You can't run with that. MS. CASTRO: Right. This is not how -- the way I ran the test is not how the manufacturers are expected to run the test, and that's why we're looking at that ten degree, but we felt that 15 degrees did allow a large variation. MR. EDWARDS: We can't test environmental chambers. It doesn't work at all. MR. JUDD: My suggestion is if you did run that in an environmental chamber -- this is Bob Judd at Whirlpool -- that accounts for that big swing, Charlie, and not the variability of the dishwasher because you're circulating air through that, and it's trying to cool down the room that the dishwasher is trying to heat up. So you've got a fight going on, and I think that that's an absolutely irrelevant test. I think we'd have to go back and check it in a real lab setting. And we're as sure as we can be we're not going to see anything close to 17 percent variation. MR. STEPHENS: Are the changes to the62

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com enclosure requirements going to make this better or
worse? MR. JUDD: WE believe it makes it very much better because it's tight around t he dishwasher. MR. GRUNEWALD: Might I add? This is Ernst Grunewald again. We had an audit at one time, outside audit, and the numbers were totally off, and obviously it's a panic going on. How could that be? Well, when you take a look at 430 today, it just says follow manufacturer's instructions for the installation, which is very loose because the manufacturer will say put it under a counter. As a matter of fact, it was interpreted as just put it under a counter, and there was no enclosure, and the results at that time were like ten percent difference. So we knew there was something
wrong. Once the enclosure was used, less than one percent, and so that is probably the single most important proposal that the DOE is making today, the value for repeatability and reproducibility lab to lab. That is key to us. So the answer to your question is, yes, it63

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com is a very significant change, and it harmonizes, if you will, in CSA's enclosures. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. I'd like to add to that. Not only that, but it also seeks to reproduce the actual household environment because the unit is not in a household just stuck with a countertop on top of it and nothing around the sides. In fact, in the household, it does have cabinets, usually on both sides of the dishwasher, and they are in close proximity just the way that this enclosure that is being supported would do. So it's not an environmental chamber. Neither is a household, and so consequently what we're trying to do is reproduce the setting as close as possible and get repeatability, which we think that the plywood situation is valid in terms of its approximation of a household environment, and it also allows greater reproducibility of the data. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I took my dishwasher out on Sunday, and I really wish I had had some of those tolerances we're talking about. (Laughter.) MR. KERESTESY: Sounds like we've covered64

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com this one pretty thoroughly. Anyone want to add any final comment on this topic? All set, and you were going to kick this off. Any loose ends? Okay. We are close to on schedule, and we have one topic on the agenda before the scheduled break. Is definitions a big or little issue to go through PARTICIPANT: Little. MR. KERESTESY: Little? Let's do it and then we'll take the break. MS. CASTRO: Okay. This third issue is the definition of compact versus standard dishwashers. Currently the class distinctions are made using work based definitions, and I've made a chart here displaying a few cases that show paradoxical labeling. In the first model, we have Model A. It's an under counter dishwasher, 18 in width, eight place setting capacity, and is currently designated as a compact. This is kind of a standard for the under counter compacts. The second is an under sink model. It's 24 inch width, eight place setting capacity, and it's labeled as a standard.65

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com And then the third is an under counter dishwasher. It's a 24 inch width and six eight place setting capacity. That's an estimate, and it's currently labeled as a standard. So we see that if we're looking at Models A and C, in the first case an eight place setting capacity dishwasher is labeled as a compact, and in C a six place setting is labeled as a standard. And we felt that in order to establish more meaningful definitions for compact versus standard, we needed to look at measures that are more useful to consumers when they making purchasing decisions, to hold the dishwashers to standards that are appropriate for their intended class, and to have uniformity in federal definitions for making class distinctions. AHAM had proposed a capacity based definition, which is the determinant used by industry and the FTC for labeling. The proposed definition that came out of this is the compact dishwasher capacity, less than eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in Section 6 of AHAM Standard DW-1, and standard dishwasher capacity equal to or greater than eight place settings plus six66

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com serving pieces as specified in Section 6 of AHAM Standard DW-1. And in the chart that you see below, I've added a column showing what the proposed class designations would be. The Model A that was originally a compact with an eight place setting capacity would not be designated as a standard. The second model, a standard, would remain as such because of its eight place setting capacity. And the under counter, with an estimated six place setting capacity that was previously designated as a standard would change to a compact. I would just like to add that that model C is currently using the FTC definition for labeling and would not be affected, would s till be able to meet the minimum energy standard that is required for compacts, which is .62. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks, Natascha. Any questions? Any issues to discuss? Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Just one curious question. Why is the word "estimated" attached to six at the bottom in Model C there?67

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. CASTRO: I contacted the manufacturer and asked them what the place setting capacity is, and they did not have an answer for me, the people that I contacted, which I guess is their consumer help or sales division. I have seen the models, and I spoke to one representative, and he confirmed that six was a good estimate. It also depends on the loading. If they don't have a published definition of what a place setting capacity is, then it's just an estimate based on how the unit is loaded. So that is how I arrived at the six place setting capacity. MR. JUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. DuPONT: Ron DuPont. It's just a curious question. Was there any consideration for more cla ssifications in the case of coming dishwashers that may have far more than eight place settings? Like is this part of the legislation where we're going to have to attack for future models? Like is two classifications enough or should there be more classific ations? And it's only a curious question.68

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. CASTRO: Yeah. I wasn't aware of any dishwashers or manufacturers that are looking at dishwashers larger than 12 place setting capacity, which is what the current standard is. Perhaps some of the manufacturers, if they're aware of any, might mention it, but for residential, 12 has been found to be the upper end, the maximum. MR. KERESTESY: Yes, sir. MR. MILLS: James Mills, FTC. We currently, as you correctly state, Natascha, require the place se tting criterion in order to determine whether a product is going to be labeled standard or compact. So in your first example they would be labeled in accordance with that, and they would be labeled as you come out in your second example because place setting is what we use as the criterion, and we reference the Department of Energy's Part 430, which in turn references AHAM's standard for that. So we have a standard that the industry is required to use to determine whether the product is going to be designated for labeling purposes as a standard or a compact. So I'm kind of wondering also, as Charlie69

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com was, what's up with the person who had to estimate it? Somewhere in there they've got to make that determination for labeling purposes, and I would think that based on the size, they could probably get more place settings in accordance with the AHAM standard than six in there. I don't know that any better than you do, even less because I didn't talk to them, but I just want to point out that where you're heading is where we are, and we have AHAM standard that's referenced through your reference of it, and we should be in perfect harmony. MR. KERESTESY: Well, on that note, having come full circles to the last standard, why don't we take a 15 minute break and we'll come back and pick up the next topic? (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the record at 10:26 a.m. and went back on the record at 10:49 a.m.) MR. KERESTESY: We are passing out some papers from the last session. Copies of the data that Natascha referred to. We've got a few empty seats here, which I'd like to invite people to come up and take. Anyone70

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com who is sitting back there can come up to the table, and just put your name and affiliation on the table tent so I can see who you are and others can. And one other very, very important piece of housekeeping information. If anyone came in with equipment like laptops, in particular -- your mic is breaking up? Is that any better? I'll lower it and see if that helps. We have a very important housekeeping matter to bring to your attention. Is that better? Losing power? If any of you came in with laptops, please be sure to see Brenda Edwards-Jones in the back and get a property pass. Naturally the guards are going to be not concerned about what you bring in with laptops, but if you leave with a laptop, they don't know it's yours, and if you're running out and you've got to catch a plane, you don't want to have to be delayed at the door for half an hour while someone sorts out whose laptop this is. So get a property pass from Brenda, fill it out, and she'll help you take care of that, and then you won't have any trouble getting past the guards, and I assume it probably just has mostly to do71

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com with laptops. Okay. I would like to follow the same procedure we've been following. I asked a couple of you at break, and I got some feedback that the discussion seems like it's working well. So let's do this. Let's have Natascha present a couple of slides on what the proposal is about. We have written comments that Barbara will summarize on this one, and then I want to list the issues. We have some guests who want to make a presentation. We'll do that, and then we'll have the discussion. And anyone who wants to come up here, please come on up and join us at the table. MS. CASTRO: Okay. On the fourth issue, soil sensing technology, I think everyone here is aware that there are the soil sensing dishwashers that default to shortened cycles in the absence of soils, and therefore, it can't be tested adequately with the current DOE test procedure. Also, in add ition, there are manufacturers that are labeling their dishwashers with lower energy factors than their test results measure because they realize that it's not representative of consumers'72

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com use. Initially when we were looking at various testing options, we discussed performance tests, field studies, and control override sequence. Much of this discussion was held with various stakeholders, and we found that performance tests were the most realistic when combined with the energy test. That's in the manner that the IEC is testing. In that case, defining a normal soil load would be difficult, and it would also have repeatability issues. There's also a high test burden. These are difficult t ests to conduct, and the machines could then no longer be sold as new once the soils had been introduced. The second testing option we looked at was connected field studies to get real world data regarding the typical cycle times. We're aware of some of the manufacturers that already collect such data for smaller regions of the United States, but it's difficult to establish a sample population. And then the third testing option that we looked at was one proposed by AHAM, which was to use a control override sequence provided by the manufacturers to simulate normal operation, and once73

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the appropriate cycle is determined, it is highly repeatable. From the AHAM proposal, the manufacturers would then test with the current DOE test procedure and conduct first the test in the normal cycle labeled as Emin, and again in their truncated normal cycle, Emin for truncated. The dishwasher would then be forced to undergo a maximum set to normal response, once again tested under both normal and truncated normal conditions, and that would give us Emax. The total energy for the machine would then be a combination of Emin and Emax, where each is prorated by the fraction of persons pretreating the loads. DOE took this suggestion into consideration and made some modificatio ns. First, to add a class stating that if a maximum s ensor response cannot be forced, then the manufacturers would have to introduce soils according to the AHAM DW-1, and that would be to obtain the maximum energy consumption. The equation also had to be applied to water and energy consumption separately, and then finally we evaluated the recommendation to use74

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com pretreatment values based on the Soap and Detergent Association data. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. Thank you, Natascha. Barbara, do you have a set of comments or one comment to summarize, a comment from one commenter to summarize? MS. TWIGG: We only received one comment for this workshop, and it came in very much at the end of the day last night from the National Resources Defense Council, and it really speaks more as we're going to get into the percentages of prerinsing than to this technique. So I think I'll hold that comment. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay. All right. At this point let me get issues listed again, and then we're going to have a little bit more information to provide for the discussion. So headline some issues for me, please. Just go ahead and toss them out, and I'll write them down MR. MORRIS: Lou, we have kind of a presentation to make about this. So at some point whenever it's appropriate, we would like to do that. MR. KERESTESY: I'll get these issues75

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com listed, and then we'll do that. Ed. MR. POLLOCK: I know we separated these two as the technique or method that we'd use and then the issue of what the percentages would be that would be used in this equation. It may be right now I'd just point out is there anyone here who has comments or issues with this particular approach to be used in the determination of the conservation and energy efficient models this way. If not, then we can move on to the real meat of the discussion, which is what numbers do we put in this equation. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie and then Wayne. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, Charlie Stephens. I guess I have a very fundamental question which is, you know, why are we proposing to change the current test procedure at all. What's wrong now that this will fix? MR. KERESTESY: What's wrong now that this will fix? Thank you. Wayne, did you want to respond to that? MR. MORRIS: To answer Ed's question -- this is Wayne Morris -- yes, we have comments on both the technique and --76

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: So we want to cover that. MR. POLLOCK: Are both of them covered in your presentation?
MR. MORRIS: Yes. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay. Which means we'll open this up a little bit. If anyone has issues related to both topics, I will list them now. We'll go over them in this section. MR. JUDD: And I think we have, as Wayne suggested -- this is Bob Judd -- we do have comments on the methodology and on the ratio, and we have an additional alternate procedure that we want to
propose. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MR. JUDD: So to the extent that's an additional topic. MR. KERESTESY: Go ahead. MR. POLLOCK: Is it then sort of the sense of the group that we should combine these two issues and move forward with these presentations at this time? MR. KERESTESY: That's what I'm hearing. Okay. A lot of nodding heads. I've been informed that once you've said77

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com your name, you don't have to repeat it. They'll know who you are, and they'll be able to put your name with the comments subsequently. So except for people who haven't spoke up yet, use your name when you speak, and then we're okay after that. So let's open this up then to just some issues that are related to both these subjects. We're going to combine them for the purposes of the discussion. What we're on now that this proposal will fix is the only one I have up here. Just give me some topics, headings. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I think I'm a little confused about where we are here. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay. MR. STEPHENS: This is one big issue, I think, overall, but I guess I do have one more thing I could throw in. I don't know if it fits here or not, but I'm trying to figure out whether we know -- who knows how these machines respond to soil, given that it's my understanding there's quite a number of different ways that these machines work? You know, some of them take a truncated cycle and then lengthen it. Other ones take a full cycle and shorten it. There's different ways to sense whether the dishes are78

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com dirty or not. I know Fisher and Pikel (phonetic), for instance, has one type of system and other people in this room have others. So given that there's so many different technologies out there that aim to shorten the cycle and truncate the energy and water use, I guess I'd like to know who knows anything about how these machines respond to dirty dishes. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: Regardless of how dearth they are, you know. MR. KERESTESY: Good. Thank you. MR. STEPHENS: Has anybody measured that? MR. KERESTESY: I've got that. Did you want to? MS. CASTRO: I'd like to present the data that I have at this point and then perhaps if manufacturers or various organ izations have additional data to present we could just use that as a starting point. MS. EGAN: One last question, if I could. Do you want me to give a specific ques tion to what's been presented so far now or wait until we've79

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com presented the rest? MR. KERESTESY: Say again? MS. EGAN: Do you want me to give a specific -- I have a question on what was presented so far, and I'm saying do you want me to wait until she's all done or do you want me to give it now. I'm just a little confused as to how we're -- MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MS. EGAN: I can do it all at once at the end if that's -- MS. TWIGG: Why don't we let Natascha finish her presentation. MS. EGAN: Okay. MS. TWIGG: And then we'll package it all together with the percentages. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MS. CASTRO: Okay. The first point is just the fact that pretreated dishes with low soil levels have been found to trigger minimum normal responses from sensor models for shortened cycles. The data that we have from the STA was based on 1995 data and stated that 79 percent of the population pretreats their dishes, and that was defined as using water to rinse, scrub, or soap the dishes, and 2180

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com percent of those surveyed did nothing or merely scraped their dishes. These results came with a caution that they're based on consumer perception and interpretation, not an objective test measure of loads washed and have the associated inherent uncertainties of consumer questionnaires. This data could give na indication of the use and patterns of use, but should probably not be used in an energy standard setting framework, and that was an excerpt from the SDA letter to AHAM in July of
'98. We looked for additional data to find information on consumer practices, and one additional survey showed that in 1989, the survey population showed 73 percent pretreating and 27 percent not pretreating loads. We also have the Oregon Energy Office CEE alliance dishwasher survey, which was fielded in the Pacific Northwest. This survey was used to provide detailed data on consumer dishwasher practices, but it's not nationally conclusive, and the results of that survey can be interpreted as either 83 percent pretreated or 63 percent pretreated.81

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com And additionally manufacturers' consumer research data. There is some data that has been collected by manufacturers to show the cycle response for various levels of pretreatment, combined with pretreatment practices, and that data is not available, but manufacturers are conducting their own consumer research. Pending better data DOE was initially proposing a 70 percent pretreatment percentage and 30 percent non-pretreatment as a compromise value based on the available qualitative data. Okay, and this final chart just shows for various percentages of pretreatment what the effect is on the energy factor. All models for standard dishwashers have to require -- have to meet the minimum energy standard of .46 cycles per kilowatt hour, and here along the top P represents the percentage of pretreated dishes, and one minus P is the percentage of non-pretreated dishes. So in this first column the 8020 was originally proposed by AHAM. The Models A, B, C, D, E, and F are all soil sensing models. Data presented by AHAM for various different models. The 7921 represents the 1995 data82

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com presented by SDA. Seventy-three, twenty-six is the average for the Oregon energy data. Seventy, thirty was the proposed compromise value. Here you begin to see that some of the soil sensing dishwashers begin to become borderline or do not meet the minimum e nergy standard as the percentage of pretreated dishes decreases. Sixty-three, thirty-seven is the lower end of the Oregon survey data. And 6040 was one of the initial proposals by environmentalist group. So I think I'd just like to leave this up while we begin the discussion on various methods. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you, Natascha. Christine, do you want to put your issue, raise your question or issue now? MS. EGAN: Yes. On what was presented originally, I guess I'd like to just hear a little bit more about the difficulties of establishing representative sample. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MS. EGAN: And why, and I'll leave that for now and wait until we get into these percentages83

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com discussions. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Well, why don't we have -- do you want to
start? PARTICIPANT: Do you want to address Christine's question? MR. KERESTESY: Will it come out in the discussion? MS. EGAN: I'm sorry? MR. KERESTESY: No, it won't come out in the discussion? Do you want to --
MS. EGAN: It's probably the easiest point to tackle it if you want to start with it. MR. KERESTESY: Who could speak to that? Thanks, Wayne. Who could speak to that? The question is will someone explain the difficulties establishing representative samples. MS. EGAN: With real world field tests, I
guess. MR. KERESTESY: Who could speak to that? MS. CASTRO: I'll just state that from the field tests that were available, manufacturers -- it was my understanding that they just tested a small84

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com population perhaps close to their research base and did not do national surveys. All the SDA data did not study the typical cycle time. So it seemed that it was not an issue that was covered by the detergent manufacturers or any other organization at this point. So the surveys were not available. WE had discussed the possibility of using I believe it was Good Housekeeping to introduce some questions into that survey, but we began by looking at various control override options. That seemed to be initially the best route. MS. EGAN: Okay. MR. KERESTESY: Can any of the manufacturers -- Wayne. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne Morris with

AHAM. This is a very difficult thing to answer. I think in terms of can you go out and get a survey of how many people pretreat, the answer is of course you can. It's a matter of time and money, and certainly that's something that the department has more of than we do, and we applaud them on their efforts to gather lots of data on rulemakings and85

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com other things. But in any case, the biggest challenge that you are faced with in terms of doing that is the definition of what is meant by pretreatment. To one household, I pretreat my dishes and they're, quote, somewhat clean is a big difference between another household. And until, I guess, you were doing this with "knock on the door and show them" pictures of dishes at different levels of cleanliness and then ask them how many, or to put some kind of I guess it would either be filter on the drain of the dishwasher and capture the load of material that comes off every cycle, I'm not sure how you can ever know what one person calls somewhat clean or somewhat dirty and another person does. And so even if you can get the value of how many people pretreat and y ou do as Oregon tried to do in breaking it down into different categories, there's no assurance that, in fact, the level that one person judges is the same. The other compounding difficulty is that not the same person in a household loads every dish, nor do they treat it the same way in the household,86

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com nor do they do the same from one load to the next necessarily, although trends are probably the case, that they would stay with the same attitude toward their dishwasher. It is a very complex issue, and when we tried to break it down in our proposal to a simpler way of looking at it, and we've even found great difficulties with the methodology that we have suggested originally, and that's what we'll talk about in a little while. I don't know if that helps, but if helps to put parameters around what the difficulties are is what I was trying to do. MS. EGAN: I think the question is then the definition of real world d ata is actually not what I had understood it to be. In other words, real world data, I think you'll get agreement around the table that consumer behavior surveys have their flaws, and I'm sure we'll go into detail about that. So real world data on typical cycle times was not meant to indicate what actually is happening in dishwashers. It wasn't a metering, for example. MS. CASTRO: Metering was actually what I had initially -- what I thought would be the best way87

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to collect the data, to actually have field studies measuring what the cycle times were. So it wouldn't actually involve what the soil loads were. It would just measure how long were these dishwashers running and how often. MS. EGAN: And so what I've heard so far is that that data is not available, but I'm still questioning what is the aspect of difficulty in gathering a national sample of that data. I understand that it's not available, but I'm questioning the level of difficulty. Why is that difficult? MS. CASTRO: Instrumenting all of the various dishwashers and knowing which ones to instrument. MR. MORRIS: If I could, Christine, again answer this by saying not all of the technologies -- Charlie even mentioned this -- not all of the technologies are the same, and so metering doesn't give you anything unless you were to meter every aspect of that dishwasher. You would have to meter the times of all of the different parts of the cycles, t he application of heat, the amount of water, and when the water is88

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com applied because that's a big issue, the aspect of the drain and the cleaning of the filter and all of that situation, and you would have to know essentially I guess you would say the cycle opportunities that are available to that particular style or class of technology. If every one of these dishwashers by every manufacturer operated the exact same way, in other words, that when it triggers some response off of absolutely clear dishes that it did it by the number of fills or they all did it by the length of fills or they all did it by the -- that would be great. Unfortunately they're not, and that's just the nature of creativity in the engineering world to come up with lots of different ways of skinning this cat. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. I would add to this that I didn't find the dish problem to be as big an issue as how dishwashers respond to the dishes. When we sat out to go after some of this data ourselves, we were of the impression that we didn't have time to do Phase 2. Phase 2 was to go out and sub-meter the water and energy consumption of the dishwashers in89

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com those households so that you could correlate water and energy consumption with what people said they did to their dishes. I mean, I ultimately don't necessarily care what they do to their dishes as long as I can correlate energy and water use to what they did to their dishes and what they said they did to their dishes, even if it's not particular accurate. If all we're going to know in the future is how people treated their dishes or pretreated their dishes based on some survey results, then I'd like to know how the dishwashers respond, and so far I've yet to see any data as to how the various technologies respond to identical loads of dishes, assuming you could create such a thing, and you can't. But the fact is it is possible to go out and sub-meter water consumption of a dishwasher at the street for three months. It's possible to go out and sub-meter the energy consumption of the things and correlate these things, but to my knowledge, no one has done that on a national basis or on a representative sample basis, and I'm at a loss as to how you can even begin to recommend changes for credits for the extremes of the operation of these90

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com things without that kind of data in hand. I would suggest that if the problem -- my first question about, you know, what problem is it we're trying to solve here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm presuming that people don't fe el that the current test procedure accurately reflects what this dishwasher will use in the field. Well, I would suggest that in the absence of any data on how these machines respond to any given level of dirtiness on the dish es, you still don't know what these dishwashers use in the field when you're finished, and so I guess I'm having trouble finding any rationale for changing something that isn't going to improve what we know. You know, if we don't know what dishwashers in the sensor type use to begin with, then we don't know any more when we're finished. MR. KERESTESY: I'm glad we started with the easy part. (Laughter.) MR. KERESTESY: Well, you posed a question, and we have some explanation by way of an answer, and back to the point that you just finished with, Charlie.91

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. JUDD: My comment at this point would be, I think, some of what we're going to talk about will either help or carry on that discussion and rather than try to bring that to a resolution at this point, I would suggest that we probably go through the stuff, and we'll have more information on which to have a further discussion. MR. KERESTESY: Are you all set? MS. TWIGG: Yeah. MR. KERESTESY: I mean there's many entry points into this one. Do you want to start? MS. TWIGG: I think it would be the appropriate time for me to just summarize the one comment that we did get which fits in with what Christine and Charlie are saying from the National Resources Defense Council. Basically they're supporting what the Oregon Office of Energy has previously submitted to the department, and sometimes they phrase it a little differently, and they, too, feel like why are we rushing into changing things when we don't have the data to kind of support these changes. It's better to offer too little credit for this new feature than too much, and they raise the question of what's going to92

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com happen to things like the Energy Star Program if they're counting on energy savings through them, and they're not really sure they're going to get it. They don't want to undercut the credibility with consumers if they're basing things on energy savings that aren't really accurate here. And they promote actually the most conservative formula, percentages to put in the formula of any. They said they would just give them credit for one-third of the ti me going to the shortest cycle and essentially reverse what we have. Instead of 70-30, they'd go like 30-70. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks for reminding me that you had the comments, the submission to summarize. We have a presentation to make which I think will add additional information to these items and context for discussion. Do you want to start that?
MR. MORRIS: Sure. MR. KERESTESY: Is it the overhead that you showed me? Oh, you have slides. Okay, okay. I wasn't sure which. MR. MORRIS: We'd just like to present a93

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com little bit of information as background in terms of this and to support some of the information that we've already sort of opened the discussions of. I want to begin by at least saying that I'm not necessarily trying to present an absolute uniform AHAM opinion about all of this, but rather to try and set the context in regard to some of the discussion and to hopefully try and arrive at, if we can perhaps at least, some uniformity or some agreement on some things. Our assumptions on this may be somewhat different than NRDC's, but nevertheless that's not unique. We all agree that the objective is to encourage energy efficiency. I hope that that is a common assumption. At least it certainly is from our standpoint, and we would hope that it is from others as well. We want to discourage sink washing or prewashing as much as possible. That's really one of the main reasons that AHAM presented th is opportunity to begin with, was that we want to try and encourage people to understand that for the most part dishwashers, especially dishwashers that are produced in the latter years, today, and indeed in many of the94

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com more full featured types of mo dels do not need to have prerinsing, prewashing. And manufacturers have tried at various times with advertising campaigns to encourage this, and I will tell you it's a slow, slow learning process. However, with the advent of soil sensor machines, we are starting to at least see gradually that consumers, indeed, begin to understand that situation. The difficulty comes with some of the other things. We want to test a sensor based machine in a realistic manner. I think that's a common assumption as well. We want to try and do it the way that it is actually being used in the household. And we want a test procedure which is reproducible because the lack of that doesn't do any of us any good. We believe that the Northwest Energy Alliance data, along with CEE, has data supporting the fact that more consumers prewash dishes than previously believed, and we believe that manufacturers have additional data to show that an adaptive response is evoked less often than previously understood and assumed.95

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Let me explain something here because I think that there's a great misconception out there about the censor based machines. The misconception is that dishwashers have sort of an absolute lowest response to clean dishes and that then they incrementally at very small increments then move that power and usage of water or heat or time or whatever upward according to that, and that just isn't the case. Sensor based dishwashers have got to do one thing absolutely from the very beginning on every dish that they encounter. They've got to get it clean. The purpose of having the dishwasher for the manufacturers is to clean dishes, not to satisfy energy. It's great that we can encourage energy usage, and it's great that we can label energy, and we hope that we can encourage more people to be energy efficient, but that's not the reason the manufacturers do this. It's to clean the dishes. And, therefore, in a baked on setting or in a setting where there are light soils that are applied very difficultly to the dishwasher, even though the dishwasher may see that as being a light amount of soil, it's got to clean that, and it's got96

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to clean that because it's got to use the proper amount of energy, the proper amount of water, the proper amount of heat, and the proper length of cycle in order to do that. And so it isn't some incremental situation. It is usually a massive jump from zero dirt, if you want to think of it that way, absolute clean dishes, to the very first response is a large response by the dishwasher, to get all of those dishes very clean. And so that's why we believe that looking at this in terms of a ratio is a way to look at it in a more fair manner. Now, this, I hope, is an adequate representation of what we saw in the chart that came from the Northwest Energy Alliance data. That is a representation of what all of the different types of soil levels are, from very clean all the way up to very dirty. And we focus actually on this last row because, in fact, those are the ones that trigger the largest response by the dishwasher, the very dirty, and in terms of that, we'd certainly love to know what a consumer sees as very dirty, but in fact, if we -- and I know everybody can read this a different way --97

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com but we've got to look at this as being that the first three rows of this combined really tell us what consumers are doing to do some pretreatment of that dish to go into the dishwasher, and that essentially this last one is probably where they are doing virtually no pretreatment of dishes, which then looks at what is that formula that we can look at. We've looked at this situation and believe that the department's suggestion of a 70-30 dramatically overstates the maximum response of soil sensing dishwashers in a household environment. Certain technologies are severely punished by this ratio, and if such a ratio were used, we believe that the energy standard level of .46 must be reduced and the standard opened for notice and comment. This is a dramatic departure from where we are today, and while I understand some of the data that Natascha presented in terms of how dishwashers respond to the testing, I would say in large part we don't agree with the data that was presented and don't find that it represents how it was tested in an actual manufacturer's environment. The other side of that is that it does not take into account some other technologies which have98

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com recently been added to the marketplace. The other thing about the data that Natascha presented in the chart form is that there are several of those data points that are dangerously close to the .46. We would consider that probably .47, .48 are in areas that have got to be repeatable data and have got to be taken into account with this. We believe that the assumption that's put into the NOPR that because most soil sensing models appear to be fully compliant rather than marginally compliant, they don't expect a significant number of machines to fail; we're unfortunately in disagreement with that. We think that there are quite a number of dishwashers that may not make that situation. There are some technologies that under 70- 30 will be well above the .46. It is design restrictive of certain types of technologies. Testing with soil loads is extremely expensive and results in unsalable machines, and without knowing the exact ratio of consumers, this is all based on an estimate situation. But we do think that it has to come to a realistic numbering system. We believe that one of the alternatives is99

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to use a 95-5 ratio of those who pretreat dishes to those who do no pretreatment, and we think that's borne out by the data from the Northwest Energy Alliance. We believe that any option below that does present some difficulties with the definition of "maximum" in terms of maximum response. It penalizes certain technologies and introduces additional variables, and it necessitates lengthy alternatives in testing and, indeed, would pro bably cause the standard to need to be opened up for further review. So, again, we're not trying here necessarily to look at this in terms of where all of the data exists, but rather, we wanted to try and frame this out and help you to understand that based on newer information, this rat io that was presented of 70-30 is absolutely not supportable. Thank you. MR. KERESTESY: Why don't we get some questions for -- go ahead and get back by the mic -- and get some questions for you on this, on these slides. MS. EGAN: An easy one. Can I get a copy of the presentation to bring back to the ranch?100

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. MORRIS: Sure. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. I have a little question there. Wayne seemed to have diverged there in his presentation. In the early part of the presentation he said something about the primary, you know, purpose of the dishwasher is to get the dishes clean, and these things are going to have sort of a stairstepped kind of response to any dirt that -- I use the term "dirt" loosely obviously -- that's present in whatever technology sensors are being used, whether it be a differential pressure or turbidity or whatever. And yet he seems to want to dwell on the very dirty untreated portion of the data that we gathered. I just wanted to point out two other things. We gathered from the data that at least two levels of the pretreatment or no pretreatment in our data would probably come into play in affecting the way a sensor machine operated, if not three. And I also want to point out that there was a fairly dramatic and consistent difference in the amount of pretreatment that people with sensor101

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com equipped machines did compared to people without sensor machines. For some reason the people with sensor equipped machines -- and I don't know the reason for this -- didn't pretreat their dishes nearly as much as the people who had non-sensor machines. Maybe they knew they had the sensor machines or they put some faith in it that they didn't in the other models. I don't know. But the point is I don't understand the justification for dwelling on only the completely untreated dishes a triggering a full cycle response from these machines in the manner that a 95-5 ratio would imply. We don't believe that our data should be interpreted that way. But I would still maintain that there's a huge gap between knowing how people pretreat their dishes and knowing how the machines respond to that, and I have yet to see any data on that yet. I would like to do that. I would like somebody to do it. Maybe we'll have to do it again, but somebody needs to document that before I would see any rationale for changing this. MR. KERESTESY: Any response? MR. MORRIS: Well, there are a couple of102

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com points that you raised, Charlie, that I think I'm not sure I can give you that information only because I think that a lot of that information is proprietary to individual technologies and manufacturers, and I certainly wouldn't be one to ask the ma nufacturers to divulge that information in a public setting that, after all, is exactly what they have. I would also like to remind both the department and others that the purpose of having this, I believe, is to present a consumer at the time of purchase of a dishwasher with what their expected energy outcome is going to be. So whether or not after they've become familiar with the dishwasher they pretreat less is irrelevant. It has to do more with what their behavior is the day that they buy the dishwasher because that is, indeed, what they're looking at when they compare Model A with Model B on the showroom floor. They're looking at that energy guide label, and we're trying to give them the basis of comparison of the information at the time that they purchased that dishwasher. And the best way to do that is really to look at an overall history of people's response to pretreatment, not with people who are entirely very103

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com sensitized to this. The Oregon study is a very interesting study, and I think it bears out some ve ry interesting information, but after all, it is take of only people who have not only purchased an energy efficient model, but also have applied for a tax credit. So they're already sensitized highly. Then they're being telephoned and asked about their habits of energy efficiency and the way they pretreat dishes. I mean, essentially almost the minute you do that, you're dealing with a subset of the population. I mean, you can't get away from that. That's going to happen almost any time you do that, but it isn't, and I don't think it was meant to be, a national survey of what the habits of people are. So we think that even if it looks at and says that five percent of people do nothing to the pretreatment, that's of those people who have very highly energy efficient, opt of the line, extremely well performing dishwashers, whereas the general population don't have those dishwashers and may, in fact, have to pretreat significantly more. So we think that that data bears out104

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com exactly what we're suggesting, is that for the population at large, the population probably is significantly greater than 80 percent, and we're suggesting it's probably closer to 95 percent do some type of pretreatment of their dishes. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens again. That still doesn't tell me what their dishwashers do. I mean, you know, even if I could correlate their pretreatment or discover somehow what level of pretreatment results in a truncated response, let's say, by a sensor equipped dishwasher, I still don't know what the results of that are. I understand the proprietary nature of the data, Wayne, but that doesn't help me. I need to see some data that gives me some faith not only that these dishwashers respond in an energy and water saving way at some level of pretreatment, but also that every machine or every technology deserves some similar level of credit. I have lots more questions that actually go into this, too. I don't know how reliable this technology is. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie, before you go there, Tom had also put your hand up on the last105

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com point. Let's see if he's got a comment or question on the subject that we're on before we move off of it. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Tom Johnson from Maytag. And it goes back a little bit to the first statement that you had made in regard to why change the standard as opposed to leaving it where it is right now, and I guess just a comment on that. You know, when we're designing the dishwasher, as Wayne said, it's to satisfy our customers to have clean dishes when everything is done. However, to do that, we design a very robust cycle that will really clean a lot of soil, and that's to make sure that everybody is going to be happy with the performance of their dishwasher. But what we know is most people do prewash their dishes. They don't have that amount of food soil in their dishwasher, and another thing we know is most people choose a normal cycle no matter what the dishes are like that go in there. And so what's happening is the people who prewash are really consuming more energy than what would be necessary to clean that load. With the adaptive control what we can do is sense that and106

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com cause the cycle to be truncated so that it uses less energy to adapt for that. However, due to the current standard and the way you can label, what would happen is that we could label our product to show, you know, it being very energy efficient. However, for those folks who don't pretreat, they wouldn't achieve that level. So what we feel is, you know, as a manufacturer, if we put that very energy efficient label on there, it shouldn't be completely representative of the full population. So what we've actually doing, you know, we h ave chosen to change the rating from what we could actually get from the DOE standard to try to make it more reflect what we think that the general population would see in energy use. And we have done some testing. You know, it was not national based. It was just in order to determine what we thought would be the right performance level for the dishwasher, and we've come up with a ratio that we apply, and that's how we put out energy label on there. So this what we're talking about now would help put the energy standard, the testing method more in alignment with what consumers would truly see. By107

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com not doing this, the energy label would, in a sense, understate what the true energy use would be. Therefore, that's the reason for proposing changes at this time. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you, Tom. Are there any other -- do you want to? MR. STEPHENS: I mean, I understand the rationale, but again, I still keep coming back to the same thing. No one has showed me any data that gives me any faith whatsoever. I mean, bear in mind in the background here this is not -- I don't put a lot of faith in consumer reports. I mean, you know, they have their problems, but the fact is that's the only reporting I've seen that's been written up in any systematic way, and they weren't very encouraging about the level of performance of sensor equipped dishwashers in trying to truncate the dishwashing cycle and saving energy and water. I mean, I remember distinctly that one model they tested took two full complete cycles with absolutely clear dishes before it finally recognized that the dishes were clean and cut back. This is after a dirty load.108

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com And, you know, you read about those thing and you say, "Wait a minute here, you know. Maybe something's wrong with the machine. Maybe this technology works peculiarly compared to others, but it's not consistent with what I expected these machines to do based on what people are telling me." I still can't connect dirty dishes -- pick any level of dirt. I don't even care what level of dirt you pick in the survey data. Pick any one and tell me what the machine will do. Tell me how much energy and water it'll use because in the long run that's what's going to give you your accurate reflection. I mean, I don't know how reliable these technologies are, what happens when they break. I mean if the thing stops functioning, does the consumer know it? Do they think that they now have to fix the machine? If the thing is still washing the dishes pretty well and it costs $150 to fix it, will they fix it? You know, what's it doing? I think that if the machine is like some where it starts with a short cycle and adds if the dishes continue to come out dirty, well, and then it breaks and it just does a109

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com short cycle, I figure the consumers may eventually discover that the dishes aren't getting quite as clean as they should, and maybe something is wrong. But what about the machine that starts with a full cycle and cuts back and it just defaults to the full cycle when it breaks? Will the consumer know it's broken? Will the consumer fix it? I mean, there's an awful lot of credit that we're being throw at these machines, and I'm not sure. Until I see data, I'm not sure that any credit at all is all that warranted. MR. KERESTESY: Bob.
MR. JUDD: I think we might answer some of that, but we may raise as many questions as we answer, but let's take a run through it. MR. KERESTESY: Are there slide or the -- okay. MR. JUDD: Can you see that from the back? Actually that's probably not going to be clear back there. We'd like to run through kind of picking up where Wayne and the comments left off. We do support the 95-5 ratio of pretreatment to no pretreatment, as Wayne suggested.110

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com The rationale for that basically goes along the line that we like the idea of a fixed ratio. It's a simple test to run the numbers. That's laudable. We think using both minimum and maximum energy consumption for the product does capture additional energy use for soil sensing dishwashers, and that's laudable. We think the 95-5 ratio is reasonable based on Whirlpool field test data. That's not a full answer, Charlie, to your question, but we have a sample of dishwashers in two locations. One's a factory location, and one is in Benton Harbor where our offices are. We have had units out for two to 30 months. The bulk of them have been in the range of two years, some a little longer. A recent set of models have been out for a fairly short period of time, where we did put counters on the soil sensors. So we counted the number of times that the soil sensor mechanism did do an adaptive response above the minimum.
MR. STEPHENS: A quick question. How does that technology work? What's its mode of operation? I just need to know what you're counting.111

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. We are looking at pressure differentials in the soil accumulation chamber, and when the dishwasher senses a certain soil level, we have a switch that responds to that, and this field test data he's talking about, we have a counter p resent, and so we can see how many times the dishwasher has seen a soil level that will cause additional energy to be added to the product. MR. JUDD: So the default is -- MR. PETERSON: The default is minimum, and then if you get this switch to activate, then we add energy from the minimum. MR. JUDD: So as we looked at that and we looked at the NEEA data, we see a very good correlation with five percent being a situation that would be a trip because we're running one and a half percent on average of machines tripped beyond the minimum amount. I think as Tom Johnson said, like Maytag, we design that normal cycle very robust. The primary concern is making sure that we wash dishes in a minimum response. If there's a very heavy soil load, we'll go above it, but we think our response of one112

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com and a half percent on average of trips into a more than minimum response is pretty consistent with the data that you gathered in Oregon where you're seeing three or five percent, whatever the number is. We think that would correlate in. It's not perfect, but it does bring some actual monitoring. It's not impressions. It's not what I think I did. It's counting what the machine did, and in some cases over 30 months. It's fairly long running. It's 26 machines. It's two cities, but we think it's enough spread that it does have some validity, and I think it anchors the information that you have. The last comment on there I think we've talked about already, which is we're supporting making sure this tracks with NR-Canada. However, saying all of that, we don't believe that a -- well, number one, minimum-maximum ratio is easy to run the tests on. We would agree with that, but we don't think it produces representative energy performance results for all soil sensing dishwashers. We agree that the consumer pretreatment is an important factor to be considered, but it's clearly not the only factor, and we think that the design of113

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the soil sensing control system must be accounted for in the response of different dishwashers to soil loads, whatever the level, is different, and we think it needs to be accommodated. I'd like to digress for a minute. We did some limited testing to compare -- I'm going to apologize for the lightness of the lines. We didn't realize it until we got down here that we should have made those lines heavier in Power Point, but this is four different manufacturers' dishwashers. We ran them at zero soil load, a four place AHAM DW-1 soil load, and an eight place DW-1 soil load to simulate in a rough way substantial pretreating, so me pretreating and virtually no pretreating. I don't think four and eight are the magic numbers. It was a way to differentiate the amount of soil in the dishwasher, and what we see from this is that at zero load, we're fairly well clustered. However, when you start going to four and eight, there is a substantially different response of different soil sensing systems to a soil load, and we think merely looking at the two ends with some sort of a fixed ratio is not going to be represen tative of what real machines do in a real world.114

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Because as you've amply pointed out, Charlie, getting reliable consumer use data that we can base any kind of a fixed calculation on, I think, is going to be very difficult because it would take a massive survey to get statistically significant data on that, and it's going to be very subjective, I think, if you say what do you do to your dishes because, you know, some soil, a lot of soil, what have you, is going to be something that is going to be very hard to get information on. I think we can get information on what machines actually do. Point four is what we mentioned before. I think NAECA requires us to come up with the test procedure which is representative of real world conditions. I think that's key. Accordingly, we're recommending that DOE provide an additional, not a substitute, alternate procedure to that that they're proposing that would allow more nearly real world conditions. The rationale again is that consumers very rarely wash very clean or very dirty dishes. That leaves most of the time dishwashers are run in the broad middle range and some information about the115

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com broad middle range is going to be very important. I don't know if all of you have seen a DW1 test load. We brought that along today just -- that happens to be eight place setting, and to make it a little easier to see, we did a close-up of just the plate. There's only one more way to go. (Laughter.) MR. JUDD: I think the number that we talked about, the total soil, to put that into perspective, for an eight place setting according to DW-1, that's what, 250 grams of soil load? I mean that's a lot of stuff, and it's hard to pick up in a photograph, but the yellow stuff is egg dried on. The brown is meat. The orange is mashed potatoes, and the other is raspberry juice. It isn't just like you'd take it off the table. That stuff has been dried for two hours. It's a rigorous test. It wasn't designed for energy. It was designed for performance, and that's the way it would set up. What can the dishwasher do to take off the soil? But that's a substantial soil load. As DOE alluded to, we don't think that we want to -- we would agree wholeheartedly, but we do not want to go to soil based testing for energy116

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com consumption. We don't want to go there. It's expensive. It's difficult. Its repeatability and reproducibility would be a problem. There was an illusion earlier that it produced not salable units. When we run audit tests at the manufacturing plant, if we run soiled loads through those machines, those are machines that we can't sell, and so it's impossible from an ongoing compliance standpoint to run soil loads of whatever size and duration. We have a proposal for a starting point for discussion. It's not a polished pr ocedure, but I think it's an approach that might be an alternate for us to proceed with. That would be that we run, in effect, a two-step process. The first would be to determine the adaptive response of a dishwasher to soil loads. The minimum would be the same as the minimum today. It would be zero soil load. The maximum would be a maximum, whatever that is. Th ere are some issues with that. And the medium would be running the dishwasher with an agreed upon medium soil load to determine what the adaptive response is. If it's a117

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com machine that does various fills, if the minimum is two and the maximum is five, find out what an agreed minimum or medium soil load is, find out what the adaptive response of that -- of whatever the dishwasher is to that load. Then use for the energy consumption calculation simulating the machine, setting the machine so that it runs the minimum, the maximum, and the medium soil load test, and then you would go to a three step calculation whereas the DOE has proposed two. The next bit will be to talk about the mix between minimum, medium, and max. We have, again, a starting point for discussion for that, but we think that goes a long way to answer some of the questions, Charlie that you've been raising. We kept saying over there did we prime you to ask the questions, and we really didn't. We haven't talked about this ahead of time at all, but I think those are the questions that we've been struggling with internally over the last weeks trying to put this presentation together, and while a fixed ratio, whatever it is, has sim plicity going for it, we have serious concerns about the represe ntativeness of that, and we think at a minimum we need an alternate118

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com approach that will begin to look at the adaptive response of how machines operate over the world. As to the ratio to be picked, again, we don't have a firm recommendation. We have a starting point, and the starting point would be the NEEA/CEE data that came from Oregon. I think that to us represents what we think happens in the real world, 25 percent minimum, a broad 70 percent with some soil, and a small percentage, five percent with very dirty. We think that's a reasonable starting point. It has the benefit of matching our data, which says a very low percentage do we trip and get into other than a minimum cycle, and again, I think some work needs to be done to set those ratios. That's a starting point. I think it's probably not sufficient data to do that, but there has got to be a way to come up with a profile that runs through a broad range of typical, of typical use. Individually, and I think within the subcommittee, they have spent a lot of time debating this without good agreement yet, but I think a comment that kind of at the end of the day yesterday that one of us raised that I want to quote is, you know, these are soil sensing dishwashers, and somehow I think that119

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com we're going to have to account for how the dishwashers respond to different soil levels, how the dishwasher responds to different soil levels if we're going to do anything better than just pick a simple number, which isn't representative. I think a fixed ratio, anything in the range of 50-50, 30-70, 80-20, is going to treat different dishwashers unfairly. We'll come back to that on the impact thing. I've got some more to talk about when we get to impact. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MR. JUDD: I think given the hour perhaps if there are questions about what we've raised, I can try to answer those now and we can come back and have more discussion after lunch. MR. KERESTESY: And, in fact, what I'd also like to do, can we make copies of this?

MR. JUDD: Yes. MR. KERESTESY: So why don't we have some questions now? We'll break for lunch and get this material copied over lunch, and then it'll be in front of you when we come back. MR. STEPHENS: I had one question just to understand that. So the proposal you make would use120

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com this technique, this test procedure to establish a ratio for a particular technology. MR. JUDD: Right. In other words, the thought behind it is we would identify somehow what kind of a medium soil load is. It's not going to be DW-1, eight place settings for sure. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I understand. MR. JUDD: And that's an issue because I don't think we've thought about that individually or as an industry other than for ultimate cleaning performance, but we would define some sort of a typical -- and it may be a range of typical -- soil loads and determine what the adaptive response of that is. The endpoints are relatively easy. The minimum is very easy. The maximum, when we get back to the details this afternoon, I think there are some questions that we have regarding how you would do the maximum test because, again, there's a difference in the real world what machines w ould do and what they're theoretically capable of doing is maybe different, and what kind of soil load it would take to get to a maximum response is an issue that has to be resolved. MR. STEPHENS: So then you would just121

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com establish the weight and then use that weighted average later. MR. JUDD: Right, to come up with some sort of a weight, and then the compliance testing, certification testing, audit testing is pretty straightforward because you set the machine to run minimum, maximum, and the medium point. It takes an additional run, but you're not using soil in either the certification or audit testing. So you don't run the issue of production units that are run for audit being nonsalable. You're running them three cycles instead of two, but that to me is not unduly burdensome. MR. KERESTESY: Randy. MR. COOPER: This is Randy. I guess I'd like to make a comment. What Whirlpool has proposed here is really based on the fact that their sensor technology is different than what other manu facturers are using. So they feel they need a certain test to work with their technology. I guess without getting into too many proprietary things, Maytag itself goes through a very rigorous test of testing points in between middle soil122

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com and heavy soil, and again comes back to a ratio because that would come through on four points because they would propose on three points. Generally what that all gets down to is it's math, and you can change your ratios, whatever it is, to get to the point so that as best it's labeled for the dishwasher based on the uses the consumer would see. MR. STEPHENS: Randy, are you saying you kind of already do something like this as it is? MR. COOPER: We do, but I guess we weren't in full concurrence with what is produced by Whirlpool.
MR. STEPHENS: Because? MR. COOPER: Mainly based on the soil levels that they chose and what they were trying to highlight I'll say based on soil levels. I guess the main point would be that there's different technologies here, and I guess that just needs to go into further discussion on what would be the best way for a test protocol to not create a competitive advantage or disadvantage. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I think consumer reports and Whirlpool's testing has shown that there123

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com is a difference in the response of different technologies. So I think that's always the case in adaptive controls. I mean we' re seeing the same thing in clothes washers. So I don't know. I guess I'm not troubled by that, but it does -- MR. COOPER: Well, and I think it gets down to the philosophy of do you start with the maximum cycle and go from there or do you start with the minimum cycle and build off of that, and the question is do you use the censors to m eet the energy standard or do you use the censors to improve your energy standard. MR. KERESTESY: Any other questions or comments? Everyone needs some -- MS. EGAN: I have one quick clarification question, and maybe I'm off, but if I understood correctly from both of the presentations, it seems that an underlying assumption -- I just want to be clear on that -- is that only the five percent number, only the very dirty number triggers a maximum cycle. Is that a true statement? MR. JUDD: Yes, that's consistent with both presentations.124

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. EGAN: So that the somewhat dirty triggers something else. It's not the maximum. MR. JUDD: That would be -- MS. EGAN: The 95-5 would imply that it triggers the minimum, which we can debate, but the position of the -- it seems that there's consensus in the industry that only the five percent triggers maximum. Is that true? MR. JUDD: That would be true from our viewpoint. MS. EGAN: I guess that was Wayne in the presentation. That was what I understood from how you were interpreting that last line of the CEE data, and I just wanted to make sure that I understand that correctly. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, this is Tom. I think that starts to get into some of the specifics, you know, of the technology, and you know, it may be very appropria te for the data that was obtained in the Whirlpool study, but wouldn't necessarily be completely repr esentative of all sensor technology. MS. EGAN: Okay. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. Can I respond125

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to that, too? Since you were mentioning my presentation, that wasn't my intention to say that about all types of technology or all types of dishwashers. It was merely to point out that certain types do that, and that the test procedure that the department has come up with may not be reflective of the wide diversity of situations that take effect, nor some manufacturers may not feel that the Whirlpool presentation is representative of the way that their machines, indeed, behave. And I think that's why Whirlpool presented this as an alternative, that if the manufacturer feels that their technology is not appropriately tested under the way that the department has set it up, then a manufacturer could choose to do it a different way, and that they would say that their particular technology -- I think I'm careful in saying this -- they feel that their technology would best lend itself to perhaps seeing a three data point type spread and to look at a ratio for that situation. Whereas other manufacturers may feel that the way that their technology is set up, that the two points, the min. and the max. and a fixed ratio126

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com between them works perfectly fine, as long as we can get to what that ratio is. We have, I t hink, severe disagreement that for the non-workable type technologies -- I'll say it that way. That's the wrong way to characterize it -- but for the other technologies, that a 70-30 is absolutely very design restrictive, and it is very, very punishing to those manufacturers to try and give an adequate representation of how the dishwasher behaves in an actual real world environment. This is suggesting that as high as 30 percent of people do essentially nothing to their dishes, and that just isn't the case, and I'm not, again, trying to suggest that only the max. response is judged by those situations. That's not the case. I don't know that I can give you exact data. We, you know, gather that, and that's very proprietary as to how they would judge this. All of the manufacturers have looked at how their dishwashers behave and feel that the 80-20 that we originally proposed was an adequate way of testing theirs. It gave representation. Whirlpool feels that their particular technology is not served by that two line split127

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com situation or two fixed ratio points and have proposed an alternate, and that's really probably about all we can draw from this. MR. STEPHENS: I can respond to Wayne. The thing is though a 70-30 split is a concoction. It's an invention. In most cases I presume these dishwashers have more than two responses. I mean it's not just either maximum or minimum. It's just that that's what we propose to measure so far. I mean that's what the current proposal looks like, not Whirlpool's ne cessarily, but we're just looking at minimum and maximum. But the fact is that 70-30 may be the appropriate weight if there's some response in the middle that's triggered 80 percent of the time. I mean maybe the correct ratio is 70-30, trying to get at what the real annual energy use will be because there's some response between minimum and maximum. Now, I don't know whether that's punishing, but the fact of the matter is there's a whole range of energy use in dishwashers out there right now. Some dishwashers u se more energy and water than others, and you know, it's punishing, I suppose, in some regard to the ones that use more to some128

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com consumers, but that's the way it is. That's kind of what we're trying to get at here, and if we're going to be giving credit to a technology that's designed to save energy, then I guess I want to be somewhat certain that it is saving energy, and if it's not, I'm not in favor of giving it any credit or more credit than it's due. It's that simple, I guess. MR. KERESTESY: I saw a couple of heads nodding. Do you want to add anything onto his comments? And then I want to see if anybody else has comments, and then we'll break. MR. COOPER: I guess I would just go back to that chart. Based on our internal testing, we do sample customers. We have them, again, proprietary -- we have them take Polaroids of what they're loading in the dishwasher and try to recreate that. We then take a look at that, looking at the ratios of what cycle is selected, and I'll say roll that up into a big number, which again a ratio can reflect that and, I guess, in our estimation at 80-20 is representative of what our customer base has shown us that that's acceptabl e, and again, that's why we continue to label it that.129

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com And again, that does take into account many responses in between. MR. STEPHENS: Randy, are you saying that the 80-20 represents to dish load or represents the actual metered energy and water use of the dishwashers given those loads? Are you metering the energy and water use of your dishwashers when they face those loads? MR. COOPER: Since we have a certain preset number of conditions it can go to, we monitor how many times it goes to that condition, say, no soil, heavy, whatever that would be. We monitor that. We know what that cycle will product energy-wise, and we can therefore ratio that up to what's required. MR. STEPHENS: and you're saying that an 80 minimum and 20 maximum approximates what you get when you actually take into ac count all of the weights in between? MR. COOPER: Again, that's based on our test data, yes. MR. PETERSON: I'd like to add a comment to that. That can be representative with certain systems, but it's not represented with all, and in the case of some technologies out there, Whirlpool's and130

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com others', putting a weight on this maximum and saying that's going to account for the medium responses is not an accurate reflection of the dishwasher, and that's why we presented the midpoint proposal, because it would more accurately represent all systems as opposed to just some systems. MR. KERESTESY: Everyone is looking at me like, okay, let's go get some lunch. Anybody who -- I take it that some of you who have spoken only once or twice or not at all are choosing not to. I want you to tell me if you don't feel like you can get in. I think there's been good discussion. I think there's been a lot of good issues and corrections put out, and I just want to be sure everybody has got a chance to ask questions or make comments, and I trust that you do because I don't think that anyone who has spoken has dominated. There['s just been some good exchange going here, and I think it's been helpful. I'm hearing that it's been helpful. But please, for those of you who have been quiet for the morning, I'd invite you to ask some questions or make some comments, and now that we're really into the meat of the subject, maybe you will.131

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com We should break for -- speaking of meat -- we should break for lunch, and Barbara might want to tell us what some options are.
MS. TWIGG: Let me make one comment first. Are there any other people who are going to make presentations using slide? Because perhaps we could get copies made over lunchtime if you could give them to Brenda or Sandy up at the front. We could try to get them copied so we'd all have them for the afternoon. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MS. TWIGG: So we'd love to get the copies done. I don't know. Is it raining outside? Has the rain come yet? MR. KERESTESY: I don't know. Okay. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the meeting was recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 1:24 p.m., the same day.)132

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com133

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N (1:24 p.m.) MR. KERESTESY: Let's reconvene and pick back up where we left off. Let's pick back up with the Whirlpool presentation, and Bob's going to finish a point that needs to be made clearer, and then we can have some discussion about that if we should. And then we would like to move to a discussion of how to shape up our proposal that could reconcile some of these differ ences that we're hearing about, and Natascha has got a statement to make that might kick that off. But first, Bob, if you'll finish up with what you were saying. MR. JUDD: Super. Just so we're clear, I think an issue that I didn't focus on, I think it's alluded to in my slides and in the writ ten materials, but to make sure that we get it surfaced is what is maximum, whether it's a fixed ratio or even in a three point curve that we were suggesting for an adaptive
response. And it may be more specific to one manufacturer or another. I think it depends a bit on134

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the design and operation of the soil sensing system, but to make an example, in our system, it takes a lot of soil load to evoke a maximum, a machine's maximum response. An eight place setting AHAM DW-1 load does not; a ten or 12 AHAM place setting soil load does not evoke a maximum response for our machine. To get there we had to go to the CU test. That isn't feasible for running the maximum number if you even went to a soil load because then you've got too much thermal mass in the dishwasher to be comparable because the procedure today says eight place settings. So you have a common thermal mass in the machine for running the test. So we have had considerable internal discussion within AHAM about is maximum maximum at some soil load or is maximum the theore tical maximum. Probably it has to be the theoretical maximum, but I think it's something that DOE does need to address, is frame of this test procedure a nd get to something that everybody understands what it is because I think until yesterday or until the last week or so probably we have not had a common understanding in the industry what maximum meant, and that's partly behind the -- at one point we were really close supporting the 80-20135

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com fixed ratio, and we were runni ng an assumption of what a maximum response was at eight place s ettings, which is not theoretical maximum. And, you know, we have one answer on an 80-20 ratio if it's what the machine really does under the eight place setting load of soiled dishes. It's another if it's a theoretical machine maximum, in which case, you know, as we'll get to later, we probably don't meet the standard if we're talking theoretical machine maximum, and I think there's a whole range of issues from a consumer's standpoint on that. So I think it's an issue that needs to be resolved. We don't have an answer, but I think it needs to be thought through.
MR. STEPHENS: A question on that, Bob. I mean, is that something that you could sort of take care of if you were careful about it by picking a weight for that number carefully? MR. JUDD: I mean that gets back to our five percent or less for really heavy soils because we think for us you're way out on the use curve. For us, you're way out on the use curve to get to that kind of heavy soil load, and at five percent or so, we can136

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com live with that, which is why we're supporting the 95-5 ratio and we're supporting the kind of ratio we bid for a starting point, which is not inconsistent with your Oregon data, which shows, you know, three to five percent is very dirty. MR. STEPHENS: That's for non-sensor -- MR. JUDD: Well, whether it's three or five or two, it doesn't matter. The numbers are all low. One's three and one's five. MR. STEPHENS: Actually I think the -- PARTICIPANT: Well, in terms of pretreatment.
MR. STEPHENS: Pretreatment? MR. JUDD: Yeah. I mean, it correlates. I mean I think it's in the ballpark. With a very low number, you know, it isn't so critical, but if you get to 20 or 30 percent for that for a machine that's very robust, it takes a lot of soil to get to the maximum response. Assigning a very high number to that is a serious problem. So I think it's what is maximum response and how do you evoke it. If you set up the test procedures to say if you can't set the machine to do that, you test it with the soil load. Then I think137

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com you have a direct conflict because you can't -- I don't think you can run the test at more than eight place settings and not create fruit salad because you have some points at eight place settings, some at more. So how do you do it? I think it creates an issue that needs to be thought through and find a solution for. MS. CASTRO: The intent was to obtain a maximum normal cycle, not the machine's absolute maximum. Depending on the different technologies that might not be a good enough definition. MR. JUDD: Right. That's out point. MS. CASTRO: Okay. MR. JUDD: In the normal cycle. I mean we read that in the normal cycle what's the maximum
response. MS. CASTRO: Right. MR. JUDD: The theoretical maximum response, and that's well beyond, well out on the curve of what anybody probably ever puts in the dishwasher. MR. EDWARDS: It was our understanding that you would want to run the machine one time and trigger the minimum water usage in a normal cycle and138

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com one time and trigger the maximum possible water usage in that cycle, the normal cycle.
MS. CASTRO: Yes. MR. EDWARDS: Is that correct?
MS. CASTRO: Correct. MR. JUDD: And then not disagreeing with that, seeing that if you tried to do that with our machine without setting it but running a soil load, you'd never get it, and that's the issue.
MR. KERESTESY: I thought your metaphor of getting fruit salad in this discussion was a good metaphor. MR. JUDD: Thank you. MS. CASTRO: But just one follow-up question. For the Whirlpool, for the machines that are available now, can the manufacturers obtain a maximum normal following this definition, putting aside the eight place setting AHAM load? MR. PETERSON: Yeah, we can simulate a maximum normal, but Bob's point is that maximum normal doesn't come into play even with the eight place setting. So we would question whether that's a practical maximum norm because if only 1.5 percent of our consumers are seeing even a single response, the139

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com percent that would see a response beyond that is extremely, extremely small. So that was the concern, that the machine's theoretical maximum, the way our machine is designed, it goes way beyond even the type of loads that we're discussing today. MS. CASTRO: So the 1.5 percent was not --
MR. PETERSON: That's not maximum. That's more of the minimum. That's the initial response to the product. MR. EDWARDS: I think earlier Charlie had alluded to the fact that he was questioning how machine technology was written. If you have a normal cycle and then the water usage is reduced or you have a normal cycle and water is added to clean, I believe that's the conversation we're having, and I guess my fear is that if we go this route that other manufacturers may change their philosophies, and we would actually add water usage because we would -- as if we're writing now to have a normal cycle and then reduce water usage if the dishes are clean. We may switch and go the other route where we could -- in a cleanability test, you could r un forever until you get perfectly clean dishes and you always score perfect.140

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. STEPHENS: Is that the cycle you'd label normal? MR. EDWARDS: That would be internal decisions that would have to be made, but that's the

concern MR. STEPHENS: Well, I would guess you wouldn't label that cycle a normal cycle. MR. EDWARDS: Well -- MR. STEPHENS: I mean that would severely disadvantage you in the grand scheme of things, running forever. MR. EDWARDS: It depends on how this procedure is written, right? I mean you would get a good energy rating and an excellent cleaning result. MR. STEPHENS: You might get an excellent cleaning result, but I doubt you'd get a good energy rating.
MR. EDWARDS: It depends on the outcome of this meeting. MR. PETERSON: I think Mike has a valid point. He's right. We could theoretically manufacture a good -- just add energy beyond what the max. was defined, the procedure. I guess that's one of the other reasons we come back to a three point141

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com type approach, where a max. really could be a max. if we get the bulk of the energy weighting where the bulk of the usage is. So then you don't have to worry so much about that small percent on the top of the curve. But Mike is right. He's got a valid point. MR. KERESTESY: Did you have a comment to make? MS. HOFF: Yes. Kyran Hoff at G.E. I'd just like to say that the proposal is Whirlpool's proposal, and it works well for their machine. It doesn't work well necessarily for other manufacturers' machines. And I think it opens the discussion. If Whirlpool can propose this, why can't I as G.E. propose something that works well for my own machine? And I think it opens the floor to that debate. How many alternatives can there be? MR. KERESTESY: Is that a segue to the point that you wanted to make? MS. CASTRO: Yes. Well, I just wanted to clarify that the 70-30 -- we were taking the maximum in two points, but we're using that -- we wanted to use that as the method to obtain an average normal,142

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com find out what the energy consu mption on average is for what is considered the normal cycle. At this point we'd like to solicit other proposals to try and find out what the best alternative would be. If one manufacturer uses four points to raise -- four points to calculate that average normal and one uses three points, that's one option, but we might need to come up with some procedure where all of the manufacturers are doing the same testing to obtain those weighting factors. So that if one manufacturer is surveying or testing, doing field tests of three machines or if we have these 26 machines, we need to make sure that all of the manufacturers have some sort of minimum or standard for obtaining that da ta, if that's what we're going to use as a basis for comparison. MS. HOFF: Right, and that's the basis for my concern, is that if you do show alternatives, it gives manufacturers the opportunity to test using different methods, and they're going to probably label the one that gives them the lowest rating. MR. KERESTESY: Gene and Charles. MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, DOE's Office of General Counsel.143

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com What we are doing here is changing the definitions of the terms, and by changing the definitions of those terms, I'd like to know how many machines would come under that so that when we look at the standard, once you change the test procedure, you then look at the minimal complying machines that meet the standard and see if under the new standard that standard might be reduced, and if it's reduced, that's the new standard. And we have only come up with about one machine that might have a problem. I am just wondering from this discussion, I mean, are there many more machines that could have an impact on the standard, and are we allowed to change the definition of the machines? And if in your December comments you could answer that, it would be very helpful to us. MR. KERESTESY: Bob and, Charlie, you had your hand up, too. Do you want to address this? MR. JUDD: Yes, please. I don't know if you want to do that now. I mean, it's one of your bullet points for this discussion. We do have a comment on that point. MR. KERESTESY: It's the same as this.144

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. JUDD: I think it's a consequence of that, but we're prepared to di scuss both the impact on the compact change and what would be if a 70-30 fixed ratio were adopted. It's in our written comments, and I'll cover it when Louis wants to get to it. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie? MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I just wanted to respond to the G.E. comment that I regard the Whirlpool proposal not for its specifics, but for its concept. It moves us in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned, which is, you know, right now quite frankly without that, we're working on a wild ass guess to the nearest tenth of a kilowatt hour for what these things use, and I haven't seen any other proposals that have been put on the table that are anything more than a guess. A different guess than what we're guessing now, but a guess nonetheless. And I'm all in favor of moving away from guessing at this and nailing something down even if what we come up with is imperfect, and I'm certainly willing to entertain any proposals from any other manufacturers if they think that this one disadvantages them somehow, in some way. I'd like to hear about those other concepts.145

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MS. HOFF: You do understand that the Whirlpool proposal is still a guess. MR. STEPHENS: It's based on some actual testing of a machine with other than clean dishes. MS. HOFF: Right, but they don't know how those dishes were soiled. MR. STEPHENS: I think the DW-1 procedure is fairly specific. MS. HOFF: Right, but they're arbitrarily picking the number of place settings that they're testing. Who says that four place settings is the median response a consumer would get? MR. STEPHENS: Would you suggest a different number? MS. HOFF: I don't know what it would be. I'm saying it's a guess. MR. STEPHENS: Well, I mean, I'm suggesting that that's better for a sensor equipped machine that's supposed to detect soil than clean dishes. I mean we're running these things now with nothing but clean dishes. Are you suggesting that that's better than soiling the dishes in a soil sensor equipped machine? MS. HOFF: No, that's not what I'm146

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com suggesting at all. I'm simply debating their proposal is based on guesses. They have some data as far as the response that was triggered. You know, one and a half percent of the time it was more than a minimum response, but the number of place settings, the four and the eight, are not based on data. We don't know that an average consumer is going to see a four place setting type of load. MR. JUDD: We would agree with you a lot, Kyran, at that point because we haven't done enough work to begin to define what a median response is, and that's why our proposal doesn't have soil loads in it, because I don't know what the right answer is. I know zero isn't the right answer, and I know maximum isn't the right answer, and I think that's something that if that approach is to be followed as an alternate or whatever, that some more work needs to be done at a series of reproducible soil loads. And at present the only tool we have is AHAM DW-1. It's not perfect, but I think one of the things we want to do after this meeting is go back and run a whole series of two, four, six, eight, you know, place settings or maybe even hit every one. I don't know, and look at -- because I don't think we know147

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com exactly what our curve looks like. We know the general shape of it by the midpoint. We certainly don't know what competitive machines do. But I think that's a way to get at a reproducible to determine a me dian point of some sort, and I think DOE and people like Oregon and Northwest and ACEEE -- we all may have some input into that as to what's a kind of a medium soil setting. And I think if everybody runs the test, we may find that it's not so hard. My sense is that middle range is probably pretty broad, and it may not be so critical for anybody, whether it's two or three or four, whatever the number is. There may be a way to get at it, but I think we don't know until we all try it. And that's c ertainly not saying that zero, four and eight are the right answers. We did something to have a basis to make a point, to demonstrate the point that different soil sensor designs and technology respond differently, and that's all that's intended to demonst rate, not that those are right numbers. MR. KERESTESY: Randy had a comment and Wayne, I believe, and then Ron. Thank you.148

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. COOPER: I guess I had two points, and I guess it first goes back to Charlie's statement that nobody else had really any other proposals. I guess that goes back to five years ago when Maytag first came out with our sensor machine. We did do exactly what Whirlpool has done, and again, we took four points, took the ratio of those and came up with what we labeled the machine. Three years later as AHAM, we started just throwing out proposals again. Not everybody had sensor machines at the time, didn't know what we were looking at, and 80-20 came out on the table. We went back and looked at our numbers that we were labeling our machine at. Eighty-twenty was the exact same number that we were labeling at based on our previous data. So, again, we felt very comfortable and have probably driven the 80-20 a little more based on our experience, and again, that's with our machine. Now, I think you take a look at what Whirlpool has, they're proposing a three point system to do some testing. Now, three points, four points, as said, still the same number of points. Now, what could be done is I'll say149

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com through a task force we'll go back and look at some soil levels and determine those points, what's a minimum response, normal response, maximum response, and then still take that and extrapolate that out into a two point system and determine the ratio -- I'll say an adequate ratio -- based on, say, either three points or four points to go through. And we run a broad range of manufacturers' machines and say this is what's obtainable, and then from there you can say, "Well, based on that, the ratio should be 72-28," which would then get us back to a two point system, a very simple test for us to run, a max./min., but something that would be, say, almost agreed upon between what's obtainable, as well as what the consumer may see. MR. JUDD: Randy, I understand your point, and if your control behaves linearly over varying soil loads, it makes a lot of sense, and our view is that some machines, including ours, do not behave linearly, and you k now, two points don't describe that, don't describe a curve for the way our machine behaves. We don't think any two points will. I think we feel that it's going to take more than two points to do that. We could be wrong, but our belief150

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com today is that with a nonlinear behaving control, we need to have more points. I can see if a control behaved linearly, your argument makes a lot of sense, and I wouldn't disagree, but theoretically it could work for machines that have pretty linear controls. MR. KERESTESY: Response? MR. COOPER: And I would just say based on, again, a standard is suppo sed to level the playing field. Whether a response is linear or not linear, the rules should be the same for both machines, and that's what I said. If we take this wide distribution of machines, do the testing, pick a ratio that I'll say works for both, then you have your max./min. response. You're not playing favorites to linear/nonlinear. But I guess from a simplistic standpoint that should be the direction. MR. KERESTESY: We had Wayne, Ron, Tom, and then -- Wayne, you can go. Just keep it in the order that hands went up. MR. MORRIS: Just to clarify it so that nobody goes away with any misconceptions, AHAM DW-1 was never designed for energy testing p urposes, and I151

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com know that no one is suggesting that it was, but I think that we have to be very careful here to understand what DW-1 was designed to do. It is a test that the manufacturers feel they can run in their laboratories in a controlled environment with technicians that are well trained and can do this. Setting this up for outside laboratories who are not as well trained to do on an infrequent basis is going to result in all kinds of disagreements because even as we've found, while we can do some round robin testing to get some numbers, the last time we did round robin tests of machines on the DW-1, there was a significant difference between different laboratories. It is a test that is not meant to be totally reproducible from one laboratory and one environment to another. So we've got to be careful about introducing this. The other thing that we need to caution about DW-1 is that it was designed in its very heavy soil loading for a purpose, and the purpose is to stress a U.S. type built platform machine with a certain type of filter to determine whether or not152

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com that machine can perform well in a redeposition test. To clarify, what that means is when you throw a slug of junk into the dishwasher, you know, on these dishes, and it's going to come off fairly early in the cycle; it's going to hit that filter. It's going to stress it heavily, and you're going to find out whether you're going to have your oatmeal flakes on the top rack imbedded in the tops of the cups and saucers on the top rack. That's what it's designed to do. It's not designed, it was never designed to be an approximation of what you're going to find out there in the, quote, real world, although we try and keep it that way. It's an over stress test, and in fact, some members of AHAM's community think that the food soil load is way beyond what we should be testing and have suggested that on several occasions, and we've certainly considered that. But we've got to be real careful if we're going to start to pull this back in that you will probably find that, you know, or you may find that a one place setting AHAM DW-1 load is probably representative of in some cases the worst that you're going to find out there in the consumer's real world,153

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com even when they're not pretreating their dishes. So let's be real careful in not thinking that eight place settings out here is going to be the worst and four is going to be the middle, and zero is going to be -- and no one is suggesting that, but I just don't want anybody walking away starting to think in that regard. This test is a heavy slug test of sediment material to try and over stress a filter mechanism. It's not for energy purposes, and it was never designed with that in mind, and indeed, as we're rewriting DW-1 and in the process right now, we're increasing in some cases not only the soil load, but the difficulty in removing it only because dishwashers have now caught up to that. So we want to try and get to that. I just don't want anybody walking away thinking differently on the use of DW-1. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you, Wayne. Ron. We've got a line-up here I want to try to get back to. MR. DuPONT: Okay. Actually my point has already been made further down in the meantime. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay. Thanks.154

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Tom. MR. JOHNSON: I just wanted to respond to two comments. The one about the multiple points being necessary to simulate the sensor response, any sensor actually could be -- you could represent that by taking its minimum response and its maximum response and then just picking a percentage, and no matter how the sensor responds in between that, you can still very, very closely represent that with that simple representation. So it doesn't necessarily drive to the point that you have to have intermediate points. In reality you can establish that no matter what the curve is just with a min./max. and a percent. The other thing, talking about data to substantiate the proposals, when we originally developed the first sensor based control, the testing that was done was actual field testing and actual consumer use habits as opposed to laboratory food soils, and the machines were monitored to see the response, you know, to what customers really do. And that's where it turned out that by taking the min. and a max. and the 80-20 ratio actually represented what was truly in the field for155

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com this sample. I think the interesting thing is we've tended to back into this prewashing and no prewashing, and the reason is these numbers start to correlate, and you can kind of see that, okay, that makes sense that if you prewash, most peop le do, and that's the 80 percent. Those who don't is 2 0, but that's not how we originally got there. It was the field data, and it just tended to correlate with this, and you can start to see a relationship. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Tom Eckman. MR. ECKMAN: Just to go back to a little context here, it seems to me that as Charlie pointed out earlier that the whole purpose of revising the test procedure is to address the ability of control strategies to respond to different levels of soil in the dish load, and if those control strategies have different logic, then they can either be represented linearly or nonlinearly depending upon their logic. In some cases, yes, you can come up with two numbers to multiply together to get the third that's the equivalent to all of those if you know what156

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the intermediate response is. So, yeah, it's true. You know, you can do 80-20 or you can take three points and multiply them together to get the sum of whatever that is so long as you know what the intermediate point is, and you can always go back to

two. The problem is it seems to me that each control strategy has its own s et of weight, and that's pretty hard to embody in a test procedure unless you basically mathematically have to derive those weights through the test procedure and use them in the machine for that particular machine. You can't just say it's 70-30, 80-20 because it's idiosyncratic to the control logic you actually have for the sensors, and so one way or another you're going to have to define a test procedure that either computes what those control points are or defines those a priori. I don't think that picking 70-30 or 80-20, either one, does justice to the variance in the control strategies that might be out there, at least the two I've heard about today. One is linear. One tends to be not linear. Then you're not representing them the same way.157

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com So you've really got to be dealing with whatever the intermediate points are. It turns out in the linear case it doesn't matter. It does for the nominal year case. The second point, if the intent is to exercise some set of test procedures or put together some test procedures that represent what the consumer will, indeed, see, then you do want to represent this midpoint because no matter what data we look at, the midpoint is the bulk of the operating regime, and so you really need to be careful about where you define that to be. You don't care really much about the n-ths (phonetic) because they're not weighted very heavily. If five percent or ten percent is the top end, normal max., it doesn't matter very much what that actually turns out to be if 60 or 70 percent is what the midpoint is, and so you're really interested in what operational behavior the control strategy has in that midpoint, and so it's really important to get a good fix on that and less important to know whether they scrape, clean, and wash their dishes before they put them in the dishwasher or not. It's how it responds to a middle level of158

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com loading, whatever that is, and you know, I think it's important that that be soiled dishes because that's what the sensor is supposed to respond to, is soiled dishes. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks, Tom. I think Charlie was trying to get in, and then maybe Steve or Bob. Yeah. MR. STEPHENS: Just one quick one. I think a case in point is Whirlpool's st atements about their particular model where the DW-1 load doesn't particularly stress their mach ine. It seems to elicit one step's worth of response with lots more response available should the dishes have been much more dirty than that. So, you know, I think the DW-1 test load is not an inappropriate thing to use, given that most people know somewhat how to produce it. If you had a continuous curve, if the machine could respond in hundredths of a gallon and hundredths of a kilowatt hour to every tiny nuance in soil level, then we might have a little bit of a problem here trying to get reproducible results. But if most machines respond in steps, and the number of steps don't exce ed the number of fingers159

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com on one hand here, then I'm not sure that we really have all that big a problem as long as we get some response out of the thing with a dirty load and we do find what that midpoint is. If it's not a straight line, and I sense that based on what I'm hearing here it may not be a straight line, then I need to know if it steps up quickly and levels off or if it hangs in there low an then jumps. I mean, I don't know what it's going to do for any given technology, and I think we have to keep in mind here that we're talking about a test procedure that we'd like to work for all of these designs going ten years out from now forward. So, you know, there's other designs that aren't yet in the marketplace that may be even different than what we're looking at today, and it would be nice if the test procedure could cover those as well. But I think it is important to get the weights right, but once you've established the weights, I think it's important that the testing be very simple, and that it not involve after that dirtying the dishes and the dishwasher and everything160

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com else. I can certainly appreciate that desire on the part of the manufacturers. So I think it's a matter of for each platform of establishing what these weights should be, and then from then on we just make some assumptions about what step the machine reaches for that weight. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks, Charlie. I'll go ahead and get Steve. MR. PETERSON: Yeah, I'd like to build up on the last three statements because I think they all really have some significant meat into them, starting with a statement down here, followed up by Tom and Charlie, and I think we're really getting to the essence of the situation here. I start out with Tom's statement about representing a particular adaptive systems response with two endpoints. That's absolutely possible. He is absolutely right. The difficulty is, and Tom's own record in the Maytag system across the continuum is represented well by an 80-20 fixed and maximum ratio. Whirlpool system, on the other hand, is accurately represented more by a 98-5 and a 1.5, and Tom hit that square on the head, that if you want to use two endpoints, you161

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com have to have two different endpoints for each adaptive control system that responds differently. So the median point, let me go -- well, the concept of a median point or median points really eliminates that problem if you had enough -- Charlie said if you had a continuum. If we had, let's say, 12 test points, you could get a very, very perfect response for every manufacturer's control system, no matter what their control system was. But now we've got to come back to the real of practicality. We can't run 12 systems, but another point that Tom made that is very important and one of the key central themes of our proposal is the bulk of the consumers are not eight place settings, and they're not zero place settings. So it's really critically important to get some midpoint. I also agree with Karen that we've not really fully represented whether it should be four, two. I mean I think that can be some follow-up work. We would agree with G.E.'s position that, yeah, that would have to be determined, b ut certainly that is the critical point. And then given three points, yes, we don't have a continuous curve, but at least we've clearly162

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com defined whether it's a linear system or it has a knee in the curve or is there some difference. So I think those are some key points. I'd like to also follow up on Wayne's comment about the AHAM load. I agree with his cautions, especially as we look at the defining test points. I think everyone needs to recognize, and I think Wayne made the point, th at the load was designed primarily to test performance. It's over stressed. Therefore, when we look at even this max. level, maybe eight is even too high. So I think it's a good case in point that that has to be calibrated. There has to be calibration from the AHAM test load which is done to really stress the machine to a consumer's dirty test load, which is probably nowhere near as dirty, and so that's also another I'd say "to do" list item that would have to be reconciled as to what those representative points might be. But, again, I think there's been some really good discussion. I just wanted to follow up with some agreement there. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you, Steve. Ed. MR. POLLOCK: I'm just going to step back,163

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com and I'm not a dishwasher engineer. So you guys have a lot more information about the way these things work, but it is my basic understanding that basically what you're doing is you're running a different number of cycles of water. You extend the run time perhaps for different cycles and different patterns depending on these sensors, but there are pretty much, my understanding, discrete steps because of the fundamental number of changes of water that you put into the system. And those perhaps I was thinking could be calibrated to a way instead of doing actual dirty dishes that we would introduce some material food particles not on a plate, but in a way that's very tightly controlled at some point in the cycle in the test to trigger these responses. I don't know. I mean I'm just trying to think other approaches we might go that would give us a little tighter control in a test methodology where we're measuring the energy efficiency and the triggering there of the cycles, as opposed to performance on washing dishes, which is a different purpose here. I'm only offering this as an idea. Maybe164

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com we can come up with some other approach that would allow us to have a better laboratory control for a

test. MR. EDWARDS: If the purpose of the DOE procedure is to limit the energy usage of dishwashers, I think the three point approach almost encourages the other manufacturers to write wash cycles that could use much more energy than they currently do. So aren't we getting away from the purpose? MR. PETERSON: Can you explain that? MR. EDWARDS: If we go to this three point system, if we're to do this, and right now many manufacturers write their wash cycles with a normal cycle and in the event that clean dishes are introduced, it reduces the water consumption. Some manufacturers write the wash cycles so that it can continually add water. I don't know what the limit would be in order to get the best washability results. So we would go away from this philosophy of having a normal cycle that reduces water consumption, and you would start writing your wash programs when soil tests are in that you could add water. You could keep adding165

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com water. And I think it gets away from the limit that we're trying to put on energy usage. MR. ECKMAN: I still don't understand that. If you continue to add water, you continue to add energy in water. That seems to be counter to getting good test results on the standard. MR. EDWARDS: Well, the point of it is that the energy consumption, it acts as a limit for us. It has kind of leveled the playing field. It says all manufacturers need to meet this energy consumption. This three point system that Whirlpool is proposing allows us to use much more energy in a heavy wash cycle like AHAM than we have been able to in the past. Is that -- MR. STEPHENS: I don't understand why. It's still .46. You can't go past .46. MR. EDWARDS: Right now if we run an energy test, we are limited by that .46. When you say that only five percent of the product out there would -- let's see how I can explain this. Again, the test procedure and the energy166

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com limits. We have worked with those, and I think it does level the playing field. It prevents manufacturers from continually adding energy and adding water usage and exceeding this .46 limit. MR. ECKMAN: If the three points still can't exceed .46 when they're weighted together -- MR. EDWARDS: That's correct. That's

correct. MR. ECKMAN: -- then I don't know how you play that -- MR. EDWARDS: But it's going to change the philosophy that certain manufacturers are using, and we will write programs that use more energy. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. Ed? MR. POLLOCK: I think what I hear you saying is that in the max. load because you're only going to count it for five percent, you could go higher, and so therefore if you had somebody who always ran it in max. load, it would not be more than the machine that is not a smart machine. Is that what you were trying to state?
MR. EDWARDS: Yes.
MR. POLLOCK: Yeah, and I guess that's one of the concerns that we might have with any of these167

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com where you have a balance and a mix with the smart machines, not just the max. load issue, but the issue of once you define those points and you have a smart machine, you can tweak the point a little bit to get you to just the bottom of that point. How do we define the test procedure in such a way that people in their designs and their intelligent machines don't tweak it to gain the test methodology that we're using? MR. KERESTESY: Kyran, Charlie.
MS. HOFF: I would agree with both what Ed and Mike have brought up. I think the issue Mike is addressing is you're weighting that maximum response very low, and then it depends on where you set the maximum response. If you set it at eight place settings, that may or may not be the true theoretical maximum for that machine. You could run it at 12 place settings and get a higher resp onse, and nowhere in the formula is that accounted for. So I think what Mike was getting after was a manufacturer could say, "Okay. Eight place settings. I'm going to let that trigger my medium response, and then I'm going to have something higher168

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com than that so that when I run an AHAM test at 12 place settings or when CU does their testing," which is a much heavier load than even what AHAM is, "I would get even a higher response." And then nowhere in your procedure would that be accounted for. So I think that's what he's saying, is that it could lead manufacturers to redesign their algorithm such that portions of it aren't included in the DOE equation, but yet it gives them the option of going above and beyond so they can get excellent wash performance when heavy soiled loads are placed. MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I think I understand that, but I would suggest that if you think about how the test would be done with the midpoint, take two scenarios. You've got a machine that's programmed to only use more energy and water if you get beyond a certain point as you suggest, with a 12 place setting or a Consumer Union load. Most of the time if you do a midpoint, one of two things is going to happen. Either your machine at that midpoint is doing a really good job, like Whirlpool implies their machine is doing, and it truncates the cycle in that midpoint at169

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com a very low energy and water use with I don't know how many place settings, four, six, eight. You know, I don't much care what we settle on as long as we think it's fairly representative of where most consumers

are. If that weight is 60 percent or 70 percent and it's a low number and it's reasonably representative of what we think consumers are going to do with their dishes, then I'm not sure where we're gaining the system. Now, if your machine doesn't do so well, and it's still got a fairly heavy soil load as it moves on through, well, then y ou need that more energy and water, and if it does, it'll move it up the scale in that midpoint. It will keep washing until it hits, you know, on that eight place setting or six place setting or four, whatever it is. If it has to go another step or two, well, then the energy use is going to go up and it's still constrained by .46, and it's going to get a big weight, and you're not going to do so well. You're not going to come out with as good an energy factor if your machine d oesn't respond until several steps later than somebody else's when you go to measure that intermediate point with a170

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com consistently dirty, midpoint dirty load. I guess I'm not concerned if the excessive energy use is out there so far that you can only trip it with a Consumers Union load, you know. I mean, I've got a lot of people sitting around the table here saying that consumers don't dirty their dishes that much, that it's a tiny fraction out there, and if that's indeed true, then I guess I have to wonder why I'm concerned about that. MR. KERESTESY: Steve and then Mike. MR. PETERSON: Yeah. Now, actually it becomes a follow-up to Charlie 's statement. What Mike and Kyran said is true. Many manufacturers could -- they can today -- can put more energy into 12 AHAM, 12 place CU, whatever they want to do. Fine. I mean, that's okay. I think Charlie hit the nail on the head. We've been sitting around here all day saying consumers don't even do eight AHAM place settings, and the DOE energy test procedure is intended to measure what the consumers are doing in the field. So why are we worried about 12 place settings? So what if we put four kilowatt hours into a place setting load and one person in these United States runs that two times a171

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com year? Has the United States lost a lot of energy? Heck no, but the vast bulk of the consumers that are going to be out there, someone that has two, three, or four place settings, if these machines aren't very energy efficient there, that's where the penalty would be paid and rightly so, by the machines that are efficient whether consumers are using them. We're trying to measure energy where the average and the weighted, heavily weighted use, and the practices in the United States is relevant. So I'm not worried about 12 place settings. And I would invite any of our competitors to put a lot of energy in there if that's what they so choose. It's certainly not going to be wasted in the real life field conditions. MR. KERESTESY: Mike. MR. EDWARDS: If we were to set this midpoint, if you will, at six percent, I'm not so sure -- I haven't tried it -- that we can't write a wash cycle that gives the minimum water usage its six place settings. I mean, I think there's a possibility there. So then you would have a minimum water usage, another minimum water usage, and this maximum water172

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com usage at one and a half percent. MR. JUDD: My answer to that would be if that does a good job of washing dishes, that's a good deal. It's good for consumers, and it's great for energy. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what this is all about. MR. KERESTESY: Kyran, and before I get back there, Christine I think had one. MS. HOFF: I had a response just to something Charlie said regarding the three point system and that if you had a midpoint, you know, it's a wash. Really it's not. It depends on what soil load do we set that point to be, and what are the percentages because you still get it under the same issue that you have with the two point system. Not all manufacturers have an 80-20 type ratio. If you've done a field test, you probably wouldn't find that G.E. and Maytag, Frigidaire and Whirlpool all trigger something above a minimum response in the same percentage the same fraction of time. So its' still the same question. No matter if it's a two point system or a three point system, what are the percentages and what is the load you define for each of those? Because173

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com it's going to be different for everybody. MR. EDWARDS: And how do we come up with one thing that works for everyone that's fair for all of us.
MR. KERESTESY: Christine, did you want to and then Tom Eckman? MS. EGAN: Yeah. I think that the feeling I'm getting from the discussion that's taking place here is that the devil is in the details of what we decide. What is the maximum? What is this medium point? What is the minimum point? And I'd like to hear. I mean, is the maximum that we're giving a five percent weight to, for example, if that's the num ber we agree to, is that a theoretical thing that never happens, or is that actually the maximum of the normal cycle? Because it seems to me what we really want to represent isn't some -- I mean, I guess I'm a little confused why manufacturers are making dishwashers to clean at levels that never occur in reality anyway, but that aside, just being curious as to why all of this over performance is being packed in, shouldn't the test procedure reflect the reality of the min., median, and max., not a five percent174

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com weight to something that never transpires in reality? MR. JUDD: Well, you've got to restate the issue that we opened this afternoon with. I think that's a serious issue. I think no matter how you do it, it's still not a big percentage of the time. I think there are good arguments from simplicity's standpoint, and to partly answer the issue that Mike has raised, to disincentivize a manufacturer from writing an indefinite number of cycles, that it would just keep running forever in a very heavy soil load, that you would -- there is a good argument to be made for the theoretical maximum capability of the machine. Hold the percentage low, but it says what is the most it can use, what's the least it can use, you know, what does it use in the normal circumstances. Set the weights, and then you have the two ends objectively set, and that I think removes a substantial part of the incentive to just let it run forever, quote, unquote, keep the number low, and then really worry about the middle range. And Kyran is right. It's not simple. If we had a simple answer, we'd have figured it out because we've had some people that are pretty capable,175

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com not me, but the engineers that are here with me and behind you guys, working on this, and it's not. It's not, "Oh, yeah, that's the answer." But I think if we're going to realistically look at, as we've said two or three times to different people, soil sensors that are intended to do something and running them where they're not doing what they're doing, it's very hard to characterize different systems fairly and competitively. Somehow we have to do it, and there's going to be some winners and losers in the short term, and you're right. Whatever we measure is going to drive how machines perform in the future. So I think we have to be careful about that because it's being careful what you measure because that's what you get. So it's not a simple task you've started down, but I think we have to go at it somehow. MR. KERESTESY: Wayne, did you want to add to that? MR. MORRIS: There are a couple of points. I wanted to go back to a question that Ed raised about can we come up with some sort of alternative, simple test kind of situation that you can do.176

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Unfortunately, no. We discussed that heavily at AHAM meetings to look and see if there was some alternative material. I mean for some technologies, for some food soil sensor technologies, you could probably put a teaspoon of coffee grounds in, and you could trigger responses. And so that's beautiful. Oh, let's just use coffee grounds. Unfortunately, you know, you can then say, "Well, do I use half a teaspoon then to represent the medium response?" Well, maybe, maybe not, but then you get into more problems with the fact that certain technologies don't respond to just the opacity of a food soil like coffee grounds, and so you may need something else. It may be density. It may be the pressure drop on a filter situ ation. It may be having to do with the mixing quality of the food material and how often it goes back through. We looked at so many of these, and we've considered them all, and unfortunately, no, there isn't one simple, little, you know, like drop marbles in and figure out whether it's going to reflect what the consumer does. So we'd like to look at that in terms of177

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com if that's what the department really wants to pursue. That's something that we'd have to go back and do a lot of work on, and I'm not sure that it bears that kind of huge amount of research effort, but if the department feels that that's an appropriate way to go, just let us know. You know, we sure would rather not spend the resources on that, b ut you know, if it needs to be. Let me see if I can set down where I think that we might be able to suggest some opportunities here, and I'm being presumptuous of thinking that I can help the department come to grips with this problem because I'm not sure that we have collectively even among AHAM uniformity in how to do this. But if the department wishes to have the manufacturers go back and look at the situation again, you know, we could look at it in terms of trying to come up with alternative setting levels or whatever you want to call them, soil setting levels, but I think it is extremely important to have some kind of information from the department early on that if we're going to look at, let's say, a three tier kind of approach, we need to fix the percentage sort of before we go out and look at the numbers of what the178

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com min./max./medium response is going to be. Otherwise there are so many variables here that depending on different technologies, I could pick different percentages in different min./max./medium responses, and then I could give you different answers as to whether machines that are out there today meet the level or not. And, see, you might have sort of a multivariate kind of situation going on. I'm not sure you're going to ever get to an answer. So it might be helpful if the department is considering as an alternate coming up with a three tiered kind of approach or four or whatever your number is. You know, tell us at these percentages we want you to tell us what the response situation is and help us to define that, but I think we might be trying to set ourselves up too much if we're going to just take this thing from ground up. I'm suggesting that as an opportunity for discussion anyway as a way out of this box because right now we're kind of coming to you and saying it works for some, it doesn't work for others, and, gee, help us figure out which is right. And I don't know that we've done much but179

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com confused things today. MR. POLLOCK: Thank you, Wayne. I wasn't proposing that we spend a lot of time developing it. It was a question of I heard you give this long speech about how the AHAM performance test was not intended to be an energy efficiency measurement and, therefore, we shouldn't put a lot of weight in it. So I was just asking the question. Are there other ways? Obviously you guys have a lot more knowledge about these systems, the way they work, and why they work the way they do, and the reason for having the workshop is for you to educate

us. I do think it's something that we need to work on together to come to some resolution on this. We, DOE, are not in a position to dictate this. With all of these different control strategies, there's a lot of variables that we need to consider, and I'm not quite sure how the best way to get to the bottom of this is. I would be interested in recommendations. I think we're going to end up being a situation which we talked briefly at lunchtime that we're going to have to compile some data. We're going to have to180

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com take a look at that, and we're going to have to come back with a proposal hopefully with your help and then solicit comment on this again because I just don't think from what I've heard today that we have enough information at this point in t ime to lay out something that's really going to be viable. We talked a little bit this morning about submitting confidential data. It seems to me that the way we may need to go is for us to understand better how each of your proposed machines operate, which I understand is confidential. We would have Natascha evaluate that, look at some different patterns, and try to determine some approach which would, along the lines that have been discussed today, allow us to come up with something that we would propose to you and let you try it out and come back and tell us what you think happens. If you've got other ideas on how we go, but just at this point in time, given that the technology is evolving so quickly and the strategies are changing from what we originally understood when the test procedure was put together, I think we need to do some more work on this. MS. EGAN: The only thing in that I don't181

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com hear a real easy way for those of us at this end of the table here to kind of get a sense for the numbers and the percentages and the da ta, and so that concerns me a little bit. How are we going to evaluate the different data points and sets? I mean that sounds a little bit like we have to kind of just go, "Okay. We trust that these are the right data points." So I mean, I guess conceptually from our perspective the original proposal that was put out we felt was too generous, frankly. Seventy-thirty, you know, we weren't happy with that, and the reason for that is essentially the discussion I've heard, which is that these extremes basically aren't the bulk of what's going on. There's this wide area in the middle, and nobody really knows what's going on because we haven't actually measured it. So anything that gets us to basing this on something other than consumers reporting their sense of dirt, which my definition of dirt is different from your definition of dirt, and self-reported surveys are always, always inflated; you could get into also the social desirability of cleanliness likely leads to people are overestimating how clean, you know, their182

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com dishes are going -- I mean the inflation factor of this you can't ignore. So anything that gets toward defining what's the reality of that middle point we would be supportive of and weighing that based on actual data rather than, you know, perception. That would be where we would come down, but it's got to be somewhat transparent. MR. KERESTESY: Ed and then Charlie and

Tom. MR. POLLOCK: I agree with you. I think there are actually two parts to this. One is coming up with a test methodology which measures the equipment performance. There is still this issue out here that we started off with today, which is how many people prerinse and what's the actual dirtiness of the dishes put in there, which is the field data that you're talking about, and somehow that has to be integrated into this because it's not just a question of the triggering but how often does that triggering happen in the product. And we haven't got a real answer for that yet either. We've sort of ignored it t his afternoon, but that does have to be addressed at some point in183

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com time. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie, Tom. MR. STEPHENS: I'd just like to go to one higher level here. What we've got here in the Whirlpool presentation, we noted that NAECA presumed that we will have a test procedure that as best as possible estimates what actual energy use will be in this product in the field on average, and you folks have brought us sensor equipped machines. Thank you very much. Now, I presume, and maybe I'm presuming too much, that the reason you did this was so that some of these products increasingly perhaps would use exactly the amount of water and energy required to get the dishes perfectly clean and no more than that. Now, that's a concept that our entire economy should be pursuing, you know. Just enough to do the job and no more, and in the meantime we have a standard that sort of keeps people from saying, "Yeah, if I throw 20 gallons at it I'll get it," you know. Yeah, you will with 20 gallons, but that's why we have a standard. You can't throw 20 gallons at it. Maybe you can throw eight and a half or nine gallons at it and still meet the standard.184

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com So there are limits, but we've got a machine, the technology here that's different, but it still is meant to do the same thing, to meter the energy and water use to just the amount that's needed to do the job and no more than that, and I think it is incumbent upon DOE to come up with a test procedure for these machines that actually estimates what these things will use, not a guess, not just, you know, pick some numbers based on one half of the equation, which is how people treat their dishes, but the other half. What do the machines do when people treat their dishes that way? And so I would just like to see DOE pursue this to the extent that we can get some data, and I think if the manufacturers are willing to go try a DW1 test load, four place settings, six p lace settings, two and a half place settings, whatever, and see what kind of a curve you get given your technology, and come back and say, "Our best performance is with six place settings," or, "we like six place settings as representative of the middle," you might find that most manufacturers land on the same number. I don't know, but I think until somebody goes out and actually tries it, I don't think we're185

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com going to know the answer to that question. So I'd love to see the manufacturer sort of postulate where they would land for their technology. MR. JUDD: We're stealing each other lines. I was going to suggest that as a first step that maybe we'd do something like have the manufacturers submit data to DOE at one to eight DW-1 place settings, and look at th at and let Natascha look at it, and that you could even roll that up and do A, B, C, D, E machines or whatever and just see what happens. And you know, you're right. We might find that 2.5 is a break point for everybody. I don't know. Until we get that, you know, then maybe we can increment into it. If we kind of figure out what the shape of the curve is, then we could have something ont unlike this where, given those numbers, then you'd go at different weighting, and we could perhaps, you know, back into a way to get something that everyone maybe isn't thrilled with but can stand as a starting point, and maybe we'll figure out that you guys are right. Two points will do it. But I don't know. I mean I think that's the concern everybody has, is they kind of know how186

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com they behave, but you don't see the mix, and there's, you know, a concern that some other approach might make you not meet the standard or give, you know, Brand X a big competitive advantage, and so no one is kind of willing to move, and somehow we've got to break out of there. MR. KERESTESY: Well, Tom has been trying to break in, but let me ask a question, Tom, based on this because you made a suggestion and a number of heads nodded. Is this something that maybe you should talk about a little bit more or talk about later about exactly what to do and how to do it or can you fold it into a nest step? The data seem to be -- the need for data, that seemed to address the need for data, Bob, and I just want to keep moving on and not lose this. Did we just agree to something that would be helpful? MR. POLLOCK: I guess this is something that the AHAM and the manufacturers would have to be agreed upon to come back to us, but it certainly seems to me to be the first thing we need to do. We need to understand how these machines function under different loads, and then after that, we can begin to take a187

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com look at it and talk about how do we design a test that fairly measures that performance for the different design strategies. MR. KERESTESY: Tom has been trying to break in, Randy, and then I'll come back to you. MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I support what Robert has to propose there. I think it would be exceedingly valuable to get some sort of aggregation mask (phonetic) through NIST or whatever so that we could see how various control strategies respond at various loading levels, and I think it would be also useful to get some that don't have control strategies associated with them to take a look at what they do in response to those same loadings. You know, what's the typical cycle program that's going on for those, and seeing how different kilo-hour per cycle we're seeing? And I suspect it wouldn't hurt to have a washability number out of them.

MR. JUDD: No.
MR. ECKMAN: Whatever that cleanliness is. (Laughter and simultaneous conversation.) MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. There are very few things today that I188

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com think I can agree on from the manufacturer's perspective 100 percent, and you will not get a washability number out of any of the -- (Laughter.)
MR. ECKMAN: Just trying to make sure that this is normalized. You know, there's input, and then there's consumer satisfaction, and there's an output. Hopefully you guys are going to be conscientious about that. MR. JUDD: The marketplace is responsible for that. MR. POLLOCK: That is traditionally with DOE. We assume the marketplace takes care of the performance. MR. ECKMAN: That's fine, and I know they're really tuned into that. MR. POLLOCK: Well, it was good to know where that line was. (Laughter.)
MR. ECKMAN: We know where consensus ends. MR. POLLOCK: That's right. Randy was trying to get in, too. MR. MORRIS: I don't understand -- this is Wayne -- I don't understand, Tom, then what would be189

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the value of producing the energy results for a machine that doesn't have sensor technology. MR. ECKMAN: Just to see where the baseline is for others, I think.
MR. MORRIS: Baseline of what? Of energy?
MR. ECKMAN: No. You've got so much water and energy going into the noncontrolled -- the ones without control logic, and I'd just like to see that against those with control logic to see, you know, is the control logic basically bu ying us a shorter cycle, kilowatt hours, or is it not.
MR. MORRIS: I still don't understand what it is we would be reporting on the machine that doesn't have a sensor. MR. ECKMAN: Well, if you plot this, you're going to see a straight line across there because it has a single cycle length regardless of loading. Those numbers, they exist. We have a test for that. MR. MORRIS: It's called where's .46. I think that's the answer to that for machines. MR. POLLOCK: Don't some of them have a thermostat adjustment on them so that as you change190

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the load, you're going to change the power use a little bit? MR. ECKMAN: Would the thermal mass change? MR. POLLOCK: I don't know how much value it is, but it does seem there would be a slight variation. MR. JUDD: But what we were suggesting in the one to eight is that there would always be eight place settings in the dishwasher. It's one soil, two soil, three soil. Otherwise you can't tell what's soil and the difference in -- MR. POLLOCK: Okay, all right. Understood because I had not stressed bef ore we need to make sure we define this test so that everybody does the same thing. MR. JUDD: But I think you'd have to hold the thermal mass the same, and it's how many of the eight you soil might be the variable. MR. POLLOCK: Right. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. Randy, you've been trying to get in for a few minutes and then Charlie and Christine. MR. COOPER: I guess this was to add.191

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Before Bob had mentioned it, a nd we had sketched out a very similar plan as a proposal. One thing that we would recommend is that we look at things less than one piece or one place setting soil-wise and a quarter or half because we've got pictures that show 90 percent of the consumers aren't putting anything even close to what's on that one. So we need those breakdowns as well. MR. POLLOCK: What I'd ask, because it sounds like you've discussed this already, if you're pretty well firmed up on this, that you submit a proposal to us that we'd have Natascha evaluate and then get back to you for comment, and then we'll finalize the process that we're going to use for this test, make sure that we've defined all of the parameters that need to be measured and controlled so that we're doing it uniformly and that we make sure that we've got good data when we go forward with it. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: I just had one question or recommendation here about following up with CSA and making sure they have the same level of interest or if they have any additional input to this before we get completed. In other words, before we get all of the192

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com way down the track it would be nice to have them weigh in if they have some comment. MR. POLLOCK: Thank you, Charlie. Make sure that Natascha also coordinates with them as she works on developing this and coordinating it. MR. KERESTESY: Christine, did you have something? MS. EGAN: Yes. I think I'm not a dishwasher engineer so I've been trying all day to really hang in with these discussions, and I'm feeling the need for a recap of what we are proposing here and what we all think it's going to accomplish to make sure we're on the same page, which is that this aggregation that we're talking about doing is going to get at the formula that we use. In other words, is it min./max.? Is it min./medium/max.? It's going to give us a sense of what that formula would best be to represent the varying designs of soil sensing technology. Are we using this to determine the weight that this speaks to?

MR. JUDD: No. MS. EGAN: That's mine. Okay. I just193

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com wanted consensus. MR. JUDD: It's kind of what medium is. MS. EGAN: We're going to come up with an idea of what medium is, what max is, and we will then, based on further discussion, determine how we weight that. MR. JUDD: Because you've got to fix something first before you can let the other one vary and have a meaningful discussion. MS. EGAN: That's where I thought we were. I just wanted to make sure. MR. KERESTESY: The purpose of all the data points was to --

MR. JUDD: To see if we can get a starting point that no one is going to go nuts on. PARTICIPANT: And minimize the number of them. MR. JUDD: Right, and how many how many iterations, yeah. We can't do but one. MR. KERESTESY: Well, it seems like we've got -- does that make sense to you and there's agreement on proceeding with that? Yeah, is there anything to wrap up on that? Because I want to get back to this to see if194

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com there's any other issues you might have had some comments on, on size, definition. So I think we're winding down on this one. Mike, is there -- MR. EDWARDS: One other point. I think Maytag has asked that we go the minimum, a half a place setting or whatever, and Whirlpool has mentioned the middle. Shouldn't we also give the maximum? MR. PETERSON: We were suggesting one through eight. MR. EDWARDS: I'm saying the very maximum output of the machine given -- MR. JUDD: Oh, maximum maximum. That may not be a bad idea. We can determine th at while we're at it, find out what the theoretical maximum is of the machine and get that written down. Yeah, good suggestion. MS. CASTRO: How would that be obtained then if you are limiting the -- MR. JUDD: However we do it artificially. You would have to trigger it. You couldn't do it with --
MR. PETERSON: We know what to do with the algorithm to make it use the most energy it can195

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com possibly use. MR. JUDD: A way to say that would be you go up to an eight place setting, DW-1. If that isn't the maximum response with that load, you'd artificially set it to run a theoretical maximum response on top. So you'd have two points there. If the eight place DW-1 load is not evoking the maximum response, you do another one forcing it. MR. POLLOCK: With eight place settings. MR. JUDD: Then you go eight place settings clean. So that way it would give us that

answer. MR. KERESTESY: So on these points of a quarter, half, or up to the max., there's agreement that the AHAM and the manufacturers are going to put together a proposal to -- MR. JUDD: A proposal that they'd have; that we'd each give thoughts to Natascha and let her come back and prescribe the round robin. MR. KERESTESY: I thought I heard something different that said if you were firmed up on this, which -- okay. MR. JUDD: That was Wayne. MR. KERESTESY: Yeah, okay.196

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. JUDD: Excuse me. MR. POLLOCK: Yeah, either way is fine. I don't want to take too long to do it. If it would be quicker to submit it to Natascha and let her compile it or work with Wayne to compile it, whatever you're comfortable with. MR. KERESTESY: Okay.
MR. JUDD: Just to let you know what we're doing. If Wayne compiles it, we'll -- MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. I think what i had understood was that the department wanted a proposal from the manufacturers for a test plan, and I think probably the best way of doing that is to have each of the manufacturers think about the elements that would be involved in that. We'll get together, not necessarily face to face, but we'll get together, and we'll try and resolve how the test plan will be developed, and we all propose one test plan to the department of how we would do it. The department will then make the determination of whether that needs to be modified or ask questions or whatever they need to do, give it back to us, and then we'll go about setting out to197

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com gather the data.
MR. KERESTESY: Actually one other step in there which I should confirm with Ed. I think what he proposed was then that would be noticed. That would be proposed for comment formally; is that right? I think so. MR. POLLOCK: That's going to slow it down. MS. TWIGG: Well, we're going to have an informal exchange first. MR. KERESTESY: Right, right. MR. MORRIS: Excuse me. I think the department could certainly send that out to the participants who have signed up for this workshop and have shown interest doing it. There's no interest why it can't be E-mailed or whatever to Charlie and Christine and Tom and all the others that are interested in this, and they can certainly supply comments back to the department. But I'd rather not go to the Federal Register level. MR. KERESTESY: Yeah. MR. POLLOCK: We can put where needed. We'll put it up on our Web page to share the198

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com information. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. All right. Just a time check here. Two, forty-five. We're going to try to end at four. Well, we had timetable of events set at the end, which adds cover to some during the -- yeah, NRC position was requested. MR. POLLOCK: I think we discussed that. MR. KERESTESY: I'm sort of back up to where we still are. Any other issues which I don't know if you'll have. We have some loose ends to tie up right now that are in that one to three o'clock time period.

Ron. MR. DuPONT: I'm just a little bit -- I'd just like clarification on the issue on truncated from earlier this morning. Have we decided to change that or not change it? Remember there was a disagreement on its meaning. MR. KERESTESY: Well, there wasn't a decision, was there?
MR. DuPONT: No. MR. JUDD: We raised the issue and were hoping you all will address it.199

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. PETERSON: And I don't think the disagreement was on meaning. It was on definition of the test method. I think everybody knows the meaning. It's just the technicality on how you actually write down the numbers when you run the test. MR. MORRIS: And the words that are used in the test procedure. MR. PETERSON: The words that have been selected now drive ambiguity or drives you to two complete tests, which we do not do today, and we were not proposing to add. MR. MORRIS: And I don't think the department ever intended to. So I think they want -- MR. KERESTESY: I think that was what -- MR. JUDD: I they were assuming I think was the issue. They were assuming we w ere running to today, which most or all of us don't. MR. DuPONT: So does that mean the wording won't be changed? MS. CASTRO: I believe so. Well -- MR. PETERSON: I would suggest either not changing or looking at the wording and clarifying it so that it's clear that you can -- obviously there's ambiguity because the departme nt interpreted something200

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com different than what we're doing. So I think there probably needs to be a wording change to make it -- MR. KERESTESY: I think the department understood the point, and I think -- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to remember what was said this afternoon. I think there was an intention to clarify the wording consistent with the discussion; is that correct, or tell me if I --
MS. TWIGG: Yes. MR. KERESTESY: That's my recollection. Okay. Thanks, Ron, because that was a loose end, and let's do some loose ends now. There's five bullets under that one to three o'clock time period. We've been talking about probably all of them, I think, at some point here. I know that Whirlpool has -- MR. JUDD: The last two I think we haven't. We probably tippy-toed around. Maybe the answer won't be surprising, but we probably ought to say it just so you have the information in your database and the record.
MR. KERESTESY: Actually what I want to do201

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com is get -- I know that you have something to say on those two points. Can I get a show of hands of -- I'm just trying to get a sense of what we have left to do -- someone who's got something they want to bring up about any of those five bullets or other issues? PARTICIPANT: I have one. MR. KERESTESY: But I just want to get a sense first and then -- so are we really that close? Do you guys have any other questions or issues you wanted to put back to the group before we left? MS. EGAN: You're saying we have only the last two items on this list to discuss? MR. KERESTESY: Well, going by this, and then there was those -- MS. EGAN: I just want to make sure I'm on the right part of the agenda. It's any dishwashers adversely, any dishwashers adversely. It's those two bullets that we have remaining to discuss. So if there are any other -- do I have one? I have one titled "Preliminary." So that could be the problem. MR. KERESTESY: Oh, yeah, yeah. There's the final. MR. JUDD: It's still the same two bullets, worded differently.202

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: Worded differently. the wording threw me. Okay. So they've got comments to make on that, and I'm just seeing if anybody else has comments to make on those five bullets or other issues. MS. EGAN: The only thing that I would say is that we have to be explicit about the fact that we've deferred much of the percentages conversation, the weighting conversation. We're all in agreement that we're deferring that to tackle that other. PARTICIPANTS: Right. MS. EGAN: Okay. When there is one other -- two others on the list. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. A couple other things. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I just had one about the definition of normal cycle. There's at least one series of products out there that I think have tended to stretch that definition a little far, and I'm wondering if the definition co uldn't be tightened up a little more to more accurately reflect what consumers actually use. It's possible, for instance, to define the normal cycle as a cycle in which no water is heated by203

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the dishwasher, and in fact, there's at least one manufacturer that does that. MR. KERESTESY: And what's the other issue, Charlie? MS. EGAN: The energy factors are better than what you get soil sensing with clean dishes. MR. KERESTESY: You said you had two? MR. STEPHENS: No, the other one I'd like to wait until the very end. I have a question for
DOE. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay, okay. What makes more sense? You guys tell me. Shall we talk about this for a minute? MR. STEPHENS: That means everybody familiar with what I'm talking about. MR. KERESTESY: Some yeses and some noes. MR. GRUNEWALD; You know, the law basically states that the normal cycle is what a manufacturer recommends for everyday dishes, and I think the fact that you found a machine that apparently had been run without heat would be in conflict with what the definition is of a water heating dishwasher because the definition of a water heating dishwasher, and that w as instituted in 1982 or204

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com '83, was that in at least two rinses at one time and then later on in one rinse, the water would be heated to just about 120. So if you have a water heating dishwasher which you recommend that they use 120 degree water, in my opinion you have to use a normal cycle that would meet the decision of a water heating dishwasher, which would require that at least one of those fills be to 120 plus. MR. STEPHENS: They are making the assumption that based on the DOE test procedure -- what's the temperature of the inlet water of the DOE test procedure? MR. GRUNEWALD: One, twenty, 50 or 140. One, forty, no load, nothing, just water. One, twenty is because in 1979, 1980 the water heat ing dishwasher was introduced. That's when t he load came into being, because of the heat load. And then the European machines came to the country and 50 degree F. was added. So 50 and 120 are both water heating dishwashers. Definition, the current definition is that that means that in one rinse per wash, that water be heated to above 120 because when you fill the machine205

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com with 120 degree water, you do not have 120 in the machine obviously and start down at 95, and maybe your last fill may be 120. The DOE is saying, hey, one of those rinses be heated. Otherwise you don't have a water heating dishwasher. Then they have defined the normal cycle as what the manufacturer recommends. So to me the logical interpretation would be that if you intend to use the normal cycle, that must include one of the heated rinses. I think that would be -- MR. STEPHENS: As far as I know. Can you imagine another way to get to an energy factor of .93? MR. GRUNEWALD: No, but I'm saying that may not be in compliance with the act though. MR. STEPHENS: Well, except they went to get a determination of whether it would be, and they were apparently told that it was, and that's why it's labeled the way it is today. So I guess I'm wondering if that's the kind of interpretation we can get, and I think we've got a whole set of machines out there that are somewhat misleading in their current la beling because of that.206

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com And I think if the interpretation of the rule is such that you can do that and label it that way, then perhaps the definition we have today is a little too loose. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. I'd like to respond if I could to that, and I'd like to ask the department to be very cautious about, you know, how we handle this situation. I mean, while I understand what Charlie is saying, let's be careful not to jump off the deep end because we may have one machine out there. Let's ask the department to go out and look at this situation and whether or not an interpretation, indeed, has been given on that situation, and maybe they could deal with that on an enforcement type of situation as they choose to do so. But if there are not a whole, quote, whole bunch of dishwashers out there that are doing this kind of thing, then let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. If the definition is held firm and is interpreted fairly among all the manufacturers or at least 99 plus percent of the models that are out there, let's be careful and not going and writing new definitions or we're going to end up with the same kind of thing that we did with the truncated and all207

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com the other things that we've tried to do, is in terms of trying to get better, we in come cases make it

worse. MR. STEPHENS: Well, yeah, I understand that, but I'm not looking backward. I'm looking forward. MR. POLLOCK: Charlie, I think what Wayne has just said is true. It really sound to me like we do have a definition that defines normal in terms of the number of heat cycles, and we need to take a look at this particular product and see if it meets the definition. If it does not, then I think it is an enforcement issue, and we'll need to revisit that, if we have visited it before. I don't know. I'm not familiar with a determination that was handed down to this particular manufacturer, but if you would give us information on that, I will ta ke a look at that again. MR. KERESTESY: Do some fact finding. Okay. Good, good. All right. Bob, do you -- you had some written comments which are now actually in front of everybody, right? It's part of that package? MR. JUDD: The first piece of it is. The208

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com first piece is very quick. Any dishwashers adversely affected by changing definitions of compact and standard models, we're not aware of any. However, the second piece of that is dishwashers adversely affected by the new test procedure as was proposed, 70-30 that's in the notice of proposed rulemaking. For all the stuff we've talked about, we don't think that's the right way to go, but I think the important point is that today no Whirlpool Corporation produced soil sensing dishwasher would meet the dishwasher energy consumption standard at a fixed ratio of 70-30 min./max. no matter how you determine the max. number. We think that's not an insubstantial number. That's in round numbers 500,000 dishwashers a year. It's 25 percent more or less. Ten percent of the total dishwasher market was about five million units. That's a substantial number of dishwashers. That's just ours. I don't know what the impact would be on other manufacturers. So I think, you know, absolutely as you look at your notice of proposed rulemaking, it209

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com is not an insubstantial impact on the current production of dishwashers. There's some discussion in the notice of proposed rulemaking about grandfathering existing models. That's not an answer for us because we don't anticipate, you know, eliminating the current control structure in the near future, and in our mind grandfathering covers units that are in production at the time the rule goes into effect, would not affect new model numbers coming down the pike after that, and so if the final rule turns out to be 70-30 fixed ratio, no matter how you do it, we think the consequences that you must go through the process to reset the standard based on the impact of the current production. And I think, you know, from all of the discussion today, I think we were kind of people feeling that's not the answer, but I think we need to keep that issue kind of in front of us, that as proposed it has a substantial impact.
MR. POLLOCK: That's the reason for asking the question that you alluded to earlier this afternoon. We need to know what the consequences of a change will be from all of the manufacturers, and210

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com certainly with the numbers of that extent, we need to consider how we would deal with that, and you're right. We would have to do something with the amendment of the standards because having that many grandfathered just doesn't make sense. MR. STEPHENS: Can I ask a clarifying question? When you say 70-30, you've talking 70 minimum and 30 maximum, right? MR. JUDD: Right, correct. But, again, it goes back to we think like in the real world one and a half percent of the time on average we trip beyond a minimum. So anything that puts that much weight on the maximum, whether it's a no rmal max. at eight place settings or a theoretical max. is way more energy than we ever use in the real world. And so that's what a high weighting absolutely does to a machine that doesn't use much energy over from zero quite a ways up the line, and it's a different philosophy, and I don't think the intent of DOE is to legislate out one design approach over another. I think the marketplace ought to do that. We need to have a test that frames up and let's the marketplace decide which is the best strategy, but211

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com it's got to measure fairly to that. MR. KERESTESY: Thanks, Rob. Where are we? MR. POLLOCK: I don't know if any other manufacturers have comments on this particular issue. As we go through this, since we're going to be changing the definition of the test cycle, and those numbers will have to come back and revisit this question when we come up with the new design. My preference is not to be in a position where we have to adjust the standard, but certainly having large numbers of product out there that are grandfathered and also restricting, if it's appropriate, a design which re ally does save energy is not our intent either. So we'll need your help in identifying where we are with this and make sure we do the fix that makes the most sense and does result in energy savings using this type of control strategy. MR. JUDD: That's why we're here, to help you do that. MR. KERESTESY: Other issues? Tom. Mr. ECKMAN: This occurred to me going back to the round robin test procedure or however it's212

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com defined. You guys are going to undertake at least some normalization across there. To the extent that you have in various samples surveys or otherwise that you've taken with machines out there, do you collect kilowatt hour per consumer per consumer information? Do you meter this stuff? This is just an open question for the manufacturers. You know, Maytag and Whirlpool both have 20-some or some number of machines out there that you've been monitoring so that you know that one and a half times it kicks into beyond the minimum run. Do you have kilowatt hour per home or whatever in any of those? MR. KERESTESY: Wayne? MR. MORRIS: I believe I remember asking this question at one of the AHAM meetings, and the answer that I got back was in some cases yes and in

some cases no. In many cases what the manufacturers were looking for was the response to how many times did the dishwasher exceed the minimum response, and indeed, then what levels or what numbers of responses that particular dishwasher gave in terms of its time or its213

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com length of cycle or its number of cycles or whatever. And we're not metering it to gather actual kilowatt hours. Other manufacturers in a few cases might have done that, but in a broad sort of brush approach, the answer is no. All manufacturers didn't just meter dishwashers in the field to do that. I guess, you know, in retrospect, hindsight being what it is, we probably all would have loved to have had that data, but it wasn't done, and so in some cases might have been.

MR. JUDD: I think an issue with metering, it would have been interesting, but it would have been very hard to correlate back to lab test conditions because you wouldn't necessarily have an AHAM eight place setting loaded, and the thermal loads would be different. You know, from my personal experience, we have a fair range of dish load in a dishwasher, and I think, you know, if you're not controlling all of the variables that we talked about earlier in the day about putting it in the box and doing all of that stuff in 120 degree water and all of that stuff, the kilowatt hours are interesting, but they don't214

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com correlate to anything. So it's an interesting point. I understand it, but I think outside of t est condition, it's very hard. MR. KERESTESY: Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I'm not sure that's true necessarily. The refrigerator-freezer test conditions don't even begin to resemble how consumers use their refrigerators, but o ddly enough it comes out pretty close to what real consumption is when they do because it's designed that way. So if you go out and meter it, I don't know. We might come up with numbers that are pretty good and pretty close, which I'd like to do. So let's see if we can't do that. MR. KERESTESY: Well, let me ask this question since Christine raised the issue of the weighting a couple of time, and with all of you here maybe to pick your brains about that a little bit, do you have enough steam in you to maybe brainstorm a little bit about strategy, abo ut options, about method or approaches to the weighting? It might be good if we could spend a few minutes talking about that. It would be a benefit, I215

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com think, to DOE and Natascha when they get to that step, and we might not have the benefit of everybody being together. Anybody have a thought on that that they'd like to offer to start some discussion about weighting? MR. JUDD: The first thought that crosses my mind, I think, because we have two sets of variables going on, it's been very hard to get started, and I think until we have some idea of what medium is, any discussion about weighting is going to be really hard to get any kind of closure on. I think we have to fix one set or the other of the variables first to have th at discussion, and I think people have to look at what they think their products do against some sort of a straw process for that. And then the weighting discussion can go on, but I think at this point it's so theoretical that we're just going to be tilting at stuff and say, well, you have -- you can't run that many variables and have a meaning discussion, I guess. MR. POLLOCK: I guess one of the things I'm hearing here, and it concerns me a little bit, is216

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com one way to get to the weighting is to come up with our definition of what the medium or what the number of points we're going to use, then look at how the machines actually perform right now and decide on a percentage so that we make sure they pass the standard. The other, which I suspect that people down at this end of the room will want is what happens in normal operation in the field, and what are the real numbers that we should put in there. And I don't know how we reconcile those two positions, but at some point we're going to have to do that. MR. GRUNEWALD: I think the key there -- this is Grunewald -- the key there is Charles has started, that we certainly need more survey data because that's the only frame of reference you have to how your customers are using that. So I'm not volunteering anything because I don't know, you know, how our marketing folks would think about it, but part of the task that we could possibly look at is to start at least -- it would be a limited survey, but if you have ten manufacturers or eight limited surveys and there is some correlation217

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com there and to, yeah, I have it, to use the same wording, I mean, settling down on certain types of terms and maybe even send a Polaroid out like Randy is talking about, then get that idea, I agree with you. I don't think we want to set those numbers because it needs to pass or not. That would be false. But to get that data and maybe those folks could help the manufacturers there because they have the access to the public MR. POLLOCK: Yeah. That is part of where I was going. I don't have the detergent data right now, but any additional data t hat we can get from some of the field testing that manufacturers have done, if you'd be willing to provide that in some sort of blind data form to us so that we would have access to that to expand our database, and certainly anything that anybody else is aware of that's out there that we might use. We're limited on what we can do without going through a very complicated process to do a survey. If need be we can do that, but it requires Federal Register notices, approval from OMB, et cetera, before we can do that type of survey. So I'd rather if we can get your help to get that data so218

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com that we can use rather than have to do it ourselves, that it would be very helpful. MR. KERESTESY: Christine and then Tom. MS. EGAN: I'm going to let Tom go first. MR. KERESTESY: Tom and then Christine. MR. ECKMAN: The reason I raised that awful question of has anybody metered this stuff is that rather than sort of picking a mid-range number out of the hat in terms of loading, that if we had some idea of the kilowatt hours a year used and some idea of the number of cycles per year used on average with some idea of what the dispersion around that might be, then it isn't necessarily to go out and survey to find out how dirty dishes are and how often the soiled dishes are used. If we can basically calibrate saying, "Look. The used 550 kilowatt hours a year with 265 cycles," where in the test procedures that we're looking at here at zero through eight place settings do we see a number that's roughly equivalent to that at the federal standard level at the .6 cycles per kilowatt hours? And then you have some idea. Well, that seems to be the average, and you can say that's219

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com probably the loading that we ought to be testing around as the median case because you can say empirically that's tied to total use, if you have the sub-metered data where you can actually bring those two together, but I'm not sure we do. MR. MORRIS: But with Bob's point, you would have to control the run environment identical to what you're doing with that. MR. ECKMAN: No, I'm just basically saying if the average consumer right now with an EF .46 machine out there post '94 uses 500 kilowatt hours or 550 kilowatt hours, somehow or another those are complying machine, and whatever they're doing, that's the norm of what's going out. You just pick a test level that gets you that equivalent at .46. So it just jumps over the other question of whether you scrape plates or not. It ties the two together.
MR. MORRIS: It just unfortunately I don't think is that simple because as Mike pointed out, you don't know how it's behaving. You're going to have to match that unit up somewhere s omehow. You've going to have to find out where its baseline actually is. You're going to have to know the model, serial number,220

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com when it was produced, and you' re going to have to know the manufacturer's name on all of that. And then you're going to have to try and tie that back to what that manufacturer tested that in a laboratory environment. All of that, I don't know that you can do that in the physical realities. I mean if all things were unlimited in time and money to throw at this thing, sure, but that just isn't reality. MR. STEPHENS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. We've already been doing some of this stuff. You actually don't have to do all of that. I can tie to a manufacturer's model number. I can get right down to a model number. I can find several thousand of those by model number, and I've got AWWA's offer of helping us sub-meter the water use at the street. I can control for what cycle people are using or get them to use a particular cycle, the normal cycle, whatever the cycle is we're interested in, and then I can meter energy and water use. MR. MORRIS: But at the end of the day what do you know now? MR. STEPHENS: I know that on average 1,500 households or more use so many -- divided up221

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com into manufacturers' model numbers, let's just pick some off-the-wall numbers. Le t's assume that I've got one model number that tests at an energy factor of .52, and it, therefore, uses so many kilowatt hours a year in accordance with the test procedure now. I mean that it -- I don't know what that translates to. If I use .56, it's 575 kilowatt hours. I know that number. So now I go out and I measure it, and it turns out they use 554 on average. So that means the test procedure for that model is overshooting what real use is, and if my weighting scheme comes up with 520, then it's too low. If my weighting scheme comes up with 580, it's too high. MR. MORRIS: But, Charlie, you don't know whether that machine was run in partial cycles. MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I do. I control for that. MR. MORRIS: You don't. You don't know whether the machine was run at a time when the thing had fewer that eight place setting load.
MR. STEPHENS: Doesn't matter. It's measuring how actual households -- how much energy per year an actual household will use using that222

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com particular model of dishwasher, which is what the test procedure is supposed to -- MR. MORRIS: You don't know medium load or high load or a low load. You don't know any of that. MR. STEPHENS: It doesn't matter. MR. MORRIS: Yeah, it does.
MR. STEPHENS: No. According to NAECA the test procedure is supposed to as accurately as possible reflect actual use in the field regardless. I mean, you can design the test procedure however you want. It's like the refrigerator test procedure. Nobody controls. Do you know how the refrigerator test is done? You do, right? Does that resemble how consumers use their refrigerators? Well, I can tell you that the annual energy use of a refrigerator actually does come really close to the tested values for those refrigerators, even though the way consumers use them doesn't really resemble at all the way the test is conducted. The same case with dishwashers. The test procedure doesn't necessarily have to resemble how consumers actually use it as long as you feel that most of the time the answer you get is reflective of223

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com actual use, if that's the goal under NAECA, and according to the presentation this morning, it is. MR. MORRIS: You went around in circular logic there. MR. STEPHENS: No. We do this all the time. It's if I went out and sub-metered a refrigerator and I got a bunch of answers for how many kilowatt hours a refrigerator uses, if I compare that to the tested value, it's really good. It's really close, even though the way that those two numbers were derived were totally different, in the lab and in the house. It doesn't matter. I conclude from that that the test procedure, however it's written is fairly reflective of how actual energy consumption is in the field, which is what we're asking for here. Now, I don't guarantee you that that's the result we're going to get, but I can at least derive some comfort that I know how many kilowatt hours various models of dishwashers use compared to how many kilowatt hours they're purported to use in accordance with the test procedure, and I only care about the former.
MR. MORRIS: Well, thank you very much for224

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com what you care about. Unfortunately we're trying to get to a test procedure here that we can run in a laboratory and it can approxim ate as close as possible what it does in the real world. That is what we're after. It's not one of these things where haphazardly we happen to arrive at that. We're trying to actually design that. I think that metering data is not going to tell us anything, and we're going to sit here for hours and hour pouring over data and argue about whether or not it's full loads or partial loads or whether it was heavily soiled or lightly soiled, and at the end of the day, that metered data isn't going to tell us anything. Whereas if we can go back and take a look at the survey situation of how people actually pretreat dishes, that is going to tell us something, and we've got that data. We don't need to go any farther. So I think that we need to arrive at the situation or we've already talked about doing. Find out what the minimum, medium/m aximum type of situation and responses are, the way it responds individually225

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com under those situations, and then let's sit down and let's, using the data that we presently have, approximate the weighting factors as we can and try and get to a test procedure that's workable for the manufacturers. I just unfortunately don't think that metering data, unless we are so absolutely careful in that house that we've got a camera on those people all 24 hours a day, we're not going to really know much of anything at the end of the time. Sorry. MR. KERESTESY: I think I'll interject myself in this one. Tom, do you want to say something, and then I want to see if anyone else has any comment on this point? MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, we'll see. MR. KERESTESY: Okay, okay. Anybody else want to add anything on this discussion of metering?
Steve? MR. PETERSON: Yeah, I think while the metering concept theoretically has merit, I would agree with Wayne. The practic ality of getting down to enough single variables to bring back the test procedures, well, I think some additional survey work226

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com is warranted, taking what we've got and then doing some additional survey work. I think the point is trying to get to what are those consumers doing for that practical load, that load they use a lot, and then that's really going to help us get to the test procedure. This just has too many technical procedures. MR. KERESTESY: Is there -- go ahead. Sorry. Ed and then Christine. MR. POLLOCK: I think that there's actually a middle position here in that from DOE's point of view I'd like to take a look at all data that's available. Certainly if there is metering data, it would be interesting to see what that represented, especially if we can identify it by model number of dishwasher, and especially other survey data. I mean the bigger database we have, the more different perspectives we have on this. Hopefully the better understanding we'll have of what the results are. I don't want to force it into either or at this point in time. Let's look at all of the resources we have and see if we can interpret that to make sense out of it, to use it to do a better test.227

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. KERESTESY: Christie. MS. EGAN: We've talked a little bit. There's been some discussion of the weaknesses of this metering data, and I'm going to put on my consumer researcher hat for a second and talk about there are definite weaknesses to using this qualitative survey data to try to get data on people's habitual behavior. You can look a survey data from all kinds of habitual behavior. People are really bad at representing the habitual behavior within percentages that are accurate. If you look, if you actually go into people's home and ask them, "Pick out the disk that's somewhat clean. Pick out the dish that's somewhat dirty," and you really start getting -- this stuff is based on perception. It's based on behaviors that they don't think about in this. They don't put their dish in the dishwasher thinking, "I think this is a somewhat dirty dish. Rather, this one's a somewhat clean dish." These are not systems and paradigms that people operate within. So you're asking them to put numbers to things they don't do. This is a highly -- they're going to tend228

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to inflate as a result is my argument because basically you're asking them how often do you do something. Oh, it's something I should be doing. So I do it a fair amount. Clean is good, so I do -- you're going to get inflation in this data. So you really need to handle that. This is probably pushing the limits of what qualitative data can do, and so we need to -- I'm the biggest advocate of qualitative research, but you really need to look at this in a very real, rational way, and I think that the metering data -- the DOE is taking the right approach on this. A metering data would provide a nice counterpoint. There's no easy way to get at this problem, and asking people how dirty is dirty is certainly not a solution because you'd get 32 definitions around the table of dirt. The last thing that I just wanted to say on this was to raise the issue that my understanding of the concept of these soil sensing dishes is that you're supposed to be putting these things in dirty, but these are being sold as pieces of equipment that minimize the burden on the household. And I guess I have a fair amount of faith229

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com in the ability of the manufacturing community to market consumer benefits like that and would think that then the trend would be that we're going to see a decrease in the number of people who are prewashing, and so that would not in this room, again relooking at these numbers, you know, every couple of years, to take that long trend vision of -- I understand the whole point here is for you guys to get less people to prewash. That's what's being sold. So if you're successful, then these numbers of prewashing today, which seem to range anywhere from 60 to 80 are going to be moving down. So that makes me a little uncomfortable with being -- let me just say it makes 95-5 look a little bit entertaining. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. I'd like to just simply remind everybody though that is very true, Christine, and I don't have anything to disagree with what you said, other than that what we're trying to do here is to allow a consumer at the point of purchasing the dishwasher based on the habits that they come into this with, to choose from Model A from Model B, and that's not based on how they're going to change their behavior after230

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com they have used the machine. That's not what we're after here. We're after giving them the raw comparison at the time that they choose Model A from Model B, and they're not going to instantly make the decision based on 20 years or 30 years of history with dishwashers of saying, "Tomorrow since I bought a soil sensing dishwasher I'm going to radica lly change my behavior," because the date that we -- MS. EGAN: But it's not an either/or. MR. MORRIS: -- even see from the Oregon study says they don't because there's not a huge difference between those people who are even after they have used the soil sensing dishwasher for a while, have radically changed their habits of putting in heavily dirty or somewhat dirty or whatever dishes. MS. EGAN: The only point that I would say is I understand and agree with what you're saying, but what I'm saying is this product is banking on the concept that you are going to convince the consumer in 2001 to prewash less than the consumer that buys today. If you create value for this product, that people's prewashing habits are going to decrease.231

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Maybe the first person learns not at the point of sale, but after using it, but they then tell their neighbor, Mrs. Jones, "Hey, this thing's great. You don't have to prewash with the thing," and Mrs. Jones a year later goes out and buys her dishwasher based on point of sale lower prewash habits. And so what I'm saying is that's what this whole idea is predicated on, is that prewashing is going to go down. That's the benefit, the consumer value of this product. MR. KERESTESY: Yes, Tom and then Bob. MR. JOHNSON: Just to follow up on what you said, that it's predicated on driving habits to less prewashing, there's another aspect of this, and it is to give those who prewash a benefit. In other words, where they do prewash, they don't have to use as much energy as they might do in a dishwasher without a sensor. So that's the addition benefit, is I do prewash and the machine will adapt, and it will actually cause me to use less energy. MS. EGAN: And I'm all for -- I understand that these things, used appropriate, it will actually use less energy and water than if the person is232

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com spending, you know, five minutes of running water at the prewash, and I'm all for that. I just want to make sure that this test procedure accurately reflects, you know, what's going to be happening with how these products are used for something other than this static moment. MR. KERESTESY: Bob. MR. JUDD: Even the risk that I'm not an engineer, it seems to me that if you count cycles and somehow track what cycles are run and how often the sensor actuates over a period of time, you would get the information better than tracking watts and water because with a machine you know that you should be able to in the lab figure out how many kilowatts it's using and how much water it's using once you know what cycle to select it with, whether it's a rinse all, whether it's normal, whether it's pots and pans. Whatever cycle, you can filter out the cycles that you don't want to look at, and you would have real -- you know, over a period of time you'd have real life what cycles consumers are choosing and how often the sensor actuates to do more than a minimum wash, whatever that is. And within a brand you could track that233

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com data. If you ran some points, you wouldn't have to have thousands. My sense is you'd have to run some test sites around, but run it for more than a week. I think you -- I mean we're looking at data we've run for a year and more than a year, and I think to really get at where people kind of settle out is to really get at that. You can't do it in 30 or 60 days, I don't think. That's a start. I don't know how fast the data would flatten out. MR. STEPHENS: I can speak to that a little bit. I think I'd probably get an estimate of annual consumption in 90 days without too much trouble. I can also, if it's possible to do it, I don't know that the answer will be clear, but I can take the householders for which I have survey data as to how they treated their dishes or not, and I can correlate that with their energy use and find out if there is any correlation with their energy use. And I don't know what I'm hearing. I mean if I go out and get this information on a model by model basis, am I hearing correctly that people aren't interested in having that information?
MR. JOHNSON: Actually I think what you've234

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com mentioned, it sounds like a very interesting proposal. I mean it's something that sounds like you've got the ability to gather some data that's fairly extensive, and I think there is value in doing that. In other words, what I'm hearing is you can actually -- you'll know how the dishwasher is used. You can monitor the amount of water and the amount of electricity that it's consuming and, therefore, in a sense come up with an energy number for that. In order to do that for sensor based machines though, since we have never established a correlation factor between the current DOE energy test procedure and what's actually in the field, I would think that we should include those in the sample to first establish that correlation on a non-sensor based machine, and then go ahead and do it on the sensor based machine also. But, you know, I for one would be very interested in that data, and I think there could be some great value in that to see if it does truly track. MR. STEPHENS: It might. I don't know. MR. KERESTESY: Randy.235

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. COOPER: Are these machines the only, I guess, that were bought for the tax credit? MR. STEPHENS: They don't have to be. I actually can get data through several dealers that we work with for any machines that I want. I have several dealers that sell most all of the brands, and I can pretty much have them help me get a sample of anybody's dishwashers that are the ones of interest and track them into homes, do the survey, meter their energy and water use, and then see if there is a correlation between what they tell me in the survey and what I see in the energy and water consumption.

I mean we've been sub-metering electricityfor a long time, and AWWA has got a way of submetering water now at the street for any fixture in the house or all of them, whatever. So we -- MR. COOPER: The key I had was that you would have to cover all brands. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, we would have to cover all the brands of interest, and if we want to do some non-sensor models to see, you know, what the correlation is, we can do that, too. Some of the ones that get a tax credit, for instance, are non-sensor models.236

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com MR. JOHNSON: And I think some of the benefit of doing the baseline of non-sensor machines is it takes some of the variability out that comes into the field, such as in the test procedure we say 120 degree water. Do homes truly have that? Some have a higher temperature. So me of them have the 120, but by the time the water gets to the dishwasher it's not 120, and dishwashers will compensate for that. But, again, if we take a non-sensor based machine and establish that baseline, then we can do a comparison to the sensor based. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, and in fact, we could probably do that at the same time. We can get water temperature in the household. Our average water temperature out where we are is about 131 rather than 120. So we could also collect that information in the process of getting it so we could statistically adjust what we're seeing to compensate for the fact that it isn't 120.
MR. KERESTESY: Steve. MR. PETERSON: Yeah. To add to this proposal or, I guess, the question to have, I'd like that information especially if the machines that you put in the study could be sensor and cycle countered237

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com as well, and then I think we could eliminate any potential noise out of the study. So if we had cycle counters and sensor counters I would be happy with that. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, but I don't know how to do that. I mean I know how to measure water consumption of any fixture or device in the house at the street, and I know how to sub-meter electricity and get a thermocouple on the water supply, on the hot water supply, but I don't know how to count trips of censors in individual manufacturers' machines. MR. PETERSON: I think the manufacturers could provide you with that information.
MR. STEPHENS: Do you want to provide that information?
MR. PETERSON: Sure. MR. JUDD: I mean, I think it would make it easier for us to look at each other's data if we had some of it measured both ways, and it would make it easier for everybody to understand t he correlation or lack thereof. MR. STEPHENS: Well, let's talk about that after we wrap this up. MR. JUDD: And see how we can do that. We238

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com ought to explore it. MR. STEPHENS: And see what we can do. I'll have to go back and talk about money and size and scope and all of that. MR. JUDD: Yeah, it wouldn't have to maybe be all of it. If would be up to you just to verify the correlation or lack thereof that would say either we've done enough, it works; we haven't done enough, we can't tell if it works; or there's no correlation and it doesn't make any sense. We could probably get 80 percent of the answer with a very few sites. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I can't tell you what the answer is going to be.

MR. JUDD: But I think, again, it would be sharing and kind of helping everybody to think, "Well, yeah, I know how. It goes my way, but I don't know if I trust it the other ways because they've been trying to trick me." I don't think it's quite that way, but I think that's kind of the underlying concern, that somehow there's a win for me if I do it this way, and everyone's afraid to let go of their way of doing it. MR. KERESTESY: Yeah, Barbara was going to239

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com break in. MS. TWIGG: I guess I just continue to have one point of confusion, and in a way I feel almost more confused by the end of today than I did when I started. Just in terms of, I mean, one of our fundamental inquiries when we started here was really understanding how the machines work, what the cycles mean, what they do in response to the dirty dishes. Like when you all come in now today and the piece of data we heard for the first time today, which is maybe as Whirlpool was saying only one and a half percent of the times would the maximum cycle be triggered or something, and to get to that takes an incredible dirty load of dishes. And then I'm thinking, well, is that so unrealistic and basically then your standard cycle is set to accommodate fairly modestly dirty dishes. And the point that Christine was saying keeps rolling around in my mind, too, that if you're marketing these machines as you don't have to prerinse, let's save energy because you don't have to prerinse, and the trend is gradually going to go that way, then where is your cycle actually set if your assumption, as you say, you wa nt a robust cycle? It's240

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com going to clean the various dishes and various degree of dirtiness. We really do need some different points of access to data to kind of clarify, you know, what these cycles are doing, what they mean, and what kind of dishes they're expecting, and they can accommodate in terms of dirtiness. MR. PETERSON: Let me make one comment to that. One of the other reasons that we think it's important to get a test proced ure that really covers a broader range than we think the max./min. might do is that sensor technology is not static. In fact, it's probably one of the most dynamic fields in dishwasher development. We have second generation technology and development that could totally change the way Whirlpool dishwashers operate. So we think it's important to get a test procedure that fairly represents any sensor technology because I can tell you five years from now ours is not going to be what it is today. It's going to be something different, and that's true probably of every manufacturer sitting around this table. So, you know, I don't think we can -- you241

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com know, the procedure has to be more representative of that outside world and how any particular system operates today. It's important for today, but it's kind of inconsequential to the long term, and any time we put a standard in place, it needs to be robust for the long term, and that technology is changing rapidly. And, you know, there are things that are going to be coming that will change the dynamics of this so that the test procedure really has to represent the consumer usage so that the machines are always being measured against consumer usage. MR. JUDD: I think another thing to keep in mind that's not going to make your job any easier, Barbara, but energy performance of soil sensors is one of the parameters that manufac turers look at, but it's not the only parameter, and energy consumption, while, one, we need to meet the minimum or maximum, whichever way you want to say, number is to be qualified to sell; also to look at what is the step up for Energy Star or the rebate programs. But also there are other consumer demand issues to keep in mind, which is ultimate cleaning performance, other parameters. So it's a tradeoff of242

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com various things, and I think, you know, if you were looking purely at energy, you would probably design an adaptive response control system different than if you're looking at a range of parameters for what you perceive you as a manufacturer want to -- how you want to address consumer demand as you perceive it. And I would guess that probably all of us look at it a little differently, and we have a different philosophy, which is why those curves look different and probably always will, and that's probably good. MR. KERESTESY: I think it's Kyran and then I'll wrap this up and ask John to address NRC -- answer the NRC question that was raised earlier and then maybe close with some comments from you. Kyran. MS. HOFF: I just had a comment about the survey or the metering that you were talking about doing. Wouldn't you also have to know what the consumer was putting into the product or at least have a degree of confidence that ac ross the brands you have a large enough sample size for each brand to know that it should be pretty much the same? Yeah, you're going to have a mix of243

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com consumers that pretreat and those that don't? MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I think you do have to have enough of a sample size with each model number. So I think obviously you don't want to spend so much money and time that you end up with 5,000 sample households. You'd actually like to do some fewer than that, but you also need -- that might suggest that we minimize the number of models so that we get a good sample for each model that takes into account that kind of variation. So, yeah, we do need a good sample for each model to wash out the consumer variances.
MR. KERESTESY: I think earlier in the day Wayne raised a point about what the NRC position was. Is that the right way to say it? MR. MORRIS: Coordination, I think. MR. DuPONT: Okay. NRC and CSA both operate very much as DOE does, and in subjects like this, they look for input from the manufacturers. What I'm here to do is to bring back to them as much of this input as I can so that they don't have to separately go to all of the manufacturers. It's their intention to look at anything that's decided here and try to harmonize the standard and keep them the same.244

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com Whether or not in the end they actually do this will be dependent on their own committees and their own internal operation, but their basic intention is to try to make all of these the same totally. Does that answer the question? MR. KERESTESY: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Barbara, do you want to wrap this up with some closing remarks and maybe some comment about next steps? MS. TWIGG: Well, it's been a great discussion today, and we've certainly learned a lot more than we knew before and know some directions in which we're going to head. I guess it sounds as if one of the major next steps is now in the camp of the manufacturers, and I guess I'm curious as to what sort of time frame you might be thinking about in terms of how you could sort of collect the data that you're talking about doing. MR. MORRIS: We'll get back to you. MS. TWIGG: Yeah.
MR. KERESTESY: Natascha, do you have any? MS. CASTRO: Just to jump back to the issue of the ambient temperature, we had discussed245

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com that it seemed that everyone was in agreement about the benefits of restricting the range that we operate under, that we test under, and that we see an improvement with a five degree reduction. Was there any other comment about that? No? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that people were satisfied with that. Those were the only. MR. KERESTESY: Okay. MR. POLLOCK: I just wanted to remind people that we at the current time do have a written comment period, which right now closes on Monday, December 13th. Certainly we are interested in your comments on any of the issues we have discussed today where you can add additional detail. We have the transcript from today. So it's not necessary to repeat what was discussed here today, and if there are other ideas for collecting data, other sources of data, data that you already have that you are willing to share with us, we certainly would appreciate that being supplied to us. Again, I just want to emphasize that if it is proprietary data that you do not want to be made246

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com public, there are two ways that that could be provided. One would be through AHAM, where they would blind it in some way. Secondly, it would be to provide it to us in two forms. One, the copy would include the full statement with the confidential data, and then additional copies provided with that being removed from it, anything that's confidential, which would go into the public record so that we can treat it in a way that protects that confidentiality. As I indicated earlier, I believe because of where we are on this issue of the test cycle and the data as far as the prerinse, we will need to open the comment period after we've decided the direction that we're going to go. So that will extend the rulemaking schedule to some extent. What we will do is that data which we have, as we compile it, as we get information that we can share publicly, we will continue to post that on our Web site, to solicit written comment. Hopefully we can resolve these issues through that process without having the expense and the complication of having another workshop. However, if we do find that we are bound247

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com up here and that we need a face-to-face, we will schedule a workshop. It's not my intent at this point though to propose that. And I guess just to close out then, if there are no other comments, I just want to thank you all. Charlie? MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I have one. Just in case you thought you'd get away without this one, you've expressed your intention not to deal with standby energy consumption. Do you -- can you tell me when you're going to address that and with what staff and whether or not you intend to do that before you publish the final rule for the water heater rulemaking? MR. POLLOCK: I'm not quite sure why it's important for the water heater rule.
MR. STEPHENS: Well, because their standby energy consumption is counted right now. MR. POLLOCK: Yes, it is, and that's been there. That's a little different than some of these where it's in control. But what we're doing, Charlie, and for those of the rest of you, on my research side, not the standards side, we are doing some research right now248

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com to get a better idea of the extent of this use and the ways it could be addressed. At some point in time we are going to have to go back, especially now that we're finding more and more of the machines have standby power. The reason we have been concerned about t he dishwasher to date is that usually when the door latch is open, there isn't standby power. Understand that that is now being added. So we are studying it right now. At some point in time it will have to be added into test procedures if it's significant, and I'm not going to define significant at this point, although we'll note that the court said anything that's measurable is significant in the Arrington trial. So that's something I don't have exact dates on schedule, but it's something that we will be working on during this next ye ar and moving forward on coming up with some proposal on the way we deal with it. MR. STEPHENS: So in the next year is the answer to when? MR. POLLOCK: As I said, I don't have a particular schedule. I'm just now getting my hands249

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005- 3701 www. nealrgross.com around that other part of my office because I have not been working with the research side. I have the project there, and I'm just starting to get a sense of what they can do and how quickly they m ove, and until I have a better understanding and get on top of directing that work, I'm sort of shaky about making any time commitments.
MR. KERESTESY: Let me just add my thanks. I hope it was a good discussion for you. I think there were a lot of ideas brought out, and we're ending 20 minutes earlier. That's a wrap. Oh, and did you get your forms for the property pass?
PARTICIPANTS: Yes. MR. KERESTESY: Very good. (Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)