EPA
WaterSense
Comments on the June 2011
Draft Revised WaterSense Certification Scheme
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter	Page
Maribel Campos, ICC Evaluation Service, LLC	1
Tim Keane, Legionella Risk Management, Inc	3
Chris Paulsen, Inax USA	5
John Bertrand, Moen Incorporated	6
Al Dietemann, Seattle's Saving Water Partnership	8
Fernando Fernandez, TOTO	9
Dave Bracciano/Susana Alvarado, Tampa Bay Water	11
Len Swatkowski, Plumbing Manufacturers International	12
Shabbir Rawalpindiwala, Kohler Co	14
Shirley Dewi, IAPMO R&T	16
Len Swatkowski, Plumbing Manufacturers International	21
Nikki Jackson, American National Standards Institute	24
Al Dietemann, Seattle's Saving Water Partnership	26
Brandon Leister, San Antonio Water System 	29

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter Name: Maribel Campos
Commenter Affiliation: ICC Evaluation Service, LLC
Date of Comment Submission: June 29, 2011
Topic: New Section 5.1
Comment: This section is not needed since Guide 65 covers this and Guide to Guide 65 covers
impartiality in detail. More over ISO/IEC 17065 covers this verbatim.
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language):
Topic: New Section 5.4.1
Comment: Not clear if the 2nd "resources" in the first sentence is referring to an internal lab or not.
Also, evaluators aren't specifically addressed within ISO/IEC 17025 since it mainly covers testing.
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language): If this is referring to a lab then suggest change the word
"resources" to "lab".
Topic: New Section 5.4.2
Comment: This section is not needed since Guide 65 and other referenced documents will cover
this.
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language):
Topic: New Section 5.4.2.1
Comment: Why is ILAC the only body who can accredit the laboratory? APLAC can also provide
that service. Also why does the lab have to be accredited?
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language): Suggest changing language to "provided the laboratory is in
conformance with ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope to include the relevant WaterSense product
specification."
1
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Topic: New Section 5.4.2.2.1
Comment: Why are the requirements in this section for 1st party manufacturing test lab less than the
requirements that a third party lab has to comply with? It seems a third party lab must be accredited
but a 1st party manufacturing test does not? Was that the intent?
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language):
Topic: New Section 6.6.2
Comment: Where was this 15% value established from?
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language):
Topic: Section 6.7
Comment: Editorial Change
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language): Suggest adding 7IEC" in the 2nd sentence as noted above.
2
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter Name: Tim Keane
Commenter Affiliation: Legionella Risk Management, Inc.
Date of Comment Submission: July 10, 2011
Requirement for "WARNING LABELS" regarding Waterborne Pathogens including Legionella
and Pseudomonas.
Topic: Very Low Flow Faucet Restrictors of 1.0 gpm or less
Legionella Enabled Engineering Design (LEED)
Comment: Extreme low flow faucets restrictors are known to significantly add to waterborne
pathogens (Legionella, Pseudomonas, etc.) colonization risk. Manufacturers should be required
to add Legionella risk warnings to product label and to include recommended measures to
minimize Legionella risk. If EPA is going to strongly recommend and endorse technology they
should at least require the inherent risks of these technologies be enumerated.
Rationale: 1.0 gpm very low flow restrictors and much, much worse 0.5 gpm ultra-low flow
restrictors dramatically reduce the velocity and turnover in drop legs to faucets and in the
faucets themselves. This results in extremely low to stagnant flow conditions (ft/sec) in valves
and plumbing that are sized for much higher flow rates. With extremely low turnover any
residual chlorine that may be in pipes is consumed during the prolonged retention time and
biofilm growth is increased. 3 to 5 ft. / sec velocity is recommended water flow in piping to
minimize corrosion, deposition, and biofilm growth. These facts are well established and well
known. Johns Hopkins Hospital Sensor faucet study has proven, what I have personally seen in
Legionnaires' disease outbreaks, that modern, poorly designed components and piping systems
are increasing the rate of Legionnaries' disease cases.
Suggested Change (or Language):
Require manufacturers to add "WARNING" label with all very low restrictors (1.0 gpm or less)
that states the following "WATERBORNE PATHOGEN RISK":
1)	Low turnover of water in plumbing lines greatly increases the risk for waterborne
pathogen proliferation including Legionella and pseudomonas.
2)	Drop legs (supply pipes) supplying faucets with very low flow restrictors should be sized
for the faucet flow restrictor flow rate to insure adequate turnover of water in these lines
and minimize potential for stagnation. Manufacturers should be required to list
recommended drop leg sizing including maximum diameter and maximum length for 1.0
gpm, 0.75 and 0.5 flow restrictors. (Example -faucets with 2.2 gpm flow restrictors
should have a 1/2" or 3/8" supply line and those with a 0.5 gpm flow restrictor should be
fed by a 1/4" pipe no more than 6' long.)
3)	These faucets should never be used in moderate or low use applications where potential
for stagnation is dramatically increased.
4)	EXTREME WARNING - The risk of waterborne pathogen colonization due to very low
flow restrictors is significantly enhanced when these low flow restrictors are used in the
following applications:
a. With complex valves such as electronic faucets and/ or temperature limiting
faucets or
3
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
b. In buildings where hot water temperature is restricted to less than 124°F at the
distal site.
Topic: Complex faucets such as electronic (sensor) and thermostatic faucets are known to
significantly increase risk for Legionella colonization.
Comment: Faucets with complex internals including seals, actuators, check valves, etc., and
large and porous surface areas are ideal for bacteria and biofilm growth. Electronic faucets and
thermostatic faucets are by design a much higher risk for colonizing bacteria and biofilm than
simple mechanical faucets. This is significantly compounded by adding low flow restrictors to
these complex faucets. Sensor faucets are frequently supplied with 2.2 gpm flow restrictors and
0.5 gpm flow restrictors. This indicates that the valve internals are sized for 2.2 gpm or higher
flow and at 0.5 gpm are running at 25% or less of design flow. Additionally, these faucets have
multiple, inaccessible strainers very difficult to maintain which can trap bacteria and solids. Also,
these faucets have weak internal spring loaded check valves designed to keep the cold water
from mixing with the hot water and frequently leak resulting in cross contamination of cold into
hot or hot into cold and consequently tepid water.
Suggested Change (or Language):
At the very least these manufacturers should be required to include a WARNING LABEL that
lists the inherent risks of low flow, low turnover, cross contamination and increased need for
maintenance and replacement of strainers and gaskets. Manufacturers should be required to:
c.	List components that need maintenance and that these components are easily a
accessible.
d.	Recommend that whole house strainers be used when possible to reduce fouling
potential for these faucets with significant surface area for bacterial and biofilm
colonization.
e.	List if materials used are known to be less conducive to biofilm grown
f.	Have warnings that when these faucets are used with very low flow restrictors of 1.0
gpm or less that there is an increased risk for bacteria colonization.
g.	Have warning that when these faucets are used with 124°F or less hot water or 78°F
or higher cold water that the risks for waterborne pathogens is significantly elevated.
Please keep in mind some groups / associations designed to provide public benefit have tried to
squash these known facts to provide support for technologies heavily in use or that they have
strongly endorsed. Some of these groups are interested in some extent to uncovering the truth
while some are more interested in covering up the truth.
Rationale:
4
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter: Chris Paulsen
Affiliation: Inax USA
Comment Date: July 20, 2011
Topic: Reporting Water Sense labeled products to the EPA (Section 6.5)
Comment: Why must the LCB report Water Sense labeled products to the EPA? This
responsibility should remain with the manufacturer. When additional responsibilities are
transferred to the LCB, the cost of those additional responsibilities will be transferred to the
manufacturer.
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language): Keep this responsibility with the product manufacturer.
Topic: Surveillance (Section 6.6)
Comment: This requirement places an added cost burden on the manufacturer. It also
places additional (and therefore more costly) burdens on the LCB. How will the LCB decide
what products need to be surveyed? Darts? A Ouija board, maybe?
This section also requires product retesting for surveyed products. This is another cost
burden for the LCB, which will, of course, be transferred to the manufacturer.
Does the EPA believe that manufacturers cannot be trusted to keep their products in
continuous compliance with Water Sense specifications?
Rationale:
Suggested Change (or Language):
5
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: John Bertrand
Affiliation: Moen Incorporated
Comment Date: July 22, 2011
Topic: Section 5.4
Comment: Allow an alternate statement location such as a WaterSense product cover
sheet.
Rationale: Provides a reporting option for manufacturer's and alleviates changing a generic
test report form used for all products.
Suggested Change (or Language): "In addition, all test reports shall be accompanied by
the following statement, located either on the test report or an attached cover sheet:"
Topic: Section 6.2.5
Comment: The certifier is required to post to its website "all of the information collected as
part of the application process".
Rationale: Manufacturer's submit confidential information as part of the application process
and it is not appropriate information to share on the website.
Suggested Change (or Language): Remove this language from the requirement.
Topic: Section 6.5
Comment: The certifier is required to report all currently listed products to update the
WaterSense web registry. This new requirement has not been fully reviewed by the
certifiers and manufacturer's to understand the effort, logistics and costs involved. Change
the language so that the certifier only needs to report new models as they are certified. A
complete refresh of the database should not be required.
Rationale: This will ultimately add cost for the manufacturer's which may become
unnecessarily burdensome for smaller manufacturers.
Suggested Change (or Language):
6.5 Reporting WaterSense Labeled Products to EPA
The licensed certifying body shall notify EPA of the products that it has certified. This
notification shall be made on a product-specific notification template available on the
WaterSense website and shall contain the relevant product information for aW any
WaterSense labeled products no currently listed on the licensed certifying body's
WaterSense labeled product listing, including information for private labeled products. EPA
will use this information to update its WaterSense labeled product Web registry.
6
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Topic: Section 6.6.2
Comment: The 15% annual testing requirement is excessive.
Rationale:
1)	This requirement will add substantial cost for manufacturer's because it requires a
statistical sampling with product that can be obtained at a retail outlet at the
manufacturer's expense. Testing must be performed at the certifier thereby adding
further cost. This will get quite expensive and the costs will eventually be borne by the
consumers. If costs grow too large, some manufacturers may reduce their participation
or cease altogether.
2)	Certifiers may not have the capacity to handle a large increase in product testing and
this will become increasingly burdensome as the WaterSense program continues to
grow. This may create a huge backlog at certifiers that in turn will impact the certification
and introduction of new products.
3)	Certifiers 3rd party certification procedures have a long history of success using current
surveillance auditing procedures which target among other things, health and safety
performance of products. This degree of monitoring is not commensurate with the
aspect being monitored, water savings.
Suggested Change (or Language): Delete this requirement and allow certifiers to
continue to monitor compliance through their well established surveillance auditing
procedures.
7
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Al Dietemann
Affiliation: Seattle's Saving Water Partnership
Comment Date: July 22, 2011
My comment on certifications: Given all the historical problems at Energy Star and elsewhere
with manufacturer self certifications (with or without certified bodies observing), I'm opposed to
WaterSense certifications going this direction, even if it does add costs to manufacturers. The
WaterSense brand should be a Premium label. It should be understood that Premium labels
are more expensive than non-labeled products. Independent lab certification of the majority of a
manufacturers models will add significantly to their costs. I can understand why they want a less
expensive option. But mass labeling defeats the intended purpose of WaterSense to certify only
the most efficient models. Manufacturers should be selective and pick and choose the models
they want to be certified if they want to keep their costs lower, not look for ways to lower
certification costs.
Note: This comment was superseded by a subsequent comment submitted by the commenter
on August 15, 2011 (see page 26).
8
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter: Fernando Fernandez
Affiliation: TOTO (manufacturer)
Comment Date: July 25, 2011
Topic: 5.4.1 Internal Resources
Comment: Requirements for CB's for evaluation services (testing)
Rationale: CB's should have more options for complying with the requirements for
displaying competency for a WaterSense specification. While an independent, 3rd party
accreditation is one method of proof, by no means should it preclude additional alternatives
for demonstrating proficiency. The program has achieved a high level of success over the
past 5 years in its current state. Restricting the evaluation activities by its own resources to
mandating independent accreditation will add an unnecessary cost burden.
Suggested Change (or Language): (new verbiage in red font below)
5.4.1 Internal Resources
If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation activities with its own resources, it shall
ensure that those resources are either:
•	accredited by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual
Recognition Agreement (MRA) Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of
accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product specification(s) and ensure
that the personnel conducting the testing have the necessary competence and
expertise,
•	trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product specification or,
•	participants in the EPA's test method and specification development process for the
relevant WaterSense product specification.
Topic: 5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratories
Comment: Requirements for independent testing laboratories to conduct evaluation
services (testing)
Rationale: Allow same alternatives as in Clause 5.4.1. Furthermore, independent testing
laboratories must currently undergo annual auditing by the certification body it is accredited
by for showing compliance to ISO/IEC 17025.
Suggested Change (or Language): (new verbiage in red font below)
5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratories
Licensed certifying bodies may allow an independent testing laboratory to conduct
evaluation activities, provided the laboratory is either:
• accredited by an ILAC MRA Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of
accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product specification,
9
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
•	trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product specification as
determined by the licensed certifying body or,
•	a participant in the EPA's test method and specification development process for the
relevant WaterSense product specification.
Topic: 6.5 - Reporting WaterSense Labeled Products
Comment: Requirement of CB to report listing data to EPA
Rationale: An option should be maintained to allow the listee to directly submit data to the
EPA as a more economic option.
Suggested Change (or Language): not supplied
Topic: 6.5 - Reporting WaterSense Labeled Products
Comment: Requirement of CB to report previously listed data to EPA at each listing
interval
Rationale: Only the newest models to be listed should be necessary for reporting at each
listing interval.
Suggested Change (or Language): not supplied
10
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Dave Bracciano/Susana Alvarado
Affiliation: Tampa Bay Water
Comment Date: July 25, 2011
Topic: Draft Revisions to the WaterSense® Product Certification System
Comment:
Sections 6.6.1 & 6.6.2
Tampa Bay Water has reviewed the changes in the Draft Revisions to the WaterSense
Product Certification System. It appears the changes:
•Increase the testing requirement percentages from 1 unit of each one model certified
per manufacturer to 15% of all Licensed Certifying Bodies certified products
•Testing requirements are increased up to 50% to cover any discrepancies with sample
size, product reliability, and product availability
Both of these changes enhance product reliability, consumer satisfaction, and product
placement issues) while making the testing more cost effective and quicker (instead of a
5 year recertification period).
Section 6.7 & Discussion of Revisions to the Product Notification Process
Furthermore, the streamlining of the product notification process:
•Allows for information to remain accurate as it is being sent from manufacturers to the
Licensed Certifying Bodies' and finally to the EPA.
This comprehensive process allows for the Licensed Certifying Bodies to have a direct
responsibility of relaying correct information to the EPA, decreasing the incidences of
Watersense labeling misuse in the future.
Rationale: See comment above (N/A)
Suggested Change (or Language): N/A
11
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter: Len Swatkowski
Affiliation: Plumbing Manufacturers International
Comment Date: July 25, 2011
Topic: Section 6.5 - Reporting WaterSense Labeled Products to EPA
Comment: EPA is now asking that all listings to WaterSense be performed by CB's
in the program instead of by each manufacturer. The submittals require all previous
listing to be added to each subsequent submittal.
Rationale: This adds complexity and confusion to a newer certification system and
should be eliminated
Suggested Change (or Language): When submitting a new listing, only the new basic
models should be sent to the EPA. Eliminate the requirement in the template that
requires ALL listing be added to new submissions.
Topic: Section 6.6.2 - Market Surveillance of Products
Comment: Currently, when samples are selected during audit, manufacturer's can do
the testing provided it is witnessed by CB or independent lab representative with the
CB or the lab issuing the report. EPA is now asking that annual audit testing of
WaterSense listed products be performed by CB's in the program instead of by each
manufacturer. There should be allowances for more economic options.
Rationale: This will add significant cost to the value proposition of the voluntary
WaterSense mark in the form of shipping and scrapping of product samples.
Suggested Change (or Language): Make the audit testing optional between
manufacturers doing witness testing, CB laboratories and independent laboratories.
Topic: Section 6.6.2 - Market Surveillance of Products
Comment: While the EPA is changing the process of audit samples to those
"obtained either from the retail outlet/distribution center or project site where the
product is being sold or used, or from the manufacturer's warehouse site", it further
specifies that "samples may be selected from off the line only when it is not feasible
to obtain products from the retail outlet/distribution center or from the manufacturer's
warehouse. Where purchase of the product is required, the manufacturer shall pay
for the product." There should be allowances for more economic options.
Rationale:
12
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
The cost of paying for retail on a product already paid for by a manufacturer can be
very high given the magnitude of thousands of sample needed to comply with the
annual audit requirements.
Suggested Change (or Language): CB's should be allowed to obtain samples from
the most cost effective source, which may include gathering random samples off of
manufacturers assembly lines, and not be held to any specific source.
Topic: Topic: Section 6.6.2 - Market Surveillance of Products
Comment: The requirement to audit 15% of all CB listed base-model products for
each model type will place another significant economic burden on the WaterSense
program. Energy Star requires 10% for annual audits.
Rationale: There is no reason to deviate from the 10% audit requirement which, in
itself, will place a significant additional test burden to the capacity issues already
inherent in the WaterSense CB's.
Suggested Change (or Language): Change the 15% requirement to 10% and provide
clarification to confirm that the audits will be performed on all CB listed base-model
products.
This last request is based on conversations with Stephanie Tanner (EPA) that the 15% refers to
all the basic products certified by the Certifying Body in each category and needs to be clarified
by the EPA.
Topic: Open Discussion during the 19July11 WaterSense Call
Comment: There is inconsistency of the numbers reported for WaterSense in terms
of decimal versus fraction and implied level of accuracy in the number of decimal
places reported.
Rationale: This adds confusion and variability in the reported numbers and needs to
be clarified.
Suggested Change (or Language): Please clarify the type and implied accuracy of the
reported performance number for the WaterSense program.
13
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter: Shabbir Rawalpindiwala
Affiliation: KohlerCo.
Comment Date: July 25, 2011
Topic: Section 5.4.2.2.3
Comment: We are very much appreciative for allowing manufacturer's laboratory to do the
testing provided the lab is in compliance to ISO/I EC 17025 and is under the supervision of
the certifying body.
Rationale: This will allow manufacturers to introduce WaterSense products quickly and will
give consumers more choice.
Suggested Change (or Language): N/A
Topic: Section 6.5
Comment: Presently we have the choice of applying ourselves directly to EPA after our
products are listed with the CB or authorizing CB to apply on our behalf. Now the proposed
revised procedures requires manufacturers' to apply to the certifying body who in turn will
apply to EPA on manufacturer's behalf. This is burdensome and a choice should be offered.
Rationale: This will increase the cost of listing with the CB and chances of mistakes
occurring.
Suggested Change (or Language): Suggest an option be given as presently done. Also
only the new basic models should be required in the application and not previously listed
products every time a new application is made.
Topic: Section 6.6.2 & 6.6.2.1
Comment: It is being proposed that CB must do annual market surveillance by selecting
15% of all models for each relevant product type certified. These samples can be selected
from retail outlet/distribution center or project site where the product is being sold or used, or
from the mfr's warehouse. Samples can also be selected from off the line when it is not
feasible to obtain them from the previously mentioned sources. If samples are purchased
from retail outlets, mfr's will have to pay the cost.
The above mentioned samples can only be tested by CB's internal resources or by an
independent testing lab. No witnessed testing at mfr's lab is allowed.
This is extremely cost prohibitive. It will cost large amount of money to ship, breakage
during shipping and then re-shipping of that sample(s) and most importantly the
14
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
environmental impact (considering EPA's charter is to protect the environment) due to
carbon footprint, culling the samples and overfill of the landfill.
Rationale: As mentioned above, most importantly the environmental impact and the
financial cost will results due to this enforcement. For example, if a mfr. had 100 models
listed in the four categories (toilets, urinals/flushometers, lavatory faucets and
showerheads), we will have to ship 30 toilets, 15 urinals/flushometers, 60 lavatory faucets
and 60 showerheads to the testing lab (based on 2, 1,4 and 4 samples per model
respectively as required by the respective WaterSense specifications). Accordingly, the cost
of shipping and testing will be about US $50,025.00 per year for Kohler Co. which is quite
expensive. Who will pay for this in the end? Consumer will pay and if the cost becomes
unbearable, manufacturers may decide not to participate.
Suggested Change (or Language): We suggest that this kind of audit not be required and
should be left up to the CB to determine how to ensure products continue to be in
compliance and allow witness testing.
15
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Commenter: Shirley Dewi
Affiliation: IAPMO R&T
Comment Date: July 25, 2011
Topic: 4.2 Application (1st sentence)
Comment: Editorial only.
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): Accreditation bodies intending to accredit product
certifying bodies for WaterSense should shall apply to EPA for approval via an application
letter.
Topic: 5.2 Accreditation (3rd sentence on the 3rd paragraph)
Comment: The third sentence on the 3rd paragraph stated, "The licensed certifying body is
only required to update its scope of accreditation related to a specific product category when
major changes to the test methods identified in the relevant WaterSense product
specifications are made, as indicated by EPA." The underlined items are not very clear.
Please clarify of what "update its scope of accreditation" meant. Also, please also clarify of
what constitutes "major changes".
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 5.3 Licensing (Last Sentence of the 1st paragraph)
Comment: Editorial only.
Rationale: The last sentence does not appear to be a complete sentence.
Suggested Change (or Language): This licensing agreement shall provide the conditions
for authorizing the use of the WaterSense label to manufacturers of certified products.
Topic: 5.3 Licensing (3rd paragraph)
Comment: The third paragraph stated, "EPA reserves the right to terminate the licensing
agreement for any certifying body that does not continue to meet or maintain the
requirements for accreditation as outlined in this product
certification system." Does EPA have a procedure for determining whether the licensing
certifying body is meeting or not meeting the requirements (i.e. Accreditation body's audit
results, etc.)?
16
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 5.3.1.1 Transitional Approval Eligibility (4th bullet point)
Comment: The 4th bullet point seems to be confusing because it requires the certification
body to be competent to perform testing.
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 5.3.1.2 Transitional Approval Requirements (3rd bullet point)
Comment: The 3rd bullet point is confusing because it requires Certification Body's contact
person to be "in charge of product testing".
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): The name and contact information for the responsible
official that will be in charge of product testing for certification.
Topic: 5.4 Evaluation Resources
Comment: The title of this section needs clarification.
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): Testing and Evaluation Resources
Topic: 5.4.1 Internal Resources
Comment: Accreditation to ISO/I EC 17025 is for testing, not evaluation. Therefore, the
reference to evaluation activities is incorrect.
Rationale: Editorial - incorrect
Suggested Change (or Language): If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation
testing activities with its own resources, it shall ensure that those resources are accredited
17
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition
Agreement (MRA) Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025...
Topic: 5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratory
Comment: Suggest EPA to consider removing ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirement for
independent testing laboratories to make it consistent with the requirements of ISO/IEC
Guide 65 on the certification bodies.
Rationale: As required in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, the compliance of the testing laboratories
and inspection bodies has been addressed on clause 4.3 as follows:
"The certification body shall take all steps necessary to evaluate conformance with the
relevant product standards according to the requirements of specific product certification
system (see clause 3). The certification body shall specify the relevant standards or parts
thereof and any other requirements such as sampling, testing and inspection requirements
which form the basis for the applicable certification system. In conducting its certification
operations, the certification body shall observe, as appropriate, the requirements for
the suitability and competence of body(ies) or personfs) carrying out testing,
inspection and certification/registration as specified in ISO/IEC Guides 25, 39, and
62
Please note that ISO/IEC Guide 25 has been superseded by ISO/IEC 17025, ISO/IEC
Guide 39 has been superseded by ISO/IEC 17020, and ISO/IEC Guide 62 has been
superseded by ISO/IEC 17021.
Accreditation bodies such as ANSI, A2LA, or SCC enforce the above requirements to all
ISO/IEC Guide 65 certification bodies during their accreditation process. This is one of the
fundamental requirements for certification body to obtain accreditation to ISO/IEC Guide 65.
Since it is clearly a responsibility of accredited certification body to assure the compliance of
testing laboratories and inspection bodies to the aforementioned requirements, we believe
that it is not necessary to further require the laboratories be additionally accredited to
ISO/IEC 17025 and inspection bodies to ISO/IEC 17020. The proof of such compliance has
been part of the requirements that an accredited certification body must demonstrate during
their routine accreditation audits.
Suggested Change (or Language): Licensed certifying bodies may allow an independent
testing laboratory to conduct evaluation activities, provided that the licensed certifying
body evaluates the laboratory's competency is accredited by an ILAC MRA Signatory to
ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of accreditation to include and the relevant WaterSense
product specification.
Topic: 5.4.2.2.3 Supervised Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory Programs
18
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Comment: The 2nd bullet point seems to imply that in order to enroll in the SMTL program,
the manufacturer's in-house testing laboratory must first enroll in the WMTL program.
Please clarify the intent of the 2nd bullet point.
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 6.1 Application (2nd paragraph)
Comment: Does EPA allow notification template be a part of the licensed certification
body's application packet?
Rationale: Clarification
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 6.2.4.3 Evaluation Report (1st sentence)
Comment: Minor revision to the sentence for editorial purposes only.
Rationale: The remainder sentence is unnecessary as it is implied and explained on the
subsequent texts on this section.
Suggested Change (or Language): The licensed certifying body shall inform the applicant
via a full report on the outcome of the initial evaluation, including product testing and, if
applicable, assessment of production process.
Topic: 6.2.5 Licensed Certifying Body's WaterSense Labeled Product Listing (2nd sentence
on the 1st paragraph)
Comment: The 2nd sentence on the first paragraph stated, "The listing shall contain at a
minimum, all of the information collected as part of the application process and as included
in the relevant product-specific notification template available on the WaterSense website."
Based on the webinar, we understand this to mean that our listing must include all
information collected on the notification template. The notification template has specific
manufacturer contact information which we as a CB maintain as confidential. Please clarify if
this information must appear on the CB listing.
Rationale: Clarification.
19
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 6.6.2 Market Surveillance of Products (2nd paragraph)
Comment: The 2nd paragraph indicated to select at least 15 percent of all models for each
relevant product type certified. Because the number of certified products change regularly,
it is unclear the basis of 15%. Therefore, please provide clarification for the following:
What is the basis of 15% sample selection?
It is our understanding that we are to select 15% of all products listed under a given
product category, and not 15% from each manufacturer. Please confirm.
How would EPA addresses grouping/family of models? Does a family of models
counted as 1?
How would EPA addresses private labeler? Does private label counted?
Rationale: Clarification.
Suggested Change (or Language): -
Topic: 6.8 Suspension of the Use of the WaterSense Label on Products (2nd paragraph)
Comment: On the 2nd paragraph, EPA requested CB to notify EPA within 30 days of
WaterSense label suspension and reinstatement. For clarification purposes, EPA should
include the contact/e-mail where CB should send the notification.
Rationale: Clarification
Suggested Change (or Language): -
20
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Len Swatkowski
Affiliation: Plumbing Manufacturers International
Comment Date: 29 July 2011
Topic: Section 6.6.2 - Market Surveillance of Products
Comment: Currently, when samples are selected during audit, manufacturer's can do
the testing provided it is witnessed by the Certifying Body (CB) or independent lab.
EPA is now asking that annual audit testing of 15% per category for WaterSense
listed products be performed by CB's or independent labs in the program instead of
allowing witness testing by manufacturers.
There would be a severe economic burden on larger manufacturers in the form of
testing cost, lost project time and scrap costs under this proposal. A more
environmentally sound approach would be to continue to allow the option of CB or
independent lab witness testing at manufacturers to avoid cost, shipping and timing
impacts.
Also, larger manufacturers would bear a much higher economic burden of annual
audit testing. The intent of the audit is to verify the integrity and validity of the data in
the WaterSense program and limiting each manufacturer's annual audits to five per
category would accomplish this.
Suggested Change (or Language): CB's should be allowed to test samples at the
most cost effective location, which may include witness testing at manufacturers'
laboratories, CB laboratories or independent laboratories.
It is in the interest of manufacturers to also ensure that products continue to comply.
It should be left to the CB how to ensure continuous compliance. Manufacturers
should have a maximum limit of five (5) products per category audited per year.
With several companies having multiple categories, a successful annual audit of
maximum five products per category should be confirmation of compliance.
Topic: 5.4.1 Internal Resources
Comment: The provisions of CB's for evaluation services have changed and could
adversely affect costs of WaterSense listings.
Rationale: CB's should have more options for complying with the requirements for
displaying competency for a WaterSense specification. While an independent, 3rd
Rationale:
21
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
party accreditation is one method of proof; by no means should it preclude additional
alternatives for demonstrating proficiency. The program has achieved a high level of
success over the past 5 years in its current state. Restricting the evaluation activities
by its own resources to mandating independent accreditation will add an
unnecessary cost burden. These additional costs will likely be added to
manufacturers listing WaterSense products.
Suggested Change (or Language):
5.4.1 Internal Resources
If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation activities with its own
resources, it shall ensure that those resources are either:
•	accredited by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC) Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025
with a scope of accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product
specification(s) and ensure that the personnel conducting the testing have
the necessary competence and expertise,
•	trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product
specification or,
•	participants in the EPA's test method and specification development
process for the relevant WaterSense product specification.
Topic: 5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratories
Comment: The provisions for independent testing laboratories to conduct evaluation
services (testing) could adversely affect costs and viability of continued WaterSense
participation.
Rationale: Independent testing laboratories should have more options for complying
with the requirements for displaying competency for a WaterSense specification.
While an independent, 3rd party accreditation is one method of proof; by no means
should it preclude additional alternatives for demonstrating proficiency. The program
has achieved a high level of success over the past 5 years in its current state.
Restricting the evaluation activities by its own resources to mandating independent
accreditation will add an unnecessary cost burden. Additional accreditation may
eliminate the smaller independent laboratories from the program. These additional
costs will likely be added to manufacturers listing WaterSense products.
Furthermore, independent testing laboratories must currently undergo annual
auditing by the certification body it is accredited by for showing compliance to
ISO/IEC 17025.
22
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Suggested Change (or Language):
5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratories
Licensed certifying bodies may allow an independent testing laboratory to
conduct evaluation activities, provided the laboratory is either:
•	accredited by an ILAC MRA Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of
accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product specification,
•	trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product
specification as determined by the licensed certifying body or,
•	a participant in the EPA's test method and specification development
process for the relevant WaterSense product specification.
23
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Nikki Jackson
Affiliation: American National Standards Institute
Comment Date: August 1, 2011
Topic: 1
5.4.2.2.2 Witnessed Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory Programs
When operating a WMTL, the licensed certifying body shall:
• Ensure that all tests are carried out in accordance with the relevant Water Sense
product specification.
Add additional bullet for following.
• Ensure that applicable requirement of ISO I EC 17025 are compiled and a full test
program witness schedule is agreed upon
The intent here is to avoid a situation where a test facility is not deemed fit to be used for
witness testing unless specific verification statement is made by CB's witnessing STAFF.
Also a partly witnessed test program may jeopardize the intent
Suggested Change (or Language):
Add additional bullet for following.
•	Ensure that applicable requirement of ISO I EC 17025 are compiled
•	A full test program as envisaged in the plan for certification activities( witness
schedule as an example)is agreed upon
Topic: 2
5.4.2.2.3 Supervised Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory Programs
When operating a SMTL program, the licensed certifying body shall:
Comment:
Add additional bullet for following.
Ensure that resources (manpower, testing facility) are adequate for each test methods for
each applicable w EPA Product Specification and other relevant standards, cross referred
therein as a testing method
Comment:
Rationale:
24
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Rationale:
The intent here is to avoid a situation where a test facility has a new status(testing location
moved to another location, equipment out of calibration/non-functional/inadequate, trained
testing technicians left the organization and new personnel are yet to be trained and
qualified to perform the test)
Suggested Change (or Language):
Add additional bullet for following.
Ensure that resources (manpower, testing facility) are adequate for each test methods for
each applicable w EPA Product Specification and other relevant standards, cross referred
therein as a testing method
25
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Al Dietemann
Affiliation: Seattle's Saving Water Partnership
Comment Date: August 15, 2011
Please see my attached revised comments. I regret overlooking part 6.6.2 during my review
and earlier comments. It was unfortunate that others listening to the conference call didn't direct
me to 6.6.2. Fortunately, Pete DeMarco pointed it out. I don't oppose OEM self certification as
long as it is subject to well defined re-testing by EPA. If you have any questions please give me
a call.
Thanks to Pete DeMarco of IAPMO for pointing my attention to part 6.6.2 Market Surveillance
of Products. Many of the concerns I mentioned on the conference call and e-mail have been
addressed in this overlooked section. The comments below modify my previous comments
about adding a random selection component, however, a few remaining details deserve further
clarification:
6.6.2 Second Paragraph
Annual market surveillance shall be conducted on at least 15 percent of all models for each
relevant product type certified (e.g., tank-type toilets, lavatory faucets, flushing urinals,
showerheads) by the licensed certifying body, taking into consideration products that have been
recently subject to market surveillance. These models shall be randomly selected and shall
include a representation of both original equipment manufacturer and private labeled products.
1)	Random market surveillance on 15 percent of the all models could result in a statistically
small number of models never being re-tested, while many models could be re-tested
multiple times and/or with high annual frequency. I suggest a modification (see changes
to third paragraph below).
2)	It is unclear exactly what the consideration will be: "taking into consideration products
that have been recently subject to market surveillance". This vague statement should
be made clear. First, remove the term "products". I believe the paragraph refers to
models, not products. It is a waste of lab and manufacturer resources to re-test models
that have recently been re-tested, while ignoring models that have never been re-tested.
Clarification Comments on
EPA WaterSense Product Certification System
Revised Draft 2.0 dated June 23, 2011
Al Dietemann
Seattle's Saving Water Partnership
August 15, 2011
Comments:
26
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
I suggest exempting models that have been re-tested less than 3 years from the date of
random selection (see changes to third paragraph below)
3) The term "Randomly Selected" as used in 6.6.2 doesn't need the qualification "and shall
include ...". If models are truly randomly selected, they should include all labeled
models. Although unlikely, it is possible not to have representation of both OEM and
private labeled MODELS for some WaterSense Products, particularly in new
WaterSense model categories.
6.6.2 Third Paragraph
For up to 50 percent of the models chosen for annual market surveillance, EPA reserves the
right to require the licensed certifying body to select models based on:
•	Product categories for which previous models have failed market surveillance.
•	Preferred location, such as a retail outlet/distribution center
•	Referrals from third parties, such as consumers, consumer groups, or regulatory
agencies regarding the accuracy of certifications.
•	Models with high sales volumes, if this data is available to the licensed certifying body.
Comments:
1) This paragraph is not clear. I suggest deleting it. If 15% of the models are randomly
selected for surveillance, how will additional section criteria be added by EPA? I
suggest clearing up this confusion by segregation of the re-testing sample.
a)	15% of all labeled models in each category shall be re-tested annually. This 15% will
consist of two components.
b)	7.5% of all labeled models in each category shall be randomly selected for re-testing
from all labeled models.
c)	Up to 7.5% of all labeled models in each category may designated for re-testing by
EPA based upon these criteria:
•	Product categories for which previous models have failed market surveillance.
•	Preferred location, such as a retail outlet/distribution center.
•	Referrals from third parties, such as consumers, consumer groups, or regulatory
agencies regarding the accuracy of certifications.
•	Models with high sales volumes (see note below).
•	The oldest of the models not re-tested randomly in the past 3 or more years.
If fewer than 7.5% of all labeled models are designated by EPA based on the
criteria above, the remaining number of models will be added to the random 7.5%
drawing, to total 15% of all labeled models re-tested annually.
Notes: In the third paragraph:
•	Models with high sales volumes, if this data is available to the licensed certifying body.
Sales data may or may not be available to the licensed certifying body, but leaving it to
them is not appropriate. EPA should designate for re-testing models having major
27
September 29, 2011

-------
4
epa	Comments on the Draft
WstCT" SCTISC	Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
market share, since these are likely to have more impact to the WaterSense brand,
should they fail testing, than models infrequently sold.
28
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Comments on the Draft
Revised WaterSense Product Certification Scheme
WaterSense
Commenter: Brandon Leister
Affiliation: San Antonio Water System
Comment Date: August 16, 2011
The WaterSense program has been gaining credibility since its infancy and consumers are
becoming more comfortable with the brand label and the products it certifies. As a WaterSense
partner, the Conservation Department of the San Antonio Water System, has placed a high
value on what the program represents and has done for water conservation. For, example we
utilized this credibility to incorporate minimum plumbing fixture standards into the plumbing
section of our city ordinance in 2009, the certification standards have also changed the we way
we place and secure our plumbing fixture procurement bids and has given use the tools to
showcase superior performing products to our customers.
Given our utilization of the WaterSense Program, our concern for the history, integrity and
credibility of the program was only natural. Through a very well organized open forum process,
EPA has regained our confidence and comfort level with this newly formulated direction of
certification. With proper fail safe standards in place, the certification process can acknowledge
many new product types, without detrimental funneling effects.
As the WaterSense Program moves into its next phase, many challenges still exist. For
example, the ongoing concern for flapper style fixtures to maintain water savings over time,
maintaining all WaterSense labeled products as premium and superior, enforcing questionable
test results as well as being able to slide the scale of efficiency and performance to an even
higher level and possibly even introducing a Tiered system for higher performing products.
San Antonio Water System will continue to find ways to incorporate the program standards set
forth by this program and values WaterSense as a water conservation planning tool for the
utility.
Please, let me know if you need or desire any additional information.
29
September 29, 2011

-------