May 15, 2015 
RLDWA Meeting with Plumbing Manufacturers International
Attendees
 Plumbing Manufacturers International: Barbara Higgens, Matt Sigler, and Stephanie Salmon 
 EPA: Erik Helm
 
 Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) is the major international trade association of plumbing products manufacturers. Its member companies produce 90% of the nation's plumbing products.

Meeting Purpose
EPA met with PMI to obtain input to refine costs estimates for the Agency's proposed regulation, which clarifies the requirements of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA).
Solicited Questions and Feedback from Participants
 What are examples of current lead free labeling on products and product packaging?  What percentage of RLDWA lead free products are already labeled on the product and on the packaging?  Are there any current industry norms for this type of labeling?
 100% of PMI members already mark or label their product as a result of third party certifications and plumbing standard requirements (A112.18.1)
 The A112.18.1 plumbing fittings standard references the NSF/ANSI 372 lead free standard and is marked on all plumbing fittings
 Third party certification is key for compliance with the RLDWA  -  See PowerPoint prepared by PMI for the EPA RLDWA Webinar (April 2015) 
  All our members use markings that are consistent with EPA's labeling guidance document which is available on the EPA website at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100LVYK.txt 
 Erik asked: What about consistent industry standards for more consumer friendly types of marking or labeling?
 Some firms do utilize a consumer friendly labeling on their product in addition to third-party certification marks
 Consumer friendly labeling is more in the realm of product marketing 
 Consumer labeling is NOT enforced by a third-party as those associated with third-party certification.  Certifiers back their marks
 Consumer labels could be easily misused since there would not be an enforcement tool 
 Enforcement of RLDWA is occurring at the retail level
 The retail outlets (box stores such as Home Depot, Loews...) and distributors are doing the work to check for the certification marks insuring that "lead free" requirements are met The system currently is, and should remain, since:
 they understand the markings
 consumers with less information don't have to worry about checking product certification marks and labels and can be left out of the process since retail outlets and distributors are carrying products that are third party testified
 PMI suggested setting up a meeting with a Home Depot representative to talk about impacts to distributors
               
 Are multi-component fixtures (e.g. faucets) marked "Lead Free" once or on each component?
 Products are marked or labeled on packaging as required under AS112.18.1
 For the most part, manufacturers cannot label each component of a multipart fixture or fitting 
 In some cases, it is physically impossible to label given the small size of the fitting/fixture.
 Product that is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing (e.g. faucets and shower heads) are labeled mostly on the packaging since customers want and unblemished look to the fixture
Erik asked: What about markings on the underside of faucets
 Yes, faucets are marked in places that would not be visible once they are installed  -  In this case, packaging labels and certifier marks are key
 For products that are separable from manufacturers box packaging (bin parts) the product is usually cast marked (the mold or pattern leaves to mark when the product is cast), Tyvek and boiler tags are also used
 NSF/ANSI standards control the type/method of mark or label across product types
 Question for PMI to research: For "behind the wall parts," are marks always on the product? 
100% of the products that are located behind walls, which are required to comply with the RLDWA, are marked or labeled in accordance with industry standards.
         
 For typical product categories (e.g. valves, pipe, faucets...) what percentage of the production is labeled when cast, or through etching, stamping, on product printing, attaching a Tyvek tag, attaching an adhesive sticker, bagged with printing on the bag, , or packed in preprinted box?
 Polling of PMI members did not give enough information to give definitive answers at this time
 EPA agreed to supply a list of the product categories that have been developed so PMI can re-poll its membership
 It is more efficient to change the product packaging in response to regulatory requirements printing having the lowest cost
 No need to further demonstrate compliance with RLDWA, PMI membership and the industry at-large are complying with the current RLDWA requirements and they are working
 Emphasis should be on enforcement. 
 Industry feels that the "good actors" complying with the law should not be burdened with additional requirements because of limited "bad actors"
 Size and end use of the product (aesthetic use) are the drivers that determine the types of marking and labeling used
 EPA asked: Does your use of the terms marking and labeling represent industry standard terminology?
 Yes, marks are always on the product, labeling is on the packaging 
               
 At what point or points in the production process are products labeled?
 Manufacturers do labeling at the end of the production line
 For retailed products, manufacturers place the fixtures into preprinted boxes at the end of the production line 
 For "in-line" (not aesthetic product) in general the package labeling is done at the end of the production line 
 When cast markings are involved they are completed at the time of casting
 Changing the mold/pattern is the most cost effective for these types of products
 In general products are labeled in the most efficient way
         
 How automated are labeling components of your production and packaging lines?  How does automation change in relation to production volumes and product type?
 Another category where a definitive answer is hard
 Changing printing has little impact on production and packaging cost
 Capital equipment upgrades are not the issue, it is mostly the cost of new software upgrades and package redesign
 For manufacturers, the key issues are design/redesign changes and inventory since thousands of products would be impacted
 There is a lot plumbing product inventory - individual manufacturers have inventory, as well as retailers, plumbing stores and supply houses
 Incremental costs would be hard to determine on an industry wide scale firms probably don't track things like change in ink use that closely
 EPA asked: Could PMI poll members to determine cost of package redesign?
 The difficulty is that firms handle costs of redesigns differently in their accounting frameworks
 If the messaging requires larger labels that will add to incremental costs 

 How long does your production line printing and labeling equipment last before it must be replaced?  How often are printer heads replaced?  What is the typical maintenance performed on your labeling equipment and how frequently is this maintenance conducted??
 It is impossible to determine how long production line equipment lasts since there is too much variability across companies and the amount of plumbing product being labeled
 The incremental change from label redesign would be a small impact and firms would not be able to quantify ink and wear and tear
         
 What percentage of the total cost of production is represented by packaging and labeling?  When this equipment is replaced is the purchase financed through current free cash flow or through what type of financing mechanism?
 Information on financing of capital equipment varies too much across firms (we have small firms to very large companies) so obtaining national ranges would be very difficult, firm would not want to disclose that type of information
 EPA asked: If EPA were to develop an average cost of capital for the sector and use that as a proxy in the cost analysis might that be appropriate?
 Yes that would seem like a better approach 

 How often are products redesigned?  What is the typical time period between product packaging redesign?  Does this vary by type of product and by sales volume?
 That is firm and product specific and very variable
 Business competition driven

 Please describe the amount of inventory held at manufacturing and packaging facilities and inventory at wholesalers?
 Manufactures would need three years to clear all their inventories
 Each product's inventory is different
 Large volume product inventories turn over more quickly
 EPA should talk to retailers (such as Home Depot) to get some idea of how long it would take for their inventories to turnover  -  PMI would be happy to make these introductions
 Probably an additional year is needed to clear retail inventory
 Some of these retail and manufacturer inventory turnover process could happen concurrently
 PMI could provide a visual schematic on the inventory turnover issue if needed
            
 What type of production line downtime is typically built into production runs to account for necessary equipment maintenance?  
 Scheduled downtime varies across the industry 
 Some firms (in the minority) have once or twice a year shut-down period in which they do inventory work and maintenance
 Most firms have no scheduled downtime and product changes are just worked into the production process as needed
 Firms implementing changes based on this regulation will work to have the least downtime possible
 Given a three years lag period before requirements would become effective the industry would have no downtime issues
         
 How are components currently tracked for recycling and reprocessing within your facility (e.g. physically stamped)?
 Products do NOT come back from retailers/suppliers to the plumbing manufacturers for recycling
 Physical marking the product is not usually used 
 When switching over to the new lead requirements firms (and firms that make both higher lead non-drinking water products and leaf free product) firms had to be very careful with the reuse of materials in their production process so that things where tracked very closely
 Even separate holding areas for higher and lower lead materials where necessary so the airborne dust was not a contamination issue
 It is not possible to identify the alloys by simply looking at it

Wrap-Up and Action Items
PMI maintains that the current labeling, marking and certification protocols are working well and maintain that emphasis should be put on enforcement of the current provisions.  PMI is happy to help work within the current system to communicate assured compliance.  EPA thanked the meeting participants for their time and helpful input. There was general agreement that PMI would follow-up on outstanding questions. 
Below is a table with action items from the meeting:
Action Item
Responsibility
Provide PMI a list of plumbing product categories on which EPA would like marking and labeling information.
Erik Helm
Provide meeting summary to Stephanie Salmon for distribution to foundry participants.
Erik Helm
Provide additional information to EPA:
 What percentage of the production for categories supplied by EPA  is labeled when cast, or through etching, stamping, on product printing, attaching a Tyvek tag, attaching an adhesive sticker, bagged with printing on the bag, , or packed in preprinted box?
 Help set-up a meeting with a retailer like Home Depot.
 Develop cost of package redesign from members
 Develop industry averages, for percentage of all products that will be redesigned in X years.
 (I missed a few things that Barbara had on her list)  -  Did not identify and other issues  -  believe what PMI discussed covered in memo
Stephanie Salmon/Matt Sigler 


Provide clarifications or corrections to meeting summary to Erik Helm
All participants
                              List of Appendices
 
Appendix A:  EPA's Questions to the Plumbing Manufacturers International
Appendix B:  Plumbing Manufacturers International Comments on EPA's April 14, 2015 Webinar on Regulations Implementing Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. April 29, 2015.


                                  Appendix A
         EPA's Questions to the Plumbing Manufactures International

 What are examples of current lead free labeling on products and product packaging?  What percentage of RLDWA lead free products are already labeled on the product and on the packaging?  Are there any current industry norms for this type of labeling?
 Are multi-component fixtures (e.g. faucets) marked "Lead Free" once or on each component?
 For typical product categories (e.g. valves, pipe, faucets...) what percentage of the production is labeled when cast, or through etching, stamping, on product printing, attaching a Tyvek tag, attaching an adhesive sticker, bagged with printing on the bag, , or packed in preprinted box?
 At what point or points in the production process are products labeled?
 How automated are labeling components of your production and packaging lines?  How does automation change in relation to production volumes and product type? 
 How long does your production line printing and labeling equipment last before it must be replaced?  How often are printer heads replaced?  What is the typical maintenance performed on your labeling equipment and how frequently is this maintenance conducted?
 What percentage of the total cost of production is represented by packaging and labeling?  When this equipment is replaced is the purchase financed through current free cash flow or through what type of financing mechanism? 
 How often are products redesigned?  What is the typical time period between product packaging redesign?  Does this vary by type of product and by sales volume? 
 Please describe the amount of inventory held at manufacturing and packaging facilities and inventory at wholesalers?
 What type of production line downtime is typically built into production runs to account for necessary equipment maintenance?  
 How are components currently tracked for recycling and reprocessing within your facility (e.g. physically stamped)?




   


                                  April 29, 2015
  Appendix B




                             PMI Board of Directors

                          Fernando Fernandez, TOTO USA
  President

                Paul Patton, Delta Faucet Company Vice-President

                 Peter Jahrling, Sloan Valve Company Treasurer

                        Tim Kilbane, Symmons Industries
                            Immediate Past President

   C.J. Lagan, American Standard Brands

                          Scott McDonald, Fluidmaster

                            Rick Reles, Kohler Company

                        Nate Kogler, Bradley Corporation
 Mr. Brian D'Amico Chemical Engineer Office of Water
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 4607M
 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460-0001

RE: REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING SECTION 1417 OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT WEBINAR

 Dear Mr. D'Amico:

 Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water as a follow-up to PMI's presentation at the Regulations Implementing Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Webinar held on April 14th.  PMI is an international, U.S.-based trade association representing 90% of U. S. plumbing products sold in the United States.

 PMI was a key proponent of the RLDWA and worked in bipartisan fashion on Capitol Hill to secure its passage, with a broad coalition of industry and water organizations.  Additionally, PMI and its members worked diligently to educate suppliers, engineers, installers, and the public about the manufacturer, distribution and installation of lead-free plumbing products that are required under the RLDWA. Furthermore, PMI supported a national approach to achieve federal consistency instead of a patchwork of state standards.

 In regards to the April 14th RLDWA webinar, PMI would like to reiterate the points we made within our presentation:

Clarify and Harmonize Language
 There needs to be consistency between the EPA FAQ document and final regulation.  For example, the EPA FAQ document makes a strong recommendation for the labeling of exempted products even though such products are not required to meet the RLDWA.
Clarify Definition and Terms
 Harmonized definitions with industry standards.  Based on the strong preference for industry standards in OMB Circular A119, the EPA should utilize existing terminology that already exists in industry standards such as: pipe, pipe fitting, nonpotable, plumbing fitting or fixture fitting, and plumbing fixture to name a few.



  Clarify Intent
 Replace "anticipated" with "intended" in the final regulation.  The current language of the RLDWA contradicts laws in such states as California, Vermont, Maryland, and Louisiana. Furthermore, manufacturers produce products for an intended purpose. There is no way for manufacturer to "anticipate" how their products are going to be used beyond their "intended" purpose.

     Clarify Exemptions
 Exempt replacement parts.  The RLDWA was not intended to prevent replacement plumbing manufacturers from supplying replacement parts for devices that were installed pre-2014 and remain under warranty.  In fact, the EPA FAQ document (FAQ #27) indicates that as long as replacements parts are not "pipes," "fittings" or "fixtures," they are not required to meet the lead free requirements of the RLDWA.
 Exempt emergency drench showers, eye and face wash fixtures.  These fixtures are not required to meet the requirements of NSF 61.  Additionally, there is no anticipated use of such fixtures as a source of water for human consumption.

     In regards to the potential regulatory options being considered by the EPA, PMI would like to provide the following comments:

     Labeling of Lead Free and Exempted Products
 No additional product labeling is needed for compliant products. It is not necessary to prescribe additional product labeling language for lead-free compliant beyond that described in the applicable product standards. OMB Circular A119 makes a strong preference for the use of consensus industry standards in Federal regulation and procurement, and therefore, the marking and labeling requirements in such standards should continue to be supported by the EPA.
 Product labeling of noncompliant products is not necessary. Because of robust labelling requirements for RLDWA compliant products, it is not necessary for noncompliant product to also be labeled.  Furthermore, there is no product standard that exists that establishes labeling requirements for noncompliant products.
 Improve educational outreach. EPA could improve its current educational outreach to the professional plumbing community, as well as collaboration with the plumbing product retailers and distributors concerning lead-free materials at the point of purchase for retail customers, and education of sister agencies, including those with oversight of imported products.  In addition, EPA should make it easy to locate on the agency website its document on product marking and package labeling requirements, How to Identify Lead-Free Certification Marks for Drinking Water System & Plumbing Materials. PMI members, and most manufacturers within the U.S., already use the recommendations contained within the document for marking product and/or labeling packaging.
 Not all plumbing products can be marked and/or labeled. Given the aesthetic nature and/or size constraints of some plumbing products, the product packaging is labeled versus the actual product. This of course is done in compliance with the applicable product standard(s).

     Demonstrating Compliance with Lead Free Requirements
 Third-party certification is sufficient to demonstrate compliance. PMI supports the current system of third-party certification as required by the model plumbing codes adopted throughout the U.S., which requires third-party certifier marks on plumbing products and/or packaging to indicate compliance to a standard. Such marks, when authorized by a certification body after a product successfully completes a conformity assessment review and certification is granted, convey that all mechanical performance requirements and material compliance requirements to protect drinking water in accordance with NSF 372 have been successfully met. Furthermore, 16 CFR 305.16 (Labeling and marking for plumbing products) requires plumbing fitting manufacturers to mark "A112.18.1" on both product and packaging to
demonstrate compliance to the actual product standard. The standard also requires testing to NSF 372 as a means to indicate compliance with the RLDWA as well.
 Continuous compliance. Plumbing manufacturers are required to go through a continuous compliance process to demonstrate to the third-party certifier that their products continue to meet the requirements of the RLDWA.
 More pressure should be put on those who manufacture noncompliant products. There are still some manufacturers, mainly those located outside the U.S., that continue to ignore the requirements of the RLDWA.  We would encourage EPA to work with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen their current practices of enforcing the RLDWA.

     In closing, PMI would encourage EPA to please reference our detailed comments submitted on June 21, 2013 regarding the Draft Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document, as well as our comment letter dated December 19, 2013 on the final EPA FAQs document which was released on October 22, 2013.

     PMI looks forward to working with EPA as the agency moves forward on the rulemaking process for codifying the RLDWA. PMI strongly encourages the EPA to consider our comments and recommendations.  If you have any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

     Sincerely,
     
     Matt Sigler Technical Director
     Plumbing Manufacturers International Office 847-217-7212
     msigler@safeplumbing.org

                            Plumbing Manufacturers International 1921 Rohlwing Road Unit G  Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: 847-481-5500  -  Visit us at www.safeplumbing.org
