Joint Committee on Drinking Water Treatment Units
Draft Meeting Summary
NSF International, Ann Arbor, Michigan
May 10, 2017
This document is part of the NSFInternationalStandards process and is for NSF Committee uses only. It shall not be reproduced, or circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of NSF activities, except with the approval of NSF.
Meeting summary excerpt
- Straw Ballot – Multiple Revisions for NSF/ANSI 419
J. Mendez reviewed the changes that are being proposed for the second revision to Annex C. The main question for the JC is whether or not to change it to a normative annex. E. Nieminski stated her agreement that there is enough justification to make Annex C normative.
2nd Motion: Ballot the currently published informative Annex C (419-2015) as a normative annex. Proposed revisions to Annex C will be balloted separately. E. Nieminski motioned; J. Mendez seconded.
Discussion: B. Bartley stated that there are aspects of the proposed revisions to Annex C that are not consistent with the LT2. For example, Annex C specifies some averaging of the results and that’s not the way to go. B. Bartley stated that he was not comfortable with balloting the revised Annex C as a normative annex until these issues are addressed. He added that Annex C includes a lot of information that would be good to have in the report, but any organization accredited to ISO will have that anyway, so he is not sure it is necessary here. B. Bartley also noted that additional reporting details will have an impact on the overall cost. Will manufacturers be willing to pay for it? This needs to be explored further. J. Mendez stated that the problem regulators face is trying to review multiple membranes challenged by different organisms; the reporting is not the same. He would like to see a minimum baseline of what to report out in the standard. B. Powitz asked the group if the general concept of Annex C being normative is supported. B. Bartley agreed that he would support this change as Annex C is currently published. The additional proposed revisions should be addressed separately.
Vote: All favor.
Motion passed.
.