Hi Monica: As per your October 14th email. I am asking/confirming if my request for a review/change to the Section 8's pH 8 test water was to be an agenda item for the December 1st JC Meeting. Earlier this year (I believe May 2022), I supplied what I believe was the documentation supporting this change back to the original Section 8's pH8 test water as it was mentioned in my letter to you (see summarized excerpt following). I am responding following the impact document template requesting a JC review of the NSF61 extract water change for NSF61 Section 8 devices. Admittedly, some of this material is not a subject for either my education or direct expertise. I would ask that my statements and conclusions be reviewed by qualified persons. While it is just my opinion , I do not find the âRationaleâ supporting the changed Sec 8 water as compelling. In my JC Issue Paper support document #3, I provide a reason the Sec 9 test water could expose/release more Pb than old Sec 8 pH8 water releases. The financial benefit to test agencies for removing, prep and storage of one less test water is minuscule compared to the potential remediation costs of failures borne by the Sec 8 manufacturers. Depicting the Sec 9 test water as âjust another pH 8 drinking waterâ is a true misnome r; that for Sec 9 is a temporarily used sanitation water used for a few days; the Sec 8 pH test water is a formulation close to that commonly used continuously in utility-supplied drinking water. Water utilities are very aware of the aesthetic nature of their drinking water, particularly in its taste and odor (whereas Sec 9 water has an objectionable taste and odor due to the alkalinity and excess chlorine ). Ron Koch Master Meter, Inc.