1 Page | 1 

### U.S. Department of Energy

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group Meeting Summary—Seventh and Final Meeting Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C.
June 17 - 19, 2014

Members in Attendance (Day 1) Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) Robert Barbour TACO, Inc. Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process Greg Case Pump Design, Developmen t and Diagnostics (Hydraulic Institute) Gary Fernstrom California IOUs Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation Al Huber Patterson Pump Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Doug Potts (via web) American Water Jay Savigny Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Greg Towsley Grundfos USA Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council

Doug Brookman Facilitator, Public Solutions, Inc.

Absent Dan Delaney Regal Beloit (alternate for Howard Richardson) Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute (Day 1 & 2)

Additional Attendees Jeff Alascio, Ashley Armstrong, Rob Boteler, Da niel Cohen, Jeremiah Freeman, Jiangang Hu, Elizabeth Kohl, Christopher Lau, Emily Marche tti, (Brent McManis) , Doug Rawald, Steve Thompson, Daniel Weintraub, Sarah Widder and Alison Williams

Author’s note The transcript for the June 17-19 WG Meeting # 7, the WG’s Final Meeting, was made available

after the WG concluded its business on June 19th. The final meeting resulted in a unanimous agreement on recommended standards levels fo r in-scope pumps as well as other related recommendations. That agreement is detailed in the WG’s Term Sheet, which can be found in Appendix A of this Meeting Summary. Sin ce the regulatory negotiation was successfully concluded prior to writing this summary, th e following meeting summary will be somewhat

abbreviated.2 Page | 2 Day 1—Working Group Meeting #7, June 17, 2014 Facilitator Doug Brookman called the Working Gr oup (WG) meeting to order and welcomed all present at 9:05AM. The WG proceeded with introductions around the room.

Al Huber, speaking on behalf of the manufactur ers, made opening remarks. He noted that changes had been made to slide deck content, for example, on the quads of energy savings. The

manufacturers’ caucus wanted to understand the changes. He al so inquired about the latest version of the calculator, which had not been distributed. He indicated that the manufacturers’ technical resource persons needed the calculator. Sarah Widder confirmed that a new calculator had not been sent and said she would try to se nd it out that day. She also stated that the

calculator is not the reason the numbers in s lide deck had changed. Tom Eckman echoed Al’s statement, wanting to understand the changes.

Alison Williams addressed the question of the ch anges to the data, saying the C values were slightly different than previously presented a nd energy savings estimates depend on the C values. She also gave a detailed descrip tion of how the two databases ( DOE and HI) had been merged. That changed the population and overall distribu tion of pumps in the data set. Members questioned the methods and results (p. 18). Alis on also described an e rror in the original calculation, which contributed to th e differences. She concluded by saying the merged data sets resulted in very minimal changes—probably fewe r than 2 percent of th e characterized pumps changed.

Alison began presenting the result s, showing PER levels across a ll the equipment classes. And continuing, presenting the national impact analys is (NIA) and manufactu rer impact analysis (MIA) results. A member asked if these C value results were final and Alison replied they were “mostly final.” Al Huber, speak ing on behalf of the i ndustry, asserted that his caucus needed to have certainty with the numbers, “the target has got to stop moving.” Alison described some potential very small “tweaks”, but conclude d “all the pump categories for which we have impacts, we could consider fina l right now.” The analysis t eam noted that they were not calculating impacts for RS-V and VT-S 1,800 pumps (p.37).

A member questioned the calculati ons on industry net present value (INPV). He noted changes that emerged in the webinar, where markups for motors were added, would overstate INPV. Dan Weintraub described the survey data that he had re-examined and stated that those data supported the results given (p. 42). A fe w manufacturers, relying on pract ical experience, confirmed the general thrust of Dan’s conclusion.

Alison Williams continued, presenting updated LCC savings and payback period analyses for the

two different scenarios that WG has considered. She noted that, in general, consumer impacts are positive across the board for both the no-cost recovery and full-cost recovery scenarios.

The facilitator asked if the WG established or ‘fix ed’ the figures presented, if that would also fix the NIA and MIA results. Alison replied yes, fo r the purposes of this ne gotiation, but what gets published in the NOPR “might not be exactly the same” because of additional requirements and review by OIRA and others. Al Huber confirmed hi s caucus’ desire to establish or fix the values3 Page | 3 as much as possible. What followed was very de tailed discussion on the difficulty of accurately calculating and establishi ng C values (p. 55).

Next, Alison described how VT-S 1800 and RS-V pumps should be considered differently from the other pump classes because, as described ea rlier, there are no energy efficiency impacts associated with them (p. 60). The WG broke to caucus.

The WG reconvened and Tom Eckman, representi ng the energy efficiency advocates, presented the results: “we can both say we ’re (both caucuses) mostly in agreement.” Tom, presenting a joint proposal, went on to describe the ‘high poin ts’ of the agreement and the issues yet to be

resolved.

 Agreement on TSL2 which is 25 percent, 25 PER, 25 precisely. Al Huber contributed that the caucuses meant 25, not 27 or 26. Alis on clarified that now the C values are not fixed. The two spokespersons confirmed “t hey will be fixed at 25” and “whatever produces that result.”

 A four-year lead time/effective date (which Al confirmed) from the publication date of

the final rule

 Clarified that these terms apply to all the equipment classes except RS-V pumps

 The RS-V standard would be set at whatev er MEI is “the crosswalk” with MEI 40.

A member asked if two additiona l provisions could be added:

 An early, voluntary certi fication provision, and

 Voluntarily, manufacturers will submit additional part-load data at power levels 75, 100 and 110 to be reported and included in a DOE data base

In discussion, it was determined that some a dditional consultation was needed. The WG broke for lunch. Returning from lunch, the facilitator re-stated the joint propos al as listed above. Members also clarified the proposal included that RS-V pumps should be set at the equivalent to

the MEI 40 in EU. After a short delay, the facilitator confirmed that a quorum was present and referred, again, to the proposal elements listed above. This proposal did not include the two additional provisions. The facilitator asked for a vote and, by a show of hands, all the members present voted unanimously to accept the joint proposal (14 yeas, one abstention while absent, one member absent).

The discussion turned to certifi cation and data collection issues . As an introduction, a member rearticulated the two additional provisions listed above. Ashley Armstrong indicated that early voluntary certification by manufact urers is possible, but DOE would need to complete some steps beforehand, such as completing the test pr ocedure rulemaking. Regarding additional data, Ashley stated that DOE collects a lot of inform ation on different products and it does not need to

be limited to the standard. If the WG made a recommendation to collect certain data elements the Department could consider it as a part of a separate rulemaking.

Doug Rawald continued with a description of what DOE requires for reports: an excel spreadsheet template which includes model numbe r and other key descriptors/characteristics, such as efficiency and other features. A sec ond part includes a manufact urer’s sworn statement that his product is compliant. He continued that whether there were fields in the spreadsheet to4 Page | 4 input additional numbers is something that co uld be discussed in a future certification rulemaking.

A member restated that if the WG came up with a term sheet that lists agreed template elements, DOE could incorporate them in some form of rulemaking. Ashley confirmed that would be possible. The discussion continued in consider able detail on certification, including potential sampling requirements, the importance of defini ng basic models (p. 109) and citing detailed examples and possible applications (p. 117). In this context, a manufacturer re-affirmed (and confirmed) his understanding that testing and certification would occu r with full diameter impellers.

The discussion turned to details on testing and the potential app lications of a test procedure (p.125). Manufacturers expressed c oncerns about pumps, as actually tested, not being able to meet/beat the calculated (nominal imputed) values, in part because of lack of data for drives and controls. Ashley and Doug Rawald described ways that this could be a ddressed, starting with a well-designed test method (p. 135), describing several options and referring to DOE’s experience with other products (p. 145). A ma nufacturer reiterated th at controls are a vari able that make this difficult. As discussion continued, members and DOE explored many different options.

A manufacturer began closing out th e discussion by reiterating that the energy efficiency benefits of utilizing a drive (and controls) are so large th at this should not be made too complex, “the number one thing that prevents people from adopting an extended product solution is the complexity of implementations (p.161).” A memb er asked about distribu tors and whether they would be subject to the regulat ion. Doug responded that DOE does not have an answer yet. Ashley concluded this segment by restating that the first step wa s to develop the test procedure and DOE would create a starting point for that discussion. Members inquired about HI’s 40.6 as a starting point. Ashley stated that DOE’s inte ntion was “to utilize as much of the industry standard without changing it” as possible (p. 175).

The meeting moved toward closure with questions about the term sheet. Lucas Adin confirmed

that DOE would create a draft for the WG to revi ew that would include all the WG’s agreements. Ashley’s final caveat was that a ny language the WG created would be reviewed a nd ‘tweaked’ to conform to regulatory text standards. Dan Cohe n reiterated Lucas’ earlier comment, that a clear expression of the WG’s intent is what matters in the drafting. The facilitator confirmed the agenda for Day 2 and the meeting adjourned.

Day 2—Pumps WG Meeting #7, June 18, 2014 Attendance: All members present for Day 1 were present for Day 2

The facilitator welcomed everyone and the WG co mmenced with introductions around the room. Lucas Adin made introductory remarks, saying th at the DOE team was going to provide a draft of a term sheet for everyone to review. Movi ng to the agenda, he noted that both the test procedure and the metric were slated to be c overed and DOE intended to reflect, as much as possible, the content provided by the WG in its review.5 Page | 5 The facilitator mentioned that several members ha d expressed a desire to him to conclude the WG’s work in this June meeting if possible. A member asked if the issue of circulators could be addressed in a July meeting. Another member as ked if a DOE representati ve could be available during the WG mee ting to address the timeframe for circulators and pool pumps.

Test Procedure (Note: the actual pumps test procedure will formulated by DOE in separate rulemaking, which will be the subject of a full comment and review by stakeholders)

Sarah Widder provided an overview. The goal would be to describe how one would go about testing a pump, translating that tested data into inputs that w ould be fed into algorithms or equations that the WG had discussed previousl y. She verified that she was awaiting some

feedback on the last version of th e calculator. She detailed some of the anticipated revisions and

said the most recent versi on of the calculator would be sent out soon (p. 18).

Alison Williams provided an update on the C values being calculated at PER 25. The analysts need to iterate using the calculator. Dan We intraub continued that there were some other features, like motor losses, that still need to be nailed down by the WG. But he reassured the members, “we are going to be very close with thes e C values.” Sarah added that the calculator is not a formal DOE-endorsed template or tool.

Sarah continued, starting with a bare pump in a pump stand, we anticipate testing in accordance with HI 40.6., as follows:

 Sweep through seven specified points (40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and 120 percent) of BEP

 Head torque speed and flow rate would be captured at each of these points

 There is a specification for water and how pressure is measured

 The actual tested BEP of the pump is determined by finding the maximum of a best fit curve of efficiency versus flow rate. A specific method for the regression is outlined.

 Then determine one hundred percent of BEP flow rate, then use that to specify the 25, 50, 75 and 110 percent of BEP flow rates that will be used in subseque nt calculations.

 At this point, the test procedure moves to manipulation of data, with no new data

collection

Sarah continued with a detailed review of th e draft test procedure provisions, including the following major points (P. 31):

 Use linear regression (she also described inter polation) to determine flow rates at very low flow and very high flow and use th e result to cal culate shaft input power

 Use data to determine hydraulic output power

 The hydraulic output power is used to match the minimally compliant pump to your test

pump

 You use a minimally compliant motor Sarah also described more testing options for bare pump, bare pump plus motor and bare pump plus motor and controls and a de tailed discussion on the application of the test procedure ensued (P. 38).6 Page | 6 A member asked if the DOE proposed rule woul d utilize this extens ive level of detailed description. Sarah and Lucas both said yes.

Sarah’s very detailed presenta tion continued with ma ny questions and comments. Referring to the equation nomenclature, a member asked why the denominator was labeled PER max when it is referring to a minimally compliant pump. Sarah acknowledged that it was confusing, but it denotes a maximum value. In discussion, th e denominator was relabeled PER standard.

After the mid-morning break, Sarah continued w ith a detailed description of the calculation

method that could be used to test a bare pump and motor, featuri ng two options (P.80). Speaking on behalf of manufacturer s, Al Huber stated that his caucus did not have “any problem using the default loss curves (i n the calculations) as long as th ey are the same ones used to

calculate the minimum standard.”

Sarah moved on to a detailed presentation on a conf iguration where a bare pump is sold with a motor and controls (P. 89). A member commented that a load loss curve was a necessity and that the values had to be very conservative. Contin uing, he described the need to develop loss curves

for motors used with controls. Sarah said that one reason a new version of the calculator had not been sent was that different drive efficiency curv es were not incorporated in the latest version. Al Huber suggested that there be two separate calculators, one for constant load and one for

variable load. As review of the options continued, members described their preference for a

controlled motor loss curve and a controlled drive loss curve rather than some conservative static

value.

Sarah continued with a description of wire-to-wa ter test methods (P. 116). She asked if other inputs/changes were needed to the HI 40.6 procedur e. A member suggested that a power factor value would be useful in determining utility cost savings versus initial investment. Discussion continued on the practical applications. A me mber confirmed that DOE intended to include a separate motor table for submersible pumps in the new version of the calculator.

Returning from lunch, the facilitator referenced a short document that he and Alison Williams had prepared, which was a summary of all the votes and results to date from the WG. He stated

it would be sent out for the WG’s review.

The facilitator then returned to a question rais ed by a member earlier, on scheduling of follow-on activity for circulator and dedicated pool pumps . Lucas replied that the DOE analytic team would not be available to support any additi onal work in a July meeting—they would be dedicated to completing the details on this rulemaking. The same member suggested that, even absent analytic support, it coul d be productive for the WG to meet to consider these issues.

A manufacturer referred to a circulators committ ee that was underway through HI. Al Huber, referencing a conversation with Tom Eckman, s uggested that the NGOs come up with a proposal on scope and levels and the HI committee would revi ew it and get back to them. Al continued, that the committee had meetings scheduled in Oc tober and February, and that the industry could probably seek an agreement with the NGOs in March timeframe. In discussion, members described the potential parameters for the negotia tion and agreed that meeting for three days in7 Page | 7 July was not necessary. Another member aske d whether the pumps te st procedure effort underway could include circulators. A manufacturer stated that the circulator test would be wireto-water and it would be very si milar to what is being proposed.

A member raised the outstanding issue of pool pu mps. In discussion, Lucas indicated that the word “pump” is in EPCA. Another member interpre ted that, as a consequence, it is potentially a covered product. The WG agreed to insert sp ecific language in the Term Sheet which would

recommend to ASRAC that DOE undertake some ‘notice’ or other effort relativ e to pool pumps.

Continuing, a member asked if the WG should vote on the metric or the test procedure. After discussion, the WG confirmed that it could make a recommendation to ASRAC for DOE to adopt HI’s 40.6. The WG decide d to wait on an actual vote.

Metric Sarah Widder returned to previously presente d material on the metric (P. 174); “this is the general nomenclature that we had agreed to previously, that the pump energy rating for a

controlled or variable load woul d describe the weighted average electrical input power to the pump including a motor or drive if present over a specified load profile. And the weights were to be 110% or the load points were to be 110%, 100% and 75% of the best efficiency point flow at nominal speed for uncontrolled pumps for the constant load profile; and then 25, 50, 75, 100%

of BEP flow for the controlled or variable load P-E-R. And then the weights were to be equally weighted among those three or four points. An d the then pump energy index would be actually

the standard that is set.”

A member asked if there would be two PEIs, one for constant load and one for variable load. Sarah said yes. She continued, “for the constantload case, which is the uncontrolled pump, we mentioned that the load points of 75, 100 and 110 percent in equal weighting. We discussed earlier that the motor performance would be that of the minimally compliant motor or the motor that is sold with that pump. And we discusse d the nuances of that earlier....the equation (is) ....with the weighted average input power on top and then the bo ttom here; there is that pump hydraulic output power that we di scussed earlier, on the pump curve, which is used to describe the minimally compliant pump on the denominator , also equally weighted at the same load points. The same losses are applied in both cases.”

Sarah continued, “for the variab le load case we have four lo ad points: 25, 50, 75, 100. Other than that, the equation looks very similar. And then the one thing that is wo rth noting is that this denominator is an uncontrolled case....That is why we get such a dramatic decrease in the PEI for a controlled pump....we discussed at length earlier today how we are going to account for drive efficiency with a minimum drive efficiency a ssumed and an efficiency curve of some sort.”

And continuing, “This is how we determine the minimally compliant pump. We essentially determine the pump efficiency based on this equati on that is the same equation used in the EU. ....And then we have the efficiency of that minimally compliant pump plugged into the PER standard equally weighted and we would scale the hydraulic powe r by that pump efficiency and then also translate the pump efficiency that describes the pump -- this equation describes the pump efficiency at BEP, and then we scale that pump efficiency or translate that pump efficiency8 Page | 8 to 110% and 75% of BEP flow by multiplying it by these .985 and .95 factors. And that is

consistent with what is done in the EU as well to set the MEI. So that is the minimally compliant pump.”

Labeling The discussion turned to labeling (P. 183). After some back and fo rth, Lucas said that, typically, DOE’s certification system woul d require that information on the nameplate would enable a consumer to look up an efficiency rating in the DOE data base. In discussion, members clarified that after a test procedure is es tablished, if a manufacturer is going to show an energy rating on the label, at a minimum, it must be consistent with the test procedure protocol. A member commented that a permanent rating on the la bel was necessary for voluntary programs that reward energy efficient products. Members indi cated that they want ed the WG’s labeling preferences included in the Term Sheet. Manufacturers expressed their concerns about lack of control over product once it is ship ped. As a consequence, they wanted a label which reflected the equipment as shipped, nominal PEI cl or nominal PEI vl, if it is shipped with a control.

Returning from the mid-afternoon break, Sarah presen ted information that reflected what she had heard earlier, and that might be recommendations from the WG to be inserted in the Term Sheet. The first potential recommendation was: The pump test procedures should be in accordance with HI 40.6 for determining bare pump performance. The facilitator call ed for a vote and the recommendation was approved, 13 yes votes, two abstentions and one absent.

Next, the discussion returned to consideration of the metric. Sarah re-read the content that she had read previously, referencing the listed equation as well. (and listed in the Metric section above, beginning on the previous page). Summarized, the recommendation would read: the pump energy rating, the PER CL and VL, an d pump energy index, PEI CL and VL as

listed. The facilitator called for a vote and all members present voted unanimously to make this recommendation to ASRAC (14 yes, 1 abstention while absent, 1 absent)

Labeling

The manufacturers’ caucu s proposed that the nameplate label include the nominal PEI cl or PEI vl. After a lengthy and detailed discussion, wh ere members described the nuances of impeller trimming and its influence on performance, th e proposal was modified to read (P. 274): Metric applicability: standard versus label.

 Pumps are labeled based on the confi guration in which they are sold. --Uncontrolled pumps are constant load pump energy rating PEI cl, --Controlled pumps are variable lo ad pump energy rating PEI vl,

 The following information should be require d to be included on a pump nameplate After a brief caucus, the facilitator called for a vote. By a show of hands the WG voted to approve the recommendation (13 ye s, 2 abstentions, one absent)

Potential Data Elements to be Reported Two members had previously refe renced the possibility of colle cting and posting specific data elements that may be in addition to those requi red for certification. Sarah created two lists, one of potentially necessary data elem ents for compliance with certifica tion, and another list of data9 Page | 9 elements that might be benefi cial in planning efficiency pr ograms, but not required for

certification. Lucas commented that the exact details would be worked out in DOE’s certification and compliance process, a separate rulemaking process. After a lengthy discussion, Sarah captured the following as potential recomme ndation and read it out loud for the WG’s

consideration: “Certification fo r RS-V and VT-S pumps shall be based on testing with the following number of stages: RS-V - 3 stages, VT -S - 9 stages, unless a model is not available with that specific number of stages in the given scope, in which case the m odel will be tested and certified with the next higher number of stages.” The facilitator called for a vote and the WG accepted the recommendation (14 yes, 1 abstention, 1 absent).

The discussion returned to certification and da ta (P. 316). After detailed discussion, the

facilitator read the edited proposed recommendation on the screen:

“Recommended data to be concluded in the certification report/database

 manufacturer name;

 model number (numbers);

 equipment class PEI cl, PE I vl (as applicable);

 BEP flow rate and head rated speed;

 number of stages tested,

 full impeller diameter;

 whether the PEI cl or PEI vl is calculated or tested;

 input power to the pump at each load point”

The facilitator called for a vote and the WG accepted the recommendation (13 yes, 2 abstentions, 1 absent)

A member asked about the sche dule and language around follow-on rulemakings for circulators and pool pumps. She noted the language in the dr aft term sheet did not re flect the most recent proposal. The facilitator suggested that simple la nguage could be inserted to reflect the process

that caucus leaders had outlined earlier in the day. The member continued that the original language included the desire for DOE to undert ake a follow-on rulemaking and she suggested July 2015 as the target date for a NOPR. Memb ers speculated about the target date and the availability of DOE resources. After considerab le discussion, the members decided to defer the decision to Day 3.

Day 3—Working Group Meeting #7, June 19, 2014 All members present on Day 2 were present for Day 3, (Meg Waltner via phone). Steve Rosenstock was present for Da y 3. Dan Delaney was absent

Facilitator Doug Brookman welcomed the members and the group commenced with

introductions around the room. The facilitator said that a detaile d review and action on the Term Sheet was the principal agenda item

A member raised the issue of sampling. Lucas Ad in responded, reiterating that pumps would be handled in a separate compliance and certifi cation rulemaking. He continued, there are exceptions, but the general requirement that DOE has is for each basic model of a covered product, the certified rating has to be based on tested sample of at least two units. There are

certain statistics that are used to determine a representative rating, based on that sample. The10 Page | 10 sampling plan is determining also what the appropr iate statistical level is to assure that that product is compliant and that the rating is representative of the overall population when considering the likely varia tion between units and the ra ting you’ve measured (P. 10). He confirmed that the sampling plan is used to determine the rating for each basic model that is being testing. Continuing, he described enforc ement “where we do any random sampling of the population of units that are out in production in the market...to th e extent we're going to verify compliance of that particular basi c model with the standa rd and verify that its certifying rating is valid, it would be based on the same sampling plan and testing method that was used to certify the basic model to begin with.” He continue d, that for verification testing DOE typically purchases the products from retail; for enforcemen t testing there is a di fferent process and DOE requires that certain sample products be s upplied at the manufacturer’s expense.

Lucas confirmed that a manufacturer is required to make a signed declaration as part of his certification report, certifying all the basic models . More detailed questions on testing emerged.

Lucas restated that these details will be addressed in the rulema king. Manufacturers stated their concern about the cost of testing and talked about the practical appl ications (P. 26). The

manufacturers continued with de tailed real-world app lication questions. A member asked if manufacturers would have access on an ongoing ba sis to DOE as the rulemaking proceeded. Lucas replied that DOE would try to gather the right information a nd that it had different tools to accomplish that.

Final Review of the Term Sheet (WG Adopted Term Sheet is Appendix A) The facilitator previewed a review of the Te rm Sheet, noting the WG’s ground rule that all previous agreements are provisional until the WG es tablishes them as final agreements. He also

noted that all the content in this draft Term Sh eet was reviewed and agreed to previously during the course of the negotiation. The WG commence d with a section-by-sec tion review, starting at the beginning. Alison Williams was making r eal time edits to the document. The review proceeded as follows: Background —no comments Definition of covered product —no comments; consensus confirmed

Recommendation #2 —no comments; consensus confirmed

Recommendation #3 —no comments; consensus confirmed In-Scope and Out-of-Scope Pumps —no substantive comments; consensus confirmed

Recommendation #5 revised —The WG started with the add ition of descriptors CP1, CP2 and CP3 after the word circulators. Continuing, Tom Eckman and Al Huber began by describing a proposal that had emerged the previous day. Afte r discussion, the WG a rrived at the following:

“Recommendation #5A

. Circulators (CP1, CP2, CP3) will be held for additional informal negotiation between manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and other interested parties. Advocates to make initial proposal and manufacturers to re spond with a goal by October. Stakeholders aim to present joint proposal to DOE by March/April 2015. Stakehol ders request DOE commitment for technical support from consultants to facilita te analysis and test pr ocedure development.

 ASRAC-approved negotiation to begin in March following joint proposal.

 Goal for NOPR publication by end of September 2015.”11 Page | 11 Also, after considerable detailed discussion, mostly on dates, a nd an additional caucus review,
members arrived at the following la nguage that reflected another general agreement that emerged
the previous day:

Recommendation #5B. DOE should initiate a separate ru lemaking on dedicated-purpose pool pumps by the end of calendar year 2014.

In a separate vote (after the mid-morning break), fo llowing the discussion creating the new language, the WG approved the new language in recommendations #5A and #5B (consensus—14 yeses, 2 absent)

Recommendation #6 —no comments; consensus confirmed

Recommendation #7 —limited revision: remove the brackets in the first clause of the draft; no additional comments; consensus confirmed

Recommendation #8 —the WG accepted new explanatory language in the header to read: “It has

been the intent of the work ing group to limit the scope of this rulemaking to pumps designed for use in pumping clean water . The rulemaking will explicitly exclude the following types of pumps that might otherwise meet the de finition of an in-scope pump type:” The WG also accepted footnotes indicating inte nt, which referenced the EU’s clean water definition; confirmed DOE’s intent to maintain these exclusions while it drafts the proper regulatory language; and, confirmed that gray water should not be excluded.

A member asked to return to Recommendation #7 (under Scope Refinements) , seeking additional clarification on the meaning of ‘full impeller diameter’. The WG deleted the first bullet, ‘full impeller diameter’ and added an explanatory sentence: “In addition, the pump certified rating for a given mode l will be based on testing at full impeller diameter.”

The WG also created a footnote to address the c oncern, as follows: “Pump models that otherwise

meet all the above characteristics will not be excluded on the basis of ha ving a trimmed impeller. The certification rating for full diameter will also apply to other trims. Full impeller means the largest impeller diameter offered for sale for a given model.”

Recommendation #7: Returning from the mid-morning brea k, the facilitator confirmed again that the WG was comfortable with the new language. No additional comment; consensus

confirmed.

Recommendation #8 : the facilitator returned to the revi sed language (above) to confirm that WG had approved the edits. No addi tional comment; consensus confirmed

Energy Conservation Standards

Recommendation #9 : After discussion on the words ‘exac tly 25%’ and some other minor edits, the WG arrived at following revisions, as follows: “For ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VT-S pumps in both 1800 and 3600 rpm speeds, the energy conservation standards will be set at PEI 25 (with C- values iterated to cut off as near to 25% of the pumps [in the DOE analytical team’s merg ed database] as possible). For RS-V pumps, energy conservation standards wi ll be set to harmonize with the European Union No 547/201212 Page | 12 MEI 40 level, [with the intent th at no models known to pass the EU standard would fail the US standard.] The compliance date for all equipment classes will be 4 year s from the publication of

the Final Rule.” After more discussion, the facilitator asked the WG if everyone was still comfortable with this slightly revised language, as they were on Day 2. No additional substantive comment; one vote change from abstain to yes; consensus confirmed

Test Procedure and Metric

Recommendation #10: No substantive comment; one vot e change from abstain to yes;

consensus confirmed

The WG returned, briefly, to discussion on Recommendation #9 , confirming the meaning and

uses of the terms PER and PEI and confirmi ng the addition of the words “at full impeller

diameter.” The facilitator asked if members ha d any reservations about this content and there

were none.

Recommendation #11 : Members reviewed the equations and suggested minor edits. The

facilitator confirmed that the draft was consiste nt with the earlier c onversation and agreement

and confirmed there were no concerns about the content. No substantive changes; consensus

confirmed.

Labeling Requirements

Recommendation #12 : No substantive changes; one vote cha nge from abstain to yes; consensus

confirmed.

Certification Reporting Requirements

Recommendation #13 : No comment; one vote change fr om abstain to yes; consensus

confirmed.

Recommendation #14 : After considerable discussion, memb ers revised the language to read:

“Certification for RS-V and VT-S pumps shall be based on testing with the following number of

stages:

 RS-V: 3 stages

 VT-S: 9 stages

 If a model is not available w ith that specific number of stages in the given scope, the

model will be tested and certified with the next closest 1 number of stages offered for sale by the manufacturer.”

The revision included the followi ng footnote: If only fewer than the required number of stages are available, rate with the highest number of stages offered for sale. If only more than the required number of stages are available, rate with the lowest number of st ages offered for sale. With these substantive changes, the WG confirme d its agreement. One vote change from abstain to yes; consensus confirmed.

The facilitator noted a final correction, to add Ho ward Richardson from Regal Beloit to the list of members in Appendix B.13 Page | 13 Summarizing, the facilitator confirmed that was all the Term Sheet content that was to be reviewed by the WG. He confirmed that this ed ited version of the Term Sheet was intended to

be sent to ASRAC.

As a final action of the WG, the facilitator asked for a final vote from the members, seeking final approval on all the content in the Term Sheet. By a show of hands, all members present voted to approve the final version of the term sheet. (15 yeses, 1 absent). WG members closed out the negotiation with remarks expres sing appreciation for fellow members and staff. The WG adjourned from its last meeting for th e final time at 11:15AM on June 19, 201414 Page | 14 Appendix A 

### Appliance Standards and Rulemaki ng Federal Advisory Committee

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Working Group

Term Sheet June 19, 2014

Background On July 23, 2013, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to Establish the Commercial/Industrial Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy

Conservation Standards for Co mmercial/Industrial Pumps. 78 FR 44036. This working group is established under the Appliance Standards a nd Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA). The purpose of the worki ng group was to discuss a nd, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the energy e fficiency of commercial/industrial pumps, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conser vation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended. The working group was to consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and w ill consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical

issues.

DOE received 19 nominations for membership. Ultimately, the working group consisted of 16 members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE repr esentative (see Appendix A). The working group met in-person during 7 sets of meetings held December 18-19, 2013 and January 30 – 31, March 4 – 5, March 26 – 27, April 29 – 30, May 28 – 29, and June 17– 19, 2014. The working group successfully reached consensus on proposed energy conservation standards for a specific set of pumps. This document includes the working group’s recommendations to ASRAC on determining sc ope of this rulemaking as well as energy conservation standards. The group also chose to provide test procedure and metric-related

recommendations to the committee.



### Definition of Covered Product

Recommendation #1 . The covered product, a ‘pump,’ will be defined as below subject to potential edits necessary to accomplish the same intent:

 ‘ Pump ’ is a device that moves liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer, the mech anical equipment, driver, and controls.

Vote results : Consensus 2 (15 yes -1 no) on 3/4/2014

Recommendation #2

. The components of a ‘pump’ will be defined as below:

 ‘ Bare pump ’ is a ‘pump’ excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.

2 There are 16 members of the working group. Consensus has been defined as no more than 2 no votes.15 Page | 15  ‘ Mechanical equipment ’ is any component that transfer s energy from the driver to the bare pump.

 ‘ Driver ’ is the machine providing mechanical input to drive the bare pump directly or through the mechanical equipment, and ma y include an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine.

 ‘ Controls ’ means any device that can be used to control the driver.

Vote results : Consensus (15 yes - 1 absent) on 3/4/2014

Recommendation #3

. In this rulemaking, the metric will not cover non-electric drivers. The test procedure will specify that the bare pump rating calculations for the energy conservation standard also apply to pump s with non-electric drivers.

Vote results: Unanimous on 3/26/14



### In-Scope and Out-of-Scope Pumps

Recommendation #4

. The scope of this rulemaking will include the following pump types: 3

 End suction frame mounted/ow n bearings (ESFM/OH0, OH1)

 End suction close coupled (ESCC/OH7)

 Inline (IL/OH3, OH4, OH5)

 Radial split (multistage) vertical (RS-V/VS8)

 Vertical turbine subm ersible (VT-S/VS0)

Vote results: Consensus (15 yes - 1 abstain) on 3/26/14

Recommendation #5A

. Circulators (CP1, CP2, CP3) will be held for additional informal negotiation between manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and other interested parties. Advocates to make initial proposal and manufacturers to re spond with a goal by October. Stakeholders aim to present joint proposal to DOE by March/April 2015. Stakehol ders request DOE commitment for technical support from consultants to facilita te analysis and test pr ocedure development.

 ASRAC-approved negotiation to begin in March following joint proposal.

 Goal for NOPR publication by end of September 2015.

Vote results: Consensus (15 yes – 1 absent) on 6/19/14

Recommendation #5B. DOE should initiate a separate ru lemaking on dedicated-purpose pool
pumps by the end of calendar year 2014.

Vote results: Consensus (15 yes – 1 absent) on 6/19/14

Recommendation #6

. This rulemaking will explicitly exclude the following types of pumps:

 Positive displacement pumps

 Axial/mixed flow pumps

3 Items in parentheses represent DOE and ANSI/HI nomenclature.16 Page | 16 Vote results : Unanimous on 1/31/14

 Double suction (DS) pumps

 Multistage axially split (AS) pumps

 Multistage radial split-ho rizontal (RS-H) pumps

 Multistage radial split ve rtical immersible pumps

 Vertical turbine (non-submersible) (VT) pumps

Vote results : Consensus (15 yes - 1 abstain) on 3/26/14



### Scope Refinements

Recommendation #7

. For the in-scope pump types, this rulemaking will be limited to pumps with the following characteristics:

 1-200 Horsepower (shaft power at BEP at full impeller diameter)

o applies to number of stages requi red for testing to the standard

 25 gallons/minute and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter)

 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter)

 Design temperature range from -10 to 120 degrees C

 Pumps designed for nominal 3600 or 1800 rpm driver speeds

 6 inch or smaller bowl diameter (VT-S/HI VS0)

In addition, the pump certified rating for a given model will be based on testing at full impeller

diameter. 4

Vote results: Consensus (15 yes - 1 absent) on 3/4/14

Recommendation #8

. It has been the intent of the work ing group to limit the scope of this rulemaking to pumps designed for use in pumping clean water 5 . The rulemaking will explicitly exclude the following types of pu mps that might otherwise meet the definition of an in-scope

pump type: 6

 Wastewater, sump, slurry, solids handling 7

 API 610 pumps

 ASME/ISO chemical pumps

 Fire pumps

o if compliant with NFPA 20 a nd UL listed or FM approved

4 Pump models that otherwise meet all the above characteristics will not be excluded on the basis of having a
trimmed impeller. The certification rating for full diameter will also apply to other trims. Full impeller means the largest impeller diameter offered for sale for a given model.

5 Intent is to use the definition of ‘clean water’ in the EU pump standards. (Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012; Article 2 (13))

6 Definitions designed to maintain the intent of these exclusions will be proposed in the NOPR by DOE. Information

in sub

‐ bullets may be used to inform these definitions.

7 Gray water should not be treated as part of this exclusion category.17 Page | 17  Self-priming pumps

 Prime-assisted pumps

Vote results : Unanimous on 1/31/14

 Nuclear pumps

o Complies with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III or 10 CFR 50; Non Code or Code/Safety Related.

 Navy pumps

o MIL Specification Compliant (MIL -P-17639, MIL-P-17881, MIL-P-17840, MILP-18682, MIL-P-18472)

Vote results : Consensus (14 yes - 2 absent) on 3/4/14

 Sanitary pumps

o “Hygienic” or “sanitary” pumps are t ypically used in food processing and pharmaceutical applications. They are desi gned with special parameters, specific materials and surface finish to a variety of national and international rules and regulations that will minimize the biologi cal growth inside the pump to protect public health. These design parameters and materials may result in lower efficiencies than for standard water pumps. Certifications for hygienic or sanitary products include, but are not limited to:

 3-A Sanitary Standards

 EHEDG (European Hygienic Equipm ent Design Group) recommendations

 QHD (Qualified Hygienic Design)

Vote results : Unanimous on 3/26/14



### Energy Conservation Standards

Recommendation #9

. For ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VT-S pumps in both 1800 and 3600 rpm speeds, the energy conservation stan dards will be set at PEI 25 (with C-values iterated to cut off as near to 25% of the pumps [in the DOE analyt ical team’s merged database] as possible). For RS-V pumps, energy conservation standards will be set to harmonize with the European Union No 547/2012 MEI 40 level, [with the intent that no models known to pass the EU standard would fail the US standard.] The compliance date for all equipment classes wi ll be 4 years from the publication of the Final Rule.

Vote results : Consensus (15 yes – 1 absent) on 6/17/14



### Test Procedure and Metric

Recommendation #10

. Pump test procedure should be in accordance with HI 40.6 for determining bare pump performance.18 Page | 18 Vote results : Consensus (13 yes – 2 abst ain – 1 absent) on 6/18/14

Recommendation #11

. [The metric for assessing compliance with the standard should be PEI,

which is constructed based on values of PER.]

Pump Energy Index (PEI) CL and VL: PER CL and PER VL , for a given pump model (at full
impeller diameter), over the PER CL for a minimally compliant pump (PER STD ) serving the same
hydraulic load:

ܫܧܲ ஼௅ ൤ ൌ ܴܧܲ ௅஼
ܴܧܲ ஽்ௌ ൨

ܫܧܲ ௏௅ ൤ ൌ ܴܧܲ ௅௏
ܴܧܲ ஽்ௌ ൨

Pump Energy Rating (PER) CL and VL : equally weighted average electric input power to the
‘pump’ measured (or calculated) at the driver in put or, when present, controls input, over a
specified load profile:

ܲܧܴ ௅஼ ൌ෍߱

௜ ൫ܲ ௜௡ ௜ ൯

௜

ܲܧܴ ௅௏ ൌ෍߱

௜ ൫ܲ ௜௡ ௜ ൯

௜

Where:

 w i = weight at each load point i

 P in i = power input to the “pump” at the driver, inclusive of the contro ls if present, (hp)

 i = Percentage of flow at the best efficiency point (BEP) of the pump

 i = 110%, 100%, 75% of Best Efficiency Point (BEP) flow at nominal speed for
uncontrolled pumps

 i = 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of BEP flow at nominal speed for pumps sold with motors

and controls

Vote results : Consensus (14 yes – 1 abst ain – 1 absent) on 6/18/1419 Page | 19 

### Labeling Requirements

Recommendation #12. Pumps are labeled based on the config uration in which they are sold. The
following information would be required to be included on a pump nameplate:

Bare Pump Bare Pump + Motor Bare Pump + Motor + Controls

PEI CL Model number
Impeller diameter for each unit PEI CL Model number
Impeller diameter for each unit PEI VL Model number
Impeller diameter for each unit

Vote results : Consensus (14 yes – 1 abst ain – 1 absent) on 6/18/14



### Certification Reporting Requirements

Recommendation #13. Recommended data to be included in certification reports/database:

 Manufacturer name

 Model number(s)

 Equipment class

 PEI CL or PEI VL as applicable

 BEP flow rate and head

 Rated speed

 Number of stages tested

 Full impeller diameter (in.)

 Whether the PEI CL or PEI VL is calculated or tested

 Input power to the pump at each load point i ( P in i )

Vote results : Consensus (14 yes – 1 abst ain – 1 absent) on 6/18/14

Recommendation #14. Certification for RS-V and VT-S pu mps shall be based on testing with the following number of stages:

 RS-V: 3 stages

 VT-S: 9 stages

 If a model is not available w ith that specific number of stages in the given scope, the

model will be tested and certified with the next closest 8 number of stages offered for sale by the manufacturer.

Vote results : Consensus (15yes– 1 absent) on 6/18/14

This term sheet has been approved by the ASRAC pumps working group by consensus (15 yes – 1 absent) on 6/19/14.

8 If only fewer than the required number of stages are available, rate with the highest number of stages offered for

sale. If only more than the required number of stages are available, rate with the lowest number of stages offered

for sale.20 Page | 20 

### Appendix B—Members

U.S. Department of Energy—ASRAC Commercial and Industrial Pumps Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group

Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) Robert Barbour TACO, Inc. Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process Greg Case Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics Gary Fernstrom Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Die go Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and S outhern California Gas Company Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation Albert Huber Patterson Pump Company Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Doug Potts American Water Charles Powers Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps Howard Richardson Regal Beloit

Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Greg Towsley Grundfos USA Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council