UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

+ + + + + DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

+ + + + + OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

+ + + + + PUBLIC HEARING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PACKAGED BOILERS AND COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS, HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS AND UNFIRED HOT WATER STORAGE TANKS

+ + + + + WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

+ + + + + The public hearing was held at 9:00 a.m. inRoom lE-245 of the Department ofEnergy's Forrestal Building, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Mr. James Raba of DOE facilitating.

PRESENT: PAUL CABOT WILBUR HAAG BOB HEMPHILL MIKE KAUFMANN B.J. KUMAR R. MICHAEL MARTIN JOSEPH M. MATTINGLY FRANK STANONIK BODH R. SUBHERWAL, P.E. DICK TOPPING American Gas Association A.O. SmithWater ProductsCo. Gas Technology Institute Bock Water Heaters Energetics CaliforniaEnergyCommission Gas Appliance Manuf. Assoc. Ga Appliance Manuf. Assoc. BR Laboratories, Inc. Arthur O. Little

NEALR.GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comALSO PRESENT: SANDY BEALL ANTONIO BOUZA DOE, DOE JOHN F. BUSCH, JR. J. BRADFORD HOLLOMON EDWARD LEVY Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab Pacific Northwest Natl Lab DOE STANLEY LIU CYRUS NASSERI ANDY PERSILY JAMES RABA

(202)234-4433 NIST DOE NIST DOE

NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE

.. N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI-N-D-E-X DISCUSSION TOPIC Opening Remarks and Introductions Agenda Review

. Commercial Packaged Boilers Topics Introduction General Statements

. . . Definition and Scope of Coverage Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency Other Topics

........ . Commercial Water Heaters, Hot Water Supply Boilers, and Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks

- Topics for Discussion Introduction General Statements 3

4 14

17 23 34 69 96

105 108 Definitions and Coverage 109 Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency,

. . . . 140 Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 145 Other Topics

. . . . . . . . . 164 Adjournment

(202)234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (9:13 a.m.) 3 MR. NASSERI: Willyoupleasebe seated so 4 we can start? 5 Good morning. Again, I am Cyrus Nasseri, 6 Senior Program Manager for the Energy Efficient 7 Standards and Test Procedures, Rulemaking on 8 Commercial Products here at the Department of Energy. 9 Others joining me today are, on my left, 10 Edward Levy, from Office of General Counsel, Michael 11 J. McCabe, presently on detail with the Office of 12 Assistant Secretary Dan Ryker, on my right. And 13 people from NIST, Stan Liu, who works on boiler 14 rulemaking with us, teaming with us, and also Andy 15 Persily, who is basically replacing Stuart Dols, who 16 had some personal and family conflict, and he is not 17 here, but Andy is the team leader there, and he Is 18 replacing Stuart. 19 Also, we have people from PNNL, Brad 20 Hollomon' who was working with us on standard 21 rulemaking also and test procedures, and John Busch, 22 from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory also on the 23 standards, not much on the test procedures but 24 involved in the processes and activities. 25 Our facilitator today is Jim Raba, who

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 looks like he's going intothe cornerthere. And I am 2 the Presiding Officer for this public hearing. 3 On behalf of the Department, I would like 4 to thankyou all for taking the time toparticipate in 5 this public hearing. 6 AspublishedinFederalRegisternoticeof 7 August 9 of this year, this public hearing is a forum 8 for interested parties to comment on proposed energy 9 efficiency requirements for the following commercial 10 products: commercial package boilers and commercial 11 water heaters, hot water supply boilers, and unfired 12 hot water storage tanks. All these products are 13 covered by Energy Policy and Conservation Act. DOE 14 would like to receive your comments on the proposed 15 rules for these products. 16 During this morning, we will be covering 17 commercial package boilers, that's where we start 18 first. We will hear and discuss your comments on 19 general points, on the definition and scope of 20 coverage' of this product, the commercial packaged 21 boiler test procedures, and on other topics that you 22 wish to bring up concerning proposal for commercial 23 packaged boilers. 24 Well, itmightbeduringlast thismorning 25 orthis afternoon, dependingwhenwe finishthis first

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.como 1 subject, we will cover commercial water heaters, hot 2 water supply boilers, and unfired hot water storage 3 tanks. At that time, afteranopportunity forgeneral 4 statements, we will again start with the definition 5 and coverage issues. We will then hear and discuss 6 commentsyouhaveon specifictestprocedure issues on 7 thisproduct, hotwater supplyboilers andunfiredhot 8 water storage tanks, including the two issues of 9 maximum heat loss requirements and unfired hot water 10 storage tank test procedures. We will also cover any 11 otherissues thatyoubringuprelatedto theproposed 12 rule for these products. 13 Yourcommentstodayandduringthewritten 14 commentperiodwill assisttheDepartment inpreparing 15 the final rule for these products. 16 Material relating to these notices are 17 posted on our web site whose home page is located at 18 URL

-- well, thishas it intheproposedrule, I don't 19 know if I need to read it, but I'll read it again: 20 http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/no 21 tices/index.html. And then if you're interested 22 specifically and you missed it under notices that we 23 published, you can stop by and Brenda or Sandy is 24 going to provide that address to you again. 25

(202) 234-4433 In approximately two weeks, a complete NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 copy of the transcript will be available for 2 inspection at the Department of Energy Freedom of 3 Information Reading Room, located down the hallway 4 from here, out of this door, to the right, and then 5 past the elevators inRoom lE-190. Anyone wishing to 6 purchase a copy of the transcript may make 7 arrangements with the court reporter sitting behind 8 me. 9 To provide the Department with as much 10 pertinent information and as many views as can be 11 reasonably obtained and to enable interested persons 12 to express their views, this public hearing will be 13 conductedinaccordancewiththefollowingprocedures: 14 We will begin with introductions and then proceed to 15 short introductorypresentations frompeople who have 16 asked to speak and have submitted comments. 17 I want to stress our request that your 18 initial comments be limited to general issues and a 19 summary of your views and be no longer than five 20 minutes

.. 21 Follow those presentations, we will 22 discuss the issues on the agenda and any other issues 23 you wish to discuss, andyou will have an opportunity 24 to provide more detailed comments on the specific 25 issues.

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 Pleaselimityourquestions**~:m**theopening 2 presentation to general points so that we canprovide 3 everyone the opportunity to present their summary of 4 concerns. 5 During the remainder of the proceedings, 6 questions on specific issues are welcome. It may be 7 necessary, however, to limit the discussion on some 8 topics to remain on schedule, which we might not have 9 any problem today, although there may be time at the 10 end of public hearing for additional discussion of 11 significant issues. 12 I encourage everyone present to 13 participate as much as possible so that we may get a 14 full spectrum of opinions on,issues raised

. 

### • 15 Thepublic hearing is scheduled to recess 16 today at 5:00, and I'm pretty sure it's going to 17 recess sooner, hopefully. We should have ample time 18 to raise and discuss all important issues. If you 19 believe a topic has not been completely discussed at



# . 20 the public hearing, by all means address it in 21 additional written comments which are due by October 22 23 of

-- in other words, next month. 23 All writtencomments anddata submissions 24 will be available for public inspection at the DOE 25 Freedom of Information Reading Room, again, Room lE-

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com9 1 190. The phone number is, area code, 202-586-6020. 2 Again, we appreciate the time and effort 3 you have taken in preparing for this public hearing, 4 and we're pleased to receive your comments and 5 opinions. Our purpose today is to have dialogue on 6 the issues so that all who are interested can share 7 and add insight to this rulemaking. 8 At this point, I would like to turn the 9 floor to Jim, and Jim will complete the introduction 10 of participants, review the agenda, and call the 11 speakers. 12 Jim? 13 MR. RABA: Thank you very much, Cyrus. 14 I'm Jim Raba. 15 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. It's better 16 if you're closer to a microphone. 17 MR. RABA: Well, good morning, and thank 18 you Cyrus. 19 I'm Jim Raba from the Department of 20 Energy, and I'll be your facilitator for today's 2J.. hearing. 22 First, let's startwith introductions, if 23 you would, and go around the room. Please state your 24 name and your company or organization. 25

(202) 234-4433 Let's start over here. Joe? NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comJ.U 1 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly with Gas 2 Appliance Manufacturers Association. 3 MR. STANONIK: FrankStanonikwiththeGas 4 Appliance Manufacturers Association. 5 MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag. I'm with A.O. 6 Smith Water Products Company. 7 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal with BR 8 Laboratories. 9 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California 10 Energy Commission. 11 MR. HEMPHILL: BobHemphill, formerly Gas 12 Research Institute, now Gas Technology Institute. 13 MR. CABOT: Paul Cabot, the American Gas 14 Association. 15 MR. KAUFMANN: Mike Kaufmann, Bock Water 16 Heaters. 17 MR. BUSCH: JohnBusch, Lawrence-Berkeley 18 National Lab. 19 MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, Pacific 20 Northwest National Lab. 21 MR. PERSILY: Andy Persily, National 22 Institute of Standards and Technology. 23 MR. LIU: Stanley Liu, MIST. 24 MR. MCCABE: MichaelMcCabe, Departmentof 25 Energy.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.L.L 1 MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, Office of 2 Building Research and Standards. 3 MR. LEVY: Edward Levy, Office of General 4 Counsel, Department of Energy. 5 MR. RABA: In the back, please? 6 MR. BOUZA: Antonio Bouza, DOE. 7 MR. RABA: Ladies? 8 MS. EDWARDS-JONES: BrendaEdwards-Jones, 9 Building Research and Standards. 10 MS. BEALL: Sandy, DOE. 11 MR. RABA: Thank you, Sandy. 12 Has everybodyfilled in the sign-in sheet 13 at the back of the room? We're all set with that? 14 Great. 15 Well, as Cyrus mentioned, the purpose of 16 the hearing is to receive your comments and data 17 statements that will help us learn more about the 18 boilers and water heaters today. And we welcome 19 discussion. We want to hear from you. 20 Now, before we get started, some of you 21 recall some of the norms we have for hearings like 22 this, some newpeople

-- too loud? Yes, it's thebest 23 I can do. Is there volume? How's that, better? 24 Thank you. Sandy will do it, keep me in line. 25

(202)234-4433 Forthe recordandforthecourt reporter, NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 always please state your name and your organization 2 when you'd like to speak and have one person speak at 3 a time so everybody can be heard. 4 Please use the microphones, as I've 5 demonstrated for you here today, and let's stay on 6 topic, keep focused on the topic. If there's 7 somethingelse that comes up, we want toput it aside, 8 we'll make a note of it, and come back to it later, 9 okay? We will get all the topics in today. 10 Please listen as an ally too. Be concise 11 and share the air. Respect each other's opinions and 12 nopersonal attacks. Let's focus onthe future, where 13 we're going with the standards, the test procedures, 14 those kinds of things too. 15 Let's limit the sidebar discussions. We 16 have a small group today, so it should be very good. 17 And also I'll be here to keep things running smoothly 18 and queue eachperson to speak. So, if youjust give 19 me a little signal, I'll recognize you, then I'll be 20 sure you get up in turn to speak. 21 Now, as a facilitator, my role is not 22 easy. I trytomake it lookeasy, but often it's not. 23 But I am here to stay neut+al. I'm here for you, to 24 help you participate, have a diverse invite a very 25 diverse set of comments and views so we can hear, the

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com13 1 Department canhear everything that needs to be heard 2 in today's hearing, and also help stay focused on the 3 issues. 4 I'm an honest broker. I'm not taking 5 sides. I'm here to work for you, give you feedback, 6 maybe ask questions, and observe the process to be 7 sure everybody's moving along smoothly, help you to 8 work effectively on this and be sure that everybody 9 who wants to has an opportunity to participate. So, 10 this is a hearing, so we want to hear from you and 11 gather as many views and facts as possible. 12 Couple housekeeping items. Some of you 13 are familiar with the building, been here before, 14 others have not. But to go over some things in case 15 you've forgotten too, there's no smoking in the 16 building. There are some designated smoking areas. 17 You can see me off while I can point you to them, if 18 you so desire. We can shoot for maybe a one-hour 19 lunch break, but let's wait and see how the agenda 20 goes before we plan that out. We'll look at that in 21 just a little bit too. 22 We'll map out the agenda, the topics, and 23 schedule things, everything is running smoothly and 24 priorities are taken care of first. We are scheduled 25 to adjourn at 5:00 p.m., but again Cyrus indicated

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 this might be adjusted somewhat. So, in any case, we 2 need to be sure all the topics are discussed 3 thoroughly and completely. 4 Telephones, if you're looking for 5 telephones, the elevator banks, as you came through 6 here to the back area, there's some along the front 7 wall by the elevator bank. Public phones are there. 8 There's a snack bar directly downstairs. 9 Take the elevators down, and it's really this corner 10 over here, opposite wall. And later for lunch, the 11 break could be taken either at the Department of 12 Energy cafeteria, which is at the far end of the 13 building. You cango downstairs, walkthe full length 14 of thebuildingandbackup the escalators. Some have 15 been here before. You can follow the leader on that 16 one. Streetvendors are available, andthe snackbar, 17 again, down here is open. 18 I understand the transcript of this 19 hearing will be available for purchase. It will be 20 available about two weeks after this hearing, andyou 21 should contact our court reporter for arrangements to 22 make to get a copy. It will also be available in the 23 Freedom of Information Reading Room. That is just 24 past the elevators to your left. It's down this 25 passageway here.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 Ifthere'sanyconfidentialinformationto 2 submit, later on when you submit written comments, 3 there's some guidelines in the proposed rule. Submit 4 one copy of the complete document and ten that have 5 been sanitized, and the Department will make a 6 determination then as to whether that information 7 would be exempt from public disclosure. That's 8 pointed out in the preamble of your proposed rule. 9 Thank you very much, really, for your 10 time, effort to be here to look at these topics and 11 prepare for thisparticularhearing. We are certainly 12 pleased to receive your comments, your views, your 13 statements, yourdata, andwant tohearfromeverybody 14 today. 15 Take a look now, please, at your agenda. 16 Do you have a copy of that? You should have picked 17 one up on the way in. It's with your pile of papers 18 there. Just look at the overall picture of the 19 agenda, just the topical items there, and think now 20 about the order of topics, just the general topics 21 there. And does anybody have an airplane to catch 22 earlyonor some other limitingfactor that theycould 23 not stay here the full**h~aring** time or any other 24 special needs that we should put one topic ahead of 25 another one in the ordering of the agenda?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com16 1 Seeing no changes at this time, let's 2 proceed on then too. 3 Arethereanyadditionalitems, justmaybe 4 about two or three words we could add, if you have 5 additional items to add to this agenda, this topical 6 agenda for today'shearing? Anythingelseyouwant to 7 add? 8 Again, seeing no additional items, we 9 shall proceed. 10 We're down here now with introductions. 11 What we'll do at this point is we'll ask for an 12 introductory presentation by NIST of some of the 13 procedures and how the general topic fits together on 14 these boiler test procedures. And then, thereafter, 15 please hold your comments then, we will invite a 16 review of the topics

-- I'm sorry, we will ask for 17 general statements fromalsoyouwho are attendingthe 18 hearing today. 19 And thereafter, once you have the general 20 statements, just overviews, short brief five minutes, 21 we'll ask to look at each agenda topic as we go 22 through and see if anybody has something they'd like 23 to speak about or we could just go right back that 24 topic too. Want to do that? Okay, fine.- Thank you. 25

(202) 234-4433 Let's go ahead and start. Cyrus. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.L I 1 MR. NASSERI: A gentleman just came in. 2 Would you like to -- on the left side here. 3 MR. RABA: Welcome. Your name, sir. 4 MR. TOPPING: I'mDick Topping, ArthurD. 5 Little Company. 6 MR. RABA: Oh, yes, Dick. Good morning. 7 Thank you for being here with us. 8 MR. TOPPING: Thank you. 9 MR. RABA: Thank you. 10 I invite Stan Liu to now present from 11 NIST. 12 MR. NASSERI: While they're working on 13 that

-- 14 PARTICIPANT: HowmanyDOEpersonsdoes it 15 take to set up a transparency projector? 16 (Laughter) 17 MR. NASSERI: Again, I'll just mention 18 while we're waiting for this, this issue wouldbe the 19 general topics under commercialpackagedboilers that 20 Stan is going to present. 2J.. MR. MARTIN: Jim, how is this fitting in 22 with the general statements that you have on your 23 agenda? 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: Sir? MR. NASSERI: The general statements? NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.Lts 1 MR. MARTIN: I was a little confused 2 COURTREPORTER: Couldyouspeakcloserto 3 the microphone? 4 MR. MARTIN: Excuse me. This is Michael 5 Martin, California Energy Commission. 6 We're going to have this presentation 7 before the general statements that we make; is that 8 true? 9 MR. RABA: Yes. We planned it this wayto 10 give everybody kind of a summary opportunity, just a 11 very general overview of the topics today. So, your 12 statements or your general statements will be more 13 focused to give you the benefits, give you more 14 content inwhat you're saying. This isjust a general 15 overview. 16 MR. MARTIN: Great. 17 MR. LIU: Okay. My name is Stanley Liu 18 from NIST. I'm here to give you a brief introduction 19 of the issues that are going to be commented upon by 20 stakeholders today during the hearing. 21 And the first slides on your package is 22 just a title page, so I ignore that one. This is 23 second page on your package, and this one is 24 definitions andthe scope of coverage forthepackage, 25 commercial boilers.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 They include the items, method of 2 assembly, application, capacity, and operating 3 characteristics. In the method of assembly, DOE is 4 proposinga definitionunderwhichboilersare covered 5 whether they are factory assembled, assembled by a 6 distributor or installer with manufacturer-specified 7 components, whichmeans the model number and the type 8 of boiler and the burners, everything according to 9 manufacturerspecifications, allthatcanbeassembled 10 with components, which is not specified by the 11 manufacturers. 12 For example, the cast ironboilers, maybe 13 the exchanger is from manufacturer, but the burner 14 used by the assembler may not be the one provided or 15 specified by the boiler maker. 16 And application, DOE isproposingthatthe 17 rulewouldcoverallcommercialboilersdistributedto 18 a significant extent for use in heating and service 19 water heating only, whichmeans it is not for boilers 20 that are used for utility purpose, power generation 21 purpose or processing heat. 22 Capacity

- - DOEhasproposedthat therule 23 would apply to boilers with greater or equal to 24 300,000 Btu per hour, and there's no proposed upper 25 limit.

(202)234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 Operating characteristics DOE has 2 proposed that the rule would apply to both low 3 pressure and high pressure package boilers. High 4 pressure means the pressure is greater than 15 psig. 5 DOE is interested in comments on 6 establishing anupper limit, because the limit can go 7 all the wayup to 100 millionBtuperhour, andDOE is 8 interested in establishing anupper limit, if there's 9 any comment on that. And also operating 10 characteristics, whether there should be a limit on 11 how high the pressure should be in a high pressure 12 boiler. 13 The seconditemistestprocedure andtest 14 conditions. As for low pressure boilers, DOE is 15 proposing that to principally use the test standard 16 from the Hydronics Institute of the GAMA or 17 Hydronics Institute Division of GAMA, standard HI18 1989, 6th edition for testing low pressure boilers. 19 And DOE alsoproposedthat as alternative 20 that the manufacturer can use the abbreviated 21 efficiency test method of American Society of 22 Mechanical Engineers, power testing code 4.1, with a 23 certain specified inlet and outlet water temperature 24 for hot water boilers. 25 Thespecifiedconditionmeansthatthey'11

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com21 1 agree with whatever is specified in the Hydronics 2 Institute test procedure, so they're all under the 3 same test procedure. 4 Continue the test procedures and test 5 conditions for high pressure boilers. DOE proposes 6 that manufacturerwoulduse the abbreviate efficiency 7 test method of the ASME PTC 4.1 with provisions for 8 the steampressure. If it's steamboilerorhot water 9 temperature, it is hot water boiler as specified by 10 the manufacturer's normal design point operating 11 conditions. This is because a high pressure boiler 12 you can operate under different pressure range, and 13 the DOE is now asking you test the boiler under all 14 the possible pressure ranges. DOE is proposing that 15 you test according to manufacturer recommended 16 operating conditions. 17 And DOE would like comment on whether 18 there's a uniform method of procedure inestablishing 19 what pressure and what temperature to test at 20 particular rated pressure-rated boiler. For 21 example, 150 psig boiler should be tested under what 22 pressure? And a 200 psig boiler should be tested 23 under what pressure? 24 Continue test procedures and test 25 conditions. There's a particularclass ofboilerthat

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 is designed

-- supposed to be designed for low-water 2 temperature applications. Example, the boiler water 3 temperaturenevergobeyond 140 degrees orbelow. For 4 this type of boiler, DOE proposes that manufacturers 5 wouldusetheHydronics InstituteHI-1989 standardfor 6 all lowpressure steam andhot waterboilers, in this 7 case, really just for hot water boilers. And no 8 special provision for boiler water inlet and outlet 9 temperature, whichmeanstheboilerwillbetestedthe 10 same as any other low pressure boilers. 11 And the test procedure and test condition 12 forcondensingboilers, DOEproposedthat theHydronic 13 Institute HI-1989 be used for condensingboilers with 14 a specialprovisionmade forboilerwatertemperature, 15 since forcondensingboilerinletwatertemperature is 16 mostly significant affecting the efficiency rating. 17 So, DOE has a specialprovisionas specifiedfor doing 18 the test with the specified inlet water temperature. 19 And as for the condensate collection to 20 determine the increased efficiency of the condensing 21 boiler, DOE is proposing using the ASHRAE standard 22 103-1993 under steady state condition. In the 23 standard 103, there's two.test conditions: One is 24 steady state, one is cyclic. DOE is proposing using 25 the steady state one only.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 The test procedure condition for modular 2 boilers and multiple boilers. For modular boilers, 3 whichbydefinition means that all the boilers in the 4 systemis composedof the samemodulewithan input of 5 400,000 Btuperhour input orless. For those type of 6 modular boiler systems, DOE proposed that a single 7 module should have been rated and tested and rated, 8 and that rating applied to the whole boiler system. 9 So, one single module should have been tested and 10 rated, providedall themodules are the same, designed 11 the same, same modules. 12 And for multipleboiler systems, theycan 13 have different capacityboiler composed of the boiler 14 system, maybe even different design. And DOE is 15 proposing that each individual boiler of a different 16 design would be rated separately as a package boiler 17 by itself. 18 Rating and testing of steam and hot water 19 boilers. That means a boilerthat is designed for use 20 forboth'steamapplicationorcan alsobeused for hot 21 water application. DOE proposed that if manufacturer 22 isgoingtohave a single rating, thenthe ratingmust 23 be based on the steam. But as an option, DOE also 24 proposed to allow the manufacturer to rate the boiler 25 as a hot water boiler if the manufacturer is willing

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 to do a separate test based on the hot water test 2 procedure, hot water boiler test procedure. 3 And that's all that's in the agenda about 4 the issue to be presented. 5 MR. RABA: Thank you, Stan. That was a 6 good overview. This will help put the general 7 statementsandadditionaltopics intosomecontext for 8 more effective discussion. 9 NOw, are there some persons, I know there 10 are, who would like to make some very brief general 11 statements also this morning? Who would like to go 12 first? 13 14 15 MR. NASSERI: Jim? MR. RABA: Yes, Cyrus. 'r MR. NASSERI: You shouldmention the fact 16 that we have received two statements from Gas 17 Appliance Manufacturers Association and also from 18 California Energy Commission. So, these are the ones 19 that we received already. So, I propose that we go 20 ahead and schedule that GAMA goes first and then CEC, 21 and then we open the floor for any additional 22 statements that may want to be presented today after 23 that. 24 25

(202)**2~33** MR. RABA: That would be fine. MR. LEVY: GAMA didn't have a general NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 statement, so we can move right on from there. They 2 had a number of specific things that they wanted to 3 address. 4 MR. NASSERI: Is that right, GAMA? 5 MR. STANONIK: I wouldagreethat'sright, 6 yes. 7 MR. NASSERI: Okay. 8 MR. RABA: That was Ed Levy, second 9 speaker. 10 MR. NASSERI: Okay. So, how about Michael 11 Martin? Any general statements at this point? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I am Michael Martin, 13 California Energy Commission. And we would like to 14 give general support towhat has come out. We feel we 15 need to do that for two reasons: One is because 16 people fail to say thank you to people who do the 17 right thingwhenyou tell themwhat to do, and that's 18 needed; the other thing is that we needto -- we would 19 like the record to show where we stand in support. 20 There are some details we'll get into later. 21 I would like tomake one general comment, 22 though, which applies not only to boilers but to all 23 the boilers, water heaters, the air conditioners. 24 What this is is related to the final product that you 25 will have in the Code of Federal Regulations.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com26 1 We, inCalifornia, havebeen.reworkingour 2 applianceregulationswiththeconceptthatpeoplewho 3 want toknowwhat the rules are what they applyto are 4 going to have the regulations and nothing else. And 5 I wouldurgeyou, as you lookat these regulations, to 6 assume that thepeoplewho arereadingthemdon't have 7 Stan'sexplanation. Theydon't have thepreamblethat 8 is published in the Federal Register, but just the 9 regulations. 10 And that this, therefore, means that you 11 need to avoidvague terms, undefined terms. You need 12 to be very specific about defining the scope, andyou 13 need to avoid unnecessary limitations on the scope. 14**We'~l** get into some details of that later. 15 And then there is also a term that comes 16 in here about referencing various kinds of boilers, 17 water heaters, and air conditioners that are 18 commercial and industrial equipment. And within the 19 industry, generally, on most appliances, we have 20 assumed that up to a certain input rate of a unit is 21 a consumerproduct, andbeyondthat it is a commercial 22 product. In California, we avoid using these terms 23 all together, because they're application terms. 24 It does bringup a question that needs to 25 be made clear in all the scope situations that what

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 happens to a boiler that is used in a commercial 2 application but has a very small input

.or 3 alternativelyhas a very large input used in consumer 4 applications. It's our belief that you want to 5 consider those small ones as consumer products under 6 NACA and the large ones as commercial products under 7 EPACT. But the scope of the regulations have tomake 8 this abundantly clear. 9 And it's important to us in California, 10 becausewe want to followyourexample, in some cases, 11 we're required to by law. And we also have computer 12 programmers who want to have clear instructions as to 13 how to do a database. So, I would just request that 14 you keep this in mind, that the regulations need to 15 stand alone and be totally understandable by 16 themselves. But, by and large, you've done a great 17 job. 18 MR. RABA: Thankyou, Michael. Those are 19 the statements from the persons who submitted

-- or 20 person who submitted a prepared statement ahead of 21 time. Anybodyelsewho would like tomake a statement 22 at this time, a general statement? 23 Seeing none, let's proceed then. Let's 24 look then at the specific topics onouragenda and see 25 which ones that we'd like to cover. And let's strike

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com"'0 1 out those that maybe we don't want to cover. 2 The agenda onboilers. A showof hands of 3 who'd like to discuss or have a comment on 4 definitions? Okay, we've got some there. Okay. 5 MR. MARTIN: Well, only to say that they 6 need to be complete. 7 MR. RABA: Yes. 8 MR. MARTIN: And every term that is of 9 importance, that is used, needs to be defined in the 10 regulations rather than referring them to, as the 11 scope currently does, to a statute. 12 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. We'll come 13 back to these, but thank you verymuch; that's a good 14 point. 15 The scope of coverage? Okay. 16 Method of shipment and assembly. 17 MR. LEVY: Jim, these next four, just the 18 way you did with test procedures and conditions and 19 you have these subtopics? 20 MR. RABA: Yes, yes. 21 MR. LEVY: These next four are actually 22 sUbtopics of the first two in the agenda. I want 23 people to understand that. 24 MR. RABA: Good point, good point. So, 25 then as a subtopic, method of shipment and assembly.

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com29 1 No? Yes? 2 MR. LEVY: I didn't see any comments on 3 that. I went through the statements that we had, the 4 written comments. Does anybody have anything that 5 they want to add that they didn't submit? 6 MR. RABA: Yes? No? 7 MR. STANONIK: Well, we have a comment, 8 but it's basically that we think that what was 9 proposed is close to the definition we suggested. 10 There's still a little fine tuning there, but

-- 11 MR. RABA: We can include that. That was 12 Frank Stanonik. 13 Boiler application. Going once, going 14 twice. 15 Boiler capacity. 16 MR. LEVY: Well, that was covered by one 17 of GAMA's 18 MR. STANONIK: Minor editorial. 19 MR. LEVY: Oh, I thought

-- 20 MR. STANONIK: I seetwo comments. You're 21 right, you're right. 22 23 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: So, we'll keep that circled. MR. LEVY: That was the editorial change. MR. RABA: Sure. Boiler operation. MR. LEVY: Theyhad a significant comment NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com30 1 on that. That's the one that went to**~cope.** 2 MR. RABA: Okay. This is just kind of 3 summarizing what's in the

-- yes, for sure, you're 4 right. 5 Test procedures and conditions. Under 6 that general topic, low pressure boilers. Discussion 7 on that? Going once, going twice? 8 MR. LIU: GAMA has a comment on that. 9 MR. RABA: Okay. Low pressure? 10 MR. LIU: GAMAhas a comment about the PTe 11 that's going to be used. 12 MR. STANONIK: Oh, okay. See, I've 13 categorizedthat ina different issue, but, okay, yes, 14 you're right. 15 MR. RABA: Got you covered. 16 Okay, high pressure boilers. 17 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 18 MR. RABA: Okay. Boilers for low-water 19 temperature. Going once, going twice? 20 Condensing boilers. Nobody. 21 Modular and multiple boilers. 22 MR. STANONIK: Yes, minorpoint thatwe'll 23 talk about. 24 MR. RABA: Testingandrating steaminhot 25 water boilers. Nobody?

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. STANONIK: We're talking there just 2 about rating models that could be either? 3 MR. RABA: No problem. 4 Under this area of test procedures

-- I'm 5 sorry, boiler operation and test procedures here, 6 other topics that could be added to this list. 7 MR. MARTIN: MichaelMartin. I'mnot sure 8 ifyou've got itmentioned somewhere else, but the use 9 of the new Hydronics Institute standard is something 10 I'd like to discuss. 11 MR. RABA: Okay. 12 MR. LEVY: That shouldbe addressedunder 13 low pressure boilers. 14 MR. RABA: Okay. 15 MR. LEVY: But under topics, Jim, I saw 16 two: One is sort of an editorial point that GAMA 17 raised about correcting a reference of the Hydronics 18 Institute. 19 MR. RABA: Okay. 20 MR. LEVY: And then I noticed Michael 21 Martin addressed this in general questions about the 22 rule that we hadasked. That might be the appropriate 23 place to bring that up. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: Frank. MR. STANONIK: Seeing Stango through the NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 presentation and realizing at this point the 2 difference we have is how large boilers need to be 3 covered, it just struck me that it may be a topic to 4 discuss which would be, for lack of a better word 5 here, field testing. 6 MR. RABA: Okay. Let's add that. 7 MR. STANONIK: What I'm thinking is if 8 you're going to be

-- if it comes out that you are 9 goingtotestboilersup towhatever size, clearly, at 10 some point, the idea of laboratory testing, whether 11 you agree the number is eight million, ten million or 12 20 million, at some point that becomes just 13 unfeasible, unmanageable. 14 If the rule continues that way, maybe at 15 some point it'swrittento say at this size itwill be 16 testedafter installed, andthe, I don't know whatyou 17 call it

-- what would you call the guy who installed 18 that boiler, who puts it together

-- anyhow, that 19 person has to verify that it meets the efficiency. 20 MR. HAAG: More than one person. 21 MR. STANONIK: Probably more than one, 22 yes, right. 23 MR. LEVY: That comment was included in 24 your lengthy statement concerning coverage over eight 25 million, and I includedthat in that boileroperation

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 category. 2 MR. STANONIK: Okay. Well, okay. We can 3 stop at eight, but I'm thinking DOE, for whatever 4 reasons, to 5 MR. LEVY: Right, yes. Whatever we say, 6 what then, what do we do? 7 MR. STANONIK: Andas anexample, itmight 8 even be a question of

-- well, you've got a lot of 9 issues thenwhenyou're testing inthe field. Youmay 10 wait for it to be in operation for a month and then 11 just have some beta take at it to verify it. It's 12 hard to imagine running a special test, firingup a 15 13 million Btu boiler just to look at the efficiency, 14 just to do that. 15 MR. RABA: So, we'll keep it on there 16 then. 17 So, we have, so far, under topics, the 18 correctionsof theHI standardtestprocedure, general 19 questions regarding the rule and field testing. 20 Also, proceedingon, onthepart about the 21 water heaters, the second half of today's agenda, 22 looking at, again, definitions. 23 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. LEVY: Shouldn't we do that later

-- MR. RABA: Want to? MR. LEVY: after we have the NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com34 1 introduction on water heaters? 2 MR. RABA: Fine. Let's do that. Okay. 3 Sounds good. 4 Okay. So, at this point, I invite anyone 5 who would like to who has submitted in advance 6 theirgeneral statementsonboilersandboilertopics, 7 if they would like to speak at this time. 8 Michael, are you one that wanted to speak 9 on this? 10 And anyothers? Just letme see toget an 11 idea. 12 MR. MARTIN: I'd like toparticipate, but 13 I Imnot sure that I want I Imgoing to have a lot of 14 nitpicking comments to you 15 MR. RABA: Okay. 16 MR. MARTIN:

- - which would be better 17 formed, in most cases, in written comments that we 18 give you after the hearing. But I sense the items of 19 substance are probably GAMA's. 20 MR. RABA: Fine. 21 MR. MARTIN: I haven't had a chance to 22 readthese. It wouldbe nice ifwe had a breakbefore 23 we finished on boilers so that we could look through 24 GAMA's stuff. It's bigblocks of type, and it's hard 25 to read and listen at the same time.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE.• NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. RABA: Okay. We'll do that. 2 Anybody else like to make a general 3 statement? 4 Let'sproceedthen to the topics. Cyrus, 5 would you like to take over? We're going to start 6 with definitions. Go ahead. 7 Are there any comments or any discussion 8 on definitions? 9 MR. LEVY: Well, GAMA had a statement. 10 MR. STANONIK: Yes. We had a -- 11 MR. RABA: Go ahead. 12 MR. STANONIK: We had a basically 13 editorial comment, first of all, that in the 14 definition of commercial package boiler, I think it 15 shouldspecifyinput ratingof 300,000Btuperhour or 16 more, which would then perfectly dovetail with naked 17 definitions of boiler, which is input rating of less 18 than 300,000. 19 Currently, it just says capacity, and 20 unfortunately that will mean different things to 21 different people. 22 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. We would 23 support that change. 24 MR. NASSERI: Let me clarifythis, Frank. 25 The EPACT refers to capacity. The ASHRAE standard

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 90.1-89 refers to capacity. And that's the reason 2 everybody and then I notice that the latest 3 revision of the ASHRAE 90.1 talks about input, and 4 that's one issue that needs to be evaluatedor talked 5 about with our general counsel here. 6 But I see a difference between input and 7 capacity, capacity in terms of designers usually 8 refer, as I recall, to the output, and we have to 9 clarify that issue with capacity, what is meant by 10 EPACT was indeed input and not output. 11 MR. STANONIK: Well, I wouldencourageyou 12 toclarifythat, because inmymind, without question, 13 that's what it is. Because ifyououtput it the other 14 way if somehow you were to figure out or to 15 determine that they meant output, then there's going 16 to be a whole segment of boilers with input ratings 17 from 300,000 toroughly375,000 Btuperhour, andthat 18 won't be covered by any federal regulation. 19 MR. NASSERI: I realize that. That's the 20 reasonwe have to lookat it, because dependingon the 21 efficiencyof theboiler, thatwouldbe thedifference 22 between the input and output. 23 MR. STANONIK: Yes, whateveritwas, I did 24 it wrong in my head. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. NASSERI: That's fine, 20 percent is NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE.• N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com..:; I 1 fine adding to the capacity. But this is something 2 that we have to look at carefully, and as I said, 3 capacity - - and I notice inyourdirectoriesyourefer 4 to capacity as output also. This is regulation by

-- 5 labeling by the FTC, so we have to be very careful, 6 you, in your directory, GAMA directory refers to 7 capacity as output. 8 MR. STANONIK: Correct. That's right, 9 they do show the capacity, and that's the output. 10 MR. NASSERI: Right. 11 MR. LEVY: Are you saying, Frank, that it 12 should have a different meaning under the statute 13 here? Cyrus is right, that it uses the term 14 "capacity," and that's what 15 MR. STANONIK: I guess I'msayingthe term 16 "capacity" is unfortunately vague. 17 MR. LEVY: Okay. 18 MR. STANONIK: Because, as Cyrus says, 19 there's a lot of people who would read the capacity 20 and think output, but I would tell you that at least 21 some minor segment of the industry or the people out 22 therewould see capacityandthinkrated

-- I'msorry, 23 would think input. And those are not the same two 24 numbers. And ifwe gowiththe output interpretation, 25 then you've got a hole in the federal regulations,

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 which no one intended, in terms of something that 2 wouldn't be covered either bymake a regulation, if I 3 can call them that, or impact regulations. 4 MR. LEVY: You mean if the 300,000 figure 5 were construed to be output -- 6 MR. STANONIK: Correct, 7 MR. LEVY: That would leave a gap. 8 MR. STANONIK: Correct. 9 MR. LEVY: So, yourrecommendationisthat 10 for this purpose the capacity be construed as 11 referring to input. 12 MR. STANONIK: Ourrecommendationwouldin 13 fact say input rating. 14 MR. MATTINGLY: Not construed, justput it 15 in the regulation. 16 MR. LEVY: Well, yes. If we put it in the 17 regulation, thatmeanswe'reconstruingthe statuteas 18 meaning input. That's what I was getting at. 19 MR. MATTINGLY: I'm just saying don't 20 leave it'for anybody else to construe, 21 MR, LEVY: I understand, 22 MR. NASSERI: I think the onlywaythatwe 23 have to look at it is that what EPACT said capacity 24 indeed means input, 25

(202)234-4433 MR. RABA: I seethreepersonswho request NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 to speak. I saw Michael's hand up first. 2 MR. MARTIN: I will yield to Bodh. 3 MR. RABA: Okay. Bodh then B.J. Go 4 ahead, please. 5 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 6 But capacity does mean output, and I think I support 7 Frank totally on GAMA's position. It shouldbe input 8 followedcapacity. Clearseverything, nothing isout. 9 Capacitywillbe always treatedas output. That's the 10 way the industry stands it. 11 MR. RABA: Michael? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I would like confirm 13 that the rated input is what has always been in the 14 Z21 series of standards for gas appliances. \ It's 15 always what's been intended in standard 90.1, both 16 1975 and '89 edition and '99 edition, and it's always 17 beenwhat isbeingpreempted in California. But it is 18 the input, and it's the rated input. The input bear 19 is a little depending on the gas and the 20 circumstances, but it's a rated input, and it has been 21 intended all the way along. And knowing the people 22 who negotiated the Energy PolicyAct, I am absolutely 23 sure that that was their intent, to have the input in 24 this case. 25

(202) 234-4433 Talking rated input is an important NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 improvement to me. 2 MR. RABA: Thank you. I see B.J. Kumar, 3 Energetics, wants to speak. 4 MR. KUMAR: Yes. Looking at the statutory 5 language, it is indeed an EPACT capacity, which is to 6 most people it does mean output. However, the way it 7 looks is this issue should resolve itself 8 automatically when DOE adopts 1999 ASHAE standards, 9 because as part of that, the tables do refer to input. 10 So, at this time, I don't know how you're 11 able to change insteadof capacityto inputbyitself. 12 But the standards will make it which will probably 13 take care of this issue. 14 MR. RABA: Thank you, B.J. 15 Isthat coveredfairlywell, Mr. Chairman? 16 Any more input on input/output? 17 MR. NASSERI: No, it's very clear

-- 18 MR. RABA: Okay. 19 MR. NASSERI: what we have to do. 20 MR. RABA: Okay, fine. 2-1 Other definitions. 22 MR. STANONIK: Well, there's actually 23 MR. RABA: Frank Stanonik, GAMA. 24 MR. STANONIK: if I may, there's 25 another issue, and now I'm kind of reacting to one of

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com41 1 the things that Stan had put up there. He mentioned 2 that the definitions tended to address method of 3 assembly and included components that were not 4 specified by the manufacturer. Maybe this is not 5 totally the right place to address this, but I guess 6 I'm a little puzzled by how you're going to do that. 7 I meanwithin the program that we run for 8 commercialboilers, ifthemanufacturer

- - well, let's 9 sayif there is an alternativeburnerthat canbeused 10 with the boiler, or burners, maybe there might be a 11 couple, we in fact run the test to verify that the 12 efficiency is still as rated or else we may give it a 13 different·number if that's what comes out of it. 14 Butthe ideathat somehowthere'dbe some, 15 if you will, obligation to test or verify the 16 efficiency rating of a boiler where the manufacturer 17 in fact it's not going to assemble with the 18 manufacturer specified components, I guess it's not 19 clear to me how you do that. 20 MR. LEVY: The general issue is addressed 2:J.. inthepreamble, and I wouldcommendyour attentionto 22 that. We don't really address the how. What we do 23 address is whether or not that product is covered as 24 a commercial package boiler. I would assume, but I 25 don't know, that it's probably rare.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com42 1 But I would commendyour attention to the 2 preamble, and if you think that there are problems 3 withour analysis andapproachthere, I wouldurgeyou 4 to address that in your written comments. 5 In a nutshell, we take the view that the 6 manufacturer would be responsible either for units 7 that it assembles or supplies orthat are assembled in 8 accordance with its specifications. But that even if 9 a product that you would classify as a package boiler 10 isnot assembledinaccordancewiththemanufacturer's 11 specifications as to the components, it's still a 12 coveredproduct. It stillfits withinthe definition. 13 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 14 In that case, ifyou hada situation like that andyou 15 found therewas a violation, who wouldthe enforcement 16 be against? It couldn't be against the OEM 17 manufacturer. 18 MR. LEVY: What we say in the preamble is 19 that it would be against, I don't know what the 20 correct term here is, but I'll use the term "assembler," it might be the distributor. And we 22 explain how we reach that conclusion. And, so that's 23 what I would direct your attentionto as towhetheror 24 notyou think that's appropriate orwhetherwe needto 25 do anything to amplify that or implement it.

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com43 1 MR. RABA: Michael Martin? 2 MR. MARTIN: This does actually happen. 3 We have had occasions where boilers have been shipped 4 out to California, and a local distributor or 5 contractorwill change the burner in it. And I think 6 under the regulations that this makes this California 7 person the manufacturer, and therefore if he's going 8 to follow the rules, thenhe wouldhave to -- he would 9 be responsible for the testing, which the boiler 10 manufacturers who are having theirburners pulled out 11 andotherthingsput ininsteadwouldprobablywelcome 12 the coverage. But I sense that's covered in the 13 regulationsthewaythey'rewrittenbythe implication 14 that this questionable contractor becomes a 15 manufacturer and is therefore in violation unless he 16 goes through the testing. 17 MR. LEVY: Yes. I see Frank looking at -- 18 or I assume he's looking at the draft rule, and what 19 I'd direct your attention to is the discussion on 20 pages 488-41 and 42 of the preamble. 21 MR. MARTIN: Isthere anythingactuallyin 22 the regulation that covers this? I don't think there 23 is, is there? 24 MR. LEVY: Well, I would say it covers it 25 implicitly.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com44 1 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 2 MR. LEVY: You starttoreachthequestion 3 as tohowmanydifferent situationsyouwant toexpand 4 the regulation to explicitly address. 5 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I feel comfortable 6 about it. 7 MR. RABA: Bodh? 8 MR. SUBHERWAL: Body Subherwal, BR Labs. 9 However, everytimewhen a newburner is put in, it is 10 always testedin the field. That's also a procedure. 11 Most of the assemblers will do that. Because in 12 California, particularly, that will be a requirement 13 that the particular jurisdiction will look for those 14 results. So, inotherparts of the country I won't be 15 able to say that. But I think as a normal procedure 16 is thatwhenever a component ora burner is changedor 17 is installed in the field, a test is always run. 18 Forexample, we alwaysknowthatwhenever, 19 apart fromthisissue, thatwheneveroil-firedboilers 20 are used, they're always adjusted in the field. Zl MR. LEVY: They're always what? 22 MR. SUBHERWAL: They're always testedand 23 adjusted. It's a procedure. 24 25 boilers,

(202) 234-4433 Secondthing iswhenwe are lookingat the

we are talking now that wherever a NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323'RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com45 1 manufacturer supplies everything but the burner and 2 the burner is installed in the field, it is always 3 tested, testedtoa condition, wherebyyouare looking 4 at what kind of combustion connector sticks out. And 5 if you are checking temperature and all that, you are 6 justfollowing almost theprocedure, whichHI-1989 is. 7 You may not have temperatures in and out exactly the 8 same, but it's going to run. So, it's normally 9 tested. 10 So, I think what that brings to the point 11 is like GAMA raises the issue that maybe there is a 12 provision for the large size boilers to be field 13 tested. That maybe worth considering. 14 MR. RABA: Other views? Frank? 15 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with GAMA. 16 Actually, the more we talk about it, I think if it's 17 not somewhere else, because we're just getting what 18 you're intending to add, but if it's not somewhere 19 else, we may, for this rule, need either a special 20 definitionofmanufacturerorperhapsa definitionof, 21 off the top ofmy head, field assemblerthat would, in 22 essence, if that's where DOE's going, make the 23 connection that if some· entity brings together 24 component parts to create a final package boiler and 25 it's not an arrangement of parts that came from a

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com46 1 single manufacturer and had been tested already or 2 whatever, that at that point, that assembler's going 3 to have to be responsible for the efficiency or 4 compliance or whatever. 5 MR. SUBHERWAL: Most of the time it's the 6 distributor. 7 MR. STANONIK: Right. I guess my point 8 is, as I'm sitting here, we just may need one more 9 definition, and I'm not sure whether it's 10 personally, I'drathernot createa specialdefinition 11 of a manufacturer, but we may need to create a 12 definition of a assembler, whatever that is. 13 MR. SUBHERWAL: But it's the distributor 14 who does that. The distributor is normally the 15 manufacturer'sdistributor. So, I thinkthe assembler 16 is someone who goes and puts it together. It's 17 normally a contractor. However, that contractor is 18 doing it under the direction of the distributor. 19 Otherwise it does not go in immediately. 20 MR. RABA: First, Michael, then Brad 21 Hollomon. 22 MR. MARTIN: I would support Frank's 23 initial suggestion that we have a definition of 24 manufacturer for two reasons: One, that I think that 25 this person in the field is included in the

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com47 1 definition, but, second, in that we would have the 2 definition right here in the regulation rather than 3 having to look somewhere else to find out what a 4 manufacturer is. 5 So, I wouldsupporthavinga definitionof 6 manufacturer, which would include the person who is 7 making these field changes. I f he's changing a 8 burner, he becomes the manufacturer. 9 MR. RABA: Go ahead. 10 MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, Pacific 11 Northwest Lab. One of the complexities of this has t? 12 do with the fact that there are some definitions that 13 are common to all of this kinds of equipment, 14 including air conditioners and the furnaces and 15 whatnot that we're not discussing at this present 16 moment. And some of the definitions are specific to 17 this particular set of test procedures. 18 So, there is a set of generic definitions 19 which actually went out with the furnace rule, which 20 I believe includes manufacturer. And as I remember 21 it, when we were discussing this particular problem, 22 that we modified the definition of manufacturer so as 23 to take care of this case. ·1 don't have that withme, 24 but obviously put it on our list of things to do to 25 check to make sure that that's been done right. But

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com48 1 I understand the point. 2 MR. RABA: Go ahead. 3 MR. NASSERI: Also, this discussion 4 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri. 5 MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, DOE. Also, 6 this discussion brings the issue of labeling, who is 7 going toput the label onthat equipment? And I think 8 the bottom line is whoever is going to put the label, 9 what the efficiency of that equipment is, is the 10 responsible party. 11 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 12 As a matter of fact, apart from the new boilers, 13 whenever a burner is changed in the old boilers, the 14 used boilers, a manufacturer of the burner who is 15 going to get this burner installed has the 16 responsibilityof conductinga test aswell asputting 17 a new label. He may put a new label, because the 18 rating plate is there, always a rating plate. In 19 coordination with or by taking

-- working with the 20 manufacturerof the equipment oronhis own he canput 2l in independent label. 22 Because whenever we are looking at a 23 boiler, we are looking at two things: One is that a 24 boiler has a name plate data, which is by the 25 manufacturer; theotherone istheburnermanufacturer

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com49 1 also has its own name plate data. The burner 2 manufacturerhas itsown rating andall those kinds of 3 things. So, what we are looking at is end of year, 4 whenever it is changed it is the manufacturer of the 5 burner who puts a new plate and that the plate is 6 always carried with a rating and all that. 7 MR. RABA: Does that cover it, Mr. 8 Chairman? 9 MR. NASSERI: Yes, thank you. 10 MR. RABA: I believethatwas a discussion 11 about definition scope as a topic, scope. 12 MR. LEVY: Well, I think we're at a point 13 where maybe we ought to discuss

-- or GAMA ought to 14 present its statement concerning the size of the 15 boilers. 16 MR. RABA: Would you like to do that? 17 MR. STANONIK: Sure, sure. 18 MR. RABA: This is Frank Stanonik, GAMA. 19 MR. STANONIK: And, basically, I mean we 20 reiterated the comment we made before that we still 21 think that if this was limited to low pressure steam 22 and hot water boilers having inputs of eight million 23 Btuperhour or less, thatyouwouldcertainlyget the 24 large, vast majority of boilers sold in the U.S. that 25 are used for providing comfort space heating in

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com50 1 commercialbuildings. Itwouldalsocovertheboilers 2 that couldbe tested to the HI test procedure and for 3 themost part couldbe testedina laboratorysetting. 4 We think that once you get above eight 5 million, you do enter into the area of where boilers 6 are basically custom designed, and in essence, you 7 justmove intothis transitionwhereparts arebrought 8 together, thecomponents arebroughttogether, andthe 9 boiler is literally assembled at the site. 10 And I think, as Bodh mentioned, in most 11 cases, probably in all cases at that point, the 12 seller, distributor, installer, assembler, whoever is 13 the right one there, is probably in fact responsible 14 for verifying to the buyer that it has achieved a 15 certain efficiency. Because when you get into those 16 bigger inputs, that becomes, ifyou will, one of the, 17 I would say, criteria or desired characteristics of 18 why the person purchased this size boiler. 19 The otherpoint thatwe didn'tput inhere 20 that struck me as Bodh was speaking is, again, we're 21 looking at, if I understand this right, we're looking 22 at new products. In other words, let's say I'm 23 buildinga newbuilding, and I'mtalkingabout a brand 24 new boiler. When you start talking boilers with 25 inputs in the millions of Btu or tens of millions of

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com51 1 Btu per hour, in fact, let's say outside of a 2 completelynewbuildingsituation, veryoftenwhenyou 3 get to somewhere down the road making replacements, 4 they don't pullout the whole thing. They eitherput 5 in a new burner, if that's what's needed, or they may 6 repair or change out some heating sections. But you 7 really get - - it's just a totally different

- - we 8 believe totally different product. 9 And, so in terms of specifying a test 10 procedure that would cover the vast majority of 11 boilers, commercial boilers used in buildings for 12 space heating and that you could test in a laboratory 13 condition, we thinkthat the limitingapplicabilityof 14 this to boilers and eight million Btu per hour input 15 rating or less would get the job done and, from our 16 viewpoint, avoid most of the complexities that arise 17 if you try and look at some of those

-- if you really 18 intend to deal with an unlimited input rating 19 condition on boilers. 20 Just for

-- I was doing a littleback-of2l the-paper calculation as an example. If you had a 22 12.5 million Btu per hour input rated boiler and it 23 was operatingat, I'dsay, nominally, about 80percent 24 combustion efficiency, and this was back-of-the25 envelope, but that thing

-- that boiler is going to

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com52 1 pump out, if you're looking at -- and I was doing a 2 very conservative 100**d~gree** temperature rise, which 3 is not a boiler application

-- it's going topump out 4 12,000 gallons of hot water an hour. 5 Now, if you work that forward and say, 6 what the heck kind of either heating load, what kind 7 of building would that be, maybe the Pentagon, but 8 certainly what kind of

-- if you're looking at a hot 9 water load, that's just, I think, beyond the realm of 10 reasonableness, both interms of if somebody had that 11 kind of a situation, I don't know that they'd be 12 willing, in essence, to put all their eggs in one 13 basket. They might go to a modular kind of

-- or 14 several smaller boilers or something. 15 It seems to me, we just start talking 16 about things that youmight use in a district heating 17 applicationor something. In anyevent, we thinkthat 18 the rule could be much

-- would be better manageable 19 and practical if you limited it to eight million Btu 20 per hour and less input. 21 MR. LIU: I have a question. StanleyLiu, 22 NIST. I have a question for Frank. 23 MR. STANONIK: -Yes. 24 MR. LIU: In the GAMA's directory, 25 Hydronic Institutedirectory, the boiler capacitywas

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com53 1 listed as something around 14 million Btu per hour. 2 The question is are they tested under laboratory 3 condition? That's my understanding of GAMA's 4 operation. 5 Second, gas boilers who list a capacity 6 limit or input limit of 12.5 million Btu per hour. I 7 assume that also is tested under laboratory 8 conditions. So, where there's eight million Btu per 9 hour, is that just based on your experience that's 10 most boilers sold below that? 11 MR. STANONIK: Well, let me -- I'll try 12 and answer the part I can answer easier, which is the 13 HI testing. First of all, as youknow, theHI program 14 hasbeenaroundfor a longtime, andwithout question, 15 there'sprobablymodelsthathave, especiallyinthose 16 sizes, that have been listed in there for quite some 17 time. 18 And what you're looking at, which is 19 unusual, but what you see there is the fact that 20 certainmanufacturers, and I think those are probably 2'1 specificallycast ironunits, they're saying, well, if 22 you want a 12.5 million or 13 million, whatever, 23 boiler, in essence, they're saying we have the 24 capability to provide you with one. 25 there, okay?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 It's listed

www.nealrgross.com54 1 It doesn't necessarily reflect, in any 2 way, whether or not those units are sold often or at 3 what pace, okay? It's an indication the manufacturer 4 has that intheirofferings, andtheycangiveyou one 5 if you want it. 6 In terms of how we run that testing 7 program, and again, especially when you're dealing 8 with this cast iron section, heat exchanger section, 9 where you can just accordion that together, whatever 10 theright wordwouldbe, you're dealingwitha family. 11 Again, the manufacturer says, well, with this design 12 and this burner and whatever, I can give you boilers 13 that may -- I can give you a model that may go from, 14 I don't know, three million to 12 million, or 15 whatever. 16 And the program doesn't test every 17 possible model in between. We pick the program 18 picks two extremes, and the ratings are typically, 19 depending on where they're picked, extrapolated or 20 interpolated. 21 But, again, the boiler industry has been 22 around a long time so they fuel the science that 23 allows you to just sayyou can assume oryou can make 24 a projection of the efficiency. That's got a lot of 25 experience behind it.

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com55 1 So, I guess one of my points is I don't 2 necessarily, we can go back and check, but I can't 3 tell you, for instance, when is the last time we may 4 have actually tested in somebody's facility a 12.5 5 million Btu boiler. But I can tell you that what our 6 eight million number is. We're looking at where the 7 majority of stuff is sold and what's really put out 8 there as new products on a regular basis. 9 As far as what happened with Z21.13 and 10 what do they do when somebody comes in and wants a 11 Z21.13 listingwith a ten million Btu or a 12 million 12 Btuboiler, truthfully, I'dhave gobackandtalkwith 13 the folks at now CSA International, formerlyAJLabs, 14 and some of our members. 15 I really don't know what happens in that 16 case, because, again, typically, he's not the 17 manufacturer's not going to walk in and say, I only 18 have this one model. I only have a 12.5 million Btu 19 boiler, and that's it. Typically, we're dealingwith 20 a family of models, because it

-- well, it'sjustgood 21 business sense. You've, in essence, created a design 22 with a burner, and you know it's going to work this 23 way, and you're maximizing.your ability to meet the 24 market needs by saying, I can give you this in inputs 25 from here to here. That's the way it goes. That's

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com56 1 how you do the business. 2 But we can go back, because I don't know 3 the answer to reallywhat happens orwhat has happened 4 even in the past at AJ Labs when theyhad that kind of 5 a situation. 6 MR. LEVY: To follow up on Stan's 7 question, I would urge you, if you could provide in 8 your written comments, whatever information you have 9 about at least how the HI ratings would have been 10 generated, whether by testing or other methods and 11 where, because that might be helpful to us. 12 MR. STANONIK: Well, okay. Understand 13 there's always testing. It's just if you look at the 14 way that directory is set up, and again with the idea 15 recognizing that the manufacturer offers, in 16 essence, a given model in a variety of inputs, we 17 don't necessarily test every input. 18 MR. LEVY: Right, but also the 19 manufacturer has to have a basis for the information 20 it provides to you. 2:1.. MR. STANONIK: Right, right. 22 MR. LEVY: So, whatever information you 23 have about the manufacturer's basis for the 24 informationtheyprovide, as well as anythingthatyou 25 may have done toverifyormake your own assessment of

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com57 1 the ratings in these large units, that it would be 2 helpful to us. 3 I do have

-- somebodyhas had his hand up 4

-- I had a couple of questions I want to raise with 5 Frank. 6 MR. RABA: We'll come back to you. Thank 7 you. 8 Bodh, go ahead. 9 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 10 I think it has been a common practice to make boilers 11 higherthaneightmillionBtuwhentheyare steel-tube 12 boilers. Steel-tubeboilers have beenbuilt and have 13 been sold at 12 million, ten million Btu very 14 commonly. And the places where they're used are 15 institutions. And there are a number of them in 16 California, particularly that I can say that I have 17 seen and all that. 18 So, it's not only

-- this is just for 19 clarification. When Frank says most of them arebelow 20 eight million or so, that may be a very true 22 statement, but at the same time, steel-tube boilers 22 have been commonly built, and they have been tested. 23 So, when we come to CSA, as a common practice, CSA 24 very rarelywanted to test in their own labmore than 25 five or sixmillion Btu boiler. And if that wasn't a

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com58 1 need, they will go to a manufacturer and test. 2 However, steel-tubeboilershavebeenvery 3 commonly built and sold, and there are places where 4 there are plenty of them. 5 MR. RABA: First, Cyrus Nasseri. 6 MR. NASSERI: No, let him go. 7 MR. RABA: I'm sorry, go ahead. 8 MR. STANONIK: But, Bodh, youmentioned 9 FrankStanonikwithGAMA

- - youmentionedthat most of 10 these are used in institutions in California, and 11 without question, you probably know the details of 12 that better than I would, but are those usedjust for 13 space conditioning? 14 MR. SUBHERWAL: They're used inmore than 15 space conditioning. Everybody designs the boilers 16 with two applications in mind: One will be space 17 heating, and at the same time, theywill be looking at 18 some hard water supply if the need arises. So, it's 19 a common practice. 20 Now, when we are looking at more 21 specifically at a rule, and in the rule we are saying 22 hardwater supplies feedingboilers, these things are 23 addressed today, separately. When we looked at the 24 boiler industrial number, we looked at which kind of 25 boiler we are providing where the steel boilers are

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com59 1 going, where copper-tube boilers are going, where the 2 cast ironboilers are going. So, all those things are 3 there. That's why I don't include too.many details. 4 MR. RABA: Now, Cyrus. 5 MR. NASSERI: I think this discussion of 6 higher limit on boilers, we have to go back again to 7 the ASHRAE standard 90.1, revised ASHRAE standard 8 90.1. The revised standard 90.1, numberone -- again, 9 before I say that, we are talking about packaged 10 boilers. There is a difference between a packaged 11 boiler and boilers, in general. And as I recall, and 12 you must correct me, Michael or Frank, the ASHRAE 13 90.1, revised ASHRAE 90.1-99, number one, has not 14 established any upper limit for packaged boilers, 15 which is a coverage of EPACT. 16 Number two. ASHRAE standard 90.1-99 17 establishedeightmillionBtuthatFrankispresenting 18 here for boilers, which I see why they did that. 19 Also, follow up both discussion of California and 20 using it for institutions, ASHRAE recognized that.**2~** That's my feeling. And established 12.5 million Btu 22 limit four hot water supply boilers. And those are 23 the boilers which are used.for the space heating and 24 also for water. So, it is higher than eight. 25

(202)234-4433 So, my question at this point is that the NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com60 1 scope of this public hearing is packagedboilers, and 2 maybe even legislation came to existence t because 3 somebody recognized the fact that for packaged 4 boilers, bydefinitionof theEnergyPolicyAct, there 5 would be some limitation on the size, and they 6 accordingly did not accomplish any upper limit on 7 that. 8 So, I would like to hear some comments on 9 my interpretation of ASHRAE 90.1-99 in these three 10 scenarios that I just explained and also remind you 11 that the nature of the Energy Policy Act is reaction 12 to revision andchanges inASHRAE 90.1 andtheyget to 13 thepoint thatASHRAE 90.1-99 hasnot done anythingto 14 thepackagedboilers, andhow canwe go aheadand talk 15 about upper limits and how we are going to make any 16 kind of decision? 17 Again, ourCouncilhere isgoingtoreview 18 this, and I'm giving your discussion is a very 19 interesting discussion, but this is my position at 20 this point. 21 MR. STANONIK: Can someone respond to 22 Cyrus' call for comments? Michael Martin. 23 MR. MARTIN: I thinkhe is correct inwhat 24 he says. I haven't checked it, however, this hearing 25 today is not basedonwhat was done in 1999byASHRAE.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com61 1 This is based on the statute that was passed in 1992, 2 and I would agree with what Cyrus is saying but on a 3 different basis. 4 And that is that the statute makes it 5 clear that we are talking about all packagedboilers, 6 and the California regulations that the statute was 7 brought in to respond to preempt makes it clear that 8 we are talking about all packaged boilers, and 9 therefore, the DOE does not have the authority to 10 change this standard. 11 You do have the authority to change and 12 make the testing requirements for each one different 13 from the small ones, which I sense is really what 14 Frank is asking for here. But you don't have the 15 authority to drop that top standard at all. 16 It does also bring up on the clarity 17 situationthat whereyouput inthe scope that applies 18 them, certain packaged boilers find words like 19 "certain," without being defined, confusing, and it 20 actually applies to all packaged boilers. I don't 2'1 think you've got any choice on the scope. 22 MR. RABA: Brad Hollomon. 23 MR. HOLLOMON:· Brad Hollomon would, I 24 guess by a way of trying to follow up and get 25 clarification for the record, is from GAMA's point of

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com62 1 view, are there a lot of boilers that are presently 2 sold in this over eight million Btu category which 3 also meet the basic criteria as packagedboilers that 4 are shipped complete with heating equipment, 5 mechanical trapped equipment, automatic controls in 6 one or more sections

-- 7 MR. STANONIK: You said over eight 8 million, right? 9 MR. HOLLOMON: Yes. In other words, is 10 this a practicalprobleminasmuch as if these things 11 are large enough so they have to be tested in the 12 field, and they're individually engineered and 13 assembled, would they fall outside of the scope 14 anyway? 15 MR. STANONIK: Well, first of all, to 16 answer the question, we don't believe that there is a 17 lot of packaged boilers over eight million Btu per 18 hour. That's all relative. I mean, obviously, 19 there's not a number

-- would I say a lot of boilers 20 sold on an annual basis in the whole commercial side 21 of things. 22 Actually, as Mike was talking, and 23 listening to Cyrus, I think it's correct that this 24 particular issue is probably a combination of both 25 thisgroupand, let's say, thecompliancerequirements

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com63 1 as to how you would test certain products. 2 And I think at this point we will expend 3 a little more effort to perhaps try and look at the 4 whole package of both test procedures and what would 5 be required in terms of verification of ratings or 6 what have you, andkeeping inmindasyoupointedout, 7 realistically, what the definition of commercial 8 packaged boiler would translate to in terms of 9 products we know about and maybe we're in the wrong 10 pew, so to speak. 11 MR. RABA: Ed Levy. 12 MR. LEVY: Yes, if I might follow on to 13 that point, because the point Brad raised is one that 14 I wanted to get to also and that is to focus a little 15 bit on exactly how we define the products under the 16 rule. 17 As I understand your concern, Frank, in 18 focusing on the scope sectionwhichyou are looking at 19 under the statement that packaged commercial boilers 20 -- and incidentally that was an error. It should be 21 commercial packaged boilers, which we then define 22 having a rated capacity of over 300,000 Btu or more 23 would then have to be tested. 24 But first, along the lines that Brad 25 mentioned, I would point out that our definition of

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE

.. N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com64 1 commercial packaged boilers assumes also the term 2 packaged boiler, which as Brad pointed out and as we 3 addressed in the preamble, and it's conceivable our 4 regulatory language could be a little 5 clearer on this, but as addressed in the preamble, 6 that would exclude custom designed field constructed 7 boilers. 8 And the other element of the definition 9 that I would point out and solicit your comment on, 10 Frank, is the fact that in the definition of 11 commercial packaged boiler, we delineate it as a 12 product that must be to a significant extent, 13 distributed for heating or space conditioning 14 applications. 15 In other words, if a product is not to a 16 significant extent distributedfor those applications 17 or for servicewaterheating, which I think is a minor 18 consideration here, but if the product is not 19 distributedfor thoseapplicationsthenitdoesn't fit 20 within our definition and consequently is not subject 2·1 tothe testprocedurerequirements here. In fact, our 22 position is the product is then not covered, even by 23 the efficiency standards

.. 24 So, I guess the question I would raise in 25 lightof these limitationsthatdoesn't thatdealwith

(202)234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com65 1 a significant element ofyour concernhere? You don't 2 have to answer the points, but I call that to your 3 attention so that if you want to consider it further, 4 you can address this point in your written comment. 5 MR. STANONIK: Well, Ed, I'll say that on 6 my behalf that it looks like it could. But in fact 7 this is something that I need to clearly talk to my 8 members about both to try to, if you will, convey to 9 them the information and understanding we've kind of 10 got out of all the pieces fit together here and 11 hopefullyget themto seehow that all creates thebox 12 of coverage, if you will, but then make sure that in 13 fact once they understand that, they think it does, 14 let's say, either resolve or address the issues they 15 see. But we'll certainly talk to our members and 16 follow up with some comments. 17 MR. LEVY: Letme reinforce thepoint that 18 I thinkyouidentifiedas significant intalkingabout 19 coming to grips with testing methods. That is I take 20 it from your comments that there are some of these 2i large boilers that are in fact distributed for space 22 heating or space conditioning applications. 23 And, so the question I would pose to you 24 is how shouldDOE address those products, because our 25 viewwouldbe clearlytheyare coveredas beenpointed

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com66 1 out time and again? There is not explicit or even 2 implicit for thatmatter, upperlimit oncoverage, and 3 the statute does appear to cover products that are 4 distributed for those kinds of applications for use 5 other than process or providing hot water and steam 6 for process use. 7 So, the question I would pose to you is 8 what kinds of testing procedures should we have for 9 such products where they are, in our view, covered? 10 MR. RABA: I saw Michael Martin. 11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. While we're on that 12 definition, this is an example of the clarity point 13 that I was making. You define commercial packaged 14 boiler by using the term commercial HVAC and WH 15 product which doesn't help an awful lot. And I would 16 urge that you strike those words that is a commercial 17 HVAC and WH product and that you strike the words to 18 any significant extent, and then the definition will 19 be complete and will say what you had in mind. 20 MR. LEVY: Yes, I wouldbegto differwith 2i you on your suggestion and your conclusion, and this 22 is an example of something that Brad referred to 23 before. That term is def·ined in the rule that we 24 issued earlier, and that was your subject of an 25 earlier hearing which the over arching definitions

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com67 1 that would apply to all products, and it was the 2 subject of the hearing in conjunction with the 3 furnace's test procedures. 4 Thereasonthat'sthere is that it assumes 5 some other notions that are included in the statute 6 and that are included in this definition which would 7 be a part of the regulations when they are finally 8 adopted. 9 MR. MARTIN: I understand what you are 10 saying, but I don't follow the logic. There is not a 11 final rule on either yet. 12 MR. LEVY: No. 13 MR. MARTIN: So, you have a definition 14 that refers to another definition, both of which are 15 proposals. 16 MR. LEVY: Correct. Which would

-- 17 MR. MARTIN: So, what is the advantage of 18 having a commercial packaged boiler definition and a 19 commercial HVAC and WH product definition? 20 MR. LEVY: Well, because the latter would 21 apply not just to this product but to all the 22 commercialproducts insteadof definingthe sameterms 23 over and over again in every regulation. You define 24 it once, and then you can use it in each of the 25 regulations concerning each of the products.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com00 1 MR. MARTIN: I guess I'm not getting my 2 point across. I can repeat it five times and saywhy 3 do you need it there at all? But that doesn't help 4 any. My point is that you don't need that definition 5 for an HVAC and WH product and that unless it has 6 I don't remember what it says -- unless it is tied in 7 withthesenumericalvalues, it isa confusionfactor. 8 MR. LEVY: Yes, I don'trememberprecisely 9 what it says either. But what it does tie in with is 10 limitations in the statute or definition of terms in 11 the statute that apply across the board to all 12 commercial products. And if you think that those 13 elements shouldbe repeated herein as well as in each 14 product definition, that's a reasonable comment you 15 can make, andwe can decide whether to follow that or 16 keep it in one place. 17 What I wouldurgeyoutodo informulating 18 your written comments is to examine the definition of 19 this term in the other rule which would be part of 20 Part 431·when it's adopted. And if you think that we 21 can accomplish it in a different way or if you 22 continue to believe it's unnecessary, then we would 23 appreciate receiving those views. 24 MR. MARTIN: If the definition is and 25 we're talking about something neither you nor I can NEALR.GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com69 1 remember which is always dangerous

- - but if the 2 definitionisbasedonthe applicationratherthanthe 3 size of the equipment 4 MR. LEVY: It's not. 5 MR. MARTIN: It's not. Okay. Then I'll 6 go home and look it up. 7 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri, please. 8 MR. NASSERI: I have to remind you that 9 whenyou - - I wasn't herewhenthe discussionhappened 10

-- this comes from the previous rule on furnace and 11 compliance enforcement for the HVAC andwater heating 12 equipment and some of the definition the way they try 13 to simplify so they wanted to that rule apply to all 14 the HVAC and water heating equipment and that's 15 probablyone of the reasons that the definition canbe 16 tricky. 17 MR. MARTIN: We'll check it out, but 18 combinations of size limitations and applications are 19 a nuisance. 20 MR. LEVY: No, that is not involvedhere. 21 My recollection is it goes to factors that are 22 imbedded in the statute such as whether or not the 23 product is distributed for a commercial or industrial 24 use. And rather than repeat those criteria every 25 single timewe have a definition, we have definedthem

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com·/u 1 once and then used the shorthand in each regulation 2 for each individual product. 3 MR. MARTIN: We'll check it out. 4 MR. LEVY: Thank you. 5 MR. MARTIN: So we'll know what we're 6 talking about when we make the next comment. 7 MR. RABA: Your written comments are most 8 welcome. 9 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 10 MR. RABA: We're stillondefinitions. Is 11 there anything else on definitions? 12 How about a break? A short break? Ten 13 minutes, want to? 14 MR. SUBHERWAL: Yes, please. 15 MR. RABA: Okay. Say back at five past 16 11:00. 17 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 18 the record at 10:55 a.m., andwentbackon 19 the record at 11:09 a.m.) 20 MR. RABA: We're missing a couple, but 21 let'sget startedanyway, orrestarted. I thinkwe're 22 on test procedures now. We've covered definition of 23 scope pretty thoroughly with quite a few items. 24 Follow up with written comments, please. 25 Any statements or comments to discussion

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com71 1 on test procedures for boilers? 2 MR. MARTIN: Yes, GAMA has a proposal 3 about a newtestmethod, andI wouldappreciate having 4 the latest update on the status on it. 5 MR. RABA: Frank. 6 MR. STANONIK: Well, with GAMA

-- at this 7 point we have the

- - if I can call it this

- - the 8 agreement or the buy off from the membership 9 conceptually as towhat this BTS-2000 will look like, 10 and itwill, inessence, our intentwould certainlybe 11 that it's going to match what has been previously 12 identified by DOE and NIST as what is needed for the 13 test procedures, and the intent is just to put it in 14 a single document. 15 As I say, we have the agreement of the 16 membership. It is literally right now a production 17 problemin that it'sus. It's inour staff'shands to 18 prepare in words what the members have agreed to in 19 concept, and it's just

-- we're trying to get that 20 done as quickly as we can for a variety of reasons. 21 It has lagged some, and we thought we 22 wouldhave it done by the summer. That didn't happen, 23 and all I can tell you is if at all possible, our 24 objective

-- I'll put it that way -- our objective is 25 tohave thewords onpaperthe BTS-2000 so that we can

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com72 1 provide it to DOE within the deadline for written 2 comments. 3 MR. RABA: Okay. 4 MR. NASSERI: That would be great. 5 MR. RABA: Thank you. 6 MR. STANONIK: We're sure going to try to 7 do that. 8 MR. LEVY: This is Ed Levy. Frank, you 9 mean the deadline for written comments on this rule? 10 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 11 MR. LEVY: Okay. 12 MR. STANONIK: Which is the 20th of 13 October, right? 14 MR. NASSERI: That's right. 15 MR. STANONIK: Yes, okay. 16 MR. LEVY: The 23rd? 17 MR. NASSERI: The 23rd. 18 MR. STANONIK: Three more days. 19 MR. LEVY: What will be with respect to 20 the relationship of the BTS-2000 to the 1989 HI 21 standard? It is going to be an amendment or a 22 revision or 23 MR. STANONIK: No, without question it 24 will be a new document it would be that's 25 probably the best way to characterize it, because

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com/:5 1 except for some of thepoints thathave beenraisedby 2 NIST to resolve some differences between how a 3 let's saya gas atmosphericboilergets testedandhow 4 anoil firedorpoweredgasburnerboilergets tested, 5 there's a couple things that NIST had recommend to 6 address those, and those will be incorporated. 7 But otherwise, the major change in the 8 2000 will be first of all, to pullout as a separate 9 document how you run the test procedures

-- the old 10 '89 standard is a mixture of how you run the test 11 procedures andhow you run a program, a certification 12 program. 13 MR. LEVY: My question doesn't go to the 14 substance of what's actually in it. My question goes 15 to what's the formal relationship to the prior 16 standard? Is HI going to issue this new standard as 17 a replacement 18 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 19 MR. LEVY: That's what I'm getting at. 20 MR. STANONIK: Thiswouldbe, ifyouwill, 21 the logicalupdatingandthenext editionorwhatever. 22 It would be a replacement, yes. 23 MR. LEVY: Okay. So, the former, the HI-· 24 1989 standard, would cease to be operative, is that 25 correct?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com74 1 MR. STANONIK: Right.**Obvi~usly,** at some 2 appropriate scheduled time, yes. 3 MR. LEVY: Okay. I mean, I'm askingthese 4 questions because of the strictures that the statute 5 poses, namely it says if an existing standard

-- in 6 this case the HI-89 standard is amended, then that 7 authorizes and requires DOE to act. So, I'mtrying to 8 understand the relationship between the two. 9 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 10 MR. LEVY: Now, what's the time table for 11 that process to be completed? 12 MR. STANONIK: For theprocess ofthe BTS13 2000 to replace the other one? 14 MR. LEVY: Correct. 15 MR. STANONIK: We have not spelled that 16 out, because we've been focusing on getting it done 17 but if we hope to -- what we intend to do conceptually 18

-- I don't see any reason why the BTS-2000 document 19 couldn't become the operative one I'm trying to 20 think why not -- even the beginning of next year. 21 I mean, realizing our intent is it's 22 supposed to be the update, and in essence, we're not 23 intendingto change anythingexcept to address some of 24 the anomalies that needtobe resolved, I don't see it 25 as a significantly different test procedure, so I

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI:;;) 1 don't see what shouldprevent us from implementing it 2 with all practical speed. 3 MR. NASSERI: Followinguponthis, Frank, 4 I have received a draft form of this standard 5 revisement by your office, by GAMA. And when we 6 looked at it, and also directed NIST to look at it, 7 there was differences on the revised - - I call it 8 revised standard HI standard

-- that we felt would 9 affect the efficiency rating. 10 As I recall

-- I don't remember all the 11 details, but it was the issue of where you measure 12 your stacktemperatures and certainother issues that 13 I brought to the attention of you by email, and I'm 14 still lookingforward to see a replyand seewhat GAMA 15 or slash HI will do on those. 16 Indirectly, I heard from certain people 17 that they would be implemented, the changes that I 18 brought to the attention as we faxed the standards. 19 And if that is the case, obviouslywhat theywould see 20 as a revised HI document

-- you call it BTS-2000

-- 21 andhopefullyby2000means theyear2000, thatyou're 22 goingtohave thispublished. Itwouldbe interesting 23 to look at that, and obviously the other set that we 24 would like to adopt, or we will adopt, the latest 25 version of any standard that we reference in our test

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com76 1 procedures. 2 MR. STANONIK: Well Cyrus, I'll go on the 3 record, without question, what I was talking about as 4 far as the members agreeing to conceptually, is in 5 fact to agree to make the changes or in some cases, 6 actually revert to the previous coverage to address 7 thepointsyouhadmade inthe informationwe got back 8 from this then from you. We do not intend to put 9 anything in there that would change what the measured 10 efficiencymight be compared to in fact, what is done 11 today and what has been done since EPACT went into 12 effect for commercial boilers. 13 MR. NASSERI: Thank you. 14 MR. STANONIK: The obvious convincing 15 thing that has to be addressed, yes. 16 MR. RABA: Michael, you had a comment? 17 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I have been waiting on 18 the edge of my chair for this document to come for a 19 long time here, and we very much support the 20 'desirability of having one document that we can 21 support and quote and reference. And I presume, 22 Frank, that the proposed rule talks about an HI 23 document with some exceptions and that those 24 exceptions will go away with this new addition. 25 But I alsowould ask that if this arrives

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com77 1 at DOE in the last day of the comment period, that 2 those others ofus who have an interest in itwouldbe 3 givenanextensiontocomment onthatparticularitem. 4 MR. NASSERI: Well, let me follow up on 5 that. I assume that what GAMA is going to submit to 6 DOE as far as the standard is would have been in the 7 category of comments from GAMA, and then, as we said 8 in the rule and opening remarks, that would be 9 available at the Freedom of Information Reading Room 10 for people to take a look at it. 11 MR. LEVY: Apropos of that point, this is 12 directed to you Frank. Is GAMA suggesting that DOE 13 should incorporate this document into it's test 14 procedures or adoptedor incorporatedby reference or 15 adopted before final action is takenby the institute 16 on it? 17 MR. STANONIK: I'll turn that around

-- I 18 mean, because the philosophical answer to your 19 questionwouldbe no. But I'll turn it around and say 20 we will not submit it as part of our comments to DOE 21 unlesswe're certainthat itwill be the newprocedure 22 for HI. We wouldn't put you in that position or put 23 the industry in that position. That would just be a 24 big error on our part. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Michael. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. MARTIN: Your written comments do 2 recommend that the DOE uses this so -- do theynot 3 what I have in front of me here. 4 MR. STANONIK: Yes, right. But again, 5 that's

-- 6 MR. MARTIN: You-- 7 MR. STANONIK: That's reflective of what 8 we know our members have agreed to in concept, okay? 9 But for other reasons I don't have and I'm not 10 obviously comfortable with the fact, but I don't have 11 the paper to show to you or anyone else that has the 12 words on paper, and that's the critical thing. And 13 that's what we'll do our best to get to DOE. 14 Andagain, I am confidentthatwhenwe put 15 the words on paper, they will match what our members 16 have accepted in concept. But if for some reason we 17 should discover that not tobe the case, then I think 18 as what Ed was saying, if that happened then 19 unfortunately, I wouldn't submit the actual document 20 until we'worked that out. 21 MR. MARTIN: So, is there another ballot 22 required of your amendments before it can come or is 23 this strictly a submittal situation? 24 MR. STANONIK: Whether it's a ballot or 25 not, there's probably another review to make sure

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com79 1 they're satisfied as is DOE will be satisfied that 2 what we put in words or the words we put down there, 3 are correctly described what needs to be done. 4 MR. MARTIN: Yes. It seems likeyou don't 5 have a totally unanimous family that you are 6 representing here. 7 MR. STANONIK: I'm comfortable that we 8 have the major support. 9 MR. RABA: First Cyrus Nasseri then Stan 10 Liu. 11 MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri. As Michael 12 Martin mentioned in your statements the written 13 statements you submitted, I'm reading it from it, 14 clearly adopt the reference to HIBTS-2000 as the test 15 procedure for gas and oil fire low pressure in steam 16 and hot water boilers, the new standards being 17 finalized by the HI division. 18 And I recommend that in your written 19 comments, that you will the 23rd will be the 20 deadline'-- 23rd of October

-- Frank, you clarify the 21 issueofHIBTS-2000 andgiveus some feelingwhenthis 22 document

-- the final version of this standardas the 23 revised once '89 version would be available and 24 hopefully this would be before our final rule 25 publication so they can look at it for if it's

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comov 1 correct. 2 MR. STANONIK: I already noted that our 3 comments need to address that. 4 MR. RABA: Michael. 5 MR. MARTIN: Would it be fair to say that 6 after this gets submitted to you that you would give 7 us a couple of weeks to review it and comment on it? 8 MR. NASSERI: Yes. 9 MR. MARTIN: Even if it's beyond the 10 deadline? 11 MR. NASSERI: Yes. 12 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 13 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Stan, please. 14 MR. LIU: I have a question for Frank. In 15 the section of your written comment on packaged high 16 pressure boilers, you said the SME PTC 4.1 should be 17 deletedas anoptionoralternativetestprocedure for 18 low pressure boilers. My understanding is that some 19 boiler makers, steel boiler makers, will run a test 20 according to the SME short form test. And is that 21 really not true that a single HI test procedure is 22 acceptable by all the makers of lowpressure boilers, 23 steel or cast iron or other types? 24 We put that one in, because during the 25 workshop, somepeople saytheydon't knowwhat HI-1989

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com81 1 is. They are only familiar with SME PTC 4.1, the 2 short form. 3 MR. STANONIK: Well Stan, yes, it's true 4 that some boiler manufacturers steel boiler 5 manufacturers would like you to speak to PTC 4.1. I 6 think it's accurate to say that those manufacturers 7 are not in the IBI program, the HI program, and from 8 ourmembers perspective, I'd saythey like to use the 9 other test procedure, because in fact it's not as 10 accurate. 11 And truth be known, when you get 12 clearly, we've all or I hope you all have seen this. 13 There is nothing black andwhite whenyou are talking 14 about commercial boilers, but clearly as you get into



## .. 15 the larger volumes you go from what is primarily a 16 market of packaged boilers to a market that is 17 primarilyfieldassembledboilers, andthere isa gray 18 zone in there, all right? 19 From my members' perspective, we think 20 that they have

-- let me put it this way if there 21 is a packaged boiler out there that's in the HI 22 program and it's competing against somebody who is 23 assembling boilers supposedly, and they're using PTC 24 4, then in fact there is an unequal efficiency 25 comparison right there.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 Ourpreferencewouldbe

- - andthat'spart 2 of the reason for setting some definedBtu limit

- - we 3 think that if it's within a certain category, then 4 they should all be tested with a certain procedure. 5 And in fact, that's another problem. The note I've 6 written down is that we may need to provide some 7 comments as to clear delineation on what point you 8 might use a let's say, more flexible fieldprocedure. 9 But in either event, we don't think PTC 10 4.1 is the right one anymore. It's not even the most 11 current one. It's not been it's never been 12 appreciably specific in terms of accuracy of 13 measurement or test fieldparameters orwhat have you 14

-- granted that's part of the difficulty. 15 But in any I think our comment was in 16 fact to take it out altogether but realizing that if 17 this rule is still going to cover boilers with 18 unlimited inputs, it's possible the better solution 19 wouldbe then the option of using PTC 4 only kicks in 20 at some input of

-- I don't know the right number, but 21 I'mgoing to tellyou it'sgoingtobe inthe millions 22 of Btu, and that anythingbelow that we would sayyou 23 don't have that option. They are not equal 24 procedures. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. LIU: You'regoing toput that inyour NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com83 1 written comment, right? That would be very helpful. 2 MR. STANONIK: Okay. Cyrus, go ahead 3 please. 4 MR. NASSERI: I think, Frank, at this 5 point, you are probably referring to the other 6 Associations of American Boiler Manufacturer's 7 Associationsthatprobablyhavemore interestinthis, 8 and had, and unfortunately they're not here today so 9 we canhear theirpoint of view on this issue of ASME 10 PTC 4.1. 11 I understand that you are having concern 12 on this test procedure, and even though we invited 13 them to participate in this Workshop Public Hearing, 14 we haven't seenthem, andwe would like to touchbases 15 with them and get their opinion and their side of 16 or their viewpoints as far as the manufacturers of 17 theirmember'smanufacturerswho areusing

- - if there 18 is such a thing using ASME PTC 4.1. 19 And I assume thatyoudon'tmindthatyour 20 comments'obviouslyisa publicdocument for anybodyto 21 look at it, but make sure we get their comments and 22 inputon this issueevenbeforewe makebasicallymake 23 a decision on this document or follow up to our final 24 rue. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. RABA: Go ahead Brad, please. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com84 1 MR. HOLLOMON: Inpreparing the comments, 2 one of the things that wouldprobablyhelpus a little 3 bit if somebodyhasn't alreadyexplainedthis before, 4 is that the way the law is written ties our hands in 5 some ways about the test procedures and that one of 6 the things that is particularlyvaluable to us is any 7 kind of information to the extent to which these 8 different kinds of test procedures that you are 9 talking about are eitherequivalent in the sense that 10 they lead to equal results or are not. 11 And inthecaseofyournewerHI standard, 12 if there were evidence supporting the fact that you 13 got the same answer, perhaps with greater precision 14 and less scatteror somethingof thatkind, thatwould 15 help in this particular instance, I suspect, to 16 justify any kind of use of it under the terms of the 17 law which requires to use a test procedure to the 18 effectiveness of some past date. 19 Conversely, the same thing would be true 20 of the 4·.1 standard. If it is

-- the implication of 21 the proposed rule is that they are equivalent. That 22 is to say you measure something both ways, you're 23 going to come up with the same number. If that is not 24 true, then itwouldbe useful tohave some evidence to 25 that effect that it is not true.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com85 1 MR. RABA: Further comments? Frank 2 Stanonik. 3 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with GAMA. 4 I mean, I think the first part of your comment or 5 question, I think we will without question

-- again, 6 with the exception of telling the things suggestedmy 7 NIST, the BTS-2000willprovide the sameresult as the 8 HI-1989. I mean, because that's the intent. Some of 9 DOE's comments in fact were saying we went too far to 10 resolve some issuesthatwe shouldn't have. Andwe're 11 backing off of that. 12 The secondhardestpart iswhetherPTC 4.1 13 would give you equivalent results to the HI standard 14

- - well, I don't know that we'll have data, but I 15 thinkwe cannonethelessprobablyidentifysomeof the 16 discrepancies which would make it clear that the 17 answer is no, you won't get the same results. 18 PTC 4.1 was developed really with a 19 different scope in mind and even on top of that, it 20 was**dev~loped** to be a test you could do on site 21 accepting the compromises that you have to deal with 22 when you do that. You can't control certain things 23 when you're at this plant one day and somebody else's 24 building the next day, or what have you. But anyhow, 25 we'll do what we can.

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com86 1 MR. LIU: StanleyLiu, NIST. I talked to 2 one of the manufacturers that make both cast iron 3 boilerand steelboilers, andI askedhim specifically 4 whether the use of HI procedure all the time or the 5 sometimes use of PTe 4.1. He did say that for steel 6 boilers, the use of the short form PTe 4.1 which is 7 like you say, besides the test condition is not well 8 specified. The procedure calculation is about the 9 same as HI, the test procedure. But he did indicate 10 that they use both types. 11 MR. RABA: Michael Martin. 12 MR. MARTIN: I wasn't aware that therewas 13 a new PTe standard, and we need to get a hold of it 14 and look at it and comment on it 

## • 15 MR. LIU: StanleyLiu. There is I got 16 a draft of it a year ago. 17 MR. MARTIN: Good. 18 MR. LIU: And the new one is published 19 according to the Internet, and it's 272 pages long, 20 andit covers everything. And I couldn't evenpickup 21 this short form anymore. In the old PTe 4.1, the 22 short form is printed right there. It's only two 23 pages. In the new PTe 4, it's got all kind of forms 24 and it covers really a power plant analysis. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. MARTIN: So you would NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com/j I 1 MR. LIU: It's very detailed. 2 MR. MARTIN: You would not recommend to 3 DOE that using PTe 4 4 MR. LIU: If we do that, we have to pick 5 out exceptions in there, specific exceptions. 6 MR. MARTIN: I see. But that could be 7 done? It's possible? 8 (Laughter) 9 MR. LIU: It'spossible, yes. But I would 10 rather stick with

-- 11 MR. MARTIN: But not this year. 12 MR. RABA: Ed Levy. 13 MR. LEVY: Yes, Stan, I justwant toraise 14 the question for**y~u** or anybody else. The comment by 15 GAMA indicated that PTe 4.1 had been replaced by PTe 16 4-1999. Is that true? 17 MR. LIU: I think that is true. 18 MR. RABA: Michael Martin. 19 MR. MARTIN: Judging by the number, I 20 presume that more than one standardhas been replaced 21 by a single standard. However, on a different point, 22 from enforcement agencies' point of view, the giving 23 of

-- allowing of alternative testament, it is always 24 a pain, because itbringsup the question as towho is 25 to choose which alternative it is. And if I go to

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com88 1 Bodh and ask him to test something, do I tell himwhat 2 test method to use or does he go to the manufacturer 3 and say which one would you prefer? 4 We prefer to get away from alternatives, 5 if that'spossible, andhave for any specificpiece of 6 equipment, to have it cut and dryas to what the test 7 method should be. I sense in this one that you are 8 having an alternative between one standard that has 9 not yet been removed which is the old HI standard or 10 one that has been withdrawn by ASME, and I think you 11 may have a way of getting down to a single standard 12 and I think how it stands, as far as how you do the 13 test, it really doesn't make a lot of difference. 14 MR. LEVY: Well, thewaytheproposedrule 15 is framed, the option is with the manufacturer. In 16 other words, the rule basicallypermits either one of 17 two methods of testing could be used. 18 MR. MARTIN: It presumably also allows a 19 state agency to use either one. Does it not? 20 MR. LEVY: I don't want to get into that 2i question as to what state agencies are allowed to do 22 in this context. 23 MR. MARTIN: Yes, okay. Well, you can 24 understand the alternatives are better avoided if 25 there is an easy way to do it.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com89 1 MR. RABA: Further comments ordiscussion 2 on test procedures, be they low pressure or high 3 pressure boilers? 4 MR. MARTIN: Yes, actually on this test 5 method thing, what I have understood here is one 6 particular construction is more suitable for one test 7 method and another construction for the other test 8 methodand identifywhichtheyare andwhich shouldbe 9 used might be a way that you could avoid the 10 alternatives. 11 MR. LEVY: When you say one construction 12 MR. MARTIN: You talk about constat 13 well, let's say constat uses one and copper tube uses 14 another one.. 15 MR. STANONIK: You don't have copper tube 16 steel boilers. 17 MR. MARTIN: Okay, steel boilers. Okay. 18 It's steel versus constat. 19 MR. RABA: Frank Stanonik. 20 MR. STANONIK: To a large extent, it'snot 2i clearly not 100 percent, but to a large extent, if I 22 understand it right, you'rebasically looking at cast 23 iron is predominantly used-in gas powered products. 24 25

(202)234-4433 MR. MARTIN: Okay. MR. STANONIK: And NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 steel boiler

www.nealrgross.com90 1 construction is primarily used for oil fired stuff, 2 no? Okay. 3 MR. SUBHERWAL: It is very difficult. 4 MR. RABA: That was Bodh Subherwal. 5 MR. STANONIK: When you get into bigger 6 sizestheytypicallyofferdual fuel things anyhowfor 7 the flexibility. 8 MR. MARTIN: Maybe I shouldwithdraw that 9 suggestion. 10 MR. RABA: Should Chairman move on? 11 MR. NASSERI: Please. 12 MR. RABA: Modular and multiple boilers. 13 Frank Stanonik. 14 MR. STANONIK: I just had

-- again, as 15 Stanley was going through this, I just had a comment 16 or something that struck me and I really don't

-- it 17 maybe yourhand to cardanyhow, but as you defined it 18 upthere, orasyou explainedit, it specificallysaid 19 DOE proposes modular boiler system with identical 20 individualmodularboilers lasted400,000Btuperhour 21 input rating. 22 From DOE's perspective, if I chose to 23 create a modularboiler sys,temusingboilers rated at 24 500,000, what would change? I think nothing. But 25 what I don't know off the top of my head if in fact

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE" NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com91 1 there isn't some kind of other code restriction or 2 some other restriction that said I can only use 3 boilers up to 400,000 per modular system. 4 But I think, putting that aside, if it 5 exists, from DOE's point and especially in terms of 6 this test procedure, if I created a modular boiler 7 system that had five boilers rated at 700,000 Btu per 8 hour together, the basic input that I only have to 9 test one module, since they're all identical which 10 still holds

-- I guess what I'm saying in terms of 11 what you're doing I reallydon't know ifyouneedthis 12 less than 400,000. I mean, the basic concept to me 13 still applies. Are there other restrictions to limit 14 the kind of boilers you can use in the modular 15 application? 16 MR. RABA: Stan Liu. 17 MR. LIU: Stan Liu, NIST. I have a draft 18 of your BTS-2000. 19 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 20 MR. LIU: In the definition section it 21 defines

-- 22 MR. STANONIK: Throw it inmy face, okay. 23 (Laughter) 24 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Stan. 25 MR. LIU: It says individual modules shall be limited

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com92 1 to a maximum input of 400,000 Btu per hour. 2 MR. STANONIK: Then it's probably some 3 ASME restrictions. 4 MR. RABA: Thankyou for clarifying that, 5 Stan. Thank you Stan. Does that satisfy your 6 concern? 7 MR. STANONIK: I understand, but it still 8 doesn't make any sense to me, but the problem is with 9 ASME, not with you guys. 10 MR. RABA: Mr. Chairman. 11 MR. NASSERI: I have a feeling that when 12 probably it was done that there is a certain limit on 13 the size of the module a.nd go to the next one and then 14 maybe that was the definition, 400,000 Btu. I 15 understand the module 16 MR. STANONIK: With ASME there is half a 17 chance there is no logic to it, but that is besides 18 the point. 19 MR. NASSERI: Maybe there are some safety 20 or other things like

-- MR. RABA: Bodh. 22 MR. SUBHERWAL: It was -- Bodh Subherwal 23 it is a long time backwhen theboilerswere looked 24 at and certain sizes basedon and controlledbased on 25 their design itself that you will always look at

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com93 1 400,000 Btu or less. Then when you move from 400,000 2 Btu and higher as a boiler controls and their 3 requirement and safety is changed. That's what they 4 dictate. But DOE came up with a boiler to this at 5 300,000 quoted particular application, particularly 6 consumer. That's where the difference is. Otherwise 7 we always had it. 8 MR. LEVY: But should that difference 9 affect how DOE evaluates them? 10 MR. SUBHERWAL: DOE already has taken a 11 position on 300,000 Btu or less as a consumer product 12 as a boiler. 13 MR. LEVY: Now, we're talking about the 14 modular

-- 15 MR. SUBHERWAL: Modular I think to stay 16 with ASME is not a bad idea because the ASME is going 17 to stayas long as boilers are there. You shouldhave 18 their input, and the reality is that's the way to do 19 it. 20 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Frank Stanonik. 2:1 MR. STANONIK: Conversely, ifyoutookthe 22 400,000Btuout, itwouldn't change theworld, because 23 ASME, whicheverybodyhas to complywith in theboiler 24 business would still restrict that application. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. LEVY: Right. Well, that was sort of NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com94 1 my thinking, Frank, is that the DOE probablyought to 2 just be neutral and then whatever is subject to that 3 standardwouldbe subject to it inwhatever exists out 4 there. 5 MR. RABA: I see some nods of heads. 6 Michael Martin. 7 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I have some questions 8 here because is the intent of the proposed 9 regulation that modularboilers be testeddifferently 10 from others, and if so, where in the regulations does 11 this appear? I have a feeling it's right in front of 12 me, but I haven't been able to spot it. Or is itjust 13 in the preamble? 14 MR. RABA: Stan. 15 MR. LIU: It might be only in the 16 preamble. 17 MR. MARTIN: So, if we are testing a 18 modular boiler, does it have different requirements 19 from other boilers or will it 20 MR. NASSERI: As far as the efficiency is 21 concerned? 22 MR. MARTIN: As far as anything that you 23 have in your regulation. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. NASSERI: I don't think so. MR. MARTIN: I see. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. NASSERI: But we are basically 2 identifying what the module 3 MR. MARTIN: You will quote a test method 4 and that would be adequate

-- 5 MR. NASSERI: Yes. 6 MR. MARTIN: Andwe don't needto actually 7 sayinthe regulations anything specificallyabout how 8 many you test or which

- - there's nothing in the 9 preamble that ought to be in the regulation, that's 10 what I'm trying to say. That's with a question mark 11 at the end. 12 MR. NASSERI: Now, what you're referring 13 is we should have that in the body of the test 14 procedure. 15 MR. MARTIN: If in order to test these, 16 and the manufacturer needs to know that it's got tobe 17 treated differently, then it needs to be in the 18 regulation. But I'm not convinced either way that 19 that's the case. I think you may have already 20 adequately covered it by some roundabout method. 2l That's a point to check out before the 23rd of 22 October. 23 MR. RABA: Yes, we invite comments 24 certainlyto clarifythat so it'snot a roundabout but 25 it is roundabout so we're going to have to get there.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com96 1 Further comments on modular multiple boilers? 2 MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag with A.O. Smith 3 Water Product Company. I just want to comment on 4 we raised the question is it really necessary to 5 mention modular boilers at all

-- excuse me, I meant 6 to say multiple. Is it really necessary to mention 7 mUltiple boilers the way they're tested as separate 8 packaged boilers rated individually? 9 MR. LEVY: I think with regard to both of 10 these points, these were issues that were raised by 11 participantsintheearlierWorkshop sotheDepartment 12 wanted to respond the questions that had been raised 13 and indicate just how it would be addressing these 14 situations. I didn't see any particular language in 15 the rule on this point and as to whether that should 16 be clarified in some fashion, that's something we can 17 think about some more, and we appreciate any feedback 18 that you might have. 19 MR. MARTIN: This isnot referencedinthe 20 proposed regulation, is it Wilbur? 2J.. 22 23 preamble? 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. HAAG: I'm not MR. MARTIN: Or is it just in the

MR. HAAG: Right. MR. LIU: Stanley Liu. NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 It's in the

www.nealrgross.com97 1 preamble just to identify such a thing as a mUltiple 2 boiler, and it says how to test it. It really 3 essentially is just each is an individual packaged 4 boiler, therefore nothing else can be done. 5 MR. MARTIN: Nothing else needs to be 6 done. 7 MR. LIU: Or needs to be done, right. 8 MR. RABA: Brad Hollomon. 9 MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, again PNNL. 10 The other thing again, not to mix up all these 11 different rules, but I suspect that where this may 12 have been dealt with to some extent would be in the 13 certification rule which came out with furnaces 14 before, and I'm flipping through it madly to see 15 whether I can find it, but I will look. But I think 16 that's where we may have clarified something like 17 that. 18 MR. RABA: Thankyou. Cyrus, continue on 19 then. We still have other topics to look at. We 20 brought some up in the beginning. We may have 2l discussed some of them along the way, but let's take 22 a look again. We visit these: Corrections in the HI 23 standard of test procedure, general questions 24 regarding the rule, field testing,. assembled 25 components are not specifiedby the manufacturer. In

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com98 1 addition, are there anyothersbasedonthe discussion 2 you've heard, that we shouldaddto this list to cover 3 other topics? Brad. 4 MR. HOLLOMON: I did go back and find the 5 sort of the answers to some of the definition 6 questions we had this morning, and I can do that 7 anytime you want. 8 MR. RABA: Okay. Should we start the

-- 9 let me start with that, and then we'll go down the 10 rest of the

-- and thenwe can think about these as we 11 go through. Excuse me, Cyrus Nasseri. 12 MR. NASSERI: One comment. I think most 13 of these issues have been discussed already. 14 MR. RABA: I understand that, but my 15 comment was that yes, they might have been. I just 16 want to go back over and be sure that people who have 17 raised these were satisfied, if they had been or they 18 haven't, orhave somethingto add. Thankyou. That's 19 good. Brad. 20 MR. HOLLOMON: Okay. On the question of 21 who's the manufacturer, that's in the notebook, it is 22 not in the rule. There's no omnibus definition for 23 it, and I think that our interpretation, as I see it, 24 is that the statutory definition of manufacturing, 25 EPCA, is sufficient to coverwhatwe are trying todo,

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com99 1 because theyneed tomanufacture, produce or assemble 2 orimport, andthatwe interpretedthe assemble inthe 3 case that we were talking about would mean what the 4 person putting this together finally would be the 5 manufacturer on whom the requirements would apply. 6 The questionof commerciallytreatedHVAC 7 and water heating product, that is in the omnibus 8 definitions forwhat it'sworth. Itmeans any article 9 of a type which meets the statutory definition of 10 coveredequipment under Section 341(b} through (f) in 11 the act to which an energy conservation is standards 12 applicable under Section 342(a) of the act. It does 13 not include any sizes. 14 MR. MARTIN: So, that really doesn't tell 15 us anything anyhow. It just says go look somewhere 16 else and try to figure out what it means. 17 MR. HOLLOMON: Well, the other place may 18

-- it's what Congress gave us, and it may be clearer, 19 you know? 20 MR. MARTIN: Okay, well I would repeat my 21 suggestion that we drop the term altogether. 22 MR. HOLLOMON: All right. I was just 23 bringing it up because

-- 24 25 MR. MARTIN: I appreciateyou bringing it in. I shouldn't suggest that you're to blame for

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com100 1 Congress' language. 2 MR. HOLLOMON: praise it. 3 (Laughter) 4 MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. 1-- 5 MR. NASSERI: And Michael Martin, we are 6 going to have a comment from you concerning this 7 issue. 8 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 9 MR. RABA: On these, anything to add? 10 Beyond these, anything to add? None noted at this 11 time. Is there any some silence has been in the 12 room, too. Anybody else who has not spoken? Again 13 silence. 14 Mr. Chairman, thismightbeanappropriate 15 time for a lunch break. Or should we move on to the 16 next -- and go over the agenda topics for our next 17 discussion series this afternoon and get that revved 18 up so that when we come back, we are ready to go? 19 What wouldyou like to do? Wouldyou like to do that? 20 MR. NASSERI: Yes. 2-1 MR. RABA: Okay. Everybody? Cool. 22 MR. MARTIN: You've assumed that we've 23 covered all these other topics here. 24 MR. RABA: I'm assumingI yes, because 25 there's no one who has spoken up further

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com101 1 MR. MARTIN: Okay. 2 MR. RABA:

- - ofwhat'sbeen discussed so 3 far. 4 MR. MARTIN: I agree. 5 MR. RABA: As before, we have the agenda 6 topics here, the general water heaters, andwe'd like 7 to go through these to seewhere theremaybe comments 8 or statements that wouldbe thenpresented and topics 9 aired. Or if there is any we don't need to discuss, 10 but that it's pretty evident that we shouldjust move 11 on. Let's take a look, gather your thoughts for a 12 moment. And these are the commercial water heaters, 13 hotwater supplyboilers, hotwater storage tanks, and 14 again, we'll begin general discussions thereafter we 15 finish this. 16 MR. LEVY: Jim, I meant to sayan 17 observation I did in the morning. Definitions and 18 coverage is theumbrella for testprocedures, andthen 19 the next four that you have are assumed under that. 20 MR. RABA: That means that it's comments 2::L that these right here would be part of that, do 22 you all see that? Okay. 23 MR. LEVY: Just the way you have test 24 procedures and you have 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: Yes. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com102 1 MR. LEVY: a certain specific 2 subtitle. 3 MR. RABA: Sure. Thank you very much. 4 Definitions in coverage as pertains to the 5 instantaneouswaterheaters, hotwatersupplyboilers, 6 heat pump water heaters, and waste heat recovery 7 heaters. Are there comments or discussions you would 8 like to see on these items? 9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 10 MR. RABA: Okay. Your yes is for? 11 MR. STANONIK: Including waste heat 12 recovery? 13 MR. LEVY: Well I went through the two 14 statements we had, CaliforniaEnergyCommission had a 15 comment on the instantaneous water heaters, hot water 16 supply boilers, GAMA, and the California Energy 17 Commission had comments on CaliforniaEnergyhad a 18 comment onboiler heaters, and no one had anything to 19 say about waste heat recovery water heaters. 20 MR. NASSERI: Is this a good time to find 21 out if anybody has and then otherwise to scratch it. 22 MR. MARTIN: We said we agreed with him. 23 MR. RABA:**Scr~tch.** Waste heat recovery 24 water heaters scratched. They offer test procedures 25 for these, the gas fired water heaters, oil fired,

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com103 1 electric. This section

-- 2 MR. LEVY: My review indicated that GAMA 3 had a comment on the gas fired water heaters test 4 procedure and that no one had any observations on the 5 other two. 6 MR. RABA: Does anybody wish to include 7 oil and electric at this time? Have any comments or 8 statements? Shake of heads no. So, we'll take these 9 out. 10 On fired hot water storage tanks, 11 exemption from or application of maximum heat loss 12 requirement. 13 MR. STANONIK: Keep it. 14 MR. RABA: Okay, we'll keep it in. 15 MR. STANONIK: Likewise, thosearerelated 16 that's related to the one I'm

-- 17 MR. RABA: Right. So, you're speaking 18 here of unfired hot water storage tank procedure. 19 Right. Right. Beyond this, any other topics that 20 need to be brought to this hearing? 21 MR. LEVY: I thought that the California 22 Commission had some comments that didn't fit within 23 any of the above, so it probably should be put under 24 other topics. Water heaters with input less than 25 75,000 Btu

-- that's a general observation.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com104 1 MR. RABA: So, we have a placeholder for 2 the California Energy Commission. 3 MR. MARTIN: Excuse me, that covers part 4 of coverage, but it's a scope. But, you know, leave 5 it there. One way or another we'll cover it. 6 MR. RABA: Certainly. 7 MR. NASSERI: So, I think we know where 8 our -- what our agenda is after lunch. Correct? 9 MR. RABA: Yes. 10 MR. NASSERI: And then maybe this is a 11 good time to -- any last thing on boilers, packaged 12 boilers before we close it for the packaged boilers? 13 MR. RABA: Nothing heard. One hour for 14 lunch, Mr. Chairman? 15 MR. NASSERI: That sounds good. 16 MR. RABA: Snack bar downstairs or 17 cafeteria at the front of the building. You can 18 follow the leader for those who have been there 19 before, if you would like. 20 2'1 22 23 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. NASSERI: Andwe'llbebackat exactly

MR. RABA: 1:00, 1300 hours. (Whereupon, the foregoingmatterwent off the record at 11:58 a.m. and went back on the record at 1:10 p.m.) NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com105 1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 2 (1:10 p.m.) 3 MR. RABA: Thank you very much. Welcome 4 back, second half. We're going to be doing water 5 heaters and the like. We've been over the agenda 6 topics for now. We have one extra from California to 7 look at. But to begin, as we did before, inviting 8 Andy Persily of NIST to give an overview, a brief 9 overview of the water heaters, commercial water 10 heaters topics and then invite anygeneral statements 11 of a brief nature of overall items and then we'll go 12 into topic by topic, each of these areas. 13 MR. PERSILY: Okay. As you just heard, 14 I'm going to run through the issues on commercial 15 water heaters, hot water supply boilers and unfired 16 hot water storage tanks. 17 As you heard earlier, I'm filling in for 18 Stuart Dols who was unable to attend today, but rest 19 assured that my substitution is temporary. Stuart 20 will be back on this very soon and I'll be there 21 cheering him on. 22 So I'mgoingtorunthroughthe issues and 23 how they're being dealt with in the proposed rule. 24 The first few have to do with definitions and 25 coverage, the first being instantaneous waterheaters

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com106 1 where the proposal is that these devices designed to 2 heat water to 180 F. or higher are subject to the 3 applicable standards and test procedures for 4 commercial water heaters. So that's the first 5 coverage issue. 6 The next issue under definitions and 7 coverage of the waterheater supplyboilerswhere it's 8 notedthatASHRAE standard90.1-1989version, Addendum 9 N to that version provides that these products shall 10 meet the energy efficiency requirements that apply to 11 water heaters and therefore DOE is proposing that 12 these provisions be implemented, the provision from 13 AddendumNbe implementedonhot water supplyboilers. 14 The next two issues on this slide, heat 15 pump water heaters and waste heat recovery water 16 heaters, on the first one DOE doesn'tpropose the test 17 procedure at thispoint. ASHRAE is revising standards 18 118.1whichwillbe addressingheat pumpwaterheaters 19 and at that point ultimately DOE will act on what the 20 ASHRAE committee comes up with. 21 Theseheatrecoverywaterheatersare also 22 not addressed within the proposed rule, based on the 23 legislationnotprovidingstandardsortestprocedures 24 for these particular products. 25

(202)234-4433 And so moving on to the actual test NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com107 1 procedures which show here for gas fired, oil fired 2 and electric water heaters, under gas fired, the 3 proposal that's use, the ANSI standard, the 1998 4 version, Z21.10.3. For oil and fired and electric 5 water heaters, the proposal is to use that standard 6 with adaptions that are provided in footnote e at 7 Table 11.1 ofAddendum NofASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989. 8 So that's where the test procedures are corning from, 9 from which they are referenced. 10 And finally, unfired hot water storage 11 tanks, other than national heat loss requirement, DOE 12 is proposing that the loss has been calculated for 13 square foot of a nominal surface area of the tank 14 based on measurements of the total losses and then 15 addressing the interpretation of the exemption from 16 this requirementbasedon capacityof theunits and in 17 terms of the test procedure for the lower capacity 18 tanks, DOE isproposinga stand-byloss testperformed 19 on equivalent and quote electric storage tank. So 20 that's a quick version. 21 We'll go from there. 22 MR. RABA: Thankyou, Andy. Looking over 23 some of the statements thatwere submitted earlier, I 24 note one from

-- or comments that were submitted, note 25 one from California Energy Commission.

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 I note one

www.nealrgross.com108 1 from GAMA. 2 MR. NASSERI: No, that's ERI, tomorrow. 3 MR. RABA: Tomorrow, sorry. We're not 4 going to note that one now. Fine. 5 So I invite either of those two gentlemen 6 to speak at this time, but then also would ask if 7 there are others who would like to address an overall 8 statement about water heaters, commercial water 9 heaters. 10 Mike, you want to lead off? 11 MR. MARTIN: Onlyto saythat the comments 12 that I made about general support and the assumption 13 that the readerof the regulationshasnothingbut the 14 regulations and the necessity therefore of being, 15 having complete and clearregulations is as important 16 here as it is for any of the others. And maybe I'm 17 switched off, am I? 18 (Pause.) 19 MR. RABA: Good. Thank you. Frank. 20 MR. STANONIK: Well, I think we had a 2-1 as far as the definitions, I think we just had a 22 couple of minor things, one of them in our comments, 23 we're really not sure why.in the definition of hot 24 water supply boiler, why you interjected this has 25 an input rating from 300,000 to 12.5million andof at

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com109 1 least 4,000 BTUs per hour per gallon of stored water. 2 We really, it seemed to us, you are somehow trying to 3 interject some instantaneous water heater criteria 4 into the hot water supply boiler and we just didn't 5 see that was necessary or particularly useful. 6 And then I think perhaps I'll call it on 7 a broader basis, well, I'm not sure if this is the 8 right place to point it out, but Addendum N 9 specificallyidentifies that the requirements for the 10 efficiency

- - separateefficiencyrequirements forhot 11 water supplyboilers applywhere it isused solelyfor 12 doing service hot water heating and to tell you the 13 truth, it's just something as I reread that 14 definition, I guess I'mnot suerwhetherthat needs to 15

-- well, I was going to ask whether it needed to be 16 identifiedinthedefinition, butprobablynotbecause 17 it's a question of coverage, not definition. 18 MR. LEVY: Frank, if I can address 19 actuallyboth of those points. On the first one, we, 20 as set forth inthepreamble, we were trying to follow**2~** the provisions of Addendum N and if you look at the 22 table it includes

-- in Addendum N, I guess it's an 23 amendment to Table 11.1, if I'm not mistaken. That 24 includes the input ratings as limitations on the hot 25 water supply boilers to which these requirements

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com110 1 apply. So I just looked at that after seeing your 2 statement and that's still there. You want to focus 3 on that

-- 4 MR. STANONIK: Okay. I'll look at that. 5 MR. MARTIN: You have the copies here 6 available. 7 MR. LEVY: Yes. It's Table 11.1. 8 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 9 MR. LEVY: And it actuallyhas prescribed 10 inputratios forhot water supplyboilers towhichthe 11 Z21.10.3 requirementswouldapply. Sowe felt that

-- 12 MR. STANONIK: Okay-- 13 MR. LEVY: Basically, and this goes to 14 your second point as well, we tried to adapt as best 

## " 15 we could the provisions of Addendum N to the 16 regulatory context here and one of the things that 17 Addendum N provides, as you point out, is that hot 18 watersupplyboilersare delineatedbyhow theproduct 19 is actuallyused and we could not adopt that directly 20 because that would leave manufacturers completely up 21 in the air as to what requirements they would have to 22 meet. Under EPCA, the requirements apply to products 23 as manufactured so we did discuss at some length how 24 we were going to try and adopt, or adapt is a better 25 word the Addendum N strictures in the regulatory

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com111 1 context. That's why that explains much that we did 2 there and if you have any comments on how we could do 3 a better job at that we would certainly appreciate 4 receiving them. 5 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 6 MR. RABA: I have an overall statement 7 from William Haag from A.O. Smith first, please? 8 MR. HAAG: Okay 9 MR. LEVY: Wait, excuse me for a second. 10 Jim,. if he has

-- if Michael has something to say on 11 this verypoint, can we address that and then go back 12 to the overall

-- 13 MR. RABA: Sure. I'm sorry. And Andy, I 14 think had something too. Let's start with Andy and 15 then we'll go back to Michael. 16 MR. PERSILY: Mine wasn'toverall. Itwas 17 specific. 18 MR. RABA: Okay, I'm sorry. It's 19 something that's coming later. 20 MR. RABA: Okay. We'll hold on to that 21 and come right back to you then. 22 Thanks for your patience, Wilbur. Andy 23 first. 24 MR. PERSILY: Yes. I just had a short 25 question, Frank, to make sure I understood that your

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WW>N.nealrgross.com112 1 concern on hot water supply boilers**~as** the input 2 rating, the 4,000BTUperhourpergallon addingthat. 3 MR. LEVY: Right, right. 4 MR. PERSILY: Okay. 5 MR. RABA: Michael Martin, please? 6 MR. MARTIN: Yes. My comment is on the 7 same severaldifferentpoints that Frankismaking. 8 This greater than 4,000 BTU per hour limitation is 9 clearly in Table 11.1 because I spotted you had a 10 handout and I don't know why. It doesn't seem any 11 logic why it should be. I'm not clear whether you 12 have legal authority to exclude it from your 13 regulation. That's

-- but if you have, I think you 14 should. There'snothingtobe gainedby leaving it in 15 there. I dobelieve that most of these things dohave 16 an input greater than 5,000 BTU per hour, but not 17 necessarily all of them and there's no logical reason 18 for excluding those that don't meet that criteria. 19 MR. LEVY: I would point out that the 20 product**~ouldn't** be excluded from being covered and 21 have to meet standards. The product would then still 22 be a boiler, a packaged boiler and the default would 23 be then subject to the requirements for packaged 24 boilers. But basically what Addendum N did was to 25 carve out a certain

-- aswe analyze it, it carvedout

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com113 1 a certain type of boiler to be treated the same as an 2 instantaneous water heater, so that to the extent you 3 don't

-- you'renot includedwithinthedelineationof 4 that product that's been carved out, the product, to 5 the extent that the product is not included, it would 6 still be regulated and have to meet the requirements 7 for packaged boilers. 8 MR. MARTIN: Yes, that is the case. 9 However, Bodh was just showing me last evening some 10 text reports that he's done comparing testing to the 11 requirements for water heaters and the requirements 12 for boilers. And the requirements for water heaters 13 are more stringent. So itwouldput themback to a -- 14 it wouldn't take them totally out of being federally 15 covered, but it would put them back to a less 16 stringent requirement. 17 And then I think also the other itemthat 18 you mentioned, Section 11.4.2, the words were added 19 was "hot water supply boilers with input with input 20 from 300,000 to 12.5 million BTU per hour and used 21 solely for heating potable water shall meet the 22 criteria of Table 11.1." 23 I readthat asreferringtoanapplication 24 in a particular building and we have to be

-- rather 25 than something that is sold, may be used as -- for

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 space heating or for heating potable water. There's 2 a kind of a fine line between there. We need to be 3 careful of. 4 But I also sense thatmaybeyoudon't have 5 authority to go beyond the ASHRAE level. I'm not 6 clear about the legal aspects of that. Once again, 7 there seems no reasonwhy there shouldbe a top limit 8 on that. 9 MR. LEVY: Well, what the statute says is 10 that we are obligated to adopt changes that ASHRAE 11 made in 90.1 with regard to standards and test 12 procedures unless in the case of standards we have 13 clear and convincing evidence that something more 14 stringent is required. I don't know if that would 15 allowus tomake alterations inthedelineationof the 16 product for which the standards are changed. 17 MR. MARTIN: Presumably, ifwe canprovide 18 clearer and convincing arguments that this should 19 apply to something larger, it might be worth trying. 20 MR. LEVY: When you said "something 21 larger" you mean a larger

-- 22 23 24 about. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. MARTIN: Larger than 12.5 million. MR. LEVY: Well, that's what I am dubious

MR. MARTIN: Yes. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.L.L;;) 1 MR. LEVY: If you can provide clear and 2 convincing arguments that we should have a higher, 3 what's the

-- what's the combustion efficiency here, 4 the descriptor for this product. 5 MR. MARTIN: It's a thermal. 6 MR. LEVY: Thermal. If you provided some 7 clear and convincing evidence or if we had it at a 8 higher levelofthermalefficiencywouldbewarranted, 9 that we could certainly entertain. 10 I am dubious about whether we could 11 entertain a contention that the requirements that 12 apply to a given delineation of product should be 13 appliedto some largerrange ofproducts. That's what 14 I would question what we can do. 15 MR. RABA: Other comments, statements? 16 Let's get into a little more specific

-- should we 17 wait on yours, Wilbur, for a little bit later or when 18 would that be? 19 MR. HAAG: Let's see. Are we on test 20 procedures? 21 MR. RABA: Not yet. We're still on 22 definitions and coverage. Okay, so I'll make a note 23 for you then, test procedures. 24 Definitions, coverage. 25 MR. LEVY: On instantaneouswaterheaters,

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com116 1 Michael Martin had a comment. I don't recall what it 2 was, but I had made a note there that 3 MR. MARTIN: We're on the same wavelength 4 here. I don't recall what it was either. 5 MR. LEVY: Looks like it's on page 2 of 6 your written comments. 7 MR. MARTIN: I guess while I'm onpage 2, 8 I talkedabout thiswaterheatersupplyboiler andwas 9 pointed out to me before the meeting I corrected one 10 editorial error by making another one and the 11 intentionof these inparentheses here is that DOE had 12 lost a zero in this 12.5 million, but I also dropped 13 half a million there. 14 (Laughter.) 15 Which is clearly a bigger error. 16 (Pause.) 17 Yes, ifwe're talkingabout instantaneous 18 water heaters designed to raise the water temperature 19 180 degrees or higher and just a couple of weeks ago 20 ASTM approved a test method for booster water heaters 21 and this is the one that we would recommend that you 22 reference fortheseboostersheaterswhichareheaters 23 that take hot water andmake it scaldinghot water for 24 use in commercial dish washers. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. RABA: Cyrus? NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com117 1 MR. NASSERI: While you're saying that 2 booster heater which is not -- you want to say that 3 booster heater test procedure would be used as 4 instantaneous? 5 MR. MARTIN: No, actuallyI thinkyouused 6 the term instantaneous in talking about the high 7 temperatures. And actually, theterminstantaneous is 8 not appropriate in this application because of the 9 definition you have, that if you were to leave out 10 that word instantaneous, that would be better. But 11 youhaveexplainedthatyoubelievethatwaterheaters 12 designed to raise the water temperature 180 degrees 13 andhigher are included. And there is a newmethodof 14 test for those which I would recommend that you 15 reference. 16 MR. RABA: Othercommentsoninstantaneous 17 water heaters? Frank Stanonik? 18 MR. STANONIK: Well, a couple of things. 19 I think that as Mike said, at least what's been 20 presentetl here is that DOE believes that they are 21 covering all the instantaneous water heaters that are 22 designed to heat water to 180 or higher. I guess I 23 don't see that, but I assume it must be tied into the 24 basic definition of commercial HVAC andWH product or 25 something. But I guess I wouldjust caution that the

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.L.Lts 1 thing we were concerned about that needs to be 2 addressed is that if you talk instantaneous water 3 heaters andyoujust talkabout input, that the one 4 of the criteria is that if the input is 200,000 BTU 5 per hour or less or less than whatever it is, that 6 that basically is part of the definition of a 7 residential instantaneous, but then that is further 8 qualifiedbya definition in the test procedures, the 9 residential test procedures that says it can't hold 10 more than two gallons, is not designed to deliver 11 water at a controlled temperature above 180. And so 12 what our point was previously and to tell you the 13 truth, I'm not sure it's totally fixed here, is that 14 if you had, as an example, a water heater that might 15 have an input of 190,000 BTU per hour and it might be 16 a tube type so it's not going to hold more than two 17 gallons, but it, in fact, does have the capability to 18 deliver water at a controlled temperature above 180, 19 it should be addressed in the commercial test 20 procedures because it is a commercial product that 21 doesn't find its way into people's homes. But that 22 product is not necessarily a booster heater either. 23 Mike is introducing what has evolved into a very 24 specific product which truthfully has a lot of other 25 issues connected with it in terms of where it falls

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com**ll~** 1 intothe schemeof federal regulation, butthebooster 2 heater that's been specificallydeveloped tobe

-- to 3 either be or become an integral part of a commercial 4 dishwasher is a fairly recently developedproduct and 5 my understanding is that it's a product that is 6 intended only for that purpose, that's all it can do. 7 But there are many, let me rephrase this, in years 8 prior, inyears past for a long time, there have been 9 manycommercialwaterheaters thatwith somechange in 10 the controls were installed to provide booster water 11 heating for a commercial kitchen, so those products, 12 thoseproducts are - - diddoboosterheating. They're 13 not the kind of booster heater that I believe Mike's 14 alluding to, but at the same time I guess we somehow 15 eithermake clear those aren't any different than the 16 water heaters you're regulating right now. Theyjust 17 have a change in to what degree to let the water be l8 heated. 19 And so I don't

-- if you're going to look 20 at the iaea of having a separate test procedure for 21 booster heaters, there will be considerable skill 22 necessaryindefiningwhat is coveredbythat andwhat 23 isn't because let me call it the traditional water 24 heater, there's no reason why it can't be tested to 25 theexistingtestprocedures. Theboosterheaterthat

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com120 1 Mike isreferencing, I believe, I'mnot sure that it's 2 intended to handle 70 degree incoming water, as an 3 example. 4 And as an aside, GAMA has protested the 5 ASTM that insofar as gas water heaters are concerned, 6 the developedof theASTM standardisredundant to the 7 existing Z21.10.3, but that's

-- that will be decided 8 somewhere else. 9 MR. RABA: Michael Martin? 10 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Are you - - did you 11 suggest that some of these water heaters you're 12 referring to took 70 degree water and raised it up to 13 180 and higher? Is that it? 14 MR. STANONIK?: No, no. I'm saying that 

## • 15 the same water heater that might end up in some 16 commercial application that was handling 50- or 60 17 degree incomingwater or 70 degree incomingwater and 18 heating it to 140 or whatever, okay, that in years 19 past that basically that same water heater could be 20 taken arid be put into an application to provide 21 booster heating in that it would see 140 degree 22 incoming coldwater, its controls wouldbe changed or 23 otherwise adjusted so that it would give 180 plus hot 24 water intowhateverwas dishwasher, whatever. But 25 in all other shape and form, it was the same water

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE

.. N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 heater. 2 MR. MARTIN: Okay, the major difference 3 that I see here is that the conventional test method 4 takes 70 degree water and brings it up to 140. This 5 one takes, I think it's 140 and brings it up to 180, 6 so that the ASTM one is testing at more appropriate 7 temperatures. 8 Theotherthing, of course, is that if I'm 9 suggesting this to you I need to get a copy of it to 10 you, if I haven't already done so. 11 MR. STANONIK: But conversely, if theASTM 12 typeboosterwaterheaterhasthe capabilitytohandle 13 70 degree incoming water and heat it

-- if it has the 14 capability, toheat it to 140, then ina sense there's 15 no reason why you couldn't test it, physically 16 couldn't test it for the existing test procedure. 17 MR. MARTIN: I think physically with the 18 suitable modification you could test anything to 19 anything. 20 MR. STANONIK: That's a pretty broad 21 statement. 22 MR. MARTIN: It's hard to heat water to 23 300 degrees clearly. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. STANONIK: Not on earth anyhow. (Laughter.) NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com122 1 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh**Subhe~wal,** BR Labs. 2 I think what we have, for example, at this time, we 3 see boilers and we are talking hard water supply 4 boilers here also 180 degrees and instantaneous, all 5 those things, so maybe it is still related to -- I'll 6 try to put it that way. 7 We see that the boilers essentially have 8 a procedure whereby that internal waterI whenever 9 comes, it comes around 140 degrees, 120 degrees and 10 when we are running a test, we will bring in 70 11 degrees water, but since the manufacturer does want 12 theirboilerheat exchangeras thewaterenters there, 13 must be 120, 140 degrees and getting all water 180 14**deg~ees** which comes in. So we do have a procedure in 15 place and the procedure exists under the ANSI 16 criteria, what Frank is saying and GAMA is saying in 17 a way that it's not any different than what we have. 18 Pardon me, I have never evaluated the 19 procedure or I haven't seen ASTM, so I really don't 20 know what they're doing. Maybe they're taking 140 21 degrees and taking 280 and evaluating that. But 22 that's not something we do. The boilers are always 23 turned to that. If you look at your previous heat 24 procedure then you are looking at space heating and 25 all that. You are bringing in 120 degrees water in

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 and that's the way you are evaluating. So just to 2 clarify that that there are procedures which 'are 3 existingandmaybe thisprocedure isparallel to itor 4 maybe there is something else. 5 MR. RABA: Andy Persily? 6 MR. PERSILY: Again, just to make sure I 7 understand Frank that your concern is that the way 8 instantaneouswater heaters are described here is not 9 as clear as it could be and that some things that 10 maybe were intended to be covered might not be and 11 some things thatmight not have intendedtobe covered 12 may be covered. 13 MR. STANONIK: Right. 14 MR. PERSILY: Okay, and the way I read it 15 is that the point here is that instantaneous water 16 heaters are coveredandthat theyare testedusingthe 17 test procedures for water heaters. There's not a 18 separate procedure, but what we're hearing here is 19 thatmaybe there's a needto look at thisASTM booster 20 heater standard and see if it applies to these 21 particular products. 22 MR. RABA: Michael Martin? 23 MR. MARTIN: Yes, on the point of 24 simplification, I believe I'mright in sayingthat the 25 standards

(202) 234-4433 apply universally to NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 storage and

www.nealrgross.com124 1 instantaneous and when you put the two together it 2 covers everything. 3 I have to look carefullyand see if that's 4 the case. If that is the case we really don't have to 5 defineeitherstorageorinstantaneousbecausebetween 6 the two, they cover the whole field of water heaters. 7 MR. RABA: A point that certainly needs 8 clarification and I would invite further thought, 9 either discussion and certainly written comments on 10 this item. 11 Anybody else about this? Brad Hollomon. 12 MR. HOLLOMON: Yeah, Brad Hollomon from 13 PNNL, just a question for Michael Martin. If the 14 standard is if the efficiency standard is written 15 the way it is, is the test that you would use for the 16 booster water heater likely to end up giving you a 17 comparable number that makes sense in the context of 18 the rest of the lot? 19 MR. MARTIN: I have been assured that's 20 the case, but I haven't seen the data and I will 21 certainly need to get it to you. Pacific Gas & 22 Electric Company's food service technology center 23 tested a number of these units and I'll get you data 24 on that. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. SUBHERWAL: I think that Bodh NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com125 1 Subherwal, BR Labs

-- I think the**effi~iency** will be 2 different but the procedure is always in place. 3 Actually, if we look at ANSI Z21.13 that's probably 4 more specific. Anything related to instantaneous

-- 5 MR. STANONIK: 10.3. 6 MR. RABA: What is 10.3? 7 MR. STANONIK: Commercial water heaters. 8 MR. SUBHERWAL: Commercial waterheaters. 9 MR. RABA: That was ANSI? What was that, 10 please? 11 MR. SUBHERWAL: ANSI Z21.13. 12 MR. RABA: Thank you very much. Yes sir? 13 MR. TOPPING: DickTopping. Mike, areyou 14 saying that as far as you 9an tell the testing a 

### • 15 instantaneous water heater at a standard delivery 16 temperature versus booster would give you the same 17 steady state efficiency? 18 MR. MARTIN: I carefully said that's what 19 I've been hold because I haven't seen the evidence 20 myself. It was surprising to me. 21 MR. TOPPING: I would suspect that's not 22 the case. 23 MR. MARTIN: I wouldsuspectthat too, but 24 that's why I chose my words rather carefully. Which 25 brings up, if it's not the case, it makes life more

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 complicated for Cyrus and his friends. 2 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 3 I think what I understood from Mike's presentation 4 here or what's written here is there does exist a 5 procedure which has been developed by the food 6 industry, whereby theyvalue it, the water heaters as 7 boosterwater heaters for that application. And that 8 application being that this particular standard ASTM 9 looks at 140 degree water going in and 180 degrees 10 coming out and determines some value and that's the 11 way I see it. 12 MR. MARTIN: That's been their 13 relationshipbetweenthe two. My writtenrequest here 14 is to use the test method. It didn't go into the 15 relationship of it, but clearly you need evidence on 16 that. 17 MR. RABA: Is that good, Mr. Chairman? 18 MR. NASSERI: Yes. 19 MR. RABA: Should we move on then? Want 20 to? 21 MR. NASSERI: Move on, please. 22 MR. RABA: Okay. Hot water supply 23 boilers. I see a comment here from GAMA. Anything 24 else in your written comments that were submitted? 25 Michael Martin, you have something here?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com127 1 MR. MARTIN: I think I alreadycoveredit. 2 I made my confession on dropping half a million. 3 MR. RABA: A million here, a million 4 there. Frank, did our discussion before cover your 5 comments here, your written comments? 6 MR. STANONIK: With the exceptionthat we 7 still are of the opinion that at this stage it's 8 premature to inject this definition here because I 9 guess as we see this, we see this connectedtothe DOE 10 adoption of Addendum N which would establish on a 11 federal basis efficiencyrequirements for this animal 12 called hot water supply boiler and I guess from our 13 view that would have to happen first before you worry 14 about including it in this particular rule making. 15 MR. LEVY: DOE adoption of Addendum N. 16 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 17 MR. LEVY: Well, actually, that is the 18 intent of our proposal. Maybe we didn't make that 19 clear enough, but I thought it was explained in the 20 preamble'that essentially what we were attempting to 21 do was adopt Addendum N and in that regard the 22 proposal addresses both standards andtest procedures 23 with regard to hot water supply boilers, 24 MR. STANONIK: Oh, so that the inclusion 25 of 431.471 in the Federal Register notice is actually

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com128 1 proposal to, if you will, introduce the federal 2 requirement for hot water supply boilers? 3 MR. LEVY: To introduce the requirements 4 in Addendum N. I mean basically

-- 5 MR. STANONIK: We missed that, okay. 6 MR. LEVY: Okay, right. If you look in 7 that table we've got hot water supply boiler. 8 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 9 MR. LEVY: The way we viewed Addendum N 10 and I'm sorry if this wasn't explainedclearly enough 11 in the preamble, but the way we viewed Addendum N is 12 that it constituted an amendment to 90.1, both with 13 respect to the standards for this product as well as 14 the testprocedures andwe wereusing this rulemaking 15 as a vehicle for incorporating both amendments into 16 federal law. 17 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 18 MR. MARTIN: I believe the statute did 19 specificallymentionthesehotwatersupplyboilers in 20 the language there. The negotiation of the statute 21 was going on at the same time as the negotiation of 22 ASHRAE 90.1Nanditmovedratherfaster. Consequently 23 24 MR. LEVY: Didn'tthe statuteprecedethat 25 addendum by about 5 years?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com129 1 MR. MARTIN: Yes, but the statute did 2 clearly intend to include hot water supply boilers. 3 It is mentioned in there. 4 MR. LEVY: We didn't find it, but if you 5 could identify that for us in your written comments, 6 that would be helpful. 7 MR. MARTIN: The statute -- yeah, I'll

-- 8 ifyouwish. You have it in front of you and I don't. 9 MR. LEVY: Yeah. 10 MR. MARTIN: The statute refers to water 11 heaters for EPACT. It says water heaters and hot 12 water supply boilers. 13 MR. LEVY: As I said, we looked for that 14 and didn't find it, so you know, if you can in your 15 written comments identifythat, we'd appreciate that. 16 MR. RABA: We're good so far? Move on to 17 heat pump water heaters. I saw a comment from GAMA 18 and a brief one also from the California Energy 19 Commission. 20 MR. STANONIK: Not from GAMA. 21 MR. RABA: Sorry. From California? 22 MR. MARTIN: I thought we did have 23 something from GAMA, but maybe not. I think we are 24 agreed, anyhow, Frankand I andtheorganizations that 25 we work for that it would be very nice to have heat

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE

.. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com130 1 pump waterheaters inherebut that**ther~** isn't a test 2 method. There's one under development and when that 3 actuallyhappens that would be the time to do it, but 4 leaving itout asyou've done now seems tobe the only 5 way to go. 6 MR. RABA: Okay, go on from there. 7 Anybody else about heat pump water heaters? 8 Okay. Test procedures in this case 9 looking at gas-firedwater heaters and I thinkWilbur 10 had a comment on test procedures. 11 MR. HAAG: Mine pertains to electric. I 12 overlooked it on the first go around. 13 MR. RABA: Okay,' let'sgo togas first and 14 then we'll take electric thereafter, want to? Okay, 

## • 15 let me back up, gas-fired water heaters. 16 MR. STANONIK: Yes, we had a comment and 17 it's just something that well, it just came to 18 light as people were looking at the

-- or using the 19 standby loss test in the 1998 edition. I think in 20 other places it's been properly summarized that the 21 current reference standard for these test procedures 22 specifies a standby loss test that essentially lasts 23 48 hours. And the 1998 edition basically made the 24 change to shortenthat test to 24 hours and some other 25 changes, but that was probably the most significant

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com..1.,)..1. 1 thing. 2 We in the past had indicated that we 3 thought that that was appropriate and that really 4 since it was measuring a percent or the ultimate 5 measurement thenwas a percentperhourthat itreally 6 wasn't going to make a difference. But what we've 7 learned since then is that for certain designs that 8 have let's say been added to the mix of commercial 9 water heaters and an example of one where it seems to 10 showup is actuallya commercialwaterheater thatmay 11 have a mechanical draft system on it and still have a 12 standingpilot, what we found is thewaythe test, the 13 standby loss is written it says the first cut out of 14 the thermostat after 24 hours. I guessby accident on 15 the units that I was just describing the pilot energy 16 and the amount of that energy that goes back into 17 heating water is of such a quantity that for the most 18 part it compensates well, between having the 19 mechanical draft system on there which also helps to 20 cut down'flowof airthroughthe unit, inessence, the 21 pilot energy compensates for much of the losses that 22 occurs through the jacket and the first cut out after 23 24 hours, we've seen cases where it doesn't occur for 24 days later, four or five days later. I've been told 25 in one case it was a week later. And so I think that

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com132 1 no one certainly intended to take a two-day test and 2 make it a 5, 6 or 7-day test. And so we're actually 3 suggesting that DOE reference Z21-10.3-1998, but 4 include a slight modification to explain that the 5 standby loss test should not in any case last more 6 than 48 hours. We have proposed, already proposed a 7 similar revision to the Z21 water heater subcommittee 8 and just last week that was adopted for review and 9 comment which is the first step in getting the 10 standard amended. 11 But the otherthinghere is ifyougoback 12 to referencing or using the 1998 edition with that 13· slight modification, in a way it certainly won't be 14 anydifferentthantheprocedureyouwere referencing, 15 the 1990 edition. 16 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri. 17 MR. NASSERI: Thank you. 18 MR. RABA: You're welcome. 19 MR. NASSERI: Your comment on that issue 20 of Z21.10.3 where you explain that that

-- and the**2~** fact that you probably, I don't know, is it GAMA 22 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 23 MR. NASSERI: ·Submitted a review to the 24 committee. Any ideawhenthis committee isgoing to - 25

- would it be a revision of the standard, having this

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com133 1 standbyloss andperiodof 48 hours orrelatedthings? 2 Any idea when this is going to be? 3 MR. STANONIK: I could give you a 4 projection. I mean itjustgot adopted for review and 5 comment so if itwent out to reviewandcomment in the 6 next couple of months, the committee is not going to 7 meet -- the subcommittee is not going to meet again 8 until probablynext summer. Itprobablywouldn't get 9 approvedbythe Z21 committeeuntil 2002. Soyou look 10 at probably some time in 2002 you would actually see 11 the final standard and I would say the second half of 12 2002. 13 MR. NASSERI: So where do you put us in 14 the position of

-- this is DOE

-- 15 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 16 MR. NASSERI: Of referencingtheAugust or 17 referencing the latest version of the standards, but 18 obviously hopefully we are having our final rule 19 before prior to that time. 20 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 2:1. MR. NASSERI: So what you suggest now, 22 you're not going to have this revised standardby the 23 time you're going to go to·final rule. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. STANONIK: Correct. MR. NASSERI: And how you suggested you NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com134 1 reference this latest standard at that point which is 2 not a final version? 3 MR. STANONIK: No, no, no, no. I'msaying 4 my suggestion is to reference Z21.10.3-1998, but as 5 you do in certain other places, have a -- with this 6 modification. You'd have to add some provision for 7 this special modification with the modification that 8 the standby loss specified in andyou guys do mention 9 the sections. I think it's 210. 10 MR. NASSERI: We do that in most of our 11 test procedures. 12 MR. STANONIK: Right. 13 MR. NASSERI: We deviate fromthe standard 14 15 MR. STANONIK: Right, youhave towrite in 16 the deviation, right. 17 MR. NASSERI: But my question at this 18 point is is this procedure in any way affects the 19 efficiency rating of the minimum that is required by 20 legislation. 21 MR. STANONIK: The one here now? No. Oh 22 no, no, no. 23 MR. NASSERI:

.The standby says I think 24 they're talking instead of state efficiencythat will 25 in fact

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com135 1 MR. STANONIK: No, this is only the 2 standbylossprocedure and sothisprocedure stillthe 3 ultimate measure is a percent per hour, so it 4 shouldn't make a difference. 5 MR. NASSERI: So waiting 24 hours or 48 6 hours shouldn't make that much difference? 7 MR. STANONIK: Shouldn't make a 8 difference. 9 MR. NASSERI: Should not make a 10 difference. 11 MR. RABA: I had a comment from Michael 12 Martin first. 13 MR. STANONIK: In truth, going to the 14 6-daytestprobablyshouldn't make anydifference, but 15 it just becomes a significantly burdensome test 16 because I just tied up a test facility for six days 17 and literallythe water heater is sitting there doing 18 not much of anything. 19 MR. RABA: First Michael and then Andy. 20 MR. MARTIN: Yes. We would support 21 Frank's suggestion. This is likely to be voted on by 22 the ANSI Committee, ANSI Z21 Committee in April of 23 2002. So what you need to do is to make a really 24 quite small modification to the latest standard and I 25 don't thinkyou're goingto find anyoppositionto it.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com136 1 MR. NASSERI: This looks like we would 2 review the comments and the modifications of the 1998 3 version of the standard. 4 MR. RABA: Andy Persily? 5 MR. PERSILY: This might be a little bit 6 redundant, but what you're suggesting is leave it 7 referenced to 1998 version but say, put a 48 hour 8 limit on it, that's all. 9 MR. STANONIK: Right, exactly. 10 MR. LEVY: I have a couple of questions. 11 Arethereparticularproductsthatcouldbe identified 12 ortypes ofproducts that couldbe identifiedtowhich 13 the exception could be limited? You don't have to 14 answer right now, but

-- 15 MR. STANONIK: I don't know. 16 MR. LEVY: If there are that would 17 probably make it easier for us to justify

-- 18 MR. STANONIK: I'vebeengivenexamplesof 19 certain models where this occurred. I don't know if 20 the information would allow

-- 2-1. MR. LEVY: Not a general exemption

-- 22 MR. STANONIK: But allow a general 23 definition of say if you've got this, you need this 24 exemption. If you've got this, you don't. I'm not 25 sure. We can look into that.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com137 1 MR. LEVY: The other thing is the burden 2 of quantifying that, is that possible to any extent. 3 You mentionedtyingup a test facility interms of how 4 much it increases the cost of the test or staff time 5 or anything of that nature would I think be helpful. 6 MR. MARTIN: MikeMartin. I think this is 7 very few models because most models either have no 8 damper and have a pilot or they have a damper and a 9 spark ignition and it's the combination of having a 10 constant burning pilot and a damper that really 11 catches this problem, if I understand it right which 12 is not verymany. Inmost cases, itwouldn't make any 13 14 MR. RABA: Dick Topping? 15 MR. TOPPING: Yes sir. Frank, thismight 16 be a dumb question. I'm trying to remember how the 17 test was done, but don'tyouneedthat last duty cycle 18 to calculate the standby loss? 19 MR. STANONIK: Well, that was the idea 20 between the 24 hour test and then taking it to the**2~** next cutoff. It made the calculations fairly simple, 22 but in truth, in the 1990 edition, I think that 23 I've got to watchmyself here because I don't have it 24 in front of me, but either the 1990 edition**o~** maybe, 25 in fact, the old DOE residential water heater test

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com138 1 procedure. You can take the approach and say look, 2 I'm going to stop the test here. I'm going to see 3 what my mean tank temperature is at that time and in 4 essence make a mathematical adjustment to get your 5 back to theoretically

-- you know, to get back to the 6 theoretical starting condition and then do your 7 calculations standby from there. That can be done. 8 It's not as clean and that's why the 24 hour plus cut 9 out was really proposed initially, but I need to -- 10 like I said, I don't have that 1990 edition in front 11 of me, but I think in 40 hours that's what they did. 12 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 13 I think what Frank is saying, what they're saying is 14 make a calculation and it's very well worth it. 15 However, when we cycle it and then catch it, compared 16 to when we make the mathematical calculation that's 17 more realistic. But again, technologieshavechanged. 18 The insulationhas changed. The dampers have changed. 19 It maybe much more closer now, the two methodologies 20 at any given time. 21. MR. RABA: Further comments or statements 22 on gas-fired water heaters? 23 MR. LEVY: I.f I'm understanding the 24 comments that werejustmade, thatwould seemtopoint 25 up our ability to try to narrow the application of

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com139 1 this modification for exemption from certain, from 2 this part of the procedure, to certain products. I 3 don't mean certain products, but I mean certain 4 generically described products. 5 MR. RABA: Let's move on then. Now, 6 Wilbur, electric water heaters. 7 MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag, A.O. Smith Water 8 Products Company. On page 48865 there is column 9 entitled "With These Additional Stipulations." And 10 when it comes to the electric water heater testing, 11 ANSI 221.10.23-1998 is mentioned as the test standard 12 and the stipulation that I take issue with is number 13 2 which says "maintain the electric supplyvoltage to 14 withinplus or minus one percent of the center of the 15 voltage range specified on the water heater's 16 nameplate." 17 There'snothingvoltagesensitiveaboutan 18 electricwaterheaterandtheonepercent tolerance on 19 the supply voltage is just not reasonable. I would 20 recommendthatbe changedto a plus orminus 5percent 23.. voltage tolerance on the voltage applied to the 22 electric water heater under test. 23 MR. RABA: Does·anybodyagreewiththat or 24 disagree with that? 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. SUBHERWAL: I totally support it. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com140 1 Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 2 MR. RABA: Would support. MichaelMartin? 3 MR. MARTIN: Inthe interest of shortening 4 the regulations, is there a requirement to have a 5 need, I should say, to have any stipulation about 6 constant voltage? 7 MR. HAAG: I don't see any. 8 MR. MARTIN: So taking it out all 9 together, might be even better. 10 MR. HAAG: Correct. 11 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. But the 12 premise was that that's in a -- it's intended in a 13 sense to make sure you've got the thing on rate and I 14 use that term advisedly, but if the water heater was 15 wired to be running on I don't know, 240, you 16 wouldn't want to give somebody latitude to hook it up 17 to 120, would you? 18 MR. SUBHERWAL: You can't hook it up to 19 120. 20 MR. STANONIK: Okay, well, wouldyou want**~1** to give him a latitude to run it at 200? 22 MR. SUBHERWAL: Yes, 208. It doesn'tmake 23 any difference. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. MR. SUBHERWAL: Plus or minus 5 percent. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com141 1 MR. HAAG: On the minus side, the KW input 2 will be slightly lower; on the plus 5 percent side or 3 not mentioned at all, the KW input would be a little 4 higher and the KW input doesn't affect standby loss. 5 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri. 6 MR. NASSERI: Wilbur, are you going to 7 send us comments concerning this? 8 MR. HAAG: Yes. 9 MR. RABA: Michael Martin. 10 MR. MARTIN: This is a question rather 11 than a suggestion, but what would happen if you did 12 have it rated for 220 and you put it through with a 13 110? 14 MR. HAAG: You'd have one fourth of the 15 KW. 16 MR. MARTIN: What would happen to the 17 results of the test? 18 MR. HAAG: I don't think you would find a 19 difference. 20 MR. STANONIK: But at some point

-- I'll 2:1.. say theoretically at some point, in other words, 22 theoretically at some point you would create the 23 electric version of the pilot that compensates for 24 jacket losses. 25 MR. MARTIN: Yes, if you've got 6 volts

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com142 1 instead of 2 MR. STANONIK: I'm saying theoretically. 3 I'm not sure what it would be. 4 MR. MARTIN: a flashlight battery. 5 Let's settle with Wilbur's suggestion. 6 MR. RABA: Andy Persily, comment? 7 MR. PERSILY: I just want to make sure I 8 understand. You're suggestingchangingplus orminus 9 1 percent to plus or minus 5 percent of the center of 10 the range. Couldyouhave a range that's smallenough 11 that plus or minus 5 percent of the center would get 12 you out of the range? See what I mean? 13 Or if you just want to say maintain it 14 within the range on a nameplate and leave it at that. 15 MR. STANONIK: What's a typical range? 16 MR. HAAG: I don't think that's a typical 17 range. I don't think there is any range. I think 18 when this statement was authored 20 years ago, it 19 might have been assumed that a range of 220, 240 for 20 an electric water heater might have bene possible or 21 common, but in realitywhat we don't have is a range. 22 We have a flat out 208 voltage KW and a flat out 240 23 volt KW withreallynorange, eventhoughbothratings 24 appear on their voltage-wise and the lower KW when 25 it's fired at only 208.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com143 1 I think this was poor wording from the 2 word go. 3 MR. PERSILY: So there's no range on the 4 name plate, no voltage range? 5 MR. HAAG: I don't know of any 6 manufacturer

-- 7 MR. PERSILY: Just a single value. Just 8 240

-- 9 MR. HAAG: -- on an electric resistance 10 water heater. 11 MR. RABA: Were you able to get that 12 exchange, Court Reporter? Thank you. Anyone else? 13 Brad Hollomon? 14 MR. HOLLOMON: BradHollomon, PNNL. This 15 is just a matter of ignorance, but understanding some 16 significance of the 5 percent. 17 I'm assuming that this test standby loss 18 test involves heating the tank up to some level and 19 measuring how rapidly it cools off, not measuring the 20 energy input, the electric input that's required to 2i keep it at some constant temperature wouldbe perhaps 22 more sensitive to the

-- 23 MR. STANONIK: ·It's actually closer than 24 that. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. HOLLOMON: Okay. NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com144 1 MR. STANONIK: You heat it up andyou let 2 the waterheater sit there andwhat youmeasure is the 3 energy consumed by the elements when the thermostats 4 kick it back on to -- the thermostat at some point 5 will say this water has gotten too cold, I have to 6 reheat it and what you're actually measuring is the 7 consumption to reheat the water and that's what gets 8 back to the standby loss. 9 MR. HOLLOMON: So one part of this comes 10 down to how the power is actually measured. If it's 11 measured with an ampmeter, the voltage is important. 12 If it's measured with an hour meter it's not so 13 important. 14 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 15 MR. HOLLOMON: So how is it done with the 16 one hour meter, not the

-- 17 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, right. 18 MR. RABA: Shall we go on, Wilbur Haag 19 again, please? 20 MR. HAAG: Before we leave the additional 2:1 stipulations, referring to this page I have now 22 noticed another item I'd like to comment onunder oil 23 fired water heaters. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: Proceed. MR. HAAG: The closingsentencethereputs NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com145 1 a plus orminus 1 percent of fuel pump pressure on the 2

-- puts a plus or minus 1 percent tolerance on the 3 fuel pump pressure and I thinkthat is anunreasonable 4 tolerance. It may even be a typo. It may have been 5 meant to be 10 percent. Ten percent on the fuel 6 pressure is what's used in the residential gas-fired 7 water heater test method and it's in the Z21.10 water S heater standards, plus or minus 10 percent on gas 9 pressure and it's proposed to be 10 percent on the 10 ASHRAE 11S.l, the revised 1993 edition and here also, 11 I think a change is required for the convenience of 12 the testing agency to make that consistent plus or 13 minus 10 percent between oil and gas pressures. 14 MR. RABA: Would you include in your 15 written comments, please? 16 MR. HAAG: Yes. 17 MR. RABA: Thank you. So we'll get that lS down. Anybodyelse? Gas, electric, oil? Move along? 19 Okay. 20 How about the unfired hot water storage 2i tanks exemption and the applicationmaximum heat loss 22 requirement? Any thoughts? 23 MR. HAAG: Yes." Wilbur Haag. A.O. Smith 24 Water Products Company. 25 I'd like to go back to the October 13,

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com146 1 1998workshopandyou'llrecallthecommentsresulting 2 from that workshop. I submitted my comments in the 3 letter datedNovember 4, 1998 and one of the comments 4 pertained to unfired sparks tank test procedure. And 5 it's rather short so I'll go ahead and read it. 6 "A maximum heat loss rate at an 80 degree 7 F. water air temperature difference of 6.5 BTUs per 8 hour per square foot is just not practical to obtain. 9 This is equivalent to 1.9 watts per square foot which 10 is a value for electricwaterheaters inTable 11.1of 11 ASHRAE standard 90.1-1989. Numerous tests by 12 manufacturers inthat time frame prove that thisvalue 13 is notpracticable to obtain." Andthe result of that 14 was ASHRAE Standard 90-1b-1992 which contains a more 15 practical standby loss formula. 16 The recommendation: "Require all storage 17 tanks regardless of size tobe insulated to a minimum 18 R-12.5 value" which implies no test whatsoever on any 19 size on unfired storage wate+ heater tank. 20 IntheAugust 9thFederal Registernotice 2i on page 48860, at the bottom of the centered column, 22 there's a statement that we agreed with the comments 23 from the October 1998 workshop attendees and are 24 proposingthe first methodas a DOE testprocedure for 25 determining the rate of heat loss for square foot of

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com147 1 tank service area of unfired hot water storage tanks. 2 I do not know if my comments at that time 3 inmy letterofNovemberdidget lost ornever arrived 4 orwasjust ignored, but I didget no feedback frommy 5 letter. 6 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri, do you have a 7 comment? Can you respond to that? 8 MR. NASSERI: Yes, Wilbur, I don'trecall, 9 but did you -- how did you send that to us, to the 10 DOE? Did you send it to a particular address or 11 person? Do you recall how it was sent? 12 MR. HAAG: 

### u.S. Department of Energy, 13 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 14 Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Products, 15 WaterHeaters, Boilers, Furnaces, AirConditionersand 16 Heat Pumps, Docket No. EETP981011000. 17 MR. NASSERI: We'llbe sure to look at our 18 records on that and see that

-- what we have in our 19 comments received as a result of that workshop and 20 also we can look at the court reporter's you 2l probably brought that

-- discussed that during the 22 workshop too? 23 MR. HAAG: I would think I did. I don't 24 remember any back and forth discussion on it though. 25 I mightpoint out inthe sameparagraphat

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com148 1 the bottomof the centercolumn it says "We understand 2 that typically a manufacturer will sell a tank as an 3 unfired storage tank and also use the same tank as 4 part of an electric water heater." 5 That's not quite true. At least in the 6 case of the company I work for, the commercial 7 electric water heaters are manufactured at the plant. 8 They have an inlet and outlet hot and cold water 9 connections of inch and a half NPS size. A similar 10 hot water storage tank may have the same exact shell 11 and head, but in addition to the smaller inlet and 12 outlet hot and cold water heater connections, it has 13 to be in the storage tanks, connections for 14 circulating lines to be connected and those are 15 typically two inch which will really exaggerate more 16 the attempt to reach a level of that 6.5.BTUs per 17 square foot which wasn't practical at all. I don't 18 know of anybody that ever did it, so I can say it has 19 been shown to be sort of so impractical, bordering on 20 impossible. Andanymore connections likeyouhave on 2i a storage tank will make it even more so. 22 MR. LEVY: Can you review again for us 23 when that was modified? 24 25 question.

(202) 234-4433 MR. HAAG: When

-- I didn'tunderstandthe

NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com149 1 MR. LEVY: I thought you indicated that 2 the 6.5 heat loss provisionwas modifiedbyASHRAE at 3 some point? 4 MR. HAAG: That's the end

-- not the end, 5 that's the BAddendum 1992. The 1989 first published 6 90.1 have the 1.9 loss per square foot maximum heat 7 loss from an electric water heater and that's the 8 equivalent to 6.5 thatwe seenow referenced, 6.5BTUs 9 per square foot we now see referenced. 10 In the ASHRAE standard 1999, 90.1, 11 rightfully specifies no method of test for any hot 12 water storage tank. 13 MR. LEVY: The 6.5 heat loss requirement, 14 I take it was changed to an insulation requirement? 15 In 1999? 16 MR. HAAG: No. 17 MR. LEVY: I said in 1999. 18 MR. HAAG: In 1999 it is. 19 MR. LEVY: You just referred to 1999. 20 MR. HAAG: In regard to water heater**2~** storage tanks, ASHRAE 1999 specifies no tests for hot 22 water storage tanks of any size. 23 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Frank. 24 MR. STANONIK: That's really kind of the 25 basis of our comment, although it's certainly similar

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com150 1 to Wilbur's that we don't agree**th~t** there should be 2 any specifiedtest procedure to measure the heat loss 3 for an unfired storage tank. The 90.1-1999 has 4 changedthat requirement so that the onlyrequirement 5 is a minimum level of insulation, R-12.5 and we 6 maintain that by referencing 90.1-1989 and the B 7 Addendum that EPACT really didn't specify a test 8 procedure to measure the heat loss of an unfired 9 storage tank because those earlier additions of the 10 standard did not specify a test procedure. And so as 11 we view this, ASHRAE's solution to that lack of 12 procedure was, in fact, to go strictly to a 13 prescriptive requirement andwe think that DOE should 14 follow the same course. 15 MR. LEVY: This is for tanks under 140 16 gallons? 17 MR. STANONIK: Unfiredstoragetanks, yes, 18 less than 140 gallons. 19 MR. LEVY: Right, so basically what 20 90.1-1999 did was change the 6.5 BTU per hour? 21 MR. STANONIK: Right. 22 MR. LEVY: Heat loss requirement to an 23 insulation requirement. 24 MR. STANONIK: TheyreinsulatedtoR-12.5, 25 at least, yeah.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com151 1 MR. LEVY: One question I have on that is 2 that is

-- did that in effect lower the efficiency 3 requirement there? 4 MR. STANONIK: The answer would be yes, 5 could be no. Because of the problem that, in fact, 6 there wasn't a defined test procedure. 7 MR. RABA: Cyrus Nasseri? 8 MR. NASSERI: I understand the situation 9 real well here. I'm going back to EPCA Section 10 340.2a.5f. And also 342a.5.g that provides a maximum 11 heat loss of anunfiredhotwater storage tankmust be 12 6.5 BTU per hour per square foot of tank surface and 13 these are the ones that are smaller than 140 gallons. 14 MR. RABA: Okay. 15 MR. NASSERI: Andfor anythinghigherthan 16 140 gallons it requires the insulation of 12.5. 17 Okay, this is the requirements of law and 18 I assume this was basically on ASHRAE 90.189 version 19 which basically comes -- 20 MR. STANONIK: Right, right. 21 MR. NASSERI: What I see here and I think 22 Ed Levy asked a question which was very appropriate, 23 we have to have some assurance that by requiring any 24 tanks smaller than 140 gallon capacity, its only 25 requirement would be similar to the larger ones of

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com152 1**1~**.5, 12.1R insulationrequirements as comparedto 6.5 2 BTU per hour per square foot of tank surface somehow 3 is not less stringent as far as efficiency. 4 If that is not basically obvious approved 5 to us, this requirement, we are not allowed to go to 6 less stringent regulation and then it puts us in the 7 positionthat we're eithergoingto stickwiththe 6.5 8 and one of the reasons that we even be presented at 9 workshops, there's no test procedure for measurement 10 and we are proposing this measurement and nobody 11 really has any kind of a -- so, the bottom line is if 12 this is what 90.1-1999 has done and one requirement 13 for the tanks regardless of the size of 12.5R 14 insulation requirements, but because of the 15 legislation talks about

-- breaks this down to two 16 categories. 140 lower, smaller tank size and higher. 17 We have tohave that kindof a evaluationveryclearly 18 so we can have a good position and not having a less 19 stringency. 20 MR. STANONIK: But in EPACT there is also 21 a section that talks about test procedures, right? 22 Andinthe caseof the requirement forunfired storage 23 tanks, the reality is that there is no identified 24 reference test procedure. 25 Soitmightbeunpleasant tohear, but the

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 fact is that if I'mrequiredtomeet 6.5 andyoudon't 2 specify how I'm going to do that, the truth is well, 3 I'll do it because you told me I can measure however 4 I need to,measure it to get there and that's why I 5 couldn't answer Ed's question is it more or less 6 stringent. It's to some degree undefined and I think 7 as we see it the way to solve that issue

-- well, 8 there's two ways to solve the issue. You could 9 propose a test procedure and at this point I would 10 tell you we would oppose that test procedure as too 11 stringent, okay. Or you could take the approach 12 ASHRAE has taken and said let's resolve this one by 13 just saying you're going to put this much insulation 14 on it. And bythe way, remove theburden of having to 15 test those things to begin with. 16 MR. LEVY: Well, let'sassume for a moment 17 that we were to accept the ASHRAE amendment in this 18 regard. There's still the question of what the 19 requirement should be in the interval before that 20 becomes effective as a DOE requirement. 21 Right now, the 6.5 BTU perhour heat loss 22 requirement is stillonthebooks and so that'swhywe 23 proposed a test procedure to have a method of 24 assessing compliance with that. And that issue would 25 stillbepresentbecause I thinktheearliest that DOE

(202)234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 couldadopt anASHRAE provisionas a requirementwould 2 be effective in about three years from now. So 3 there's that question as to what position the 4 Department takes inthe interval. But as to the other 5 point, I believe that if I recall that inthe preamble 6 in discussing this issue, one of the observations we 7 made because well, let me step back. One of the 8 points thatwas raisedduringone of ourworkshops was 9 thepossibilityin lieuof a testprocedure for the

-- 10 to measure compliance with heat loss requirement was 11 to simply have a requirement that the product be 12 insulatedtoR12.5, the theorybeingthat that was the 13 equivalent of the 6.5 heat loss and one of the 14 concerns that we expressed in the preamble was the 15 possibility that that was actually, would result in a 16 lowerorhigherheat lossbecause of the fact that the 17 insulationwould only cover the surface area where as 18 the heat loss is gauged as we read the statute from .19 the whole appliance, so that's why I raised the 20 question' as to whether or not the 12.5 insulation 21 wouldn't actually have the effect of lowering the 22 efficiency requirement. 23 MR. RABA: Michael Martin? 24 MR. MARTIN: Having worked with these 25 ASHRAE committees quite a lot, I think it is a big

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com155 1 assumption to make that where space is left in a 2 table, it is an intent that there shouldnot be a test 3 method. What it really shows is they all together and 4 said what test method can we quote and nobody could 5 come up with anything. And it just got left out here 6 because they didn't know how there wasn'tone 7 available. 8 I think you need to come up with a test 9 method. The level is stated by statute and you need 10 to come up with a test method. I thought you did a 11 rather good job. I think you also did a great job on 12 simplifying or clarifying how you measure the surface 13 area of a tank or water heater. It used to be 14 electric storage water heater standard that talked 15 about 4 watts per square foot and there was this great 16 argument about square foot of what and how you handle 17 all the things that stick out and stick in from a tank 18 and measuring the square foot and you've simplified. 19 It's very nicely

-- I thinkyou've done a good job on 20 it. 21 MR. RABA: Do we have that one pretty 22 thoroughly covered for now? Again, comments are most 23 welcome in writing. 24 Brad Hollomon? 25 MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, Pacific

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 Northwest Lab. One of the things that would probably 2 help us somewhat would be to distinguish between the 3 cost and the burden associated with performing the 4 test andthe feasibilityoftheeconomicjustification 5 of the standard level that the 6.5 BTUs per hour per 6 square foot because it sounds like what you're saying 7 is that the 6.5 BTUs perhourper square foot which is 8 in the statute is actually not feasible. It's not a 9 question of not being able tomeasure it and that that 10 may be a useful thing as we're looking both at -- it 11 maybe useful as we're looking at the

-- as theASHRAE 12 amendments to the standards. 13 MR. RABA: First Michael, and Wilbur? 14 MR. MARTIN: Yes. A question as to 15 whether it's cost effective is one thing, but it's 16 certainlypossible to insulate it. I'm not sure what 17 the not feasible means. I did - - I had to leave 18 during part of what Wilbur said so I may have missed 19 out on an important part. I do think that where he 20 talked about different size connections from water 21 heaters and storage tanks that we ought to give them 22 flexibility on that. But certainly, I'm not clear 23 what "not feasible" means. I'm sure it can be done. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Wilbur. MR. HAAG: Well, I have

-- I don't have NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWW.nealrgross,com1:'1 1 firsthand knowledge because I wasn't present at A.O. 2 Smith at the time. However, what happened was in·the 3 1991 time frame when the controversy over 1.9 watts 4 per square foot was being raised, there was performed 5 a test on a 66 gallonelectricwaterheater and it was 6 insulated with foam insulation of that time to a 7 thickness. It was reported to me as 10 inches. It 8 required multiple foaming shots to get 10 inches of 9 foam insulation and it was not in the metal jacket 10 like would be expected of an electric water heater. 11 Itwas in a fiber jacket for expedience sake. It also 12 was not standing on any legs or feet. It was 13 suspended on a chain from a chain hoist. So it was 14 thoroughly insulated in all top andbottom and sides. 15 And the test results came close to 1.9 watts per 16 square foot, it actually came 1.91, still didn't make 17 the minimum that was proposed in the 1989 ASHRAE of 18 1.9. That's what I mean by "not feasible." 19 MR. MARTIN: I see. Bodh and I 20 incidentally went through much of the same type of 21 thing. We wrapped blankets andblankets so you could 22 look like a mummy and you knew there was a water 23 heater in there somehow and

-- but so what you're 24 saying is that this level of insulation in a storage 25 tank cannot be duplicatedwith a storage water heater

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 because of the losses that you get in 2 MR. HAAG: Penetration. 3 MR. MARTIN: Penetrations, yes. I see. 4 I understand. 5 MR. HAAG: Enough heat will leak out of 6 the piping to take care of the 1.9 watts per square 7 foot with

-- it hasn't been demonstrated that it's 8 possible by anybody that I know of to make that 9 MR. MARTIN: So your feeling is that the 10 EPACT level goes back to that to being equivalent to 11 that 1989 level that caused somuch commotion then and 12 later got modified. 13 MR. STANONIK: If you take 6.5 and just 14 divide it by the conversion

-- 15 MR. HAAG: 3.412-- 16 MR. STANONIK: BTUs per watts, you get 17 1.9. 18 MR. MARTIN: I understand. 19 MR. SUBHERWAL: Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 20 I think that realistically the number is more you can 21 get to as close to 3 watts per hour which is more like 22 3.2 and 3.2 you can get, but then you start going to 23 1.9. It's not practicable. 1.9 watts per square 24 foot, if you go back to 6.5, so it's not practicable. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. HAAG: And I don't believe anybodyhas NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com159 1 demonstrated that it's possible. 2 MR. SUBHERWAL: Right, and the only thing 3 we were able to do, if I recall it to the best of my 4 memory, I think the realistic number was more close 3 5 watts per hour, I'm sorry, 3 watts per square foot 6 which comes out to be 10 point something, 10.2. 7 MR. STANONIK: But for the sake of 8 discussion 9 MR. SUBHERWAL: It's not possible. 10 MR. STANONIK: But if I set up that water 11 heater and the mean tank temperature in the water 12 heater was -- I'm going to make up a number here, 85 13 and my ambient was 75, I could very possibly measure 14 a 1.9 watts per square foot with a water heater



## .. 15 insulated R-12 or whatever. 16 MR. SUBHERWAL: I think that's not my 17 intent. My intent is that this one here, R-12.5 is a 18 numberwhichprovidesyou the standbyloss or the heat 19 loss you are looking for. That's number one. 20 Number two, that 6.5 which is the 21 equivalent of the 1.9 watts per square foot is not 22 practical. Youknow, it'snot commerciallypractical. 23 If you change that number to 11 BTU, maybe, you know, 24 that's what you are looking at. But do you really 25 need that?

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.1.0V 1 MR. LEVY: Well, first of all, we can't 2 change it. Secondof all, how did it get into 90.1 if 3 it's impossible? 4 MR. SUBHERWAL: Go figure. 5 MR. MARTIN: I'mnot sure whether this is 6 appropriate, but let me just have two minutes to 7 explain it. 8 Thosepeopleareverygunghoaboutenergy 9 conservation made a proposal. Those who had to 10 actually manufacture it said you can't do that, but 11 they didn't tell us what else to do and consequently 12 something went in for electric water heaters that the 13 only argument was you can't do that and something had 14 to go in and that's what went in. It caused DOE to 15 get sued twice by the same trade association as well 16 as ASHRAE being sued and eventually Eric Lannix and I 17 got together and drafted out this table, 11.1 and 18 eventuallymanaged to sellthis toASHRAE andGAMA and 19 everybody else and but it was one of those 20 situatiohs where negotiations didn't happen. There 21 wasn't good faith between the various parties and it 22 was anunfortunate incident, but we've been on the up 23 and up ever since. 24 25 now.

(202) 234-4433 Haven't we, Frank? We talk to each other

NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. STANONIK: And it's very likely in 2 that whole thing the very minor issue of unfired 3 storage tanks was just overlooked. Nobody gets rich 4 selling unfired storage tanks. 5 MR. LEVY: Well, because then it was 6 compounded because it was enacted into law. 7 MR. MARTIN: That's true. Unfortunately, 8 the electric storage water heater level from 1989 did 9 not get -- well, I guess it did get into regulation. 10 Yeah, strike that. That's why you guys got sued as 11 well as everybody else. We've been working together 12 since then. 13 MR. RABA: Sounds good. Brad Hollomon? 14 MR. HOLLOMON: BradHollomon, PNNL. Since 15 we obviouslyhave a numberwhich is inthe statute and 16 the onlyplacewherewe have any flexibility is inthe 17 test procedure, since the test procedure doesn't 18 exist, shouldwe entertainsuggestions as towhat that 19 test procedure might be? I mean one of the things we 20 coulddO'is take the testprocedure that's inhere and 21 tell them to multiply by two at the end. That might 22 seem a little odd, but presumably that's something 23 which legally we could do. The other question would 24 be you know, is there some other way which by the 25 creative use of the test procedures solves the

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com162 1 problem. 2 MR. MARTIN: Couldwe get the heat source 3 from some otherwater heater and test the combination 4 of a let's sayan electric water heater and the 5 tank anddo the testjust of thewaterheater and then 6 the water heater and tank and come to the conclusion 7 by subtracting one from the other? 8 MR. HOLLOMON: This procedure will give 9 you a satisfactory answer. 10 MR. MARTIN: Well, we're not looking so 11 much for a satisfactory answer, but any answer at all 12 at the moment. That's something that could be done. 13 MR. HOLLOMON: Well, in this procedure it 14 will give you an answer. 15 MR. MARTIN: Well, this procedure says 16 yourproposal is one that these folks have shut out of 17 the air and shut out of the water, I mean, and or 18 shut the water out -- and I agree with them. 19 MR. HOLLOMON: What theydidwas they said 20 that the they didn't say that the test procedure 21 wouldn't work, ortheycouldn't performit. Theyjust 22 said that the standardwhich is in the law is not one 23 that's feasible to meet. 24 MR. MARTIN: I don't think that's right. 25 No, what they have said, you have said

--

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. HOLLOMON: I'mlooking at the nodding 2 of the head over there. 3 MR. MARTIN: You canmeet it for a storage 4 water heater. 5 MR. STANONIK: Not 1.9. Or 6.5, whatever 6 units you want to use. 7 MR. MARTIN: So

-- becauseyoudo have the 8 difference that you don't have the electric 9 connections to it which are part of it. 10 MR. STANONIK: I thinkWilbur'spoint was 11 that the feasibility of this requirement was resolved 12 for electric storage water heaters in Addendum B, by 13 whatever the standby loss formula came out, I don't 14 know rememberwhat itwas, okay? But I thinkWilbur's 15 point was that in that resolution as I mentioned the 16 unfired storage tank nobodypaid any attention to it 17 18 MR. MARTIN: That's true. 19 MR. STANONIK: Sono changewasmade. And 20 no corresponding change was made. 21 MR. MARTIN: Okay. 22 MR. STANONIK: Theanswertoyourquestion 23 is there may be a way to address it with appropriate 24 test procedure until other events overtake it or 25 something.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 MR. RABA: Well, good discussion, 2 gentlemen. Certainly, put that in written comments 3 and send it in. We'd be certainly most receptive to 4 hearing how to solve this. 5 Am I to conclude then we've covered both 6 these topics here, these checks

-- unfired storage 7 tank exemptions and the tank procedures both, at the 8 same time? 9 MR. STANONIK: I think so. 10 MR. RABA: Is that right? 11 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 12 MR. SUBHERWAL: Will you move your hand 13 here? 14 MR. RABA: So we covered two at one time. 15 Othertopics then? Californiahad something. Anybody 16 else? Other topics we should bring up? 17 California? 18 MR. MARTIN: We keep having this problem 19 aboutdefiningtestmethods fromtheresidentialwater 20 heaters and having the best method scope different 21 from the standard scope and there are some items that 22 are subject toNACAwhicharenot subject to the means 23 of testingwhichbrings an interestingquestion as to 24 whether they're federally preempted or not. But one 25 of those ones are ones that have a storage greater

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.Lb!:> 1 than 100 gallons and those have been treated by some 2 peopleas commercialequipment andtheyare subject to 3 the NACA definition for the standard, but not for the 4 test method. The GAMA directory has some of these 5 listed as though theywere commercial equipment and I 6 wonderedwhat the feelingwas about includingthose

-- 7 considering those to be part of this proceeding? 8 Input less than 65,000 BTU per hour, but volume 9 greater than 100 gallons. 75,000, excuse me. 10 MR. STANONIK: Less than 7S? 11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 12 MR. STANONIK: And holding more than 100 13 gallons. 14 MR. MARTIN: Uh-huh. 15 MR. STANONIK: Is this one of yours? 16 MR. HAAG: No. I don't know of any. 17 MR. MARTIN: These are ones that you had 18 in the GAMA directory for residential equipment and 19 then when we complained about it, you moved them, I 20 think, to the commercial. It would seem like if they 21 were going to be treated as commercial, despite the 22 fact they are less than 65, 75,000, they should be 23 included and actually there's no bottom limit in the 24 statute on definingwater heaters. The only limit is 25 that somewhere and I cannever find itwhen I want it,

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.Lbb 1 there's an indication that if it is covered by NACA 2 it's not covered by EPACT. So that's the only 3 restriction, but I would

-- well, have any objection 4 to including those in in this proceeding? 5 MR. STANONIK: Well, I don't have 6 particular knowledge about that model, but we'll 7 certainly into it and I can't answer your question, 8 Mike. I don't know if

-- let me put it this way, I'm 9 not sure why it

-- why itwouldbejustifiedeither as 10 a commercial product or as a residential. It's kind 11 of truthfully, kind of an odd combination of 12 characteristics and I guess I need to find out let's 13 see what need in the market the manufacturerbelieves 14 that product addresses. 15 MR. MARTIN: It'soneoftheseexamples of 16 putting too many restrictions in the regulation of 17 puttingthis

-- whenyouhada definition for basedon 18 input, add-in volumes and the definition. 19 There are some others that are less 20 obvious which are not clearly the very big ones, but 21 clearly we need to be

-- have a good understanding 22 when the final rule comes out as to exactlywhat fits 23 in what category and what I was planning to do in our 24 final comments is toput a table togetherof all these 25 borderlinethings and see ifwe canget agreementwith

(202)234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.J..U' 1 DOE staff as to which of them are consumer products 2 andwhichof themare commercialproducts andwhichof 3 them fall between the cracks and therefore are not 4 preempting of state standards. 5 I'll put that all together and we can 6 argue about it when we see what it looks like. 7 MR. RABA: Look forward to it, Michael, 8 thank you. Cyrus Nasseri. 9 MR. NASSERI: Michael, I don't see that 10 your question is more or less like where these 11 products fall as far as standards because it's a 12 commercial or -- 13 MR. MARTIN: Yes-- 14 MR. NASSERI: But what does that have to 15 do with the test procedure. 16 MR. MARTIN: If this under 75,000, over 17 100 gallon unit is a commercial unit, it's tested 18 accordingtothe Z21.10.3, ifit's a consumerproduct, 19 then it's tested according to the DOE test method. 20 MR. NASSERI: No. Inboth cases you have 21 the test procedures are very clear. It's justa 22 matter of identifying where this product is going to 23 fall. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. MARTIN: That's exactly my point. MR. STANONIK: But I believeMike's point NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com.LbCS 1 is that in terms of the residential test procedure 2 that product is kicked out because in the residential 3 test procedure the definition of gas storage water 4 heater includes a volume parameter of 100 gallons or 5 less. 6 MR. NASSERI: I understand. 7 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 8 MR. NASSERI: I understand. In one 9 categorybecause of the 75,000 falls under, under the 10 residential and then because of tank size and the 11 commercial, so I understand that, but my -- 12 MR. MARTIN: No, that's not right. It's 13 not because of tank size that's in the commercial. 14 The testmethod says it's

-- DOE says it'snot subject 15 toyourtest method, but DOE says it is subject to the 16 NACA standard. 17 So you've got tomeet a standardusing an 18 unspecified test method. 19 MR. NASSERI: That'swhat I said. This is 20 a standard issue and is the cover product under the 21 residential or commercial. But as far as the test 22 procedure is concerned it could be whatever is 23 determined what it is, could be tested. 24 MR. MARTIN: I think we're arguing the 25 same side of the deal. There's confusion that needs NEALR.GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.• NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com169 1 to be sorted out. 2 MR. STANONIK: We'llcallthemanufacturer 3 and tell him to increase the input by 15,000. 4 (Laughter.) 5 And not make these problems for us. 6 MR. MARTIN: It will squeeze the volume 7 down a little. 8 MR. STANONIK: Itmightbe easiertoraise 9 the inputs. 10 MR. RABA: It seems that we covered a lot 11 today, gentlemen. Good discussions. Certainly some 12 points have to be looked at further. 13 Is there anything else of either the 14 afternoonsessionorthemorning sessionthatneeds to 

## • 15 be brought back to light? We talked about 16 definitions, scope and coverage, test procedures and 17 the like for the boilers areas and the water heaters 18 areas. 19 Is there anybody else who would like to 20 speak or'comment? 21 I invite the chair to make any closing 22 remarks if this is the time. 23 MR. NASSERI: Well, on behalf of the 24 Department of Energy we really appreciate your 25 participation and I was expecting we are finishing

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com170 1 earlier andwe welcome your comments before the close 2 of October 23rd on these rules, boilers and water 3 heaters andyourcommentsobviouslywouldbeevaluated 4 andwouldbe veryhelpful for us to go forward for the 5 final rules and hoping usually from the period of 6 commentary, in a matter of five or six months we 7 publisha final rule, sowe are withinthe schedule of 8 our rule making and again, if anybody is here or is 9 interested on air conditioners and heat pumps, that 10 will be tomorrow andwe will continue our rule making lIon that subject tomorrow which is basically the ARI 12 product. 13 Thank you very much. 14 MR. RABA: If anybody has brought any 15 personal laptop computers or other special equipment, 16 you might need a property pass to leave the building 17 today, to go past security. 18 Please seeBrendaEdwards-Jones ormyself 19 after this. We can take care of you. 20 Again, thank you very much. It's been 21 good. 22 (Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the hearingwas 23 concluded.) 24 25

(202)234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com171 CERTIFICATE

This is to certifythat the foregoing transcript in the matter of:

Before:

Date:

Place: Public Hearing

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy September 20, 2000 Washington, DC

represents the full and complete proceedings of the aforementioned matter, typewriting. as reported and reduced to