EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

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. 

in Room lE-245 of the Department of Energy's Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 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. Smith Water Products Co. 

Gas Technology Institute 

Bock Water Heaters 

Energetics 

California Energy Commission 

Gas Appliance Manuf. Assoc. 

Ga Appliance Manuf. Assoc. 

BR Laboratories, Inc. 

Arthur O. Little 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

ALSO 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .. N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

I-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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

4 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 (9:13 a.m.) 

3 MR. NASSERI: Will you please be 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 I s 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 looks like he's going into the corner there. And I am 

2 the Presiding Officer for this public hearing. 

3 On behalf of the Department, I would like 

4 to thank you all for taking the time to participate in 

5 this public hearing. 

6 As published in Federal Register notice of 

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, it might be during last this morning 

25 or this afternoon, depending when we finish this first 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II o 

1 subject, we will cover commercial water heaters, hot 

2 water supply boilers, and unfired hot water storage 

3 tanks. At that time, after an opportunity for general 

4 statements, we will again start with the definition 

5 and coverage issues. We will then hear and discuss 

6 comments you have on specific test procedure issues on 

7 this product, hot water supply boilers and unfired hot 

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 other issues that you bring up related to the proposed 

12 rule for these products. 

13 Your comments today and during the written 

14 comment period will assist the Department in preparing 

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, this has it in the proposed rule, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 in Room 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 conducted in accordance with the following procedures: 

14 We will begin with introductions and then proceed to 

15 short introductory presentations from people 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, and you will have an opportunity 

24 to provide more detailed comments on the specific 

25 issues. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 Please limit your questions ~:m the opening 

2 presentation to general points so that we can provide 

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 The public 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 written comments and data 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

9 

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 start with 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? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

J.U 

1 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly with Gas 

2 Appliance Manufacturers Association. 

3 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with the Gas 

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: Bob Hemphill, 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: John Busch, 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: Michael McCabe, Department of 

25 Energy. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.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: Brenda Edwards-Jones, 

9 Building Research and Standards. 

10 MS. BEALL: Sandy, DOE. 

11 MR. RABA: Thank you, Sandy. 

12 Has everybody filled 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 new people -- too loud? Yes, it's the best 

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 

For the record and for the court reporter, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 something else that comes up, we want to put 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 no personal at tacks. Let's focus on the future, where 

13 we're going with the standards, the test procedures, 

14 those kinds of things too. 

15 Let's limit the side bar 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 each person to speak. So, if you just 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 try to make it look easy, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

13 

1 Department can hear 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 can go downstairs, walk the full length 

14 of the building and back up the escalators. Some have 

15 been here before. You can follow the leader on that 

16 one. Street vendors are available, and the snack bar, 

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, and you 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 If there's any confidential information to 

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 this particular hearing. We are certainly 

12 pleased to receive your comments, your views, your 

13 statements, your data, and want to hear from everybody 

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 early on or some other limiting factor that they could 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

16 

1 Seeing no changes at this time, let's 

2 proceed on then too. 

3 Are there any additional items, just maybe 

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's hearing? Anything else you want 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 from also you who are attending the 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II .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'm Dick Topping, Arthur D. 

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: How many DOE persons does 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 would be the 

19 general topics under commercial packaged boilers 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? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.Lts 

1 MR. MARTIN: I was a little confused 

2 COURT REPORTER: Could you speak closer to 

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 way to 

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 in what you're saying. This is just 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 and the scope of coverage for the package, 

25 commercial boilers. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 They include the items, method of 

2 assembly, application, capacity, and operating 

3 characteristics. In the method of assembly, DOE is 

4 proposing a definition under which boilers are covered 

5 whether they are factory assembled, assembled by a 

6 distributor or installer with manufacturer-specified 

7 components, which means the model number and the type 

8 of boiler and the burners, everything according to 

9 manufacturer specifications, all that can be assembled 

10 with components, which is not specified by the 

11 manufacturers. 

12 For example, the cast iron boilers, 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 is proposing that the 

17 rule would cover all commercial boilers distributed to 

18 a significant extent for use in heating and service 

19 water heating only, which means it is not for boilers 

20 that are used for utility purpose, power generation 

21 purpose or processing heat. 

22 Capacity - - DOE has proposed that the rule 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 an upper limit, because the limit can go 

7 all the way up to 100 million Btu per hour, and DOE is 

8 interested in establishing an upper 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 second item is test procedure and test 

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 also proposed that 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 The specified condition means that they' 11 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

21 

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 manufacturer would use the abbreviate efficiency 

7 test method of the ASME PTC 4.1 with provisions for 

8 the steam pressure. If it's steam boiler or hot 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 in establishing 

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 condi tions. There's a particular class of boiler that 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 is designed -- supposed to be designed for low-water 

2 temperature applications. Example, the boiler water 

3 temperature never go beyond 140 degrees or below. For 

4 this type of boiler, DOE proposes that manufacturers 

5 would use the Hydronics Institute HI-1989 standard for 

6 all low pressure steam and hot water boilers, in this 

7 case, really just for hot water boilers. And no 

8 special provision for boiler water inlet and outlet 

9 temperature, which means the boiler will be tested the 

10 same as any other low pressure boilers. 

11 And the test procedure and test condition 

12 for condensing boilers, DOE proposed that the Hydronic 

13 Institute HI-1989 be used for condensing boilers with 

14 a special provision made for boiler water temperature, 

15 since for condensing boiler inlet water temperature is 

16 mostly significant affecting the efficiency rating. 

17 So, DOE has a special provision as specified for 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 The test procedure condition for modular 

2 boilers and multiple boilers. For modular boilers, 

3 which by definition means that all the boilers in the 

4 system is composed of the same module with an input of 

5 400,000 Btu per hour input or less. 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, provided all the modules are the same, designed 

11 the same, same modules. 

12 And for multiple boiler systems, they can 

13 have different capacity boiler 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 boiler that is designed for use 

20 for both 'steam application or can also be used for hot 

21 water application. DOE proposed that if manufacturer 

22 is going to have a single rating, then the rating must 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 statements and additional topics into some context 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 should mention 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 would agree that's right, 

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 gi ve general support to what 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 thing when you tell them what to do, and that's 

18 needed; the other thing is that we need to -- 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 to make 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

26 

1 We, in California, have been. reworking our 

2 appliance regulations with the concept that people who 

3 want to know what the rules are what they apply to are 

4 going to have the regulations and nothing else. And 

5 I would urge you, as you look at these regulations, to 

6 assume that the people who are reading them don't have 

7 Stan's explanation. They don't have the preamble that 

8 is published in the Federal Register, but just the 

9 regulations. 

10 And that this, therefore, means that you 

11 need to avoid vague terms, undefined terms. You need 

12 to be very specific about defining the scope, and you 

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 consumer product, and beyond that it is a commercial 

22 product. In California, we avoid using these terms 

23 all together, because they're application terms. 

24 It does bring up a question that needs to 

25 be made clear in all the scope situations that what 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 happens to a boiler that is used in a commercial 

2 application but has a very small input . or 

3 alternatively has 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 to make 

8 this abundantly clear. 

9 And it's important to us in California, 

10 because we want to follow your example, 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: Thank you, Michael. Those are 

19 the statements from the persons who submitted -- or 

20 person who submitted a prepared statement ahead of 

21 time. Anybody else who would like to make 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 on our agenda and see 

25 which ones that we'd like to cover. And let's strike 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II "'0 

1 out those that maybe we don't want to cover. 

2 The agenda on boilers. A show of 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 very much; 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

29 

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 see two 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: They had a significant comment 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

30 

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: GAMA has a comment about the PTe 

11 that's going to be used. 

12 MR. STANONIK: Oh, okay. See, I've 

13 categorized that in a 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, minor point that we'll 

23 talk about. 

24 MR. RABA: Testing and rating steam in hot 

25 water boilers. Nobody? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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: Michael Martin. I'm not sure 

8 if you've got it mentioned 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 should be addressed under 

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 had asked. That might be the appropriate 

23 place to bring that up. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. RABA: Frank. 

MR. STANONIK: Seeing Stan go through the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 going to test boilers up to whatever 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's written to say at this size it will be 

16 tested after installed, and the, I don't know what you 

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 included that in that boiler operation 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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: And as an example, it might 

8 even be a question of -- well, you've got a lot of 

9 issues then when you're testing in the field. You may 

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, firing up 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 corrections of the HI standard test procedure, general 

19 questions regarding the rule and field testing. 

20 Also, proceeding on, on the part 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

34 

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 their general statements on boilers and boiler topics, 

7 if they would like to speak at this time. 

8 Michael, are you one that wanted to speak 

9 on this? 

10 And any others? Just let me see to get an 

11 idea. 

12 MR. MARTIN: I'd like to participate, but 

13 I I m not sure that I want I I m going 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 read these. It would be nice if we had a break before 

23 we finished on boilers so that we could look through 

24 GAMA's stuff. It's big blocks of type, and it's hard 

25 to read and listen at the same time. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE .• NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 MR. RABA: Okay. We'll do that. 

2 Anybody else like to make a general 

3 statement? 

4 Let's proceed then 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 should specify input rating of 300,000 Btu per hour 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 clarify this, Frank. 

25 The EPACT refers to capacity. The ASHRAE standard 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 evaluated or 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 would encourage you 

12 to clarify that, because in my mind, without question, 

13 that's what it is. Because if you output 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 to roughly 375,000 Btu per hour, and that 

18 won't be covered by any federal regulation. 

19 MR. NASSERI: I realize that. That's the 

20 reason we have to look at it, because depending on the 

21 efficiency of the boiler, that would be the difference 

22 between the input and output. 

23 MR. STANONIK: Yes, whatever it was, I did 

24 it wrong in my head. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. NASSERI: That's fine, 20 percent is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• N.W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II ..:; I 

1 fine adding to the capacity. But this is something 

2 that we have to look at carefully, and as I said, 

3 capaci ty - - and I notice in your directories you refer 

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'm saying the 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 there would see capacity and think rated -- I'm sorry, 

23 would think input. And those are not the same two 

24 numbers. And if we go with the output interpretation, 

25 then you've got a hole in the federal regulations, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 which no one intended, in terms of something that 

2 wouldn't be covered either by make 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, your recommendation is that 

10 for this purpose the capacity be construed as 

11 referring to input. 

12 MR. STANONIK: Our recommendation would in 

13 fact say input rating. 

14 MR. MATTINGLY: Not construed, just put it 

15 in the regulation. 

16 MR. LEVY: Well, yes. If we put it in the 

17 regulation, that means we're construing the statute as 

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 only way that we 

23 have to look at it is that what EPACT said capacity 

24 indeed means input, 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. RABA: I see three persons who request 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 should be input 

8 followed capacity. Clears everything, nothing is out. 

9 Capacity will be always treated as 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 been what is being preempted 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 Policy Act, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 instead of capacity to input by itself. 

12 But the standards will make it which will probably 

13 take care of this issue. 

14 MR. RABA: Thank you, B.J. 

15 Is that covered fairly well, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

41 

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 mean within the program that we run for 

8 commercial boilers, if the manufacturer - - well, let' s 

9 say if there is an alternative burner that can be used 

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 But the idea that somehow there'd be 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.. in the preamble, and I would commend your attention to 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

42 

1 But I would commend your attention to the 

2 preamble, and if you think that there are problems 

3 wi th our analysis and approach there, I would urge you 

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 or that are assembled in 

8 accordance with its specifications. But that even if 

9 a product that you would classify as a package boiler 

10 is not assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's 

11 specifications as to the components, it's still a 

12 covered product. It still fits within the definition. 

13 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

14 In that case, if you had a situation like that and you 

15 found there was a violation, who would the 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 attention to as to whether or 

24 not you think that's appropriate or whether we need to 

25 do anything to amplify that or implement it. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

43 

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 contractor will 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, then he would have to -- he would 

9 be responsible for the testing, which the boiler 

10 manufacturers who are having their burners pulled out 

11 and other things put in instead would probably welcome 

12 the coverage. But I sense that's covered in the 

13 regulations the way they're written by the 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: Is there anything actually in 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

44 

1 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 

2 MR. LEVY: You start to reach the question 

3 as to how many different situations you want to expand 

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, every time when a new burner is put in, it is 

10 always tested in 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, in other parts of the country I won't be 

15 able to say that. But I think as a normal procedure 

16 is that whenever a component or a burner is changed or 

17 is installed in the field, a test is always run. 

18 For example, we always know that whenever, 

19 apart from this issue, that whenever oil-fired boilers 

20 are used, they're always adjusted in the field. 

Zl MR. LEVY: They're always what? 

22 MR. SUBHERWAL: They're always tested and 

23 adjusted. It's a procedure. 

24 

25 boilers, 

(202) 234-4433 

Second thing is when we are looking at the 

we are talking now that wherever a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323' RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

45 

1 manufacturer supplies everything but the burner and 

2 the burner is installed in the field, it is always 

3 tested, tested to a condition, whereby you are looking 

4 at what kind of combustion connector sticks out. And 

5 if you are checking temperature and all that, you are 

6 just following almost the procedure, which HI -198 9 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 definition of manufacturer or perhaps a definition of, 

21 off the top of my head, field assembler that 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

46 

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'd rather not create a special definition 

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's distributor. So, I think the 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

47 

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 would support having a definition of 

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 with me, 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

48 

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 to put the label on that 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 responsibility of conducting a test as well as putting 

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 manufacturer of the equipment or on his own he can put 

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; the other one is the burner manufacturer 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

49 

1 also has its own name plate data. The burner 

2 manufacturer has its own rating and all 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 believe that was 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 Btu per hour or less, that you would certainly get 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

50 

1 commercial buildings. It would also cover the boilers 

2 that could be tested to the HI test procedure and for 

3 the most part could be tested in a laboratory setting. 

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 just move into this transition where parts are brought 

8 together, the components are brought together, and the 

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, if you will, one of the, 

17 I would say, criteria or desired characteristics of 

18 why the person purchased this size boiler. 

19 The other point that we didn't put in here 

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 building a new building, and I'm talking about 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

51 

1 Btu per hour, in fact, let's say outside of a 

2 completely new building situation, very often when you 

3 get to somewhere down the road making replacements, 

4 they don't pullout the whole thing. They either put 

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 think that the limiting applicability of 

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 little back-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 operating at, I'd say, nominally, about 80 percent 

24 combustion efficiency, and this was back-of-the25 envelope, but that thing -- that boiler is going to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

52 

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 to pump 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 in terms 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 you might use in a district heating 

17 application or something. In any event, we think that 

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. Stanley Liu, 

22 NIST. I have a question for Frank. 

23 MR. STANONIK: -Yes. 

24 MR. LIU: In the GAMA's directory, 

25 Hydronic Institute directory, the boiler capacity was 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

53 

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 you know, the HI program 

14 has been around for a long time, and without question, 

15 there's probably models that have, especially in those 

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 certain manufacturers, and I think those are probably 

2'1 specifically cast iron units, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

It's listed 

www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

54 

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 in their offerings, and they can give you 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 the right word would be, you're dealing with a 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 say you can assume or you can make 

24 a projection of the efficiency. That's got a lot of 

25 experience behind it. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

55 

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 listing with a ten million Btu or a 12 million 

12 Btu boiler, truthfully, I'd have go back and talk with 

13 the folks at now CSA International, formerly AJ Labs, 

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 dealing with 

20 a family of models, because it -- well, it's just good 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

56 

1 how you do the business. 

2 But we can go back, because I don't know 

3 the answer to really what happens or what has happened 

4 even in the past at AJ Labs when they had 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 information they provide, as well as anything that you 

25 may have done to verify or make your own assessment of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

57 

1 the ratings in these large units, that it would be 

2 helpful to us. 

3 I do have -- somebody has 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 higher than eight million Btu when they are steel-tube 

12 boilers. Steel-tube boilers have been built 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 are below 

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 rarely wanted to test in their own lab more than 

25 five or six million Btu boiler. And if that wasn't a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

58 

1 need, they will go to a manufacturer and test. 

2 However, steel-tube boilers have been very 

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, you mentioned 

9 Frank Stanonik with GAMA - - you mentioned that 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 used just for 

13 space conditioning? 

14 MR. SUBHERWAL: They're used in more 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, they will 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 hard water supplies feeding boilers, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

59 

1 going, where copper-tube boilers are going, where the 

2 cast iron boilers 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, number one -- 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 established eight million Btu that Frank is presenting 

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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

60 

1 scope of this public hearing is packaged boilers, and 

2 maybe even legislation came to existence t because 

3 somebody recognized the fact that for packaged 

4 boilers, by definition of the Energy Policy Act, 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 and changes in ASHRAE 90.1 and they get to 

13 the point that ASHRAE 90.1-99 has not done anything to 

14 the packaged boilers, and how can we go ahead and talk 

15 about upper limits and how we are going to make any 

16 kind of decision? 

17 Again, our Council here is going to review 

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 think he is correct in what 

24 he says. I haven't checked it, however, this hearing 

25 today is not based on what was done in 1999 by ASHRAE. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

61 

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 packaged boilers, 

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 situation that where you put in the 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

62 

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 packaged boilers 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 practical problem in as much 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 this group and, let's say, the compliance requirements 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

63 

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, and keeping in mind as you pointed out, 

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 section which you 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .. N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

64 

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 distributed for those applications 

17 or for service water heating, which I think is a minor 

18 consideration here, but if the product is not 

19 distributed for those applications then it doesn't fit 

20 within our definition and consequently is not subject 

2·1 to the test procedure requirements 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 light of these limitations that doesn't that deal with 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

65 

1 a significant element of your concern here? 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 hopefully get them to see how that all creates the box 

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: Let me reinforce the point that 

18 I think you identified as significant in talking about 

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 should DOE address those products, because our 

25 view would be clearly they are covered as been pointed 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

66 

1 out time and again? There is not explicit or even 

2 implicit for that matter, upper limit on coverage, 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 would beg to differ with 

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 subj ect of an 

25 earlier hearing which the over arching definitions 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

67 

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 The reason that's there 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 commercial products instead of defining the same terms 

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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II 00 

1 MR. MARTIN: I guess I'm not getting my 

2 point across. I can repeat it five times and say why 

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 with these numerical values, it is a confusion factor. 

8 MR. LEVY: Yes, I don't remember precisely 

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 should be repeated herein as well as in each 

14 product definition, that's a reasonable comment you 

15 can make, and we can decide whether to follow that or 

16 keep it in one place. 

17 What I would urge you to do in formulating 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

69 

1 remember which is always dangerous - - but if the 

2 definition is based on the application rather than the 

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 when you - - I wasn't here when the discussion happened 

10 -- this comes from the previous rule on furnace and 

11 compliance enforcement for the HVAC and water 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 probably one of the reasons that the definition can be 

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 involved here. 

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 time we have a definition, we have defined them 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

·/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 still on definitions. 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., and went back on 

19 the record at 11:09 a.m.) 

20 MR. RABA: We're missing a couple, but 

21 let's get started anyway, or restarted. I think we'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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

71 

1 on test procedures for boilers? 

2 MR. MARTIN: Yes, GAMA has a proposal 

3 about a new test method, and I would appreciate 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 to what this BTS-2000 will look like, 

10 and it will, in essence, our intent would certainly be 

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 problem in that it's us. It's in our staff's hands 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 would have 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 to have the words on paper the BTS-2000 so that we can 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

72 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

/:5 

1 except for some of the points that have been raised by 

2 NIST to resolve some differences between how a 

3 let's say a gas atmospheric boiler gets tested and how 

4 an oil fired or powered gas burner boiler gets 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 and how 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: This would be, if you will, 

21 the logical updating and the next edition or whatever. 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

74 

1 MR. STANONIK: Right. Obvi~usly, at some 

2 appropriate scheduled time, yes. 

3 MR. LEVY: Okay. I mean, I'm asking these 

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'm trying 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 the process of the 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 intending to change anything except to address some of 

24 the anomalies that need to be resolved, I don't see it 

25 as a significantly different test procedure, so I 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II I:;;) 

1 don't see what should prevent us from implementing it 

2 with all practical speed. 

3 MR. NASSERI: Following up on this, 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 stack temperatures and certain other issues that 

13 I brought to the attention of you by email, and I'm 

14 still looking forward to see a reply and see what 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, obviously what they would see 

20 as a revised HI document -- you call it BTS-2000 --

21 and hopefully by 2000 means the year 2000, that you're 

22 going to have this published. It would be 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

76 

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 the points you had made in the information we 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 efficiency might 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 also would ask that if this arrives 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

77 

1 at DOE in the last day of the comment period, that 

2 those others of us who have an interest in it would be 

3 given an extension to comment on that particular item. 

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 adopted or incorporated by reference or 

15 adopted before final action is taken by the institute 

16 on it? 

17 MR. STANONIK: I'll turn that around -- I 

18 mean, because the philosophical answer to your 

19 question would be no. But I'll turn it around and say 

20 we will not submit it as part of our comments to DOE 

21 unless we're certain that it will be the new procedure 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 MR. MARTIN: Your written comments do 

2 recommend that the DOE uses this so -- do they not 

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 And again, I am confident that when we 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 to be 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

79 

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 like you 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 issue of HIBTS-2000 and give us some feeling when this 

22 document -- the final version of this standard as 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II ov 

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 deleted as an option or alternative test procedure 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 low pressure boilers, 

23 steel or cast iron or other types? 

24 We put that one in, because during the 

25 workshop, some people say they don't know what HI-1989 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

81 

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 our members perspective, I'd say they 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 and white when you 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 primarily field assembled boilers, and there is a gray 

18 zone in there, all right? 

19 From my members' perspect i ve , 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 Our preference would be - - and that's part 

2 of the reason for setting some defined Btu 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 field procedure. 

9 But in either event, we don't think PTC 

10 4.1 is the right one any more. 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 field parameters or what 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 would be 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'm going to tell you it's going to be in the millions 

22 of Btu, and that anything below that we would say you 

23 don't have that option. They are not equal 

24 procedures. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. LIU: You're going to put that in your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

83 

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 Associations that probably have more interest in this, 

8 and had, and unfortunately they're not here today so 

9 we can hear their point 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 seen them, and we would like to touch bases 

15 with them and get their opinion and their side of 

16 or their viewpoints as far as the manufacturers of 

17 their member's manufacturers who are using - - if there 

18 is such a thing using ASME PTC 4.1. 

19 And I assume that you don't mind that your 

20 comments'obviously is a public document for anybody to 

21 look at it, but make sure we get their comments and 

22 input on this issue even before we make basically make 

23 a decision on this document or follow up to our final 

24 rue. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. RABA: Go ahead Brad, please. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

84 

1 MR. HOLLOMON: In preparing the comments, 

2 one of the things that would probably help us a little 

3 bit if somebody hasn't already explained this 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 particularly valuable 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 either equivalent in the sense that 

10 they lead to equal results or are not. 

11 And in the case of your newer HI standard, 

12 if there were evidence supporting the fact that you 

13 got the same answer, perhaps with greater precision 

14 and less scatter or something of that kind, that would 

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 it would be useful to have some evidence to 

25 that effect that it is not true. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

85 

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 suggested my 

7 NIST, the BTS-2000 will provide the same result 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 issues that we shouldn't have. And we're 

11 backing off of that. 

12 The second hardest part is whether PTC 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 think we can nonetheless probably identify some of 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

86 

1 MR. LIU: Stanley Liu, NIST. I talked to 

2 one of the manufacturers that make both cast iron 

3 boiler and steel boilers, and I asked him 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 there was 

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: Stanley Liu. 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 and it covers everything. And I couldn't even pick up 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

/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's possible, 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 just want to raise 

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 standard has 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 it brings up the question as to who is 

25 to choose which alternative it is. And if I go to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

88 

1 Bodh and ask him to test something, do I tell him what 

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's possible, and have for any specific piece 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, the way the proposed rule 

15 is framed, the option is with the manufacturer. In 

16 other words, the rule basically permits 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

89 

1 MR. RABA: Further comments or discussion 

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 method and identify which they are and which should be 

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's not 

2i clearly not 100 percent, but to a large extent, if I 

22 understand it right, you're basically looking at cast 

23 iron is predominantly used-in gas powered products. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. MARTIN: Okay. 

MR. STANONIK: And 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

steel boiler 

www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

90 

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 sizes they typically offer dual fuel things anyhow for 

7 the flexibility. 

8 MR. MARTIN: Maybe I should withdraw 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 may be your hand to card anyhow, but as you defined it 

18 up there, or as you explained it, it specifically said 

19 DOE proposes modular boiler system with identical 

20 individual modular boilers lasted 400,000 Btu per hour 

21 input rating. 

22 From DOE's perspective, if I chose to 

23 create a modular boiler sys,tem using boilers 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE" NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

91 

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 really don't know if you need this 

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 in my face, okay. 

23 (Laughter) 

24 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Stan. 

25 MR. LIU: It says individual modules shall be limited 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

92 

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: Thank you 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 back when the boilers were looked 

24 at and certain sizes based on and controlled based on 

25 their design itself that you will always look at 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

93 

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 stay as long as boilers are there. You should have 

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, if you took the 

22 400,000 Btu out, it wouldn't change the world, because 

23 ASME, which everybody has to comply with in the boiler 

24 business would still restrict that application. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. LEVY: Right. Well, that was sort of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

94 

1 my thinking, Frank, is that the DOE probably ought to 

2 just be neutral and then whatever is subject to that 

3 standard would be subject to it in whatever 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 modular boilers be tested differently 

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 it just 

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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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: And we don't need to actually 

7 say in the regulations anything specifically about 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 to be 

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 certainly to clarify that so it's not a roundabout but 

25 it is roundabout so we're going to have to get there. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

96 

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 participants in the earlier Workshop so the Department 

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 is not referenced in the 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

It's in the 

www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

97 

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: Thank you. 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 specified by the manufacturer. In 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

98 

1 addition, are there any others based on the discussion 

2 you've heard, that we should add to 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 then we 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, or have something to add. Thank you. 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 cover what we are trying to do, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

99 

1 because they need to manufacture, produce or assemble 

2 or import, and that we interpreted the assemble in the 

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 question of commercially treated HVAC 

7 and water heating product, that is in the omnibus 

8 definitions for what it's worth. It means any article 

9 of a type which meets the statutory definition of 

10 covered equipment 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 appreciate you bringing it 

in. I shouldn't suggest that you're to blame for 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

100 

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, this might be an appropriate 

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 would you like to do? Would you 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 assuming I yes, because 

25 there's no one who has spoken up further 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

101 

1 MR. MARTIN: Okay. 

2 MR. RABA: - - of what's been 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, and we'd like 

7 to go through these to see where there may be comments 

8 or statements that would be then presented and topics 

9 aired. Or if there is any we don't need to discuss, 

10 but that it's pretty evident that we should just move 

11 on. Let's take a look, gather your thoughts for a 

12 moment. And these are the commercial water heaters, 

13 hot water supply boilers, hot water 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 the umbrella for test procedures, and then 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

102 

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 instantaneous water heaters, hot water supply boilers, 

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, California Energy Commission had a 

15 comment on the instantaneous water heaters, hot water 

16 supply boilers, GAMA, and the California Energy 

17 Commission had comments on California Energy had a 

18 comment on boiler 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

103 

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, those are related 

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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

104 

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: And we'll be back at exactly 

MR. RABA: 1:00, 1300 hours. 

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 

the record at 11:58 a.m. and went back on 

the record at 1:10 p.m.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

105 

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 any general 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'm going to run through the 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 water heaters 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

106 

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 water heater supply boilers where it's 

8 noted that ASHRAE standard 90.1-1989 version, 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 Addendum N be implemented on hot water supply boilers. 

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't propose the test 

17 procedure at this point. ASHRAE is revising standards 

18 118.1 which will be addressing heat pump water heaters 

19 and at that point ultimately DOE will act on what the 

20 ASHRAE committee comes up with. 

21 These heat recovery water heaters are also 

22 not addressed within the proposed rule, based on the 

23 legislation not providing standards or test procedures 

24 for these particular products. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

And so moving on to the actual test 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

107 

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 of Addendum N of ASHRAE 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 requirement based on capacity of the units and in 

17 terms of the test procedure for the lower capacity 

18 tanks, DOE is proposing a stand-by loss test performed 

19 on equivalent and quote electric storage tank. So 

20 that's a quick version. 

21 We'll go from there. 

22 MR. RABA: Thank you, Andy. Looking over 

23 some of the statements that were submitted earlier, I 

24 note one from -- or comments that were submitted, note 

25 one from California Energy Commission. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

I note one 

www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

108 

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: Only to say that the comments 

12 that I made about general support and the assumption 

13 that the reader of the regulations has nothing but the 

14 regulations and the necessity therefore of being, 

15 having complete and clear regulations 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 12.5 million and of at 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

109 

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 interj ect 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, bu t Addendum N 

9 specifically identifies that the requirements for the 

10 efficiency - - separate efficiency requirements for hot 

11 water supply boilers apply where it is used solely for 

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'm not suer whether that needs to 

15 -- well, I was going to ask whether it needed to be 

16 identified in the definition, but probably not because 

17 it's a question of coverage, not definition. 

18 MR. LEVY: Frank, if I can address 

19 actually both of those points. On the first one, we, 

20 as set forth in the preamble, 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

110 

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 actually has prescribed 

10 input ratios for hot water supply boilers to which the 

11 Z21.10. 3 requirements would apply. So we 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 water supply boilers are delineated by how the product 

19 is actually used 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

111 

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 very point, 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't overall. It was 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WW>N. nealrgross. com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

112 

1 concern on hot water supply boilers ~as the input 

2 rating, the 4, 000 BTU per hour per gallon adding that. 

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 several different points that Frank is making. 

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's nothing to be gained by leaving it in 

15 there. I do believe that most of these things do have 

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 -- as we analyze it, it carved out 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

113 

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're not included within the delineation of 

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 it would put them back 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 item that 

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 read that as referring to an application 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 that maybe you don'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 reason why there should be 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 allow us to make alterations in the delineation of the 

16 product for which the standards are changed. 

17 MR. MARTIN: Presumably, if we can provide 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.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 level of thermal efficiency would be warranted, 

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 applied to some larger range of products. 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 instantaneous water heaters, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

116 

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 on page 2, 

8 I talked about this water heater supply boiler and was 

9 pointed out to me before the meeting I corrected one 

10 editorial error by making another one and the 

11 intention of these in parentheses 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, if we're talking about 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 for these boosters heaters which are heaters 

23 that take hot water and make it scalding hot water for 

24 use in commercial dish washers. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. RABA: Cyrus? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

117 

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, actually I think you used 

6 the term instantaneous in talking about the high 

7 temperatures. And actually, the term instantaneous 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 you have explained that you believe that water heaters 

12 designed to raise the water temperature 180 degrees 

13 and higher are included. And there is a new method of 

14 test for those which I would recommend that you 

15 reference. 

16 MR. RABA: Other comments on instantaneous 

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 and WH product or 

25 something. But I guess I would just caution that the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.L.Lts 

1 thing we were concerned about that needs to be 

2 addressed is that if you talk instantaneous water 

3 heaters and you just talk about 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 qualified by a 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II ll~ 

1 into the scheme of federal regulation, but the booster 

2 heater that's been specifically developed to be -- to 

3 either be or become an integral part of a commercial 

4 dishwasher is a fairly recently developed product 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, in years past for a long time, there have been 

9 many commercial water heaters that with some change in 

10 the controls were installed to provide booster water 

11 heating for a commercial kitchen, so those products, 

12 those products are - - did do booster heating. 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 either make clear those aren't any different than the 

16 water heaters you're regulating right now. They just 

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 necessary in defining what is covered by that and what 

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 the existing test procedures. The booster heater that 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

120 

1 Mike is referencing, I believe, I'm not 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 developed of the ASTM standard is redundant 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 incoming water or 70 degree incoming water 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 cold water, its controls would be changed or 

23 otherwise adjusted so that it would give 180 plus hot 

24 water into whatever was dishwasher, whatever. But 

25 in all other shape and form, it was the same water 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE .. N.w. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 The other thing, 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 the ASTM 

12 type booster water heater has the capability to handle 

13 70 degree incoming water and heat it -- if it has the 

14 capability, to heat it to 140, then in a 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. ) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

122 

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 water I 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 their boiler heat exchanger as the water enters 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 and that's the way you are evaluating. So just to 

2 clarify that that there are procedures which 'are 

3 existing and maybe this procedure is parallel to it or 

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 instantaneous water 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 that might not have intended to be 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 covered and that they are tested using the 

17 test procedures for water heaters. There's not a 

18 separate procedure, but what we're hearing here is 

19 that maybe there's a need to look at this ASTM 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'm right in saying that the 

25 standards 

(202) 234-4433 

apply universally to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

storage and 

www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

124 

1 instantaneous and when you put the two together it 

2 covers everything. 

3 I have to look carefully and see if that's 

4 the case. If that is the case we really don't have to 

5 define either storage or instantaneous because between 

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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

125 

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 water heaters. 

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: Dick Topping. Mike, are you 

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 would suspect that 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 they value it, the water heaters as 

7 booster water 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 relationship between the two. My written request 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

127 

1 MR. MARTIN: I think I already covered it. 

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 exception that 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 connected to the DOE 

10 adoption of Addendum N which would establish on a 

11 federal basis efficiency requirements 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 and test 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

128 

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 explained clearly 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 test procedures and we were using this rule making 

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 specifically mention these hot water supply boilers 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 .1N and it moved rather faster. Consequently 

23 

24 MR. LEVY: Didn't the statute precede that 

25 addendum by about 5 years? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

129 

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 if you wish. 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 identify that, 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, Frank and I and the organizations that 

25 we work for that it would be very nice to have heat 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .. NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

130 

1 pump water heaters in here but that ther~ isn't a test 

2 method. There's one under development and when that 

3 actually happens that would be the time to do it, but 

4 leaving it out as you've done now seems to be 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-fired water heaters and I think Wilbur 

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's go to gas 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 shorten that test to 24 hours and some other 

25 changes, but that was probably the most significant 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

..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 then was a percent per hour that it really 

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 show up is actually a commercial water heater that may 

11 have a mechanical draft system on it and still have a 

12 standing pilot, what we found is the way the test, the 

13 standby loss is written it says the first cut out of 

14 the thermostat after 24 hours. I guess by 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 'flow of air through the unit, in essence, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

132 

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 other thing here is if you go back 

12 to referencing or using the 1998 edition with that 

13· slight modification, in a way it certainly won't be 

14 any different than the procedure you were 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: ·Submi t ted a review to the 

24 committee. Any idea when this committee is going to -

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

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

133 

1 standby loss and period of 48 hours or related things? 

2 Any idea when this is going to be? 

3 MR. STANONIK: I could give you a 

4 proj ection. I mean it just got adopted for review and 

5 comment so if it went out to review and comment 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 probably next summer. It probably wouldn't get 

9 approved by the Z21 committee until 2002. So you 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 referencing the August 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 standard by 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

134 

1 reference this latest standard at that point which is 

2 not a final version? 

3 MR. STANONIK: No, no, no, no. I'm saying 

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 and you 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 from the standard 

14 

15 MR. STANONIK: Right, you have to write 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 efficiency that will 

25 in fact 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

135 

1 MR. STANONIK: No, this is only the 

2 standby loss procedure and so this procedure still the 

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 -day test probably shouldn' t make any difference, but 

15 it just becomes a significantly burdensome test 

16 because I just tied up a test facility for six days 

17 and literally the 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 think you're going to find any opposition to it. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

136 

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 Are there particular products that could be identified 

12 or types of products that could be identified to which 

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've been given examples of 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

137 

1 MR. LEVY: The other thing is the burden 

2 of quantifying that, is that possible to any extent. 

3 You mentioned tying up a test facility in terms 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: Mike Martin. 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 very many. In most cases, it wouldn't make any 

13 

14 MR. RABA: Dick Topping? 

15 MR. TOPPING: Yes sir. Frank, this might 

16 be a dumb question. I'm trying to remember how the 

17 test was done, but don't you need that 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 watch myself 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

138 

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, technologies have changed. 

18 The insulation has changed. The dampers have changed. 

19 It may be 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 were just made, that would seem to point 

25 up our ability to try to narrow the application of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

139 

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 supply voltage to 

14 within plus or minus one percent of the center of the 

15 voltage range specified on the water heater's 

16 nameplate." 

17 There's nothing voltage sensitive about an 

18 electric water heater and the one percent tolerance on 

19 the supply voltage is just not reasonable. I would 

20 recommend that be changed to a plus or minus 5 percent 

23.. voltage tolerance on the voltage applied to the 

22 electric water heater under test. 

23 MR. RABA: Does· anybody agree with that or 

24 disagree with that? 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. SUBHERWAL : I totally support it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

140 

1 Bodh Subherwal, BR Labs. 

2 MR. RABA: Would support. Michael Martin? 

3 MR. MARTIN: In the 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, would you want 

~1 to give him a latitude to run it at 200? 

22 MR. SUBHERWAL: Yes, 208. It doesn't make 

23 any difference. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 

MR. SUBHERWAL: Plus or minus 5 percent. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

141 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

142 

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 suggesting changing plus or minus 

9 1 percent to plus or minus 5 percent of the center of 

10 the range. Could you have a range that's small enough 

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 reality what we don't have is a range. 

22 We have a flat out 208 voltage KW and a flat out 240 

23 volt KW with really no range, even though both ratings 

24 appear on their voltage-wise and the lower KW when 

25 it's fired at only 208. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

143 

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: Brad Hollomon, 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 would be perhaps 

22 more sensitive to the --

23 MR. STANONIK: ·It's actually closer than 

24 that. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. HOLLOMON: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

144 

1 MR. STANONIK: You heat it up and you let 

2 the water heater sit there and what you measure 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 on under oil 

23 fired water heaters. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. RABA: Proceed. 

MR. HAAG: The closing sentence there puts 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

145 

1 a plus or minus 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 think that is an unreasonable 

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. Anybody else? Gas, electric, oil? Move along? 

19 Okay. 

20 How about the unfired hot water storage 

2i tanks exemption and the application maximum 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

146 

1 1998 workshop and you'll recall the comments resulting 

2 from that workshop. I submitted my comments in the 

3 letter dated November 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 electric water heaters in Table 11.1 of 

11 ASHRAE standard 90.1-1989. Numerous tests by 

12 manufacturers in that time frame prove that this value 

13 is not practicable to obtain." And the 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 to be 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 In the August 9th Federal Register notice 

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 proposing the first method as a DOE test procedure for 

25 determining the rate of heat loss for square foot of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

147 

1 tank service area of unfired hot water storage tanks. 

2 I do not know if my comments at that time 

3 in my letter of November did get lost or never arrived 

4 or was just ignored, but I did get no feedback from my 

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't recall, 

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 Water Heaters, Boilers, Furnaces, Air Conditioners and 

16 Heat Pumps, Docket No. EETP981011000. 

17 MR. NASSERI: We'll be 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 might point out in the same paragraph at 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

148 

1 the bottom of the center column 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. And any more connections like you have 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't understand the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

149 

1 MR. LEVY: I thought you indicated that 

2 the 6.5 heat loss provision was modified by ASHRAE at 

3 some point? 

4 MR. HAAG: That's the end -- not the end, 

5 that's the B Addendum 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 that we see now referenced, 6.5 BTUs 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

150 

1 to Wilbur's that we don't agree th~t there should be 

2 any specified test procedure to measure the heat loss 

3 for an unfired storage tank. The 90.1-1999 has 

4 changed that requirement so that the only requirement 

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 and we think that DOE should 

14 follow the same course. 

15 MR. LEVY: This is for tanks under 140 

16 gallons? 

17 MR. STANONIK: Unfired storage tanks, 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: They reinsulated to R-12. 5, 

25 at least, yeah. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

151 

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 an unfired hot water storage tank must 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: And for anything higher than 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

152 

1 1~ .5, 12. 1R insulation requirements as compared to 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 position that we're either going to stick with the 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 to have that kind of a evaluation very clearly 

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 And in the case of the requirement for unfired storage 

23 tanks, the reality is that there is no identified 

24 reference test procedure. 

25 So it might be unpleasant to hear, but the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 fact is that if I'm required to meet 6.5 and you don'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 by the way, remove the burden of having to 

15 test those things to begin with. 

16 MR. LEVY: Well, let's assume 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 per hour heat loss 

22 requirement is still on the books and so that's why we 

23 proposed a test procedure to have a method of 

24 assessing compliance with that. And that issue would 

25 still be present because I think the earliest that DOE 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 could adopt an ASHRAE provision as a requirement would 

2 be effective in about three years from now. So 

3 there's that question as to what position the 

4 Department takes in the interval. But as to the other 

5 point, I believe that if I recall that in the preamble 

6 in discussing this issue, one of the observations we 

7 made because well, let me step back. One of the 

8 points that was raised during one of our workshops was 

9 the possibility in lieu of a test procedure for the --

10 to measure compliance with heat loss requirement was 

11 to simply have a requirement that the product be 

12 insulated to R12.5, the theory being that 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 lower or higher heat loss because of the fact that the 

17 insulation would 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

155 

1 assumption to make that where space is left in a 

2 table, it is an intent that there should not 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 think you'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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 and the feasibility of the economic justification 

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 per hour per square foot which is 

8 in the statute is actually not feasible. It's not a 

9 question of not being able to measure it and that that 

10 may be a useful thing as we're looking both at -- it 

11 may be useful as we're looking at the -- as the ASHRAE 

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 certainly possible 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWW.nealrgross,com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1:'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 gallon electric water heater 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 It was 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 and bottom 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 and blankets 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 duplicated with a storage water heater 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 so much 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 anybody has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

159 

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 number which provides you the standby loss 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. You know, it's not commercially practical. 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II .1.0 V 

1 MR. LEVY: Well, first of all, we can't 

2 change it. Second of all, how did it get into 90.1 if 

3 it's impossible? 

4 MR. SUBHERWAL: Go figure. 

5 MR. MARTIN: I'm not sure whether this is 

6 appropriate, but let me just have two minutes to 

7 explain it. 

8 Those people are very gung ho about energy 

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 eventually managed to sell this to ASHRAE and GAMA 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 an unfortunate 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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: Brad Hollomon, PNNL. Since 

15 we obviously have a number which is in the statute and 

16 the only place where we have any flexibility is in the 

17 test procedure, since the test procedure doesn't 

18 exist, should we entertain suggestions as to what that 

19 test procedure might be? I mean one of the things we 

20 could dO'is take the test procedure that's in here 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

162 

1 problem. 

2 MR. MARTIN: Could we get the heat source 

3 from some other water heater and test the combination 

4 of a let's sayan electric water heater and the 

5 tank and do the test just of the water heater 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 your proposal 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 they did was they said 

20 that the they didn't say that the test procedure 

21 wouldn' t work, or they couldn' t perform it. They just 

22 said that the standard which 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 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 MR. HOLLOMON: I'm looking at the nodding 

2 of the head over there. 

3 MR. MARTIN: You can meet 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 -- because you do have the 

8 difference tha t you don't have the electric 

9 connections to it which are part of it. 

10 MR. STANONIK: I think Wilbur's point 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 remember what it was, okay? But I think Wilbur's 

15 point was that in that resolution as I mentioned the 

16 unfired storage tank nobody paid any attention to it 

17 

18 MR. MARTIN: That's true. 

19 MR. STANONIK: So no change was made. And 

20 no corresponding change was made. 

21 MR. MARTIN: Okay. 

22 MR. STANONIK: The answer to your question 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1 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 Other topics then? California had something. Anybody 

16 else? Other topics we should bring up? 

17 California? 

18 MR. MARTIN: We keep having this problem 

19 about defining test methods from the residential water 

20 heaters and having the best method scope different 

21 from the standard scope and there are some items that 

22 are subject to NACA which are not subject to the means 

23 of testing which brings an interesting question 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.Lb!:> 

1 than 100 gallons and those have been treated by some 

2 people as commercial equipment and they are subj ect 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 they were commercial equipment and I 

6 wondered what the feeling was about including those --

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 defining water heaters. The only limit is 

25 that somewhere and I can never find it when I want it, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.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 it would be justified either 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 manufacturer believes 

14 that product addresses. 

15 MR. MARTIN: It's one of these examples of 

16 putting too many restrictions in the regulation of 

17 putting this -- when you had a definition for based on 

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 exactly what fits 

23 in what category and what I was planning to do in our 

24 final comments is to put a table together of all these 

25 borderline things and see if we can get agreement with 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II .J..U' 

1 DOE staff as to which of them are consumer products 

2 and which of them are commercial products and which of 

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 according to the Z21.10. 3, if it's a consumer product, 

19 then it's tested according to the DOE test method. 

20 MR. NASSERI: No. In both 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 believe Mike's point 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

.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 category because 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 test method says it's -- DOE says it's not subject 

15 to your test method, but DOE says it is subject to the 

16 NACA standard. 

17 So you've got to meet a standard using an 

18 unspecified test method. 

19 MR. NASSERI: That's what 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .• NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

169 

1 to be sorted out. 

2 MR. STANONIK: We'll call the manufacturer 

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: It might be easier to raise 

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 afternoon session or the morning session that needs 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

170 

1 earlier and we welcome your comments before the close 

2 of October 23rd on these rules, boilers and water 

3 heaters and your comments obviously would be evaluated 

4 and would be very helpful 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 publish a final rule, so we are within the 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 and we 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 see Brenda Edwards-Jones or myself 

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 hearing was 

23 concluded.) 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02II

1

CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in t

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 t

aforementioned matter, 

typewriting. 

as reported and reduced