Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps

Federal RegisterJan 25, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055]

RIN 1905-AD50

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to establish new definitions and a new test procedure for pumps. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule. This final rule establishes a new test procedure for pumps, as well as associated definitions and parameters that establish the scope of applicability of the test procedure. Specifically, the pumps test procedure adopted in this final rule incorporates by reference the test procedure from the Hydraulic Institute (HI)—standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing”—with several clarifications and modifications, related to measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous controls. The new pumps test procedure will be used to determine the constant load pump energy index (PEI

) for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls and the variable load pump energy index (PEI

) for pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls. The final rule incorporates certain recommendations made by the commercial and industrial pumps (CIP) Working Group, which was established under the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC), as well as comments submitted by interested parties in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is February 24, 2016. Compliance with the final rule will be mandatory for representations of PEI

, PEI

, the constant load pump energy rating (PER

), and the variable load pump energy rating (PER

) made on or after July 25, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/44

. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this document on the regulations.gov site. The

www.regulations.gov

Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

pumps@ee.doe.gov

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 431 the following industry standards:

(1) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” approved January 2015.

Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, P.O. Box 9102, Norwood, MA 02062, (781) 762-4300, or by visiting

www.fmglobal.com

(2) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (“ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions;” approved October 30, 2014, sections 1.1, “Types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “Rotodynamic pump icons.”

(3) ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 (“ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 ”), “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and Definitions,” approved April 8, 2014, section 2.1, “Types and nomenclature.”

(4) HI 40.6-2014, (“HI 40.6-2014”) “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” (except for section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” Appendix A, section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and Appendix B, “Reporting of test results (normative);”) copyright 2014.

Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, and HI 40.6-2014 can be obtained from: the Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 07054-4406, (973) 267-9700, or by visiting

www.pumps.org

(5) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 20-2016, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” 2016 Edition, approved June 15, 2015.

Copies of NFPA 20-2016 can be obtained from: the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, (617) 770-3000, or by visiting

www.nfpa.org

(6) UL 488, (“ANSI/UL 448-2013”), “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” 10th Edition, June 8, 2007, including revisions through July 12, 2013.

Copies of ANSI/UL448-2013 can be obtained from: UL, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or by visiting

http://ul.com

This material is also available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or at

http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program

See section IV.N. for additional information about these standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Summary of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Scope

1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps

2. Equipment Categories

3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application

4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This Rulemaking

5. Drivers Other Than Electric Motors

6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors

B. Rating Metric: Constant and Variable Load Pump Energy Index

1. Determination of the Pump Energy Rating

2. PER

STD

: Minimally Compliant Pump

C. Determination of Pump Performance

1. Incorporation by Reference of HI 40.6-2014

2. Minor Modifications and Additions to HI 40.6-2014

D. Determination of Motor Efficiency

1. Default Nominal Full Load Motor Efficiency

2. Represented Nominal Full Load Motor Efficiency for Pumps Sold With Motors

3. Determining Part Load Motor Losses

E. Test Methods for Different Pump Configurations

1. Calculation-Based Test Methods

2. Testing-Based Methods

F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency

G. Sampling Plans for Pumps

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. The Need for, and Objectives of, Today's Rule

2. Significant Issues From Interested Parties in Response to IRFA

3. Revised Assessment of Burden Associated With This Test Procedure Final Rule

4. Calculator Comments

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Pumps are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) However, there are not currently any Federal energy conservation standards or test procedures for pumps. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment under Title III, Part C (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified)

Included among the various types of industrial equipment addressed by EPCA are pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

For editorial reasons, Part C was codified as Part A-1 in the U.S. Code.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

DOE is authorized to prescribe energy conservation standards and corresponding test procedures for statutorily covered equipment such as pumps. While DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for pumps (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of such equipment.

See, generally,

42 U.S.C. 6295(r) and 6316(a).

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

In addition, before prescribing any final test procedures, DOE must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)-(2))

In this final rule, DOE is establishing a test procedure for pumps concurrent with its ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment (

See

Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031). As discussed further in section I.B, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on April 1, 2015 presenting and requesting public comment on DOE's proposals related to pumps definitions, metric, and test procedure requirements (April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR). 80 FR 17586.

The pumps test procedure adopted in this final rule includes methods required to (1) measure the performance of the covered equipment and (2) use the measured results to calculate a pump energy index (PEI

for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls or PEI

for pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls) to represent the power consumption of the pump, inclusive of a motor and any continuous or non-continuous controls, normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally compliant pump. In this final rule, DOE is also establishing the specific styles and characteristics of pumps to which the test procedure applies.

Manufacturers will be required to make all representations of pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower) using methods that will generate values consistent with the DOE test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of this final rule in the

Federal Register

. Manufacturers also will be required to use the new test procedure and metric when making representations regarding the PEI

CL,

PEI

, PER

, or PER

of covered equipment 180 days after the publication date of any applicable energy conservation standards final rule in the

Federal Register

. However, DOE notes that certification of compliance with any energy conservation standards for pumps would not be required until the compliance date of any final rule establishing such energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) and Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031.

B. Background

DOE does not currently regulate pumps. In 2011, DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI) to gather data and information related to pumps in anticipation of initiating rulemakings to formally consider test procedures and energy conservation standards for this equipment. 76 FR 34192 (June 13, 2011). In February 2013, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework document to initiate an energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps (78 FR 7304 Feb. 1, 2013) and

held a public meeting to discuss the Framework document (the “pumps Framework public meeting”).

Following the pumps Framework public meeting, DOE convened a Commercial and Industrial Pumps Working Group (“CIP Working Group” or, in context, “Working Group”) through the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) to negotiate standards and test procedures for pumps as an alternative to the traditional notice and comment rulemaking process that DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039)

The CIP Working Group commenced negotiations at an open meeting on December 18 and 19, 2013, and held six additional meetings and two webinars to discuss definitions, metrics, test procedures, and standard levels for pumps.

The CIP Working Group concluded its negotiations on June 19, 2014, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for pumps as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the metric and test procedure for pumps (“Working Group recommendations”).

Subsequently, ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the Working Group recommendations during a July 7, 2014 webinar.

Information on the ASRAC, the CIP Working Group, and meeting dates is available at

http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee

Details of the negotiation sessions can be found in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the Working Group (

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039

The term sheet containing the Working Group recommendations is available in the CIP Working Group's docket. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92) The ground rules of the CIP Working Group define consensus as no more than two negative votes. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 18 at p. 2) Concurrence was assumed if a voting member was absent, and overt dissent was only evidenced by a negative vote. Abstention was not construed as a negative vote.

Following approval of the Working Group recommendations, DOE published a NOPR implementing the recommendations of the CIP Working Group

and proposing a new test procedure for pumps, as well as associated definitions and parameters to establish the applicability of the test procedure (April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR). 80 FR 17586 (April 1, 2015). On April 29, 2015, DOE held a public meeting to discuss and request public comment on the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR (April 2015 NOPR public meeting).

DOE's proposals in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR reflect the intent of the CIP Working Group recommendations. However, DOE proposed some slight modifications and significant additional detail to ensure the technical integrity, accuracy, repeatability, and enforceability of the pumps test procedure and scope.

DOE's test procedure for pumps, adopted in this final rule, reflects certain recommendations of the CIP Working Group, as well as input from interested parties received in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. Provisions of this final rule that are directly pertinent to any of the 14 approved Working Group recommendations will be specified with a citation to the specific recommendation number (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y). Additionally, in developing the provisions of this final rule, DOE also has referenced discussions from the CIP Working Group meetings regarding potential actions or comments that may not have been formally approved as part of the Working Group recommendations. These references to discussions or suggestions of the CIP Working Group not found in the Working Group recommendations will have a citation to meeting transcripts (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. X at p. Y).

Finally, in this final rule, DOE responds to all comments received from interested parties in response to the proposals presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, either during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting or in subsequent written comments. In response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE received eight written comments in addition to the verbal comments made by interested parties during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting. The commenters included: Wilo USA, LLC (Wilo); the Hydraulic Institute (HI); the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA); the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), collectively referred to herein as the energy efficiency advocates (EEAs); the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals (APSP); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), collectively referred to herein as the CA IOUs. DOE will identify comments received in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR by the commenter, the number of document as listed in the docket maintained at

www.regulations.gov

(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055), and the page number of that document where the comment appears (for example: HI, No. 8 at p. 4). If a comment was made verbally during the NOPR public meeting, DOE will also specifically identify those as being located in the NOPR public meeting transcript (for example: HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 235). This final rule also contains comments submitted in response to the pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) and such comments will be identified with that docket number.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE is establishing a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that contains definitions and a test procedure applicable to pumps. This final rule also contains sampling plans for pumps for the purposes of making representations regarding the energy consumption of applicable pumps and demonstrating compliance with any energy conservation standards that DOE adopts.

DOE notes that equipment meeting the pump definition is already covered equipment. In this final rule, DOE is establishing definitions for the term pump, certain pump components, and several categories and configurations of pumps. While the range of equipment included in DOE's definition of pump is broad, the test procedure established by this rulemaking is limited to a specific scope of pumps, as described in section III.A of this final rule; specifically certain kinds of rotodynamic pumps

for which standards are being considered in DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)

A rotodynamic (or centrifugal) pump is a kinetic machine that continuously imparts energy to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. This kind of pump is in contrast to positive-displacement pumps, which have an expanding cavity on the suction side and a decreasing cavity on the discharge side that move a constant volume of fluid for each cycle of operation.

DOE's approach adopted in this final rule establishes a new metric, the pump energy index (PEI), to rate the energy performance of pumps subject to this test procedure. The test procedure contains methods for determining constant load pump energy index (PEI

) for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls and the variable load pump energy index (PEI

) for pumps sold with either

continuous or non-continuous controls. Both PEI

and PEI

describe the weighted average performance of the rated pump at specific load points, normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally compliant pump without controls.

The test procedure contains methods to determine the appropriate index for all equipment for which this test procedure applies using either calculation-based methods and/or testing-based methods. While both methods include some amount of testing and some amount of calculation, the terms “calculation-based” and “testing-based” are used to distinguish between methods in which the input power to the pump is determined either by (a) measuring the bare pump shaft input power

and calculating efficiency, or losses, of the motor and any continuous control

(

i.e.,

calculation-based method) or (b) measuring the input power to the driver,

or motor, and any continuous or non-continuous controls

for a given pump directly (

i.e.,

testing-based method). For both the testing-based and calculation-based approaches, the test procedure for pumps established in this final rule is based on the test methods contained in HI Standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” (“HI 40.6-2014”), with slight modifications as noted in section III.C.2.

The term “pump shaft input power” is referred to as “pump power input” in HI 40.6-2014. The term “pump shaft input power” is used synonymously with that term in this document.

DOE notes that for non-continuous controls, as defined in section III.E.1.c, PEI

can only be determined using a “testing-based” method. If a calculation-based method is desired, the pump would instead be rated as a pump sold with a motor and without speed controls using the PEI

metric. See section III.E.1.c for further discussion.

The input power to the driver is referred to as “driver power input” in HI 40.6-2014. The term “input power to the driver” is used synonymously with that term in this document.

In the case wherein a pump is sold with a motor equipped with either continuous or non-continuous controls and is rated using the testing-based method, the input power to the pump would be determined as the input power to the continuous or non-continuous control. See section III.E.2.c.

The test procedure also prescribes the specific categories and configurations of pumps to which the calculation-based and testing-based methods are applicable. As discussed further in section III.E.2, the testing-based methods are applicable to all pumps that are subject to the test procedure, while the calculation-based methods are only applicable to (1) pumps sold with neither a motor nor controls (

i.e.,

“bare pump,” discussed later in section III.A.1.a), (2) pumps sold with motors that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors

(with or without continuous controls), and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors (with or without continuous controls).

All references to “motors that are subject to the DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors” refer to those motors that are subject to the energy conservation standards for electric motors at 431.25(g) (as established in the May 2014 medium electric motor energy conservation standard final rule. 79 FR 30933 (May 29, 2014)). See section III.D.1 and III.E.1 for more discussion.

Regardless of the metric (

i.e.,

PEI

versus PEI

) or test method (

i.e.,

calculation-based versus testing-based), the results for the given pump are divided by the calculated input power to the motor for a hypothetical pump that serves an identical hydraulic load and minimally complies with any energy conservation standards that DOE may set as a result of the ongoing standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) This normalized metric results in a value that is indexed to the standard (

i.e.,

a value of 1.0 for a pump that is minimally compliant, and a value less than 1.0 for a pump that is less consumptive than the maximum the standard allows).

This final rule also establishes requirements regarding the sampling plan and representations for covered pumps at subpart B of part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The sampling plan requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial equipment and are appropriate for pumps based on the expected range of measurement uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this equipment. For those pumps addressed by this test procedure, DOE is also specifying the energy consumption or energy efficiency representations that may be made, in addition to the regulated metric (PEI

or PEI

Beginning on the compliance date for any energy conservation standards that DOE may set, all pumps within the scope of those energy conservation standards would be required to be tested in accordance with subpart Y of part 431 and must have their testing performed in a manner consistent with the applicable sampling requirements. Manufacturers must make all representations of pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower) using methods that will generate values consistent with the DOE test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of this final rule in the

Federal Register

. Similarly, all representations regarding PEI

CL,

PEI

, PER

, or PER

would be required to be made based on values consistent with the adopted pump test procedure 180 days after the publication date of any final rule establishing energy conservation standards for those pumps that are addressed by the test procedure.

See

42 U.S.C. 6314(d). DOE understands that manufacturers of pumps likely have historical test data (

e.g.,

existing pump curves) which were developed with methods consistent with the DOE test procedure being adopted in this final rule. DOE notes that it does not expect manufacturers to regenerate all of the historical test data unless the rating resulting from the historical methods, which is based on the same methodology being adopted in this final rule, would no longer be valid.

III. Discussion

This final rule places a new test procedure for pumps and related definitions in a new subpart Y of part 431, and adds new sampling plans and reporting requirements for this equipment in a new section 429.59 of 10 CFR part 429. Subpart Y contains definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure for certain categories and configurations of pumps established as a result of this rulemaking, as well as any energy conservation standards for pumps resulting from the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking, as shown in Table III.1. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)

Table III.1—Summary of Relevant Provisions Addressed in This Final Rule, Their Location Within the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Applicable Preamble Discussion

Location

Proposal

Summary of additions

Applicable preamble

discussion

10 CFR 429.59 *

Sampling Plan

Number of pumps to be tested to rate a pump basic model and calculation of rating

Section III.G.

10 CFR 431.461

Purpose and Scope

Scope of pump regulations, as well as the proposed test procedure and associated energy conservation standards

Section III.A.

10 CFR 431.462

Definitions

Definitions pertinent to establishing equipment classes and testing applicable classes of pumps

Section III.A.

10 CFR 431.463

Incorporation by Reference

Description of industry standards incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure or related definitions

Sections III.A and III.C.

10 CFR 431.464 and Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431

Test Procedure

Instructions for determining the PEI

or PEI

for applicable classes of pumps

Sections III.B, III.C, III.D, and III.E.

10 CFR 431.466

Energy Conservation Standards

Energy conservation standard for applicable classes of pumps, in terms of PEI and associated C-Value

Section III.A and Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031.

Note:

DOE is also making minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2; 429.11(a) and (b); 429.12(b)(13); 429.70; 429.72; 429.102; and 429.134 to apply the general sampling requirements established in these sections to the equipment-specific sampling requirements for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59.

The following sections discuss DOE's new provisions regarding testing and sampling requirements for pumps, including:

(1) Scope,

(2) rating metric,

(3) determination of pump performance,

(4) determination of motor efficiency,

(5) test methods for different combinations of bare pumps, drivers and controls,

(6) representations, and

(7) sampling plans.

These sections also present any pertinent comments DOE received in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR or the parallel pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), as well as DOE's responses to those comments and the resulting changes to the test procedure as proposed in the NOPR.

A. Scope

The term “pump” is listed as a type of covered equipment under EPCA; however, that term is undefined.

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A). In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, consistent with recommendations from the CIP Working Group (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #4 and 6-8 at pp. 2-4), DOE proposed definitions for the term pump, as covered equipment, and related components of pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17591 (April 1, 2015). In addition, DOE proposed to define which pumps would need to be tested using the test procedure established in this rulemaking by applying three criteria: (1) The equipment category; (2) the application; and (3) applicable performance specifications—

i.e.,

horsepower (hp), flow rate, head, design temperature, and speed restrictions.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposed definitions and scope of the test procedure for pumps, HI commented that it detected no inconsistencies with the scope of the pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4)

DOE's criteria for establishing which pumps will be subject to the test procedure, including any additional comments received by interested parties on those particular topics, are discussed in sections III.A.1 through III.A.6, respectively.

1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps

To help explain the scope for this rule and the manner in which both the procedure and related standards will be applied to different pump configurations and categories of pumps, the aforementioned definitions for pump, certain pump components, and other specific pump characteristics, are discussed in the following subsections.

a. Pumps and Related Components

As part of its collective efforts to help DOE craft an appropriate regulatory approach to pumps, the CIP Working Group made a series of recommendations regarding a variety of potential definitions that would define “pump,” the covered equipment. In particular, the Working Group offered a definition for “pump” along with the related terms “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “controls.” (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #1 and 2 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed adopting these recommended definitions with slight modification. 80 FR 17586, 17591 (April 1, 2015). Specifically, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed the following terms:

•

Pump

means equipment that is designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes at least a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.

•

Bare pump

means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.

•

Mechanical equipment

means any component of a pump that transfers energy from a driver to the bare pump.

•

Driver

means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine.

•

Control

means any device that can be used to operate the driver. Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-continuous controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, and float switches.

80 FR 17586, 17591-92 (April 1, 2015).

HI expressed agreement with the proposed definitions, except for the text “entrained gases” in the proposed definition for pump. HI indicated that the text “entrained gasses” should be changed to “dissolved gasses” because pumps within scope are not designed to pump entrained gas, and small amounts

of entrained gas would result in a loss of performance and efficiency. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4)

DOE understands that, whereas dissolved gases are in solution and would not appear as bubbles in the pumped liquid, entrained gases are not in solution and would appear as bubbles in the pumped liquid. In addition, DOE agrees that pumps within the scope of this rulemaking are not designed to pump entrained gas. This has been acknowledged through the definition of “clean water pump,” as described in section III.A.3 of this final rule, which specifies that the total gas content of the water must not exceed the saturation volume.

However, the definition for “pump” applies in general to all pumps, which are covered under EPCA (s

42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)), and is broader than the scope of this rulemaking. Changing the language in the definition of “pump” from “dissolved gasses” to “entrained gasses” would suggest that DOE's coverage of pumps was limited. In addition, such a change would limit DOE's coverage to a subset of the pumps intended by the Working Group and proposed in the NOPR. Therefore, DOE declines to make the requested change.

In general, entrained gasses, or gas bubbles, will only form when the total gas content of the water is above the saturation volume of the liquid. Otherwise, gases are more likely to stay dissolved in the liquid and not generate gas bubbles.

DOE did not receive comments on other aspects of the “pump” definition or on the other terms discussed in this section. As such, DOE is adopting definitions for the terms “pump,” “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “control” as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR without further changes.

b. Definition of Categories of Controls

The definition of “control” established in this final rule is broad. DOE acknowledges the definition may include many different kinds of electronic or mechanical devices that can “control the driver” of a pump (

e.g.,

continuous or non-continuous controls, timers, and on/off switches). These various controls may use a variety of mechanisms to control the pump for operational reasons, which may or may not result in reduced energy consumption.

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed specific test methods for pumps that are sold with motors that are paired with controls that adjust the speed of the driver, as DOE determined that these were the most common type of controls that reduced energy consumption in the field. Similarly, DOE proposed that such pumps equipped with speed controls could apply the PEI

metric. 80 FR 17586, 17592-93 (April 1, 2015). Additionally, DOE proposed that pumps sold with motors and controls other than speed controls

would be subject to the appropriate bare pump and motor test procedures and rated using PEI

Id.

Here and throughout this final rule, DOE uses the term “speed controls” to refer to continuous and non-continuous controls, as defined in section III.A.1.b of this document.

To explicitly establish the kinds of controls that may apply the PEI

metric under the test procedure, DOE proposed to define the terms “continuous control” and “non-continuous control” (

see

sections III.B and III.E for further discussion of the PEI

rating metric and its applicability to pumps with controls, respectively):

•

Continuous control

means a control that adjusts the speed of the pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required pump flow, head, or power output.

As an example, variable speed drives (VSDs), including variable frequency drives and electronically commutated motors (ECMs), meet the definition for continuous controls.

HI-40.6, as incorporated by reference, defines pump power output as “the mechanical power transferred to the liquid as it passes through the pump, also known as pump hydraulic power.”

•

Non-continuous control

means a control that adjusts the speed of a driver to one of a discrete number of non-continuous preset operating speeds, and does not respond to incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power output. As an example, multi-speed motors such as two-speed motors meet the definition for non-continuous controls.

80 FR 17586, 17592-93 (April 1, 2015).

DOE requested comment on the proposed definitions of “continuous control” and “non-continuous control.” DOE also requested comment on the likelihood of a pump with continuous or non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, but never being paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would enable energy savings. In response, HI commented that it agrees with the proposed definitions for continuous control and non-continuous control, and that it does not have data on pumps with speed controls being distributed in commerce without any sensor or feedback mechanisms. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4)

During the public meeting, Regal Beloit requested a clarification related to DOE's definitions of continuous control and non-continuous control. Specifically, Regal Beloit requested clarification regarding whether pumps sold with multi-pole motors and “single-speed controls, which would be considered multi-speed,” would be classified as pumps sold with non-continuous controls. (Regal Beloit, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 98). With respect to Regal Beloit's use of the term “single-speed controls,” DOE believes that Regal Beloit is referring to “multi-speed” permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors, which are PSC motors that are offered with two or more discrete speed options. Depending on the specific model, speeds may be adjusted manually with a switch or automatically with a type of control logic. Similarly, multi-pole motors are induction motors that are offered with two or more discrete speed options. Again, speeds may be adjusted manually with a switch or automatically with a type of control logic.

In this final rule, DOE clarifies that, to the extent multi-pole motors and multi-speed PSC motors control the driver speed discretely (via manual switch or control logic) in response to incremental reductions in the required flow, head, or pump power output, such motors would meet the definition of non-continuous controls and would be tested in accordance with the applicable test procedure for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls (see section III.E). DOE also clarifies in this final rule that any control that can achieve the specified load points on the reference system curve (see section III.E.2.c) meets DOE's definition of continuous control, as it can achieve the specific flow rate and head values specified by the reference system curve in the test procedure.

CA IOUs asked during the April 2015 NOPR public meeting whether DOE would consider differentiating between two-speed and multi-speed motors, and stated that if more discrete speeds are available there is more opportunity to match the pump and motor to the load. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 98-99) DOE believes that in this context, CA IOUs is referring to “multi-speed motors” as motors with more than two discrete speeds.

DOE believes the definition of non-continuous control adequately covers all motors with two or more discrete speeds that are sold with any control mechanism that controls the motor speed discretely (

e.g.,

manual switch or control logic). Furthermore, the test procedure for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, contains provisions

that will typically allow motors with three or more speeds to achieve a lower (less consumptive) PEI

rating than motors with only two speeds. This procedure is outlined in detail in section III.E.2.c. Consequently, DOE believes that motors with differing numbers of discrete speed options are already differentiated in the proposed test procedure and has determined that it is not necessary to further differentiate between two-speed and multi-speed motors.

After considering HI's agreement with the proposed definitions and the questions raised by Regal Beloit and CA IOUs, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, the definitions for continuous and non-continuous controls, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.

c. Definition of Basic Model

In the course of regulating consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, DOE has developed the concept of a “basic model” to determine the specific product or equipment configuration(s) to which the regulations would apply. For the purposes of applying pumps regulations, DOE proposed to define what constitutes a basic model of pump.

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE defined a basic model in a manner similar to the definitions used for other commercial and industrial equipment, with the exception of two pump-specific issues. Specifically, DOE proposed to define basic model as it applies to pumps to include all units of a given covered equipment type (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency; except that:

(1) Variation in the number of stages particular radially split, multi-sage vertical in-line casing diffuser (RSV)

and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pump units are sold with would not result in different basic models; and

The acronym RSV abbreviates “radially split vertical,” which is a key characteristic of the radially split, multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser equipment category.

(2) pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model.

80 FR 17586, 17593 and 17641 (April 1, 2015).

The first modification to the basic model definition applies to variation in the number of stages for multi-stage bare pumps,

which DOE believes will significantly reduce testing burden and is consistent with DOE's proposed test procedure provision that such pumps be tested with a specific number of stages, as discussed in section III.C.2.c. DOE did not receive any comments on the exception to the general basic model definition that different stage versions of multi-stage pumps would be treated as the same basic model and, as such, is adopting this pump-specific provision as proposed, with minor wording revisions for clarity.

The implications of the resulting variation in motor selection for pumps sold with motors or motors and controls is discussed in section III.A.1.d.

The second modification to the typical basic model definition proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR was that a trimmed impeller, though it may impact efficiency, would not be a basis for requiring different bare pump models to be rated as unique basic models.

DOE also proposed to base the certified rating for a given pump basic model on that model's full impeller diameter—specifically, all PEI and PER representations for the members of a basic model would be based upon the full impeller model. 80 FR 17586, 17593-94 (April 1, 2015). This proposal is consistent with the Working Group recommendation that the rating of a given pump basic model should be based on testing at full impeller diameter only and that DOE not require testing at reduced impeller diameters. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3)

The implications of the resulting variation in motor selection for pumps sold with motors or motors and controls is discussed in section III.A.1.d.

Relevant to this proposed requirement, DOE proposed to define the term “full impeller” as it pertains to the rating of pump models in accordance with the test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposed to define full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which the pump is distributed in commerce in the United States or the maximum impeller diameter represented in the manufacturer's literature, whichever is larger. For pumps that may only be sold with a trimmed impeller due to a custom application, DOE proposed to define the full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which the pump is distributed in commerce. 80 FR 17586, 17593-94 (April 1, 2015)

Under DOE's proposed definition of “full impeller,” manufacturers would also be able to represent a model with a trimmed impeller as less consumptive than one with a full impeller. To do so, they would treat that trimmed impeller model as a different basic model and test a representative number of units at the maximum diameter distributed in commerce of that trimmed basic model listing. In such a case, the impeller trim with which the pump is rated would become the “full impeller diameter.” In these cases, manufacturers could elect to (1) group individual pump units with bare pumps that vary only in impeller diameter into a single basic model or (2) establish separate basic models (with unique ratings) for any number of unique impeller trims, provided that the PEI rating associated with any individual model were based on the maximum diameter impeller for that basic model and that basic model is compliant with any energy conservation standards established as part of the parallel pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031; 80 FR 17586, 17593-94 (April 1, 2015)).

DOE noted that, while manufacturers would be able to group pump models with various impeller trims under one basic model with the same certified PEI rating based on the full impeller diameter, all representations of PEI and PER for any individual model would be (1) based on testing of the model with the full impeller diameter in the basic model and (2) rated using method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve” (explained further in section III.E), regardless of the actual impeller size used with a given pump.

Id.

At the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, interested parties representing HI

expressed concern regarding the option to consider pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models. Specifically, one HI representative from Patterson Pump Company noted that the premise was contrary to the Working Group's agreement that all representations for PEI would be done using full impeller diameter, not trimmed impeller diameter. Another HI representative from Xylem (Mark Handzel) stated that reporting is greatly simplified if only reported for full impeller diameter. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 29, 32). The CA IOUs responded that the Working Group had only agreed to what was going to be required for reporting on a mandatory basis, and that its

preference was to maintain the flexibility for manufacturers to voluntarily report the information for pumps with trimmed impellers. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 34, 36) Furthermore, in its written comments, HI agreed with the proposed definition of the term “basic model,” which allows manufacturers the option of rating pumps with trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models. (HI, No. 8 at p. 4) HI also agreed with DOE's proposed definition of full impeller and the proposal that all pump models be rated in a full impeller configuration only. (HI, No. 8 at p. 5)

Several interested parties identified themselves as representing HI at the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, including Bob Barbour from TACO, Inc.; HI representatives from Xylem (Mark Handzel and Raul Ruzicka), and Al Huber from Patterson Pump Company.

In response, DOE reaffirms that only reporting PEI at full impeller diameter will be mandatory. Given that some interested parties stated that they prefer maintaining the option of rating pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models, and HI did not indicate concern with this option in the written comments, DOE is maintaining the option to rate pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models in this final rule. Furthermore, DOE notes that in the case a manufacturer chooses to rate pumps with trimmed impellers as separate basic models, the full impeller definition is still applicable and all representations regarding the PEI and PER must be based on the “full impeller” diameter for that basic model.

Upon further review of the proposed definition for “full impeller,” DOE has determined that the language within the definition is duplicative, and therefore, potentially confusing. Specifically, in the proposed definition, DOE referred to both distribution in commerce and representations in manufacturer literature. However, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 4291(16) defines distribution in commerce as meaning “to sell in commerce, to import, to introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce.” This definition encompasses making advertising materials such as representations in manufacturer literature. Accordingly, DOE has revised the definition for full impeller diameter as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).

d. Basic Models of Pumps Sold With Motors or Motors and Speed Controls

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that, for pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors that have different performance characteristics. 80 FR 17586, 17594 (April 1, 2015). Under the definition of basic model proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and discussed in section III.A.1.c, each unique pump and motor pairing represents a unique basic model. However, DOE noted that, consistent with DOE's practice with other products and equipment, pump manufacturers may elect to group similar individual pump models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of pumps within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (March 7, 2011). In addition, consistent with DOE's treatment of variation in the number of stages for multi-stage RSV and VTS pumps and impeller trim, in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that variation in motor sizing as a result of different impeller trims or different number of stages for multi-stage pumps would not serve as a basis for differentiating basic models. 80 FR 17586, 17593 (April 1, 2015)

In response, HI recommended that DOE clarify the definition of “basic model,” stating that “pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors with different performance characteristics, and can include all combinations under one basic model as long as the representations regarding the energy use is based on the most consumptive unit for each given pole speed, given clean water with a specific gravity of 1.0 . . . [A]s variation in impeller trim of the bare pump does not constitute a characteristic that would differentiate basic models, variation in motor sizing as a result of different impeller trims would also not serve as a basis for differentiating basic models.” (HI, No. 8 at p. 5)

In general, DOE agrees with HI's interpretation. DOE agrees with HI that pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors with different performance characteristics, and can include all combinations under one basic model if the certification of energy use and all representations made by the manufacturer, are based on the most consumptive bare pump/motor combination for each basic model and are determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure and applicable sampling plans. Furthermore, because variation in impeller trim of the bare pump is not a basis for requiring models to be rated as unique basic models, DOE agrees that variation in the horsepower rating of the paired motor as a result of different impeller trims within a basic model would also not necessarily be a basis for requiring units to be rated as unique basic models. Similarly since RSV and VTS pumps may be sold with varying numbers of stages, the horsepower rating of the paired motor may also vary correspondingly. DOE notes that this variation in motor horsepower does not necessarily constitute a characteristic that will define separate basic models.

However, variation in motor sizing (

i.e.,

horsepower rating) may also be associated with variation in motor efficiency, which is a performance characteristic; typically larger motors are more efficient than smaller motors. For this reason, in response to HI, DOE clarifies that in order to group pumps sold with motors (or motors and controls) into a single basic model (in contrast to grouping bare pumps with variations in impeller trim into a single basic model, as discussed in the previous section), each motor offered in a pump included in that basic model must have motor efficiency rated at the Federal minimum (

see

the appropriate table for NEMA Design B motors at 10 CFR 431.25)

or the same number of bands above the Federal minimum for each respective motor horsepower (

see

Table 3 of Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431).)

For example, the Federal minimum for a NEMA Design B 5 HP, 2-pole, enclosed motor in 10 CFR 431.25 is 88.5. A manufacturer is rating the pump and motor combination with a 90.2 percent efficient motor. In Table 3 of Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431, 90.2 is two bands above 88.5. Therefore, for a NEMA Design B 3 HP, 2-pole enclosed motor, in order to be considered as the same basic model, the manufacturer cannot distribute it with a motor with an efficiency less than 88.5 percent, which in Table 3 is two bands above the Federal minimum. If the manufacturer wishes to rate it with a less efficient motor, it must be rated as a separate basic model. This approach will ensure that the PEI and PER representations for the entire basic model will be representative of the performance across various impeller trims and motor horsepower. DOE has added this clarification to the definition of basic model.

For submersible motors, refer to the default motor efficiency values in this test procedure, shown in Table 2 of Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431, with further discussion in section III.D.1.b.

See

section III.D.1.b for further discussion of Table 3.

DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties regarding basic models for pumps sold

with motors or motors and speed controls.

2. Equipment Categories

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure be applicable to the following pump equipment categories: end suction close-coupled (ESCC), end suction frame mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), RSV, and VTS pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17594-95 (April 1, 2015). DOE also proposed that the test procedure would not be applicable to certain categories of pumps, including circulators, dedicated purpose pool pumps, axial/mixed flow pumps, and positive displacement pumps.

Id.

at 17597. These proposals were based on the recommendation of the Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #4, 5A, 5B, and 6 at p. 2) DOE also noted that, while intended to be consistent with this test procedure, the scope of any energy conservation standards proposed for pumps would be discussed as part of a separate rulemaking.

Id.

DOE requested comment on the proposed applicability of the test procedure to the five pump equipment categories noted above, namely ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. HI commented that it agrees that the proposed test procedure was applicable to the five pump equipment categories noted. (HI, No. 8 at p. 5) HI also agreed that circulators and pool pumps should be handled under two separate rulemakings. (HI, No. 8 at p. 7) No other interested parties provided comments on the scope of applicability of the proposed test procedure. As the amendments DOE is making to the proposed test procedure provisions do not significantly change the test methods or approach specified in the pump test procedure, and receiving no dissenting comments, DOE adopts its proposal that the test procedure provisions established in this final rule are applicable to the same scope of pumps discussed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17591-17601 (April 1, 2015).

The specific definitions and specifications DOE proposed to establish the scope of the test procedure, and any comments DOE received on those definitions, are discussed in the subsequent sections III.A.2.a, III.A.2.b, III.A.2.c, and III.A.2.d. The final equipment category definitions DOE is adopting in this final rule are presented in section III.A.2.e.

a. Definitions of Pump Equipment Categories

As noted, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed specific definitions for the five categories of pumps (

i.e.,

ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS) to establish the pumps to which the proposed test procedure is applicable. 80 FR 17586, 17595-96 and 17641-42 (April 1, 2015). To assist in defining these five pump categories, DOE also proposed the following definitions for several specific characteristics of the five pumps categories for which the test procedure is applicable—namely rotodynamic pump, single-axis flow pump, and end suction pump:

•

Rotodynamic pump

means a pump in which energy is continuously imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor.

•

Single axis flow pump

means a pump in which the liquid inlet of the bare pump is on the same axis as the liquid discharge of the bare pump.

•

End suction pump

means a rotodynamic pump that is single-stage and in which the liquid enters the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft and on the end opposite the bare pump's driver-end.

Id.

Based on these three definitions involving general pump characteristics, DOE proposed to define the following five pump equipment categories to which the test procedure applies as follows:

(1)

End suction frame mounted (ESFM) pump

means an end suction pump wherein:

(a) the bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;

(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and

Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.

(2)

End suction close-coupled (ESCC) pump

means an end suction pump in which:

(a) the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump;

(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and

Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.

(3)

In-line (IL) pump

means a single-stage, single axis flow, rotodynamic pump in which:

(a) liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft; and

(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected.

Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.

(4)

Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line, diffuser casing (RSV) pump

means a vertically suspended, multi-stage, single axis flow, rotodynamic pump in which:

(a) liquid is discharged in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft;

(b) each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and.

Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in the ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008).

(5)

Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pump

means a single-stage or multi-stage rotodynamic pump that is designed to be operated with the motor and stage(s) (or bowl(s)) fully submerged in the pumped liquid, and in which:

(a) each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser and

(b) liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft.

Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008.

Id.

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposed equipment category definitions and related terminology. Comments DOE received on these definitions and DOE's responses to those comments are discussed in the following subsections. DOE notes that comments regarding the exclusion of circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps, which are addressed in sections III.A.2.b and

III.A.2.c of this final rule, are also pertinent to the definitions of the ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS equipment categories and are also discussed in this section.

HI Nomenclature

DOE noted that any references to HI nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 were incorporated into the definitions of the aforementioned pump equipment categories as examples only and clarified that, in cases where there is a conflict between the description provided in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008, as applicable, and DOE's definitions established at 10 CFR 431.462, the language in the regulatory text would prevail.

Id.

DOE requested comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the regulatory text; whether such references would be likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies; and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when determining the appropriate equipment category for their pump models. At the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, an HI representative from Xylem (Mark Handzel) advocated the use of ANSI/HI nomenclature without new DOE nomenclature. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 63) In written comments, HI indicated that it affirms the importance of any pump rulemaking using ANSI/HI designations and nomenclature, citing common usage by U.S. pump manufacturers, distributors, engineering consulting firms, and pump users. (HI, No. 8 at p. 6) HI also commented that all references to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 should be changed to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 because the latter is the current version. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) The EEAs commented that they support the proposed definitions for the pump types to which the proposed test procedures would be applicable; they also indicated that they believe this approach would both limit the risk that a manufacturer could make a small change to a pump design in order to avoid having to meet the pump efficiency standards and help to provide clarity to manufacturers. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1)

After reviewing the comments, DOE is maintaining its definitions for the pump equipment categories presented in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, which references the ANSI/HI nomenclature as illustrative only. DOE believes that this approach strikes the best balance between the needs of the industry and the ability of DOE to enforce its regulations for pumps appropriately. DOE reiterates that the scope of the rulemaking is not limited to pumps meeting the ANSI/HI nomenclature referenced in the definitions and that any pump model meeting one of the DOE equipment category definitions is considered to be part of that equipment category, whether or not the pump is considered by the industry to be part of one of the referenced ANSI/HI nomenclature subgroups or a different subgroup.

Further, in preparing this final rule, DOE reviewed the ANSI/HI nomenclature to ensure that all applicable categories of pumps that would meet DOE's proposed equipment definitions were listed. Upon review, DOE noticed that the styles of pumps identified as OH2, OH3A, OH5A, and OH6 in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 may be considered by some parties to meet ESCC, ESFM, or IL pump definitions because they share some similar characteristics with those categories of pumps. DOE wishes to clarify that the styles of pumps generally considered to be OH2, OH3A, OH5A, and OH6 are covered equipment in that they meet the definition of “pump,” but are not subject to the test procedure established in this final rule, since they do not fall within the specific scope of pumps to which the test procedure is applicable. Specifically, DOE determined that OH3A and OH5A are not within the scope of this rule because they do not meet the definition of end-suction pump (

i.e.,

liquid does not enter pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft due to inlet adapter) and do not meet the definition of IL pump (

i.e.,

the flow inlet and outlet are on the same plane but not on the same axis). In addition, DOE believes that the majority of these OH3A and OH5A pumps are non-clogging and thus would also be excluded because they do not meet DOE's definition of clean water pump, as discussed further in section III.A.3.

Regarding OH6 pumps, DOE notes that such pumps include a high speed integral gear such that the impeller shaft will rotate faster than the driver. While these pumps meet the definition of IL pumps, they are excluded from the scope of pumps subject to this test procedure because they operate at impeller speeds greater than the nominal speed limitations discussed in section III.A.4 and III.C.2.c. In addition, the impellers and drivers of OH6 pumps rotate at different speeds and, thus, would be excluded based on DOE's revised specifications regarding the impeller and driver rotating speeds of pumps addressed by this test procedure (see section III.A.4). Similarly, DOE notes that OH2 pumps would meet the definition of an ESFM pump, but would be excluded because such pumps are designed specifically for pumping hydrocarbon fluids, as noted by the American Petroleum Institute Standard 610 certification and, as such, are not clean water pumps. For these reasons, DOE is not referencing OH2, OH3A, OH5A, or OH6 nomenclature in the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS established in this rulemaking.

Finally, DOE notes that in April 2014, HI released an updated version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014. DOE reviewed ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 and found the documents to be substantially the same as ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2−2008, with the exception of the addition of a new definition and description for pipe length, more detailed characteristics identified on some of the figures, and slight reorganization of the sections to improve document flow. DOE notes that none of these minor changes affect the content pertinent to the references to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 nomenclature proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. As such, DOE believes that it is appropriate to reference the most up-to-date industry standard and is updating all references in the RSV and VTS equipment category definitions from ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 in this final rule.

Specific Styles of IL Pumps

In response to DOE's request for comment on all proposed pump definitions in general, HI commented that twin head pumps, which combine two impeller assemblies into a common single axis flow casing with a single inlet and discharge, were not included in DOE's definitions and should be added to the rulemaking scope. (HI, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE notes that such pumps are a style of IL pump and, thus subject to the test procedure and standards as an IL pump, but DOE understands that this inclusion was not explicitly laid out in the NOPR. As such, twin head pumps meet the definition of IL pumps as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. Specifically, twin head pumps are single-axis flow, rotodynamic pumps with single-stage impellers and in which liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. However, to clarify the applicability of the IL pump definition and DOE's pump test procedure to twin head pumps, DOE is adopting in this final rule a definition of twin head pump as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).

In this final rule, DOE is also clarifying the testing and certification requirements for such pumps. For the purposes of applying the DOE test procedure to and certifying twin head pumps, DOE is clarifying that such pumps should be tested configured with a single impeller assembly, as discussed further in section III.C.2.c.

RSV Pump Definition

DOE also requested specific comment on whether it needed to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards applicability and on whether any additional language would be necessary in the proposed RSV definition in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to make the exclusion of immersible pumps clearer. HI commented that it believes the icons shown and the definition found in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 provide sufficient clarity to the flow direction, and that it does not believe any additional language is necessary. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7) DOE reviewed the figures in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 and believes that the figure is illustrative of the general equipment characteristics for RSV pumps. The description accompanying the figure also describes the manner in which liquid enters and exits the pump. Specifically, section 2.1.3.6 of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 states that, for RSV pumps, “fluid enters one nozzle of the in-line casing and is directed to the inlet of an internal multi-stage diffuser pump. After traveling through multiple stages, the liquid exits at the top stage of the pump where the flow is redirected via the outer sleeve to the opposing nozzle of the in-line casing.” As DOE's definition of RSV pump references the figures and description in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, and this description of flow path through the pump is not inconsistent or conflicting with DOE's definition of RSV pump, DOE does not believe that further clarification is necessary in this regard.

Regarding the exclusion of immersible pumps, HI commented that it did not believe any additional clarification was necessary. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7) Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has determined that the adopted language is sufficient to exclude any immersible pumps from treatment as an RSV pump for purposes of DOE's regulations.

VTS Equipment Terminology

Upon review of CIP Working Group transcripts and slides, DOE also determined that interested parties had requested the equipment category “vertical turbine submersible” be termed “submersible turbine,” given that some of these pumps are installed horizontally. (CIP Working Group transcript, No. 14 at p. 263) DOE notes that the definition proposed for vertical turbine submersible is silent as to installation orientation and, as a result, would include horizontally installed pumps. DOE believes that referring to submersible turbine pumps as “vertical turbine submersible,” when horizontally mounted submersible turbine pumps are also included in the equipment category, as defined, could lead to confusion among manufacturers and in the market place. As such, and given that changing the defined term from vertical turbine submersible to submersible turbine would not change the scope of the definition, DOE is revising the nomenclature in this final rule to match that used in the CIP Working Group, which more accurately describes the subject equipment. In the preamble to this final rule, DOE has retained the VTS abbreviation for the submersible turbine equipment category for consistency with the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), and all Working Group discussions and recommendations to date (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039). However, DOE is adopting the acronym “ST” for the regulatory text for long-term consistency with the defined term.

ESFM Equipment Terminology

Similarly, the “end suction frame mounted” category proposed in the NOPR had been referred to as “end suction frame mounted/own bearings” in the CIP Working Group documentation. (

See

for example, EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092 at p. 2 and EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0031 at p. 4) The proposed end suction frame mounted definition would be inclusive of own bearings pumps, or any end-suction pump that “does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft.” 80 FR 17586, 17641 (April 1, 2015). DOE intended the ESFM and ESCC equipment category definitions proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to be mutually exclusive, whereby pumps that are close coupled to the motor and share a single impeller and motor shaft would be part of the ESCC equipment category, and all other end suction pumps that are mechanically-coupled to the motor and for which the bare pump and motor have separate shafts would be part of the ESFM equipment category.

DOE understands that there are several coupling and mounting methods for pairing a bare pump and motor, in addition to frame mounting, and that referring to the ESFM equipment category based only on that criteria may be misleading. To clarify the applicability of the previously defined end suction frame mounted equipment category to own bearing pumps, and given that changing the term itself would not change the scope of the definition, DOE is revising the nomenclature in this final rule to match that used in the CIP Working Group. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is defining this equipment category as end-suction frame mounted/own bearing and adding to the definition the term “mechanically-coupled” to clarify that the ESFM equipment is, in fact, inclusive of many coupling methods. DOE is further adopting a specific definition for “mechanically-coupled,” as mutually exclusive with “close-coupled,” to explicitly establish the coupling methods to which the ESFM equipment category applies. The definition of mechanically-coupled consists of text that was in the proposed definition for ESFM and does not change the scope of ESFM from the proposal.

b. Circulators

Circulators, which are a specific kind of rotodynamic pump, are small, low-head pumps similar to the IL configuration pumps that are generally used to circulate water in hydronic space conditioning or potable water systems in buildings.

The CIP Working Group recommended that circulators be addressed as part of a separate rulemaking process that would involve informal negotiation between interested parties followed by an ASRAC-approved negotiation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)

In the April 2015 test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed to exclude circulators from the rulemaking, and proposed a definition that would be mutually exclusive from the other pumps in the rulemaking. Specifically, DOE proposed definitions for circulators, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps that were mutually exclusive, based on the assumption that circulators require only the support of the supply and discharge piping to function as designed, whereas ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. In response to the proposed circulator definition, DOE received comments from several interested parties,

addressed below. However, DOE has not yet received any formal proposals or requests for negotiation from the interested parties.

The EEAs and CA IOUs expressed concern that the portion of the proposed circulator definition that describes circulators as “requir[ing] only the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected to function as designed,” may lead to the design of circulators with alternative mounting intended to circumvent regulation. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5) HI agreed that no pump definition should be associated with a rigid foundation, as in the industry rigid foundation has a different connotation than DOE is using. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6, 10). HI also disagreed with the proposed circulator definition, commenting that there are many end suction and close-coupled IL pumps that would meet the proposed circulator definition but that are not considered circulators. Instead, HI stated its belief that such pumps should be included in the scope of pumps considered in this rulemaking. As a result, HI recommended revising the definitions of circulator, ESFM, ESCC, and IL pumps, as well as other related definitions. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 7-8) Following the close of the comment period, the HI circulator pump committee resubmitted revised definitions for circulator and IL pumps, and other related definitions. (HI, No. 15 at pp. 1-3)

DOE reviewed both sets of HI's recommended definitions and found them to be essentially the same. Specifically, HI's circulator pump committee offered the following revised definitions of IL pumps and circulator pumps, which were also included in HI's comments submitted in response to the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR:

“In-line pump means a single-stage, single-axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that has a shaft input power greater than or equal to one horsepower and less than or equal to two hundred horsepower at BEP and full impeller diameter, in which liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft, except for: Those that are short-coupled or close-coupled, have a maximum hydraulic power that is less than or equal to five horsepower at the full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, and are distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, within the specified horsepower range. Pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, and CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, would not meet the definition of in-line pump.” (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6; HI, No. 15 at p. 1)

“Circulator pump means a single stage, in-line, rotodynamic pump that meets one of the following descriptions:

i. [Wet Rotor Circulator] A single-axis flow, close-coupled, wet rotor pump that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP1; or

ii. [Dry Rotor Two-Piece Circulator] A single-axis flow, close-coupled, dry rotor pump that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP2; or

iii. [Dry Rotor Three-Piece Circulator] A single-axis flow, short-coupled, dry rotor pump, either flexibly or rigidly coupled that: (1) Has a maximum hydraulic power greater than or equal to 1/40 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp at full impeller diameter and over the full range of operation, (2) is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a place perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 nomenclature CP3.”

(HI, No. 8 at pp. 8-9; HI, No. 15 at p. 1)

HI also recommended several supporting definitions, including definitions for single-axis flow pump, close-coupled pump, short-coupled pump, rigid-coupled pump, flexibly-coupled pump, hydraulic power, wet rotor pump, dry rotor pump, horizontal motor, and non-horizontal motor. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 9-10; HI, No. 15 at pp. 2-3)

The EEAs and CA IOUs also stated that they are collectively discussing an improved definition of circulators with HI. (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5)

In light of the continued discussions among these interested parties regarding future definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards for circulators, DOE has decided to refrain from defining the term “circulator” in this rulemaking. Rather than explicitly define the term circulator in this rule, DOE has modified the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, VTS, and RSV to specifically exclude certain categories of pumps that are widely considered circulators by the industry, using many of the criteria and characteristics of circulators indicated by HI in its comments and proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.

In particular, in its definition of IL pump, DOE excluded pumps that are commonly marketed and sold as circulators in the pump industry by utilizing the design features of a horizontal motor, as well as a hydraulic power less than or equal to 5 hp. This is consistent with HI's suggested definition of IL pump as well as circulator pump, which includes reference to a horizontal motor and a horsepower range of 1/40 to 5 hydraulic hp. DOE agrees that a horizontal motor, which is a motor that is required to be oriented with the motor shaft in a horizontal position in order to operate as designed, is a distinguishing feature of a circulator. To clearly establish this characteristic, DOE is also defining the term horizontal motor in this rulemaking based on the definition HI suggested in its comments. Specifically, HI's proposed definition and the definition DOE is adopting in this final rule are as follows:

Horizontal motor

means a motor that requires the motor shaft to be in a horizontal position to function as designed, as specified in the manufacturer literature.

DOE notes that it is maintaining a lower shaft limit of 1 hp for the IL pump equipment category and only specifically excluding those pumps that have both: (1) A hydraulic output of less than 5 hp and (2) a horizontal motor. As such, any IL pumps that have a shaft horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp and hydraulic output less than 5 hp and are not sold with a horizontal motor, as well as IL pumps that have a hydraulic output greater than or equal to 5 hp and shaft horsepower less than or equal to 200 hp and are sold with a horizontal or non-horizontal motor, would continue to be included in the IL pump definition and subject to the test procedure established in this final rule. DOE notes that the majority of pumps that are commonly referred to as

circulators have a shaft input power less than 1 hp. Such pumps may operate with or without horizontal motors. As such, the lower shaft power limit in the IL pump definition excludes these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking.

DOE also acknowledges that HI recommended establishing the hydraulic horsepower threshold over the full range of operation of the pump. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 5-6 and 8-9; HI, No. 15 at p. 1) However, DOE notes that the other horsepower thresholds referenced in this final rule reference pump shaft input power as measured at BEP. DOE also notes that the test procedure established in this final rule contains a specific and repeatable methodology for determining BEP of a tested pump. Conversely, in the proposed test procedure, DOE did not define the “full range of operation” of a pump or propose a method for how to determine it. Since it is important that DOE's test procedures be as precise and unambiguous as possible, DOE believes that it is important that the hydraulic horsepower of a pump be determined in a consistent manner when determining whether or not the pump meets the definition of an IL pump and, thus, is subject to DOE's pumps test procedure establish in this final rule. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is establishing the hydraulic horsepower threshold for circulator pumps as determined at BEP. That is, DOE will exclude from the definition of IL pump, IL pumps with a hydraulic horsepower less than 5 hp, as determined at full impeller diameter and BEP, and that are distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, as those pumps are considered to be circulator pumps.

Consistent with the changes to the IL definition, DOE is also incorporating horsepower limits into the ESCC, ESFM, RSV, and VTS equipment category definitions. DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the scope of the test procedure using a horsepower range of greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than 200 hp that was applicable to all ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). However, to maintain consistent format among the five defined equipment categories, DOE is including this established horsepower range in each of the equipment category definitions explicitly rather than in a separate scope limitation. DOE discusses the horsepower range and other parameters used to establish the scope of the test procedure in section III.A.4.

Additionally, DOE has added the design feature of a “dry rotor” to the definition of an IL pump

and added a definition of dry rotor pump, as suggested by HI. This feature excludes pumps that comply with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, also referred to as wet rotor circulators, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014. This definition is also consistent with HI's proposed IL and circulator pump definitions. DOE notes that wet rotor pumps were proposed to be excluded from the scope of the test procedure in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR under the definition of “sealless pump.” Specifically, DOE proposed a definition of sealless pump to include both: (1) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump using a magnetic coupling and (2) a pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped fluid. 80 FR at 17641-42. HI's proposed definition of wet rotor is identical to the second clause of DOE's proposed sealless pump definition. As such, in this final rule, DOE defines dry rotor pump, consistent with the definition proposed by HI, and to incorporate the term dry rotor into the ESFM, ESCC, IL, RSV, and VTS equipment category definitions. Given the mutually exclusive relationship between wet and dry rotor pumps, the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps, as established in section III.A.2.a, now implicitly exclude wet rotor pumps from the scope of this test procedure. This implicit exclusion of wet rotor pumps alleviates the need to explicitly exclude wet rotor pumps using the definition of sealless pump as proposed in the NOPR. Further discussion of modifications to the definition of sealless pump are found in section III.A.2.b.

In the NOPR, DOE had excluded sealless pumps, including wet rotor pumps, from the scope of the rulemaking in addition to explicitly limiting the defined pump categories to dry rotor pumps. 80 FR 17586, 17598-99 (April 1, 2015)

See

section III.A.3.b.

DOE also acknowledges the concern from interested parties regarding the potential issues associated with referencing attachment to a rigid foundation. As noted in the NOPR, DOE initially proposed such a design feature to clearly differentiate and exclude circulators from other, similar categories of pumps that would be subject to the proposed test procedure. However, DOE has, based on comments received from interested parties, revised its approach to the exclusion of circulators and, consequently, this design feature is no longer needed in the definitions of IL, ESCC, and ESFM. Instead, DOE has made other modifications to the applicable definitions to continue to exclude circulators from the equipment categories addressed in this rulemaking, as discussed above.

In addition to the parameters necessary to exclude circulators from the scope of pumps for which the test procedure is applicable, the CA IOUs commented that certain multi-stage pumps should be included in the definition of a circulator, as proposed by DOE. CA IOUs also provided an example of a commercially available style of pump that they believe to be a multi-stage circulator. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 4-5) DOE reviewed the example style of pump provided by the CA IOUs and found that this specific style of pump is available in sizes from 0.5 to 75 motor hp, depending on impeller diameter and number of stages. DOE also concluded that specific models within this general pump family, namely those with shaft horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp, meet the definition of an RSV pump and therefore are included in the scope of this rulemaking. Conversely, other models within the same pump family with shaft horsepower less than 1 hp do not meet the definition of an RSV pump and are not subject to the test procedure established in this rulemaking. Consequently, given that DOE has withdrawn its proposal to define circulators at this time, DOE has determined that it does not need to define or address these small RSV pumps in this rulemaking.

c. Pool Pumps

The CIP Working Group formally recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (DPPPs) by December 2014. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed defining a “dedicated-purpose pool pump” as an end suction pump designed specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an integrated basket strainer. 80 FR 17586, 17641 (April 1, 2015). DOE developed this proposed definition to help distinguish a DPPP from other categories of pumps under consideration in this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055).

In response, APSP requested that DOE continue to keep pool pumps separate from the scope of pumps considered in this rulemaking (APSP, No. 12 at p.1), and the CA IOUs encouraged ASRAC to establish a new working group for DPPP. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) In July 2015, DOE issued a RFI on DPPPs requesting data and information from

interested parties on this equipment (July 2015 DPPP RFI). 80 FR 38032 (July 3, 2015). On August 25, 2015, DOE also published a notice of intent to establish a working group for DPPPs. 80 FR 51483.

See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14

for more updates and information on the DPPP rulemaking.

DOE also received several comments regarding its proposed definition. During the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, CA IOUs expressed that the defining characteristic of a pool pump may not be the strainer basket, as not all pool pumps have them. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 57-58, 68) An HI representative from Xylem (Mark Handzel) responded that commercial pool pumps without basket strainers would be considered under one of the equipment categories addressed in this rulemaking. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 58-59) An HI representative from Xylem (Paul Ruzicka) also suggested that, on the residential side, pool pumps are double insulated products. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 69-70)

In written comments, the EEAs and the CA IOUs noted that many pool pumps, including booster pumps, do not include an integrated basket strainer, and that not all pool pumps are designed specifically to circulate water (EEAs, No. 10 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2-3). The CA IOUs noted that 40 percent of California residential in-ground pools have booster pumps that are operated 2.5 hours per day. The size is typically

3/4

nameplate horsepower with a service factor of 1.5. The CA IOUs recommended that these be considered pool pumps and excluded from this rulemaking, further noting that these manufacturers were not involved in the CIP Working Group deliberations. The CA IOUs also stated that mass market commodity pool pumps are unique because either the pump is secured directly to the motor; or the pump and motor are each factory secured to a common frame. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at pp. 2-4)

In separate written comments, APSP and the CA IOUs recommended the following definition:

“A `pool pump' is a pump with the following characteristics:

• An integral end suction pump and motor combination specifically designed for pool and spa applications.

• The impeller is attached to a motor (or motor and controller) served by single-phase power five total horsepower or less.

• The pump is secured directly to the motor, or the pump and motor are factory secured to a common frame.” (APSP, No. 12 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 3-4)

DOE's original intent in proposing a definition for DPPP in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR was to properly exclude them from this rulemaking. Upon review, DOE agrees with certain of the submitted comments on the proposed definition, such as that all pumps associated with pools may not include an integrated basket strainer. For example, DOE is aware that booster pumps are not typically sold with integrated basket strainers and some filter pumps may be sold separately from the strainer, as discussed in the July 2015 DPPP RFI. 80 FR 26475, 26481 (May 8, 2015).

Therefore, after reviewing the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE has decided to refrain from adopting a definition for DPPP in this final rule. Instead, in this final rule, DOE is excluding DPPP from the definitions for ESCC and ESFM pumps, and DOE will define DPPP in the separate DPPP rulemaking that was initiated with the RFI.

d. Axial/Mixed Flow and Positive Displacement Pumps

“Axial/mixed flow pump” is a term used by the pump industry to describe a rotodynamic pump that is used to move large volumes of liquid at high flow rates and low heads. These pumps are typically custom-designed and used in applications such as dewatering, flood control, and storm water management.

Positive displacement (PD) pumps are a style of pump that operates by first opening an increasing volume to suction; this volume is then filled, closed, moved to discharge, and displaced. PD pumps operate at near-constant flow over their range of operational pressures and can often produce higher pressure than a centrifugal pump, at a given flow rate. PD pumps also excel at maintaining flow and efficiency for liquids more viscous than water. When used in clean water applications, PD pumps are typically chosen for high pressure, constant flow applications such as high pressure power washing, oil field water injection, and low-flow metering processes.

The CIP Working Group recommended excluding both of these types of pumps from prospective energy conservation standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The primary reason for excluding these pumps from this test procedure rulemaking is their low market share in the considered horsepower range and low potential for energy savings. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at pp. 114 and 372-73) In addition, the CIP Working Group acknowledged that PD pumps are more commonly used in non-clean water applications and provide a different utility than the categories of pumps addressed in this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 114) Therefore, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to exclude these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking and the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, but determined that both axial/mixed flow and PD pumps were implicitly excluded based on the proposed equipment category definitions and scope parameters, so that explicit exclusions were not necessary. 80 FR 17586, 17597-98 (April 1, 2015). In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposed exclusion and the assertion that such pumps were explicitly excluded based on the existing definitions and scope parameters.

Id.

HI commented that both positive displacement and axial/mixed flow pumps should be added to the list of equipment excluded from the scope of pumps in this final rule. HI noted that PD pumps represent a small percentage of the overall pump market and are generally used for niche applications, such as viscous or shear-sensitive liquids. As a result, such pumps have a distinct difference in design compared with rotodynamic pumps. HI also suggested differentiating and excluding axial/mixed flow pumps using a specific speed limit of 4,500,

where pumps with a specific speed greater than 4,500 would be considered axial/mixed flow. (HI, No. 8 at p. 11)

Specific speed is a quasi-dimensionless quantity used to describe relative pump geometry and flow characteristics.

In response to HI, DOE notes that the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR does not include PD pumps within its scope of applicability. All equipment to which the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and this final rule applies is explicitly defined as types of rotodynamic pumps. Further, rotodynamic pumps are explicitly defined in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and this final rule as continuously imparting energy to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. Such definition necessarily does not include

PD pumps, which do not continuously impart energy to the pumped fluid and do not contain an impeller, propeller, or rotor. As such, no PD pumps meet the definition of any equipment within the scope of this test procedure, as discussed in section III.A.2.a. Therefore, DOE does not believe it is necessary to explicitly exclude PD pumps, which is consistent with the comments submitted by HI.

Regarding axial/mixed flow pumps, DOE agrees with HI that axial/mixed flow pumps, which are designed to accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio applications, should not be subject to the test procedure established in this final rule. DOE notes that the definitions of IL, RSV, and VTS implicitly exclude axial/mixed flow pumps through specific design features. Specifically, the definitions of IL and RSV pumps exclude axial/mixed flow pumps by specifying single axis flow and a liquid inlet in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. In contrast, the liquid intake in axial/mixed flow pumps is typically parallel to the impeller shaft; as such, these pumps do not meet the definition of an RSV or IL pump. DOE understands that less typical piping configurations could allow an axial/mixed flow pump to be built with the liquid inlet in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. However, such a configuration would not satisfy the definition of single axis flow and, as such, these pumps would not meet the definition of an RSV or IL pump. Additionally, the definition of VTS pump excludes axial/mixed flow pumps by specifying that the pump must be designed to operate with the motor and stage(s) fully submerged in the pumped liquid. Axial/mixed flow pumps are not designed to be completely submerged in the pumped liquid and, therefore do not meet the definition of a VTS pump.

In summary, DOE believes that the definitions of IL, RSV, and VTS equipment categories are sufficient to exclude pumps that are referred to as axial/mixed flow. As a result, DOE maintains that a specific speed limitation or other criteria for these categories is unnecessary, and DOE has not included a specific speed range for these pumps in the parameters for establishing the scope of this rulemaking described in section III.A.4.

With respect to the end suction pumps defined in this final rule, DOE agrees that additional scope parameters are necessary to limit the scope of this rulemaking to end suction pumps and not inadvertently include axial/mixed flow pumps. DOE agrees with HI's suggestion of a specific speed limit to accomplish the exclusion of axial/mixed flow pumps. However, DOE reviewed the specific speeds of all end suction pumps submitted by manufacturers during the energy conservation standards rulemaking and identified multiple end suction pumps with specific speeds in the range of 4,500 to 5,000.

DOE notes these data were voluntarily submitted by manufacturers who self-classified their pumps into equipment types with the understanding that the rulemaking was not intended to include axial/mixed flow pumps. DOE reviewed literature for the specific pumps end suction pumps with specific speeds in the range of 4,500 to 5,000 and found them to be marketed as end suction pumps. Furthermore, DOE notes that the performance data for these pumps were included in the energy conservation standards rulemaking analysis. Consequently, DOE finds it appropriate to explicitly include within the scope of this rule, as established in § 431.464(a)(1)(ii), all end suction pumps with specific speeds up to and including 5,000 and exclude pumps with specific speeds greater than 5,000.

All values for specific speed in this final rule pertain to calculations using U.S. customary units.

e. Final Equipment Category Definitions

After consideration of all comments, definitions for pump equipment categories subject to this test procedure are as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).

DOE received no comments on DOE's other supporting definitions proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, namely rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and end suction pump. Therefore, DOE is adopting those definitions as proposed.

3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application

In an effort to meet the intent and recommendations of the CIP Working Group to include only those pumps intended to pump clean water in the scope of this test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #8 at pp. 3-4), DOE proposed to define “clean water pump” in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17598 (April 1, 2015). DOE also proposed defining several kinds of clean water pumps that are designed for specific applications and that the CIP Working Group had indicated should be excluded from the scope of this test procedure and DOE's standards rulemaking efforts that are being considered in a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) These proposed definitions, comments DOE received regarding the proposed definitions, and DOE's responses to those comments are discussed in the subsequent sections III.A.3.a and III.A.3.b.

a. Definition of Clean Water Pump

In the NOPR, DOE proposed defining “clean water pump” as a pump that is designed for use in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.25 kilograms per cubic meter, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic meter, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of −10 °C. DOE also noted that several common pumps would not meet the definition of clean water pumps, as they are not designed for pumping clean water, including wastewater, sump, slurry, or solids handling pumps; pumps designed for pumping hydrocarbon product fluids; chemical process pumps; and sanitary pumps. DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference the definition for “clear water” established in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the characteristics of the fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. 80 FR 17586, 17598 (April 1, 2015).

DOE requested comment on the definition of “clean water pump” proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and its proposal to incorporate by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. In response to these proposals, HI commented that it agrees with the definition of “clean water pump” as set forth in the NOPR, and that it agrees with incorporating by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014. (HI, No. 8 at p. 11) DOE received no other comments on these terms and has determined that the definitions proposed in the NOPR are sufficient for the purposes of applying DOE's test procedure. However, for consistency, DOE is making the minor modification of translating the definition to use all U.S. customary units. As such, DOE is adopting the definition of clean water pump and incorporating by reference the definition of “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, with only the minor modification regarding units noted previously.

b. Exclusion of Specific Kinds of Clean Water Pumps

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed defining several kinds of pumps that meet the definition of clean water pumps discussed in section III.A.3.a, but that the CIP Working Group recommended be excluded from this pumps test procedure rulemaking. Specifically, in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure would not apply to the following:

• Fire pumps;

• self-priming pumps;

• prime-assist pumps;

• sealless pumps;

• pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and

• a pump meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).

80 FR 17586, 17598-17600 (April 1, 2015).

Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definitions of fire pump, self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and sealless pump:

•

Fire pump

means a pump that is compliant with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 20-2016,

“Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” and either (1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/UL listed under ANSI/UL 448-2013, “Standard for Safety Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” or (2) FM approved under the January 2015 edition

of FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type).”

DOE notes that in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to reference NFPA 20-2013. However, on May 26, 2015, NFPA released a revised version of NFPA 20. DOE reviewed the new NFPA 20-2016 and finds it to be consistent with NFPA 20-2013 for the purposes of defining the characteristics of a “fire pump” in the context of DOE's regulations for pumps. DOE finds it most appropriate to reference the most up-to-date version of the NFPA Standard, as that version would be the version currently in use for specifying the necessary characteristics of fire pumps in the industry. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is updating the definition of fire pump to reference NFPA 20-2016.

Similar to NFPA 20-2016, DOE notes that, in January 2015, FM Global released an updated version of the FM Class Number 1319 standard. DOE reviewed the new January 2015 edition and notes that it contains only editorial changes as compared to the October 2008 edition proposed in the NOPR. DOE believes that it is most appropriate to reference the most up-to-date version of the FM standard, as that version is the version currently in use for specifying the necessary characteristics of fire pumps in the industry. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is updating the definition of fire pump to reference the January 2015 edition of FM Class Number 1319.

•

Self-priming pump

means a pump designed to lift liquid that originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump requires initial manual priming from a dry start condition, but requires no subsequent manual re-priming.

•

Prime-assist pump

means a pump designed to lift liquid that originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump requires no manual intervention to prime or re-prime from a dry-start condition. Such a pump includes a vacuum pump or air compressor to remove air from the suction line to automatically perform the prime or re-prime function.

•

Sealless pump

means either:

○ A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump using a magnetic coupling; or

○ A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped fluid.

Id.

at 17641-42.

HI commented that it agrees with the definition of “fire pump” and recommended alternate definitions for “self-priming pump,” “prime-assist pump,” and “sealless pump” as follows:

•

Self-priming pump

means a pump designed to lift liquid that originates below the centerline of the pump inlet. Further, such a pump must contain at least one internal recirculation passage and requires a manual filling of the pump casing prior to initial start-up. Such a pump must then be able to re-prime after the initial start-up without the use of external vacuum sources, manual filling, or a foot valve.

•

Prime-assist pump

means a pump designed to lift liquid that originates below the centerline of the pump inlet. Such a pump requires no manual intervention to prime or re-prime from a dry-start condition without the use of a foot valve. Such a pump includes a vacuum pump or air compressor and venture/educator to remove air from the suction line to automatically perform the prime or re-prime function at any point during the pump's operating cycle.

• A

sealless pump

means either:

○ A hermetically sealed pump that transmits torque from the motor to an inner impeller rotor via magnetic force through a containment shell;

○ Or, a type of pump that has a common shaft to link the pump and motor in a single hermetically sealed unit. The pumped liquid is circulated through the motor but is isolated from the motor components by a stator liner.

(HI, No. 55 at pp. 11-12)

DOE considered these recommendations and revised the definitions of these excluded clean water pumps in this final rule, incorporating the key components of HI's proposals. Specifically, DOE agrees with HI's revised definitions for prime-assist pump and self-priming pump and is adopting them in this final rule with some minor modifications for clarity. DOE finds HI's suggested definitions to be consistent with DOE's proposed definitions but more precise, using industry-specific language.

Regarding HI's suggested definition of sealless pump, DOE agrees with the content of the definition. However, DOE notes that, based on the modifications to equipment category definitions described in section III.A.2.a, DOE has determined that it is no longer necessary to explicitly exclude wet rotor pumps (the second clause of HI's sealless pump definition) from the scope of this rulemaking. Specifically, as explained in section III.A.2.a, DOE is specifying in its revised definitions that all ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps are types of dry rotor pumps. Dry rotor pump means a pump in which the motor rotor is not immersed in the pumped fluid. Conversely, a wet rotor pump is one in which the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped liquid.

Given the mutually exclusive relationship between wet and dry rotor pumps, the definitions of ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps, as established in section III.A.2.a, now implicitly exclude wet rotor pumps from the scope of this test procedure. As a result, DOE has simplified the sealless pump exclusion in this final rule to exclude magnet driven pumps only. Accordingly, DOE is also modifying the term “sealless pump” to “magnet driven pump,” as DOE believes this term more accurately describes the excluded equipment. In addition, DOE is modifying the definition of magnet driven pump to be consistent with the suggestions from HI, which DOE believes is consistent with the portion of the sealless pump definition proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR addressing magnet driven pumps, but which uses more precise and industry-specific terminology.

HI also commented that no pumps designed to the Federal defense specification MIL-P-17639 should be included in this rulemaking. (HI, No. 8 at p. 12) HI stated that the specifications included in the CIP Working Group

term sheet also should be excluded, specifically MIL-P-17881, MIL-P-17840, MIL-P-18682, and MIL-P-18472 (commonly referred to as “MIL-SPEC”). DOE has therefore reviewed these additional specifications in determining exclusions in this final rule.

Pumps designed to these military specifications must meet very specific physical and/or operational characteristics and comply with complex and rigid reporting requirements.

These specifications require that significant amounts of design and test data be submitted to various military design review agencies to ensure that the pump can be operated and maintained in harsh naval environments. DOE believes there is sufficient justification to exclude all of the MIL-SPEC pumps identified by HI from the scope of this rulemaking without a risk of clean water pumps being marketed or sold as MIL-SPEC for actual use in other applications due to the rigorous and burdensome requirements associated with complying with those regulations. DOE notes that, as mentioned in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, when considering if a pump is designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in any of these specifications, DOE may request that a manufacturer provide DOE with copies of the original design and test data that were submitted to appropriate design review agencies, as required by each of these specifications. 80 FR 17586, 17599 (April 1, 2015).

United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Acquisition Reform: DOD Begins Program To Reform Specifications and Standards, GAO/NSIAD-95-14. October 11, 1994. Washington, DC. pp. 2-3.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95014.pdf

After reviewing and considering comments, DOE is adopting in this final rule that the following specific types of clean water pumps are excluded from the scope of this test procedure final rule:

• Fire pumps;

• self-priming pumps;

• prime-assist pumps;

• magnet driven pumps;

• pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and

• pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)” (as amended); MIL-P-17840C, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For Surface Ship Application)” (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, “Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard” (as amended); and MIL-P-18472G, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant” (as amended).

Accordingly, DOE provides the revised definitions of fire pump, self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and magnet driven pump set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).

4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This Rulemaking

In addition to limiting the types of pumps that DOE will regulate at this time through pump definitions and their applications, DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to further limit the scope of the pumps test procedure considered in this rulemaking by applying the following performance and design characteristics:

• 1-200 hp (shaft power at the BEP at full impeller diameter for the number of stages

required for testing to the standard);

The number of “stages” in a multi-stage pump refers to the number of bowl assemblies included in that pump.

The CIP Working Group also recommended that testing be required with three stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for VTS pumps, unless a model is not available with that specific number of stages, in which case the pump would be tested with the next closest number of stages. This recommendation is discussed in more detail in section III.C.2.c.

• 25 gallons per minute (gpm) and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);

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

• design temperature range from −10 to 120 °C;

• pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver speeds; and

• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).

(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3); 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015).

Wilo commented that lower thresholds for horsepower and BEP flow rate should not be included as limiting parameters on the scope of pumps considered in the rule, citing unspecified gains in energy savings that could be realized by regulating smaller models. (Wilo, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 44 at pp. 1-2)

In response to Wilo's suggestion that DOE apply the test procedure to pumps with flow rates below 25 gpm or shaft input power below 1 hp, DOE believes that such a recommendation is inconsistent with the scope of pumps the CIP Working Group recommended for this rulemaking. Given that such small horsepower pumps were not considered in the CIP Working Group discussions, any data or information submitted to DOE throughout those negotiations did not consider small horsepower pumps. As such, DOE is electing to maintain the lower thresholds for horsepower and BEP flow rate as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.

A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Wilo; (2) appearing in document number 44 of the docket; and (3) appearing on pages 1-2 of that document.

HI recommended in the April 2015 NOPR public meeting and written comments that DOE establish scope related to “driver and impeller” speed rather than just driver speed. HI noted that pumps do not all have 1:1 motor rotating speed to impeller-rotating speed, such as a gear pump. (HI, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 85; HI, No. 8 at p. 13) HI further specified as an example that a geared pump designed to use a 2-pole motor could be in scope but could not be tested according to section I.C.1 of the test procedure. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13)

DOE notes that the list shown in the preamble of the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, based on the CIP Working Group recommendations, included a limitation for pumps designed for nominal driver speeds of 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3); 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). However, in the regulatory text of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE modified this recommendation to acknowledge that the pumps within the scope of the proposed test procedure include pumps paired with non-induction motors, which have wide range of operating speeds. Specifically, DOE proposed to limit the scope of the proposed test procedure to pumps designed to operate with either: (1) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm.

Id.

at 17642. DOE proposed the speed ranges of 2,880 to 4,320 and 1,440 to 2,160 based on the nominal rotating speeds of 3,600 and 1,800 for 2- and 4-pole motors, respectively, and the allowed 20

percent tolerance on rotating speed proposed in the NOPR.

Id.

at 17609.

DOE notes that geared pumps were never explicitly addressed by the CIP Working Group; were not included in the pump data which are the basis of this final rule and the associated energy conservation standard rulemaking; and were not intended to be included in the scope of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. In addition, as mentioned in section III.A.2.a, geared pumps typically operate at impeller speeds higher than the 1,800 and 3,600 nominal rotating speeds DOE referenced in CIP Working Group discussions and the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. In light of HI's comment, DOE agrees that it is worth clarifying that such pumps are not subject to or addressed by the test procedure established in this final rule. To clarify that pumps with higher impeller or lower driver rotating speeds (

i.e.,

geared pumps) are not within the scope of this rulemaking, DOE is modifying the language establishing the rotating speeds within the scope of the test procedure adopted in this final rule to note that the driver and impeller must operate at the same speed.

During the April 2015 NOPR public meeting, the CA IOUs expressed concern regarding whether it was the CIP Working Group's intention to address VTS pumps that operate at high speed. Specifically, the CA IOUs mentioned that it may not have been the intent of HI to exclude a product operating at a higher rpm and recommended that HI consider the language proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR to ensure they support the scope of pumps addressed by the proposed test procedure. (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at pp. 86-88) However, in its written comments, HI did not recommend any changes to the parameters other than the discussion on impeller speed versus driver speed. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13)

Wilo commented that manufacturers may redesign to nominal speeds excluded from the DOE regulation. (Wilo, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 44 at p. 2) Wilo indicated that, for example, a pump could be designed for use with 6-pole motors at 1,200 rpm, or for use with controls at 2,650 rpm. Wilo recommended to instead apply the minimum efficiency required per equipment class (

e.g.,

C-values at 1,800 rpm) to pumps of any speed and specific speed, thereby eliminating exceptions for speed and allowing for enforcement across all motor speeds. (

Id.

)

DOE's data and analysis are based solely on pumps with nominal rotating speeds corresponding to those speed ranges proposed in the 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE notes that, during the initial data request underlying the parallel pumps test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE requested data on six-pole pumps from manufacturers. However, manufacturers declined to provide such on the basis that, while some pumps may be sold for use with 6-pole motors, they are all designed for use with 4- or 2-pole motors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at p. 198) As such, manufacturers posited that these pumps would already be captured in the provided data for 4- and 2-pole, and any efficiency improvements made to meet the energy conservation standards for those equipment classes would also result in energy savings when the pump was operated with a 6-pole motor. Additionally, DOE finds it unlikely that, for those pumps that can operate with 2-, 4-, or 6-pole motors, a manufacturer would begin specifying that their pump was inappropriate for operation in the nominal speed ranges of 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm to avoid regulation.

After considering these comments, DOE maintains its position set forth in the NOPR, and limits the test procedure applicability to pumps designed for the given motors or speeds. DOE notes that pumps with lower or higher operating speeds are covered as “pumps” and, should DOE deem it necessary, DOE could evaluate the need for a test procedure or standards for pumps at other rotating speeds in a future rulemaking.

In summary, DOE is establishing in this final rule the following scope parameters:

• 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);

• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter and the number of stages specified for testing);

• design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F;

• designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed; and

• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).

As discussed further in section III.B.2, DOE is clarifying that the limitation on pump total head of 459 feet must be ascertained based on the pump operating at BEP, at full impeller diameter, and with the number of stages specified for testing.

Additionally, to exclude axial/mixed flow pumps, DOE is applying a seventh scope parameter for ESCC and ESFM pumps, namely:

• For ESCC and ESFM pumps, specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

As discussed in section III.A.2.d, DOE is setting this limit on specific speed based on HI's suggestion and data submitted by manufacturers for end suction pumps. DOE believes that a specific speed limit for the remaining equipment categories, namely IL, RSV, and VTS, are unnecessary, as the definitions for these categories include design features that implicitly exclude axial/mixed flow pumps.

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed defining bowl diameter to specify clearly and unambiguously the limiting criterion for VTS pumps (

i.e.,

bowl diameter). 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). Specifically, DOE proposed defining “bowl diameter” as it applies to VTS pumps as follows:

Bowl diameter

means the maximum dimension of an imaginary straight line passing through and in the plane of the circular shape of the intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump that is perpendicular to the pump shaft and that intersects the circular shape of the intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump at both of its ends, where the intermediate bowl or chamber is as defined in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008.

With this definition, only those VTS pumps with bowl diameters of 6 inches or less would be required to be tested under the test procedure.

Id.

In response to DOE's request for comment on the proposed definition for “bowl diameter” as it would apply to VTS pumps, HI commented that the definition should reference the updated 2014 version of ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008, and recommended that the word “outermost” should be inserted before the text “circular shape of the intermediate bowl.” (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) Based on previously submitted HI comments regarding the energy conservation standards rulemaking for pumps, DOE understands that VTS (

e.g.,

VS0) pumps are considered equivalent to a style of pump referred to as “submersible multi-stage water pump”

(MSS) in EU regulation 547.

(HI, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 25 at p. 3) DOE also understands that, according to EU 547, MSS pumps are designed to be operated in a borehole and have a nominal outer diameter of either 4 or 6 inches.

Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps.

Official Journal of the European Union.

L 165, 26 June 2012.

DOE agrees with HI that including the word “outermost” in the proposed bowl diameter definition would improve the clarity of the critical dimension and ensure the definition is aligned with how the pumps are treated in EU 547. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is including the term outer diameter before the text “circular shape of the intermediate bowl” in the definition of “bowl diameter” proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE has also determined that in order to avoid confusion with the ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 term “seal chamber,” the text “or chamber” should be removed from the bowl diameter definition. The revised definition reads as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule (10 CFR 431.62).

5. Drivers Other Than Electric Motors

DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural sector, may be sold and operated with drivers other than electric motors (

i.e.,

non-electric drivers), such as engines, steam turbines, or generators. In the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR, in accordance with the recommendations of the CIP Working Group (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2), DOE proposed that pumps sold with non-electric drivers be rated as bare pumps only. Specifically, based on DOE's proposed test procedure for bare pumps discussed in detail in section III.E.1.a, pumps sold with non-electric drivers would determine the PEI

for the pump based on the calculated performance of the bare pump combined with a default motor that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors

listed at 10 CFR 431.25. 80 FR 17586, 17600 (April 1, 2015). DOE noted that by requiring testing and certification in this manner, any hydraulic improvements made to the bare pump to comply with any applicable energy conservation standards that may apply to the bare pump would also result in energy savings when the pump was used with a non-electric driver.

Id.

In context, the terms “electric motor” and “motor” are used interchangeably.

DOE requested comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-electric drivers as bare pumps. HI commented that it agrees that pumps sold with non-electric drivers should be tested as bare pumps, as recommended by the CIP Working Group. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) DOE received no other comments on the proposal and is adopting provisions for testing pumps paired with non-electric drivers as bare pumps in this final rule, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR.

6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE acknowledged that some pumps within the scope of this rulemaking may be distributed in commerce with single-phase motors. However, DOE determined that the majority of pumps in the scope of this test procedure rulemaking are sold with polyphase induction motors. Moreover, DOE noted that, to the extent that pumps within the scope of the proposed test procedure are distributed in commerce with single-phase motors, most of these pumps are offered for sale with either single-phase or polyphase induction motors of similar size, depending on the power requirements of customers.

Given that single-phase induction motors are, in general, less efficient than polyphase induction motors and, thus, will result in different energy consumption characteristics when paired with the same bare pump, DOE proposed that pumps sold with single-phase induction motors be tested and rated in the bare pump configuration, using the calculation-based method (

see

section III.E.1.a for a more detailed description of this method). DOE believed that such an approach would more equitably rate pumps sold with single-phase motors and prevent pumps sold with single-phase motors from being penalized by the reduced energy efficiency of the paired single-phase motor, as compared to similarly-sized polyphase motors. 80 FR 17586, 17600-01 (April 1, 2015).

In response to DOE's proposed method for testing pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, HI agreed that it is appropriate to apply the calculation-based test procedure to bare pumps to determine the PEI

for such pumps. However, HI also requested the option of using single-phase motor wire-to-water test data (that is, applying the testing-based method for pumps sold with motors, discussed in section III.E.2.b) to determine the PEI

for such pumps. (HI, No. 8 at p. 13) Given that single-phase induction motors are, in general, less efficient than polyphase induction motors, determining the PEI

for pumps sold with single-phase induction motors based on the testing-based method for pumps sold with motors will generally result in PEI

ratings that are equivalent to or lower than those determined by rating the pump as a bare pump (as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR). Therefore, use of the testing-based method will make it harder, rather than easier, for pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, to meet the established standards. For these reasons, DOE sees no reason why manufactures could not be allowed to employ the testing-based method for pumps sold with motors to determine the PEI

if they chose to. As such, DOE is adopting provisions in this final rule that allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps sold with single-phase motors as bare pumps (using a calculation-based method) or as pumps with motors using the testing-based methods. DOE notes that if manufacturers choose to employ the testing-based methods for pumps sold with motors, the denominator must still be calculated based on the default motor efficiency values for polyphase NEMA Design B motor, as discussed in section III.B.2. DOE also notes that, as for all pumps subject to this test procedure final rule, manufacturers must report which test method was employed in determining the certified PEI

rating for the given basic model in the certification report submitted to DOE. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)

B. Rating Metric: Constant and Variable Load Pump Energy Index

After significant discussion in the CIP Working Group open meeting, the Working Group recommended that DOE use a wire-to-water, power-based metric for all pumps, regardless of how they are sold. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at p. 5) Specifically, the CIP Working Group recommended that DOE use the PEI metric to measure pump energy performance, which is calculated as a ratio of the PER (PER

or PER

) of the tested pump divided by the PER

of a pump that would minimally comply with any DOE energy conservation standard for that pump type (PER

STD

). In both cases, PER represents a pump's power consumption at a weighted average of

three or four load points. The CIP Working Group recommended a similar metric for all pump configurations (

i.e.,

bare pumps, pumps sold with a motor, and pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls) to allow for better comparability and more consistent application of the rating metric for all pumps within the recommended scope. This way, the benefit of speed control, as compared to a similar pump without speed control, can be reflected in the measurement of energy use or energy efficiency.

Accordingly, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to establish a test procedure to determine the PEI

for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls and PEI

for pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls. 80 FR 17586, 17601-02 (April 1, 2015). As recommended by the CIP Working Group, DOE proposed to determine the PEI

or PEI

as the ratio of a PER

or PER

scaled with respect to a “standard pump energy rating” (PER

STD

) that represents the performance of a bare pump of the same equipment class that serves the same hydraulic load, has the same flow and specific speed characteristics, and is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards.

Id.

Specifically, for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposed using the PEI

metric, which would be evaluated as shown in equation (1):

ER25JA16.000

Where:

PER

= the weighted average input power to the motor at load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow (hp) and

PER

STD

= the PER

for a pump of the same equipment class with the same flow and specific speed characteristics that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp). A more detailed discussion of the PER

STD

value is provided in section III.B.2.

Similarly, for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposed to use PEI

, which would be evaluated as shown in equation (2):

ER25JA16.001

Where:

PER

= the average input power to the motor and continuous or non-continuous controls at load points of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow (hp) and

PER

STD

= the PER

for a pump of the same equipment class with the same flow and specific speed characteristics that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp).

DOE noted in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that, under the proposed approach, the performance of bare pumps or pumps paired with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) would be determined for the appropriate load points along the single-speed pump curve by increasing head (

i.e.,

throttling) as flow is decreased from the maximum flow rate of the pump, while pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls, by contrast, would follow a system curve and achieve the desired flow points by reducing the pump's speed of rotation rather than controlling flow by throttling. By reducing speed, power is reduced in proportion to the cube of speed, resulting in lower power requirements for any part load flow points. As such, the PEI

for a pump sold with continuous or non-continuous controls would be lower than the PEI

for the same pump sold without continuous or non-continuous controls. In essence, consistent with the recommendation of the CIP Working Group, adopting the PEI

and PEI

metrics as proposed would illustrate the inherent performance differences that can occur when coupling a given pump with continuous or non-continuous controls.

Id.

1. Determination of the Pump Energy Rating

As mentioned above, PER

and PER

represent the weighted average input power to the pump determined at three or four discrete load points for PER

or PER

, respectively. In order to determine the representative performance of a given pump unit, DOE must define a load profile and establish specific load points at which to test a given pump for pumps sold with speed controls and pumps sold without such speed controls (

i.e.,

pumps sold as bare pumps and pumps sold with motors). Based on DOE's research and recommendations provided by the CIP Working Group, DOE proposed adopting two distinct load profiles to represent constant speed and variable speed pump operation, as shown in Table III.2.

Table III.2—Load Profiles Based on Pump Configuration

Pump configuration

Load profile

Load points

Pumps Sold without Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls (

i.e.,

bare pumps and pumps sold with motors)

Constant Load Profile

75%, 100%, and 110% of BEP flow.

Pumps Sold with Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls

Variable Load Profile

25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of BEP flow.

Lack of field data on load profiles and the wide variation in system operation also make it difficult to select appropriate weights for the load profiles. For these reasons, the CIP Working Group members concluded that equal weighting would at least create a level playing field across manufacturers (see,

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 63 at p. 125), and DOE proposed to adopt this recommendation in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17604 (April 1, 2015).

In response to DOE's proposed metrics, load points, and weights, HI commented that it agrees with the PEI

and PEI

metric architecture (HI, No. 8 at p. 14), and the CA IOUs also indicated their support of DOE's proposed approach (CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 110). Therefore, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, a metric of PEI

for pumps sold as bare pumps or pumps sold with motors, but without continuous or non-continuous controls, as proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, where the PER

would be evaluated as the weighted average input power to the motor at load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as shown in equation (3):

ER25JA16.002

Where:

= weighting at load point i (equal weighting or 0.3333 in this case),

in,m

= measured or calculated driver power input to the motor at load point i (hp), and

i = load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

Id.

at 17602.

Similarly, DOE is adopting a metric of PEI

for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, where PER

is calculated as shown in equation (4):

ER25JA16.003

Where:

= weighting at load point i (equal weighting or 0.25 in this case),

in,c

= measured or calculated driver power input to the continuous or non-continuous controls at load point i (hp), and

i = load point corresponding to 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

Id.

at 17603.

DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to refer to the driver power input using the variable P

regardless of whether it applied to pumps sold with motors, where the driver input power is measured at the input to the motor, or pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, where the driver power input is measured at the input to the controls. In this final rule, DOE is clarifying the terminology by referring to driver power input to the motor as P

in,m

and driver power input to the controls as P

in,c

. DOE notes that HI 40.6-2014 uses the variable P

to refer to driver input power and, for the purposes of applying HI 40.6-2014 and the DOE test procedure, DOE's defined variable (

i.e.,

in,m

and P

in,c

) should be treated as equivalent to P

2. PER

STD

: Minimally Compliant Pump

DOE proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the PER

or PER

of the pump being rated in the numerator of these equations would be scaled based on PER

of a pump that would minimally comply with the applicable standard for the same class of pump to provide a rating for each pump model that is indexed to a standardized value. DOE noted that scaling the PEI

and PEI

metrics based on a normalizing factor would help compare values across and among various pump types and sizes. 80 FR 17586, 17604 (April 1, 2015). DOE noted that such an approach would be consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at pg. 5) and is similar to the approach suggested by Europump, a trade association of European pump manufacturers.

Id.

Europump.

Extended Product Approach for Pumps: A Europump Guide.

April 8, 2013.

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to determine PER

STD

as a baseline, minimally compliant pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant default motor, defined as a function of flow and specific speed. To do this, DOE proposed to use an equation to determine the efficiency of a minimally compliant pump, shown in equation (5):

This equation reflects that shown in the April 2015 NOPR public meeting (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055, No. 6 at p.49) and represents a correction from that published in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 17586, 17604 (April 1, 2015).

ER25JA16.004

Where:

100

= BEP flow rate (gpm),

Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz and calculated using U.S. customary units, and

C = a constant that is set for the two-dimensional surface described by equation (5), which is set based on the speed of rotation and equipment type of the pump model. The values of this constant, or “C-values,” are used to establish the minimum, mandatory pump efficiency with a minimally compliant pump and will be established in the pump energy conservation standard rulemaking.

DOE developed this equation based on the equation used in the EU to develop its regulations for clean water pumps, translated to 60 Hz electrical input power and U.S. customary units.

Id.

HI commented that it agrees with the corrected version of the equation for minimum pump efficiency equation (η

pump,STD

) presented during the public meeting, except that the 555.6 value should be changed to 555.60 and a full significant digit analysis should be conducted to ensure that two decimal places can be carried for efficiency. (HI, No. 8 at pp. 14-15) HI also indicated that because all data in the equation are supposed to be normalized to 1,800 or 3,600 rpm, Q

100

should be clarified as the flow at BEP in gallons per minute normalized to synchronous speed at 60 Hz. In response to HI's suggested clarifications to the pump efficiency equipment presented in the April 2015 pump test procedure NOPR and the slide deck presented at the NOPR public meeting (see Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055, No. 6 at p.49), DOE is clarifying in this final rule that Q

100

in the minimum pump efficiency equation (η

pump,STD

) is the BEP flow rate (gpm) measured at 60 Hz and full impeller diameter and normalized to nominal speed of rotation of the pump (1,800 or 3,600 rpm). DOE has also revised the equation for minimum pump efficiency equation (η

pump,STD

) to match the equation shared during the public meeting, as suggested by HI.

The equation to define the minimally compliant pump in the EU is of the same form, but employs different coefficients to reflect the fact that the flow will be reported in m

/h at 50 Hz and the specific speed will also be reported in metric units. Specific speed is a dimensionless quantity, but has a different magnitude when calculated using metric versus U.S. customary units. DOE notes that an exact translation from metric to U.S. customary units is not possible due to the logarithmic relationship of the terms.

Regarding the significance of the 555.6 value in equation (5) and its impact on the number of significant digits in the resultant minimally compliant pump efficiency (

η,

pump,

STD) or final determination of PEI

or PEI

VL,

DOE notes that all coefficients in the listed equations in DOE's pump test procedure, including the equation for the minimally compliant pump efficiency, should be treated as infinitely significant and should not limit the number of significant digits reported in the resultant value. As noted in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR and discussed in more detail in section III.C.2.f, all calculations should be performed with raw measured values and rounded only when determining PER

or PER

and PEI

or PEI

. 80 FR 17586, 17612 (April 1, 2015) However, considering HI's comment, DOE acknowledges that testing personnel or manufacturers may inadvertently interpret equation coefficients to be reflective of a given degree of resolution, precision, or significance. Therefore, to ensure that, even if the coefficients are incorrectly treated as carrying an indication of measurement resolution or precision such rounding does not impact the significance of the reported PER

and PEI

or PER

and PEI

values, DOE is adding values (zeros in most cases) after the decimal to some of the coefficients in the minimally compliant pump efficiency equation, as shown in equation (6):

ER25JA16.005

Where:

100

= BEP flow rate measured at full impeller diameter and normalized to the nominal speed of rotation for the tested pump (gpm),

Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz and calculated using U.S. customary units, and

C = a constant that is set for the two-dimensional surface described by equation (6) based on the speed of rotation and equipment type of the pump model. This constant, or “C-value,” is used to establish the minimum, mandatory pump efficiency with a minimally compliant pump and will be established in the pump energy conservation standard rulemaking.

DOE added sufficient significant digits to ensure efficiency can be reported to 4 significant digits (

i.e.,

the hundredths place for efficiencies greater than 10 percent). DOE is also adding zeros to the equations for calculating the reference system curve (described in section III.E.1.c) to similarly ensure sufficient significance is maintained throughout DOE's test procedure calculations.

In equation (6), the specific speed (N

) is a quasi-non-dimensional number used to classify pumps based on their relative geometry and hydraulic characteristics. It is calculated as a function of the rotational speed, flow rate, head of the pump, and number of stages as shown in equation (7) below:

ER25JA16.006

Where:

= specific speed,

= nominal speed of rotation (rpm),

100

= BEP flow rate at full impeller and nominal speed (gpm),

100

= pump total head at BEP flow at full impeller and nominal speed (ft), and

S = number of stages.

DOE notes that, in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the definition of specific speed did not indicate that the H

100

term should be normalized by the number of stages. 80 FR 17586, 17604 (April 1, 2015). However, doing so is consistent with the theoretical calculation of specific speed for multi-stage pumps used in the pump industry,

as well as the CIP Working Group discussions and analysis

and treatment in the EU 547 regulations.

DOE also noted this in the second footnote to Table 1.2 in the Framework document. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 13 at p. 7) To clarify that, for multi-stage RSV and VTS pumps the specific speed should be calculated for a single stage only, DOE is modifying equation (7) to clearly specify that the head at BEP should be divided by the number of stages with which the pump is being tested. Further, DOE also proposed using the capital letter “N” to define nominal speed of rotation. DOE notes that HI 40.6-2014 defines the “specified speed of rotation” using the nomenclature “n

.” While DOE believes that the phrase “nominal speed of rotation” is clearer and more consistent with DOE's regulatory approach, DOE believes referencing the same nomenclature as HI 40.6-2014 will reduce confusion when conducting the pumps test procedure. As such, in this final rule, DOE is updating the variable used for nominal speed of rotation to be consistent with HI 40.6-2014.

Wilson, S.

Specific Speed.

Grundfos White Paper. Available at:

http://www.grundfos.com/content/dam/CBS/global/whitepapers/Specific-Speed.pdf.

DOE's PEI Calculator that was used to support Working Group negotiations and analysis divided the pump total head at 100 percent of BEP flow by the number of stages for multi-stage pumps (See, for example, Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 95).

Official Journal of the European Union.

L 165, 26 June 2012.

As proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, the calculated efficiency of the minimally compliant pump reflects the pump efficiency at BEP. To calculate PER

STD

as the weighted average input power to a minimally compliant bare pump at the same load points as PER

, DOE determined a method to translate the default efficiency of a minimally compliant pump at BEP to the load points corresponding to 75 and 110 percent of BEP flow, as shown in equation (8):

ER25JA16.007

Where:

= weighting at load point i (equal weighting or 0.3333 in this case);

u,i

= the measured hydraulic output power at load point i of the tested pump (hp);

In the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define pump hydraulic output power using the variable nomenclature P

Hydro

. However, HI 40.6-2014 uses the nomenclature P

to refer to pump hydraulic output power. Therefore, for consistency, DOE is adopting the nomenclature P

for hydraulic output power in this final rule.

= 0.947 for 75 percent of the BEP flow rate, 1.000 for 100 percent of the BEP flow rate, and 0.985 for 110 percent of the BEP flow rate;

pump,STD

= the minimally compliant pump efficiency, as determined in accordance with equation (6);

= the motor losses at load point i, as determined in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps in sections III.D.1 and III.D.2; and

i = load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

80 FR 17586, 17605 (April 1, 2015).

DOE also proposed in the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR that the quotient of the hydraulic output power divided by the minimally compliant pump efficiency for the rated pump would be used to determine the input power to a minimally compliant pump at each load point, and that the pump hydraulic output power for the minimally compliant pump would be the same as that for the particular pump being evaluated. Specifically, DOE proposed that the hydraulic power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow would be calculated using the following equation (9):

ER25JA16.008

Where:

u,i

= the measured hydraulic output power at load point i of the tested pump (hp);

= the measured flow rate at load point i of the tested pump (gpm);

= pump total head at load point i of the tested pump (ft);

i = load point corresponding to 75, 100, or 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure; and

SG = the specific gravity of water at specified test conditions.

DOE notes that the specific gravity of the test liquid specified in the DOE test procedure, which is clear water as defined by section 40.6.5.5 of HI 40.6-2014, requires that the liquid be between 50-86 °F, with a maximum kinematic viscosity of 1.6 × 10

−

/s and a maximum density of 62.4 lb/ft

. Based on these parameters, the specific gravity of the test liquid will be between 1.000 and 0.995 and, therefore, can be treated as unity when testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

Id.

As indicated in equation (8), the calculated shaft input power for the minimally compliant pump at each load point is then combined with a minimally compliant motor for that default motor type and appropriate size, as described in section III.D.1, and the default part load loss curve, as described in section III.D.2, to determine the input power to the motor at each load point.

Id.

As noted previously, HI and CA IOUs expressed their support of DOE's proposed approach. (HI, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOUs, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 7 at p. 110) HI also pointed out in its written comments that η

pump,STD

incorrectly appeared twice in the middle term in the denominator in equation (10) of the April 2015 pumps test procedure NOPR. (HI, No. 8 at p. 15) DOE acknowledges the correction and has implemented the equation correct

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.