[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17586-17651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06945]
[[Page 17585]]
Vol. 80
Wednesday,
No. 62
April 1, 2015
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps; Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17586]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish a
new test procedure for pumps. Specifically, DOE is proposing a test
method for measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric
input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous
or non-continuous controls. The proposal, if adopted, would incorporate
by reference the test procedure from the Hydraulic Institute (HI)--
Standard 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency
Testing.'' The proposed test procedure would be used to determine the
constant load pump energy index (PEICL) for pumps sold
without continuous or non-continuous controls or the variable load pump
energy index (PEIVL) for pumps sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls. The PEICL and PEIVL describe
the power consumption of the rated pump, inclusive of an electric motor
and, if applicable, any integrated continuous or non-continuous
controls, normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally
compliant pump for each pump basic model. The proposal reflects certain
recommendations made by a stakeholder Working Group for pumps
established under the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (ASRAC). DOE is also announcing a public meeting to discuss
and receive comments on issues presented in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR).
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, April 29, 2015,
from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also
be broadcast as a webinar. See section IV.M, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR
before and after the public meeting, but no later than June 15, 2015.
See section IV.M, ``Public Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945.
Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more
information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of
this proposed rule.
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed
copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section IV.M of this
document (``Public Participation'').
Docket: 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 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: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket. See section IV.M for information on how
to submit comments through regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
[email protected].
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:
[email protected].
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Incorporation by Reference Under 1 CFR part 51
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry
standards into 10 CFR part 431:
(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (``ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014''),
``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;''
approved 2014, sections 1.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' and 1.2.9,
``Rotodynamic pump icons.''
(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (``ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 ''),
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,''
approved 2008, section 2.1, ``Types and nomenclature.''
(3) HI 40.6-2014, (``HI 40.6-2014''), ``Methods for Rotodynamic
Pump Efficiency Testing,'' except for section 40.6.5.3, ``Test
report;'' section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C
(86[emsp14][deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results,''
approved 2014.
Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 and HI 40.6-
2014 can be obtained from: The Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive,
First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 07054-4406, or by going to
www.pumps.org.
(4) FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire
Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' approved October 2008.
Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: Factory
Mutual. 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401-275-3000.
www.fmglobal.com/.
(5) NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' approved 2013.
Copies of NFPA Standard 20-2013 can be obtained from: The National
Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169,
617-770-3000. www.nfpa.org.
[[Page 17587]]
(6) UL Standard 448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-
Protection Service,'' approved 2007.
Copies of UL Standard 448-2007 can be obtained from: The
Underwriters Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062.
http://ul.com/.
Also, this material is 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 go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. These standards are discussed in more
detail in section IV.M. of this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope
1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps
2. Equipment Classes
3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application
4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This
Rulemaking
5. Non-Electric Drivers
6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors
B. Rating Metric
1. Working Group and Other Stakeholder Comments
2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and Variable Load Pump Energy
Index
C. Determination of Pump Performance
1. Referenced Industry Standards
2. Minor Modifications and Additions to HI 40.6-2014
D. Determination of Motor Efficiency
1. Default Motor Efficiency
2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses
E. Test Methods for Different Pump Configurations
1. Calculation-Based Test Methods
2. Testing-Based Methods
3. Applicability of Calculation and Testing-Based Test Methods
to Different Pump Configurations
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. Small Business Determination
2. Assessing the Number of Basic Models per Manufacturer
3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Pump Test Procedure
4. Capital Expense Associated With Constructing a Pump Testing
Facility
5. Recurring Burden Associated With Ongoing Testing Activities
6. Cumulative Burden
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. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For
Distribution
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Pumps are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards
and test procedures. DOE does not currently regulate the energy
efficiency of this equipment or have test procedures to measure the
efficiency of such equipment. 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).\1\ Included among the various types of industrial equipment
addressed by EPCA are pumps, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A)) All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended
through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that
their equipment complies 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 energy consumption of that
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when
prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA
provides, in relevant part, 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 covered equipment 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))
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 a given type of
covered equipment before establishing any new energy conservation
standards for that equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) and
6316(a).
To fulfill these requirements, DOE is proposing to establish a test
procedure for pumps concurrent with its ongoing energy conservation
standards rulemaking for this equipment. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0031. The test procedure, if adopted, would include the methods
necessary to: (1) Measure the performance of the covered equipment; and
(2) use the measured results to calculate a pump energy index
(PEICL for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous
controls or PEIVL for pumps sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls) to represent the power consumption of the pump,
inclusive of a motor \2\ and
[[Page 17588]]
any continuous or non-continuous controls, normalized with respect to
the performance of a minimally compliant pump. DOE is also proposing to
set the scope of those pumps to which the proposed test method would
apply. DOE's proposals reflect certain recommendations made by a
stakeholder Working Group for pumps established under the Appliance
Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC), which is
discussed further in section I.B. This group consisted of a wide
variety of interested parties with a diverse set of interests with
respect to pump efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE is proposing to include pumps sold with all electric
motors except single-phase induction motors in the scope of this
rulemaking. The terms ``motor'' and ``electric motor'' are used
synonymously and interchangeably in this document to refer to those
motors to which the proposed test procedure would apply (i.e., all
electric motors except single-phase induction motors). See section
III.A.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If adopted, manufacturers would be required to use the proposed
test procedure and metric when making representations regarding the
energy use of covered equipment 180 days after the publication date of
any applicable energy conservation standards final rule for those pumps
that are addressed by the test procedure. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0031). See also 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
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 the energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps. 78 FR
7304 (Feb. 1, 2013). DOE posted the February 2013 Framework Document
(``Framework Document'') to its Web site.\3\ In the Framework Document,
DOE requested feedback from interested parties on how to test pump
efficiency. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the Framework Document
on February 20, 2013 (the ``Pumps Framework Public Meeting''). While
the comment period had been scheduled to close on March 18, 2013, DOE
extended the comment period to May 2, 2013, to allow commenters
sufficient time to formulate responses to the large number and broad
scope of questions and issues raised by DOE in the Framework Document.
See 78 FR 11996 (Feb. 21, 2013). DOE received 12 comments in response
to the Framework Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent with these efforts, DOE also began a process through the
ASRAC to discuss conducting a negotiated rulemaking to develop
standards and test procedures for pumps as an alternative to the route
DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039) \4\ On July
23, 2013, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking working group for commercial and industrial pumps (``CIP
Working Group'' or, in context, ``Working Group'') to negotiate, if
possible, Federal standards for the energy efficiency of commercial and
industrial pumps. 78 FR 44036. On November 12, 2013, DOE published a
notice to announce the first meeting of the CIP Working Group and
listed the 14 nominees that were selected to serve as members of the
Working Group, in addition to one member from ASRAC and one DOE
representative. 78 FR 67319. The members of the Working Group were
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder interests
and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy
organizations, manufacturers, and a utility (representing a user of
pumps). Table I.1 lists the members and their affiliations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Information on the ASRAC, about the commercial and
industrial pumps working group, and about meeting dates is available
at http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee.
Table I.1--ASRAC Pump Working Group Members and Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Adin................... U.S. Department of Energy.
Tom Eckman................... Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(ASRAC Member)
Robert Barbour............... TACO, Inc.
Charles Cappelino............ ITT Industrial Process.
Greg Case.................... Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics.
Gary Fernstrom............... Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego
Gas & Electric Company, Southern
California Edison, and Southern
California Gas Company.
Mark Handzel................. Xylem Corporation.
Albert Huber................. Patterson Pump Company.
Joanna Mauer................. Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Doug Potts................... American Water.
Charles Powers............... Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps.
Howard Richardson............ Regal Beloit.
Steve Rosenstock............. Edison Electric Institute.
Louis Starr.................. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Greg Towsley................. Grundfos USA.
Meg Waltner.................. Natural Resources Defense Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17589]]
The Working Group commenced negotiations at an open meeting on
December 18 and 19, 2013, and held six additional meetings and two
webinars to discuss scope, metrics, test procedures, and standard
levels for pumps.\5\ 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'').\6\ 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) ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously
to approve the Working Group Recommendations during a July 7, 2014
webinar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ The ground rules of the CIP Working Group define consensus
as no more than two (2) negative votes. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039, No. 18 at p. 2) Concurrence was assumed if absent, and
overt dissent evidenced by a negative vote. Abstention was not
construed as a negative vote. In this NOPR, only negative votes are
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those recommendations regarding issues pertinent to the test
procedure and standard metric are addressed in this NOPR and reflected
in DOE's proposed pump test procedure. In this NOPR, DOE also refers to
discussions from the CIP Working Group meetings regarding potential
actions that may not have been formally approved as an addition to the
Working Group Recommendations. All references to approved
recommendations will be specified with a citation to the Working Group
Recommendations and noting the recommendation number (for example:
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y);
references to discussion 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).
DOE notes that many of those who submitted comments on the
Framework Document later became members of the CIP Working Group. As
such, the concerns of these commenters were fully discussed as part of
the meetings, and their positions may have changed as a result of the
compromises inherent in a negotiation. The proposals in this NOPR
incorporate and respond to several issues and recommendations that were
raised in response to the Framework Document. However, where a
framework commenter became a member of the CIP Working Group, DOE does
not reference or respond to comments made by that stakeholder regarding
issues that were later discussed or negotiated in the CIP Working
Group. Table I.2 lists the framework commenters as well as whether they
participated in the CIP Working Group.
Table I.2--List of Framework Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the CIP Working
Commenter Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineered Software, Inc.................. No.
Richard Shaw.............................. No.
Grundfos Pumps Corporation................ Yes.
Hydraulic Institute (HI).................. Yes.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Yes.
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Gas Company, and Southern
California Edison (collectively, ``the CA
IOUs'').
National Fire Protection Association No.
(NFPA).
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and No.
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).
Colombia Engineering...................... No.
Earthjustice.............................. No.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)........... Yes.
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP and NRDC.
(ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE),
American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
(collectively, ``the Advocates'').
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and Yes.
the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (collectively, ``NEEA/NPCC'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
DOE is proposing to establish a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would contain definitions
and a test procedure applicable to pumps. Today's NOPR also contains
related proposals for sampling plans for the purposes of demonstrating
compliance with any energy conservation standards for pumps that DOE
adopts. As part of the test procedure, DOE proposes to prescribe test
methods for measuring the energy consumption of pumps, inclusive of
motors and controls (continuous or non-continuous), if they are
included with the pump when distributed in commerce. To do this, DOE's
proposed test procedure includes measurements and calculations of the
produced hydraulic power, pump shaft input power, electric input power
to the motor, and electrical input power to the continuous or non-
continuous controls, as applicable.
Consistent with the Working Group Recommendations, DOE proposes
that these test methods be in accordance with HI Standard 40.6-2014,
``Methods for Rotodynamic Pumps Efficiency Testing,'' (``HI 40.6-
2014''), with slight modifications as noted in section III.C.2. (Docket
No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at p. 4) Members
of the pumps industry developed HI 40.6-2014, which contains methods
for determining the energy performance of rotodynamic pumps without
accounting for the impact of continuous or non-continuous controls. HI
40.6-2014 was developed following DOE's announcement in the Framework
Document that DOE planned to develop a test procedure for pumps. In
this NOPR, DOE also proposes to include testing and calculation methods
to account for the energy performance of pumps sold with motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls. DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014
and finds, for the reasons stated below and in detail in section III,
[[Page 17590]]
that the procedure would be likely to produce test results that would
reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating
costs of a pump during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)) DOE also has reviewed the burdens associated with
conducting the proposed test procedure, including HI 40.6-2014 and,
based on the results of such analysis, finds the proposed test
procedure would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)) DOE's analysis of the burden associated with the proposed
test procedure is presented in detail in section IV.B.
DOE's approach, which is consistent with the Working Group's
recommendations, proposes to use a new metric, the pump energy index
(PEI), to rate the energy performance of pumps covered by this proposed
test procedure. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92,
Recommendation #11 at p. 5) The proposed test procedure contains
methods for determining the constant load PEI (PEICL) for
pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls and the
variable load PEI (PEIVL) for pumps sold with either
continuous or non-continuous controls. The PEICL or
PEIVL, as applicable, describes the weighted average
performance of the rated pump, inclusive of any motor and, if included,
continuous or non-continuous controls, at specific load points,
normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally compliant
pump without controls. These indices, if adopted, would provide a
representative measurement of the energy consumption of the rated pump
under expected conditions of use since they are inclusive of a motor
and any continuous or non-continuous controls at full and partial
loading. The indices would also describe the performance of the rated
pump in comparison to a minimally compliant pump of the same equipment
class with no controls (see section III.A.2 for a discussion of pump
equipment classes) and provide a description of a covered pump's energy
performance that can be readily interpreted and used by customers and
the market.
The proposed test procedure contains methods to determine the
appropriate index for all equipment for which this test procedure would
apply 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 pump shaft
input power \7\ and combining it with the efficiency, or losses, of the
motor and any continuous control \8\ at specific load points using an
algorithm (i.e., calculation-based method) or (b) measuring the input
power to the driver,\9\ or motor, and any continuous or non-continuous
controls \10\ for a given pump directly at each of the load points
(i.e., testing-based method). In both cases, the results for the given
pump are divided by the calculated input power to the motor for a
hypothetical pump (sold without a motor or controls) 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 would effectively result 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
\8\ DOE notes that for non-continuous controls, as defined in
section III.E.1.c, PEIVL 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 PEICL metric. See
section III.E.1.c for further discussion.
\9\ 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.
\10\ In the case that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the calculation-based method discussed in section
III.E.1 would only apply to certain pumps: (1) Pumps sold without
either a motor or 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). This is because for other
pumps, the necessary efficiency information is not available in a
standardized, referenceable format and the assumptions inherent in the
calculation-based approach do not apply. Specifically, for pumps sold
with motors that are not subject to DOE's energy conservation standards
for electric motors, except submersible motors, DOE has not established
standards or default values for the nominal full load efficiency that
can be used in the calculations. For pumps sold with any motors (i.e.,
covered, uncovered, or submersible motors) and non-continuous controls,
the reference system curve is not applicable (see section III.E.1.c for
more information). Under DOE's proposal, such pumps would be required
to be tested using the testing-based methods discussed in section
III.E.2. Conversely, only the proposed calculation-based method could
be used to test a pump sold without a motor or controls because a PEI
rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) could not be
determined based on a test of the pump without a motor. The specific
test methods applicable to each class and configuration of pump model
are described in more detail in section III.E.3.
DOE also proposes to establish 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 proposed 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. Regarding representations, for those pumps addressed by this
proposal, DOE is also specifying the energy consumption or energy
efficiency representations that may be made, in addition to the
regulated metric (PEICL or PEIVL).
DOE notes that equipment meeting the proposed pump definition is
already covered equipment. However, DOE's proposal is more narrowly
applied to a specific scope of pumps. Specifically, this proposal would
apply to the limited scope of rotodynamic pumps \11\ for which
standards are being considered in DOE's energy conservation standards
rulemaking and as proposed in section III.A of this NOPR. (Docket No.
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) Manufacturers of those pumps that would be
regulated as a result of DOE's parallel test procedure and standards
rulemakings would be required to use the test procedure DOE adopts when
certifying compliance with any applicable standard and when
[[Page 17591]]
making representations about the efficiency or energy use of their
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 is in contrast to
positive-displacement pumps, which have an expanding cavity on the
suction side and a decreasing cavity of the discharge side that move
a constant volume of fluid for each cycle of operation. DOE is
proposing limiting the scope of the test procedure to only specific
kinds of rotodynamic pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting on the compliance date for any energy conservation
standards that DOE may set, and assuming that the provisions of this
NOPR are adopted, all pumps within the scope of those energy
conservation standards would be required to be tested in accordance
with the proposed subpart Y of part 431 and must have their testing
performed in a manner consistent with the applicable sampling
requirements. Similarly, all representations regarding the energy
efficiency or energy use of pumps within the scope of pumps proposed
for coverage by this test procedure would be required to be made based
on the adopted pump test procedure 180 days after the publication date
of any final rule establishing energy conservation for those pumps that
are addressed by the test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
III. Discussion
DOE's proposal would place a new pump test procedure and related
definitions in a new subpart Y of part 431, and add new sampling plans
and reporting requirements for this equipment in a new section 429.59
of 10 CFR part 429. This proposed subpart Y would contain definitions,
materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure for certain
classes 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 Proposals in This NOPR, Their Location Within the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
Applicable Preamble Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable preamble
Location Proposal Summary of additions discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 429.59 \*\................ Sampling Plan....... Number of pumps to be tested to Section III.G.
rate a pump basic model and
calculation of rating.
10 CFR 431.461................... Purpose and Scope... Scope of pump regulations, as well Section III.A.
as the proposed test procedure
and associated energy
conservation standard.
10 CFR 431.462................... Definitions......... Definitions pertinent to Section III.A.
establishing equipment classes
and testing applicable classes of
pumps.
10 CFR 431.463................... Incorporation by Description of industry standards Section III.A and
Reference. incorporated by reference in the III.C.
DOE test procedure or related
definitions.
10 CFR 431.464 and Appendix A to Test Procedure...... Instructions for determining the Section III.B,
Subpart Y of Part 431. PEICL or PEIVL for applicable III.C, III.D, and
classes of pumps. III.E.
10 CFR 431.466................... Energy Conservation Energy conservation standard for Section Error!
Standards. applicable classes of pumps, in Reference source
terms of PEI and associated C- not found. and
Value. Docket EERE-2011-
BT-STD-0031.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: DOE also proposes minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2; 429.11(a) and (b); 429.70; 429.72; and 429.102 to
apply the general sampling requirements established in these sections to the equipment-specific sampling
requirements proposed for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59.
The following sections discuss DOE's proposals regarding
establishing new testing and sampling requirements for pumps,
including: Scope; rating metric; determination of pump performance;
determination of motor efficiency; test methods for different
combinations of pumps and drivers and controls; representations; and
sampling plans.
A. Scope
Although a ``pump'' is listed as a type of covered equipment under
EPCA, that term is undefined. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A). As part of its
collective efforts to help DOE craft an appropriate regulatory approach
for pumps, the CIP Working Group made a series of recommendations
regarding a variety of potential definitions that would have an impact
on the overall scope and structure of the proposed test procedure and
related energy conservation standards. In particular, the Working Group
offered a definition for ``pump'' along with other related terms ``bare
pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``controls.'' Each of
these terms relate to particular pump components that are germane to
DOE's efforts to set standards and establish a test procedure for this
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations
#1 and 2 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt these
recommended definitions for these terms.
DOE notes that while the proposed definition of ``pump'' is broad,
the scope of prospective energy conservation standards, as recommended
by the Working Group, would be limited to a more narrow range of
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations
#4 and 6-8 at pp. 2-4) DOE also notes that the scope of this proposed
test procedure is intended to be consistent with the scope of the
parallel standards rulemaking effort currently under evaluation. In
other words, DOE proposes that only pumps subject to an energy
conservation standard would have to be tested in accordance with the
adopted test procedure. Finally, DOE notes that the broad definition of
``pump'' being considered in this proposal would provide DOE with
flexibility to make any necessary adjustments to its regulations to
address potential scoping changes in the future that DOE may consider.
After considering the Working Group Recommendations, DOE is
proposing to define which pumps would need to be tested with the
proposed test procedure by applying three criteria: (1) The equipment
class; (2) the application; and (3) applicable performance
specifications--i.e., horsepower (hp), flow rate, head, design
temperature, and speed restrictions. For these three areas, DOE's
proposed criteria for establishing which pumps would be subject to the
proposed test procedure are discussed in sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and
III.A.4, respectively.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the
pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as
recommended by the Working Group.
1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps
To help set the scope for this proposal and the manner in which
both the procedure and related standards would
[[Page 17592]]
be applied to different pump configurations and classes of pumps, the
aforementioned definitions for pump, certain pump components, and
others, are discussed in the following subsections.
a. Pumps and Related Components
DOE proposes to include definitions in a new 10 CFR 431.462 that
would describe the components comprising a pump for scoping purposes.
Consistent with the intent of the Working Group Recommendations, DOE
proposes to define the following terms:
(1) 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.
(2) 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 speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches,
and float switches.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #1-2 at pp.
1-2)
DOE notes that, while there was consensus among the members of the
Working Group in favor of these definitions as part of the entirety of
the Working Group Recommendations, there was one Working Group member
who specifically objected to the ``pump'' definition that the Working
Group developed,\12\ see Recommendation #1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The voting procedures and consensus requirements agreed
upon by the CIP Working Group did not require identification of the
individual opposing or their reason for opposition and so is not
noted in the transcript for that public meeting. (See ground rules:
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 18; and the public meeting
transcript: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at p. 165)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,''
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
b. Definition of Categories of Controls
The definition of ``control'' proposed by DOE and recommended by
the CIP Working Group is broad. DOE acknowledges the proposed
definition may be include many different kinds of electronic or
mechanical devices that can ``control the driver'' of a pump (e.g.,
continuous or non-continuous speed 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.
For this proposed test procedure, DOE is focusing on those controls
that reduce energy consumption--i.e., controls that reduce pump power
input at a given flow rate. As discussed by the CIP Working Group, DOE
understands that speed controls achieve this goal and are the most
common kind of control currently applied to pumps. After carefully
examining the pump market, DOE has not found any mechanisms for
controlling pump drivers that would reduce pump power input at a given
flow other than those mechanisms used to control the driver's rotating
speed. Consistent with this finding, DOE's proposal to establish test
methods for those configurations in which a bare pump is configured
with motors that have been paired with controls would address only such
configurations using speed controls. Similarly, DOE also proposes that
the PEIVL metric would only apply to pumps sold with motors
and speed controls. Conversely, 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 PEICL.
To explicitly establish the kinds of controls that can apply the
PEIVL metric, DOE would define the terms ``continuous'' and
``non-continuous'' control (see section III.B.2 and III.E.3 for further
discussion of the PEIVL rating metric and its applicability
to pumps with controls, respectively):
(1) 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.\13\ As an example, variable speed drives, including
variable frequency drives and electronically commutated motors (ECMs)
would meet the definition for continuous controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 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 2-speed motors would meet the definition for non-
continuous controls.
While the proposed PEIVL test procedure would only apply
to pumps sold with continuous and non-continuous controls, DOE
recognizes that including a broader definition of ``control'' provides
the flexibility to address additional kinds of controls in future test
procedure revisions, as was discussed in the CIP Working Group. (EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at pp. 179-85) To retain this flexibility, DOE
proposes to maintain the broad definition of control presented above,
which would include any device that operates a pump driver, regardless
of its impact on energy consumption or rotational speed of the driver.
However, pumps with a motor and controls that do not meet the proposed
definitions of continuous or non-continuous controls would be required
to be tested as a pump sold with a motor under the proposed test
procedure.
DOE also notes that the definitions of continuous and non-
continuous controls do not require the control to include the necessary
sensors and feedback logic to automatically respond to changes in the
required flow, head, or pump power output. DOE recognizes that such
continuous or non-continuous controls (e.g., variable speed drives
(VSDs) or multi-speed motors, respectively) will not reduce energy
consumption unless some feedback is provided regarding the process
requirements at any given time. However, DOE understands that many
applications use such controls as part of a larger process or facility-
wide energy management system. Similarly, such feedback sensors and
control logic may also be custom-designed based on an application's
specific design requirements. Consequently, while sensors and logic to
enable automatic feedback and response of any speed control are
available from pump manufacturers, they are not always required by, or
included in, a given pump at the time of sale.
In summary, by not requiring continuous or non-continuous controls
to be automatically actuating when distributed in commerce, DOE seeks
to limit the costs and burdens of adding continuous or non-continuous
controls to a given pump. Furthermore, DOE believes that the
incremental cost of any continuous or non-continuous control is
sufficiently high, making it extremely unlikely that a customer would
buy a pump with such controls and not employ appropriate and
application-specific sensors and feedback logic to achieve energy
savings. As such, DOE is
[[Page 17593]]
proposing to define continuous and non-continuous controls as devices
that ``adjust the speed'' of the driver without requiring that
adjustment to happen automatically.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``continuous
control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
DOE also requests 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.
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 the
proposed pumps regulations, DOE is also proposing to define what
constitutes a ``basic model'' of pump. Applying this basic model
concept would allow manufacturers to group similar models within a
basic model to minimize testing burden. In other words, manufacturers
would need to test only a representative number of units of a basic
model in lieu of testing every model they manufacture. By grouping
models together, a manufacturer would be able to test a smaller number
of units. However, manufacturers would need to make this decision with
the understanding that there is increased risk associated with these
groupings due to the potential for a wider impact from a noncompliance
finding. Basic model groupings increase this risk because, if DOE
determines a basic model is noncompliant, all models within the basic
model are determined to be noncompliant.
In keeping with this practice, DOE also proposes to define a
``basic model'' for pumps so manufacturers can determine the pump
models on which they must conduct testing to demonstrate compliance
with a prospective energy conservation standard for pumps. The proposal
would define a ``basic model'' in a manner similar to that for other
commercial and industrial equipment, with the exception of two pump-
specific issues. For most commercial and industrial equipment, DOE
defines basic model to include all units of a given product or
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.
For the purposes of establishing a basic model definition for
pumps, DOE proposes modifying the general definition by addressing two
particular characteristics that impact the energy consumption of pumps.
First, radially split, multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser
(RSV) and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps for which the bare
pump varies only in the number of stages would be required to be
treated as the same basic model. Second, pumps for which the bare pump
varies only in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered
to be the same basic model or may optionally be rated as unique basic
models. These exceptions are discussed in the following sections.
Variation in Number of Stages for Multi-Stage Pumps
The first modification to the basic model definition applies to
variation in the number of stages for multi-stage pumps. DOE proposes
that variation in the number of stages, while it may affect efficiency
and will affect power, should not constitute a characteristic that
would differentiate pump basic models. Specifically, any improvements
in the hydraulic design of a single stage (or bowl) would be reflected
in the measured performance of the pump with any number of stages. In
addition, requiring testing for each stage version of a multi-stage
pump would add significant testing burden. For these reasons, the CIP
Working Group recommended each multi-stage pump be tested with a
specified number of stages, as discussed in section III.C.2.c. DOE
notes that any representations made with respect to PEI and pump energy
rating (PER) for individual models with alternate number of stages
within a single basic model: (1) Must be on the same as the basic model
with the specified number of stages required for testing under the test
procedure and (2) must be rated using method A.1, ``bare pump with
default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve''
(explained further in section III.E).
Basic Model Grouping for Pumps With Different Impeller Trims
The second modification DOE proposes to the typical basic model
definition is that a trimmed impeller, though it may impact efficiency,
would not be a basis for requiring units to be rated as unique basic
models. 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) DOE understands that a
given pump may be distributed to customers with a variety of impeller
trims to meet a certain hydraulic load for a certain application, and
impeller trim has a direct impact on a pump's performance
characteristics. However, DOE, in general, agrees with the Working
Group's proposal. Rather than requiring a manufacturer to certify to
DOE a pump with any given impeller trim that may be requested by a
customer, DOE is proposing to limit the number of specific pump models
to certify, which would reduce the overall manufacturer burden from
testing while helping ensure that a reasonably accurate measurement of
a given pump's efficiency is obtained. Rating at full impeller would
typically reflect the most consumptive rating for that pump, due to the
higher hydraulic power provided by the full impeller, as compared to a
trimmed impeller in the same bare pump bowl. Therefore, any pump model
with a bare pump that is otherwise identical (i.e., same casing, same
bearings and seals, etc.) but with a trimmed impeller will, except in
very limited cases, almost always consume less energy than the same
pump with full impeller. Consistent with the CIP Working Group
Recommendations, DOE proposes to base the certified rating for a given
pump basic model on that model's full impeller diameter--all PEI and
PER representations for the members of this basic model would be based
upon the full impeller model.
Relevant to this requirement, DOE proposes to define the term
``full impeller'' as it pertains to the rating of pump models in
accordance with the proposed test procedure. The European Union (EU)
defines ``full impeller'' as ``the impeller with the maximum diameter
for which performance characteristics are given for a pump size in the
catalogues of a water pump manufacturer.'' \14\ DOE proposes to largely
harmonize with this definition, but is proposing additional language to
establish requirements for pumps for which performance data are not
published in manufacturer catalogs, such as custom pumps. Specifically,
[[Page 17594]]
DOE proposes 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. DOE understands that in most cases,
these would be the same. However, for pumps that may only be sold with
a trimmed impeller due to a custom application, DOE is proposing to
define the full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which
the pump is distributed in commerce. DOE notes that the certified
rating should represent the configuration based on the maximum diameter
impeller offered by the manufacturer, regardless of the actual impeller
size used with a given pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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, pp. 28-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under DOE's proposed definition for ``full impeller,''
manufacturers would also be able to represent a model with a trimmed
impeller as less consumptive than at full impeller. To do so, they must
treat that trimmed impeller model as a different basic model and test a
representative number of models 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 becomes the ``full impeller
diameter,'' which is the ``maximum diameter impeller used with a given
pump basic model distributed in commerce or the maximum diameter
impeller referenced in the manufacturer's literature for that pump
basic model, whichever is larger.'' In these cases, manufacturers may
elect to: (1) Group individual pump units with bare pumps that vary
only 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 is 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 ECS
rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)
DOE notes that, while manufacturers may 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 must be: (1) Based on testing of
the model with the full diameter impeller 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).
d. Basic Models for Pumps Sold With Motors or Motors and Speed Controls
DOE notes 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 with different
performance characteristics. Under the proposed definition, each unique
pump and motor pairing would represent a unique basic model. However,
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)).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ These provisions allow manufacturers to group individual
models with essentially identical, but not exactly the same, energy
performance characteristics into a basic model to reduce testing
burden. Under DOE's certification requirements, all the individual
models within a basic model identified in a certification report as
being the same basic model must have the same certified efficiency
rating and use the same test data underlying the certified rating.
The CCE final rule also establishes that the efficiency rating of a
basic model must be based on the least efficient or most energy
consuming individual model (i.e., put another way, all individual
models within a basic model must be at least as energy efficient as
the certified rating). 76 FR at 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, pumps that share the same bare pump but have different
motors could be grouped into the same basic model based on the least
efficient pump and motor combination as long as the manufacturer did
not want to make representations of the more-efficient pump and motor
combination. However, for pumps sold with trimmed impellers, DOE
recognizes that a given pump with a trimmed impeller may be sold with a
different motor than the same pump with a full impeller. As 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.
Since the proposed pump basic model definition and certified rating
are both based on the pump as tested with a full impeller and a
specific number of stages, to the extent that the paired motor varies
between a given pump unit and the same bare pump at full impeller
diameter with the specified number of stages for testing, this
difference would not constitute a characteristic that would define
separate basic models.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic model''
as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on
DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with
trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models,
provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum
impeller diameter available within that basic model.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full
impeller.''
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are
unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require
modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as proposed.
2. Equipment Classes
Table III.2 presents a list of the specific pump categories that
DOE considered in the context of its Framework Document. The treatment
of these rotodynamic pumps was extensively discussed and debated among
members of the CIP Working Group. Those pump categories that the
Working Group recommended for inclusion as part of DOE's standards-
setting efforts are marked accordingly. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0039, No. 92, Recommendation #4 at p. 2)
Table III.2--Rotodynamic Clean Water Pump Equipment Overview and Recommended Scope of Pumps Test Procedure and Energy Conservation Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CIP working group
Pump category Sub-category Stages DOE terminology ANSI/HI Term scope
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Suction...................... Close-coupled....... Single............... End Suction Close-coupled OH7................ Yes.
(ESCC).
[[Page 17595]]
Own Bearings/Frame Single............... End Suction Frame Mounted OH0, OH1........... Yes.
Mounted. (ESFM).
Vertical In-Line................. .................... Single............... In-Line (IL)............. OH3, OH4, OH5...... Yes.
Axial Split...................... Single.............. Double Suction (DS).. BB1, OH4 (double suction) No.................
.................... Multi................ Axially Split Multi-Stage BB1 (2-stage), BB3. No.
(AS).
Radial Split..................... Multi............... Radially Split Multi- VS8...................... Yes.*
Stage Vertical In-
Line Casing Diffuser
(RSV).
.................... Multi................ Radially Split Multi- BB2 (2-stage), BB4. No.
Stage Horizontal (RSH).
Vertical Turbine................. Non-Submersible..... Any.................. Vertical Turbine (VT).... VS1, VS2........... No.
Submersible......... Any.................. Vertical Turbine VS0................ Yes.
Submersible (VTS).
--------------------------------------------------------
Axial/Propeller and Mixed Flow......................... Any.................. Axial/Propeller and Mixed OH00, VS3.......... No.
(AM).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Multistage radial split vertical immersible pumps are excluded from the proposed scope.
Discussions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of certain
categories of pumps can be found in the transcripts from the first
several meetings of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039, Nos. 8, 9, 14, 15, 46, 47, and 62) As recommended by the
Working Group, DOE is applying a scope (for both the test procedure and
in evaluating potential standards) that would include the following
pump equipment classes: end suction close-coupled (ESCC), end suction
frame mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), radially split multi-stage vertical
IL casing diffuser (RSV), and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps.
DOE notes that, while intended to be consistent with this test
procedure proposal, the scope of any energy conservation standards
proposed for pumps will be discussed as part of a separate rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC,
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
a. Definitions of Pump Equipment Classes
To help manufacturers determine whether a given pump falls into one
of the equipment classes that would be addressed by the scope of this
proposal and the parallel energy conservation standards under
consideration, DOE is proposing to define each pump equipment class
that DOE would regulate. In developing these definitions, DOE
considered the comments received in response to the Framework Document
along with subsequent input provided during the CIP Working Group
meetings. For example, HI preferred that DOE use the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) HI definitions for equivalent pump
categories and nomenclature instead of the definitions tentatively
proposed by DOE. (HI, No. 25 at p. 28) \16\ Grundfos preferred that DOE
use EU and HI definitions and resolve any conflicts through the
existing Joint International Pump Industry Standardization Committee.
Grundfos regarded the DOE definitions as ambiguous. (Grundfos, No. 24
at p. 10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 HI; (2) appearing in document number 25 of the
docket; and (3) appearing on page 28 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A joint comment submitted by the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and the National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (collectively referred to as ``the
Advocates'') \17\ criticized the HI definitions as narrow, increasing
the risk that a manufacturer could make small changes to avoid DOE's
regulations. To avoid this problem, the Advocates preferred DOE's broad
definitions and offered some recommended modifications to those
definitions. (Advocates, No. 32 at p. 4) Earthjustice also suggested
adopting the Advocates' suggestions for modifying the definitions and
added that DOE could provide illustrative references to the relevant HI
nomenclature for further clarification. (Earthjustice, No. 30 at p. 1)
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (NPCC) made a similar suggestion, suggesting that
the definitions be coupled with an appendix that would map to the
appropriate ANSI/HI nomenclature and definitions. (NEAA/NPCC, No. 31 at
p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted in Table I.2, ASAP and NRDC were members of the
CIP Working Group, while ASE, ACEE, and Earthjustice were not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the CIP Working Group recommended establishing a test
procedure and standards for specific classes of pumps, in the interest
of time, the specific definitions of these pump equipment classes were
not negotiated by the CIP Working Group. After considering the
stakeholder comments on the Framework Document, DOE is proposing
specific definitions for particular categories of pumps and specific
pump equipment classes. DOE is proposing general definitions for some
specific characteristics of pumps for which DOE is proposing that the
test procedure be applicable; namely rotodynamic pump, single-axis flow
pump, and end suction pump.
DOE proposes that rotodynamic pump refer to a pump in which energy
is continuously imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating
impeller, propeller, or rotor. DOE proposes such a definition to help
define the specific pump equipment classes to which the proposed test
procedure is applicable and differentiate those from positive
displacement pumps (i.e., non-
[[Page 17596]]
rotodynamic pumps) with otherwise similar attributes.
DOE also proposes to define single axis flow pump as a pump in
which the liquid inlet of the bare pump is on the same axis as the
liquid discharge of the bare pump to clarify when specific pump
equipment classes, discussed below, are proposed to exclude similar
pumps in which the pumped liquid enters and exits the pump on different
axes.
DOE proposes to define end suction pump as a specific variety of
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. Such a pump is not single axis
flow because the liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane
perpendicular to the shaft.
Based on these three definitions describing general pump
characteristics, DOE proposes to define the following five pump
equipment classes to which the proposed test procedure would be
applicable:
(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
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with
ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in the 2008 version of
ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For
Nomenclature And Definitions'' (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
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
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.
(c) no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in
the pumped liquid.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with
ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in the 2008 version of ANSI/HI
Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And
Definitions'' (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.
DOE notes that any references to HI nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1-
1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 are incorporated into the definitions
of the aforementioned pump equipment classes as examples only. As
several interested parties expressed their desire to reference the HI
nomenclature to help provide clarity to the industry, DOE is proposing
to list the relevant HI pump nomenclature in the definition of each
pump equipment class. However, in some cases, the HI nomenclature can
be vague or inconsistent.\18\ 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 the proposed regulatory text, the
language in the regulatory text would prevail. Accordingly, a
manufacturer would need to carefully review the applicable regulatory
text in determining how its equipment would be affected because DOE
would be using these provisions when applying the test procedure and
setting the scope for any standards that DOE may develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 does not identify
specific definitions for the considered pumps. Rather, it provides
classification trees (as in Figure 1.1.3a of that document) as well
as construction drawings (e.g. Figures 1.1.5a-bb). The words
describing a given pump classification are not always exactly
consistent between the tree and the drawing captions. For example,
OH0 is variously described as ``overhung--flexibly coupled--
horizontal--frame mounted'' and ``overhung impeller--flexibly
coupled--single stage--frame mounted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction
pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump,
in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical
turbine submersible pump.
DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the
regulatory text, are 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 class for their pump models.
With regard to the proposed definition for RSV pumps, DOE
understands that, in such a pump, flow typically proceeds from the bare
pump inlet through the stages in series, with each stage increasing the
total head, and exits at the pump discharge. DOE requests comment on
whether it needs to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps
from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards
applicability.
One issue related to the above that DOE is currently considering is
whether its proposed RSV pump definition requires further clarification
to ensure that immersible pumps do not fall within the definition. As
proposed, this definition would exclude immersible pumps that would
otherwise meet the remaining characteristics detailed in the definition
(i.e., ``No external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in
the pumped liquid).'' While DOE believes that this language should be
sufficient to exclude any immersible pumps from being treated as an RSV
pump for purposes of DOE's regulations,
[[Page 17597]]
DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is necessary to
make this exclusion clearer.
b. Circulators and Pool Pumps
Circulators, which are a specific kind of rotodynamic pump, are
small, low-head pumps similar to the in-line or end suction close-
coupled 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 circulator pumps be
addressed as part of a separate rulemaking process that would involve
informal negotiation between stakeholders followed by an ASRAC-approved
negotiation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation
#5A at p. 2) DOE has not yet received any proposals or requests for
negotiation from the stakeholders.
To explicitly exclude circulators from this rulemaking and the
parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE proposes to
define the term ``circulator'' as referring to either:
An end suction pump with a pump housing that requires only
the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected
to function as designed, or
A single-stage, single axis flow, rotodynamic pump, with a
pump housing that requires only the support of the supply and discharge
piping to which it is connected to function as designed.
Under this definition, such a pump would not be able to function as
designed without attachment to a rigid foundation. Examples include,
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1,
CP2, or CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
Adopting this definition would help ensure that circulators can be
clearly and unambiguously differentiated from other pumps that DOE may
consider regulating and to which this proposed test procedure would
apply. The proposed definition would rely on the unique and
distinguishable design characteristics of circulators--namely, that
circulators require only pipe-mounted support and do not need to be
attached to a rigid foundation to function as designed. Conversely,
ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps, by definition, require attachment to a rigid
foundation to function as designed. DOE believes that such a definition
for a circulator would encompass all pumps commonly referred to as
circulators by the industry, which the CIP Working Group recommended
that DOE not regulate in this rulemaking. DOE proposes to also
reference the ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2--2014 nomenclature for circulators, as
included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92 at p. 2)
By defining circulators, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps as mutually
exclusive from each other on the basis of design characteristics, it is
unnecessary to include a size-based threshold in the proposed
circulator definition, as had been suggested by stakeholders. (HI, No.
25 at p. 20; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 338) DOE
notes that it is uncommon for pumps larger than 3 hp to be supported
only by their supply and discharge pipes. This is due to limitations on
the structural weight loads that a piping system can support. The
constraint imposed by the piping system, in effect, acts as an inherent
upper size threshold for circulators.
The CIP Working Group also formally recommended that DOE initiate a
separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps by December 2014.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)
The CIP Working Group further sought to identify the unique
characteristics of pool pumps that differentiate them from the other
pump classes within the scope of this rulemaking to make clear that
dedicated-purpose pool pumps are not required to be tested in
accordance with the proposed procedure. During the March 26, 2014 CIP
Working Group meeting, Xylem Inc. (Xylem) indicated that all dedicated-
purpose pool pumps include an integrated basket strainer, unlike other
end suction close-coupled pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No.
62 at p. 195) To distinguish a ``dedicated-purpose pool pump'' from
other pumps that DOE is currently considering regulating in this NOPR,
DOE proposes to define this device as an end suction pump designed
specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an
integrated basket strainer.
DOE notes that this definition will be discussed in more detail in
a separate rulemaking to consider potential energy conservation
standards and test procedures for pool pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and
pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE also
requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators and
dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Finally, DOE requests comment on the
extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps require attachment to a
rigid foundation to function as designed. Specifically, DOE is
interested to know if any pumps commonly referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL,
or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid foundation.
c. 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 being subject to the prospective energy conservation
standards DOE is considering. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No.
92, Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The primary reason for excluding these
pumps at this time 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 372-373) 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, DOE is considering
excluding these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking and the
parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE believes that the pump equipment classes and scope parameters
defined in sections III.A.2 and III.A.4, respectively, implicitly
exclude positive displacement and axial flow pumps.
As mentioned previously, axial/mixed flow pumps are designed to
accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio applications and are therefore
implicitly
[[Page 17598]]
excluded from the scope of pumps being considered in this NOPR based on
the head, flow, and pump brake horsepower parameters proposed in
section III.A.4. Additionally, the proposed definitions of ESCC, ESFM,
and IL pumps would exclude axial/mixed flow pumps through the reference
of a discharge volute, which is typically not present on equipment
referred to as axial/mixed flow pumps. The proposed definition of RSV
pumps would also exclude equipment referred to as axial/mixed flow
pumps through implication by specifying that the liquid inlet is in a
plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft, as compared to axial/mixed
flow pumps where liquid intake is parallel to the impeller shaft.
Finally, the proposed definition of VTS pumps would exclude equipment
referred to as axial/mixed flow pumps because axial/mixed flow pumps
are not designed to be completely submerged in the pumped liquid.
Consequently, given the required characteristics of each of the
proposed equipment class definitions, DOE believes additional
clarification is unnecessary to effectively exclude axial/mixed flow
pumps. If, however, additional facts suggest that further clarification
is needed, DOE may consider the merits of adding clarifying language to
the appropriate regulatory text.
As discussed previously, PD pumps are typically used to handle high
viscosity liquids or handle extremely high head applications. PD pumps
are not rotodynamic pumps and so do not meet the definition of any of
the pump equipment classes discussed in section III.A.2.a that DOE is
considering addressing in this rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed
flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on
the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pump equipment
classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application
DOE initially considered limiting its rulemaking scope to address
only rotodynamic pumps intended for use in pumping clean water, with
the potential of further limiting the scope to exclude specific
categories of pumps based on their design or application. (Docket No.
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 13 at pp. 2-6) DOE also discussed the
possibility of defining ``clean water pump'' using physical
characteristics rather than just defining ``clean water'' as in the EU
Commission Regulation No 547/2012 EU 547.\19\ After extensive
discussions on this subject, the CIP Working Group recommended limiting
the scope of the rulemaking to pumps designed for use in pumping clean
water and excluding certain pumps, some of which are designed for use
in pumping clean water and some of which are not, from being regulated
for the purposes of this proposal and the standards currently under
consideration. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92,
Recommendation #8 at pp. 3-4) However, in the interest of time, the CIP
Working Group did not recommend specific definitions to help implement
any of these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to meet the intent and recommendations of the CIP
Working Group, DOE is proposing to define ``clean water pump.'' DOE is
also proposing to define several kinds of clean water pumps that are
designed for specific applications and that the Working Group had
indicated should be excluded from the scope of this proposal and DOE's
standards rulemaking efforts that are under development. These
definitions would be laid out in a new 10 CFR 431.462.
a. Definition of Clean Water Pump
First, DOE proposes to define ``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 [deg]C.
DOE notes that, when determining whether a given pump would satisfy
the definition of clean water pump, DOE would consider marketing
materials, labels and certifications, equipment design, and actual
application of such equipment.
To clarify the scope of ``clean water pumps,'' DOE notes that
several common pumps would not meet the definition of clean water
pumps, as they are not designed for pumping clean water. The CIP
Working Group specifically identified the following non-clean water
pumps:
(1) Wastewater, sump, slurry, or solids handling pump (i.e., a pump
designed to move liquid with maximum dissolved solid content that
exceeds the limits in the definition of clean water).
(2) Pump designed for pumping hydrocarbon product fluids that meets
the requirements of API's Standard 610-2010, ``Centrifugal Pumps for
Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries'' or ISO
13709:2009.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ISO 13709:2009 is an identical standard to API 610 and is
included under the same cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Chemical process pump that meets the requirements of ANSI/ASME
Standard B73.1-2012, ``Specification for Horizontal End Suction
Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process;'' ANSI/ASME B73.2-2002,
``Specifications for Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical
Process;'' or International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
2858:1975, ``End-suction centrifugal pumps (rating 16 bar)--
Designation, nominal duty point and dimensions,'' and ISO 5199:2002,
``Technical specifications for centrifugal pumps--Class II.''
(4) Sanitary pump that meets the requirements of 3-A Sanitary
Standards, Inc. Standard 3A 02-11, ``Centrifugal and Positive Rotary
Pumps for Milk and Milk Products.''
DOE also proposes to establish a specific definition for ``clear
water'' for testing purposes that would describe the fluid to be used
when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the definition
for ``clear water'' established in HI 40.6-2014. This definition would
apply solely for the purposes of the test procedure and is distinct
from the definition of ``clean water,'' as defined in this section. The
definition of ``clear water'' as it applies to the test fluid to be
used in the testing of pumps under the proposed DOE test procedure is
narrower than the proposed definition of ``clean water,'' which would
be used to establish the scope of the DOE test procedure and related
energy conservation standards.
DOE also requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean
water pump.''
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
the definition for ``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.
b. Exclusion of Specific Kinds of Clean Water Pumps
Also in accordance with the Working Group recommendations, DOE
proposes
[[Page 17599]]
to define several kinds of pumps that are clean water pumps, as
defined, but would not be subject to the proposed test procedure.
Specifically, DOE proposes that the test procedure would not apply to:
(1) Fire pumps;
(2) self-priming pumps;
(3) prime-assist pumps;
(4) sealless pumps;
(5) pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10
CFR part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities; and
(6) 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).
Accordingly, DOE proposes the following definitions for fire pump,
self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and sealless pump:
(1) Fire pump means a pump that is compliant with National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' and either (1)
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed under UL Standard 448-2007,
``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,'' or (2)
Factory Mutual (FM) approved under the October 2008 edition of FM Class
Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps
(Horizontal, End Suction Type).''
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Sealless pump means either:
(a) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump
using a magnetic coupling, or
(b) 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.
DOE notes that the proposal to exclude fire pumps is consistent
with comments submitted in response to the Framework Document,
including from from stakeholders that were not members of the CIP
Working Group.\21\ (NFPA, No. 27 at pp. 1-2; Colombia Engineering, No.
29 at p. 1) However, while Earthjustice suggested that DOE could
require that fire pumps be marked ``For use as a fire pump only,''
(Earthjustice, No.30 at p.2) DOE declines to propose a mandatory label
for fire pumps because it seems superfluous in that there is an
increased cost of such pumps that is likely to inherently limit their
sale to that specific application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE did not receive comments on the Framework Document
regarding other types of pumps for exclusion from stakeholders not
represented on the CIP Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the requirements for fire pumps, pumps designed to be
used in a nuclear facility under 10 CFR 50, and pumps designed per
military specification MIL-P-17639F (Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous
Service, Naval Shipboard Use). DOE believes that in all cases, the
increased burden in design and test requirements provides a legitimate
reason to exclude these from the scope of the proposed test procedure
and standards.
According to Patterson Pumps, fire pumps are manufactured according
to NFPA Standard 20, and certified according to either UL or FM
standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at pp. 191-192)
The CIP Working Group agreed to exclude pumps compliant with NFPA 20 as
long as they are certified as ``fire pumps'' to the relevant UL or FM
standard, noting that UL and FM are the only two certification bodies
for fire pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at p. 193-
194). The CIP Working Group also represented that it was unlikely
manufacturers would attempt to sell pumps intended for other
applications as fire pumps in an effort to circumvent a proposed DOE
standard for pumps because of the high expense in testing to complete
the certification process for UL or FM. Likewise, consumers would find
the expense of buying a fire pump for a non-fire pump application would
be higher than that of buying a pump that complies with an eventual DOE
standard. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 125)
Nuclear facility pumps must have certified design specifications
and must conform to many specific design and testing criteria. These
include, but are not limited to, classification as ASME Code Class 1 of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, ``Rule for
Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,'' for reactor coolant
pumps. DOE understands that the design and construction of pumps in
accordance with ASME Code Class 1 represent significant additional
expense and significantly increases the cost of such pumps compared to
the clean water pumps considered in this test procedure. Similar to
fire pumps, DOE believes there is sufficient justification to exclude
such nuclear facility pumps from the scope of this rulemaking without a
risk of clean water pumps being marketed or sold as nuclear facility
pumps for actual use in other applications.
Pumps designed to military specifications (commonly referred to as
``MIL-SPEC''), such as MIL-P-17639F, must meet very specific physical
and or operational characteristics and have complex and rigid reporting
requirements.\22\ Specifically, MIL-P-17639F requires 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. When considering if a pump is designed and
constructed to the requirements set forth in MIL-P-17639F, 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 MIL-P-17639F. Similar to fire and nuclear
facility pumps, DOE believes there is sufficient justification to
exclude MIL-SPEC pumps 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire pump,''
``self-priming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless pump.''
Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes
that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front
of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the
priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design
features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and
whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to
determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military
Specification and if
[[Page 17600]]
any Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F should be
referenced.
DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test
procedure: 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 pumps meeting the design and construction requirements
set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal,
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This Rulemaking
In addition to limiting the types of pumps that DOE would regulate
at this time through pump definitions and their applications, DOE
proposes to further limit its scope consistent with the Working Group's
recommendation by applying the following performance and design
characteristics:
(1) 1-200 hp (shaft power at the best efficiency point, BEP, at
full impeller diameter for the number of stages required for testing
to the standard); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The CIP Working Group also recommended that testing be
required with 3 stages for RSV pumps and 9 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.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
(3) 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
(4) design temperature range from -10 to 120 [deg]C;
(5) pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per
minute (rpm) driver speeds; and
(6) 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)
Similarly, DOE proposes to apply the pump test procedure scope to
the scope of pumps discussed in sections III.A.1 and III.A.3 possessing
the characteristics presented by the CIP Working Group.
DOE notes that with respect to the limiting criterion proposed for
VTS pumps (i.e., bowl diameter) DOE is also proposing to define this
term to remove ambiguity and to ensure that all entities are
calculating bowl diameter the same way. HI 40.6-2014 defines bowl
diameter as follows: ``Bowl diameter means the measure of a straight
line passing through the center of a circular shape that intersects the
circular shape at both of its ends.'' While DOE largely agrees with the
HI definition, additional specificity is required with respect to that
definition's use of the phrase ``circular shape.'' As such, DOE
proposes to define ``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.
If adopted, only those VTS pumps with bowl diameters of 6 inches or
less would be required to be tested under the proposed procedure.
DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (i.e.,
power, flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl diameter)
as limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed test
procedure would apply.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
5. Non-Electric Drivers
DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural
sector, may be sold and operated with non-electric drivers, such as
engines, steam turbines, or generators. During the CIP Working Group's
negotiations, testing and coverage of non-electric drivers were
discussed. To ensure simplicity and comparability when testing and
certifying pumps with non-electric drivers, the CIP Working Group
recommended that pumps sold with non-electric drivers be rated as a
bare pump, excluding the energy performance of the non-electric driver.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2)
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 if the pump is used with a non-electric
driver. DOE notes that the proposed test procedure is applicable only
to drivers that are electric motors. Therefore, when rating a pump with
any driver other than an electric motor, or other bare pump, DOE would
provide default rating calculations in the test procedure to represent
the performance of the given bare pump with a default motor that is
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for
electric motors. See 10 CFR 431.25. This procedure is described in more
detail in section III.E.1.a. (In context, as noted earlier, the terms
``electric motor'' and ``motor'' are used interchangeably.)
The Working Group's approach, as described above, is likely to
reduce the test burden and complexity of the regulation. DOE notes
that, in order to accurately capture the energy performance of non-
electric drivers in the DOE pump test procedure, separate test
procedures would be necessary for each type of driver (e.g., turbines,
generators), which are not currently available in HI 40.6-2014 or other
relevant pump test standards and, thus, would add significant
complexity and burden to the pump test procedure. DOE believes that
there is insufficient technical merit or potential for additional
energy savings to justify the additional burden associated with rating
and certifying pumps sold with non-electric drivers inclusive of those
drivers.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-
electric drivers as bare pumps.
6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors
DOE recognizes that some pumps within the proposed scope of this
rulemaking may be distributed in commerce with single-phase motors.
However, DOE understands that the majority of pumps in the proposed
scope of this test procedure rulemaking are sold with polyphase
induction motors. One reason for the prevalence of polyphase motors is
that the pumps for which the proposed test procedure would apply are
typically sold into commercial and industrial applications where
polyphase (three-phase) power is known to be commonplace. Additionally,
single-phase induction motors are not widely available in motors with
horsepower (hp) ratings greater than approximately 5 hp, while the
proposed test procedure would apply to pumps from 1-200 hp, as
discussed in section III.A.4. This circumstance further restricts the
prevalence of single-phase motors in pumps for which the proposed test
procedure would apply. According to the CIP Working Group, almost all
pumps except for smaller pumps use three-phase motors, with the
transition from single-phase to three-phase motors occurring at around
\1/2\ to \3/4\ hp. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 105 at p.
224-225)
In addition, DOE understands that most pumps within the scope of
this proposed rulemaking that are distributed in commerce with single-
phase induction motors are also distributed in commerce with polyphase
induction motors of similar size to
[[Page 17601]]
accommodate variation in power requirements among customers.
DOE understands that single-phase induction motors are, in general,
less efficient than polyphase induction motors and, thus, would result
in different energy consumption characteristics when paired with the
same bare pump. Therefore, to establish the desired calculation-based
methods for pumps paired with single-phase and polyphase motors, DOE
would need to develop specific default motor efficiency assumptions and
motor loss curves for both single-phase and polyphase motors. However,
DOE believes that developing a separate rating methodology (including
separate default motor efficiency assumptions) for pumps sold with
single-phase induction motors is not justified at this time due to the
small percentage of pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors.
The CIP Working Group agreed that, based on the scope established for
pumps being from 1-200 hp, it is more meaningful to focus the rating
methodology on three-phase motors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039,
No. 105 at p. 226)
For these reasons, DOE has developed the proposed test methods to
be based on polyphase induction motors in that the default nominal full
load motor efficiency discussed in section III.D.1 would specify a
minimum efficiency value for a National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N electric
motor, which are a specific kind of polyphase induction motor. However,
DOE believes that such default nominal full load motor efficiency
values are not applicable to single-phase induction motors. Therefore,
in order not to penalize pumps sold with single-phase induction motors,
DOE proposes that such pumps be tested and rated in the bare pump
configuration, using the calculation-based method.
DOE notes that, if a pump distributed in commerce with a single-
phase induction motor is also distributed in commerce in a bare pump
configuration, this proposal would not increase the testing or rating
burden on manufacturers. DOE also wishes to clarify that, to the extent
that such a pump is also sold with an electric motor other than a
single-phase induction motor, the pump must also be rated based on the
PEICL or PEIVL as determined for the pump when
paired with that other motor.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in
commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the
bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
DOE requests comment from interested parties on any other
categories of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are
used with pumps considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have
efficiencies lower than the default nominal full load efficiency for
NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors.
B. Rating Metric
One of the first and most important issues DOE must consider in
designing a test procedure is selection of the regulatory metric. The
most common metric used in the pump industry today to describe the
performance of bare pumps (i.e., pumps sold alone, not inclusive of
motors and controls) is pump efficiency, which is the ratio of
hydraulic power (the product of flow, density, gravity, and head) to
pump shaft input power, as shown in equation (1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.000
Where:
[eta]pump = bare pump efficiency,
PHydro = pump hydraulic output power, and
Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at rating point
(i).
When a pump is tested for performance inclusive of a motor and/or
controls, pump efficiency is not as useful a metric, as it does not
capture the performance of the other components that are integral to
the performance and utility of the pump when installed in the field. In
the Framework Document, DOE discussed bare pump efficiency as well as
overall pump efficiency (i.e., the efficiency of a pump coupled with a
driver, as defined in HI 40.6-2014) and ``wire-to-water,'' \24\ power-
based metrics. DOE also discussed the possible application of different
metrics to pumps depending on how they are sold: (1) Alone as bare
pumps, (2) with motors, or (3) with motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The term ``wire-to-water'' refers to the physically-tested,
combined performance of the bare pump, motor, and any continuous or
non-continuous controls. This is consistent with the testing-based
methods discussed in section III.E.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Working Group and Other Stakeholder Comments
The different rating approaches suggested in the Framework Document
were also discussed in the negotiations of the CIP Working Group. 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) 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.
In developing the metric proposed in this NOPR, DOE reviewed the
CIP Working Group recommendations as well as the relevant comments made
in response to the Framework Document. The Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which was not a member of the
Working Group, suggested that if DOE defines pumps to be inclusive of
motors and/or controls, that DOE develop a combined pump/motor/control
efficiency metric using a weighted average of measurements at specified
rating points (as preferable to minimum levels at multiple points
because it allows more design flexibility). (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI
noted that a regulatory regime that includes controls must include
appropriate part load levels and operating points, reflective of part
load conditions typically in use. It cited AHRI 1210-2011, ``2011
Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,'' as an
example of a relevant test procedure that requires that a variable
frequency drive \25\ (VFD) and
[[Page 17602]]
motor be tested at four different speeds: 40, 50, 75, and 100 percent
of full speed. AHRI estimated that VFDs in pump/motor/VFD packages
range from 50 to 100 percent of maximum speed, and average operation is
approximately 75 percent of full speed. AHRI also noted that the
methodology used to develop the Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV)
metric in appendix D of AHRI standard 550/590 may be a useful
reference. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Variable Frequency Drive (or VFD) is defined in AHRI 1210-
2011 as ``A power electronic device that regulates the speed of an
alternating current (AC) motor by adjusting the frequency and the
voltage of the electrical power supplied to the motor.'' This
definition applies to asynchronous induction motors. The term
``dynamic continuous control,'' as defined in section III.E.1.c, is
synonymous with the term ``variable speed drive (VSD)'' and refers
to a power electronic device that controls the output of a motor via
continuous modulation rotating speed. This includes variable
frequency drives, which control speed through changes in input
frequency to the motor and are applicable only to AC motors, as well
as direct-current machines such as electronically commutated motors.
(HI, Europump, and DOE; ``Variable Speed Pumping Systems: A Guide to
Successful Applications,'' pg. 9) For the purposes of this
rulemaking, ``VSD'' will be used when discussing speed control of
pumps in general, as applicable to either AC- or DC-driven motors.
VFD will only be used when specifically discussing continuous
control of AC induction motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that in general, AHRI's comments are in line with the CIP
Working Group recommendation. Specifically, the metric recommended by
the CIP Working Group is a weighted average of measurements at
specified load points. The CIP Working Group recommended metric
incorporates load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for
pumps without continuous or non-continuous controls, and 25, 50, 75,
and 100 percent of BEP flow for a pump sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls. The latter load points are similar to those
specified in AHRI 1210. The reasoning behind these differing loading
profiles is further discussed in section III.B.2.a.
2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and Variable Load Pump Energy Index
After carefully considering the Framework stage comments and the
recommendations of the CIP Working Group, DOE is proposing to adopt the
metric recommended by the CIP Working Group. That metric consists of a
ratio of the representative performance of the pump being rated over
the representative performance of a pump that would minimally comply
with any prospective DOE energy conservation standard for that pump
type. The representative performance is referred to as the ``pump
energy rating'' (PER) and is calculated as the equally-weighted average
of the electric input power to the pump at three or four load points.
As recommended by the CIP Working Group, DOE is also proposing similar
metrics for all pumps, regardless of whether they are sold with
continuous or non-continuous controls.
For pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE
proposes to use three load points near the BEP of the pump to determine
the constant load pump energy rating (PERCL). For pumps sold
with continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposes to use four
load points to determine the variable load pump energy rating
(PERVL).
To scale the rated pump performance (PERCL or
PERVL) with respect to the weighted average electrical input
power of a bare pump that would minimally comply with any prospective
DOE energy conservation standard for that pump type, DOE proposes to
define a ``standard pump energy rating'' (PERSTD) that
represents the performance of a bare pump of the same equipment class
that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards
serving the same hydraulic load. In other words, when determining the
PERSTD for a bare pump, a pump with a motor, or a pump with
a motor using either continuous or non-continuous controls, the
PERCL of a minimally compliant bare pump within the same
class would be used. A more detailed discussion of the
PERSTD value is provided in section III.B.2.b.
Specifically, for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous
controls, DOE proposes using the PEICL metric, which would
be evaluated as shown in equation (2):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.001
Where:
PERCL = the weighted average input power to the motor at
load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow (hp) and
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp).
Evaluating this metric for a given pump would entail the following
steps:
(1) Determining the PERCL for that pump in accordance
with the specific methods discussed in section III.D,
(2) determining the PERSTD for a pump of the same
equipment class (i.e., pumps of the same configuration and performance
characteristics to which a single standard would apply) that would be
minimally compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards
DOE may set, and
(3) taking a ratio of the two values.
As shown in equation (3), the PERCL would be evaluated
as the weighted average input power to the motor at load points of 75,
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15A.002
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor
at rating point i (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
[[Page 17603]]
Similarly, for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-
continuous controls, DOE is proposing using PEIVL, which
would be evaluated as shown in equation (4):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.003
Where:
PERVL = the weighted 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
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp). The
procedure for determining PERSTD is described in detail
in section III.B.2.b.
PEIVL would be similarly evaluated for a given pump
equipped with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, by:
(1) Determining the PERVL for that pump in accordance
with the methods specified in section III.E.1.c,
(2) determining the same PERSTD as for the same class of
pump without continuous or non-continuous controls, and
(3) taking a ratio of the two values.
PERVL would then be calculated as a weighted average of
input power to the motor and continuous or non-continuous controls at
load points of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown in
equation (5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.004
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor
at rating point i (hp), and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Under DOE's 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. As the flow is
decreased, the power will typically decrease slightly. Pumps sold with
continuous or non-continuous controls, by contrast, can 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 would be reduced in proportion to the cube of speed,
resulting in lower power requirements for any part load flow points. As
such, the PEIVL for a pump sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls will be lower than the PEICL for the
same pump sold without continuous or non-continuous controls. In
essence, adopting both PEICL and PEIVL would
illustrate the inherent performance differences that can occur when
coupling a given pump with continuous or non-continuous controls.
a. Load Profile
In order to determine the part load performance of pumps, DOE must
define a load profile and establish specific part load rating points at
which to test a given pump. DOE researched the variety of applications
and usage profiles for the pumps considered for the scope of this
rulemaking and determined that the data regarding typical duty profiles
of covered pumps are extremely variable and not widely available. Thus,
it is extremely difficult to generalize duty profiles for a given pump
based on type, size, or other factors.
The CIP Working Group indicated that pumps sold as bare pumps and
pumps sold with motors are more often installed in constant load
applications that are intended to operate in applications with the
design load closer to the BEP of the pump. Conversely, the Working
Group added that pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls
are typically applied in more variable applications with design
conditions between 25 percent and 100 percent of the BEP flow and head
conditions. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 73 at pp. 80-82)
Based on the assessment and recommendation provided by the Working
Group, DOE is therefore proposing to adopt two distinct load profiles
to represent constant speed and variable speed pump operation. See
Table III.3.
Table III.3--Load Profiles Based on Pump Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pump configuration Load profile Load points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumps Sold without Continuous Constant Load 75%, 100%, and 110%
or Non-Continuous Controls Profile. of BEP flow.
(i.e., bare pumps and pumps
sold with motors).
[[Page 17604]]
Pumps Sold with Continuous or Variable Load 25%, 50%, 75%, and
Non-Continuous Controls. Profile. 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) DOE also proposes to equally weight the
measured input power to the driver or driver and continuous or non-
continuous controls at each of the specified flow points in both the
constant load and the variable load case, as recommended by the CIP
Working Group. Due to the wide range of operating conditions a given
pump may experience in the field, DOE believes the proposed load points
and weights adequately represent the operating range of pumps sold with
and without continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for
PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and
PEIVL for pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
b. PERSTD: Minimally Compliant Pump
Within the PEICL and PEIVL equations, the
average input power to the motor or motor with continuous or non-
continuous control in the numerator of these equations would be scaled
based on a normalizing factor to provide a rating for each pump model
that is indexed to a standardized value. DOE recognizes the benefit of
scaling the PEICL and PEIVL metrics based on a
normalizing factor because it could help compare values across and
among various pump types and sizes.
In recognition of these potential advantages, DOE proposes
normalizing the weighted average input power to the pump being rated
against the weighted average input power to a pump that would minimally
comply with the applicable standard for the same class of pump. This
approach is consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at pg. 5)
This approach is also similar to the approach suggested by Europump, a
trade association of European pump manufacturers. Europump's approach
would normalize the tested input power to the tested pump with a motor
and continuous or non-continuous controls, as measured at the input to
the continuous or non-continuous control, relative to the reference
shaft power for a minimally compliant pump with a minimally compliant
motor at the given BEP.\26\ Europump's approach relies on the EU's
existing regulations for certain categories of rotodynamic pumps
designed for pumping clean water which were first published in
2012.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Europump. Extended Product Approach for Pumps: A Europump
Guide. April 8, 2013.
\27\ 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 is proposing implementing an approach that would approximate a
baseline pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant default motor, to use
as a reference pump for each combination of flow and specific speed.
The minimally compliant pump would be defined as a function of
variables descriptive of the bare pump's physical properties, such as
flow and specific speed, as in the EU approach to regulating clean
water pumps.\28\ DOE proposes to use the same equation used by the EU
to develop its standard, translated to 60 Hz electrical input power and
English units \29\ as shown in equation (6), to determine the
efficiency of a minimally compliant pump:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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, pp. 28-36.
\29\ 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\3\/hr 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 English units. DOE
notes that an exact translation from metric to English units is not
possible due to the logarithmic relationship of the terms.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm),
Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz, and
C = an intercept that is set for the two-dimensional surface
described by equation (6), which is set based on the speed of
rotation and equipment type of the pump model. The values of this
intercept, or ``C-values,'' used for determining pump efficiency for
the minimally compliant pump would be established in the pump energy
conservation standard rulemaking.
In the above equation (6), the specific speed (Ns) 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, and head of the pump as
shown in equation (7) below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.006
[[Page 17605]]
Where:
Ns = specific speed,
N = speed of rotation (rpm),
Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm), and
H100% = total head at BEP flow (ft).
Under this proposal, the calculated efficiency of the minimally
compliant pump reflects the pump efficiency at BEP. As pump efficiency
typically varies as a function of flow rate, DOE must also determine a
method to specify the default efficiency of a minimally compliant pump
at the load points corresponding to 75 and 100 percent of BEP flow. To
do so, DOE also proposes to follow the approach used in the EU
regulations; that is, DOE proposes to scale the efficiency determined
at 100 percent of BEP flow in equation (6) using nominal and
standardized values that represent how pump efficiency typically
changes at part load (75 percent of BEP flow) and over load (110
percent of BEP flow) load conditions. Namely, the efficiency at 75
percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 94.7 percent of that at 100
percent of BEP flow, and the pump efficiency at 110 percent of BEP flow
is assumed to be 98.5 percent of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, as
shown in equation (8):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.007
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency,
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as
determined in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps
in sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Equation (8) also demonstrates how the ratio between the minimally
compliant pump efficiency and the hydraulic output power for the rated
pump is used to determine the input power to a minimally compliant pump
at each load point. Note that the pump hydraulic output power for the
minimally compliant pump would be the same as that for the particular
pump being evaluated. Under DOE's proposed approach, calculating the
hydraulic power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP
flow, would require the following equation (9):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.008
Where:
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating
point i of the tested pump (hp),
Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating point i of the
tested pump (gpm),
Hi = pump total head at each rating point i of the tested
pump (ft), and
SG = the specific gravity of water at specified test conditions.
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, described in section
III.D.1, and the default part load loss curve, described in section
III.D.2, to determine the input power to the motor at each load point.
The applicable minimum nominal full load motor efficiency is determined
as a function of type (i.e., open or enclosed), pole configuration, and
horsepower rating, as specified by DOE's electric motor standards.
PERSTD would then be determined as the weighted average
input power to the motor at each load point, as shown in equation (8).
The use of a reference denominator based on PERCL for a
minimally compliant bare pump (including assigned default motor
losses), as described in the preceding paragraphs, was recommended by
the CIP Working Group. The benefit of this approach is that it would
consistently show the difference between a given pump's performance and
the baseline performance of a pump with the same flow and specific
speed. A value higher than 1.0 would indicate that the pump would
exceed the applicable pump energy consumption standard and would not
comply, while a lower value would indicate that the pump is less
consumptive than the maximum allowed by the standard and would
therefore comply.
[[Page 17606]]
To implement the Working Group's recommended approach, DOE's
proposal would describe how to calculate PEICL and
PEIVL as a ratio of the weighted average input power of the
tested pump model over the weighted average input power of a minimally
compliant bare pump paired with a minimally compliant motor with no
controls, as shown in equations (10) and (11):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.054
Where:
PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant load (applicable to
bare pumps and pumps sold with a motor) (hp),
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Piin = measured or calculated input power to
the motor at rating point i for the tested pump (hp),
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency,
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as determined
in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps in
sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2 (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with
the DOE test procedure.
Equation (10) would apply to both bare pumps and pumps sold with a
motor (but without any accompanying continuous or non-continuous
controls). For pumps sold with motors inclusive of continuous or non-
continuous controls, the PEIVL would be calculated as
defined in equation (11) below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.010
Where:
PEIVL = pump energy index for a variable load (applicable to pumps
sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls),
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting \1/3\ or \1/4\ as applicable),
Piin = measured or calculated input power to
the continuous or non-continuous controls at rating point i for the
tested pump,
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency,
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as determined
in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps in
sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and
i = 25, 50, 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure, where the load points are as
noted in equation (11).
DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and
PEIVL metric architecture.
Default Motor Efficiency for the Minimally Compliant Pump
DOE notes that the default motor efficiency discussed above varies
as a function of motor horsepower. As such, DOE must prescribe a
consistent method to determine the rated horsepower, and thus default
efficiency, of the hypothetical minimally compliant motor used to
determine PERSTD. DOE proposes that for bare pumps, which
must be assigned a hypothetical default motor in order to calculate the
proposed PEICL metric, the motor horsepower for the
minimally compliant pump (PERSTD) would be determined using
the bare pump (PERCL), described in section III.D.1.a. This
procedure would select the default motor's horsepower as equivalent to,
or the next highest horsepower-rated level greater than, the calculated
pump shaft input power of the pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP
flow. This approach would yield the same motor horsepower being
selected for bare pumps and for their associated minimally compliant
pump.
For pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls, manufacturers could choose to
sell their pump with a motor whose horsepower varies from that assumed
based on the default motor selection criteria. See section III.D.1.a.,
infra. In such a case, the horsepower of the default motor selected to
calculate PERSTD may vary from that of the one sold with the
evaluated pump. DOE believes that applying the same motor horsepower to
both the pump being evaluated and the minimally compliant pump
(PERSTD) would provide the most equitable and straight-
forward comparison of pump performance. As a result, DOE is proposing
to require that if a pump is sold with: (1) A motor or (2) a motor and
continuous or non-continuous controls, the motor horsepower for the
minimally compliant pump used in the calculation would be based on the
horsepower rating of the motor with which that pump is sold. To
determine the minimally compliant pump's associated motor part load
losses at each load point, the nominal full load efficiency associated
with that motor's horsepower would be determined based on a motor that
minimally complies with the applicable DOE electric motor energy
conservation standards (or in the case of submersible motors, as
described in section III.D.1.b) and using the procedure for calculating
part load losses described in section III.D.2.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold
with motors (with or without continuous or non-continuous controls).
C. Determination of Pump Performance
To determine PEICL or PEIVL for applicable
pumps, the proposed test procedure would require physically measuring
the performance of either: (1) The bare pump, under the calculation-
[[Page 17607]]
based methods (see section III.E.1), or (2) the entire pump, inclusive
of any motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control, under the
testing-based methods (III.E.2). Specifically, the input power to the
pump at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for PEICL, or
at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for PEIVL, is
required for input into the PEICL or PEIVL
equations, respectively. Depending on whether the calculation-based
method or testing-based method is applied, a slightly different test
method would apply for measuring pump performance. In the case of the
calculation-based method, only the bare pump performance is physically
measured--the performance of the motor and any continuous or non-
continuous controls would be addressed through a series of
calculations. In the case of the testing-based method, the full wire-
to-water performance of the pump is physically measured and the
measured input power to the pump at the motor or at the continuous or
non-continuous control, if any, is used to calculate PEICL
or PEIVL. In either case, DOE's test procedure, as proposed,
would require instructions for how to physically measure the
performance of bare pumps, pumps with motors, and pumps with motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls in a standardized and consistent
manner.
1. Referenced Industry Standards
In developing this proposal, DOE reviewed domestic and
international industry test procedures. Table III.4 shows a number of
industry test methods that relate to the pumps for which DOE is
considering adopting a test method and standards.
Table III.4--Overview of Currently Available Pump Test Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test procedure Origin Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/HI 14.6-2011, ``Rotodynamic Pumps United States...................... Harmonized with ANSI/HI 11.6 and
for Hydraulic Performance Acceptance ISO 9906-2012.
Tests''.
HI 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic United States...................... Developed, in coordination with
Pump Efficiency Testing''. DOE and the CIP Working Group,
to support DOE's pump test
procedure.
ANSI/HI 11.6-2012, ``Submersible Pump United States...................... Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6.
Tests''.
ASME PTC 8.2-1990, ``Centrifugal Pump''.. United States...................... References dated measurement
techniques.
ISO 9906-2012 Rotodynamic pumps-- International...................... Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6 and
Hydraulic performance acceptance tests-- referenced in EU
Grades 1, 2 and 3. regulations.\*\
ISO 5198-1999 Centrifugal, mixed flow, International...................... Provides guidance for
and axial pumps. Code for hydraulic measurement of very high
performance tests. Precision class. accuracy. Includes
specification of an optional
thermodynamic method for direct
measurement of pump
efficiencies.
AS 2417-2001 Rotodynamic pumps--Hydraulic Australia.......................... Based on ISO 9906-2012.
performance acceptance tests--Grades 1
and 2.
GB/T 3216-2005........................... China.............................. Based on ISO 9906-2012.
NOM-010-ENER-2004 Submersible deep well Mexico............................. Based on ISO 9906-2012.
clean water motor pumps.
NOM-001-ENER-2000 Vertical turbine pumps Mexico............................. Based on ISO 3555 (predecessor
with external vertical electric motor to 9906-2012).
for pumping clean water for irrigation,
municipal supply, or industrial supply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Council of the European Union. 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, pp. 28-36.
As presented in the Framework Document, DOE determined that ANSI/HI
14.6-2011: (1) Is the most widely used test standard in the pump
industry for evaluating pump performance; (2) defines uniform methods
for conducting laboratory tests to determine flow rate, head, power,
and efficiency at a given speed of rotation; and (3) applies to all
pumps that DOE is considering regulating. See section III.A., supra. In
the Framework Document, DOE requested comments from interested parties
on the use of several test procedures, including ANSI/HI 14.6-2011, as
a basis for developing DOE's test procedure. HI, Grundfos, and AHRI all
recommended the use of ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 for stand-alone pump testing
(i.e., testing of a bare pump without a motor and without continuous or
non-continuous controls). (HI, No. 25 at p. 34, Grundfos, No. 24 at p.
17, and AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2)
After publication of the Framework Document, HI convened a group of
subject matter experts to, in coordination with DOE and the CIP Working
Group, revise ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 to make the test protocol more relevant
for incorporation by DOE as part of the DOE test procedure. The new,
revised standard was issued by HI in July 2014 as HI 40.6-2014 and
incorporates several improvements over the previous testing standard,
including greater precision and accuracy in describing evaluation
techniques and mandatory language. The CIP Working Group recommended
that whatever procedure the DOE adopts, it should be consistent with HI
40.6-2014 for determining bare pump performance. (Docket No. EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at pg. 4)
DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014 and determined that it contains the
relevant test methods needed to accurately characterize the performance
of the pumps that would be addressed by this rulemaking. These test
methods include a means to determine pump shaft input power (for the
calculation-based methods) and input power to the motor or motor and
continuous or non-continuous controls (for the testing-based methods)
at the specified load points. Specifically, HI 40.6-2014 defines and
explains how to calculate pump power input,\30\ driver power input,\31\
pump power output,\32\ pump efficiency,\33\ bowl efficiency,\34\
overall
[[Page 17608]]
efficiency,\35\ and other relevant quantities. HI 40.6-2014 also
contains appropriate specifications regarding the scope of pumps
covered by the test methods, test methodology, standard rating
conditions, equipment specifications, uncertainty calculations, and
tolerances. Additionally, HI 40.6-2014, when coupled with the minor
modifications specified in section III.C.2.a, would provide clarity
regarding certain mandatory requirements when performing the test
procedure, such as the test conditions and instrumentation requirements
necessary to ensure testing accuracy and repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The term ``pump power input'' in HI 40.6-2014 is defined as
``the power transmitted to the pump by its driver'' and is
synonymous with the term ``pump shaft input power,'' as used in this
document.
\31\ The term ``driver power input'' in HI 40.6-2014 is defined
as ``the power absorbed by the pump driver'' and is synonymous with
the term ``pump input power to the driver,'' as used in this
document.
\32\ The term ``pump power output'' in HI-40.6 is defined as
``the mechanical power transferred to the liquid as it passes
through the pump, also known as pump hydraulic power.'' It is used
synonymously with ``pump hydraulic power'' in this document.
\33\ The term ``pump efficiency is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as a
ratio of pump power output to pump power input.
\34\ The term ``bowl efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as
a ratio of pump power output to bowl assembly power input and is
applicable only to VTS and RSV pumps.
\35\ The term ``overall efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014
as a ratio of pump power output to driver power input and describes
the combined efficiency of a pump and driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To limit the overall burden presented by this proposal, DOE has
chosen an approach that is as closely aligned as possible with existing
and widely used industry test procedures. Although HI 40.6-2014 is a
new test standard, its methods are substantially the same as those
specified in ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 and currently used to evaluate pumps in
the industry. Accordingly, in DOE's view, HI 40.6-2014, as a procedure
based on an already widely used and recognized industry-developed
procedure, is an appropriate method for evaluating bare pump/pump and
motor performance. For this reason, DOE is proposing to incorporate
this testing standard as part of DOE's test procedure for measuring the
energy consumption of pumps, with the minor modifications and
exceptions listed in the following sections III.C.2.a through
III.C.2.f.
DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE
test procedure for pumps.
2. Minor Modifications and Additions to HI 40.6-2014
In general, DOE finds the test methods contained within HI 40.6-
2014 are sufficiently specific and reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency and energy use. However, in
DOE's view, a few minor modifications are necessary to ensure
repeatable and reproducible test results and to provide measurement
methods and equipment specifications for the entire scope of pumps that
DOE is addressing as part of this proposal.
a. Sections Excluded From DOE's Incorporation by Reference
While DOE proposes to reference HI 40.640.6-2014 as the basis for
its proposed test procedure, DOE notes that some sections of the
standard are not applicable to DOE's regulatory framework.
Specifically, section 40.6.5.3 provides requirements regarding the
generation of a test report and appendix ``B'' provides guidance on
test report formatting, both of which are not required for testing and
rating pumps in accordance with DOE's proposed procedure. As such, DOE
proposes to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3 and appendix
B of HI 40.6-2014.
HI 40.6-2014 also contains relevant requirements for the
characteristics of the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in
section 40.6.5.5, ``Test conditions.'' Specifically, section 40.6.5.5
requires that ``tests shall be made with clear water at a maximum
temperature of 10-30 [deg]C (50-86[emsp14][deg]F)'' and clarifies that
``clear water means water to be used for pump testing, with a maximum
kinematic viscosity of 1.5 x 10-\6\ m\2\/s (1.6 x
10-\5\ ft\2\/s) and a maximum density of 1000 kg/m\3\ (62.4
lb/ft\3\).'' DOE agrees with these requirements and proposes to include
them in the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-2014. However, in
section A.7 of appendix A, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30
[deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F),'' HI 40.6-2014 addresses testing at
temperatures above 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F). DOE does not intend to
allow testing with liquids other than those meeting the definition of
clear water presented above, including water at elevated
temperatures.\36\ As such, DOE also proposes to exclude section A.7
from the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Testing at higher temperatures may be conducted by
manufacturers when their pumps are designed for a specific, higher-
temperature application. However, for DOE's purposes in developing a
test procedure to determine the energy use of pumps, testing outside
the nominal, standardized rating conditions is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014
as part of the DOE test procedure.
b. Data Collection and Determination of Stabilization
In order to ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the
DOE pump test procedure must provide instructions regarding how to
sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data
is taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely
represent the performance of the pump at that load point. HI 40.6-2014
provides that all measurements shall be made under steady state
conditions, which are described as follows: (1) No vortexing, (2)
margins as specified in ANSI/HI 9.6.1 Rotodynamic Pumps Guideline for
NPSH Margin, and (3) when the mean value of all measured quantities
required for the test data point remain constant within the permissible
amplitudes of fluctuations defined in Table 40.6.3.2.2 over a minimum
time of 10 seconds before data are collected. However, HI 40.6-2014
does not specify the frequency of data collection. As such, determining
stabilization, as specified, could occur based on a minimum of two data
points (as a minimum of two data points are necessary to calculate a
mean) or many data points based on a 1 second or sub-second data
sampling frequency. DOE believes that, at a minimum, two data points
should be used to determine stabilization and, as such, data must be
collected at least every 5 seconds. DOE believes that two data points
are necessary because at least two data points are necessary to
determine an average. DOE proposes to specify that data shall be
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
As noted above, section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014, ``Permissible
fluctuations,'' provides permissible amplitude of fluctuations for
various measured quantities throughout the test. As specified in that
section, all measurements must be less than these thresholds for the
duration of the measurement period for a valid measurement. The section
also describes permissible dampening devices that may be used to
minimize noise and large fluctuations in the data. DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference section 40.6.3.2.2 except that dampening
devices would only be permitted to integrate up to the data collection
interval, or 5 seconds, to ensure that each data point is reflective of
a unique measurement.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as
described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above
(i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, or 5
seconds).
c. Modifications Regarding Test Consistency and Repeatability
Sections 40.6.5.6 and 40.6.5.7 of HI 40.6-2014 specify test
arrangements and test conditions. However, DOE finds that the
standardized test conditions described in these sections are not
sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results.
Specifically, the nominal pump speed, the input power
[[Page 17609]]
characteristics, and the number of stages to test for multi-stage pumps
are not addressed, all of which could impact the measured test result
for a given pump unit. To address these potential sources of
variability or ambiguity, DOE proposes to adopt several additional
requirements to further specify the procedures for adjusting the test
data to standardized rating conditions.
HI 40.6-2014 specifies that testing shall be done with clear water
and defines clear water for the purposes of pump testing. HI 40.6-2014
also provides a standardized description of the method for configuring
pumps for testing. However, additional specifications not present in HI
40.6-2014 are also required regarding the speed of rotation, the
characteristics of the power supply, and the configuration of specific
pump types for the purposes of testing pumps and for use in any
subsequent calculations to determine the PEICL or
PEIVL.
Pump Speed
The rated speed of a pump affects the efficiency and
PEICL or PEIVL of that pump. To limit variability
and increase repeatability within the test procedure, DOE is proposing
to include nominal rating speeds of 3,600 and 1,800 rpm at 60 Hz. For
pumps sold without motors, the nominal rating speed would be selected
based on the speed of rotation for which the pump is designed.
Specifically, pumps designed to operate at any speed of rotation
between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm would be rated at 3,600 rpm and pumps
designed to operate at any speed of rotation between 1,440 and 2,160
rpm would be rated at 1,800 rpm, as noted in Table III.5.
Table III.5--Nominal Speed of Rotation for Different Configurations of Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal speed of rotation
Pump configuration Pump design speed of rotation Style of motor for rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump......................... 2,880 and 4,320 rpm.......... N/A............. 3,600 rpm.
1,440 and 2,160 rpm.......... ................ 1,800 rpm.
Pump + Motor OR................... N/A.......................... 2-pole Induction 3,600 rpm.
Motor.
Pump + Motor + Control............ N/A.......................... 4-pole Induction 1,800 rpm.
Motor.
N/A.......................... Non-Induction 3,600 rpm.
Motor Designed
to Operate
between 2,880
and 4,320 rpm.
N/A.......................... Non-Induction 1,800 rpm.
Motor Designed
to Operate
between 1,440
and 2,160 rpm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE proposes that pumps designed to operate at speeds that include
both ranges would be rated at both nominal speeds of rotations. DOE
notes that each nominal speed rating would represent a different basic
model of pump. DOE selected these operating speed ranges consistent
with the tolerance about the nominal rating speed allowed for in the
test procedure. Specifically, section 40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6-2014
requires that the tested speed be maintained within 20 percent of the
rated speed, or the specified nominal speed of rotation in this case.
Therefore, any pump ``designed for operation'' at any speed of rotation
between, for example, 2,880 and 4,320 rpm would be able to be tested
under the proposed test procedure at the design speed of rotation and
the results corrected to the rated nominal speed of rotation of 3,600
rpm.
DOE notes that these speed ranges are not exclusive. That is, if a
pump were to be designed to operate from 2,600 to 4,000 rpm, such a
pump would have a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm for the
purposes of testing and rating the pump.
For pumps sold with motors, DOE proposes that the nominal speed of
rotation be selected based on the speed(s) for which the motor is
designed to operate. Specifically, as shown in Table III.5, pumps sold
with 2-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 3,600 rpm, and pumps
sold with 4-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 1,800 rpm.
Pumps sold with non-induction motors (e.g., DC motors and ECMs) would
be evaluated at the nominal rating speed that falls within the
operating range of the motor with which the pump is being sold. If the
pump is sold with a non-induction motor that is designed to operate at
any speed of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, that pump would be
rated at a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm. If the pump is sold
with a non-induction motor that is designed to operate at any speed of
rotation between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, that pump would be rated at 1,800
rpm. If the operating range of the non-induction motor with which the
pump is distributed in commerce includes speeds of rotation that are
both between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the
pump would be rated at both 3,600 and 1,800 rpm and each nominal speed
of rotation would represent a separate basic model.
However, DOE acknowledges that it may not be feasible to operate
pumps during the test at exactly 3,600 or 1,800 rpm. Therefore, DOE
proposes that all data collected as a result of the test procedure at
the speed measured during the test be adjusted to the nominal speed
prior to use in subsequent calculations and that the PEICL
or PEIVL of a given pump be based on the nominal speed. For
pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls and
that are tested using the testing-based method described in section
III.E.2.c, this adjustment to the nominal rating speed would apply only
at the 100 percent of BEP flow rating point--subsequent part load
points would be measured at reduced speed and would not be adjusted.
DOE proposes to use the methods in HI 40.6-2014 section 40.6.6.1.1,
``Translation of the test results into data based on the specified
speed of rotation (for frequency) and density'' to adjust any data from
the measured speed to the nominal speed.
In all cases, as required by HI 40.6-2014, the tested speed
maintained during the test at each rating point must be maintained
within 20 percent of the nominal speed and the speed of rotation
recorded at each test point may not vary more than 1
percent to ensure accurate and reliable results.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at
the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal
speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in
HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed
and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce
more accurate and repeatable test results.
[[Page 17610]]
Power Supply Characteristics
Because pump power consumption is a component of the proposed
metric, inclusive of any motor and continuous or non-continuous
controls, measuring power consumption is an important element of the
test. The characteristics of the power supplied to the pump affect the
accuracy and repeatability of the measured power consumption of the
pump. As such, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of power
consumption, DOE is also proposing to specify nominal characteristics
of the power supply. Namely, DOE is proposing nominal values for
voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and
impedance levels, as well as tolerances about each of these quantities,
that must be maintained at the input terminals to the motor, continuous
control, or non-continuous control, as applicable.
To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics testing
pumps with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls)
and pumps with both motors and continuous or non-continuous controls,
DOE examined applicable test methods for electric motors and VSD
systems. DOE determined that IEEE Standard 112-2004 (``IEEE Standard
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators''), which
is the test method incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.16 for
electric motors, is the most applicable test method for electric motors
when considering testing and rated values for motors that are
integrated with a pump. DOE identified both AHRI 1210-2011, ``2011
Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,'' (AHRI
1210-2011) and the 2013 version of the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA) Standard C838, ``Energy efficient test methods for three-phase
variable frequency drive systems,'' (CSA C838-2013) as applicable
methods for measuring the performance of VSD control systems.
IEEE 112-2004, AHRI 1210-2011, and CSA C838-2013 all specify that
voltage and frequency must be maintained at the rated voltage and
frequency of the motor 0.5 percent. In addition, all three
standards specify that the power source ``voltage unbalance'' shall not
exceed 0.5 percent during the test. Voltage unbalance is calculated as
the maximum voltage deviation from the average measured voltage divided
by the average measured voltage.
DOE recognizes that any harmonics in the power system can affect
the measured performance of the pump when tested with a motor or motor
and continuous or non-continuous control. IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C838-
2013 also include requirements to maintain total harmonic distortion
below 5 percent. When measuring the input power to the continuous or
non-continuous controls that are paired with an electric motor-driven
pump, AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013 also specify impedance levels of
the incoming power supplied to the VSD. AHRI 1210-2011 requires that
source impedance not exceed 1 percent, while CSA C838-2013 requires
that source impedance shall be greater than 1 percent but not exceed 3
percent for VFDs under 500 hp.
DOE is also proposing to establish these requirements for voltage,
frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance
in the DOE pump test procedure when testing pumps that either have
motors (but without controls) or pumps with motors with continuous or
non-continuous controls.
While some pump manufacturers may be capable and equipped to
accurately measure pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls in accordance with the proposed power supply
characteristics, DOE recognizes that there may be some variability
among manufacturers in this regard. Consequently, these requirements
may represent a significant incremental burden for some testing
facilities. To lessen this burden, DOE proposes to require that power
supply requirements would apply only to pumps being evaluated using a
physical testing-based method or pumps being tested using a calibrated
motor. Pumps evaluated based on the calculation method where the input
power to the motor is determined using equipment other than a
calibrated motor would not have to meet these requirements, as
variations in voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance are not
expected to affect the tested pump's energy performance.
DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage
unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that
must be met when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing a
bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests comments
on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump test labs,
or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment
would be required.
Number of Stages for Multi-Stage Pumps
RSV and VTS pumps are typically multi-stage pumps that may be
offered in a variety of stages (also known as bowls), each with its own
energy consumption characteristics, which scale approximately linearly
with each additional bowl. With these pump designs, any improvements in
the hydraulic design of the bowl would be reflected in the measured
performance of the pump with any number of stages. Thus, to simplify
certification requirements and limit testing burden, DOE proposes to
require that certification of RSV and VTS pumps be based on testing
with the following number of stages:
RSV: 3 stages; and
VTS: 9 stages.
If a model is not available with that specific number of stages,
the model would be tested with the next closest number of stages
distributed in commerce by the manufacturer. This proposal was part of
the Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039,
No. 92, Recommendation #14 at p. 6)
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in
their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number
of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that
particular number of stages.
d. Determination of Pump Shaft Input Power at Specified Flow Rates
HI 40.6-2014 provides a specific procedure for determining BEP for
a given pump based on seven data points at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and
120 percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump. The test protocol in
HI 40.6-2014 requires that the hydraulic power and the pump shaft input
power, or input power to the motor for pumps tested using the testing-
based methods, be measured at each of the seven data points. HI 40.6-
2014 further specifies that the pump efficiency be determined as a
ratio of hydraulic power divided by shaft input power, as described in
equation (1), or the measured input power to the motor multiplied by
the known efficiency of a calibrated motor, depending on how the pump
is tested.
The pump efficiency at each of these points is then used to
determine the tested BEP for a given pump. Then, based on the
determined BEP flow, the pump shaft input power or input power to the
motor is determined at each of the specified load points, as discussed
in section III.B.2.a. However, the specific data points measured in the
test protocol may not be exactly at 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP
flow load points specified in the proposal. Thus, the relevant test
values--specifically, pump shaft input power, input power to the pump
at the driver, or input power
[[Page 17611]]
to the continuous or non-continuous controls--must be adjusted to
reflect the power input at the load points specified in the test
procedure.
Consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations, (Docket
No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 35) DOE proposes to address
this issue by requiring that the pump shaft input power at the defined
load points be obtained by performing the pump test across a complete
range of flow rates (i.e., sweeping the pump curve) and determining the
pump shaft input power at a number of load points between shutoff (no
flow) and overload (max flow), as specified in HI 40.6-2014. In this
method, the established pump curve could then be used to find BEP (as
described in section III.C.2.d). The pump shaft input power at the
specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow could be
determined by regressing the pump shaft input power with respect to
flow between 75 and 110 percent of BEP flow. Specifically, the
regressed test points would include the test points beginning with the
next standard flow point below 75 percent of BEP flow (e.g., the load
point corresponding to 60 percent of expected BEP flow) and continuing
to the highest flow rate measured during the test.
This method would provide a low testing burden, as test data would
only have to be collected at each of the specified seven load points
with no measurements required at subsequent load points (e.g., 75 or
110 percent of BEP flow if the previously collected load points
collected based on the expected BEP of the pump were not sufficiently
close to the necessary load points based on the actual BEP of the
pump). By design, the method relies on the relationship between pump
shaft input power and flow being fairly linear across the flow rates of
interest. To verify the assumption of linearity, DOE researched the
relationship of pump shaft input power to flow using publicly available
pump performance data. Based on this research, DOE observed that the
relationship of pump shaft input power to flow rate was very nearly
linear, but sometimes decreased slightly in slope at higher flow rates.
These data indicate that, as a general matter, applying a linear
regression approach across the flow range between 75 and 110 percent of
BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the proposed
specified flow points would provide a reasonably accurate measurement
of pump shaft input power.
DOE recognizes that this method may overestimate pump shaft input
power in cases where the pump shaft input power increases less
significantly above BEP flow, which would result in a slightly higher
PERCL for the given pump. However, DOE's contractors
analyzed the impact of the linear regression approach on the pumps in
their pump database \37\ and found that the linear regression method
was, on average, within approximately 1 percent of the measured pump
shaft input power values. DOE also notes this method would be applied
equivalently to all pumps, result in a worst-case rating, and offer the
least burdensome approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ DOE's contractors have created a database of available pump
models being proposed for coverage under this test procedure and the
associated energy conservation standards. The database represents a
significant portion of the pump market and is based on data supplied
to DOE's contractors directly from pump manufacturers and aggregated
data supplied by HI. DOE's contractors developed this database over
the course of the CIP Working Group negotiations, and the database
is described in more detail in the docket for those meetings.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discussed this proposed method with the CIP Working Group,
which informally agreed with DOE's proposed approach to linearly
regress the measured pump shaft input power at the relevant flow points
to determine the pump shaft input power at the specific flow points of
75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0039, No. 107 at p. 35)
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of
the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested
flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to
determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75,
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any
pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate
measurements.
Determination of Pump Shaft Input Power for Pumps With BEP at Run Out
HI 40.6-2014 contains a method for determining the BEP of tested
pumps based on the flow rate at which the maximum pump efficiency
occurs. DOE recognizes that there may be some unique pump models that
do not exhibit the typical parabolic relationship of pump efficiency to
flow rate. Instead, for some pumps, pump efficiency will continue to
increase as a function of flow until pump run-out--the maximum flow
that can be developed without damaging the pump. For such pumps, it may
not be possible to use the procedure described in HI 40.6-2014 to
determine BEP, since the pump cannot safely operate at flows of 110 and
120 percent of the expected BEP of the pump (assuming the pump was
designed intentionally to have the BEP occur at run-out or the maximum
flow rate). In such cases, DOE proposes that the seven flow points for
determination of BEP be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of
expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described in section
40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014.
In addition, since 100 percent of BEP flow corresponds to the
maximum flow rate of the pump, there are no data corresponding to 110
percent of BEP flow, or any flow rates above BEP flow. Therefore, in
cases where the BEP flow is at run-out, DOE proposes that the specified
constant load flow points be 100, 90, and 65 percent of the BEP (or
maximum) flow rate. DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls, no modification would be
necessary since there are no load points above 100 percent of BEP flow
in the variable load profile.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that, for pumps with BEP at
run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100
percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described
in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points
for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP
flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
e. Measurement Equipment for VFD Wire-to-Water Test
HI 40.6-2014 does not contain all the necessary methods and
calculations to determine pump power consumption for the range of
equipment that would be addressed by this proposal (i.e., pumps
inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls). For the
purposes of determining pump shaft input power, motor input power,
input power to the continuous or non-continuous controls, and pump
hydraulic power, certain equipment is necessary to measure head, speed,
flow rate, torque, electrical power, and temperature. To specify the
appropriate equipment to accurately and precisely measure relevant
parameters, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2014,
appendix C, which specifies the required instrumentation to measure
head, speed, flow rate, torque, temperature, and electrical input power
to the motor. However, for the purposes of measuring input power to the
pump for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous
controls, the equipment specified in section C.4.3.1, ``electric power
input to the motor,'' of HI 40.6-2014 may not be sufficient.
[[Page 17612]]
In response to the Framework Document, several commenters discussed
the instrumentation needed to test a pump inclusive of motor and
continuous or non-continuous controls. The CA IOUs mentioned that most
VFDs introduce non-linear, or non-sinusoidal, wave forms into the
utility system, which will affect the total harmonic distortion
experienced in the power system.\38\ As such, it would be important to
measure their power and energy use with true root mean square (RMS)
power-measuring equipment to capture the impact of such harmonic
distortion on the measured input power to any pump sold with a motor
and continuous or non-continuous control. (CA IOUs, Framework Public
Meeting Transcript No. 19 at p. 236) In addition, HI stated that
testing pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls would require an upgrade to the test instrumentation to
measure the input power into a VFD to compensate for the disruption of
the input power by the VFD. (HI, No. 25 at p. 35) However, HI added
that this additional instrumentation is manageable and within the
capabilities of what most of the HI members are doing today. (HI,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 19 at p. 235)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Total harmonic distortion results from the introduction of
non-linear loads into the power system, which introduces wave forms
that are out of phase with the voltage and can affect power quality
and the efficiency of power distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the appropriate electrical measurement equipment for
pumps tested with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls,
DOE consulted CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011, since these test
standards are the most relevant references for measuring input power to
such controls. Both CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011 require that
electrical measurements for determining variable speed drive efficiency
be taken using equipment capable of measuring current, voltage, and
real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply
source frequency \39\ and have an accuracy level of 0.2
percent of full scale when measured at the fundamental supply source
frequency. In addition, AHRI 1210-2011 prescribes that such electrical
measurement equipment must be designed as per International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61000-4-7-2002,
``Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)--Part 4-7: Testing and
measurement techniques--General guide on harmonics and interharmonics
measurements and instrumentation, for power supply systems and
equipment connected thereto.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ CSA C838-2013 requires measurement up to the 50th harmonic.
However, DOE believes that measurement up to the 40th harmonic is
sufficient, and the difference between the two types of frequency
measurement equipment will not be appreciable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because some variable speed control methods have the potential to
introduce harmonics to the power system, which can reduce power factor
\40\ and affect the performance of certain electrical equipment, such
as motors, DOE proposes that the electrical measurement equipment
specified in AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013 be required for the
purposes of measuring input power to a pump sold with a motor and
continuous or non-continuous controls. DOE agrees with interested
parties that specific electrical measurement equipment capable of
capturing the disruption or distortion of input power should be used to
ensure measurement accuracy. Also, DOE does not anticipate that this
proposed requirement would be likely to introduce an undue burden on
pump manufacturers since many of them are already using this type of
specialized equipment to test pumps equipped with motors having
continuous or non-continuous controls. The burden associated with this
test procedure, and in particular the required test equipment, is
discussed further in section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Power factor is defined as the ratio of the real power
supplied to the load over the apparent power in the circuit and is a
dimensionless number between -1 and 1. Higher values of power factor
(closer to 1) indicate that more real power is being supplied to the
load relative to the current and voltage flowing in the circuit.
When non-linear loads are applied that distort the wave form, less
real power is available relative to the current and voltage in the
circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-
continuous controls.
f. Calculations and Rounding
DOE notes HI 40.6-2014 does not specify how to round values for
calculation and reporting purposes. DOE recognizes that the manner in
which values are rounded can affect the resulting PER or PEI, and all
PER or PEI values should be reported with the same number of
significant digits. DOE proposes to require that all calculations be
performed with the raw measured data, to ensure accuracy, and that the
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and
PEIVL be reported to the nearest 0.01. Therefore, the values
obtained from any corrections to nominal speed or calculations
performed prior to obtaining the final PER or PEI values would not be
rounded.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations
and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL
PEIVL, as applicable, be reported to the nearest 0.01.
D. Determination of Motor Efficiency
The PEICL and PEIVL metrics both describe the
performance of a pump and its accompanying motor and continuous or non-
continuous controls, if applicable. As such, the performance of the
applicable motor must be determined to calculate the PEICL
or PEIVL of a given pump model. For determining pump
performance for bare pumps and determining the default motor efficiency
of a minimally compliant pump (PERSTD), DOE is proposing to
specify a standardized default motor nominal efficiency.
For determining pump performance for pumps sold with motors or with
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE is proposing to
use either (1) the physically tested performance of the motor paired
with that pump when using testing-based methods, or (2) the nominal
full load motor efficiency of the motor (other than submersible) paired
with that pump model when using the calculation-based test method to
determine the PERCL or PERVL for that pump. See
section III.E.1.b, infra, describing the proposed calculation-based
method for pumps sold with motors and the use of the nominal motor
efficiency when calculating overall pump power consumption.
The default nominal or rated nominal full load motor efficiency, as
represented by the motor manufacturer, would then be used to determine
the full load losses, in horsepower, associated with that motor. The
full load losses would then be adjusted using an algorithm to reflect
the motor performance at partial loads, corresponding to the load
points specified in the DOE test. The specific procedures for
determining the default nominal and rated nominal motor part load
losses are described below.
1. Default Motor Efficiency
To calculate PERCL for a pump sold in the bare pump
configuration and determining its PERSTD, default motor
losses would be added to the pump shaft input power at each rating
point, and the sum would be multiplied by a weighting factor. In order
to calculate the default motor losses at each rating point, DOE
proposes to adopt default motor efficiency values based on the
[[Page 17613]]
nominal full load motor efficiency values for general purpose,
polyphase, NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors
defined in 10 CFR 431, subpart B for medium and large electric motors.
Based on the Working Group discussions, DOE believes that most motors
sold with pumps under the scope of this rulemaking are sold with motors
covered by DOE's updated electric motors standards and test procedures.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 09 at pp. 57-58) See section
III.D.1.c, infra., for a discussion regarding submersible motors.
Subpart B of 10 CFR 431 contains DOE's energy conservation
standards for electric motors, which DOE recently updated. See 79 FR
30934 (May 29, 2014). That rule established energy conservation
standards for a number of different categories of electric motors DOE
had not previously regulated, such as partial motors. In addition,
although it did not change the required minimum efficiency of electric
motors currently covered as general purpose electric motors (subtype
I), it did increase the required efficiency for electric motors
currently defined by DOE under the category of general purpose electric
motors (subtype II), which includes close-coupled pump motors. Motors
that are regulated must be manufactured in compliance with these
updated standards beginning on June 1, 2016. 79 FR at 30944.
DOE proposes to use the applicable minimum nominal full load motor
efficiency values at 10 CFR 431.25 for the category and horsepower of
electric motors with which pumps are typically paired (i.e., NEMA
Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors). Specifically, DOE
believes that the minimum efficiency of a NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B,
or IEC Design N motor is an applicable default minimum motor efficiency
to apply to all pumps to which the proposed test procedure would apply,
except submersible motors. At the time of writing, the values in Table
5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) define the nominal minimum efficiency for motors
paired with bare pumps sold alone and for determining the
PERSTD (see section III.B.2.b). Table 5 defines the minimum
nominal efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N
electric motors from 1 to 500 hp meeting the following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power;
(5) are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) produce at least 1 hp (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 hp
(373 kW); and
(9) meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A or B motor or an IEC Design N.
79 FR at 31012 (to be codified at 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(h)).
a. Default Motor Selection
For bare pumps, DOE proposes to specify the selection of the
default motor used for calculating PERCL and
PERSTD based on the nominal speed and measured shaft input
power of the rated pump. DOE proposes that the number of poles selected
for the default motor be equivalent to the nominal speed of the rated
pump (i.e., 2 poles corresponds to 3600 rpm and 4 poles corresponds to
1800 rpm). DOE also proposes that the motor horsepower selected for a
given pump would be required to be either equivalent to, or the next
highest horsepower-rated level greater than, the measured pump shaft
input power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE also proposes that the
shaft input power at the 120 percent of BEP flow point be calculated
based on a linear extrapolation of the 100 and 110 percent of BEP flow
points, similar to the approach proposed for determining the input
power to the pump at these specified flow points, discussed in section
III.C.2.d.
DOE notes that the energy conservation standards for motors, found
in Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h), include minimum nominal full load motor
efficiency values for both open and enclosed motor construction. In
general, motors with an open construction have a lower minimum nominal
full load efficiency value; however, for some pole and horsepower
combinations, this relationship does not hold. Therefore, for bare
pumps and the minimally compliant pump in PERSTD, DOE
proposes to specify selection of the minimum efficiency value listed in
Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the lower value of either the open or
enclosed construction at the appropriate motor horsepower and number of
poles.
As noted in section III.B.2.b, for pumps sold either with motors or
with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, the motor
horsepower and number of poles selected for determining the minimally
compliant full load nominal efficiency from Table 5 in 10 CFR
431.25(h)) (or the submersible motor table, in the case of submersible
motors, see section III.D.1.b) and used in the equation for
PERSTD should be equivalent to the horsepower and poles of
the motor actually sold with the pump. In other words, the horsepower
and number of poles of the minimally compliant motor in
PERSTD would be the same as the motor with which the pump is
being rated. In such a case, the minimum full load nominal efficiency
corresponding to the minimally compliant motor in PERSTD
shall still be the minimum of the open and enclosed values. That is,
regardless of the motor construction (i.e., open or enclosed) of the
motor with which the pump is being rated, the minimum efficiency value
listed in the table at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the given motor horsepower
and number of poles shall be used.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor
horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at
120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for
which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g.,
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the default,
minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based on the
applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A,
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
b. Rated Nominal Motor Efficiency for Pumps Sold With Motors
For pumps sold with motors and rated using the calculation-based
approach, DOE proposes that the motor nominal full load efficiency used
in determining the PERCL or PERVL would be the
measured nominal full load efficiency determined in accordance with the
DOE electric motor test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.16 and
appendix B to subpart B of part 431. For pumps sold with submersible
motors and rated using the calculation-based approach, the motor full
load efficiency values are discussed in section III.D.1.c. For pumps
sold with motors not addressed
[[Page 17614]]
by DOE's electric motor test procedure (except submersible motors), the
calculation-based methods described in section III.E.1 would not apply
and no assumption regarding nominal efficiency of the motor paired with
the pump would be required when determining PERCL or
PERVL. However, an assumption regarding the default
efficiency of the minimally compliant motor that could be paired with a
given pump would still be required to calculate PERSTD. See
section III.D.1.a., supra.
c. Submersible Motors
DOE notes that submersible motors are not currently subject to the
DOE energy conservation standards for electric motors specified at 10
CFR 431.25. For the purposes of calculating PEICL for bare
VTS pumps or PERSTD for any pumps sold with submersible
motors, DOE requires a default assumption regarding full load
efficiency for submersible motors. DOE surveyed the literature and
equipment catalogs of pump and motor manufacturers producing
submersible motors and collected full load efficiency data. The data
collected are the representations made in manufacturer literature
regarding the full load efficiency of the motor, but do not indicate
whether these reported efficiency values comprise tested, nominal, or
rated values, as submersible motors are not covered by DOE's energy
conservation standards or test procedures.
Based on the available information, DOE constructed a table of
motor full load efficiencies by motor horsepower, similar to the table
of energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR
431.25(h). DOE notes that because submersible motors are only available
in enclosed construction, full load efficiency values are only provided
for enclosed constructions.
To construct the submersible motor full load efficiency table, DOE
conducted research to determine the least efficient motor commercially
available within each specified horsepower and pole configuration
(where data were available). DOE selected the least efficient
submersible motor available because DOE recognizes that, by selecting a
value higher than the minimum available, DOE could unintentionally
drive the submersible motor market without explicitly regulating it.
Based on the available data, DOE identified the number of ``bands''
\41\ below the minimum full load efficiency values for NEMA Design A,
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors, as presented in Table 5 of 10
CFR 431.25(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Because motor efficiency varies from unit to unit, even
within a specific model, NEMA has established a list of standardized
efficiency values that manufacturers use when labeling their motors.
Each incremental step, or ``band,'' constitutes a 10 percent change
in motor losses. NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-10 contains the list of
NEMA nominal efficiencies. See Electric Motors Final Rule, 79 FR
30933 (May 29, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``minimum observed efficiency'' column in Table III.6 reflects
the least efficient motors found by DOE. As it is not DOE's intent to
impact the rated efficiency of submersible motors through this
rulemaking, DOE deflated the minimum observed submersible motor
efficiency by using the maximum number of ``bands'' across a horsepower
range to ensure that the value represented a worst-case value. Where no
data were available, DOE applied the same number of NEMA bands across
the range of motor horsepower and numbers of poles. The observed and
default number of ``bands'' below the minimum full load efficiency
values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors from
Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h), are presented in Table III.6 below.
Table III.6--Two-Pole Motor Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor Horsepower Relative to the Full Load
Efficiency in in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed number Default number of
Minimum observed of ``bands'' ``bands'' below
full load below the full the full load
Motor horsepower (hp) efficiency (2- load efficiency efficiency in in
poles) (%) in in table 5 of table 5 of 10 CFR
10 CFR 431.25(h) 431.25(h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................... 67 6 11
1.5................................................... 67 11
2..................................................... 73 9
3..................................................... 75 9
5..................................................... 76 10
7.5................................................... 77 10 15
10.................................................... 75 13
15.................................................... 72.2 15
20.................................................... 76.4 13
25.................................................... 79 12
30.................................................... 79.9 12 12
40.................................................... 83 10
50.................................................... 83 11
60.................................................... 84 11
75.................................................... 83.8 12
100................................................... 87 10 14
125................................................... 86 13
150................................................... 86 13
175................................................... 88 12
200................................................... 87 14
250................................................... 87 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting proposed default minimum electric motor full load
efficiencies for submersible motors, as presented in the ``default
minimum efficiency'' column in Table III.7, can then be calculated by
applying the number of ``bands'' below the minimum full load efficiency
values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC
[[Page 17615]]
Design N motors in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h), as presented in Table
III.6, to the actual efficiency values listed in the same Table 5 of 10
CFR 431.25(h).
Table III.7--Default Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor
Horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default submersible motor full load nominal efficiency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pole configurations
Motor horsepower -----------------------
2 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 55 68
1.5............................................. 66 70
2............................................... 68 70
3............................................... 70 75.5
5............................................... 74 75.5
7.5............................................. 68 74
10.............................................. 70 74
15.............................................. 72 75.5
20.............................................. 72 77
25.............................................. 74 78.5
30.............................................. 78.5 82.5
40.............................................. 80 84
50.............................................. 81.5 85.5
60.............................................. 82.5 86.5
75.............................................. 82.5 87.5
100............................................. 81.5 85.5
125............................................. 84 85.5
150............................................. 84 86.5
200............................................. 85.5 87.5
250............................................. 86.5 87.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor
full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most
current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric
motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table III.6.
DOE proposes to apply this table of default minimum efficiency
values for submersible motor full load efficiency when calculating
PERSTD for VTS pumps and to calculate the PEICL
for pumps sold with submersible motors or PEIVL for pumps
sold with a submersible motor and continuous or non-continuous
controls, using the calculation-based approach described in section
III.E.1. This aspect of DOE's proposal would result in a conservative
calculation of energy consumption for the rated pump model, since the
submersible motor with which the rated pump model is paired may be more
efficient than the default minimum full load efficiency assumed in
Table III.7. Allowing the calculation-based method to be used for pumps
sold with submersible motors may also reduce the testing burden for
some manufacturers. If manufacturers wish to account for the use of
submersible motors with a higher efficiency than the minimum default
full load efficiency, they may choose to rate the pump model through
using the testing-based, wire-to-water method described in section
III.E.2.
In summary, DOE proposes allowing the use of the default minimum
submersible motor full load efficiency values presented in Table III.7
to rate (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and
(3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls as an option instead of wire-to-water testing.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented
in Table III.7 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses
To determine the full load losses of the motor, the proposal would
require that the full load motor efficiency described in section
III.D.1 be used. Using this value, DOE would apply an algorithm to
determine the part load losses of the motor at each of the rating
points.
To obtain the losses of the motor used at a fraction of full load
under the proposal in this NOPR, manufacturers would be required to
calculate the part load motor losses at each specified load point in
accordance with the following three steps:
(1) Determine the part load loss factor (yi) for each
rating point, where part load loss factor at a given point represents
the part load losses at the given load divided by full load losses, as
shown in equation (12):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.011
Where:
yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and
i = percentage of flow at the BEP of the pump.
(2) Calculate full load losses for the motor as shown in equation
(13):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.012
Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the full load motor efficiency as
determined in accordance with section III.D.1 (%).
(3) Multiply the full load losses by each part load loss factor to
obtain part load losses at each rating point, as shown in equation
(14):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.013
Where:
Li = default motor losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
yi = part load loss factor at each rating point i, and
[[Page 17616]]
i = rating points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP
flow for uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP
flow for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous
controls as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
DOE determined the cubic polynomial used to describe the part load
loss factor (yi) based on part load efficiency data provided
by the NEMA electric motors subcommittee.\42\ The cubic polynomial
represents the measured part load performance of motors from 1-200
horsepower from seven manufacturers that are members of the NEMA
subgroup. These data were provided at part load values of 25, 50, 75,
and 100 percent of the rated motor load. To determine how motor losses
changed as a function of motor load over the range of those motors
addressed in this rulemaking, the data were normalized based on the
minimum full load efficiency of the motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ During the CIP Working Group negotiations, the NEMA motor
and drive working group provided DOE contractors with a table of
representative nominal motor efficiency values, broken out by
horsepower and motor load, to support development of the part load
loss curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that losses may vary as a function of the motor's
rotating speed (2-pole vs. 4-pole), motor design (open vs. enclosed),
or the motor's horsepower rating. However, based on the data provided
by NEMA, as well as additional data DOE gathered using DOE's
MotorMaster database \43\ and DOE's Motor Challenge Program Fact
Sheet,\44\ DOE did not observe any significant or generalizable trends
of motor efficiency or fractional motor losses with respect to a
motor's number of poles, category, or horsepower. DOE conducted a
sensitivity analysis based on each of these factors and, in every case,
the maximum impact on the rated pump PEICL or
PEIVL was less than 1 percent. DOE's sensitivity analysis
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. As such, DOE does not
believe the additional complexity associated with multiple curves
describing small variations in a motor's part load performance is
justified and proposes to use the single cubic polynomial presented in
equation (12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Department of Energy. September 21, 2010. MotorMaster+.
Version 4.01.01. www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/motormaster.
\44\ Department of Energy. Determining Electrical Motor Load and
Efficiency. pp. 13-14. www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/pdfs/10097517.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These calculated part load motor losses at each of the specified
load points would then be combined with the measured pump shaft input
power and weighted equally to calculate PERCL or
PERVL and PERSTD, as described in section
III.B.2.
DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part
load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered
motors and submersible motors, including the default motor specified in
section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD
E. Test Methods for Different Pump Configurations
As previously discussed, the PEICL and PEIVL
for a given pump would be determined by first calculating the
PERCL or PERVL, as applicable, for the given
pump. The PERCL or PERVL would then be scaled
based on a calculated PERSTD (i.e., the PERCL of
a pump that would comply with the applicable standard). (Docket No.
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) The process for determining the
PERSTD is described in section III.B.2.b.
The PERCL and PERVL are a weighted average of
input power to the pump over a range of full and part load operating
flow rates, and can potentially be determined using a number of
different test methods, based on the way the pump model is sold. For
example, the test method for pumps sold alone (i.e., bare pumps) will
be different than that for pumps sold with motors or pumps sold with
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls. However, the DOE test
procedure for pumps will have a similar format for each configuration
in that each will describe (1) the physical test method, testing
conditions, and required data collection to ensure consistent and
accurate test results and (2) the calculation method that defines how
the collected data will be used to determine the final PERCL
or PERVL for that model.
Some test methods that DOE considered rely more on the performance
of physical tests to obtain rating data (i.e., testing-based methods),
which increases testing burden but may be more accurate than test
procedures that rely more heavily on calculations. In a testing-based
approach, each pump basic model must be individually tested, which is
considerably more burdensome than calculating the rating. However, the
wire-to-water performance of the product would be determined directly
as a result of the test rather than by determining it through a
calculation method, and the unique performance of each component at
full and partial loading would be accurately captured.
In contrast, a calculation-based approach to determine
PERCL or PERVL (i.e., the numerator of the
PEICL or PEIVL, respectively) for a given pump
model can reduce the number of tests by allowing for the independent
measurement of each component. That is, the input power to the bare
pump, motor efficiency, or performance of a motor with continuous
controls would be determined separately and subsequently combined
through an equation to obtain the overall PERCL or
PERVL rating for the pump. The equations could be used to
determine ratings for unique basic models made up of different
combinations of bare pumps, motors, and continuous controls without the
need to test each unique combination.
Calculation-based test methods are extremely repeatable and
straightforward to conduct. However, calculation-based methods may not
account for the efficiency or energy use impact of all theoretical
designs of a given component. For example, to calculate the performance
of a pump sold with a motor and continuous control, assumptions
regarding how the continuous control affects the input power to the
pump would be required at full and part load, and this assumed ``system
curve'' may not reflect the actual measured performance of different
types or brands of continuous controls available.
In the subsequent sections, DOE discusses calculation-based and
testing-based test methods for different pump configurations.
1. Calculation-Based Test Methods
Calculation-based test methods have the benefit of being
repeatable, straightforward, and minimally burdensome. DOE proposes
that the following calculation-based test methods would be used to rate
(1) pumps sold as bare pumps (Method A.1); (2) pumps sold either with
(a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b)
submersible motors (Method A.2); and (3) pumps sold with motors that
are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b)
submersible motors, and that are equipped with continuous controls
45 46 (Method A.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The calculation-based test method was designed to capture
the dynamic response of a control that can continuously respond to
changes in load and reduce power consumption at all load points
below BEP. Therefore, pumps sold with non-continuous controls would
instead use the testing-based method described in section III.E.2.c,
which captures some reduction in power consumption at some reduced
flow rates. DOE discussed this approach with the CIP Working Group,
which generally agreed with it, although such a recommendation was
not specifically included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 49-50)
\46\ DOE notes that some pumps sold with continuous controls,
such as pumps sold with ECMs, may not be eligible to apply the
calculation-based method based on the fact that ECMs are not: (1) A
type of motor covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for
covered motors or (2) a submersible motor (see section III.E). These
pumps would instead apply a testing-based method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17617]]
In general, the calculation-based test method for the applicable
pump types would include physical testing of the bare pump, in
accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and subsequent calculations to determine
the PEICL or PEIVL, as applicable. The general
steps of the calculation-based procedure would be as follows:
(1) Determine performance of the bare pump in accordance with HI
40.6-2014.
(a) Measure the flow rate (gpm), head (ft), rotational speed (rpm),
and torque (inches-pounds force) at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120
percent of the flow rate at the expected BEP of the pump and determine
the pump efficiency at each point.
(b) Determine the actual BEP by finding the maximum point of the
pump efficiency curve, as measured, with respect to flow rate.
(c) Determine pump input power (torque multiplied by speed) and
regress pump shaft input power with respect to flow to find a linear
relationship for all flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of
expected BEP flow. Use this regression to determine pump shaft input
power at 75, 100, and 110 of actual BEP flow.
(d) Adjust all values to nominal speed.
(2) Determine the part load losses of the motor and any continuous
or non-continuous controls applicable to the rated pump model at each
load point.
(a) For bare pumps sold alone, the part load losses at each load
point shall be determined based on the default motor efficiency of an
appropriately sized motor that minimally complies with DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors and the default motor loss
curve, as described in section III.D. Motor selection requirements are
discussed in section III.D.1.a
(b) For pumps sold with motors that are regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards, the part load losses at each load point shall
be determined based on the rated full load motor efficiency of the
motor that is paired with that pump and the default motor loss curve
described in section III.D.2. For pumps sold with submersible motors,
the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on
the default minimum submersible motor efficiency from Table III.6 and
the default motor loss curve described in section III.D.2.
(c) For pumps sold with applicable motors and continuous controls,
the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on
the rated full load motor efficiency of the motor that is paired with
that pump and the default motor and continuous control loss curve
described in section III.E.1.c.
(3) Determine PERCL or PERVL, as applicable,
for the given pump
(a) Sum the pump shaft input power at nominal speed and the
calculated part load motor losses at each load point in the constant
load or variable load profiles, as applicable, to determine the input
power to the pump.
(b) Average the calculated values of input power to the pump at the
applicable rating points.
(4) Determine PERSTD for the minimally compliant pump,
as described in section III.B.2.
(5) Divide PERCL or PERVL from step 3 by the
PERSTD for that pump model to determine PEICL or
PEIVL, respectively.
The specific test methods for bare pumps, pumps sold with motors,
and pumps sold with motors and continuous controls are described in
more detail in the following sections III.E.1.a, III.E.1.b, and
III.E.1.c, respectively.
a. Calculation-Based Test Method A.1: Bare Pump
As described previously, the bare pump PERCL would be
measured based on the pump shaft input power at 75, 100, and 110
percent of BEP flow. Section III.C of this notice describes the
proposed test method for determining pump shaft input power at the
designated load points, which is based on HI 40.6-2014. The measured
pump shaft input power at the three constant load flow points would
then be combined with the part load motor losses at each flow point and
equally weighted to determine PERCL for that bare pump, as
shown in equation (15):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.014
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = calculated input power to the motor at rating
point i (hp),
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp),
Li = default motor losses at each load point i (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
The part load motor losses would be determined for the bare pump
based on an assumed default motor efficiency representative of a motor
that is minimally compliant with DOE's electric motor energy
conservation standards (or the default minimum motor efficiency for
submersible motors), as described in section III.D.1, and the default
motor loss curve, as described in section III.D.2.
The PEICL can then be calculated as the PERCL
for a given pump divided by the PERSTD for a pump that is
minimally compliant with DOE's pump standards with no controls, as
shown in equation (16):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.015
Where:
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp). The
procedure for determining PERSTD is described in detail
in section III.B.2.b.
[[Page 17618]]
b. Calculation-Based Test Method B.1: Pump Sold With a Motor
In cases where a pump's efficiency can be independently measured
and that pump is sold with an applicable motor, the primary test
procedure would be similar to that for pumps sold alone (A.1) except
that the motor efficiency, or losses, would be that of the motor with
which the pump is sold when determining PERCL, as opposed to
the default motor efficiency assumed in the bare pump case. For motors
covered by DOE's electric motor standards, DOE proposes to use the
measured nominal full load efficiency determined in accordance with the
DOE electric motor test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.16 and
appendix B to subpart B of part 431 (see section III.D.1.b). For pumps
sold with submersible motors rated using the calculation-based method,
the full load motor efficiency would be determined based on the default
minimum submersible motor efficiency from Table III.6 (see section
III.D.1.c). DOE notes that this calculation-based method would not
apply to pumps sold with motors that are not subject to DOE's electric
motor standards (except for submersible motors).
The PEICL for pumps sold with motors would then be
calculated using a similar approach that would be applied to bare pumps
shown in equation (15) and (16), above, except that the default part
load losses of the motor at each load point i would be determined based
on the nominal full load efficiency for the motor, as described in
section III.D.2.
As previously discussed in section III.B.2.b, in determining
PERSTD, DOE would base the nominal full load motor
efficiency of the minimally compliant pump on the electric motor
efficiency standards listed at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for pumps sold with
motors other than submersible motors. Similarly, for pumps sold with
submersible motors, DOE proposes that the default motor efficiency be
that specified in Table III.7 in section III.D.1.c for both the rated
pump model and PERSTD.
DOE currently requires motor manufacturers to rate only full load
efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.16. The extrapolation of the certified full
load efficiency data to the required rating points representative of
75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow for the paired pump using
default part load curves is the least burdensome approach for
determining part load efficiency of regulated motors when sold with
pumps. This method would also allow for consistency and repeatability
of results for a given pump. However, if the motor manufacturer makes
certain changes to the motor design that improve part load performance
without impacting efficiency at full load, this difference would not be
reflected in the calculated PEICL using this proposed
approach.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load
losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation
standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal
full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with
DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part
load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the
bare pump.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the
PERCL of pumps sold with submersible motors using the
proposed default minimum efficiency values for submersible motors and
applying the same default motor part load loss curve to the default
motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water,
testing-based approach.
c. Calculation-Based Test Method C.1: Pump Sold With a Motor and
Continuous Controls
For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the
PEIVL metric would account for the power reduction resulting
from reducing speed and, thus, head, to achieve a given flow rate as
opposed to throttling. In this case, the PEIVL is determined
as the PERVL of the given pump divided by the
PERSTD. The PERSTD would be determined in
accordance with the procedures in section III.B.2.b. The
PERVL would be determined as the weighted average input
power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown
in equation (17):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.016
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/4\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the pump
at the input to the continuous or non-continuous controls at rating
point i, and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
The input power to the pump when sold with motors and continuous
controls would be determined by adding together the pump shaft input
power and the combined losses from the motor and continuous controls at
each of the load points i. However, in the case of determining
PERVL for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls,
the proposal would require that only the input power at the 100 percent
of BEP flow point be determined through testing and the remaining 25,
50, and 75 percent load points be calculated based on an assumed system
curve.
DOE understands that the system curve a given pump will follow in
the field is based on the specific dynamics of the system (e.g., the
amount of static head, or fixed pressure, in a system) and the
characteristics of the continuous or non-continuous control (e.g. how
the given control adjusts speed in response to changes in the required
flow, head, or pump output power may vary among control types, as
discussed in section III.E.1.c). However, DOE also believes that a
single representative curve is sufficiently representative for the
default calculation method as it equally applies to all pumps sold with
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, thereby reflecting
the input of the CIP Working Group regarding an appropriate and
representative reference curve. DOE also proposes that the combined
performance of the motor and continuous controls be determined based on
a loss curve that describes the decreased efficiency of the motor and
continuous controls at full and part load points. DOE notes that the
CIP Working Group informally agreed with this approach. (Docket No.
EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pg. 94-96)
With respect to VFDs, AHRI recommended that DOE take time to
develop a sound method for testing pump/motor/VFD packages and consider
typical VFD operation in those packages. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI
noted that AHRI Standard 1210-2011 will soon provide performance maps
for VFDs tested with standard NEMA Design B four-pole motors that meet
the criteria of NEMA Standard MG-1, ``Motors and Generators,'' Part 31.
[[Page 17619]]
(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI noted that it launched an AHRI VFD
certification program and expected to publish performance data in
2014.\47\ AHRI further noted that a systemic efficiency calculation for
the majority of pump/motor/VFD packages may then be possible by
combining VFD, motor, and pump performance maps, and that a random
selection of calculated system efficiency metrics could be verified by
test. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) DOE considered these comments in making
its proposal. The relevant definitions and specific calculation
procedures are described in detail in the subsequent sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ To date, variable frequency drives are listed as one of the
product types to which AHRI certification programs apply (see http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/CERT_PROGS_ENG.pdf); however, no certification data are available
through AHRI's certification database (see https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference System Curve
For pumps tested without continuous or non-continuous controls, no
reference system is required as measurements are taken at various
loading points along a pump curve at the nominal rating speed only. For
pumps tested inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls (using a calculation-based or testing-based method), a
reference system curve must be implemented to standardize the system
curve shape on which multiple points will be calculated. Such a system
curve describes the relationship between the head and the flow at each
load point.
AHRI 1210-2011 specifies a quadratic (or nearly quadratic) system
curve, which would maximize the benefits of the speed control provided
by continuous or non-continuous controls. A quadratic system curve,
theoretically, is more representative of system curves in the
field.\48\ This system curve will also likely more closely match the
system curve in the test labs and, thus, linear extrapolation may be
applied without significant loss of accuracy if a quadratic
relationship is used. However, during the Working Group negotiations,
interested parties suggested that DOE implement a static head offset
instead of a completely quadratic relationship. Interested parties
commented that this static head offset would be representative of a
static head component of the system curve and would reasonably
approximate the system curve pumps experience in the field.
Specifically, HI suggested that DOE use a system curve with a static
head component representative of 20 percent of head at BEP flow.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 63 at p. 226)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ``2012 HVAC Systems and Equipment,
Chapter 44: Centrifugal Pumps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with these suggestions, DOE proposes to use a quadratic
reference system curve which goes through the BEP and offsets the y-
axis, as specified in equation (18):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.017
Where:
a = static offset correction factor for the system curve which is a
scalar quantity,
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP
flow (ft),
Hstatic = system head at zero flow rate (ft), and
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm).
For this test procedure, the system head at zero flow rate
(Hstatic) is assumed to be 20 percent of BEP head, as
recommended by the CIP Working Group. Therefore, as shown in equation
(19) and depicted in Figure III.1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.018
Where:
H = the total system head (ft),
Q = the flow rate (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm), and
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP
flow (ft).
[[Page 17620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.019
DOE notes that this reference system curve would apply to pumps
sold with a motor and continuous controls that are tested using this
calculation-based method as well as to pumps sold with a motor and
continuous or non-continuous controls that are tested using the wire-
to-water testing-based methods discussed in section III.E.2.c. As
mentioned in section III.A.1.b, the calculation-based approach is not
applicable to non-continuous controls, as such controls will not follow
the assumed system curve precisely, as continuous controls would.
Accordingly, DOE believes that the power consumption calculated along
this reference curve would not be representative of the energy
consumption of such pumps. Instead, DOE is proposing that pumps with a
multi-speed motor, for example, or other non-continuous controls, would
be rated using a physical ``wire-to-water'' test, which would capture
some reduction in power consumption as measured by the test procedure
at some reduced flow rates. Such a pump would be rated using the
testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and controls, described
in section III.E.2.c. DOE discussed this proposal with the CIP Working
Group and the CIP Working Group generally agreed with DOE's approach,
although such a recommendation was not specifically included in the CIP
Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No.
107 at pp. 49-50).
DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as
well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the
statically loaded offset.
Determination of Bare Pump Shaft Input Power
Under the proposed calculation-based approach for pumps sold with
motors and continuous controls, the rated efficiency of the motor and
continuous control would be combined with the pump shaft input power at
the specified load points to calculate the PERVL of the
pump. To determine the bare pump input power at the prescribed load
points, only the pump shaft input power at 100 percent of BEP flow must
be determined experimentally, in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and at
the nominal full load operating speed of the pump (i.e., 1,800 rpm or
3,600 rpm), as discussed in section III.C. However, DOE notes that the
full HI 40.6-2014 test would still need to be conducted, and the pump
hydraulic output power at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow would
still be necessary for determining the PERSTD of the given
pump.
The pump shaft input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow
would then be determined by applying the reference system curve
discussed in section III.E.1.c and assuming continuous speed reduction
is applied to achieve the reduced load points. Specifically, the
reduction in pump shaft input power at part loadings is assumed to be
equivalent to the relative reduction in pump hydraulic output power
assumed by the system curve.\49\ The relative reduction can be
determined as the product of the relative reductions in flow and head,
as shown in equation (20):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Note, this assumes that bare pump efficiency is constant
across the system curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.020
Where:
Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at rating point i
(hp),
P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 percent
of BEP flow (hp),
PHydro,i = pump hydraulic output power at rating point i
(hp),
PHydro,100% = pump hydraulic output power at
100 percent of BEP flow (hp),
Hi = total pump head at rating point i (ft),
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP
flow (ft),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
Based on this relationship, the pump shaft input power can be
determined at each of the load points by multiplying the calculated
ratio by the measured pump shaft input power at BEP, as shown in
equation (21):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.021
Where:
Pi = pump shaft input power at rating point i (hp),
P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 percent
of BEP flow (hp),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for
determining pump shaft input power for pumps sold with motors and
continuous controls when rated using the calculation-based method.
Determination of Efficiency of the Motor and Continuous Controls
DOE recognizes that determining the PERVL of a pump sold
with a motor and continuous controls using the calculation-based method
requires accounting for the efficiency of the motor and continuous
control in combination with the measured pump shaft input power at the
specified load points. Compared to an uncontrolled motor, the motor and
continuous control together incur additional losses as a result of
inefficiencies from the continuous control and increased inefficiencies
in the speed-controlled motor due to harmonic distortion. Because of
the interactions between the motor and control, treating the motor and
control together would provide the most accurate measurement of the
overall efficiency of a pump that has been paired with these two
devices.
DOE notes that, although a new test method for determining combined
efficiency of motors and VFDs is available (AHRI 1210-2011), DOE does
not currently require VFD manufacturers to test and certify their
drives in accordance with that procedure or any other available test
procedure for VFDs or other applicable speed controls. Therefore,
consistent and standardized information regarding the efficiency of
speed controls (combined with or separate from motor efficiency) is not
available at this time. As such, requiring controller efficiency to be
measured in a specific manner and used to determine performance of a
pump sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls would
represent a significant additional burden for pump manufacturers. In
addition, such a requirement may also have the potential of requiring
controller manufacturers to perform a specifically prescribed test.
The Working Group also indicated that applying a standardized set
of loss curves for determining the inefficiencies associated with motor
and speed control components together would greatly simplify the method
for calculating the total power consumption of the tested pump and
present the least burdensome approach for manufacturers to implement.
(EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at p. 218) For these reasons, DOE
proposes to use a method similar to that applied to single-speed motors
for determining the efficiency at part load points, discussed in
section III.D.2, for the motor and continuous control.
In order to develop the default part load loss equation to allow
the calculation of the losses associated with motor and continuous
control components, DOE used performance data generated from testing
five motor and VFD combinations according to the AHRI 1210-2011 test
method and examined additional data for 24 VFDs tested per AHRI 1210-
2011, provided confidentially to DOE's contractors by one VFD
manufacturer.
The DOE combined motor and VFD tests, conducted in accordance with
AHRI 1210-2011, consisted of expanding upon the test points specified
in the test procedure and taking up to 16 measurements of input power
for each model tested based on permutations of 4 prescribed torque
points tested at each of 4 speeds. Efficiency at each combination of
torque and speed was determined by taking the ratio of the output power
of the motor and input power to the VFD, where the output power was
determined by the measured rotational speed and torque produced by the
motor. The test data for the 24 VFD models provided by the VFD
manufacturer included eight measurements at full load and part load.
Based on the VFD performance data collected, DOE proposes using
four part load loss equations to represent the combined efficiency of
the motor and continuous control as a function of the output power of
the continuous control. When analyzing the continuous control and motor
efficiency as a function of the horsepower rating of the continuous
control, DOE observed a significant variation by horsepower range and
is proposing to account for this situation by establishing four
equations as a function of the VFD's horsepower (see Table III.8).
DOE proposes to describe the part load loss curves for the combined
motor and continuous control as a function of the brake horsepower, or
output power, of the motor (i.e., the power that would be supplied to
the pump). DOE recognizes that using a relationship as a
[[Page 17622]]
function of motor brake horsepower rather than a two-dimensional
equation as a function of torque and speed represents a simplification
and may sacrifice some accuracy in determining the efficiency of a
given motor and continuous control. For example, DOE observed that the
speed and torque of the VFDs impacted the magnitude of the VFD's
losses. DOE considered developing part load loss relationships as a
function of speed and torque based on the test results. However, DOE
notes that it is not clear whether the trends it observed during
testing are universally applicable to motor and continuous and non-
continuous control systems available in the market, as each type of
continuous or non-continuous control may impact motor efficiency
differently based on the specific control approach. DOE believes that
the available data are insufficient to create robust and representative
relationships for all of the motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls that might be paired with pumps within the scope of this test
procedure rulemaking. DOE notes that, based on its analysis of the
available data, the proposed simplification would likely impact the
resultant PEIVL for a given pump by a magnitude of less than
1 percent.
To derive the part load losses equations, DOE analyzed the results
of all AHRI 1210-2011 test results to establish the maximum values of
the ratio of VFD and motor losses to the motor full load losses (or
part load loss factor). DOE determined this ratio at several motor load
points using a regression as a function of the motor load percentage to
derive the coefficients of the polynomial equation. The polynomial
equation used to represent the part load loss factor is defined in
equation (22):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.022
Where:
zi = the part load loss factor for the motor and
continuous controls at load point i;
a,b,c = coefficients based on VFD horsepower, see Table III.8;
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp);
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being
rated (hp); and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Table III.8--Motor and Continuous Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Equation 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficients of Equation (23)
Motor horsepower (hp) between or equal to -----------------------------------------------
a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5............................................................. -0.4658 1.4965 0.5303
>5 and <=20..................................................... -1.3198 2.9551 0.1052
>20 and <=50.................................................... -1.5122 3.0777 0.1847
>50............................................................. -0.8914 2.8846 0.2625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the part load losses of the motor and continuous
control, manufacturers would apply the part load loss curve polynomial,
with the appropriate coefficient as established in Table III.8, to the
nominal full load losses for the motor being sold with that pump in the
same manner as that for determining the part load losses for single-
speed motors (see equation (14) in section III.D.2).
DOE recognizes that the loading of the motor and continuous control
when paired with a particular pump model may differ from those observed
during DOE's testing and that this may affect the specific losses
associated with a given pump. However, DOE believes that it is likely
pump manufacturers would select a motor with a similar horsepower and
control combinations to pair with a particular pump, as significantly
oversized equipment will add unnecessary additional expense for the
customer.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss
factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined
motor and continuous control, where the four curves would correspond to
different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation
compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed
and torque).
DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that
was applied to the measured VFD efficiency data to generate the
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically,
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and
motor horsepower.
DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the
extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would
represent minimally efficient motor and continuous control
combinations.
d. Other Calculation Methods for Determination of Pump Performance
Determination
DOE is proposing to require that each bare pump model be physically
tested in accordance with the test procedure rather than to allow the
use of calculation methods for determining performance of a bare pump
with a similar design. DOE notes that the proposed calculation-based
test procedure for certain applicable pumps already contains provisions
for tested bare pump performance to be combined with default or tested
performance data regarding the motor or motor with continuous or non-
continuous controls to calculate the PER of multiple pump basic models.
This proposal would apply to: (1) Bare pumps; (2) pumps sold with
either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b)
submersible motors; and (3) pumps sold with continuous-controlled
motors that are either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor
standards or (b) submersible motors. DOE also notes that, beyond the
calculations proposed in this NOPR, DOE is not considering
[[Page 17623]]
permitting use of other algorithms or alternative efficiency
determination methods to determine the rated performance of covered
pumps or pump components (i.e., motors or controls).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each
individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or
PEIVL rating for one or more pump basic models.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
In summary, DOE proposes to establish the calculation-based methods
discussed in this section III.E.1 for determining PEICL or
PEIVL as the required test procedure for bare pumps and as
one of two test methods that could be used for (1) pumps sold either
with (a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or
(b) submersible motors, and (2) pumps sold with continuous-controlled
motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motors standards
or (b) submersible motors. For pumps whose energy consumption cannot be
calculated using the proposed calculation-based method, DOE proposes
that the PEICL or PEIVL rating be determined
based on testing only methods, as discussed in the next section,
section III.E.2.
2. Testing-Based Methods
Testing-based methods directly measure the input power to the
motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control at the load points
of interest (i.e., 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for
uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for
pumps sold with a motor and speed controls). As such, these methods
cannot be applied to bare pumps. In addition, these test methods are
the only test methods applicable to pumps sold with motors that are not
addressed by DOE's electric motor test procedure (except submersible
motors) or that are sold with non-continuous controls.
DOE is also proposing providing these ``wire-to-water'' testing-
based methods as an optional procedure for all pumps sold with motors
or motors with continuous controls. The benefit of using a testing-
based approach is that the test protocol is straightforward and
accurate for a given pump sold with a motor or pump sold with a motor
and continuous control combination. In these cases, it may be
appropriate to use this testing-based approach for custom equipment
that is already being tested for a specific customer. However, for
standard pump models that may be paired with a variety of motors or
continuous or non-continuous controls, testing each combination would
significantly increase the burden of testing as compared to the
calculation-based approach presented in section III.E.1.
The following sections describe how to determine BEP for pumps
rated using the testing-based method, as well as the specific test
methods for pumps sold with motors (Method B.2) and pumps sold with
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (Method B.3).
a. The Best Efficiency Point for Pumps Testing Using Testing-Based
Methods
DOE notes that when testing some pumps using the testing-based
methods, it is not possible to determine BEP as a ratio of pump input
power over pump hydraulic power unless additional measurements are made
of bare pump performance or pump shaft input power, in addition to
input power to the motor. See section III.C.2.d, supra.
In the case of pumps sold with motors or motors with continuous or
non-continuous controls for which input power to the shaft is not
measured directly, DOE proposes to determine the BEP using what is
typically known as overall efficiency. Overall efficiency is the input
power to the driver or continuous control, if any, divided by the pump
hydraulic output power with no speed control (i.e., at the nominal
rated speed). Overall efficiency is found by conducting a similar
procedure involving sweeping the pump curve and fitting a curve to the
rated points, as discussed in section III.C.2.d. This leads to a BEP
value comparable with those determined based on direct application of
the HI 40.6 method.
To maintain consistent nomenclature, DOE proposes to define BEP for
pumps tested using testing-based methods as the maximum measured value
of the ratio of driver input power over pump hydraulic output at a
single, nominal speed. Under this proposal, DOE would require use of
the procedure specified in section III.C.2.d, except that the BEP would
be determined based on the combined pump and motor efficiency instead
of the bare pump efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps
rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to
the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output.
DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield
significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is
determined based on pump efficiency.
b. Testing-Based Test Method B.2: Pump Sold With a Motor
For pumps sold with motors, the PEICL can be determined
by wire-to-water testing, as specified in HI 40.6-2014 section
40.6.4.4. In this case, the PER becomes an average of the measured
power input to the motor at the three rating points, as shown in
equation (23):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.023
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor
at rating point i, and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
The PEICL determined using the tested wire-to-water
method may vary slightly from that determined using the
PEICL for pumps rated using calculation-based test methods
B.1 or C.1 and will generally result in a better rating than the
default calculation-based methods.
c. Testing-Based Test Method C.2: Pump Sold With a Motor and Speed
Controls
For pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls, DOE proposes that the PEIVL may be determined by
wire-to-water testing, based on the procedure specified in HI 40.6,
section 40.6.4.4, except that:
(1) the input power is the ``driver input power,'' defined in table
40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and referenced in table 40.6.3.2.3, section
40.6.4.4, and section 40.6.6.2 refers to the input power to the
continuous or non-continuous control and the input power to the
continuous or non-continuous control and
[[Page 17624]]
(2) is determined in accordance with the tolerances and
requirements for measuring electrical power described in AHRI 1210-2011
and CSA C838-2013, as proposed in section III.C.2.e.
With this approach, pump manufacturers would determine the BEP of
the pump, inclusive of motor and continuous or non-continuous controls,
as described in section III.E.2.a, and then adjust the operating speed
of the motor and the head until the specified head and flow conditions
are reached (i.e., 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow and the
associated head pressures determined by the reference system curve in
section III.E.1.c).
DOE recognizes that each test lab may have a similar but unique
system curve that is representative of the specific valves, elbows, and
other system components present in the test loop. As such, DOE proposes
to specify the specific load points that must be determined based on
the reference system curve to ensure repeatability among labs. However,
DOE also recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve the exact
load points given measurement and experimental uncertainty. To address
this issue, DOE also proposes to establish an acceptable tolerance
around each load point. The use of tolerances in this context is not
unique. For example, EU 641 regulation \50\ for circulators adopts a 10
percent tolerance around the specified load points for circulators
greater than 100 watts (0.13 hp). To provide some level of measurement
tolerance, DOE is proposing a tolerance level of 10 percent about
(i.e., above and below) the target flow and head load points defined on
the reference system curve for each pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Council of the European Union. 2009. Commission Regulation
(EC) No 641/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to
ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and
glandless circulators integrated in products. Official Journal of
the European Union. L 191, 23 July 2009, pp. 35-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that it is still important for the input power
values to represent the power at each specific load point. As such, DOE
also proposes to require that load points determined via testing that
are within the specified 10 percent tolerance band be extrapolated to
the reference system curve to normalize the test data to the exact load
points specified by the system curve. In this case, the pump shaft
input power at the head at tested point i (e.g., head at 25 percent BEP
flow) on the tested system curve, PT,i in, can be linearly
extrapolated to the pump shaft input power at the specified head and
flow rate (e.g., at 50 percent for BEP flow) based on the reference
system curve, PR,i, using the following equation (24):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.024
Where:
PR,i = the rated pump shaft input power at flow point i
(hp),
HR,i = the total system head at flow point i based on the
reference system curve (ft),
HT,jj = the tested total system head at flow point j
(ft),
QR,i = the total system head at flow point i based on the
reference system curve (gpm),
QT,j = the tested total system head at flow point i
(gpm),
PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point j,
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure, and
j= the tested flow point of the rated pump, determined in terms of
percent of BEP flow.
[[Page 17625]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.025
In this case, the PER becomes an average of the measured power
input to the continuous or non-continuous control at the four specified
rating points based on the assumed system curve (as in Test Method
C.1), as shown in equation (25):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.026
Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal
weighting or \1/4\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the
continuous or non-continuous controls at rating point i, and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as determined in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Pumps Sold With Motors and Non-Continuous Speed Controls
DOE notes that some pumps are sold with non-continuous controls,
such as multi-speed motors with two or three discrete speed options.
Pumps with these types of non-continuous controls are not able to use
the calculation-based test method C.1 because they are not able to
follow the reference system curve described in section III.E.1.c. For
example, in the case of a pump sold with a two-speed motor, the pump
will operate at full speed (i.e., the rated speed) for some of the flow
points and reduced speed at the other flow points, as shown in Figure
III.3. Which points are operated at full speed and which points are
operated at reduced speed will depend on the turn-down ratio of the
non-continuous control.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The turn-down ratio of a non-continuous control, such as a
multi-speed motor, is generally defined as the ratio of the maximum
speed of rotation (or speed of rotation at full speed) to the speed
of rotation at the discrete lower speeds available on the control.
For example, a motor with a speed of rotation at full speed of 3600
rpm and ``low speed'' of rotation of 1800 rpm would have a turn-down
ration of 2:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17626]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.027
For these types of pumps sold with non-continuous controls, DOE
proposes that the testing-based method found in HI 40.6-2014 be
modified slightly to accommodate the operation of non-continuous
controls and representatively account for their impact on pump energy
performance. DOE proposes that for pumps sold with a motor and non-
continuous controls, the input power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, and 100
percent of BEP flow be determined in the same manner as that for pumps
sold with continuous controls described in section III.E.2.c, except
that the head associated with each of the specified flow points does
not have to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified head, as
described by the reference system curve--only the flow rate would need
to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified value. DOE proposes
to require that the measured total head corresponding to the 25, 50, 75
and 100 percent of BEP flow points be no lower than 10 percent below
that defined by referenced system curve. That is, the associated total
head may be anywhere in the region between the reference system curve
and the full speed pump curve. In this case, the measured head and flow
rate should not be corrected to the reference system curve. Instead,
the measured points should be used directly in further calculations of
PEIVL.
The presence of continuous or non-continuous controls will
positively impact the PEIVL rating (i.e., it will go down)
due to decreased power consumption at part load rating points, as
discussed previously. The PEIVL determined using this
testing-based method will representatively capture the improved
performance of pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls. This proposed method can be applied to any pumps sold with
continuous or non-continuous controls, but would be the only applicable
method when calculation method C.1 is not applicable; namely: (1) Pumps
sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy conservation
standards for electric motors (except submersible motors) and
continuous controls and (2) pumps sold with any motors and non-
continuous controls.
In addition, the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with
motors and continuous controls will allow for more accurate
differentiation of the variable performance of different continuous
control technologies that cannot be adequately captured in the
calculation-based method for pumps sold with regulated motors and
continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps
sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and
non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control
that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure
would not apply.
3. Applicability of Calculation and Testing-Based Test Methods to
Different Pump Configurations
In summary, Table III.9 outlines which test methods would apply to
which pump configurations under this proposal.
[[Page 17627]]
Table III.9--Applicability of Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Test Procedure Options Based on Pump Configuration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation-based test
Pump configuration Pump sub-configuration method Testing-based test method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump.......................... Bare Pump................. A.1: Tested Pump.......... Not Applicable.
Efficiency of Bare Pump +
Default Motor Efficiency
+ Default Motor Part Load
Loss Curve.
Pump + Motor....................... Pump + Motor Covered by B.1: Tested Pump.......... B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
DOE's Electric Motor Efficiency of Bare Pump +
Energy Conservation Motor Nameplate
Standards OR Pump + Efficiency for Actual
Submersible Motor. Motor Paired with Pump +
Default Motor Part Load
Loss Curve.
Pump + Motor Not Covered Not Applicable............ B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
by DOE's Electric Motor
Energy Conservation
Standards (Except
Submersible Motors).
Pump + Motor + Speed Controls...... Pump + Motor Covered by C.1: Tested Pump.......... C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
DOE's Electric Motor Efficiency of Bare Pump +
Energy Conservation Motor Nameplate
Standards + Continuous Efficiency for Actual
Control OR Pump + Motor Paired with Pump +
Submersible Motor + Default Motor/Control
Continuous Control. Part Load Loss Curve +
Assumed System Curve.
Pump + Motor Covered by Not Applicable............ C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
DOE's Electric Motor
Energy Conservation
Standards + Non-
Continuous Control OR
Pump + Submersible Motor
+ Non-Continuous Control.
Pump + Motor Not Covered Not Applicable............ C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
by DOE's Electric Motor
Energy Conservation
Standards (Except
Submersible Motors) +
Continuous or Non-
Continuous Controls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For bare pumps, DOE is proposing to establish the calculation
approach as the default test procedure (method A.1, which is discussed
in section III.E.1.a). Testing-based methods would not apply to bare
pumps because a PEI rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor)
could not be determined based on a test of the bare pump alone.
For pumps sold with motors that are either regulated by DOE's
electric motor standards or are submersible motors, DOE is proposing to
also allow the use of the applicable calculation-based method (B.1,
discussed in section III.E.1.b) or the testing-based method (B.2,
discussed in section III.E.2.b).
For pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric
motor standards (except for submersible motors), DOE proposes to
require use of the testing-based method B.2, discussed in section
III.E.2.b, because the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as
determined using a specific standardized procedure, is not available
for those motors.
For pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are
either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric
motors or (b) submersible motors, DOE proposes to allow use of either
the applicable calculation-based method (Method C.1, discussed in
section III.E.1.c) or the testing-based method (Method C.2, discussed
in section III.E.2.c).
For pumps sold with non-continuous control-equipped motors that are
either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric
motors or (b) submersible motors, as defined in section III.E.1.c, the
calculation-based method C.1 would not be applicable because these
controls are not able to follow the reference system curve described in
section III.E.1.c. As such, pumps sold with non-continuous controls
would also have to be tested using the testing-based method C.2 under
this proposal.
For pumps sold with motors not regulated by DOE's electric motor
standards (excluding submersible motors) that are equipped with either
continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE notes that the proposed
calculation-based methods would also not apply, just as they do not
apply to pumps sold with non-continuous controls. Thus, DOE proposes
that such pumps would need to be evaluated using the testing-based
method C.2 discussed in section III.E.2.c.
DOE's proposed applicability of testing-based and calculation-based
test methods, as shown in Table III.9, is intended to maximize the
number of pumps that can be rated using the less burdensome
calculation-based methods A.1, B.1, and C.1.
In the case of a pump sold with a continuous or non-continuous
controlled motor that is either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor
standards or (b) a submersible motor, DOE proposes to allow use of
either the calculation-based test method or the testing-based test
method when determining the efficiency rating. In this case, if a
manufacturer wishes to represent the improved performance of a given
pump and believes that the assumptions made in the calculation method
would not adequately represent the improved performance of that pump,
the manufacturer may use the testing-based methods to rate the
PEICL or PEIVL of that pump model to capture the
improved performance of the pump as tested. For example, such improved
performance could be due to increased motor efficiency (decreased
losses) at part load. DOE notes that this is particularly important for
pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, since DOE is only
assuming a single system performance curve to represent all applicable
continuous controls, as described in section III.E.1.c, and the
testing-based method may provide an opportunity for manufacturers to
differentiate the performance of
[[Page 17628]]
different continuous or non-continuous control technologies.
DOE has designed the calculation-based approach to be conservative
(through the assumed motor loss curve and assumed default motor
efficiencies) to allow for comparability between the calculation-based
and testing-based methods for pumps paired with continuous controls for
motors that are (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2)
submersible motors. However, DOE notes that, since the actual measured
efficiency of any single motor could be higher or lower than the
nominal full load efficiency ratings assigned to that basic model of
motor, it is possible for a given pump to be tested with a motor that
is more or less efficient than its nameplate efficiency. Therefore, it
is theoretically possible for the calculation-based method B.1 to
generate ratings that are better or worse than the testing-based method
B.2 based solely on the performance of the motor. To address this
possibility, DOE proposes that, when performing enforcement testing, it
would use the same test method (i.e., calculation-based or testing-
based) used by the manufacturer to generate and report the rating.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-
based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors
that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation
standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any
motors and with non-continuous controls.
DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-
based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps
sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1)
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the level of burden in include with any
certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a
manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any
energy conservation standards DOE may set.
F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency
As noted previously, manufacturers of any pumps within the scope of
the pump test procedure would be required to use the test procedure
established through this rulemaking when making representations about
the energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Specifically,
42 U.S.C. 6314(d) provides that ``[n]o manufacturer . . . may make any
representation . . . respecting the energy consumption of such
equipment or cost of energy consumed by such equipment, unless such
equipment has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and
such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.''
Manufacturers of equipment that would be addressed by this test
procedure and any applicable standards that DOE may set would have 180
days after the promulgation of those standards to begin using the DOE
procedure. Performing this test procedure for pumps requires a key
component (C-value) that will be addressed through the standards
rulemaking for pumps. (As noted earlier, DOE is working on a parallel
rulemaking to set these standards.) Because of this dependency, in
DOE's view, the 180-day provision prescribed by 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) would
necessarily apply only when both the test procedure and standards rules
have been finalized. Accordingly, under this approach, manufacturers
would not be required (nor would they be able) to use the proposed
procedure until standards have been set.
With respect to representations, generally, DOE understands
manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical
form) of energy use metrics, including 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). Manufacturers often make these representations at multiple
impeller trims, operating speeds, and number of stages for a given
pump. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to continue making these
representations.
Any representations of PEI and PER must be made in accordance with
the DOE test procedure, and there may only be one PEI or PER
representation for each basic model. In other words, representations of
PEI and PER that differ from the full impeller PEI and PER cannot be
made at alternate speeds, stages, or impeller trims. Additionally, if
the PEI and PER for a basic model is rated using any method other than
method A.1, ``bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor
part load loss curve,'' such a basic model may not include individual
models with alternate stages or impeller trims.
If a manufacturer wishes to make unique representations of PEI or
PER based on a trimmed impeller, DOE proposes that the manufacturer
must certify the trimmed impeller as a separate basic model. In such a
case, the ``trimmed impeller'' being rated would become the full
impeller for the new basic model, or the maximum diameter impeller
distributed in commerce for that pump model (see section III.A.1.c).
G. Sampling Plans for Pumps
DOE provides in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429 sampling plans for all
covered equipment. The purpose of these sampling plans is to provide
uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with prescribed
energy conservation standards and when making representations of energy
consumption and energy efficiency for each covered equipment type on
labels and in other locations such as marketing materials. DOE proposes
to adopt for pumps the same statistical sampling plans used for other
commercial and industrial equipment. These requirements would be added
to 10 CFR Part 429.
Under this proposal, for purposes of certification testing, the
determination that a basic model complies with the applicable energy
conservation standard would be based on testing conducted using the
proposed DOE test procedure and sampling plan. The general sampling
requirement currently applicable to all covered products and equipment
provides that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and
tested to ensure compliance and that, unless otherwise specified, a
minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as
compliant. 10 CFR 429.11 This minimum is implicit in the requirement to
calculate a mean--an average--which requires at least two values.
DOE proposes to apply this minimum requirement to pumps. Thus,
under no circumstances would a sample size of one be authorized for the
purposes of determining compliance with any prescribed energy
conservation standards or for making representations of energy use of
covered pumps. Manufacturers may need to test a sample of more than two
units depending on the variability of their sample, as provided by the
statistical sampling plan.
DOE is also proposing to create a new section 10 CFR 429.59 for
commercial and industrial pump certification that would include
sampling procedures and certification report requirements for pumps.
DOE proposes to adopt in 10 CFR 429.59 the same statistical sampling
procedures that are applicable to many other types of commercial and
industrial equipment. DOE believes equipment variability and
measurement
[[Page 17629]]
repeatability associated with the measurements proposed for rating
pumps are similar to the variability and measurement repeatability
associated with energy efficiency or consumption measurement required
for other commercial equipment.
DOE is proposing to determine compliance in an enforcement matter
based on the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed four units.
DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for
certification and enforcement of compliance for commercial and
industrial pumps.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed today's proposed rule, which would establish new test
procedures for pumps, under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule, if adopted,
would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis is set forth below.
1. Small Business Determination
For the industrial pump manufacturing industry, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purpose of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any
small entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size
standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The standards are listed by
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Industrial pump manufacturers are
classified under NAICS 333911, ``Pump and Pumping Equipment
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers
of equipment covered by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE
used available public information to identify potential small
manufacturers. DOE's research involved the review individual company
Web sites and marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet
reports, Manta, Hoovers) to create a list of companies that manufacture
pumps covered by this rulemaking. DOE also contacted the Hydraulic
Institute to obtain information about pump manufacturing companies that
participate in the national association. Using these sources, DOE
identified 68 distinct manufacturers of pumps. DOE requests comment
regarding the size of pump manufacturing entities and the number of
manufacturing businesses represented by this market.
DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of pumps and then
screened out companies that do not offer equipment covered by this
rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are
foreign owned and operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified 38
companies that would be considered small manufacturers by the SBA
definition, which represents approximately 33 percent of pump
manufacturers with facilities in the United States, as identified by
DOE. Fourteen of the 38 manufacturers that qualify as being a small
business were found to be foreign owned or operated, leaving 25 small
businesses in the analysis. These 25 companies represent 29 percent of
pump manufacturers with facilities in the United States.
Table IV.1 groups the small businesses according to their number of
employees. The majority of the small businesses affected by this
rulemaking (60 percent) have fewer than 100 employees. According to
DOE's analysis, annual sales associated with these small manufacturers
were estimated at $1.09 billion ($43.97 million average annual sales
per small manufacturer), which represents less than one percent of
total industrial pump manufacturer annual sales. Although $1.09 billion
in annual sales by the industry and over $43.97 million per small
manufacturer are significant in many markets, many industrial and
commercial pump manufacturers are large, multi-national companies, with
annual sales ranging between a few million to over a trillion dollars.
Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees with Financial Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percentage Average
Number of employees small of small Cumulative annual
businesses businesses percentage sales ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-25........................................................ 4 16.0 16.0 $4.97
26-50....................................................... 5 20.0 36.0 6.56
51-100...................................................... 6 24.0 60.0 17.90
101-200..................................................... 5 20.0 80.0 38.05
201-500..................................................... 5 20.0 100.0 104.29
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 25 100.0 100.0 34.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17630]]
2. Assessing the Number of Basic Models per Manufacturer
The proposed test procedure would impact manufacturers by requiring
them to test the energy consumption of certain models of pumps they
manufacture. As such, DOE conducted a focused inquiry into the number
of basic models manufactured by large and small business in order to
determine whether small business would be disproportionally impacted
compared to large manufacturers. DOE used the definition of basic model
and the scope of pumps proposed in section III.A as the basis for its
inquiry into the number of pump models manufactured per company. Small
manufacturers of pumps produce an average of 41 basic models per
company covered under this scope.
DOE notes that this estimate is based on the number of different
bare pump models manufactured by a specific company because often
information was not available regarding the number and type of motor or
control options with which a pump could be sold. As such, DOE
acknowledges that this estimate of basic models may be an under
estimate. However, DOE also notes that, based on its research, pumps
are often distributed in commerce as a bare pump, with different
motors, continuous controls, and non-continuous controls offered as
add-on options. As such, based on the proposed test procedure, only
physical testing of the fundamental bare pump would be required under
DOE's proposed test. Subsequent ratings when the pump is sold either
with a motor or with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls
could be developed based on calculations with no additional testing if
the motor is covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for
electric motors and the control is a continuous control.
DOE notes that the vast majority of pumps that are sold with motors
are sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy
conservation standards. This understanding was confirmed by discussions
of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 09 at
p. 57) Based on a review of industry literature, DOE also finds that
almost all controls available to be paired with pumps are VSD controls
and would meet DOE's proposed definition of continuous control and,
thus, the calculation method would be applicable.
As discussed in more detail in the following, physical testing of
each pump is by far the more burdensome and costly part of conducting
the DOE test procedure, and any subsequent calculations should not
significantly affect the burden associated with conducting DOE's
proposed test procedure. Therefore, DOE acknowledges that, while
different configurations of a bare pump, motor, and/or control may
represent several basic models, estimating the burden associated with
rating those models will be fundamentally based on the physical testing
that must be performed on only the underlying bare pump, for most
pumps. Therefore, DOE believes that calculating the burden of testing
based on the number of bare pump models offered by a manufacturer is a
reasonable and representative estimate of the burden associated with
establishing a rating for the entire family, or group, or pump models
that might be based on the individual bare pump. DOE notes that
physical testing of the bare pump is commonly performed to describe
pump performance information in manufacturer's literature. However, it
is not clear that all pump manufacturers have facilities capable of
performing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE has
conservatively assumed that manufacturers would have to make a decision
to incur the burden of constructing a test facility in order to perform
the proposed DOE test procedure or conduct the testing a third party
laboratory, as discussed further in section IV.B.3. DOE does not expect
that every pump manufacturer will incur the cost as estimated in this
IRFA given that many of the manufacturers are already testing and
making representations of the bare pump efficiency.
DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which
the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with
a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical
test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of
pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models
sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous
control.
3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Pump Test Procedure
Pumps would be newly regulated equipment; accordingly, DOE has no
test procedures or standards for this equipment. As such, this proposal
would apply a uniform test procedure for those pumps that would be
required to be tested and an accompanying burden on the manufacturers
of those pumps. As discussed in the proposed sampling provisions in
section III.F, this test procedure would require manufacturers to test
at least two units of each pump basic model to develop a certified
rating.
DOE notes that certification of covered pump models is not
currently required because energy conservation standards do not exist
for pumps. However, EPCA also requires that manufacturers use the DOE
test procedure to make representations regarding energy efficiency or
energy use based on the DOE test procedure for any covered pump models.
For the purposes of this IRFA, DOE estimates that each manufacturer
would rate each basic model of covered pump in order to make
representations about a given basic model. Thus, the testing burden
associated with this test procedure NOPR is similar regardless of
whether standards apply. The potential difference between these cases,
as discussed below, is any burden associated specifically with creating
and maintaining certification reports to demonstrate compliance with
any energy conservation standards for pumps.
DOE recognizes that making representations regarding the energy
efficiency or energy use of covered pump models is voluntary and thus,
technically, the proposed test procedure does not have any incremental
burden associated with it, unless DOE establishes energy conservation
standards. If necessary, a manufacturer could elect to not make
representations about the energy use of covered pump models. Since
certification is not currently required because there are no pump
energy conservation standards, manufacturers would not be required to
conduct testing in accordance with this proposed test procedure and,
thus, would not incur any incremental burden associated with such
testing. However, DOE realizes that manufacturers often provide
information about the energy performance of the pumps they manufacture
since this information is an important marketing tool to help
distinguish their pumps from competitor offerings. In addition, DOE
recognizes that pump energy conservation standards are currently being
considered in an associated rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-
0031) and may be proposed or promulgated in the near future. Therefore,
DOE is estimating the full burden of developing certified ratings for
covered pump models for the purposes of making representations
regarding the energy use of covered
[[Page 17631]]
equipment or certifying compliance to DOE under any future energy
conservation standards.
DOE expects that in order to determine the pump performance of any
covered pump models for the purposes of making representations or
certifying compliance with under any future energy conservation
standards for pumps, each manufacturer would have to either (a) have
the units tested in-house or (b) have the units tested at a third party
testing facility. If the manufacturer elects to test pumps in-house,
each manufacturer would have to undertake the following burden-inducing
activities:
(1) construct and maintain a test facility that is capable of
testing pumps in compliance with the test procedure, including
acquisition and calibration of any necessary measurement equipment, and
(2) conduct the DOE test procedure on two units of each covered
pump model.
DOE recognizes that many pump manufacturers already have pump test
facilities of various types and conduct pump testing as part of an
existing manufacturing quality control process, to develop pump
performance information for new and existing products, and to
demonstrate the performance of specific pump units for customers.
However, DOE recognizes that, as such testing is not currently required
or standardized, testing facilities may vary widely from one pump
manufacturer to another. As such, for the purposes of estimating
testing burden associated with this test procedure NOPR, DOE has
estimated the burden associated with a situation where a given pump
manufacturer does not have existing test facilities at all and would be
required to construct such facilities to test equipment in accordance
with any test procedure final rule. This is the most burdensome
assumption.
DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump
manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to
transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as
proposed in this NOPR.
The proposed test procedure would require manufacturers to conduct
the calculation-based method or the testing-based method, depending on
the type and configuration of pump being tested. As discussed in
section III.E.1, DOE is proposing the less burdensome calculation-based
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and pumps sold
with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy
conservation standards.
In contrast, DOE is proposing to require that manufacturers use a
testing-based method where pumps are sold either with motors that are
not covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards or
with non-continuous controls. For pumps sold with motors that are
covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards and
continuous controls, DOE is proposing to allow either testing-based
methods or calculation-based methods be used to rate such equipment.
Both the calculation-based method and the testing-based method
would require physical testing of pumps at some level and, as such,
would utilize a similar basic testing facility. To collect information
on constructing a testing facility capable of performing the proposed
DOE test procedure on the proposed scope of covered equipment, DOE
utilized estimates from pump testing facilities and conversations with
pump testing personnel.
4. Capital Expense Associated with Constructing a Pump Testing Facility
From these sources, DOE estimates that the testing facility would
need to be configured with 100 to 280 feet of stainless steel pipe of 6
to 8 inches in diameter. DOE estimates that this configuration,
including its respective fittings and valves, would cost between
$17,000 and $100,000 to construct, based on cost data from RS
Means.\52\ DOE estimates that the testing configuration would also
include a double wall steel water reservoir that holds up to 6,000
gallons for smaller pipe configurations and a 30,000 gallon reservoir
for larger pipe configurations, which would cost between $21,000 and
$70,000 based on RS Means cost data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2013 RS Means Electrical Cost
Data. 2013. Kingston, MA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test platform of the facility could use a variety of devices to
operate the bare pump. For example, a dynamometer can be used to
simultaneously drive and measure the torque and rotating speed of the
pump, the bare pump could be driven by a calibrated motor, or the pump
could be driven by a non-calibrated motor with independent measurement
of speed and torque. For testing of a pump and motor or pump, motor,
and control, a separate drive system would not be necessary.
In this analysis, DOE assumed that such a facility would use a VFD
and a motor to enable each pump to be analyzed for energy consumption.
DOE believes that this is likely to be the most common and cost-
effective approach for determining the energy consumptions of bare
pumps. DOE estimates that the VFD, rated up to 250 horsepower in
accordance with the scope of this rulemaking, would cost approximately
$18,000 based on estimates obtained from retailers.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated
test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach
for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test
procedure.
During testing, each pump is matched to an appropriately sized
motor to drive the pump along at least seven points from 40 to 120
percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump on the pump performance
curve. To test the full range of pumps covered in the scope of this
standard, DOE estimates that a minimum of four motors would be
necessary.
The motors would have to be sized based upon the range of pumps,
which vary between 1 and 200 horsepower, to ensure that the pairing
lowers the part load motor losses. These properly sized motors would be
between 5 and 250 hp, and the combined cost of the motors ranges
between $20,000 and $66,000.
To measure energy consumption, measurements of head, pump rotating
speed, flow rate, and either electrical power or torque would be
necessary. DOE estimates that the total cost of this measurement
equipment would be between $15,000 and $33,000.
DOE estimates that building a testing facility capable of testing
the range of pumps covered in the standard would cost approximately
$91,000 to $277,000 per manufacturer.
DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to
build a pump testing facility as presented.
DOE estimates that a majority of pumps are sold with motors that
are covered under the current DOE motor standard or submersible motors
and have been rated and, if equipped with controls, would use
continuous controls. Under the proposed test procedure, DOE would not
require these configurations of pumps and motors to be tested using the
wire-to-water test, but would allow manufacturers the option to conduct
the wire-to-water test.
All pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's electric
motor energy conservation standards would be required to conduct the
wire-to-water test. The proposed wire-to-water test would utilize the
basic test lab setup described above without the standard four test
motors, but would require additional instrumentation to measure power
into and out of the motor or VFD, as described in section III.C.2.e.
DOE estimates the instrumentation required
[[Page 17632]]
to measure electrical input power in a wire-to-water test or when
testing with a calibrated motor would add approximately $2,000 to the
cost of the test lab set up.
DOE understands that the characteristics of the power supplied to
the test facility may impact the results of testing the controls in the
system. However, DOE is not incorporating the testing or correction of
power quality in the burden estimate presented in this NOPR because DOE
could not identify reliable or consistent estimates for the cost of
maintaining the proposed power supply requirements discussed in section
III.C.2.a above. These factors, taken together, would result in a
testing facility capable of conducting the wire-to-water test that
costs between $72,000 and $213,000.
DOE requests comment on the test facility description and
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in
the NOPR.
DOE amortized the cost of building the testing facility based on
loan interest rates and product lifetimes gathered in manufacturer
surveys. The average interest rate for business loans reported by
manufacturers was 11.8 percent, based on feedback obtained during
preliminary analysis interviews for the standards rulemaking. DOE used
a loan period of 7 years based on the assumption that the machinery
qualifies for a 7-year depreciation schedule under the Modified
Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS).\53\ The total annual payment
for financing a test facility with these assumptions will be between
$19,000 and $59,000 for the basic testing facility capable of
conducting the calculation-based method. The total annual payment for
financing for a test facility capable of conducting the alternative
testing-based method would be between $15,000 and $45,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. How
to Depreciate Property. IRS Pub. 926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Recurring Burden Associated With Ongoing Testing Activities
In addition to the capital expenses associated with acquiring the
appropriate equipment and facilities to conduct testing, manufacturers
would incur recurring burden associated with maintaining the test
facility and conducting each pump test. Each testing facility would
need to calibrate the instrumentation used in the test loop as
specified in HI 40.6-2004 appendix D. The flowmeter, torque sensor, and
power quality meter all should be calibrated once a year. The pressure
transducer should be calibrated every 4 months and a laser tachometer
should be calibrated every 3 years. These calibrations, together, cost
a testing facility about $1,241.67 per year to calibrate.
Both methods of the proposed test procedure would require test
personnel to set up, conduct, and remove each pump in accordance with
that procedure. Based on conversations with test engineers, DOE
estimates it would take between 1 and 2 hours of an engineer's time to
complete the test procedure per model tested, which would result in a
cost of $53.87 to $107.74 per model based on an engineer's labor rate
of $53.87 per hour. DOE estimates that setting up and removing the
pumps from the test stand would require 2 to 6 hours of the engineer's
time depending on the size of the pump and any other fittings that need
to be configured to enable testing, resulting in a cost between $107.74
to $323.22 per model based on the labor rate of $53.87 per hour for an
engineer. The total cost of testing a pump, including setup, tests, and
takedown ranges between $161.61 and $430.96 per model. DOE estimates
that the time required to conduct the calculation-based method of test
would be the same as the time required to conduct the wire-to-water
test.
As described earlier, the proposed default calculation-based
method, using the basic test facility set up, would require testing
each bare pump model. The test results from that rated bare pump could
then be used in subsequent calculations to determine certified ratings
for that pump when sold as a bare pump, with a motor that is covered by
DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors, or with a
covered motor and continuous controls. However, for pumps sold with
motors not certified to the DOE motor standard or with non-continuous
controls, manufacturers would be required to conduct the wire-to-water
test on each pump model in a test facility with additional electrical
instrumentation, as described previously. Manufacturers conducting the
wire-to-water tests on their equipment would need to test each pump and
motor combination, which may incur a higher burden than the default
calculation-based method.
As previously discussed, DOE's estimate of burden for rating pump
models covered by the proposed DOE test procedure is based on the
assumption that the majority of covered pump models will be able to use
the calculation-based method and same fundamental bare pump test to
certify a given pump in the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, or pump
sold with a motor and controls configurations. DOE notes that the wire-
to-water test would be available as an option for these pump models,
but would not be required. DOE acknowledges that some pump models, such
as pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors or submersible motors and
pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, would be required
to use the wire-to-water test procedure proposed in section III.E.2.
However, based on DOE's research, very few pump models will be required
to use these methods.
DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer
that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify
pump performance.
6. Cumulative Burden
These costs, taken together, would result in an additional burden
for manufacturers conducting the DOE test procedure from the
construction of a testing facility and the requirement to test all
pumps under the scope of the proposed test procedure. Fifteen of 25
small manufacturers identified in DOE's initial survey of manufacturers
produce pumps that fall within the scope of this rulemaking and would
be required to perform testing; the other 10 produce pump types that
are not within the scope of pumps for which the proposed test procedure
is applicable (see section III.A).
The burden of building a testing facility and testing pumps varied
across small manufacturers. The lowest burden estimate is approximately
$61,000 in the first year and the highest burden experienced in the
first year is estimated to be around $221,000 for small manufacturers
affected by the rule. Table IV.2 presents the small manufacturers
stratified by employee size and shows the average burden estimated for
each employee bin size as a percentage of average annual sales.
[[Page 17633]]
Table IV.2--Small Business Size with Pumps in Scope of Rulemaking by Number of Employees with Estimated Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of Average Average estimated
Number of employees small number of annual sales burden (% of
businesses basic models ($M) sales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-50............................................ 8 20 6.3 2.55
51-100.......................................... 2 48 16.7 0.60
101-500......................................... 5 78 90.9 0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The burden estimates were based on annual sales data gathered in
the manufacturer surveys, company Web sites, and marketing research
tools. Total revenue for businesses was not used because data for all
relevant companies were not publicly available. Annual average value
added was another financial indicator investigated for the burden
analysis. This indicator was not utilized because the value added
pooled companies that manufacture other commodities and was not found
to be representative of the pump manufacturing industry.
DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial
indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator
would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump
manufacturing industry.
As the number of employees increases, the average estimated burden,
as a percentage of average annual sales, decreases. The average number
of basic models is highest for small manufacturers with 51-100
employees; however, the average annual sales were a much larger factor
in determining the average burden than the number of basic models per
manufacturer.
For the 15 small manufacturers that produce pumps within the scope
of the rulemaking, the average burden is estimated to be 1.56 percent
of their average annual sales. Based on the burden estimates described
herein, 3 of the 15 manufacturers would incur a burden of over 2
percent of their annual sales if the maximum burden is applied. The
other 12 companies have an average estimated burden of 0.63 percent of
annual sales.
Based on the estimates presented, DOE believes that the proposed
test procedure amendments may have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a final
regulatory flexibility analysis may be required. DOE will transmit the
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and
estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing
the proposed DOE test procedure.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency
must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations
for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered
consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B.
DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the
framework document considering energy conservation standards for pumps
on February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7304. In an application to renew the OMB
information collection approval for DOE's certification and
recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated burden for
manufacturers of pumps in case DOE ultimately sets energy conservation
standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the revised information
collection for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80
FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). DOE estimated that it will take each
respondent approximately 30 hours total per company per year to comply
with the certification and recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours
of technician/technical work and 10 hours clerical work to actually
submit the Compliance and Certification Management System templates.
This rulemaking would include recordkeeping requirements on
manufacturers that are associated with executing and maintaining the
test data for this equipment. DOE notes that the certification
requirements would be established in a final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for pumps. DOE recognizes that recordkeeping
burden may vary substantially based on company preferences and
practices.
DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
DOE also generally notes that notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person
be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of
information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE is proposing a test procedure for pumps
that will be used to support the upcoming pumps energy conservation
standard rulemaking. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this
proposed rule considers a test procedure for a pump that is largely
based upon industry test procedures and methodologies resulting from a
negotiated rulemaking, so it would not affect the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the
[[Page 17634]]
necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation
process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment that is the
subject of today's proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which
would prescribe the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency
of pumps, is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed
rule.
[[Page 17635]]
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed rule incorporates by reference the testing methods
contained in HI 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency
Testing,'' except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;'' section A.7,
``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F);'' and
appendix B, ``Reporting of test results.'' In addition, the NOPR's
proposed definitions incorporate by reference the following standards:
(1) Sections 1.1, ``types and nomenclature,'' and 1.2.9,
``rotodynamic pump icons,'' of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI Standard
1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And
Definitions;''
(2) section 2.1, ``types and nomenclature,'' of the 2008 version of
ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For
Nomenclature And Definitions;''
While today's proposed test procedure is not exclusively based on
these industry testing standards, some components of the DOE test
procedure would adopt definitions, test parameters, measurement
techniques, and additional calculations from them without amendment.
The Department has evaluated these industry testing standards and is
unable to conclude whether they would fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and
the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of this test procedure on
competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference five
industry standards related to pump nomenclature, definitions, and
specifications, which DOE has referenced in its proposed definitions.
These standards include ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ``Rotodynamic
(Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;'' ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And
Definitions;'' FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for
Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type);'' UL Standard
448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service;''
and NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.'' These are industry-accepted
standards used by pump manufacturers when designing and marketing pumps
in North America. The definitions proposed in this NOPR reference
specific sections of the HI standards for definitional clarity and the
entirety of the NFPA, UL, and FM standards as a basis for scope
exclusions. These standards are available through the respective Web
sites of each individual organization.
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard
published by HI titled ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency
Testing,'' HI 40.6-2014, with the exception of section 40.6.5.3, ``Test
report;'' section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C
(86 [deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results.'' HI 40.6-
2014 was developed to support DOE's test procedure development and is
heavily based on the industry-accepted test standard ANSI/HI 14.6. The
test procedure proposed in this NOPR references nearly the entirety of
ANSI/HI 14.6, in regards to test setup, instrumentation, and test
conduct. HI 40.6-2014 is available from HI.
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If you
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are
subject to advance security screening procedures, which require advance
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. Any foreign national
wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as
possible by contacting [email protected] to initiate the
necessary procedures. Please also note that any person wishing to bring
a laptop into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a
property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an
extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting via
webinar.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding identification
(ID) requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings
from specific States and U.S. territories. As a result, driver's
licenses from the following States or territory will not be accepted
for building entry, and instead, one of the alternate forms of ID
listed below will be required.
DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards)
from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington.
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued
by the States of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses
issued by these States are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's
License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID
card.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For
Distribution
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be
received at least 1 week before the
[[Page 17636]]
public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE
prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please
include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up
contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web
page will require you to provide your name and contact information.
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
commented to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information commented to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
[[Page 17637]]
other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made
available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality;
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person
which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and
(7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public
interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the
pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as
recommended by the Working Group.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,''
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``continuous
control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
DOE also requests comment and information regarding how often pumps
with continuous or non-continuous controls are packaged and distributed
in commerce, by manufacturers, with integrated sensors and feedback
logic that would allow such pumps to automatically actuate.
DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of pumps with
continuous and non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce,
but never paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would
enable energy savings.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic model''
as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on
DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with
trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models,
provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum
impeller diameter for that model.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full
impeller.''
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are
unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require
modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as proposed.
DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC,
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction
pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump,
in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical
turbine submersible pump.
DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the
regulatory text, are 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 class for their pump models.
DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow
direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when
determining test procedure and standards applicability.
DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is
necessary in the proposed RSV definition to make the exclusion of
immersible pumps clearer.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and
pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators
and dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV
pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed.
Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly referred
to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid
foundation.
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed
flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on
the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pumps
equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean water
pump.''
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
the definition for ``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.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire pump,''
``self-priming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless pump.''
Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes
that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front
of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the
priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design
features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and
whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to
determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military
Specification and if Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F
should be referenced.
DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test
procedure: 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 pumps meeting the design and construction requirements
set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal,
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (power,
flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl diameter) as
limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed test procedure
would apply.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-
electric drivers as bare pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in
commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the
bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
DOE requests comment from interested party on any categories of
electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with
pumps
[[Page 17638]]
considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have efficiencies lower
than the default nominal full load motor efficiency for NEMA Design A,
NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors.
DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for
PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and
PEIVL for pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and
PEIVL metric architecture.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold
with motors and controls (with or without continuous or non-continuous
controls).
DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE
test procedure for pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014
as part of the DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as
described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above
(i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, or 5
seconds).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at
the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal
speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in
HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed
and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce
more accurate and repeatable test results.
DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage
unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that
are required when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing
a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests
comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump
test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning
equipment would be required.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in
their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number
of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that
particular number of stages.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of
the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested
flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to
determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75,
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any
pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate
measurements.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that for pumps with BEP at
run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100
percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described
in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points
for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP
flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-
continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations
and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and
PEIVL, as applicable, be reported to the nearest 0.01.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor
horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at
120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for
which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g.,
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
DOE requests comment on its proposal that would specify the
default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based
on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A,
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor
full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most
current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric
motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table III.6.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented
in Table III.6 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and
continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part
load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered
motors and submersible motors including the default motor specified in
section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load
losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation
standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal
full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with
DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part
load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the
bare pump.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the
PERCL of pumps sold with submersible motors using the
proposed default minimum efficiency values for submersible motors and
applying the same default motor part load loss curve to the default
motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water,
testing-based approach.
DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as
well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the
statically loaded offset.
DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for
determining pump shaft input power for
[[Page 17639]]
pumps sold with motors and continuous controls when rated using the
calculation-based method.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss
factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined
motor and continuous controls, where the four curves would correspond
to different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation
compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed
and torque).
DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that
was applied to the measured VSD efficiency data to generate the
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically,
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and
motor horsepower.
DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the
extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would
represent minimum efficiency motor and continuous control combinations.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each
individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or
PEIVL rating for one or more pump basic models.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps
rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to
the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output.
DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield
significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is
determined based on pump efficiency.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps
sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and
non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control
that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure
would not apply.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-
based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors
that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation
standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any
motors and with non-continuous controls.
DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-
based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps
sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1)
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the level of burden to include with any
certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a
manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any
energy conservation standards DOE may set.
DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for
certification of commercial and industrial pump models.
DOE requests comment regarding the size of pump manufacturing
entities and the number of manufacturing businesses represented by this
market.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that, for most pump models,
only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is required,
and subsequent ratings for that bare pump sold with a motor or motor
and continuous control can be based on calculations only.
DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which
the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with
a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical
test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of
pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models
sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous
control.
DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump
manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to
transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as
described in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated
test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach
for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test
procedure.
DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to
build a pump testing facility as presented.
DOE requests comment on the test facility description and
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in
the NOPR.
DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer
that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify
pump performance.
DOE requests comment on the estimation of the portion of pumps that
would need to be newly certified or recertified annually.
DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial
indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator
would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump
manufacturing industry.
DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and
estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing
the proposed DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
[[Page 17640]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. In Sec. 429.2 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.2 Definitions.
(a) The definitions found in Sec. Sec. 430.2, 431.2, 431.62,
431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.172, 431.192,
431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322,
431.442 and 431.462 apply for purposes of this part.
* * * * *
Sec. 429.11 [Amended]
0
3. Section 429.11 is amended in paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing
``429.54'' and adding in its place ``429.62''.
0
4. Add Sec. 429.59 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.59 Pumps.
(a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must
determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating,
for each basic model by testing, in conjunction with the following
sampling provisions.
(1) Units to be tested. The requirements of Sec. 429.11 are
applicable to pumps; and for each basic model, a sample of sufficient
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(i) Any value of the constant or variable load pump energy index or
other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.028
and xx is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the maximum of the ith sample; or
(B) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.01, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.029
and xx is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A of subpart B of part 429); and
(ii) Any measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the
lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.030
and xx is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the maximum of the ith sample; or
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.99, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.031
and xx is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
appendix A of subpart B).
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 429.70 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 429.70(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its place
``429.62''.
0
6. Amend Sec. 429.71 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.71 Maintenance of records.
* * * * *
(d) When considering if a pump is subject to energy conservation
standards under part 431, DOE may need to determine if a pump was
designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in MIL-P-17639F.
In this case, 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 MIL-P-17639F.
Sec. 429.72 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 429.72(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its place
``429.62''.
Sec. 429.102 [Amended]
0
8. Amend Sec. 429.102(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its
place ``429.62''.
Sec. 429.110 Enforcement testing.
0
9. Section 429.110(e)(1), is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) through (vi) as (e)(1)(v)
through (vii), respectively;
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(iv);
0
c. Removing ``(e)(1)(iii)'' in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(v),
and adding ``(e)(1)(iv)'' in its place;
0
d. Removing ``(e)(1)(iv)'', in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vi),
and adding ``(e)(1)(v)'' in its place; and
0
e. Removing ``(e)(1)(v)'', in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vii),
and adding ``(e)(l)(vi)'' in its place.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 429.110 Enforcement testing.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more
than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic
mean of the sample.
* * * * *
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
10. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
11. Add subpart Y to part 431 to read as follows:
Subpart Y--Pumps
Sec.
431.461 Purpose and scope.
431.462 Definitions.
431.463 Materials incorporated by reference.
431.464 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy
consumption of pumps.
Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Pumps
Subpart Y--Pumps
Sec. 431.461 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains definitions, test procedures, and energy
conservation requirements for pumps, pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317.
Sec. 431.462 Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including
[[Page 17641]]
appendix A. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the
definitions adopted in this section 462 takes precedence over any
descriptions or definitions found in the 2014 version of ANSI/HI
Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature
And Definitions'' (ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014) (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.463), or the 2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2,
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions''
(ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
In cases where definitions reference design intent, DOE will consider
marketing materials, labels and certifications, and equipment design to
determine design intent.
Bare pump means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and
controls.
Basic model means all units of a given type of covered equipment
(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) RSV and VTS pump models for which the bare pump differs in the
number of stages must be considered a single basic model; and
(2) Pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller
diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model.
Best efficiency point means the pump hydraulic power operating
point (consisting of both flow and head conditions) that results in the
maximum efficiency.
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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
Circulator means a pump that:
(1) Is either an end suction pump or a single-stage, single-axis
flow, rotodynamic pump; and
(2) Has a pump housing that only requires the support of the supply
and discharge piping to which it is connected (without attachment to a
rigid foundation) to function as designed. Examples include, but are
not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or
CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.463).
Clean water pump means 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 [deg]C.
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.
Control means any device that can be used to operate the driver.
Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-continuous
speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, and float
switches.
Dedicated-purpose pool pump means an end suction pump designed
specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an
integrated basket strainer.
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.
End suction close-coupled (ESCC) pump means an end suction pump in
which:
(1) The motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare
pump;
(2) 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
(3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. Examples include,
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7,
as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.463).
End suction frame mounted (ESFM) pump means an end suction pump
wherein:
(1) 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;
(2) 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
(3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. 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 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463).
End suction pump means a single-stage, rotodynamic pump in which
the liquid enters the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller
shaft and on the side opposite the bare pump's driver-end. The liquid
is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft.
Fire pump means a pump that is compliant with NFPA Standard 20-2013
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463), ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' and is either:
(1) Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed under UL Standard 448-2007
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463), ``Centrifugal
Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service''; or
(2) Factory Mutual (FM) approved under the October 2008 edition of
FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps
(Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.463).
Full impeller diameter means the maximum diameter impeller used
with a given pump basic model distributed in commerce or the maximum
diameter impeller referenced in the manufacturer's literature for that
pump basic model, whichever is larger.
In-line (IL) pump means a single-stage, single axis flow,
rotodynamic pump in which:
(1) Liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular
to the impeller shaft; and
(2) 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 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463).
Mechanical equipment means any component of a pump that transfers
energy from the driver to the bare pump.
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.
[[Page 17642]]
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.
Pump means equipment designed to move liquids (which may include
entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical
or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the
manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and
controls.
Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing
(RSV) pump means a vertically suspended, multi-stage, single axis flow,
rotodynamic pump in which:
(1) Liquid is discharged in a place perpendicular to the impeller
shaft;
(2) Each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and
(3) No external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in
the pumped liquid. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps
complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
Rotodynamic pump means a pump in which energy is continuously
imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller,
propeller, or rotor.
Sealless pump means either:
(1) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump
using a magnetic coupling; or
(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.
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.
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.
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:
(1) Each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser;
and
(2) 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, a pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as
described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.463).
Sec. 431.463 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following standards
into subpart Y of part 431. The material listed has been approved for
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not
affect the DOE test procedures unless and until amended by DOE.
Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a
notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal
Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go
to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is
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
go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. These
standards can be obtained from the sources below.
(b) FM. Factory Mutual. 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401-
275-3000. www.fmglobal.com/
(1) FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire
Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' approved October 2008, IBR
approved for Sec. 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) HI. Hydraulic Institute, 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North,
Parsippany, NJ, 07054-4406, 973-267-9700. www.pumps.org
(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (``ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014''),
``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;''
approved 2014, section 1.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' and section
1.2.9, ``Rotodynamic pump icons,'' IBR approved for Sec. 431.462.
(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (``ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008''),
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,''
approved 2008, section 2.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' IBR approved
for Sec. 431.462.
(3) HI 40.6-2014, (``HI 40.6-2014''), ``Methods for Rotodynamic
Pump Efficiency Testing,'' except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;''
section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C
(86[emsp14][deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results;''
approved 2014, IBR approved for Sec. 431.464, and appendix A to
subpart Y of part 431.
(h) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 617-770-3000. www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' approved 2013, IBR approved for
Sec. 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(i) UL. Underwriters Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL
60062. http://ul.com/
(1) UL Standard 448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-
Protection Service,'' approved 2007, IBR approved for Sec. 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 431.464 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy
consumption of pumps.
(a) Scope. This section provides the test procedures for
determining the constant and variable load pump energy index for:
(1) The following categories of clean water pumps:
(i) End suction close-coupled (ESCC);
(ii) End suction frame mounted (ESFM);
(iii) In-line (IL);
(iv) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing diffuser
(RSV); and
(v) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps.
(2) With the following characteristics:
(i) Shaft power of at least 1 hp but no greater than 200 hp at the
best efficiency point (BEP) at full impeller diameter for the number of
stages required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of this appendix);
(ii) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP and full impeller
diameter;
(iii) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller diameter;
(iv) Design temperature range from -10 to 120 [deg]C;
(v) Designed to operate with either:
(A) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or
(B) A non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range
that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions
per minute and/or 1,440 and 2,160 revolutions per minute; and
(vi) For VTS pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter.
[[Page 17643]]
(3) Except for the following pumps:
(i) Fire pumps.
(ii) Self-priming pumps.
(iii) Prime-assist pumps.
(iv) Sealless pumps.
(v) Pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10
CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities.''
(vi) Pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set
forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal,
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
(b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the applicable constant
load pump energy index (PEICL) or variable load pump energy
index (PEIVL) using the test procedure set forth in appendix
A of this subpart Y.
Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Pumps.
I. Test Procedure for Pumps.
A. General. To determine the constant load pump energy index
(PEICL), for bare pumps and pumps sold with electric
motors or the variable load pump energy index (PEIVL) for
pumps sold with electric motors and continuous or non-continuous
controls, testing shall be performed in accordance with HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;'' section A.7,
``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F);''
and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results;'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463) with the modifications and additions
as noted throughout the provisions below. Where HI 40.6-2014 refers
to ``pump,'' the term should be interpreted to refer to the ``bare
pump,'' as defined in Sec. 431.462. Also, for the purposes of
applying this appendix, the term ``volume per unit time,'' as
defined in section 40.6.2, ``Terms and definitions,'' of HI 40.6-
2014 shall be deemed to be synonymous with the term ``flow rate''
used throughout that standard and this appendix A.
A.1 Scope. Section II of this appendix is applicable to all
pumps and describes how to calculate the Pump Energy Index (section
II.A) based on the PERSTD (section II.B) and the
PERCL or PERVL determined in accordance with
one of sections III through VII, based on the testing method and
configuration in which the pump is distributed in commerce. Sections
III through VII describe different test methods that apply depending
on the configuration of the pump being rated, as described in Table
1 of this appendix.
Table 1--Applicability of Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Test
Procedure Options Based on Pump Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pump sub- Applicable test
Pump configuration configuration methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump................... Bare Pump........... Section III: Test
Procedure for Bare
Pumps.
Pump + Motor................ Pump + Motor Covered Section IV: Testing-
by DOE's Electric Based Approach for
Motor Energy Pumps Sold with
Conservation Motors
Standards.
OR OR
Pump + Submersible Section V:
Motor. Calculation-Based
Approach for Pumps
Sold with Motors.
Pump + Motor Not Section IV: Testing-
Covered by DOE's Based Approach for
Electric Motor Pumps Sold with
Energy Conservation Motors.
Standards (Except
Submersible Motors).
Pump + Motor + Controls..... Pump + Motor Covered Section VI: Testing-
by DOE's Electric Based Approach for
Motor Energy Pumps Sold with
Conservation Motors and Controls
Standards +
Continuous Control
Pump + Submersible
Motor + Continuous
Control.
OR OR
Pump + Submersible Section VII:
Motor + Continuous Calculation-Based
Control. Approach for Pumps
Sold with Motors
Controls.
Pump + Motor Covered Section VI: Testing-
by DOE's Electric Based Approach for
Motor Energy Pumps Sold with
Conservation Motors and Controls
Standards + Non-
Continuous Control.
OR.................. ....................
Pump + Submersible ....................
Motor + Non-
Continuous Control.
Pump + Motor Not Section VI: Testing-
Covered by DOE's Based Approach for
Electric Motor Pumps Sold with
Energy Conservation Motors and
Standards (Except Controls.
Submersible Motors)
+ Continuous or Non-
Continuous Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III of this appendix addresses the test procedure
applicable to bare pumps. This test procedure also applies to pumps
sold with drivers other than motors and pumps sold with single-phase
induction motors.
Section IV of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach
for pumps sold with motors, which is applicable to all pumps sold
with electric motors, other than single-phase induction motors.
Section V of this appendix addressed the calculation-based
approach for pumps sold with motors, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors at Sec. 431.25, other
than single-phase induction motors; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors.
Section VI of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach
for pumps sold with motors and controls, which is applicable to all
pumps sold with electric motors, other than single-phase induction
motors, and continuous or non-continuous controls.
Section VII of this appendix discusses the calculation-based
approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors at Sec. 431.25, other
than single-phase induction motors, and continuous controls; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
B. Measurement Equipment. For the purposes of measuring pump
power input, driver power input, and pump power output, the
equipment specified in HI 40.6-2014 Appendix C (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463) necessary to measure head, speed of
rotation, flow rate, temperature, torque, and electrical power shall
be used and shall comply with the stated accuracy requirements in HI
40.6-2014 Table 40.6.3.2.3 except as noted in section VI.B of this
appendix.
C. Test Conditions. Testing shall be conducted in accordance
with the test conditions, stabilization requirements, and
specifications of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.463) section 40.6.3, ``Pump efficiency testing;'' section
40.6.4, ``Considerations when determining the efficiency of a
pump;'' section 40.6.5.4 (including appendix A), ``Test
arrangements;'' and section 40.6.5.5, ``Test conditions;'' and at
full impeller diameter.
C.1 The nominal speed of rotation shall be determined based on
the range of speeds of rotation at which the pump is designed to
[[Page 17644]]
operate, in accordance with sections I.C.1.1, I.C.1.2, I.C.1.3,
I.C.1.4, or I.C.1.5 of this appendix, as applicable. When
determining the range of speeds at which the pump is designed to
operate, DOE will refer to published data, marketing literature, and
other publically-available information about the pump model and
motor, as applicable.
C.1.1 For pumps sold without motors, the nominal rating speed
will be selected based on the speed for which the pump is designed.
For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 2,880 to
4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm), the nominal speed of rotation
shall be 3,600 rpm. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation
including 1,440 to 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be
1,800 rpm.
C.1.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors, the nominal
speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.1.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole induction motors, the nominal
speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
C.1.4 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the
operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation
between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be
3,600 rpm.
C.1.5 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the
operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation
between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be
1,800 rpm.
C.2 For RSV and VTS pumps, testing shall be performed on the
pump with three stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for VTS pumps.
If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with fewer
than the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with
the maximum number of stages with which the basic model is
distributed in commerce in the United States. If the basic model of
pump being tested is only available with greater than the required
number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the lowest number of
stages with which the basic model is distributed in commerce in the
United States. If the basic model of pump being tested is available
with both fewer and greater than the required number of stages, but
not the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the
number of stages closest to the required number of stages. If both
the next lower and next higher number of stages are equivalently
close to the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested
with the next higher number of stages.
D. Data Collection and Analysis.
D.1 Data Sampling Frequency. Data shall be collected every three
seconds for all measured quantities.
D.2 Dampening Devices. Use of dampening devices, as described in
section 40.6.3.2.2, shall only be permitted to integrate up to 5
seconds.
D.3 Stabilization. Data recording at any test point shall be
taken under stabilized conditions, as defined in HI 40.6-2014
section 40.6.5.5.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
D.4 Calculations and Rounding. All measured data shall be
normalized to the nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 1,800 rpm
based on the nominal speed of rotation selected for the pump in
section I.C.1 of this appendix, in accordance with the procedures
specified in section 40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463). Except for the ``expected BEP flow
rate,'' all terms and quantities refer to values determined in
accordance with the procedures set forth in this appendix for the
rated pump. All calculations shall be performed using their raw
measured values with PERCL, PERVL,
PEICL, and PEIVL values, as applicable,
rounded to the hundredths place (i.e., 0.01).
D.5 Pumps with BEP at Run Out. Pumps for which the expected
maximum efficiency corresponds to the maximum flow rate at which the
pump is designed to operate continuously or safely (i.e., pumps with
BEP at run-out), the seven flow points for determination of BEP in
sections III.C, IV.C, V.C, VI.D, and VII. C of this appendix shall
be as follows: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of the
maximum flow rate of the pump instead of those specified. In
addition, all references to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow
rate for determination of PERCL and PERSTD
shall instead be 65, 90, and 100 percent of the BEP flow rate
determined with the modified flow points specified in this section
I.D.5 of this appendix.
II. Calculation of the Pump Energy Index
A. Determine the PEI of each tested pump based on the
configuration in which it sold as follows:
A.1. For bare pumps and pumps sold with motors, determine the
PEICL using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.032
Where:
PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant load (hp),
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load
determined in accordance with either section III (for bare pumps,
pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, and pumps sold with
drivers other than electric motors), section IV (for pumps sold with
motors rated using the testing-based approach), or section V (for
pumps sold with motors rated using the calculation-based approach)
of this appendix (hp), and PERSTD = the PERCL
for a pump of the same equipment class that is minimally compliant
with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same flow and
specific speed characteristics as the tested pump, as determined in
accordance with section II.B of this appendix (hp).
A.2 For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls or non-
continuous controls, determine the PEIVL using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.033
Where:
PEIVL= the pump energy index for a variable load,
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load
determined in accordance with section VI (for pumps sold with motors
and continuous or non-continuous controls rated using the testing-
based approach) or section VII of this appendix (for pumps sold with
motors and continuous controls rated using the calculation-based
approach) (hp), and
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy
conservation standards with the same flow and specific speed
characteristics as the tested pump, as determined in accordance with
section II.B of this appendix (hp).
B. Determine the pump energy rating for the minimally compliant
reference pump (PERSTD), according to the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.034
Where:
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump that is
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with
the same flow and specific speed characteristics as the tested pump
(hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
Pi\in\ = calculated driver power input at rating point i
for the minimally compliant pump calculated in accordance with
section II.B.1of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
B.1. Determine the driver power input at each rating point as
the pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating
point as follows:
Pi\in\ = Pi + Li
Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating
point i calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.1 of this
appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i
calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.2 of this appendix
(hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
B.1.1. Determine the pump power input to the minimally compliant
pump at each rating point i based on a ratio of the pump power
output for the tested pump and the calculated efficiency of a
minimally compliant pump with the same flow rate and specific speed
characteristics as the tested pump:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.036
Where:
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating
point i (hp),
[alpha]i = 0.947 for 75 percent of the BEP flow rate, 1.0
for 100 percent of the BEP flow rate, and 0.985 for 110 percent of
the BEP flow rate;
[[Page 17645]]
PHydro,i = the pump power output at rating point i of the
tested pump determined in accordance with section II.B.1.1.2 of this
appendix (hp);
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency
calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.1.1 of this appendix
(%); and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the
tested pump.
B.1.1.1 Calculate the minimally compliant pump efficiency based on
the following equation:
[eta]pump,STD = -0.85 x
In(Q100%)2 - 0.38 x In(Ns) x
In(Q100%) - 11.48 x In(Ns)2 + 13.46
x In(Q100%) + 179.80 x In(Ns) - (C - 555.6)
Where:
[eta]pump,STD = minimally compliant pump efficiency (%),
Q100% = the BEP flow rate of the tested pump (gpm),
Ns = specific speed of the tested pump determined in accordance with
section II.B.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, and
C = the appropriate C-value for the type and rated speed of rotation
of the tested pump, as listed at Sec. 431.466.
B.1.1.1.1 Determine the specific speed of the rated pump using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.037
Where:
Ns = specific speed,
n = the nominal speed of rotation (rpm),
Q100% = the measured BEP flow rate of the
tested pump (gpm), and
H100% = total head at 100 percent of the BEP
flow rate of the tested pump (ft).
B.1.1.2 Determine the pump power output at each rating point, i, of
the tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.038
Where:
PHydro,i = the measured pump power output at rating point
i of the tested pump (hp),
Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating point i of the
tested pump (gpm),
Hi = pump total head at each rating point i of the tested
pump (ft), and
SG = the specific gravity of water at specified test conditions.
B.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:
Li = Lfull,default x yi
Where:
Li = default part load motor losses at rating point i
(hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load
determined in accordance with section II.B.1.2.1 of this appendix
(hp),
yi = part loss factor at rating point i determined in
accordance with section II.B.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
B.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.039
Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower as determined in accordance with
section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the default nominal full load motor
efficiency as determined in accordance with section II.B.1.2.1.2 of
this appendix (%).
B.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor horsepower as follows:
For bare pumps, the motor horsepower is determined as the
horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either
equivalent to or the next highest horsepower greater than the pump
power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the
tested pump.
For pumps sold with motors, pumps sold with motors and
continuous controls, or pumps sold with motors and non-continuous
controls, the motor horsepower is that of the motor with which the pump
is being sold.
B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default nominal full load motor efficiency
as follows:
For pumps other than VTS pumps, the default nominal full
load motor efficiency is the minimum of the nominal motor full load
efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA Design B motors at 10
CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles
relevant to the speed at which the pump is being rated and the motor
horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
For VTS pumps, the default nominal full load motor
efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this
appendix with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the
pump is being tested and the motor horsepower determined in section
II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
B.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i
(yi) is determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.040
yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating
point i (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower as determined in accordance with section
II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
III. Test Procedure for Bare Pumps
A. Scope. This section III applies only to:
(1) Bare pumps;
(2) Pumps sold with drivers other than electric motors; and
(3) Pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors.
B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this
[[Page 17646]]
section III. When testing pumps using a calibrated motor:
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated
values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent
throughout the test.
C. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the best efficiency point
(BEP) of the pump as follows:
C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40,
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463), where the pump efficiency is the ratio
of the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:
PERCL = [Sigma5] wi(pini)
Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = calculated driver power input at rating point i as determined in
accordance with section III.D.1 of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the
pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point
as follows:
= Pi + Li
Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point
i, as determined in section III.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i as
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2 of this appendix (hp),
and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120
percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to
determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the
nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump
power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75,
100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:
Li = Lfull,default x yi
Where:
Li = default motor losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load as
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix
(hp),
yi = loss factor at rating point i as determined in
accordance with section III.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.041
Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp);
MotorHP = the motor horsepower, determined as the horsepower rating
listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either equivalent to or the
next highest horsepower greater than the pump power input to the bare
pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix
(%).
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as
follows:
For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load
motor efficiency is the minimum of the standard motor full load
efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA design B motors at 10
CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles
relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being
rated and the appropriate motor horsepower as specified in section
III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is
the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with
the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which
the pump is being tested and the appropriate motor horsepower as
specified in section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (yi) is
determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.042
Where:
yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point
i as determined in accordance with section III.D.1.1 of this appendix
(hp),
[[Page 17647]]
MotorHP = the motor horsepower, determined as that equivalent to, or
the next highest horsepower-level greater than, the pump power input to
the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump
(hp)determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix
(hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
IV. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold with Motors
A. Scope. This section IV applies only to pumps sold with electric
motors, other than single-phase induction motors.
B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this section IV. The
following conditions also apply:
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated
values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent
throughout the test.
C. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as
follows:
C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40,
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of
maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined
in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463), where the overall efficiency is the
ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.043
Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = measured driver power input to the motor at rating point i for
the tested pump as determined in accordance with section IV.D.1 of this
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at 75, 100, and 110 percent of
the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine
a linear relationship between the driver power input at the nominal
speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the
driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points
of 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate.
V. Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors
A. Scope. This section V can only be used in lieu of the test
method in section IV of this appendix to calculate the index for:
(1) Pumps sold with motors subject to DOE's energy conservation
standards for electric motors at Sec. 431.25 (except for single-phase
induction motors); and
(2) VTS pumps sold with submersible motors. Pumps sold with any
other motors cannot use this section and must apply the test method in
section IV of this appendix.
B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions
presented in section II.B of this appendix apply to this section V.
When testing using a calibrated motor:
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated
values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent
throughout the test.
C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. Determine the best efficiency
point (BEP) of the pump as follows:
C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40,
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of
the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.044
Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = calculated driver power input to the motor at rating point i for
the tested pump as determined in accordance with section V.D.1 of this
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the
pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point
as follows:
Piin = Pi + Li
Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point
i, as determined in section V.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i as
determined in accordance with section V.D.1.2 of this appendix (hp),
and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP
flow rate.
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120
percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to
determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the
nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump
power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75,
100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:
Li = Lfull,default x yi
Where:
Li = motor losses at each load point i (hp),
Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as determine in
accordance with section V.D.1.2.1 of this appendix (hp),
[[Page 17648]]
yi = part load loss factor at rating point i as determined
in accordance with section V.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.045
Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is
being rated (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as
determined in accordance with section V.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (%).
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as
follows:
For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load
motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model
is being rated, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure
for electric motors at Sec. 431.16.
For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is
the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with
the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which
the pump is being tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the
pump is being rated.
D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (yi) is
determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.046
Where:
yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = the pump power input to the bare pump as determined
in accordance with section V.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is
being rated (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
VI. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors and Controls
A. Scope. This section VI applies only to pumps sold with electric
motors, other than single-phase induction motors, and continuous or
non-continuous controls. For the purposes of this section VI, all
references to ``driver input power'' in HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463) shall refer to the input power to the
continuous or non-continuous controls.
B. Measurement Equipment. The requirements regarding measurement
equipment presented in section I.B of this appendix apply to this
section VI, and in addition electrical measurement equipment shall be:
(1) Capable of measuring current, voltage, and real power up to the
40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency; and
(2) Have an accuracy of 0.2 percent at the full scale
at the fundamental supply source frequency.
C. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this section VI and,
in addition:
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated
values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent
throughout the test.
D. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as
follows:
D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40,
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of
maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined
in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463), where overall efficiency is the ratio of
the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
E. Calculating the Variable Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the
PERVL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.047
Where:
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load (hp);
[omega]i = 0.25;
Piinthe measured driver power input to the motor and controls at rating
point i for the tested pump as determined in accordance with section
VI.E.1 of this appendix; and
i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
E.1. Determine the driver power input at 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares
regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured
driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the
measured flow rate, using the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100,
110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear
relationship to define the driver power input at the nominal speed of
rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the measured BEP flow
rate of the tested pump.
E.2 Determine the driver power input at 25, 50, and 75 percent of
the BEP flow rate by measuring the driver power input at the load
points defined by:
(1) Those flow rates; and
(2) The associated head points calculated according to the
following reference system curve equation:
[[Page 17649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.048
Where:
Hi = pump total head at rating point i (ft),
HBEP = pump total head at 100 percent of the BEP flow rate
and nominal speed of rotation (ft),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the BEP flow
rate (gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested
pump.
E.2.1. For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the
specific head and flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the
calculated values and the measured driver power input must be corrected
to the exact intended head and flow conditions using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15A.049
Where:
PR,i = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point i
(hp),
HR,i = the intended total system head at flow point i based
on the reference system curve (ft),
HT,j = the tested total system head at flow point j (ft),
QR,i = the intended total system head at flow point i based
on the reference system curve (ft),
QT,i = the tested total system head at flow point i (ft),
PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point j
(hp),
j = the tested flow point of the pump being rated (stated in terms of
percent of BEP flow), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate.
E.2.2. For pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the
head associated with each of the specified flow points shall be no
lower than 10 percent below that defined by the reference system curve
equation in section VI.E.2 of this appendix. Only the measured flow
points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values.
Correct for flow and head as described in section VI.E.2.1, except do
not correct measured head values that are higher than the reference
system curve at the same flow rate; only flow rate and head values
lower than the reference system curve at the same flow rate should be
corrected. Instead, use the measured head points directly to calculate
PEIVL.
VII. Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors and Controls
A. Scope. This section VII can only be used in lieu of the test
method in section VI of this appendix to calculate the index for:
(1) Pumps sold with motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation
standards for electric motors at Sec. 431.25 (except for single-phase
induction motors) and continuous controls; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
This approach does not apply to:
(i) Pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25, except for
VTS pumps; or
(ii) Pumps that are sold with electric motors and non-continuous
controls; these pumps must apply the test method in section VI of this
appendix.
B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions
presented in section II.B of this appendix apply to this section VII.
When testing using a calibrated motor:
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated
values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent
throughout the test.
C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as
follows:
C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40,
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of
the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D. Calculating the Variable Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the
PERVL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.050
Where:
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load (hp);
[omega]i = 0.25;
Pi\in\the calculated driver power input to the motor and
controls at rating point i for the tested pump as determined in
accordance with section VII.D.1 of this appendix; and
i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the
pump power input plus the motor load losses at each rating point as
follows:
Pi\in\= Pi + Li
Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump input power to the bare pump at each rating point
i as determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.1 of this appendix
(hp),
Li = the part load motor and control losses at each rating
point i as determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.2 of this
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 100 percent of the measured
BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares
regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured pump
input power at the nominal speed of rotation and the measured flow rate
at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of
the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the
pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of
100 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.1.1 Determine the pump input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of
the BEP flow rate based on the measured pump input power at 100 percent
of the BEP flow rate and using with the following equation:
[[Page 17650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.051
Where:
Pi = pump input power at rating point i (hp);
P100% = pump input power at 100 percent of the
BEP flow rate (hp);
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm);
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the BEP flow
rate (gpm); and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested
pump.
D.1.2 Calculate the motor and control part load losses at each
rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part
load loss factor calculated at each rating point (zi), as
follows:
Li = full,default xzi
Where:
Li = motor and control losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as determined in
accordance with section VII.D.1.2.1 of this appendix (hp),
zi = part load loss factor at rating point i as determined
in accordance with section VII.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate
motor efficiency value and horsepower:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.052
Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is
being rated (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as
determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix
(%).
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as
follows:
For all pumps, except VTS pumps, sold with motors and
continuous controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is that of
the motor with which the given pump model is being rated, as determined
in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at Sec.
431.16.
For VTS pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous
controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal
efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles
relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being
tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being
rated.
D.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i
(zi) is determined at each load point follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.053
Where:
zi = the motor and control part load loss factor,
a,b,c = coefficients listed in Table 3 of this appendix based on the
horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being rated,
Pi = the pump power input to the bare pump as determined in
accordance with section VII.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being
rated (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
Table 2--Default Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor
Horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default submersible motor full load nominal efficiency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pole configurations
Motor horsepower -----------------------
2 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 55 68
1.5............................................. 66 70
2............................................... 68 70
3............................................... 70 75.5
5............................................... 74 75.5
7.5............................................. 68 74
10.............................................. 70 74
15.............................................. 72 75.5
20.............................................. 72 77
25.............................................. 74 78.5
30.............................................. 78.5 82.5
40.............................................. 80 84
50.............................................. 81.5 85.5
60.............................................. 82.5 86.5
75.............................................. 82.5 87.5
100............................................. 81.5 85.5
125............................................. 84 85.5
150............................................. 84 86.5
200............................................. 85.5 87.5
250............................................. 86.5 87.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17651]]
Table 3--Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Section VII.D.1.2.2 of This Appendix
A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficients for Motor and Control Part Load
Loss Factor (zi)
Motor horsepower (hp) -----------------------------------------------
a B c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5............................................................. -0.4658 1.4965 0.5303
>5 and <=20..................................................... -1.3198 2.9551 0.1052
>20 and <=50.................................................... -1.5122 3.0777 0.1847
>50............................................................. -0.8914 2.8846 0.2625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-06945 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P