Final Version-May, 2005
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-34
May, 2005
Test and Quality Assurance
Plan
ECR Technologies, Inc.
Earthlinked Ground-Source Heat Pump
Water Heating System
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-34
May, 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( EJY) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
ECR Technologies, Inc.
Earthlinked Ground-Source Heat Pump
Water Heating System
Prepared By:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
PO Box 13825
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
Telephone: 919/806-3456
Reviewed By:
ECR Technologies, Inc.
Southern Research Institute Quality Assurance
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
Kl indicates comments are integrated into Test Plan
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification fETr ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
ECR Technologies, Inc.
Earthlinked Ground-Sourced Heat Pump
Water Heating System
This Test and Quality Assurance Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center Project Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Center Director, the U.S. EPA
APPCD Project Officer, and the U.S. EPA APPCD Quality Assurance Manager.
Tim Hansen Date
Center Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
David Kirchgessner
APPCD Project Officer
U.S. EPA
Date
Bob Richards Date
Project Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Robert Wright Date
APPCD Quality Assurance Manager
U.S. EPA
Richard Adamson Date
Quality Assurance Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Test Plan Final: 04 May 2005
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2. EARTHLINKED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 1-2
1.3. HOST FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1-2
1.4. VERIFICATION PARAMETERS 1-3
1.5. PROJECT ORGANIZATION 1-3
1.6. SCHEDULE 1-5
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH 2-1
2.1. TEST DESIGN 2-1
2.2. INSTRUMENTATION 2-1
2.2.1. EarthLinked and City Water Flow Meter 2-3
2.2.2. EarthLinked Inlet and Outlet Temperature 2-3
2.2.3. Hot Water System Supply and Circulating Water Temperatures 2-3
2.2.4. Tank #1 Temperature and System Pressure 2-3
2.2.5. Test Room Dry Bulb Temperature 2-4
2.2.6. Power Consumption 2-4
2.3. TEST PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS 2-4
2.3.1. Water Heating Capacity and CoP Test Procedures 2-4
2.3.2. Water Heating Capacity Data Analysis 2-5
2.3.3. Standby Heat Loss Test Procedure 2-6
2.3.4. Standby Heat Loss Analysis 2-6
2.3.5. Long Term Monitoring Procedures and Analysis 2-7
3.0 DATA QUALITY 3-1
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE 3-1
3.2. INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC CHECKS 3-1
3.3. INSTRUMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE 3-3
3.4. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES 3-3
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 4-1
4.1. DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION 4-1
4.1.1. Corrective Action and Assessment Reports 4-1
4.2. DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION 4-2
4.3. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION 4-2
4.4. ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 4-3
4.4.1. Project Reviews 4-3
4.4.2. Audit of Data Quality 4-3
4.5. VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT 4-4
4.6. TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS 4-5
4.7. HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 4-5
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1 Project Organization 1-3
Figure 2-1 Plumbing Schematic and Sensor Locations 2-1
Figure 2-2 Electrical Schematic and Power Meter Locations 2-2
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3-1 Instrument and Accuracy Specifications 3-1
Table 3-2 QA/QC Checks 3-2
APPENDICES
Page
Appendix Al: Power Meter and RTD QA / QC Checks Al
Appendix A2: Flow Meter Checks and Water Heating Performance Crosscheck A2
Appendix A3: SUT and Site Information A4
Appendix B: Electric Power System Emission Reduction Estimates Bl
Appendix C: Electric Power Simple Cost Savings Estimates Cl
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
DISTRIBUTION LIST
U.S. EPA
David Kirchgessner
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute
Stephen Piccot
Tim Hansen
Robert G. Richards
Richard Adamson
ECR Technologies, Inc.
Hal Roberts
Russ Bath
Johnson Research, LLC
Russ Johnson
in
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Btu/h British thermal units per hour
Btu/y British thermal units per year
CoP coefficient of performance
DQI data quality indicator
DQO data quality objective
DUT device under test
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
g/h grams per hour
gal gallon
gph gallons per hour
kW kilowatt
psia pounds per square inch, absolute
psig pounds per square inch, gauge
QA / QC quality assurance / quality control
SUT system under test
tpy tons per year
IV
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development operates the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies. The program's goal is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance
and use of these technologies. Primary ETV activities are independent performance verification and
information dissemination. Congress funds ETV in response to the belief that many viable environmental
technologies exist that are not being used for the lack of credible third-party performance data. With
performance data developed under this program, technology buyers, financiers, and permitters will be
better equipped to make informed decisions regarding new technology purchases and use.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center) is one of several ETV organizations. EPA's ETV
partner, Southern Research Institute (Southern), manages the GHG Center. The GHG Center conducts
independent verification of promising GHG mitigation and monitoring technologies. It develops
verification Test and Quality Assurance Plans (test plans), conducts field tests, collects and interprets field
and other data, obtains independent peer-review input, reports findings, and publicizes verifications
through numerous outreach efforts. The GHG Center conducts verifications according to the externally
reviewed test plans and recognized quality assurance / quality control (QA / QC) protocols.
Volunteer stakeholder groups guide the GHG Center's ETV activities. These stakeholders advise on
appropriate technologies for testing, help disseminate results, and review test plans and reports. National
and international environmental policy, technology, and regulatory experts participate in the GHG
Center's Executive Stakeholder Group. The group includes industry trade organizations, environmental
technology finance groups, governmental organizations, and other interested parties. Industry-specific
stakeholders provide testing strategy guidance within their expertise and peer-review key documents
prepared by the GHG Center.
GHG Center stakeholders are particularly interested in building heating and cooling technologies with the
potential to improve efficiency and reduce concomitant GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. The
Energy Information Administration reports that in 1999 approximately 3.1 million commercial facilities
in the U.S. consumed about 4.8 x 1012 British thermal units per year (Btu/y). The portion of this energy
consumption that is attributable to water heating varies significantly by facility type, but it averages about
11%, or 5.3x10" Btu/y.
ECR Technologies, Inc. (ECR) has addressed this issue with their EarthLinked water heating system. The
system incorporates a ground-sourced heat pump into a building's water heating system. ECR states that
the EarthLinked system may provide up to 70 % reduction in power consumption when compared to
electric water heating systems of equivalent capacity. This reduced energy consumption would also
reduce emissions from the electric power system's generators or natural gas combustion in direct-fired
systems. Broad utilization of such technologies could have a significant beneficial impact on GHG and
pollutant emissions.
This verification is intended to quantify the EarthLinked system's performance as installed in a
commercial setting with credible measurement procedures and analysis techniques. It will assess
performance parameters of interest to potential water heater purchasers, users, regulatory bodies, the
1-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
public, and other stakeholders. This test plan discusses the EarthLinked heat pump as the device under
test (DUT). Its integration into the "real world" host facility is known as the system under test (SUT).
This test plan explicitly describes test equipment and procedures or by reference to existing American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. The following sections discuss the verification approach and specify
QA / QC procedures approved by independent reviewers.
1.2. EARTHLINKED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The EarthLinked system consists of two or more 50- or 100-foot copper refrigerant loops installed in the
ground, a compressor, a heat exchanger, refrigerant liquid flow controls, and an active charge control
refrigerant reservoir. The EarthLinked system is unique because it circulates non-ozone depleting
refrigerant (R-407c, R-134a) through the copper earth loops. Other ground-source heat pumps circulate
either water or an antifreeze solution through plastic earth loops and then to a refrigerant heat exchanger.
The EarthLinked system's direct heat transfer from the refrigerant to the earth improves efficiency.
The liquid refrigerant absorbs heat from the ground, which is typically at a constant temperature year
round (45-80 °F, depending on location), and vaporizes. A compressor raises the refrigerant pressure and
routes it to a heat exchanger. There, the vapor condenses and yields the latent heat of vaporization to
domestic water circulating through a heat exchanger. Refrigerant is then returned to the earth loops via a
patented refrigerant flow control device.
As installed at the test facility, this system preheats water in a commercial 120-gallon storage tank. The
preheated water transfers to a second commercial water heater which brings it to the required 130 °F
temperature.
The EarthLinked system consumes power in the compressor and hot water circulation pump, and has no
direct emissions. ECR states that typical EarthLinked heating systems will initially be focused on small
commercial applications, such as restaurants and laundries.
1.3. HOST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The Lake Towers Retirement Community, located in Sun City Center, FL, will serve as the host facility.
Tests will occur at the Sun Terrace, a one-story building with two residential wings for assisted living.
Each wing has 15 rooms, each with a small vanity sink. Other domestic hot water (DHW) uses include
two shower rooms, two utility closets, four nurses' stations, and a kitchen.
The facility's DHW source consists of two 15 kilowatt (kW), 480 V electric water heaters. Valves and
piping allow each tank to operate individually or in series. Each tank has sufficient capacity to serve the
facility by itself. Tank #1 can be heated either by the EarthLinked system or its electric elements. Cold
city water enters Tank #1 for the initial heating cycle. The EarthLinked system operates most efficiently
when heating cold water, so this configuration is optimal.
As the facility consumes DHW, the heated water transfers to Tank #2. A recirculation pump cycles hot
water from Tank #2 through the building's DHW piping and back to Tank #2. This tank maintains the
water temperature with its electric elements and the circulation ensures the immediate availability of hot
water at each tap.
1-2
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
1.4. VERIFICATION PARAMETERS
A series of short-term tests and long-term monitoring will determine the performance of the EarthLinked
system as compared to the baseline electric resistance-type hot water heater. Industry-accepted ANSI /
ASHRAE heat pump water heater test methods [1] will form the basis for the short-term tests. Short-term
test verification parameters are:
• water heating capacity at low and elevated temperatures, British thermal units per hour
(Btu/h)
• DUT coefficient of performance (CoP) at low and elevated temperatures, dimensionless
• standby heat loss rate, Btu/h, and standby energy consumption, kW, while operating
with EarthLinked system at 120 ± 5 °F
Long-term monitoring will determine the SUT performance in normal daily use. Long-term verification
parameters are:
• difference between SUT electrical power consumption with and without the EarthLinked
system, kW
• estimated EarthLinked CO, CO2, and NOX emission changes as compared to the baseline
electric water heater, grams per hour (g/h) or tons per year (tpy)
• estimated simple cost savings based on the price of electricity saved
1.5. PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Figure 1-1 presents the project organization chart.
U.S. EPA
APPCD Project Officer
David Kirchgessner
U.S. EPA
APPCD Quality Assurance Manager
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute
Quality Assurance Manager
Richard Adamson
Southern Research Institute
Environment and Energy
Department Director
Steve Piccot
ETV GHG Center Director
Tim Hansen
GHG Center
Project Manager and
Field Team Leader
Bob Richards
ECR Technologies
Joe Parsons
Advanced Energy
Stakeholder
Group
Figure 1-1. Project Organization
The GHG Center has overall verification planning and implementation responsibility. The GHG Center
will coordinate all participants' activities; develop, monitor, and manage schedules; and ensure the
1-3
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
acquisition and reporting of data consistent with the strategies in this test plan. The GHG Center
Director, Mr. Tim Hansen, will:
• review the test plan and report for consistency with ETV operating principles
• allocate appropriate resources for the verification
• oversee GHG Center staff activities
Mr. Joe Parsons of ECR is the technology developer's primary point of contact. He or his designee will:
• review the test plan and report with respect to accuracy in the technology description and
its application
• coordinate ECR's installation of the EarthLinked system, plumbing, fittings, or other
permanent equipment that will remain at the site
• coordinate weekly operations during the long-term monitoring period
The GHG Center project manager, Mr. Bob Richards, will:
• coordinate the test plan, report, and Verification Statement writing and review process
• oversee the field team leader's activities
• ensure collection, analysis, and reporting of high-quality data and achievement of all
data quality objectives (DQO)s
• maintain communications with all test participants
• perform budgetary and scheduling review
The project manager will have authority to suspend testing for health and safety reasons or if the QA/QC
goals presented in Section 3.0 are not being met.
Mr. Richards will also serve as the field team leader and will supervise all field operations. He will assess
data quality and will have the authority to repeat tests as deemed necessary to ensure achievement of data
quality goals. He will:
• coordinate the installation of required plumbing fittings with ECR
• supervise and coordinate subcontractor activities
• install and remove temporary power- and water-metering equipment
• operate the water heater controls during the short-term tests
• collect interim test data for use in consultations with the project manager
• download data during the long term monitoring period
• perform other QA / QC procedures as described in Section 3.0
The field team leader will communicate test results to the project manager for review during the course of
testing. The field team leader and project manager will collaborate on all major project decisions
including the need for further test runs or corrective actions.
The GHG Center QA manager, Mr. Richard Adamson, or his designee will review this test plan. He will
independently reconcile the measurement results with the data quality objectives as part of a planned
audit of data quality. He will also review the verification test results, report, and conduct the audit of data
quality described in Section 4.0. The QA manager will report all internal audit and corrective action
results directly to the GHG Center Director who will provide copies to the project manager for inclusion
in the report.
EPA's Office of Research and Development will provide oversight and QA support for this verification.
The Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division project officer, Dr. David Kirchgessner, and QA
manager, Mr. Robert Wright, will review and approve the test plan and report to ensure that they meet
1-4
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
EPA QA goals and represent sound scientific principles. Dr. Kirchgessner will be responsible for
obtaining final test plan and report approvals.
1.6. SCHEDULE
The tentative schedule of activities for the ECR EarthLinked ground source heat pump water heater
verification test is:
Verification Test Plan Milestones Dates
GHG Center internal draft development 20 Dec. 2004 -15 Apr. 2005
ECR review 18 Apr. 2005 - 27 Apr. 2005
Industry peer review and plan revision 29 Apr. 2005 - 06 May. 2005
EPA review 09 May 2005 - 23 May 2005
Final test plan posted 23 May 2005
Verification Testing and Analysis Milestones
Short term testing 23 May 2005 - 27 May 2005
Long term testing 28 May 2005 - 24 Jun. 2005
Verification Report Milestones
GHG Center internal draft development 6 Jul. 2005 - 29 Jul. 2005
ECR review 01 Aug. 2005 -15 Aug. 2005
Industry peer review and report revision 22 Aug. 2005 - 06 Sep. 2005
EPA review 09 Sep. 2005 - 23 Sep. 2005
Final report posted 30 Sep. 2005
1-5
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
1-6
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH
This section describes the GHG Center's verification approach, the test design, data collection, and
analytical methods. The testing procedures and nomenclature generally conform to those provided in
ANSI / ASHRAE Standard 118.1-2003 [1] for testing "Type V" heat pump water heaters. The following
subsections discuss test methods in detail and note any exceptions to the ANSI / ASHRAE specifications.
2.1. TEST DESIGN
The GHG Center will first conduct a series of short-term tests to determine the DUT performance. ECR
will install the EarthLinked system on Tank #1, with provisions to operate either the tank's electric
heating elements or the EarthLinked system. GHG Center test personnel will isolate Tank #1 from the
facility's DHW system during the short-term tests; the building will operate on Tank #2 during this
period.
The short-term tests will determine:
• DUT water heating capacity while raising the lowest achievable city water temperature
(likely to be approximately 72 °F in Florida in June) 20 °F or to whatever temperature
can be achieved over a 60-minute period, whichever occurs first, Btu/h
• DUT water heating capacity while raising the water temperature from 110 to 130 °F or
over a 60-minute period (whichever occurs first), Btu/h
• CoP at the lower and elevated temperatures, dimensionless
• DUT standby heat loss rate, Btu/h and standby energy consumption, kW, at 120 °F
At the conclusion of the short-term series, test personnel will configure the SUT for normal operations
such that Tank #1 initially heats incoming city water while Tank #2 maintains the circulating water
temperature. Test personnel will install a second power meter on Tank #2 to monitor its power
consumption.
Long-term monitoring will begin with the Tank #1 heating elements operating for one week while the
EarthLinked system is disabled. The second week, ECR operators will set the controls so that the
EarthLinked system provides Tank #1 water heating service. Test personnel will download the data by
telephone, and this pattern will be repeated for at least four weeks.
Long-term monitoring results will allow assessment of:
• difference between SUT electrical power consumption with and without the EarthLinked
system, kW
• estimated EarthLinked CO, CO2, and NOX emission changes as compared to the baseline
electric water heater, g/h or tpy
• estimated simple cost savings based on the price of electricity saved
2.2. INSTRUMENTATION
Figure 2-1 shows the water piping schematic diagram and the proposed test instrument locations. Figure
2-2 depicts the electrical wiring schematic and the power meter locations.
2-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Flow meter moved to monitor hot
water use during long-term monitoring
Pressure gauge installed
temporarily prior to tests to
acquire tank pressure
Temperature monitoring probe
inserted into tank anode port
ncorporates 6 evenly-spaced
temperature sensors
EarthLinked heat pump
temperature sensor com-
pression fittings installed
to face water flow
EarthLinked heat pump
flow meter location:
at least 20 diameters from
nearest upstream and 5
diameters from nearest
downstream disturbance
valve, elbow, etc.
Test room
dry bulb
temperature
sensor
Figure 2-1. Plumbing Schematic and Sensor Locations
Note:
Tank#1 disconnect
configured to switch
between EarthLinked
heat pump or tank
elements. They cannot
operate at the same time.
Figure 2-2. Electrical Schematic and Power Meter Locations
2-2
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
2.2.1. EarthLinked and City Water Flow Meter
Water flow determinations to and from the EarthLinked system, combined with its inlet and outlet
temperature difference, will allow an independent calculation of the heating effect (see Section 3.2). The
ANSI / ASHRAE accuracy specification for flow rates is ± 1.0 %.
This verification will employ an Omega Model FTB-909 flow meter installed as shown in Figure 2-1. An
Omega Model FSLC-64 transmitter will condition the flow meter's pulse output. An Agilent / HP Model
34970A will totalize and log the pulse output. Accuracy of this system will be ± 0.5 % of reading. The
nominal K factor for the flow meter is 322 pulses per gallon, but a pretest calibration will document
actual average K factor.
Note that test personnel will relocate the flow meter to the city water supply line at the beginning of the
long term monitoring period (see Figure 2-1). This will allow normalization of the varying hot water use
rates throughout the period (see Section 2.3.5).
2.2.2. EarthLinked Inlet and Outlet Temperature
The Type V (tank incorporated) verses Type IV (tankless) water heater QA / QC crosscheck discussed in
Section 3.2 requires EarthLinked inlet and outlet temperatures. The ANSI / ASHRAE accuracy
specification for the Type IV heat pump inlet and outlet temperature difference is ± 0.2 °F. This
verification will employ Class A 4-wire platinum resistance temperature detectors (RTD) whose specified
accuracy, including the Agilent / HP Model 34970A datalogger, is ± 0.6 °F. This means that the
combined accuracy for temperature difference will be ±0.8 °F, based on the specifications. While this
combined accuracy does not meet the method specifications for Type IV water heaters, it is sufficient for
the QA / QC check. The GHG Center will perform pretest calibrations and it is likely that an RTD pair
will be available whose combined accuracy is better than ± 0.8 °F. Also, analysts will account for and
report the achieved accuracy and its potential effects on the results.
Test personnel will install the direct immersion-type RTDs through compression fittings located as shown
in Figure 2-1.
2.2.3. Hot Water System Supply and Circulating Water Temperatures
These sensors will contribute to system diagnostics and data normalization during the long term
monitoring period. They will consist of externally-mounted Class A 2-wire RTDs wrapped with
insulation. Accuracy for the expected operating range is ± 1.4 °F.
2.2.4. Tank #1 Temperature and System Pressure
The datalogger will record Tank # 1 temperatures from a probe inserted through one of the anode fittings
located in the tank's top. Test personnel will temporarily remove the anode to allow probe access. The
temperature probe will incorporate 6 Class A 4-wire RTDs spaced throughout its length such that the tank
is divided into 6 equal portions from top to bottom.
2-3
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
The ANSI / ASHRAE accuracy specification for water temperature is ± 2 °F. RTD specified accuracy
will be ± 0.6 °F.
Determination of the water specific volume (see Sections 2.3.4, Eqn. 2-4 and 3.2, Eqn. 3-1) requires the
water pressure in pounds per square inch, absolute (psia). Test personnel will acquire the system gage
pressure, psig, by temporarily installing a Bourdon-type pressure gauge in the tank's anode fitting prior to
testing. They will obtain local ambient pressure from a climbing altimeter or the barometric pressure as
corrected for altitude. The ANSI / ASHRAE method has no specification for this measurement, but the
bourdon gauge will be accurate to ± 3 % or better.
2.2.5. Test Room Dry Bulb Temperature
The datalogger will record the test room dry bulb temperature from a single Class A 4-wire RTD located
at head height. The ANSI / ASHRAE accuracy specification for air temperature is ± 1 °F. RTD specified
accuracy will be ± 0.6 °F.
2.2.6. Power Consumption
The ANSI / ASHRAE accuracy specification for the power sensor (kW) is ± 1.0 %.
Power Measurements ION 7500 / 7600 power meters will record real power consumption at Tank #1 and
Tank #2 Power meter accuracy is ± 0.15 %. Test personnel will install 0.3 % metering accuracy class
current transformers (CTs) on each phase conductor. The combined kW accuracy will be ± 0.3 % of
reading.
2.3. TEST PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS
Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4 discuss the short-term test procedures and analyses while long term
monitoring appears in Section 2.3.5. Note that nomenclature and equation symbols generally conform to
those cited in ANSI / ASHRAE Standard 118.1 [1].
2.3.1. Water Heating Capacity and CoP Test Procedures
Test personnel will first perform the ANSI / ASHRAE water heating capacity and CoP tests for Type V
heat pump water heaters. Tests will incorporate at least 3 valid test runs at low and elevated temperatures,
or 6 total.
1. Adjust supply and bypass valves for building DHW supply from Tank #2 and to isolate Tank # 1.
2. Disconnect Tank #1 power, relieve the tank pressure, remove the protective anode on top of the tank,
and install the pressure gauge.
3. Restore the system pressure and record the pressure gauge reading as the system pressure.
4. Relieve the tank pressure, remove the gauge, and install the Tank #1 temperature probe.
5. Drain the tank completely, and refill with the coldest possible city water.
6. Enable and verify data logging. The ION power meters will acquire kW data at 1-second intervals;
compute and log 1-minute averages. The Agilent datalogger will acquire all temperatures at 5-second
intervals; a laptop computer will calculate and log 1-minute averages.
2-4
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
7. Disable Tank #1 heating elements, record the mean tank temperature, T^o (the average of the 6
internal tank temperatures), and enable the EarthLinked system. Note that all manual field records
(except for the system pressure recorded in Step #3) serve as diagnostic tools and start / stop signals only.
Analysts will calculate reported test results from the datalogger files after tests are completed.
8. Continue the test until Tmh has increased by 20 °F or until 60 minutes have elapsed. Record the final
mean tank temperature, T^f, and actual elapsed time (to the second) for the final T^f reading.
9. Perform the Type V vs. Type IV water heater cross check as outlined in Appendix A-2.
10. Repeat steps 5 through 8 until three valid test runs are completed.
11. Raise the mean Tank #1 temperature, either with the heat pump or heating elements, to 110 °F.
12. Enable and verify data logging.
13. Disable Tank #1 heating elements, record the initial mean tank temperature, T^o, and enable the
EarthLinked system.
14. Continue the test until Tmh has increased by 20 °F or until 60 minutes have elapsed. Record the final
mean tank temperature, T^f, and actual elapsed time (to the second) for the final T^f reading.
15. Admit cold water into the tank while discharging heated water until T^ is less than 110 °F. Raise the
mean tank temperature back to 110 °F.
16. Repeat steps 11 through 14 until three valid test runs are completed at the elevated temperature.
17. Acquire DUT and test facility data as noted in Appendix A-3.
18. Relocate flow meter for long term monitoring.
19. Configure valves and electric power controls for the first long term monitoring cycle. Note the date,
start time, and configuration on the form in Appendix A-2.
2.3.2. Water Heating Capacity Data Analysis
Water heating capacity (§ 10.3.2 of [1]) is:
( C ^
v * p \*(T -T }
V \ ^ % \ \-mhf lmM)
Qh = l V_, \ +& Eqn-2-1
\Jh I0h)
where:
Qh = Water heating capacity, Btu/h
V = Storage tank capacity, gal (116.3 for this test series)
Cp = Specific heat of water at the mean of Tmhf and Tmho (from [2]), Btu/lb.°F
Cfg = Volume conversion factor, 7.48055 gal/ft3
v = Specific volume of water at the mean system pressure (from [3]), ft3/lb
Tmhf = Final mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank sensors), °F
Tmho = Initial mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank sensors), °F
ta = Final time stamp, h
toh = Initial time stamp, h
Qhs = Mean storage tank heat loss rate as calculated in Section 2.2.4, Btu/h or as
estimated from manufacturer's data (341.2 Btu/h for this test series)
Electric power usage is:
C *(Z }
Qhe=ge Eqn. 2-2.
2-5
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
where:
Qhe = Electric power consumption as Btu/h
Cge = Power conversion factor, 3412 Btu/kWh
Zh = Electric energy consumption, kWh
Note that Zh will consist of the individual 1-minute average kW readings, summed over the test run, and
normalized to a 60-minute mean. For example, if each 1-minute average is 0.134 kW, and the test run is
48 minutes long, the summed values would be 6.432 kW over 48 minutes. This is equivalent to 8.04
kWh.
CoP is:
Cop =-±-*_ Eqn. 2-3.
Qhe
Analysts will calculate water heating capacity, electric power consumption, and CoP separately for each
test run. The report will cite the lower and elevated temperature results as the mean and sample standard
deviation for each set of three test runs at the lower and elevated temperatures, respectively.
2.3.3. Standby Heat Loss Test Procedure
Test personnel will conduct 3 standby heat loss test runs immediately following the last water heating
capacity test run. Note that the ANSI / ASHRAE method specifies that the test room dry-bulb
temperature must be regulated at 75 ± 1 °F. This will not be possible at the host facility, but testers will
acquire and report test room temperatures and the data analysis will allow for different temperatures.
1. Enable datalogging and adjust the EarthLinked system controls to bring the mean tank temperature to
120 °F.
2. Verify that the EarthLinked system cycles off at the selected temperature and that the datalogger is
operating properly.
3. Monitor the collected data for one complete cooling and heating cycle. The EarthLinked system must
cycle on as the tank cools and off as it achieves its setpoint in accordance with the manufacturer's control
algorithm. Continue monitoring for at least three full cooling and heating cycles.
2.3.4. Standby Heat Loss Analysis
The datalogger record will include the 1-minute mean tank temperatures (as the average of all six in-tank
temperature sensors), test room temperatures, and power consumption rates. The tank heat loss parameter
for each complete cooling / heating cycle is:
T —r
t I mhsf ahsf \ ^ T 7 ^
In — * V * -
T —T C *v
Lhs = mfeo ^ , fg Eqn. 2-4
\flis ' Ofe /
where:
Lhs = Heat loss parameter, Btu/h.°F
2-6
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Tmhsf = Final mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank sensors), °F
Tahsf = Final test room dry bulb temperature, °F
Tmhso = Initial mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank sensors), °F
Tahs0 = Initial test room dry bulb temperature, °F
V = Storage tank capacity, gal
Cp = Specific heat of water at the mean of Tmhf and Tmho (from [2]), Btu/lb.°F
Cfg = Volume conversion factor, 7.48055 gal/ft3
v = Specific volume of water at the mean of Tmhf and Tmho (from [3]), ft3/lb
tfts = Final time stamp for the individual cooling / heating cycle, h
tohs = Initial time stamp for the individual cooling / heating cycle, h
Analysts will calculate the mean heat loss parameter as the average of the 3 individual results from the
monitored cooling / heating cycles.
The tank's heat loss rate (used in Eqn. 2-1) is:
_ 3 VmM ~ TahO )+(T,nhf ~ T ahf ) ,
where:
= Heat loss rate, Btu/h
V/hs — llCdU 1USS IdUC, JJUU/11
Lhs,mean = Mean heat loss parameter, Btu/h.°F
Tmho = Initial mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank ^^^^
Taho = Initial test room dry bulb temperature, °F
Tmhf = Final mean tank temperature (as the average of all 6 in-tank sensors),
Tahf = Final test room dry bulb temperature, °F
sensors), °F
op
2.3.5. Long Term Monitoring Procedures and Analysis
During the long-term monitoring period, the two power meters will monitor electricity consumption for
both tanks. System operators will alternate between EarthLinked and resistive element heating at Tank #1
on a weekly schedule for at least 4 weeks.
Analysts will report Tank #1 power consumption separately as overall mean real power consumption
while operating from the EarthLinked system and from the heating elements. They will also report Tank
#2 power consumption as it maintains the circulating water temperature. This will allow an assessment of
the heating power consumed by the Tank #2 circulating flow.
The difference between SUT electrical power consumption with and without the EarthLinked system will
be:
^kW = ^ kW,EarthLinked ~ ^ kW .elements -bC[n. 2-O
where:
AZkw = Change in electrical power consumption, kW
Zkw,EanhLmked = Mean power consumption, both tanks, during EarthLinked operations, kW
Zkw.eiements = Mean power consumption, both tanks, during resistive element heating, kW
2-7
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Mean real power consumption (Zkw) for each tank will be the sum of the one-minute average kW divided
by the number of minutes during each monitoring cycle.
Analysts will also calculate power consumption for each tank, normalized to the hot water used and the
temperature rise during each long-term cycle. This will be:
n 7
V^^ kW
'T FRr.n * 0.01667* AT1
el Cj/y a -i—i /•* ^7
™fed = Eqn. 2-7
n
Where:
Qnormaiized = Normalized power consumption for Tank a, kW/gal.°F
n = Number of minutes in the monitoring period
Zkw = Sum of Tank #1 and Tank #2 mean electric power consumption
for each minute, kW
FRdty = Mean city water flow rate for each minute, gph
0.01667 = hours per minute
AT = Tank # 1 temperature rise for each minute, °F
Note that AT is the difference between the mean of the Tank #1 six in-tank temperature sensors and Tsuppiy
(see Figure 2-1).
Appendix B provides the procedure for estimating emission reductions. The procedure correlates the
estimated annual electricity savings in MWh with Florida and nationwide electric power system emission
rates in Ib/MWh. For this verification, analysts will assume that the EarthLinked system operates
continuously throughout the year with the electric power savings as measured during the long-term
monitoring period.
Appendix C provides the procedure for estimating simple cost savings based on the Florida and
nationwide prices for retail electricity at "commercial" rates. Similar to emissions reductions, analysts
will assume that the EarthLinked system operates continuously throughout the year with the electric
power savings as measured during the long-term monitoring period. The EarthLinked system does not
use auxiliary fuel, nor is it intended as a power source, so their potential costs or revenues need not be
considered for this verification.
2-8
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
3.0
DATA QUALITY
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE
The GHG Center selects test methods and instruments for all verifications to ensure a stated level of data
quality in the reported results. The data quality objectives (DQOs) are based on the GHG Center's
stakeholder guidelines, measurement accuracies achieved during previous verifications, test method, and
instrument specifications. The resulting DQOs for the short-term tests and long-term monitoring are:
• determine EarthLinked water heating capacity and CoP to within ± 5 %
• determine the power consumed by the baseline and EarthLinked systems (during long-
term monitoring) to within ± 0.4 %
Each test measurement contributes to the verification parameters according to the equations in Sections
2.3.2 through 2.3.4. Each measurement is linked to accuracy specifications, or data quality indicator
(DQI) goals which, if met, ensure achievement of the DQOs. The accuracy specifications quoted below,
compounded through the applicable equations according to standard root-mean-square techniques, are the
source of the DQOs. Reference [4] provides examples of compounded accuracy derivations.
The project manager will calculate and report the achieved DQO based on the actual instrument and
measurement accuracies, as documented by specific instrument calibrations, manufacturer certifications,
etc.
3.2. INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC CHECKS
Table 3-1 lists the instruments to be used in this verification test, their expected operating ranges, and
accuracies or DQI goals.
Table 3-1. Instrument and Accuracy Specifications
Measurement
Variable
EarthLinked
system water flow
EarthLinked
system water inlet,
outlet temperatures
Tank#l
temperatures
Test room
temperature
System pressure
Tank#lkW
Tank #2 kW
Expected
Operating Range
10 gpm
70 - 140 °F
60 - 90 °F
20 - 40 psig
0- 15 kW
Instrument
Mfg., Model,
Type
Omega FTB-
905 turbine
Omega or
Controlotron 4-
wire RTD
Ametek fluid-
filled Bourdon
gauge
Power
Measurements
ION 7500
Power
Measurements
ION 7600
Instrument
Range
3 - 29 gpm
0 - 250 °F
0 - 60 psig
0 - 125 kW
Measurement
Frequency
Every 5
seconds, record
1 -minute
averages
Beginning of
tests
Every second,
record 1-
minute
averages
Accuracy
Specifica-
tion"
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.6 °F
+ 3%
+ 0.15%
How Verified /
Determined
NIST-traceable
calibration within 2
years
NIST-traceable
calibration within 6
years; pretest
crosscheck
3-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Table 3-1. Instrument and Accuracy Specifications
Measurement
Variable
Current trans-
formers (for kW)
Tank #1 volume,
gal
Expected
Operating Range
0- ISA
120, nominal
Instrument
Mfg., Model,
Type
Flex-Core
Model 191-151
metering class
Instrument
Range
0- 150 A
Measurement
Frequency
Note: Tank volume measured during original
fabrication
Accuracy
Specifica-
tion"
+ 0.3 %
+ 3.3%
How Verified /
Determined
Manufacturer's
certificate
Gravimetrically as
part of statistical
process control
"Accuracy is % of reading unless stated as absolute units.
Table 3-2 summarizes QA / QC checks which the field team leader will perform before and during the
short-term tests. These checks are intended only as field diagnostics. This is because, if the instruments
function in the field as they did in the laboratory, it is reasonable to expect that calibration and accuracy
specifications have not changed.
Table 3-2. QA/QC Checks
System or
Parameter
EarthLinked system
flow rate
Tank #1 and Tank
#2 real power
consumption
Temperature sensors
Water heating
capacity
QA / QC Check
Zero check"
Full flow check"
Voltage and current field
reasonableness checks with
Fluke 335 clamp meter
Laboratory cross checks
between power meters
Ambient cross check
Cross check between Type
V (tank) and Type IV
(flow) test methods"
When
Performed
Immediately prior
to first test run
Prior to testing
Prior to
installation
After each short-
term test run
Expected or Allowable
Result
Ogpm
9-11 gpm
Voltage within + 2 %
Current within + 3 %
kW readings within + 1 % of
each other
All within + 1.5 °F of each
other
Result within + 6.4 % of each
other
Response
Troubleshoot and repair
sensors
Consult with EarthLinked
representative
Troubleshoot and repair
sensors
Troubleshoot and repeat
the test run
"Procedure provided in Appendix A-2
This verification is based on the ANSI / ASHRAE test method for Type V heat pump water heaters which
incorporate a storage tank. Testers will, however, collect sufficient data to quantify the water heating
performance for Type IV systems, or as if it did not have a storage tank. While the Type IV
determination's accuracy will not meet the ANSI / ASHRAE test specifications, the results will serve as a
cross check against the Type V determinations. Analysts will calculate the Type IV performance for each
minute during the tests as:
Eqn.3-1
where:
Qhm = Heat capacity for minute m, Btu/h
FRhn = EarthLinked water flow rate during minute m, gpm
Tohn = EarthLinked outlet temperature during minute m, °F
Tlhn = EarthLinked inlet temperature during minute m, °F
Cp = Specific heat of water at the mean of Tohn and Tlhn (from [2]), Btu/lb.°F
Cfg = Volume conversion factor, 7.48055 gal/ft3
3-2
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
v = Specific volume of water at the mean system pressure (from [3]), ft3/lb
The mean water heating capacity for each test run will be:
QH=~ Eqn.3-2
n
where:
Qh = Mean water heating capacity, Btu/h
n = number of minutes in the short-term test run under consideration
Analysts will consider the test run results calculated according to Section 2.3.2 to be valid if they are
within ± 6.5 % of the results calculated here.
3.3. INSTRUMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE
Test personnel will assemble and commission all equipment as anticipated to be used in the field prior to
departure. They will, for example, assemble the Tank #1 temperature probe and ensure that all
temperature sensors provide values within ± 1 °F prior to departure. Any faulty sub-components will be
repaired or replaced before starting the verification tests. Test personnel will maintain a small supply of
consumables and frequently needed spare parts at the test facility. The field team leader or project
manager will handle major sub-component failures on a case-by-case basis such as by renting
replacement equipment or buying replacement parts. In accordance with the GHG Center Quality
Management Plan, test personnel will subject all test equipment to the QA / QC checks discussed earlier
prior to demobilization.
3.4. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES
Test personnel will inspect all test equipment and evaluate its conformance to the specifications above
prior to acceptance. The field team leader will maintain copies of NIST-traceable calibration certificates,
records of QA / QC checks, and other information.
3-3
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
3-4
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
4.1. DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION
Test personnel will acquire the following electronic data and generate the following documentation
during the verification:
Electronic Data
The ION 7500 and 7600 power meters will poll their sensors once per second. They will then calculate
and record one-minute averages throughout all tests. The field team leader will download the one-minute
data directly to a laptop computer during the short-term tests. GHG Center personnel will download the
data by telephone during the long term monitoring period.
An Agilent / HP Model 34970A datalogger will record all temperature and flow meter data once every 5
seconds. The field team leader will download the data directly during short-term tests while GHG Center
will download the data by telephone during the long term monitoring period. Analysts will use Excel
spreadsheet routines to calculate one-minute averages from the 5-second snapshots.
The electronically-recorded one-minute averages (except for the manually-logged water system pressure
data) will be the source data for all calculated results.
Documentation
Printed or written documentation will include:
• Daily test log, including water system pressure data, starting and ending times for test
runs, notes, etc.
• Appendix A forms which show the results of QA / QC checks
• Copies of calibrations and manufacturers' certificates
• Corrective action reports, as needed
The GHG Center will archive all electronic data, paper files, analyses, and reports at their Research
Triangle Park, NC office in accordance with their quality management plan.
4.1.1. Corrective Action and Assessment Reports
A corrective action will occur if audits or QA / QC checks produce unsatisfactory results or upon major
deviations from this test plan. Immediate corrective action will enable quick response to improper
procedures, malfunctioning equipment, or suspicious data. The corrective action process involves the
field team leader, project manager, and QA Manager. The GHG Center QMP requires that test personnel
submit a written corrective action request to document each corrective action.
The field team leader will most frequently identify the need for corrective actions. In such cases, he or
she will immediately notify the project manager. The field team leader, project manager, QA Manager
and other project personnel, will collaborate to take and document the appropriate actions.
4-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Note that the project manager is responsible for project activities. He is authorized to halt work upon
determining that a serious problem exists. The field team leader is responsible for implementing
corrective actions identified by the project manager and is authorized to implement any procedures to
prevent a problem's recurrence.
4.2. DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION
The project manager will initiate the data review, validation, and analysis process. At this stage, analysts
will classify all collected data as valid, suspect, or invalid. The GHG Center will employ the QA/QC
criteria specified in Section 3.0 and the associated tables. Source materials for data classification include
factory and on-site calibrations, maximum calibration and other errors, etc.
In general, valid data results from measurements which:
• meet the specified QA/QC checks,
• were collected when an instrument was verified as being properly calibrated,
• are consistent with reasonable expectations (e.g., manufacturers' specifications,
professional judgment).
The report will incorporate all valid data. Analysts may or may not consider suspect data, or it may
receive special treatment as will be specifically indicated. If the DQO cannot be met, the project manager
will decide to continue the test, collect additional data, or terminate the test and report the data obtained.
Data review and validation will primarily occur at the following stages:
• on site ~ by the field team leader
• before writing the draft report ~ by the project manager
• during draft report QA review and audits ~ by the GHG Center QA Manager
The field team leader's primary on-site functions will be to install and operate the test equipment. He will
review, verify, and validate certain data (QA / QC check results, etc.) during testing. The log forms in
Appendix A provide the detailed information he will gather.
The QA Manager will use this test plan and documented test methods as references with which to review
and validate the data and the draft report. He will review and audit the data in accordance with the GHG
Center's quality management plan. For example, the QA Manager will randomly select raw data and
independently calculate the verification parameters. The comparison of these calculations with the results
presented in the draft report will yield an assessment of the GHG Center's QA/QC procedures.
4.3. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION
A fundamental component of all verifications is the reconciliation of the collected data with its DQO. In
this case, the DQO assessment consists of evaluation of whether the stated methods were followed, DQIs
achieved, and overall accuracy is as specified in Section 3.0. As discussed in Section 4.2, the field team
leader and project manager will initially review the collected data to ensure that they are valid and are
consistent with expectations. They will assess the data's accuracy and completeness as they relate to the
stated QA / QC goals. If this review of the test data shows that QA / QC goals were not met, then
immediate corrective action may be feasible, and will be considered by the project manager. DQOs will
be reconciled after completion of corrective actions. As part of the internal audit of data quality, the
GHG Center QA Manager will include an assessment of DQO attainment.
4-2
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
4.4. ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The field team leader, project manager, QA Manager, GHG Center Director, and technical peer-reviewers
will assess the project and the data's quality as the test campaign proceeds. The project manager and QA
Manager will independently oversee the project and assess its quality through project reviews, inspections
if needed, and an audit of data quality.
4.4.1. Project Reviews
The project manager will be responsible for conducting the first complete project review and assessment.
Although all project personnel are involved with ongoing data review, the project manager must ensure
that project activities meet measurement and DQO requirements.
The GHG Center Director will perform the second project review. The director is responsible for
ensuring that the project's activities adhere to the ETV program requirements and stakeholder
expectations. The GHG Center Director will also ensure that the field team leader has the equipment,
personnel, and resources to complete the project and to deliver data of known and defensible quality.
The QA Manager will perform the third review. He is responsible for ensuring that the project's
management systems function as required by the quality management plan. The QA Manager is the GHG
Center's final reviewer, and he is responsible for ensuring the achievement of all QA requirements.
ECR personnel and selected GHG Center stakeholders and/or peer reviewers will then review the report.
Technically competent persons who are familiar with the project's technical aspects, but not involved
with project activities, will function as peer reviewers. The peer reviewers will provide written comments
to the project manager. ECR will also have the opportunity to insert supplemental unverified information
or comments into a dedicated report section.
The GHG Center will submit the draft report to EPA QA personnel, and the project manager will address
their comments as needed. Following this review, the report will undergo EPA management reviews,
including the GHG Center Director, EPA ORD Laboratory Director, and EPA Technical Editor.
4.4.2. Audit of Data Quality
The audit of data quality is an evaluation of the measurement, processing, and data analysis steps to
determine if systematic errors are present. The QA Manager, or designee, will randomly select
approximately 10 percent of the data. He will follow the selected data through analysis and data
processing. This audit is intended to verify that the data-handling system functions correctly and to assess
analysis quality. The QA Manager will also include an assessment of DQO attainment.
The QA Manager will route audit results to the project manager for review, comments, and possible
corrective actions. Project records will document the results. The project manager will take any
necessary corrective action needed and will respond by addressing the QA Manager's comments in the
report.
4-3
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
4.5. VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT
The report will summarize each verification parameter's results as discussed in Section 2.0 and will
contain sufficient raw data to support findings and allow others to assess data trends, completeness, and
quality. The report will clearly characterize the verification parameters, their results, and supporting
measurements as determined during the test campaign. It will present raw data and/or analyses as tables,
charts, or text as is best suited to the data type. The report will contain additional information about the
SUT and the host facility such as ground loop installation data, etc. The report will also contain a
Verification Statement, which is a 3 to 5 page document summarizing the technology, the test strategy
used, and the verification results obtained.
Examples of the reported values include the mean and 95-percent confidence intervals for:
• short-term test verification parameters listed in Section 2.1
• city water supply temperatures during short-term tests
• test room ambient temperatures during the standby heat loss tests
The report will also cite the long-term monitoring results and indicate the range of city water supply and
test room ambient temperatures.
The project manager will submit the draft report and Verification Statement to the QA Manager and
GHG Center Director for review. A preliminary outline of the report is as follows:
Preliminary Outline
ECR EarthLinked Ground Source Heat Pump Water Heating System Verification Report
Verification Statement
Section 1.0: Verification Test Design and Description
Description of the ETV program
EarthLinked System and Host Facility Description
Overview of the Verification Parameters and Evaluation Strategies
Section 2.0: Results
Water Heating Capacity
CoP
Long-term Monitoring Results
Estimated Emissions Reductions
Estimated Simple Cost Savings
Section 3.0: Data Quality
Section 4.0: Additional Technical and Performance Data Supplied by ECR (optional)
Section 5.0: References
Appendices: Raw Verification or Other Data
4-4
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
4.6. TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS
This test does not require specific training or certification beyond that required internally by the test
participants for their own activities. The GHG Center's field team leader is a licensed professional
engineer with approximately 15 years experience in field testing of air emissions from many types of
sources. He is familiar with the test methods and standard requirements that will be used in the
verification test.
The project manager has performed numerous field verifications under the ETV program, and is familiar
with EPA and GHG Center quality management plan requirements. The QA Manager is an
independently appointed individual whose responsibility is to ensure the GHG Center's conformance with
the EPA approved QMP.
4.7. HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
This section applies to GHG Center personnel only. Other organizations involved in the project have
their own health and safety plans which are specific to their roles in the project.
GHG Center staff will comply with all known host, state/local and Federal regulations relating to safety at
the test facility. This includes use of personal protective gear (such as safety glasses, hard hats, hearing
protection, safety toe shoes) as required by the host and completion of site safety orientation.
4-5
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
4-6
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] ANSI /ASHRAE Standard 118.1-2003: Method of Testing for Rating Commercial Gas, Electric, and
Oil Service Water Heating Equipment, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, GA. 2003
[2] Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 60th Edition, "Specific Heat of Water", page D-174, CRC Press.
Boca Raton, FL. 1980
[3] Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 60th Edition, "Steam Tables—Properties of Saturated Steam and
Saturated Water", page E-18, CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 1980
[4] Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing Protocol—Appendix G:
Uncertainty Estimation, Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions.
2004. Available from .
5-1
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix A
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Project ID:
Appendix A-l. Power Meter and RTD QA / QC Checks
Location:
Power Meter Sensor Checks
Note: Acquire at least 3 separate readings for each phase. All ION voltage and current readings must be
within 2 % or 3 %, respectively, of the corresponding DVM reading.
Tank #1 power meter: Make: Model: Serial No:
Voltage
Current
Date: Signature:
Phase A
ION
DVM
Tank #2 power meter: Make:
Date:
Voltage
Current
% diff
Phase B
ION
DVM
% diff
Model:
Signature:
Phase C
ION
Serial No:
DVM
% diff
Phase A
ION
DVM
% diff
Phase B
ION
DVM
% diff
Phase C
ION
DVM
% diff
RTD Ambient Crosschecks
Note: Allow RTDs to equilibrate in ambient conditions for at least !/2 hour. All RTD readings must be within +1.5
°F of each other.
Date:
Signature:
Ref.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
spare
RTD ID #
Description / location
°F (at DAS)
-Al-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix A-2. Flow Meter Checks and Water Heating Performance Crosscheck
Flow Meter Checks
Record at least 3 flow rates each while EarthLinked heat exchanger pump is disconnected and while it is
running. Zero flow should be < 2.9 gpm. Full flow should be between 9 and 11 gpm.
Date: Signature:
Make: Model: Serial #: Mean K (pulses per gallon):
Pulse/min =
60(PulseCount)
T
L ela
gpm=-
psed
Pulse/min
~K
Zero flow
Full Flow
T «
1 elansed' s
PulseCount
Pulse/min
gpm
OK?
Type V vs. Type IV Crosscheck
Type V water heating capacity, Qtypev, Btu/h, should agree with Type IV capacity, Qtypeiv, to within 6.4 %.
116.3*
7.48055*v
* [T —T )
V mhf L mhO )
- + 341.2
7.48055 *v
\ Jll Mil /
Where: Cp (specific heat) and v (specific volume) are obtained from the tables below
Tmhf and Tmho are the initial and final tank temperatures taken as the mean of all 6 tank
temperature sensors during each test run, °F
(ta - toh) = type V test run duration, s
FRAvg = overall mean of one-minute EarthLinked system flow rates for each test run, gpm
Tohn-Tjhn = overall mean of one-minute temperature differentials across the EarthLinked
system for each test run, °F
Cp depends on average tank water temperature over the entire test run, Tavg =
T
1
mhf
v depends on
system pressure. System pressure is the sum of the pressure gauge psig and ambient psia. Ambient psia
is the location station pressure, Pbar, as recorded by the local weather radio and corrected for altitude or as
measured by a climbing altimeter. Note that psia = "Hg * 0.4911541.
Date:
psig:
Signature:
_Pbar:
P
syst
;ystem •
-A2-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix A-2, Continued
Acquire specific volume and specific heat from following table. Enter table at Psystem for specific volume.
Enter table at Tavg for specific heat. Use linear interpolation for values between those given.
Specific Volume
system*
psia
24.08
29.82
34.24
39.18
44.68
49.20
54.08
59.35
v, ft3/lb
0.01691
0.01701
0.01707
0.01714
0.01721
0.01726
0.01732
0.01738
Specific Heat
T
*avg)
op
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
cp,
Btu/lb.°F
0.99963
0.99868
0.99816
0.99797
0.99799
0.99817
0.99847
0.99889
Type V Water Heating Performance
Parameter
CD
V
Tjnhf (final tank temp)
T^o (initial tank temp)
Tmhf " Tjnho
tfh (final time stamp)
toh (initial time stamp)
ta - toh (difference, s)
VtypeV
Run 1 Values
Run 2 Values
Run 3 Values
Type IV Water Heating Performance
Parameter
CD
V
FRAvg (overall mean of one-
minute flow rates)
T0hn -Tjhn (overall mean of one-
minute differential
temperatures)
QtvpelV
Qtvpev vs. Qtypeiv % Difference
Acceptable? (within + 6.5 %)
Run 1 Values
Run 2 Values
Run 3 Values
Long Term Monitoring Period
Start date: Time:
Signature:
Circle one: {EARTHLINKED} {TANK ELEMENTS}
-A3-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix A-3. SUT and Site Information
Date: Signature:
SUT Data
Description:
Mfg: Model: Serial No.:
Temperature rise: °F at gph Nominal CoP:
Loop Data
Designer: Installer:
Tubing material: Dia: Number of loops/bores:
Loop length each: Total length: Bore diameter: Depth:
Water table encountered? Water table depth
Grouting method / material (describe):
Soil type / description (from driller's log):
Notes (Is installation representative? Problems encountered? Exceptions made?):
Site Data
Note: record number and type of hot water uses only.
Residence rooms: Fixtures (describe):
Utility rooms: Fixtures (describe):
Kitchens: Fixtures (describe):
Nurse Stations: Fixtures (describe):
Baths/Spa: Fixtures (describe):
Other: Fixtures (describe):
Daytime staff (function / number):
Nighttime staff (function / number):
Number of residents at start of tests:
Number of residents at end of long-term monitoring:
-A4-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
-A5-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix B
Electric Power System Emissions Reduction Estimates
The verification report will provide estimated emissions reductions (or increases) as compared to
aggregated electric power system (EPS) emission rates for the state in which the apparatus is located
(Florida for this verification). The report will also include estimated reductions based on aggregated
nationwide emission rates. Analysts will employ the methods described in this Appendix.
A DG asset or power-saving device, when connected to the EPS, will change the overall EPS emissions
signature. As an example, a zero-emission generator, such as a hydroelectric power plant, will decrease
EPS CO2 emissions on a Ib/MWh basis. The potential emissions reduction (or increase) for DG is the
difference between the EPS and DG emission rates, multiplied by the expected power generation or
savings rate:
Reduction^ = (EREPS:i - ERDO:i) *MWhDO:Ann Eqn. Bl
Where:
Reduction; = annual reduction for pollutant i, pounds per year (Ib/y)
EREPS; = EPS emission rate for pollutant i (see below), pounds per megawatt-hour
(Ib/MWh)
ERoG.i = DG emissions rate for pollutant i, Ib/MWh
MWhDG Ann = annual estimated DG power production or device-based power savings,
megawatt-hours per year (MWh/y)
The potential emissions reduction for a power savings device is simply:
Reduction = EREPS:i *MWhDevice,Ann Eqn. B2
Values for ERDG,i are available from the performance verification results. Estimated MWhDG,Ann or
MWhDevice A™ should also be available from the verification results. This estimate depends on the specific
verification strategy and its derivation should be clearly described in the test plan and verification results.
A simple example is the power production or power savings multiplied by the annual availability or
capacity factor. For example, a 200 kW fuel cell which operates at full capacity 75 percent of the time
can be expected to generate 1314 MWh annually.
EREPS; for specific pollutants can vary widely because the EPS may obtain its power from many different
generators. The generation mix can change dramatically from hour to hour, depending on market forces,
system operations, wheeling practices, emergencies, maintenance, and other factors. Many different
approaches have been suggested for estimating EREPS15 but no consensus has been achieved.
The following estimation methodology is simple, it uses peer-reviewed carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen
oxide (NOX), mercury (Hg), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) data available from the US Environmental
Protection Agency's "EGRID" database, and it provides some analysis flexibility.
EGRID is available from www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/download.htm. At this writing, data is
available through 2000. Data through 2003 will likely be available in late 2005. Figure B-l shows the
introductory screen prompts which provide year 2000 emission rates for Florida.
-Bl-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
•• eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 - Main Selection Screen
Search Filters Import/Export Interchange
Aggregation Level
' Power Plant
State
" Select One or Multiple Entities *
Electric Generating
Company (EGC)
r US Total
Grid Regions:
r NERC Region
<" eGRID Subregion
Power Control Area (PCA)
ALABAMA (AL)
ALASKA (AK)
ARIZONA (AZ)
ARKANSAS (AR)
CALIFORNIA (CA)
COLORADO (CO)
CONNECTICUT (CT)
DELAV/ARE (DE)
DISTRICT OF CgUJMBIA [DC)
Enter text to search for:
GEORGIA (GA)
HAWAII (HI)
IDAHO (ID)
ILLINOIS (IL)
IN DIANA (IN)
IOWA (IA)
KANSAS (KS)
KENTUCKY (KY)
LOUISIANA (LA)
MAINE (ME)
MARYLAND [MD]
MASSACHUSETTS (MA)
MICHIGAN (Ml)
MINNESOTA (MN)
MISSISSIPPI (MS)
MISSOURI (MO)
MONTANA (MT)
NEBRASKA (NE)
NEVADA (NV)
Figure B-l. Florida Aggregated Emissions Introductory Screen
Double-clicking the state of interest brings up the emissions data, as shown in Figure B-2.
5 eGRID 2002PC, Version 2.01 - State Level Data fx]
State: [FLORIDA
Capacity
IMW): I 46,041.1
Emissions Profile
Annual CO 2
Annual SO 2
Annual NOX
Help Previous
(MMBlu) 1,616,637,109 [MWh]: I 191,906,639 3M Data Year: 1 2000 _*j
T f 1
Generation Resource Mix Sjate Import/Export Data
iDisplaj1 emission
I rates for fossil,
I coal/oil/gas
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Emissions (tons) Output Rate (Ibs/MWh) Input Rate (Ibs/MMBtu)
| 136,293,930.61 (~~ 1,420.42 j 168.61
| 579,623.25 | 6.04 |~~ 0.72
| 322,813.74 | 3.36 | 0.40
Annual Hg tt | 2,499.63 | 0.0130 | 0.0016
8 Annual mercury (Hg) emissions are in Ibs; Hg emission rates are in Ibs/GWh and Ibs/BBtu
Figure X-2. Florida EPS Emission Rates for 2000
-B2-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Figure B-3 provides the nationwide emission rates for 2000.
ft eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 - United States Level Data
ILINITED STATES
Help I Ptevi
Capacity
Heat Input
Generation
(MW): ) 864,905.7 [MMBtuJ: I 29,221,854,977 [MWhJ: 3,810,305,466
Data Year: 2000 '
Emissions Profile
Generation Resource Mix
U.S. Generation and Consumption
Data
Display emission
rates for fossil,
coal/oil/gas
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Emissions (tons)
Output Rate (Ibs/MWh) Input Rate (Ibs/MMBlu)
Annual CO 2
Annual S02
Annual NOX
Annual Hg tt
2,652,901,442.24
11,513,033.84
5,644,353.87
103,554.66
I
1,392.49
I
181.57
6.04
0.79
2.96
0.39
0.0272
0.0035
8 Annual mercury (Hg) emissions are in Ibs; Hg emission rates are in Ibs/GWh and Ibs/BBtu.
Figure B-3. Nationwide Emission Rates
These results form the basis for comparison. Table B-l provides emissions offsets estimates for a
hypothetical 200 kW fuel cell located in Florida.
Table B-l. Example Fuel Cell Emissions Offsets Estimates
Pollutant
EREPS (from EGRID),
Ib/MWh
ERDG (from
verification tests),
Ib/MWh
EREPS - ERDG, Ib/MWh
DG capacity, kW
Estimated availability
or capacity factor
MWhDaAm
Emission offset, Ib/y
Florida
CO2
1420
1437
.17°
NOX
3.36
0.13
3.23
200
75%
1314
-22400
4250
Nationwide
CO2
1392
1437
-45"
NOX
2.96
0.13
2.83
200
75%
1314
-59130
3720
"Negative numbers represent an increase over the EPS emission rate
Note that this fuel cell increases the overall EPS CO2 emission rate if electricity generation alone is
considered. The increased CO2 emissions in this example would be balanced by the fuel cell's heat or
chilling power production if it is in combined chilling / heat and power (CHP) service. Each verification
test plan must provide a specific accounting methodology for electricity production and CHP utilization
-B3-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
because it is impossible to consider all the permutations here. The simplest case, that the unit really
operates at a constant power output, predictable availability (or capacity factor), and that all the heat
produced is actually used, is not necessarily true for every installation. Also, the CHP application may
displace units fired by various fuels (electricity, heating oil, natural gas, etc.) with their own efficiencies
and emission factors. Each verification strategy should explicitly discuss these considerations as part of
the specific emissions offset calculation.
It is useful, however, to continue this example. Assume that the fuel cell provides a constant 800,000
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) to a domestic hot water system, thus displacing an electric-powered
boiler. This heat production is equivalent to 234 kW, which would require approximately 239 kW of
electricity from the EPS at 0.98 water heating efficiency (source: ASHRAE Standard 118.1-2003, §9.1).
The fuel cell would therefore save approximately 15700 MWh annually at 75 percent capacity factor.
Table B-2 shows the resulting emissions offsets estimates.
Table B-2. Example CHP Emissions Offsets Estimates
Pollutant
EREPS (from EGRID),
Ib/MWh
ERDG (from
verification tests),
Ib/MWh
EREPS - ERDG, Ib/MWh
DG capacity, kW
Estimated availability
or capacity factor
MWhDG,Am
Emission offset, Ib/y
Florida
C02
1420
0"
1420
NOX
3.36
0"
3.36
239"
75%
15700
2.23x10'
(11 100 tons)
52800
(26.4 tons)
Nationwide
CO2
1392
0"
1392
NOX
2.96
0"
2.96
239"
75%
15700
2.19x10'
(10900 tons)
46500
(23.2 tons)
"Emissions are zero here because the electricity production offset estimate included them.
*Based on the power required to run an electric-fired boiler at 98 % water heating efficiency.
In this CHP application, the fuel cell represents a considerable net annual CO2 emissions reduction for
Florida of 2.23 x!07lb/y.
This approach is generally conservative because it does not include transmission and distribution (T&D)
losses. T&D losses vary between approximately 3 to 8 percent depending on dispatch practices, the unit's
location with respect to the EPS generator actually being displaced, and other factors. This means that
100 kW of energy at the DG unit's terminals will actually displace between 103 and 109 kW (and the
associated emissions) at the EPS generator.
EGRID provides numerous other aggregation options, and the reader may wish to conduct other
comparisons, such as for a particular utility, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) region,
or control area.
-B4-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Appendix C.
Electric Power Simple Cost Savings Estimates
The performance verification report will provide estimated simple cost savings as compared to the
average retail price of electricity for the state in which the device under test (DUT) is located (Florida, for
this verification). Simple cost savings will also be based on the average nationwide retail price. Analysts
will employ the methods described in this Appendix.
The simple cost savings is the annual estimated device-based power savings multiplied by the average
retail price of electricity:
MWh *RP *103
1V1WIIDUT .„„ Kf dec 1U
o- i ^ j. o • UUkAnn elec -w^ /-\ i
Simple Cost Savings = bqn. L1
where:
Simple Cost Savings = estimated annual device-based cost savings, dollars
MWhDUT Ann = annual estimated device-based power savings, MWh
RPeiec = average retail price of electricity, cents/kWh
103 = conversion factor from MWh to kWh
100 = conversion factor from cents to dollars
The value for estimated MWhDUTAnn should be available from the verification results. This estimate
depends on the specific verification strategy and its derivation should be clearly described in the test plan
and verification results. A simple example is the power production or power savings multiplied by the
annual availability or capacity factor. For example, a 200 kW fuel cell which operates at full capacity 75
percent of the time can be expected to generate 1314 MWh annually.
Varying values for RPeiec can be found in many resources. This methodology of estimating economic
payback uses the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) Table 5.6.A. Average Retail Price of Electricity to
Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State to find RPeiec- This table is available from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html. Table C-l provides data for 2004.
Table C-l.
Census Division
and State
New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
East North
Central
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector"
Residential
11.78
10.24
12.51
12.29
11.95
13.36
12.68
11.22
10.03
14.44
9.21
7.94
7.7
7.03
8.47
Commercial
10.57
8.48
12.99
10.9
10.79
11.89
11.33
9.94
8.34
11.67
8.46
7.17
6.94
6.23
7.88
Industrial
8.08
7.47
4.57
8.89
10.31
9.71
8.1
6.23
8.11
6.31
5.82
4.65
4.75
4.13
5.25
Transportation
5.2
5.46
—
5.08
~
—
—
7.1
10.92
6.8
7.08
5.51
4.94
8.45
8.92
All Sectors
10.61
9.12
10.6
11.08
11.19
12.12
11.02
9.6
8.96
11.75
7.91
6.55
6.49
5.54
7.29
-Cl-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Table C-l. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector"
Census Division
and State
Ohio
Wisconsin
West North
Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
South Atlantic
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
East South
Central
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
West South
Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Pacific Contiguous
California
Oregon
Washington
Pacific
Noncontiguous
Alaska
Hawaii
U.S. Total
Residential
7.94
8.91
7.09
8.79
7.16
7.91
6.22
6.07
6.26
7.2
7.87
8.45
7.06
8.76
7.07
7.57
8.07
7.73
7.42
6.01
6.88
7.04
6.15
7.96
6.86
8.68
7.09
8.07
6.82
9.34
7.74
7.88
7.64
5.83
7.7
10.11
8.27
7
6.7
9.86
11.92
7.15
6.37
16.5
12.22
20.01
8.58
Commercial
7.37
6.95
5.79
6.46
6.24
5.92
5.23
5.48
5.82
6.46
7.15
7.23
6.55
7.8
7.15
9.18
6.77
7.09
5.85
5.39
6.86
6.98
5.7
8.03
7.05
7.5
5.68
7.93
6.28
7.79
7.12
7.39
7.31
5.14
7.21
9.7
7.39
5.51
5.66
8.49
9.27
6.38
6.19
14.7
10.74
17.93
7.81
Industrial
4.6
4.79
4.35
4.25
4.42
4.93
3.79
3.99
4.12
4.32
4.58
5.06
1.01
5.76
4.77
4.28
4.74
4.13
4.3
3.78
3.71
3.72
3.13
4.65
4.09
5.49
4.01
6.06
4.54
5.7
4.82
5.24
5.73
3.41
4.06
6.29
4.78
3.6
3.89
6.19
7.79
4.05
3.79
14.1
7.47
15.66
5.01
Transportation
8.26
—
5.36
—
—
6.72
3.87
—
—
—
5.25
—
2.57
7.53
5.05
5.83
~
~
7.07
5.7
13.95
—
—
13.95
7.23
—
7.9
—
7.11
5.31
—
5.29
—
~
~
~
5.43
6.55
6.56
6.08
6.46
—
6.51
All Sectors
6.62
6.86
5.85
6.29
6.03
6.28
5.37
5.24
5.53
6.33
6.9
7.08
6.4
8.07
6.48
6.93
6.87
6.17
6.27
5.09
5.59
5.65
4.55
6.78
6.02
7.23
5.5
7.24
6.01
7.65
6.66
7.21
7.05
4.91
6.14
8.44
6.87
5.3
4.93
8.54
9.9
6.16
5.68
15.15
10.88
17.72
7.32
-C2-
-------
Final Version-May, 2005
Table C-l. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector"
Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation
All Sectors
Census Division
and State
" Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-826, "Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with
State Distributions Report."
Continuing the example from above, Table C-2 provides the estimated simple cost savings for a
hypothetical 200 kW fuel cell located in Florida. This example uses the average retail price listed for all
sectors. Individual verification test plans may opt to use the average price for the sector (residential,
commercial, industrial, or transportation) that is most applicable to the DUT. This should be specified in
the test plan.
Table C-2. Fuel Cell Estimated Economic Payback
DUT capacity, kW
Estimated availability or capacity factor
MWhDUT,Am
RPekc, cents/kWh
Estimated Economic Payback, dollars
Florida
200
75%
1314
8.07
$106,040
Nationwide
200
75%
1314
7.32
$96,185
This approach is generally conservative because the actual prices are often the result of negotiation and
subject to local regulation or market forces.
-C3-
------- |