EPA/600/R-12-731
September 2012
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
VEEDER-ROOT
STANDARD WATER FLOAT
AND
PHASE-TWO™ WATER DETECTOR
Prepared by
Baneiie
7/70 Business oj Innovation
Under a cooperative agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ET1/ET1/ET1/
-------
EPA/600/R-12/731
September 2012
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
VEEDER-ROOT
STANDARD WATER FLOAT
AND
PHASE-TWO™ WATER DETECTOR
by
Anne Marie Gregg and Amy Dindal, Battelle
John McKernan, U.S. EPA
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
partially funded and collaborated in the research described herein. This report has been
subjected to the Agency 'speer and administrative review. Any opinions expressed in this report
are those of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no
official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
nation's air, water, and land resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and Development provides data and science support that
can be used to solve environmental problems and build the scientific knowledge base needed to
manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent
or reduce environmental risks.
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the EPA to
verify the performance characteristics of innovative environmental technology across all media
and report this objective information to permitters, buyers, and users of the technology, thus
substantially accelerating the entrance of new environmental technologies into the marketplace.
Verification organizations oversee and report verification activities based on testing and quality
assurance protocols developed with input from major stakeholders and customer groups
associated with the technology area. ETV consists of six environmental technology centers.
Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/etv/.
Effective verifications of monitoring technologies are needed to assess environmental quality
and to supply cost and performance data to select the most appropriate technology for that
assessment. Under a cooperative agreement, Battelle has received EPA funding to plan,
coordinate, and conduct such verification tests for "Advanced Monitoring Systems for Air,
Water, and Soil" and report the results to the community at large. Information concerning this
specific environmental technology area can be found on the Internet at
http ://www. epa.gov/etv/centers/centerl .html.
in
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of the many individuals without whom this
verification testing would not have been possible. Quality assurance (QA) oversight was
provided by Michelle Henderson, Laurel Staley, Teri Richardson, and Lauren Drees, EPA, and
Rosanna Buhl, Zach Willenberg, and Kristin Nichols, Battelle. We gratefully acknowledge the
Xerxes Corporation for providing a 6-foot diameter fiberglass underground storage tank shell,
BP for donating 3,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline plus transportation and Tanknology for
donating tank fittings. Additionally, we truly appreciate the in-kind analytical support from
Marathon Corporation. Finally, we want to thank Dr. Samuel Gordji of the University of
Mississippi and SSG Associates and Mr. Randy Jennings of the Tennessee Department of
Agriculture for their review of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and this verification
report.
IV
-------
Contents
Page
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
List of Abbreviations ix
Chapter 1 Background 1
Chapter 2 Technology Description 2
Chapters Test Design and Procedures 4
3.1 Test Overview 4
3.2 Test Site Description 6
3.2.1 JS-20 Building 6
3.2.2 Test Vessel 6
3.2.3 Fuel Storage Tanker 10
3.2.4 Waste Fuel Storage 10
3.3 Experimental Design 10
3.3.1 Test la Continuous Water Ingress Test-Minimum Detect!on Height 12
3.3.2 Test Ib Continuous Water Ingress Test-Smallest Detection Increment 13
3.3.3 Test 2 Water Ingress Detection of a Quick Water Dump, Then a Fuel Dump (Quick
Dump) 13
3.4 Experimental Procedures 14
3.4.1 Pre-Run Preparations 14
3.4.2 Water Preparation and Rotameter Checks 16
3.4.3 Pre-Run Readings and Samples 18
3.4.4 Water Ingress 18
3.4.5 Run Observations 19
3.4.6 Data Logging 19
3.4.7 Run Termination 19
3.4.8 Post-Run Sampling Analysis 19
3.4.9 Post-Run Activities 19
3.5 Monitoring 19
3.6 Operational Factors 20
Chapter 4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 21
4.1 Data Collection Quality Control 21
4.2 Audits 23
4.2.1 Performance Evaluation Audit 24
4.2.2 Technical Systems Audit 25
4.2.3 Data Quality Audit 26
4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Deviations 26
Chapters Statistical Methods 28
5.1 Accuracy 28
5.2 Sensitivity 28
5.2.1 Tolerance Limit 29
5.2.2 Minimum Detectable Level Change 30
5.3 Precision 31
-------
5.5 Operational Factors 32
Chapter 6 Test Results 33
6.1 Accuracy 33
6.2 Sensitivity 36
6.2.1 Tolerance Limit 36
6.2.2 Minimum Detectable Level Change 37
6.3 Precision 38
6.4 Phase Separation, Mixing, and Float Response 39
6.4.1 Mixing and Float Response with EO Fuel 39
6.4.2 Mixing and Float Response with E15 Fuel 42
6.4.3 Mixing and Float Response with Flex Fuel 45
6.5 Operational Factors 49
Chapter 7 Performance Summary for the Franklin Fueling Systems TSP-IGF4 (First
Generation) Water Float 50
7.1 Performance Summary for the Franklin Fueling Systems First Generation Water Float 50
Chapter 8 Performance Summary for Franklin Fueling Systems TSP-IGF4P (Second
Generation) Float 53
8.1 Performance Summary for Franklin Fueling Systems Second Generation Float 53
Chapter 9 References 56
Appendices
Appendix A Summary of Deviations from the QAPP
Appendix B Tank Volume Chart
Appendix C Barometric Pressure and Temperature Data
Appendix D Franklin Fueling Systems Test Data
VI
-------
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Verification Tests and Performance Parameters 5
Table 2. Tests 1 and 2 Run Matrix 11
Table 3. Run Summary and Sequence for the Continuing Water Ingress and Dump Tests 14
Table 4. Analytically Determined Ethanol Content of Fuels 16
Table 5. Continuous Water Ingress Test Flow Rates 17
Table 6. Other Independent Variables Monitored During Testing 20
Table 7. Data Collection Quality Control Assessments for the ATG Verification Tests 21
Table 8. Differences from Target Fuel Heights for Continuous and Dump Test Runs 23
Table 9. PEA Results for ASTM Methods D4815 and D5501 for Ethanol Content
Determination 24
Table 10. PEA Results for Karl-Fischer Titration Method for Water Content Determination 25
Table 11. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float 34
Table 12. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector 34
Table 13. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Technologies at the start of the
incremental run (Time 0) 35
Table 14. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Technologies at Run End (Time 100) 35
Table 15. Tolerance Limit for All Test 1 Runs 36
Table 16. Tolerance Limit for Only the EO Runs 36
Table 17. Tolerance Limit for Only the El5 Runs 36
Table 18. Minimum Detectable Level Change for All Test 1 Runs 37
Table 19. Minimum Detectable Level Change for Only the EO Runs 37
Table 20. Minimum Detectable Level Change for Only the E15 Runs 37
Table 21. Precision Results for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float 38
Table 22. Precision Results for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector 38
Table 23. Water Content and Density of Dense Phase at Completion of EO and El 5 Test 1
Runs 39
Table 24. Water Content and Density of Fuel at Completion of EO and El 5 Test 1 Runs 40
Table 25. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Dump Test Observations 47
Table 26. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase Two™ Water Detector Dump Test Observations... .48
Table 27. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Accuracy 50
Table 28. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Precision and Sensitivity 52
Table 29. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Dump Test Observations 52
Table 30. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector Accuracy 53
Table 31. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector Precision and Sensitivity.... 5 5
Table 32. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase Two™ Water Detector Dump Test Observations....55
Figures
Figure 1. The Veeder-Root Standard Water Float 2
Figure 2. The Veeder-Root Phase-Two Water Detector 3
Figure 3. Photographs of the test vessel at the Battelle West Jefferson facility. Top photo is
an exterior view test vessel with scaffolding platform. The vessel is holding EO at 65% full.
Bottom photo shows the technologies during an El5 continuous water ingress run 8
Figure 4. Test vessel schematic 9
Figure 5. EO-25% Full With Splash Duplicate - Graphical display of water detection
technology response 40
vii
-------
Figure 6. EO Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response 41
Figure 7. E15-65% Full-With Splash - Graphical display of water detection technology
response 42
Figure 8. E15 Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response 43
Figure 9. El 5 Dump Test-Before water dump (initial condition) 44
Figure 10. E15 Dump Test - After fuel dump (final condition) 44
Figure 11. E85-25% Full-With Splash- Graphical display of water detection technology
response 45
Figure 12. E85 Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response 46
Figure 13. E85 Dump Test - After the water dump 46
Figure 14. E85 Dump Test - After fuel dump (final condition) 47
Vlll
-------
List of Abbreviations
AMS Advanced Monitoring Systems
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATG automatic tank gauging
csv comma separated file
D difference between measured and technology increments
dm measured incremental change in water level
dt technology-reported incremental change in water level
DQA data quality audit
DVR digital video recorder
EO 100% gasoline
E10 fuel that is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, by volume
El5 fuel that is 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline, by volume
E85 fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, by volume, or flex fuel
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
flex flex fuel, orE85
FRP fiberglass-reinforced plastic
ft foot or feet
gal/hr gallon/hour
k tolerance coefficient
LD leak detection
LRB laboratory record book
mL/min milliliter/minute
MLC minimum water level change/minimum detectable water level change
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NWGLDE National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations
ORD Office of Research and Development
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PEA performance evaluation audit
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
QMP Quality Management Plan
SD standard deviation
SOP standard operating procedure
SRM standard reference material
TL tolerance limit
TSA technical systems audit
x mean
UST underground storage tank
Var variance
VTC Verification Test Coordinator
IX
-------
Chapter 1
Background
The U.S. EPA supports the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal
by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in
the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized testing organizations; with stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of
individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory bench tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and
preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous QA
protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are
defensible. The definition of ETV verification is to establish or prove the truth of the
performance of a technology under specific, pre-determined criteria or protocols and a strong
quality management system. High-quality data are assured through implementation of the ETV
Quality Management Plan (QMP). ETV does not endorse, certify, or approve technologies.
The EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory and its verification organization
partner, Battelle, operate the Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center under ETV. The
AMS Center recently evaluated the performances of two Veeder-Root technologies: a Standard
Water Float and a Phase-Two™ Water Detector.
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
This report provides results for the verification testing of the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float
and the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector. The following is a description of the
technologies based on information provided by the vendor. The information provided below was
not verified in this test.
The Veeder-Root Standard Water Float was designed to detect and measure the level of water
present at the bottom of a fuel storage tank in conjunction with a magnetostrictive level probe
and automatic tank gauge (ATG) system. Figure 1 presents a picture of the Veeder-Root
Standard Water Float. Specific versions of the
float are available for use in diesel fuel and (non-
ethanol blended) gasoline. These floats are
ballasted to have a net density intermediate to that
of water and their respective fuels such that they
will float at the water-fuel interface.
The Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector is
a concentric, dual-float system designed
specifically for low-ethanol blend gasoline up to
15%. Figure 2 presents pictures of these floats.
An inner float is designed to move freely within
the limits of a protective housing attached to the
outer float to respond to all phase separation
compositions in these fuels. The outer float is
ballasted to remain responsive to water and water-
rich compositions of phase separation. This
allows the inner float to measure the full depth of
water in the case of a massive ingress (lifting both
floats), while preventing the inner phase
separation float from interfering with the fuel float
in the rare situation that an unusually dense, cold
gasoline is delivered into the tank. The vendor-
reported minimum detectable water height is 0.38
inch and the reported accuracy is ±0.10 and +0.75
inches in water and phase separation, respectively.
Figure 1. The Veeder-Root Standard
Water Float.
-------
From the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations' (NWGLDE) 2010 revised
certification, a previous Veeder-Root water detection technology test of their Phase-Two™
Water Detector reported having the following water sensor results in diesel fuel
(http: //www. nwgl de. org/eval s/veeder_rootJ. html):
• Minimum detectable water level in the tank is 0.38 inch when using the TLS 350 console
with an 8463 magnetostrictive probe and 88610x-OxO Phase-Two™ water float
• Minimum detectable change in water level is 0.005 inch for leak rate of 0.2 gal/hr.
• Minimum detectable change in water level is 0.027 inch for leak rate of 0.1 gal/hr.
Information acquired during operation of these water detection technologies is transmitted from
the floats via a two-conductor signal cable to a data recording and display console. A single
console can compile data for several individual floats, and the Veeder-Root TLS-350 was used
for this purpose during this verification test. The TLS-350 provides an electronic display and
paper printout of fuel and water heights and volumes, as well as settings for warnings and alarms
based on measured heights. The console also generates an electronic data file that can be
continuously transferred to a computer for users wanting access to the data.
Inner Float (Phase Separation)
Outer Float (Water)
Figure 2. The Veeder-Root Phase-Two Water Detector.
The total cost of the Veeder-
Root technologies that were used
for testing was $6,423. This
setup included the TLS-350
console with printer (p/n 84290-
022, $3,455), two probes used
for inventory only, i.e., no other
features incorporated into the
probes (p/n 846391-3xx, $1,117
each), the Standard 4 inch water
float kit for gasoline (p/n
330020-7xx, $420), and the
Phase-Two™ Float Kit (p/n
886100-Oxx, $314) (the float kits
also included the fuel height
float).
The total cost for the Standard Water Float setup alone would be $4,992, which includes the
console, probe and float kit ($1,537 not including the console), while the cost for the Phase-
Two™ Water Detection setup would be $4,886, which includes the console, probe and float kit
($1,431 not including the console).
-------
Chapter 3
Test Design and Procedures
3.1 Test Overview
This verification test was conducted according to procedures specified in the QAPP,1 including
deviations as described in Appendix A, and adhered to the quality system defined in the ETV
AMS Center QMP2. A technical panel of stakeholders was assembled specifically for the
preparation of the QAPP. A list of participants in the technical panel is presented in the QAPP.
The panel included representatives from industry associations, state and federal governments,
including representatives of the NWGLDE, and users. The responsibilities of verification test
stakeholders and/or peer reviewers included:
• Participate in technical panel discussions (when available) to provide input to the test
design;
• Review and provide input to the QAPP; and
• Review and provide input to the verification report(s)/verification statement(s).
The QAPP and this verification report were reviewed by experts in the fields related to
underground storage tank (UST) leak detection (LD) and statistics. The following experts
provided peer review:
• Randy Jennings, Tennessee Department of Agriculture and
• Samuel Gordji, University of Mississippi and SSG Associates.
Battelle conducted this verification test with funding support from the EPA's Offices of
Research and Development (ORD) and Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and the technology
vendors, with in-kind support from the Xerxes Corporation (a 6-foot [ft] diameter fiberglass UST
shell), Tanknology (tank fittings), BP (provided 3,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline plus
transportation) and analytical support from Marathon Corporation.
-------
This verification test evaluated the performances of the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float and
Phase-Two™ Water Detector. The goal of this verification test was to provide information on
the operability of ATG systems when used with ethanol-blended fuel. To accomplish this goal,
the experimental design included the following four options for testing:
1. Water ingress detection of continuous water ingress with a splash or without a splash
(Continuous);
2. Water ingress detection of a quick water dump, then a fuel dump (Quick Dump);
3. Water ingress and fuel leak detection during water ingress and fuel egress (Water
Ingress + LD); and
4. Fuel leak detection (LD).
Veeder-Root chose to have its technologies tested using options 1 and 2 as described in the
QAPP for water ingress detection. These tests were performed in a controlled test vessel that
simulated the storage tank environment. The verification testing was conducted in a research
building at Battelle's West Jefferson, OH facility between September 13 and September 30,
2011. The technologies were challenged with fuel of differing ethanol compositions, fuel
heights within the test vessel, and water ingress methods/rates. The resulting water detection
data were used to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, and precision, where appropriate.
Operational factors such as maintenance needs, data output, ease of use, and repair requirements
were also assessed based on technical staff observations. These performance parameters were
evaluated quantitatively using the statistical methods in Chapter 5 and qualitatively through
recorded observations. Temperature and density within the test vessel were monitored
throughout testing, and the water content of the fuels and dense phases were analytically
determined after testing using Karl Fisher titration. All testing was captured using one or more
digital video recorders (DVRs). Table 1 presents a summary of the tests performed, and
Section 3.3 presents the experimental design.
Table 1. Summary of Verification Tests and Performance Parameters
Test
1a: Continuous
Water Ingress
Test-Minimum
detection
height
1b: Continuous
Water Ingress
Test-Smallest
detection
increment
2: Quick Dump
Test Description
Continuous water ingress
detection with or without a
splash to determine the
minimum water level that the
ATG can detect
Continuous water ingress
detection with or without a
splash to determine the
smallest change in water level
that the ATG can detect
Quick water ingress detection,
then a fuel dump to induce and
observe phase separation
Performance
Parameter
• Accuracy
• Sensitivity
• Precision
• Operational
factors
• Sensitivity
• Phase
separation
• Operational
factors
Independent
Variables
• Fuel type
• Fuel height in
tank
• Water ingress
method/rate
• Fuel type
• Fuel height in
tank
• Water ingress
method/rate
• Fuel type
Water dump
• Fuel dump
Number of
Runs
12 Runs + 4
Duplicates
Continuation of
runs in Test 1a
while observing
10 incremented
measurements
3 Runs
A representative of Veeder-Root installed the two technologies in the test vessel and trained
Battelle technicians at the West Jefferson test facility on August 30, 2011. At the end of
-------
August/beginning of September, 3,000 gallons of EO and 1,500 gallons of E85 were delivered to
the test site. These fuels were stored in separate compartments of a three-compartment fuel
tanker that had been leased during testing. Portions of the EO and flex fuel received at the test
facility were blended in the third tanker compartment on September 5, 2011 and again on
September 8, 2011 to produce El 5 for the initial runs, and another batch was blended on
September 22, 2011. A sample was taken from each compartment after the initial blend was
made and from only the El 5 compartment after the second blend was made. The samples were
analyzed to verify that they contained ethanol within 10% of the target ethanol contents of 0%
(EO), 15% (El 5), and 85% (flex fuel).
3.2 Test Site Description
The interior of an existing research building, JS-20, at Battelle's West Jefferson, OH south
campus and the exterior area surrounding the building were modified to accommodate a
specially fabricated test vessel and support items. The test vessel was fabricated from a 6-ft
diameter piece of a fiberglass storage tank shell which was fitted with glass ends to allow visual
observation of the conditions within the vessel during testing. Exterior storage facilities were
made available for fuel and waste storage. Detailed descriptions of the research test site and
equipment items are provided below.
3.2.1 JS-20 Building
JS-20 is a large, high-bay building on the south property of Battelle's West Jefferson, OH
campus. When last used, the building was operated as an intrinsically safe structure for gas
pipeline research. The building has four large bay doors along the south side and a walk-through
entry door at the east and west ends. Two large louvered vents are located on the wall opposite
the bay doors in the northwest corner to allow air infiltration. The building is equipped with a 5-
ton (although only certified to 1 % tons) manually-operated overhead crane that was used to
assist in placing the test vessel in its desired location. Equipment located inside JS-20 during the
verification tests included the test vessel with scaffolding, vendor-supplied LD equipment and
consoles, fuel transfer hoses, two large ventilation fans, computers, assorted wet sampling
devices and monitors, and DVRs. The building and the exterior areas surrounding the building
are connected to a common grounding grid, and all metal equipment items used during testing
were connected to this grid. Fuel and waste storage areas were located outside of JS-20 (see
Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4).
3.2.2 Test Vessel
Battelle staff designed and oversaw fabrication of the test vessel used for verification testing.
This vessel provided visualization of the behavior of the technologies, as well as the behavior of
ethanol-blended fuels when water was introduced. Figure 3 presents photographs and Figure 4
depicts the schematics of the test vessel showing the features described below and the installed
technologies.
The test vessel was constructed from a 6-ft diameter shell section of a fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (FRP) storage tank. The section was cut to 4 ft 3 inches in length yielding a maximum
-------
volume of 880 gallons. Appendix B presents the tank chart for the fabricated test vessel and lists
the volume at various fill heights. Glass bulkheads were installed at each end of the test vessel to
allow observation of the interior during the runs. The vessel was checked for leaks at the
fabrication shop and again after being placed in JS-20 by filling it with water to 94% of its
capacity (approximately 830 gallons). At the fabrication shop the leak test lasted for 2 hours
(hr), while at the field test site the leak test lasted overnight. The test vessel was equipped with
four fiberglass ports to allow placement of the LD equipment to be tested. These ports were
constructed of 4-inch FRP couplers with 12-inch risers installed along the top surface centerline
of the test vessel. The top of the test vessel was also fitted with a 2-inch fuel filler cap and port.
A fuel filler riser pipe extended down from this fuel filler port to a point approximately 14 inches
from the bottom of the test vessel. A vent line was installed near the top of the test vessel to
transport vapors displaced during filling and operation to the outside of the JS-20 structure. A 2-
inch drain, two 4-inch sampling ports, and a 4-inch water ingress port were also fitted to the test
vessel. Approximately 5 quarts of resin were added to the bottom of the test vessel to level the
base and raise the interior shell to the height of the drain line, thus allowing complete draining of
the test vessel between runs. Finally, four 2-inch thermometer wells were installed at
approximately the 25% height and 50% height levels for holding thermometers. A containment
system was constructed around the test vessel which was capable of retaining the complete
volume of the test vessel should it leak. The containment was constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch
lumber covered with several layers of polyethylene sheets.
The QAPP originally specified that a grid pattern would be placed on the bottom of the tank to
enhance visualization of the dense phase. However, the entire interior of the test vessel was
coated with a white resin to provide a contrast with the liquid in the vessel such that the grid was
not necessary. Rulers were also placed vertically into the resin at each end of the test vessel to
measure the observed dense phase height to the nearest millimeter (mm). For further
information see the documentation on Deviation Number 8 in Appendix A.
As part of the verification, water was allowed to enter the test vessel in one of three ways: as an
ingress that produced a splash, as an ingress that did not produce a splash, and as a large volume
water dump. A system for water delivery into the test vessel was fabricated to accommodate
controlled ingress of water to satisfy each of these ingress methods. The water delivery system
consisted of a 5-gallon bucket that delivered water to either a rotameter with a range of 0 to 300
milliliters per min (mL/min) or a 2-inch valve. The rotameter led to a three-way valve that could
be toggled between a splash-ingress tube and a no-splash ingress tube. The splash-ingress tube
discharged straight into the test vessel, while the no-splash-ingress tube delivered water that
trickled down the fuel filler pipe and into the test vessel without causing a splash. The 2-inch
valve, when opened, allowed rapid introduction of water into the vessel. A constant pressure
head was maintained in the supply bucket to ensure that the rotameter flow rate did not fluctuate
during the verification run. The constant head was established by filling the bucket through a
water float valve from a separate 18-gallon reservoir. Scaffolding was erected around the test
vessel to provide access to the sampling ports and the water delivery system.
-------
Figure 3. Photographs of the test vessel at the Battelle West Jefferson facility. Top photo is
an exterior view test vessel with scaffolding platform. The vessel is holding EO at 65% full.
Bottom photo shows the technologies during an E15 continuous water ingress run.
-------
6 feet
Sampling
Ports
N
WX >- E
Veeder -Root
Technology Ports
Fuel
Filling
Port
Additional ATG Ports
Water
Ingress
Port
Top View
Veeder-Root
Technology Ports
Additional
ATG Ports
Front View
Side View
Figure 4. Test vessel schematic.
A representative of Veeder-Root installed the two technologies to be verified using two of the
4-inch ports provided on top of the test vessel. The Phase-Two™ Water Detector, designed for
observing a separated phase, was installed in the port nearest the glass, and the Standard Water
Float was installed in the port nearest the middle of the test vessel. A standard installation was
-------
performed, and the signal conductors were run down the scaffolding and through a conduit and
wire tray to the technology console in the intrinsically safe (i.e., protection technique for safe
operation of electronic equipment in explosive environments) portion of the building.
3.2.3 Fuel Storage Tanker
Fuel was temporarily stored in a leased three-compartment fuel tanker certified for fuel service.
The storage compartments consisted of one 2,000-gallon and two 2,500-gallon compartments.
Testing required delivery of EO and flex fuel and blending to produce El5. EO and flex fuel
were delivered and placed in the two 2,500-gallon compartments. Fuels from these two
compartments were then blended to produce El 5 which was stored in the third (2,000-gallon)
tanker compartment. After the proper quantities of EO and flex fuel were added to the
compartment, the compartment contents were circulated to blend the mixture by withdrawing
fuel from the bottom valve and pumping it back into the top hatch of the compartment.
Recirculation continued until the entire volume of the compartment was turned over at least
twice. The verification test schedule required that El5 be blended on two separate occasions.
The fuel storage tanker was placed in a large, impervious containment system constructed of a
rubber-coated tarp capable of retaining the complete volume of the largest compartment should it
leak. Fuel was transferred during blending and between fuel and waste storage areas and the test
vessel using an air-driven pump. A gasoline-powered air compressor was located in front of JS-
20 in a safe area for supplying the air.
3.2.4 Waste Fuel Storage
The fuel and water mixture in the test vessel at the completion of each run was drained from the
vessel into one or more of the 275-gallon polyethylene totes that were located on a concrete pad
outside JS-20. A total of 10 totes were available and placed within a containment system that
was capable of retaining the entire volume of the largest tote (10 percent of the total potential
volume stored in all totes). The containment area was constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch lumber
covered with polyethylene sheets. Fuel was transferred from the test vessel to the totes using an
air-driven pump. Waste fuel accumulated in the totes was periodically pumped from the totes
into a vacuum truck for disposal by a commercial hazardous waste treatment firm.
3.3 Experimental Design
This verification test was designed to evaluate the functionality of the ATG systems when in
ethanol-blended fuel service. Both technologies were tested simultaneously to ensure the testing
conditions were the same and to minimize waste fuel. The technologies were installed at the
testing facility by the vendor, and Battelle staff was trained on the proper use of the technologies
as it pertained to the QAPP. Battelle staff checked the technology console for status messages
continuously until an initial float response was indicated, recorded several instrument parameter
values at the time of initial float response and every 10 minutes thereafter during the increment
runs, and backed up the collected data each day. No on-site calibrations were necessary for the
technologies.
10
-------
The characteristics of independent variables were selected and established during the runs to
determine the response of the dependent variables. Performance parameters were evaluated
based on the responses of the dependent variables and used to characterize the functionality of
the ATG systems. Table 2 is the matrix of the Test 1 and 2 runs.
Table 2. Tests 1 and 2 Run Matrix
Fuel Type
EO
E15
ESS
Test 1 Runs
Fill Height
25%
Without Splash
X
XX
X
With Splash
XX
X
X
65%
Without Splash
XX
X
Not Conducted
With Splash
X
XX
Not Conducted
Test 2 Runs
Dump
X
X
X
X indicates runs performed during verification testing. XX indicates where duplicate runs were conducted.
Dependent Variable Responses—The ATGs were evaluated with respect to their ability to
properly respond to the presence of water. Detection of water ingress represents the dependent
variable for these tests.
Independent Variable Levels—The levels of the independent variables were established to
simulate conditions expected to be found in operating USTs. The water ingress detection tests
consider different independent variables.
The independent variables included in the runs and the levels for each variable depended on the
environment the run was simulating. The variables were altered to achieve different conditions
for the ATGs to operate within. All water ingress tests were performed at the test facility in the
test vessel described in Section 3.2, thus preserving important physical tank features that impact
ATG technology response. The independent variables that were varied for the test runs are:
• Fuel ethanol content;
• Fuel height; and
• Water ingress method/rate.
The first independent variable comprised fuels of three different ethanol concentrations (0%,
15%, and 85%). The EO fuel served as an operational baseline for the ATGs. The low end
represented EPA El5 Waiver fuel (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/el5/index.htm).
The flex fuel represented an existing high-end blend in use. Prior to beginning the verification
test, the ethanol content was confirmed analytically using American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D48153 for EO and E15, and ASTM D55014 or an equivalent method for flex
fuel. As stated in the QAPP, ethanol results were required to be within 10% of the nominal
concentration before each test run (e.g., an acceptable ethanol content of E15 would be between
13.5% and 16.5%). For the initial runs (using EO), however, testing was started before receiving
the analytical laboratory results on ethanol content (Deviation Numbers 4 and 5). Waiting for
the analytical results to come back would have delayed testing several days. The ethanol content
results instead returned the day after testing began and had no impact on testing results. The
11
-------
water content of the fuel and the ethanol-water mixture (dense phase) were determined using a
Karl-Fischer titration method.
The second independent variable was defined as fuel height and consisted of two heights (a 25%
full tank and a 65% full tank) during verification testing. These two heights were chosen to
represent reasonable fuel levels that could be expected in operating tanks. The lower fuel height
yielded the greater splash mixing potential, but shorter diffusion columns through which the
water could flow. Conversely, the higher fuel height yielded the lower splash mixing potential,
but the higher diffusion column. The fill heights were established to ± 10% of the target height
of either 25% or 65%. At 25% and 65% of the height of the test vessel, 170 and 610 gallons,
respectively, of fuel were in the test vessel.
The QAPP called for testing the technologies at 25% full and 90% full. Instead of a 90% full
height, testing was performed at a 65% full height. The change of testing at 65% instead of 90%
was made as a result of laboratory bench tests showing that flex fuel has the potential to hold a
large amount of water. Testing at a 90% height would have potentially resulted in insufficient
space in the test vessel to complete water ingress testing for flex fuel. The change in fuel fill
height is the subject of Deviation Number 1. Additionally, this change resulted in less fuel waste
and safer conduct of testing due to the smaller amounts of fuel needed for the respective tests
while maintaining a substantially higher diffusion column than possible with the 25% height.
The third independent variable was water ingress method/rate. Water ingress was either
continuous or rapid. Continuous ingress was performed with or without a splash on the surface
of the fuel. Water was fed into the test vessel at a constant rate which was controlled using a
constant pressure-head reservoir metered through a rotameter. The location of the continuous
water ingress was either straight onto the fuel surface or down the surface of the fuel filler riser.
These two methods were selected to simulate the types of continuous water ingress that might
occur in an operating UST. A rapid water ingress method was also devised, wherein a 2-gallon
dump of water was rapidly dropped into the test vessel as might occur when water was present in
the fuel delivery tanker or present in the spill bucket prior to opening.
3.3.1 Test la Continuous Water Ingress Test-Minimum Detection Height
The water ingress tests were focused on the mixing method of water addition into the test vessel.
In the first test, a continuous stream of water was introduced into the test vessel to produce a
splash on the surface of the fuel or to not produce a splash by trickling the water along the
surface of the fuel filler riser pipe to slowly meet the surface of the fuel. These runs were
performed using the three different ethanol blends at two different fill heights described above.
The independent variables and levels for the continuous water ingress test were:
• Fuel ethanol content (three levels): EO, El5, and flex fuel;
• Fuel height (two levels): 25% and 65% full; and
• Water ingress method/rate (two levels): with splash and without splash.
The water ingress method/rate was selected to establish conditions that impact the degree of
mixing that occurs in a tank using the three ethanol blends. In these runs, the true ingress rate
ranged from a minimum of 152 mL/min to 188 mL/min for both the with- and without-splash
12
-------
ingress rates. The rate was established to accumulate enough water to generate a technology
response within 1 hour. In some cases the water addition continued beyond 1 hour to ensure
observing a response in the water detection technology. If a response was not observed in 3
hours, the run was terminated. Run termination times were established to be the same for the
two ingress methods because it was expected that this time interval encompasses the potential for
the technologies to detect the water with both ingress methods. With these methods of water
ingress, some mixing occurred due to splash mixing (depending on the height of fuel in the
vessel) and some mixing occurred by diffusion (no splash). Introducing water with a splash was
accomplished by positioning a water tube such that water droplets would free-fall to the fuel
surface below. Introducing water without a splash was accomplished by positioning the water
tube such that surface tension allowed the water to flow along the outside of the fuel filler riser
pipe with minimal agitation to the surface of the fuel.
3.3.2 Test Ib Continuous Water Ingress Test-Smallest Detection Increment
To address the second requirement of water detection, once the water detection technologies
reacted to the minimum water height, the smallest increment in water height that can be
measured was determined. The ingress rate of 200 mL/min was calculated to produce a height
increase at the bottom of the tank of approximately 1/16* of an inch in 10 minutes. Readings
were taken from the technology, as well as visually, 10 minutes after the increment portion of the
run started. Both the technology readings and the manually-measured water levels were
recorded. Readings/measurements were taken after ten, 10-minute increments for each replicate
of Test 1 (to produce a minimum of 100 measurements).
3.3.3 Test 2 Water Ingress Detection of a Quick Water Dump, Then a Fuel Dump (Quick
Dump)
The second test focused on the potential to detect phase separation in an UST. The test was
designed to simulate a quick water ingress rate followed by a high degree of mixing such as
might occur if the spill bucket was dumped into the tank at a 25% fill height and then fuel was
dumped to fill the tank to a 65% fill height. This test was mainly observational in that the test
vessel was disturbed quickly with water and fuel, and the response of the technology was
recorded throughout the test. Three runs of this type were conducted for Test 2, one for each of
the fuel types being evaluated in this verification test. The EO run was conducted first and used
as the baseline for the technology responses to establish the minimum wait time of 30 minutes
with El5 and flex fuel. The independent variables and levels for Quick Dump water ingress test
were:
• Fuel ethanol content (three levels): EO, El5, and flex fuel;
• Fuel height started at 25% and was filled after water detection to 65% full; and
• Water ingress method/rate: 2 gallon water dumps until the technologies detected water
ingress
Table 3 presents the run summary and sequence for Tests 1 and 2. The QAPP called for data to
be gathered under every combination of levels between all variables. However, when
performing the flex fuel runs at 25% of the tank height, the run termination time was reached
before the technology responded to the water ingress or any clear presence of water or a
13
-------
separated phase was produced. (After 3 hours at 200 mL/min, approximately 7.5 gallons of
water would have been added, which should have produced a water level of approximately 2
inches.) The time to produce a response in a 65% full vessel would need to be even greater than
this time. As a result, and per the QAPP, the two 65% full runs were removed from the test
design since it was believed that no usable quantifiable data would be generated, and a large
amount of contaminated fuel would have been produced.
Table 3. Run Summary and Sequence for the Continuing Water Ingress and Dump Tests
Test Day
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
Date (2011)
9/13
9/14
9/15
9/16
9/19
9/19
9/20
9/21
9/21
9/22
9/23
9/26
9/27
9/28
9/28
9/29
9/30
Not conducted*
Not conducted*
Fuel
Type
EO
EO
EO
EO
EO
EO
E15
E15
E15
Flex
Flex
Flex
E15
E15
EO
E15
E15
Flex
Flex
Fill Height,
percent
25
25
25 then 65
65
65
65
25
25
25
25
25 then 65
25
65
25 then 65
25
65
65
65
65
Ingress Method
Without Splash
With Splash
Dump
Without Splash
With Splash
Without Splash
Without Splash
With Splash
Without Splash
Without Splash
Dump
With Splash
With Splash
Dump
With Splash
Without Splash
With Splash
Without Splash
With Splash
Run ID
EO-25-wo
EO-25-w
EO-dump
EO-65-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-WO
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO-DUP
Flex-25-wo
Flex-dump
Flex-25-w
E15-65-W
E15-dump
EO-25-w-DUP
E15-65-wo
E15-65-W-DUP
Flex-65-wo
Flex-65-w
w - with
wo - without
DUP - duplicate/replicate run
*Runs not conducted because the results from the flex fuel runs at 25% full were terminated after 3 hours without
responses from the technologies.
3.4 Experimental Procedures
3.4.1 Pre-Run Preparations
A number of pre-run preparations were performed to ensure data quality and consistency. Pre-
run preparations included fuel blending and transfer, preparation of the water distribution system,
and introduction of water to the drain in the test vessel.
14
-------
Table 3 presents the fuels and ingress methods that were used for the various runs during testing.
Some run conditions listed in Table 3 differ from the conditions discussed in the QAPP. For
instance, the flex fuel test with a fill height of 65% never occurred because testing at the 25%
level generated inconclusive data. If the flex fuel tests had also been run, the results would have
been just as inconclusive and would have wasted several hundred gallons of fuel. Also EO-25-
wo-DUP was run as a duplicate of EO-25-wo instead of Flex-25-w as was stated in the QAPP,
because the Flex-25-wo and Flex-25-w runs were terminated after 3 hours of inconclusive
results. For further information refer to Deviation Number 12.
Fuel deliveries included EO and flex fuel. These fuels were used in the runs and they were also
used to prepare two volumes of El 5 (VEIS). The amounts of EO (FEO) and flex fuel (FFF), which
was presumed to contain 85% ethanol, needed for the blend were calculated using the equations
shown below:
VEIS * 0. 15 = l^Etoh Equation 1
-77 = FFF Equation 2
0.85
VEIS — VFF = VEO Equation 3
Two batches of El 5 blend were produced during the tests. For the initial batch, the calculated
volumes of EO and flex fuel were measured by the pump gauge on the delivery tanker and
pumped into the fuel storage tanker or one of the 275-gallon totes. For the second batch, the
calculated volumes of EO and flex fuel were placed into one or more 275-gallon totes and
measured using the graduation marks on the totes. After the corrected volumes were measured,
both the EO and flex fuel were added to one compartment in the fuel storage tanker. The pump
was then set up to circulate the contents of the bottom of the compartment to the top of the
compartment to mix the solution. The contents of the compartment were mixed for roughly an
hour, or long enough for the pump to circulate the volume two times. After mixing, a 50 mL
sample was collected to determine the actual ethanol content using the quick test described in the
next paragraph. If the quick test results came back low, more flex fuel would have been mixed
in, while if the quick test results came back high, more EO would have been added (although
neither of these ever occurred during testing). The quick test was then repeated and the process
continued until the desired ethanol content was established.
Prior to collecting a sample for laboratory analysis, the ethanol content of each bulk fuel was
tested using a method published in Appendix E of the "Guidebook for Handling, Storing, &
Dispensing Fuel Ethanol."5 This quick test was performed by adding 50 mL of water and 50 mL
of ethanol fuel to a 1 00 mL graduated cylinder, capping the cylinder, and shaking it until the
contents were fully mixed. The volume of the dense phase and the volume of the light phase
(Fip) were both recorded after mixing. The ethanol content (Etoh) was calculated using the
following equation:
= 98. 69 - [1. 97 * (Tip)] Equation 4
15
-------
After the ethanol content was determined using the quick test and found to be in the requisite
concentration range, roughly 100 mL of each fuel blend was collected and sent to an analytical
laboratory for analysis. The QAPP indicated that these samples would be stored and shipped at
0° to 5°C (32° to 40°F), but after discussion with the analytical laboratory it was determined that
shipping and handling at ambient temperature would be adequate (Deviation Number 6). Table
4 presents the amount of ethanol in the fuels used for this verification test.
Table 4. Analytically Determined Ethanol Content of Fuels
Ethanol
Blend
EO
E15
E15 Duplicate
E85
E85
E15
E85
E85 Duplicate
Sampled
Date
8-Sep-1 1
8-Sep-1 1
8-Sep-1 1
8-Sep-1 1
8-Sep-1 1
26-Sep-11
29-Sep-11
29-Sep-11
Analysis
Date
9-Sep-1 1
9-Sep-1 1
9-Sep-1 1
9-Sep-1 1
9-Sep-1 1
28-Sep-11
4-Oct-1 1
4-Oct-1 1
Batch
1
1
1
1
1
2
1 -rerun
1 -rerun
Analytical
Method
D4815
D4815
D4815
D5501
D5501
D4815
Modified D5501
Modified D5501
% Volume
Ethanol
0.11
13.76
13.79
74.54*
74.65*
14.46
79.66
79.44
*Results not within acceptance criteria, reran using a modified D5501 method by another laboratory.
Deviation 3 stated that the original analytical laboratory determination of the flex fuel ethanol
content was not within ±10% of 85 percent ethanol as was specified in the QAPP. This
laboratory also used a calibrated range outside the acceptable target range of the sample but
within the stated ASTM method. However, both the fuel terminal mix ticket from the fuel
supplier and the quick test described in Section 3.4.1 determined the fuel ethanol content to be
acceptable. Because of this information and due to time constraints, the verification testing
continued as scheduled, and another flex fuel sample was sent to a different laboratory. This
second laboratory performed a modified D5501 method that expanded the calibration range to
encompass the targeted range of this technology evaluation. This laboratory determined the
sample to contain 79.55% ethanol, which was within ±10% of the expected value.
After the ethanol content of the fuel was determined, fuel was transferred from the storage area
to the test vessel. An air driven pump and several sections of transfer hose were used to transfer
fuel into the test vessel. The suction hose was first used to connect the correct tanker
compartment to the pump inlet, and the discharge hose was used to connect the pump outlet into
the test vessel. After the proper vent lines and valves were open, the air line that supplied
compressed air to the pump was opened to allow fuel to flow from the tanker into the test vessel.
The 25% and 65% fill levels were marked on the outside of the test vessel with a measuring tape,
and when the fuel was at the desired level, the tanker discharge valve was closed. The discharge
hoses were completely cleared of fuel between runs. The hoses were then disconnected, coupled
to themselves (end-to-end) and stored until the next transfer.
3.4.2 Water Preparation and Rotameter Checks
Water used for the ingress tests was colored with food dye, placed in a two-reservoir distribution
system with a constant head, and fed to the test vessel through a rotameter or dump valve. Tap
water from the site was placed in an 18-gallon reserve bucket, and several drops of food dye
16
-------
were added to the reserve bucket until the water was a vibrant color. Blue food dye was used to
produce the best contrast between the fuel and the water. The reserve bucket fed the constant-
head reservoir that discharged directly into the test vessel (for quick dump runs) or through a
rotameter into the test vessel (for continuous ingress runs). The rotameter flow rate was checked
several times each day. For this check, the rotameter was set to the desired flow rate, and a
sample was collected in a graduated cylinder as the elapsed time was measured. Typically, a
sample was collected for 20 seconds in a graduated cylinder so that the volume of the sample
collected could be easily measured. Three such checks were performed each day, and the results
were recorded in the Laboratory Record Book (LRB). Table 5 presents the measured flow rate
data from the continuous water ingress test.
Table 5. Continuous Water Ingress Test Flow Rates
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-W
E85-25-WO
Rotameter setting
(ml/min)
200
200
200
200
220
200
200
200
200
220
200
220
200
200
Determined Ingress
rate (ml/min)
177
182
183
179
181
183
176
183
152
188
176
156
160
153
% Difference
-11%
-9%
-8%
-10%
-18%
-8%
-12%
-9%
-24%
-14%
-12%
-29%
-20%
-24%
The QAPP specified that water would be added to the test vessel until the water depth reached
75% of the vendor-stated detection level prior to initiating each run. This preparation step was
specified so as to shorten the time needed for the technology to initially detect water. However,
technologies for two different vendors were installed in the same test vessel, and the differences
in the detection thresholds of each vendor's technology were such that this criterion could not be
achieved. In addition, the vender-stated detection levels were low enough that it was not
necessary to establish a water layer before starting ingress testing (Deviation Number 7). Due to
the fact that water added to the test vessel for most of the runs would sink to the bottom of the
vessel, however, it was still necessary to add water to fill the drain pipe prior to beginning each
run. Otherwise, the water added during the first 10 to 15 minutes of an ingress run would
displace the fuel already in the drain and confound the observations. After the initial fuel level in
the test vessel was established, water was added to the drain by lowering a clear pipe into the
drain from the top of the test vessel and pouring water down the pipe until it appeared that the
drain was full of water. This was not done for runs with flex fuel because the water would mix
directly into the fuel.
17
-------
3.4.3 Pre-Run Readings and Samples
Samples were collected throughout testing to determine the water content and the density of the
material in the test vessel. A 50 mL or smaller sample was withdrawn from specific spots in the
test vessel through the sampling ports provided on top of the vessel. Sample information and
density results were recorded on the Sample Conditions and Chain-of-Custody log. Roughly 2 to
4 mL of each sample were separated into a vial and delivered to Battelle's laboratory where the
water content was determined using a Karl-Fischer titration method. The remainder of the
sample was passed through a flow-through density meter that displayed the density and
temperature of the sample.
An 8-ft long "thief sampler was used to collect samples from the test vessel. Between each
sample, the sampler and the containers were decontaminated using methanol as a rinse agent.
The sampler was allowed to air dry before collecting the next sample.
Various readings were taken and data were recorded before and during every run. These
readings included start times, end times, temperatures, heights, etc. These readings were
recorded on Water Ingress and the Fuel Dump data sheets. In addition, at certain intervals, data
sheets were printed from the technology console.
Two QAPP deviations occurred related to these readings. The QAPP stated that the water height
would be measured to the nearest 1/32" of an inch using a standard ruler. However, the scale
installed in the bottom of the test vessel was graduated in millimeters; thus, the water height was
measured to the nearest millimeter (1/25.4 inch) or 0.5 millimeter (1/50.8 inch) instead
(Deviation Number 9). Another deviation (Deviation Number 10) from the QAPP was that
instead of continuously monitoring the density of fuel, grab samples were obtained from the tank
and tested at certain intervals. The original plan to continuously withdraw a sample using a
peristaltic pump would have generated static electricity, thus producing an explosion hazard.
This deviation, therefore, was needed to eliminate safety concerns of having pumping and
electrical equipment near the test vessel.
3.4.4 Water Ingress
Three types of water ingress methods were tested: continuous water ingress with splash,
continuous water ingress without splash, and a quick dump. The two different continuous
methods were introduced into the test vessel using a rotameter. One outlet led to a fill tube that
allowed the water to run down the fuel filler riser pipe without creating a splash, while the other
outlet led into the test vessel and allowed the water to fall several feet to create a splash. A
three-way valve was used to connect the rotameter discharge to the proper outlet. The valve on
the rotameter was adjusted until the desired flow rate was achieved.
The rotameter was not used for the quick dump runs. The water reservoir bucket was marked at
the 2-gallon level. After the water reservoir bucket was filled to this mark with water, a ball
valve was quickly turned to allow the full contents of the reservoir to enter the test vessel at
once.
18
-------
3.4.5 Run Observations
Observations were taken throughout each run to record the characteristics and reactions in the
test vessel. A notation was made on the run data sheets any time that an interaction, reaction, or
mixing characteristic was witnessed in the test vessel.
3.4.6 Data Logging
A serial port was used to connect the Veeder-Root console with a laptop computer for the
purpose of logging the data from the probes. Veeder-Root supplied a Serial Poller program to
assist in receiving data and writing it to a log file. This log file was decoded using a program
from Veeder-Root (at55parser.exe) that provided the data in tabular format. This program was
also used to create comma separated files (.csv) that can be read by Microsoft® Excel.
3.4.7Run Termination
The continuous water ingress runs were terminated after the 100-minute incremental ingress
portion was completed, or when there were no changes indicated by the probes, or after 3 hours
if no reaction. Three hours was chosen because at the flow rates used in the testing close to 6
gallons would have been introduced to the tank in that time period, assuming complete
separation this would have created a dense phase of more than 2 inches. The quick dump runs
were terminated no sooner than 30 minutes after fuel addition to the tank had stopped. Fuel
addition occurred at between 50 and 70 gallons per minute. When no changes in reading from
the probes were observed, the run was terminated.
3.4.8 Post-Run Sampling Analysis
The same types of readings were taken and samples were collected after the runs as for the pre-
run readings and samples discussed in Section 3.4.3. A sample of the dense phase in the test
vessel was also collected through the drain. Similarly, it was analyzed for density and water
content.
3.4.9 Post-Run Activities
At completion of each run, fuel was transferred into the waste totes. The process for transferring
fuel from the test vessel to the totes was similar to that used to transfer fuel, except for the
suction and discharge locations.
3.5 Monitoring
Other variables may influence the operability of ATGs during the evaluation; therefore,
information on these other variables was collected during the testing but not controlled. Table 6
presents a list of these other variables, their measurement methods, and monitoring frequencies.
Appendix C presents the barometric pressure and ambient temperature conditions during the test
period.
19
-------
Table 6. Other Independent Variables Monitored During Testing
Variable
Barometric pressure
Ambient temperature
Fuel temperature
Fuel density
Tank size, geometry, and
material of construction
Measurement Method
Barometer
Thermometer
Thermometer
Density meter
Construction specifications
Monitoring Frequency
Semi-continuous from Battelle
Weather Station
Semi-continuous from Battelle
Weather Station
Periodically during testing when
samples were taken
Periodically during testing when
samples were taken
Once prior to tank use
3.6 Operational Factors
Operational factors such as maintenance needs, data output, and sustainability factors such as
ease of use, and repair requirements were noted when observed. Battelle testing staff
documented observations in the LRB and data sheets. Examples of recorded information include
the daily status of diagnostic indicators for the technology, the effort associated with any repair,
vendor effort (e.g., time on site) for setup, the duration and causes of any technology downtime
or data acquisition failure and operator observations on many other related items (i.e., technology
startup, ease of use, and user-friendliness of the software).
20
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the
QMP for the AMS Center and the QAPP for this verification test. QA/QC procedures and
results are described in the following subchapters.
4.1 Data Collection Quality Control
Table 7 presents a list of parameters that were proposed to be measured during the ETV tests and
the QA criteria established for them in the QAPP. Some deviations to these specified procedures
were observed during testing and noted during audits of the test. Further discussion of this
aspect of the ETV test is provided below.
Table 7. Data Collection Quality Control Assessments for the ATG Verification Tests
Measured
Parameters
Induced water
ingress rate
Ethanol content
of fuel
Water content
of fuel and
dense phase
Fuel height
Dense phase
height
Method of
Assessment
Verify metered
rates in
triplicate using
stopwatch and
graduated
cylinder
ASTMD4815or
D5501 or
equivalent
method
ASTM E203 or
E1064: Karl-
Fischer Titration
or equivalent
method
1/8-inch
graduated scale
on the exterior
of the vessel
Standard ruler
with 1-mm and
0.1-inch
graduations
Frequency
Performed at least
once each day,
prior to testing
Once for each
batch delivered or
prepared
Once before and
after each water
ingress run
Once prior to and
during each run,
as required
At the intervals
specific to the run
being performed
Acceptance
Criteria
As determined by
assessment
method
± 1 0% of target
ethanol content
As determined by
assessment
method
± 1 0% of either
25% or 65%
height, run
dependent
As determined by
assessment
method
Corrective Action
Verified flow rate used
to calculate an average
error, which was
applied to the rotameter
setting used during a
run
Review data to
troubleshoot results and
adjust as necessary
Review data to
troubleshoot results and
adjust as necessary
Adjust fuel level in
vessel as necessary
Review data and adjust
as necessary
21
-------
The initial approach for the water ingress method was to use a peristaltic pump as the means of
controlling the water ingress. Due to safety concerns, a different system for water delivery into
the test vessel was fabricated to accommodate controlled ingress of water (Deviation Number
13). Continuous water ingress was supplied using a gravity feed apparatus that maintained a
constant pressure by providing a secondary reservoir and a float valve that controlled the water
level in a primary reservoir. The primary (constant pressure) reservoir fed into a rotameter
which was verified prior to testing at least once each day of testing. This water feed system was
used to supply a constant-rate water supply in lieu of a peristaltic pump due to safety concerns
associated with the static electricity build up and having an electricity source near the fuel-
containing test vessel. To evaluate the flow rate prior to each day's testing, water was collected
in triplicate for a 20-second duration, measured with a stop watch, into a graduated cylinder at a
given flow rate as read from the rotameter. The resulting flow rate (Fiow) for each replicate was
compared to the rotameter reading (.Rota) to calculate a percent error (Err):
r, Flaw—Rote -r-t .. —
Err = — Equation 5
«ota
These individual replicate errors were averaged and the average applied to the rotameter setting
recorded for testing performed on a particular date. The resulting flow rate was used to calculate
volumes of water added to the vessel for a given experiment.
Experimental starting fuel heights were established at 25% or 65% of the test vessel height.
These corresponded to 17 13/ie inches and 46 5/ie inches, respectively, as read from rulers (with
1/8-inch graduations) applied to the glass sides of the test vessel. The rulers were attached to the
vessel prior to the beginning of testing and remained until all runs were completed. Readings
between the 1/8-inch graduations were estimated to the nearest 1/16 inch. The total interior
height of the vessel was 71 Vi inches due to the %-inch of resin added to the bottom of the vessel
to allow the probes to sit on a flat surface. As presented in Table 8, starting fuel heights were
within 10% of the 25% or 65% height for all runs except the E15-25-wo-DUP run, which was
10.5% below the 25% fill height.
22
-------
Table 8. Differences from Target Fuel Heights for Continuous and Dump Test Runs
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-WO
E85-25-W
EO Dump
E15 Dump
E85 Dump
% Difference from Target
Fuel Height
2.1%
2.8%
-3.2%
-3.9%
-6.3%
-3.4%
-5.6%
0%
-2.7%
-1 .8%
-11%
-2.6%
-3.2%
-6.0%
-0.7%
-3.2%
-9.8%
For each test, once fuel was added to the test vessel, and prior to beginning water ingress, one
sample from the center of the test vessel next to the fill riser pipe (for EO tests) or one sample
from between the ATG probes (for El5 and flex fuel tests) was taken to determine initial density
and water content. An aliquot (approximately 2 to 4 mL) of each sample was placed in a 4-mL
dram vial for water content analysis and an aliquot was analyzed on site for density as soon as
practical after sampling.
Dense phase height was measured using standard stainless steel rulers incorporated into the resin
placed inside the test vessel to level the bottom of the vessel. The rulers, with 1 mm and 0.1 inch
graduations, were placed inside the test vessel during construction (one at each end of the test
vessel) with the zero graduation of the ruler flush with the resin bottom of the test vessel. During
test vessel placement at the test site, the vessel containing several inches of water was leveled as
closely as possible to within 2 mm as noted on the rulers. The north end of the test vessel was
approximately 2 mm higher than the south end, which resulted in dense phase readings on the
north end approximately 2 mm less than those from the south end of the vessel.
4.2 Audits
Three types of audits were performed during the verification test: a performance evaluation audit
(PEA) of the analytical methods, a technical systems audit (TSA) of the verification test
procedures, and a data quality audit (DQA). Audit procedures are described further below.
23
-------
4.2.1 Performance Evaluation Audit
A PEA was conducted to assess the quality of the analytical measurements made in this
verification test. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standards
were used to evaluate all of the analytical methods. These Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)
were analyzed directly (i.e., without preparation); the SRMs fell in the middle of the calibration
ranges of the analytical methods.
The two methods identified in the QAPP for ethanol analysis were D48153 for the lower
percentages and D55014 for the high percentages. The acceptable criterion for the audit was for
the result to be within 10% of the certified value. Table 9 presents the results of the PEA and
concluded that these methods produced acceptable results.
Table 9. PEA Results for ASTM Methods D4815 and D5501 for Ethanol Content
Determination
Method
D4815
D5501
Analysis
Date
8/12/11
8/12/11
Sample
Description
SRM2287E10
SRM 2900
Ethanol-Water
Certified
Ethanol
Concentration,
percent
10.1
95.6
Analytical
Ethanol
Concentration,
percent
9.58
96.6
Recovery
95%
101%
The method used for the determination of water content is a Battelle Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP)6 which follows ASTM Methods E203 and E1064. The same Ethanol-Water
SRM 2900 used to perform the ethanol PEA was used to evaluate the water method. In addition
to the SRM, two certified calibration check standards were analyzed. The criterion for this
method was within 5% of the certified concentration. As shown in Table 10, the SRM result was
not within these bounds; however, the other two check standards were within the criteria. The
Battelle Verification Test Coordinator (VTC) and the laboratory representative discussed the
results and determined the method acceptable (Deviation Number 11). The certified level for
SRM 2900 is ± 1.9%. The PEA results of the SRM are acceptable if this variation is taken into
consideration.
24
-------
Table 10. PEA Results for Karl-Fischer Titration Method for Water Content
Determination
Analysis
Date
8/23/1 1
8/23/1 1
8/23/1 1
Sample ID
53358-25-6
Water
Standard 1
Water
Standard 10
Sample
Description
SRM 2900 Ethanol-
Water-Replicate 1
Water Standard 1
Water Standard 10
Certified
Water
Content, %
4.4
4.4
4.4
Average
0.10
0.10
Average
1.0
1.0
Average
Analytical
Water Content,
%
5.26
5.31
5.25
5.27
0.093
0.115
0.104
0.988
0.997
0.993
% Error
20%
3.1%
1.1%
4.2.2 Technical Systems Audit
The Battelle AMS Center QA Officer for this verification test performed a TSA during the
laboratory bench-test portion of this verification test to ensure that the verification test was
performed in accordance with the QMP for the AMS Center and the QAPP. On September 14
and 15, 2011, this same person conducted a TSA to verify that field testing was being conducted
according to the QAPP requirements. The September 14th TSA was conducted at the field test
site to observe the run with EO fuel at 25% full, and with a splash. Ms. Jennifer Redmon (RTI
International) conducted a simultaneous TSA on behalf of EPA under contract to Neptune and
Co. during the Battelle audit. The TSA included a review of documents available at the test site
for reference and records being maintained by the testing staff; observations of the test vessel
water delivery and measurement system; the initiation of several splash runs; and the real-time
data recording practices during each run. A debriefing was conducted with the Battelle VTC,
Battelle Verification Testing Leader, Battelle AMS Center Manager, EPA AMS Center Project
Officer and QA Manager, and Ms. Redmon.
On September 15, 2011, a TSA was conducted to review the water content analytical procedures
at one of Battelle's analytical laboratories. The results of the TSAs indicated that testing was
conducted according to the QAPP with minor exceptions.
Three observations were noted during the audit: 1) the laboratory analysis of the flex fuel was
greater than 10% different than the nominal concentration because the laboratory calibration
range did not include a standard at or below 85%; 2) the test vessel was not pre-filled with water
up to 75% of the vendor-stated threshold level prior to test initiation; and 3) a peristaltic pump
was not used to deliver water to the test vessel due to concerns about the use of electrical
equipment around the test vessel. Battelle's assessment was that the noted deviations did not
negatively impact the quality of data being generated for the test, but it was agreed during the
25
-------
debriefing that the VTC would attempt to identify another analytical laboratory to perform
confirmation analysis. One finding for both the field test site and laboratory bench testing was
related to data or sample identification and the need for clear and direct links to the technology
data on site and the titrameter data in the laboratory. TSA observations included an observation
on the need for more coordinated recording practices and an observation that supporting
measurements were not being collected at the frequency defined in QAPP Table 9.
4.2.3 Data Quality Audit
Records generated in the verification test received a one-to-one review before these records were
used to calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. Data were reviewed by a Battelle
technical staff member involved in the verification test. The person performing the review added
his/her initials and the date to a hard copy of the record being reviewed.
One hundred percent of the verification test data were reviewed for quality by the VTC, and at
least 25% of the data acquired during the verification test and 100% of the calibration and QC
data were audited by Battelle's QA Reviewer. The data were traced from the initial acquisition,
through reduction and statistical analysis, to final reporting to ensure the integrity of the reported
results. All calculations performed on the data undergoing the audit were checked.
The DQA included a review of the raw data in comparison to the data calculation spreadsheets,
through final reporting in the report tables. All imbedded calculations in the spreadsheets were
verified for accuracy to the QAPP, and all QC results were reviewed. The report was reviewed
against the QAPP, and all deviations to testing were reported. The text was reviewed against the
data tables to ensure the discussion was consistent with the data. Minor transcription and
calculation errors were noted and brought to the attention of the VTC for correction. A data
audit report was prepared, and a copy was distributed to the EPA.
4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Deviations
Appendix A presents a list of all deviations found during the QA/QC checks performed. Specific
deviations are discussed throughout this verification report where appropriate. The remaining
deviations are discussed below.
Deviation Number 2, the first QA deviation, stated that the calibration procedures for ethanol
blends and analysis of the PEA samples did not follow the methods defined in the QAPP. This
deviation occurred because certified standards needed for the calibration were not available.
However, the analytical laboratory routinely analyzes fuels according to the ASTM test method
that was used.
Deviation Number 12 discusses the changes made to the test run matrix to maximize data
collection and minimize fuel waste. The two E85 runs at 65% full were not conducted because
the parallel runs at 25% full were inconclusive. In addition, since the technologies did not
respond to the E85 test runs, the incremental sensitivity tests were not conducted. Finally, the
duplicate run of the E85 fuel was changed to a duplicate of EO fuel.
26
-------
Deviation Number 14 stated that many of the QC requirements listed in the QAPP were different
than those actually implemented by the analysis laboratories. This deviation occurred due to
using several different laboratories and defining several different test methods during the
verification test design phase. These variations in implemented QA procedures are expected to
have little or no impact on the verification test results, as the labs followed the ASTM
requirements that are widely accepted.
Deviation Number 15 was a consequence of the corrective action for Deviation Number 3. No
PEA occurred when the second flex fuel sample was sent for ethanol determination at the second
laboratory. The second analysis of the E85 fuel was performed in-kind from the only laboratory
identified to use a modified D5501 method that fit the technology evaluation parameters. The
PEA sample was actually sent to the selected laboratory, but the laboratory never analyzed the
sample.
27
-------
Chapter 5
Statistical Methods
The statistical methods used to evaluate the quantitative performance factors listed in Section 3.3
are presented in this chapter. Qualitative observations were also used to evaluate verification test
data. The following subchapters describe each performance parameter evaluated.
5.1 Accuracy
Accuracy is the measure of the degree of agreement between the technology reading and the
independently-measured reading. Accuracy, as evaluated in this verification test, is the degree to
which the initial technology dense phase (i.e., water or phase separation) height measurement in
the test vessel agrees with the height measurement taken using the ruler installed in the vessel.
Bias was calculated to derive an estimate of accuracy by comparing the technology
measurements with the observed ruler measurements at the time of the initial response for each
run as shown in Equation 6.
„- V" DPHT-initi-DPHo-initj _, .. ,
Bias = > - ! - l- Equation 6
where: n = the number of runs,
t = the technology-measured water or separated dense phase
height at the time of initial technology response, and
t = the independently-observed water or separated dense
phase height at the time of initial technology response.
5.2 Sensitivity
Sensitivity is a measure of the extent to which the methods and instrumentation associated with a
given technology are able to detect the event of interest when in fact the event has occurred. A
technology is determined to have higher sensitivity as the event becomes more difficult to detect
with a certain degree of confidence. Sensitivity differs according to the nature of the test and
type of event. Two measures of sensitivity were evaluated in the continuous water ingress
verification tests: 1) the minimum detectable height of water or separated dense phase in the test
vessel, and 2) the smallest detectable change in the height of water or separated dense phase.
28
-------
5.2.1 Tolerance Limit
For this verification test, the first part of sensitivity was quantified by the minimum value for
water or separated dense phase height at which the probability is at least 0.95 (95%) that the
technology detected the presence of either water or a separated dense phase in the bottom of the
vessel. This estimate of sensitivity was based on the average of the technology measurements
acquired at the time of initial response from each run, to which a one-sided tolerance interval
was applied to derive the 95% probability. Tolerance limit (TL) was calculated to derive an
estimate of the sensitivity of each technology to detect water or separated dense phase using
Equations 7, 8, and 9 in the following steps:
1. The mean W of the measured water or separated dense phase heights when the
technology first responded to continuous water ingress was calculated using
Equation 7.
=r
^->i=i
Equation 7
where: n = the number of runs (12), and
DPHj-init = the technology-measured water or separated dense phase
height at the time of initial technology response.
2. The standard deviation (SD) of the measured heights was calculated using
Equation 8.
1/2
2f=1(DPHT_initj- "'
SD =
n-l
Equation 8
where: n = the number of runs (12),
DPHj-init = the technology-measured water or separated dense phase
height at the time of initial technology response, and
x = the mean of the initial technology responses.
3. The tolerance coefficient (K) for a one-sided normal tolerance interval with a 95%
probability level and a 95% coverage for the number of runs (n=12) was obtained
from a tolerance factors table.7
4. Finally, the TL was calculated using Equation 9.
TL = x + k SD Equation 9
where the terms are defined as above.
29
-------
5.2.2 Minimum Detectable Level Change
Sensitivity also is quantified by the smallest detectable change in the water or dense separated
phase level height once water or a dense phase is detected with at least a 95% probability of
detecting the change. This aspect of sensitivity was based on comparing the paired measurement
values (technology readings versus manual observations) for each of the 10 incremental
differences established after the challenged technologies responded to the presence of the dense
phase in the continuous water ingress runs. The minimum detectable level change (MLC) in
water height was calculated to estimate the sensitivity for each technology to detect a change in
water height using Equations 10 through 15 in the following steps:
1. For each technology, the incremental differences were calculated between the
technology-measured water or separated dense phase heights (difrrinc) for each of the
10 consecutive time increments (inci through incio) for all EO and El 5 continuous
water ingress runs (r).
2. The incremental differences were calculated between the independently-observed
water or separated dense phase heights (diforinc) for each of the 10 consecutive time
increments (inci through incio) for all EO and El 5 continuous water ingress runs (r).
3. For each technology and each run, the paired differences (Deltarmc) were calculated
for each pair of technology-measured and independently-observed incremental
changes (hi r inc- horinc) as in Equation 10:
Deltarinc = difTrinc — dif0rinc Equation 10
where: r = a specific EO or El5 run,
inc = a specific 10-minute time increment within run r,
difp = the incremental difference in the technology-measured dense
phase height, and
difo = the incremental difference in the independently-measured dense
phase height.
4. For each technology and each run, the average of all paired differences over the run
(Deltar) was calculated as in Equation 11.
Deltar= Zrnc=1 rmc Equation 11
where: inc = a specific 10-minute time increment within run r, and
Deltar = the paired incremental difference.
30
-------
5. The run variance (Varre) of the 10 paired differences was calculated separately for
each run as in Equation 12.
-
Delta... -Delta,.
Varrn = I'Ui- - ^ - TJ- Equation 12
where: n = the number of runs (6),
ti = the number of time increments (10),
inc = a specific time increment, and
Deltar. and Deltar are defined in Equations 10 and 11, respectively.
6. The pooled variance (Varp) between all runs was calculated as in Equation 13.
= . , Equatjon
~
where: n = the number of runs (12),
ti = the number of time increments (10),
r = the run designation, and
Var = the run variance.
7. The pooled standard deviation (SDP) was calculated as in Equation 14.
Equation 14
8. The tolerance coefficient (K) for two-sided tolerance intervals with a 95% probability
and a 95% coverage for the number of pairs (5x10 and 7x10) was obtained from a
tolerance factor table.8
9. Finally, the minimum detectable level change that the technology can detect was
calculated using Equation 15.
MLC = k SDp Equation 15
where terms are as defined above.
5.3 Precision
Precision is a measure of the extent to which the methods and instrumentation associated with a
given technology yield results that are reproducible. For a given set of test conditions, precision
is characterized by the ratio of the mean W of a technology-measured value to its SD. For the
continuous water ingress runs, precision corresponds to the ratio of the mean associated with the
-------
technology-measured water or separated dense phase height at the time of initial technology
response (from Equation 7) to the SD of the technology-measured water or separated dense
phase height at that same point in the time (from Equation 8). Precision could only be based on
the initial response heights because these are the only technology readings that can be considered
reproducible. Heights measured during the increment phase of the runs varied because the
height for the first time increment was interdependent and recorded only after all technologies in
the test vessel had responded to the water ingress.
5.4 Phase Separation
Phase separation during water ingress tests was defined as formation of a separate dense phase,
other than water, that appeared in the lower portion of the liquid in the test vessel and was
recognizable when a change in appearance of the vessel contents occurred. This change resulted
in differentiation of a separate liquid layer that formed below the fuel during water ingress. This
occurrence was observed visually and recorded using a DVR during testing. Test conditions
leading to phase separation were documented to define the testing environment in which phase
separation occurred (i.e., the phase separation layer height, fuel temperature and density, etc.).
The water introduced to the test vessel during the ingress periods was dyed blue with food dye to
aid in the visualization of the phase separation.
5.5 Operational Factors
Operational factors such as maintenance needs, calibration frequency, data output, ease of use,
and repair requirements were evaluated and summarized based on technical staff observations for
all runs.
32
-------
Chapter 6
Test Results
This chapter provides results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of this verification
test for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float and the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water
Detector. Appendix D presents the run data that were collected and used to provide these results.
6.1 Accuracy
The accuracies of the Veeder-Root floats are shown by the differences that occurred between the
observed dense phase height and the dense phase height reported by the technology. Bias
represents the average accuracy over all of the runs. A difference of 0.0 inches indicates that the
heights were the same for the two methods (most accurate). A bias of 0.0 inches indicates that
the technology measurement is either very accurate or produces the same number of
overestimates as underestimates.
Tables 11 and 12 present both the differences and technology bias that were calculated based on
the initial detections of water for the Standard Water Float and Phase Two Water Detector,
respectively. Table 13 presents the bias results for the beginning of incremental test runs (Time
0). Time 100 measurements of the observed and technology measured dense phase heights and
bias results are presented in Table 14. Results for the two E85-25 runs were not included in the
bias estimate because no separated dense phase was produced when testing with flex fuel.
Consequently, the E85-65 runs were not performed, and therefore no results from these runs
could be included in the bias estimate.
The technology results were compared to a human visual measurement and cannot be considered
more accurate than the mm marks on the ruler (1/25.4 inch). In addition, the separation of the
dense phase is more distinctly visible in the EO runs than the El5 runs as observed by the
verification staff. This inherently added more variability among the El 5 observed results. Given
this, the accuracy results were not compared by variable. The Standard Water Float was slightly
positive for all EO run results and slightly negative for all El 5 run results. The Phase Two™
Water Detector returned slightly negative bias results for all test runs. Both technologies were
more accurate at the beginning and middle of the test runs than at the end.
33
-------
Table 11. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-W
E85-25-WO
E85-65-W
E85-65-WO
Independently-
Observed Dense
Phase Height
(inches)
0.63
0.59
0.63
0.63
0.59
0.63
1.18
0.79
1.22
0.98
0.75
1.18
0
0
Technology-
Measured Dense
Phase Height
(inches)
0.64
0.67
0.64
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.67
0.63
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
Oa
Oa
Difference
(inches)
0.01
0.08
0.01
0
0.06
0.02
-0.51
-0.15
-0.56
-0.33
-0.10
-0.53
Oa
Oa
Not Conducted0
Not Conducted0
Bias (inches)
-0.17
a. Data points were not included in the bias calculation because a separated phase did not form.
b. Flex-65 runs were not performed because a separated phase did not form in the Flex-25 runs.
Table 12. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-W
E85-25-WO
E85-65-W
E85-65-WO
Independently-
Observed Dense
Phase Height
(inches)
0.63
0.59
0.63
0.63
0.51
0.63
0.94
0.67
0.87
0.71
0.55
0.83
0
0
Technology-
Measured Dense
Phase Height
(inches)
0.38
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.44
0.43
0.39
0.41
0.55a
0.54a
Difference
(inches)
-0.25
-0.19
-0.24
-0.25
-0.11
-0.23
-0.49
-0.17
-0.43
-0.28
-0.16
-0.42
0.55a
0.54a
Not Conducted0
Not Conducted0
Bias (inches)
-0.27
a. Data points were not included in the bias
b. E85-65 runs were not performed because
calculation because a separated phase did not form.
a separated phase did not form in the E85-25 runs.
34
-------
Table 13. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Technologies at the start of the
incremental run (Time 0)
Standard Water Float
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-W
E85-25-WO
E85-65-W
E85-65-WO
Observed Dense
Phase Height (in)
0.83
1.38
0.71
0.79
0.79
0.75
1.38
0.79
1.50
1.22
0.98
1.42
0
0
Dense Phase
Height (in)
0.86
1.40
0.74
0.84
0.86
0.76
0.84
0.74
0.86
0.83
0.88
0.83
0
0
Difference (in)
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.01
-0.54
-0.05
-0.64
-0.39
-0.10
-0.59
Oa
Oa
Phase-Two™ Water Detector
Dense Phase
Height (in)
0.60
1.15
0.49
0.58
0.69
0.52
0.88
0.68
0.95
0.88
0.89
0.92
0
0
Difference
(in)
-0.23
-0.23
-0.22
-0.21
-0.10
-0.23
-0.50
-0.11
-0.55
-0.34
-0.09
-0.50
Oa
Oa
Not Conducted15
Not Conducted"
Bias
-0.17
-0.27
a. Data points were not included in the bias calculation because a separated phase did not form.
b. E85-65 runs were not performed because a separated phase did not form in the E85-25 runs.
Table 14. Accuracy Results for the Veeder-Root Technologies at Run End (Time 100)
Standard Water Float
Run ID
EO-25-w
EO-25-wo
EO-65-w
EO-65-wo
EO-25-wo-DUP
EO-65-wo-DUP
E15-25-W
E15-25-WO
E15-65-W
E15-65-WO
E15-25-WO-DUP
E15-65-W-DUP
E85-25-W
E85-25-WO
E85-65-W
E85-65-WO
Observed Dense
Phase Height (in)
1.77
2.20
1.69
1.69
1.73
1.69
3.11
2.13
3.62
3.03
2.20
3.54
0
0
Dense Phase
Height (in)
1.80
2.23
1.69
1.73
1.77
1.71
2.60
1.97
2.73
2.57
2.09
2.68
0
0
Difference (in)
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.02
-0.51
-0.16
-0.89
-0.46
-0.11
-0.86
Oa
Oa
Dense Phase
Height (in)
1.53
1.95
1.42
1.45
1.59
1.45
2.65
1.90
2.98
2.63
2.11
2.92
0
0
Difference
(in)
-0.24
-0.25
-0.27
-0.24
-0.14
-0.24
-0.46
-0.23
-0.64
-0.40
-0.09
-0.62
Oa
Oa
Not Conducted"
Not Conducted"
Phase-Two™ Water Detector
Bias
-0.24
-0.32
a. Data points were not included in the bias calculation because a separated phase did not form.
b. E85-65 runs were not performed because a separated phase did not form in the E85-25 runs.
35
-------
6.2 Sensitivity
6.2.1 Tolerance Limit
The tolerance limit predicts the minimum detection height (in inches for these test runs) that the
technologies can detect with a 95% confidence. Table 15 presents the TLs for the technologies
over all of the EO and El 5 runs. Tables 16 and 17 show the data for the TL calculations by
ethanol blend, as EO and El 5, respectively. For this test, the TL was a function of the separation
distance between the bottom of the test vessel and the technology probe. These results show that
the two technologies were installed at about l/2 inch or more from the bottom of the test vessel,
which impacts the minimum detectable height. For the same reason as identified previously for
accuracy, TLs could not be defined for the flex fuel runs because the runs were terminated after 3
hours when no dense phase had formed.
As installed into the test vessel, the TL for the Standard Water Float was 0.68 inches and the TL
for the Phase-Two™ Water Detector was 0.51 inches. There was no difference in the TL of the
Standard Water Float when separated by fuel type, although these results for the Phase-Two™
Water Detector show that the TL was slightly lower when used with EO (0.43 inches) as opposed
to El5 (0.57 inches).
Table 15. Tolerance Limit for All Test 1 Runs
Statistic
Mean (x) (inches)
Standard deviation (SD) (inches)
Number of runs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Tolerance Limit (TL) = x+ k SD
Standard Water Float
0.65
0.012
12
2.7
0.68
Phase-Two™ Water Detector
0.41
0.035
12
2.7
0.51
Table 16. Tolerance Limit for Only the EO Runs
Statistic
Mean (*) (inches)
Standard deviation (SD) (inches)
Number of runs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Tolerance Limit (TL) = x+ k SD
Standard Water Float
0.65
0.013
6
3.7
0.70
Phase-Two™ Water Detector
0.39
0.010
6
3.7
0.43
Table 17. Tolerance Limit for Only the E15 Runs
Statistic
Mean Ov (inches)
Standard deviation (SD) (inches)
Number of runs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Tolerance Limit (TL) = x+ k SD
Standard Water Float
0.65
0.012
6
3.7
0.70
Phase-Two™ Water Detector
0.44
0.038
6
3.7
0.57
36
-------
6.2.2 Minimum Detectable Level Change
The minimum detectable level change in water height is used to estimate the smallest change (in
inches for these runs) that the evaluated technology can read. Like above, Table 18 presents the
combined EO and El5 results for the technologies, while Tables 19 and 20 present the separate
EO and El 5 data, respectively. An MLC value near 0.0 indicates that the technology is able to
detect very small changes in the level of the dense phase. Once again, this parameter could not
be defined for the flex fuel runs.
Both technologies had very similar MLC results, with an overall MLC of 0.06 inches
(approximately 1/16 inch). They both also had slightly lower MLC values with the EO test runs
at approximately l/25th of an inch (0.04 inch). Therefore, these technologies can detect the
minimum 1/8* inch change in dense phase height in EO and in El 5 blends.
Table 18. Minimum Detectable Level Change for All Test 1 Runs
Statistic
Varp (inches)
SDP (inches)
Number of pairs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Minimum Level Change (MLC) = kSDp
Standard Water Float
0.0007
0.027
120
2.2
0.06
Phase-Two '""Water
Detector
0.0006
0.025
120
2.2
0.06
Table 19. Minimum Detectable Level Change for Only the EO Runs
Statistic
Varp (inches)
SDP (inches)
Number of pairs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Minimum Level Change (MLC) = kSDp
Standard Water Float
0.0004
0.019
60
2.3
0.04
Phase-Two™ Water
Detector
0.0003
0.018
60
2.3
0.04
Table 20. Minimum Detectable Level Change for Only the E15 Runs
Statistic
Varp (inches)
SDP (inches)
Number of pairs (n)
Tolerance coefficient (k)
Minimum Level Change (MLC) = kSDp
Standard Water Float
0.0011
0.032
60
2.3
0.08
Phase-Two™ Water
Detector
0.0009
0.031
60
2.3
0.07
37
-------
6.3 Precision
Tables 21 and 22 present a ratio of the mean to the SD that is used to help determine the
precision of the collected data. These tables show the overall precision for each Veeder-Root
technology and precision results for the individual variables. A high-precision value signifies a
high degree of reproducibility, whereas a low precision value signifies the opposite.
Overall these results indicate that the variables did not affect the precision of the technologies;
however, there were slight differences. The Standard Water Float was more precise in El5 and
the Phase-Two Water Detector was more precise in EO. Both technologies were more precise
with 65% full over 25% full. The Standard Water Float was most precise when the test vessel
was at the 65% fill height and the Phase-Two Water Detector was most precise during the EO test
runs.
Table 21. Precision Results for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float
Test 1 Runs
Mean W
(inches)
Standard
Deviation (SD)
(inches)
Precision (x
/SD)
Overall
0.65
0.012
53
EO
0.65
0.013
50
E15
0.65
0.012
54
25% Full
0.65
0.015
44
65% Full
0.65
0.009
69
With
Splash
0.65
0.013
50
Without
Splash
0.65
0.012
52
Table 22. Precision Results for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector
Test 1 Runs
Mean W
(inches)
Standard
Deviation (SD)
(inches)
Precision (X
/SD)
Overall
0.41
0.035
12
EO
0.39
0.010
40
E15
0.44
0.038
12
25% Full
0.42
0.045
9
65% Full
0.41
0.023
18
With
Splash
0.41
0.030
14
Without
Splash
0.41
0.038
11
6.4 Phase Separation, Mixing, and Float Response
In the process of conducting Test 1 and Test 2 as described herein, the technologies were
challenged to detect water that had been added to fuels with differing alcohol contents. The
ability of the technology to detect water added to the test vessel was in part affected by the
interaction of water and the fuel in the test vessel, and was markedly different for each type of
fuel tested. This interaction was influenced by the amount of alcohol in the fuel as well as the
mixing taking place between the water, alcohol, and gasoline. Test 1 introduced two types of
mixing, and Test 2 introduced a third type. In general for all fuels, water splashing on the
surface of the fuel resulted in tiny water droplets with increased surface area compared to ingress
38
-------
without a splash for a respective fuel height. The ingress without splash resulted in larger water
droplets in the fuel, with less surface area, which produced less mixing within the fuel layer.
Observations on the degree of phase separation, mixing, and float responses were documented
during each run using one or more DVRs. The phase separation and mixing effects are discussed
below for each fuel along with general observations on technology response. In addition,
Appendix D presents graphical displays of the data generated over the entire run time for each
dump test run using the three fuels along with the other data from the runs.
6.4.1 Mixing and Float Response with EO Fuel
When water was mixed with the EO fuel, it immediately settled to the bottom of the test vessel.
The tests with EO showed no qualitative difference in mixing based on the water ingress method
as all of the water added appeared to collect on the bottom of the test vessel in the dense layer.
Table 23 shows the average water content of the dense phase was 98.4% and Table 24 shows that
there was no water detected in the fuel above the detection limit of the method. These two tables
also include a summary of the density measurements taken during verification testing. Water
ingress with a splash produced a wide and turbulent mixing area just below the surface of the
fuel that resulted in a large area (an approximately 12-inch circle) of splash-down near the
bottom of the test vessel, whereas water ingress without a splash resulted in very little surface
turbulence. No entrainment of water in the fuel was visible at any time, regardless of the type of
water ingress employed. Both of the Veeder-Root technologies responded to the presence of
water at the bottom of the test vessel during all EO runs.
Figure 5 is a graph of the EO-25% full-with splash duplicate run. It is clear in the initial ingress
detection section of the graph that both of the technologies detected the water. Then the graph
levels off horizontally in between the initial detection test and the contentious ingress test,
because no water was bing added to the test vessel during that time. Finally, the upward
similarly sloped lines in the incremental ingress test section of the graph show how the
technologies tracked the ingress of water. The observed measurements and the technology
recorded results have similar slopes during the incremental test.
During the EO dump test, mixing did not impact the ability of either technology to detect water
that had entered the test vessel, and the floats returned to essentially the same height after the
fuel dump as had been recorded prior to the fuel dump. These observations are depicted in
Figure 6 and presented in more detail in Appendix D, Test Day 3, Run Number 2.
Table 23. Water Content and Density of Dense Phase at Completion of EO and E15 Test 1
Runs
Test 1 Runs
EO
E15
n
6
7*
Average % Water
in Dense Phase
98.4
68.4
Standard Deviation
of % Water
in Dense Phase
1.46
13.2
Density,
g/ml
0.994
0.946
Standard
Deviation of
Density, g/mL
0.002
0.020
*Includes a duplicate sample
39
-------
Table 24. Water Content and Density of Fuel at Completion of EO and E15 Test 1 Runs
Test 1 Runs
EO
E15
n
7*
6
Average % Water
in Fuel
<0.101
0.514
Standard Deviation
of % Water
in Fuel
0
0.084
Density,
g/ml
0.745
0.754
Standard
Deviation of
Density, g/mL
0.003
0.005
*Includes a duplicate sample
Intial Detection
Incremental Ingress Test
V-R Standard
Water Float
V-R Phase Two
Water Float
Observed Height
%,
Time
Figure 5. EO-25% Full With Splash Duplicate - Graphical display of water detection
technology response.
40
-------
Second Water
Dump (2 gal)
V-R Standard
Water Probe
Figure 6. EO Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response.
6.4.2 Mixing and Float Response with El5 Fuel
Similar fuel-water droplet formation interaction was noticed for the El 5 tests as for the EO runs,
with the exception that diffusion was visible throughout the fuel layer for all El5 runs. Diffusion
currents were observed in the fuel where the water entered as tiny water droplets appeared to
drift away laterally from the water droplet column while others drifted upward. Many of these
tiny water droplets were observed to dissolve into the fuel while the larger droplets continued to
the bottom of the test vessel to collect with the dense layer. Laterally-drifting small water
droplets were more apparent in the 65% fuel height runs than in the 25% runs.
Between the two tests, mixing was greatest for the Test 1 runs (continuous ingress), and mixing
was higher in the with-splash runs than in the without-splash runs. The fine bubbles that were
produced in the with-splash runs increased the surface area available for mixing, and as the water
fell through the fuel column, this high amount of surface area allowed the water to "pull" ethanol
from the El5 fuel. For both the 25% and 65% full runs, enough alcohol had diffused into the
water that the water/alcohol mixture, being denser than the gasoline, readily settled to the bottom
of the test vessel. Tables 23 and 24 support these observations showing that the dense phase for
the El 5 runs contains less water than the measurements for the EO runs plus the fuel had
measureable amounts of water in it for the El 5 runs where none was detected in the EO.
41
-------
Like the with-splash runs, the without-splash runs produced a large surface area for alcohol
diffusion into water, but not as large as the with-splash runs. Also like the with-splash runs, the
water/alcohol mixture produced in the without-splash runs at the 25% and 65% full levels readily
settled to the bottom of the test vessel. At completion of the runs, a greater amount of separated
phase was detected in the with-splash runs at 25% than the without-splash runs at 25% full level,
thus indicating a greater amount of alcohol being removed from the El 5. Observed dense phases
were on average more than twice as deep for El 5 runs than for EO runs when normalized for
water volume added, indicating that a substantial volume of ethanol was absorbed into the dense
phase. When the fuel height variable was also taken into account, the El5 tests showed a greater
observed dense phase height at 65% than 25% height. This was observed in the technology
responses where the volume of water added to attain initial water detection was on average less
in the 65% height tests than the 25% tests. Figure 7 shows the graphical representation of the
El5-65% Full-With Splash with sections separating the initial detection and the incremental
ingress portions of the verification test run.
Both technologies responded to water that had entered the test vessel during the continuous water
ingress runs with El5 and the El5 Dump run. However, fuel added during the El5 dump test
caused both technologies to drop to 0 inches from the bottom as the separated phase dissolved
into the fuel, thus masking the fact that water had leaked into the test vessel. The initial test
condition was yellow fuel in the test vessel at 25% full. The blue water dump settled to the
bottom of the test vessel, removing ethanol along the way, resulting in a green separated phase.
These observations are depicted in Figures 8, 9, and 10 and presented in more detail in Appendix
D, Test Day 12, Run Number 16.
V-R Standard
Water Float
0 -I
V
•*
Time
Figure 7. E15-65% Full-With Splash - Graphical display of water detection technology
response.
42
-------
V-R Standard
Water Probe
V-R Phase-Two
Probe
Time
Figure 8. E15 Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response.
Figure 9. E15 Dump Test - Before water dump (initial condition).
43
-------
Figure 10. E15 Dump Test - After fuel dump (final condition).
6.4.3 Mixing and Float Response with Flex Fuel
Mixing was nearly instantaneous during all types of runs using flex fuel. The same fine and
large bubble patterns as had been observed during the runs using El5 were also visible
immediately below the surface at the water ingress location during the continuous ingress runs,
but the water soon dissolved into the fuel (or the fuel dissolved into the water). With the splash
ingress runs, the water dispersed in a cloudy fashion into many fine droplets and was visible until
approximately 6 inches below the fuel surface before dissipating into the fuel. The without
splash ingress runs caused the water to enter the fuel in a plume, then continued to approximately
10 inches below the fuel surface before dissipating. In both cases, the added water did not
appear to reach the bottom of the test vessel with flex fuel. After the diffusion took place, subtle
changes in fuel appearance were notable until the entire contents of the test vessel were changed
to the same green color. No visible separated phase was observed, and the standard water float
showed no response. At times, the Phase-Two™ Water Detector float responded to water
ingress as if it was neutrally buoyant with the high alcohol content fuel. This would occur if the
fuel density and the float density were very close to one another. During the without-splash runs,
the inner float rose to the maximum height within the protective housing and stopped responding
as additional water was added. A similar operating condition occurred during the with-splash
runs as shown in Figure 11 presenting the E85-25% Full-With Splash run. Because the
technologies did not respond at the 25% full level, the 65% level runs were omitted from the test.
44
-------
During the quick dump runs, a separated phase was clearly visible after 4 gallons of water were
dumped into 170 gallons of flex fuel. At that time, the vessel contents were multi-colored: the
separated phase was deep blue (indigo blue), and the remaining contents were a graduation of
green. The green was due to the dyed water mixing with the alcohol in the fuel. Mixing was
best at the bottom, and gradually decreased as the fuel column increased. Both the standard
water float and the Phase-Two1 Water Detector float responded to the separated phase. Within
60 seconds of starting the fuel dump, however, the separated phase became completely engulfed
in the flex fuel and disappeared, and the entire contents of the vessel became uniformly green in
color. The dense phase was not observed after the fuel dump, and the water level previously
reported by the Standard Water Float decreased to zero; however, the Phase Two™ Water
Detector registered approximately 0.5 inches of dense phase. These observations are depicted in
Figures 12, 13, and 14, and are presented in more detail in Appendix D, Test Day 9, Run
Number 19. Tables 25 and 26 summarize the observation of the Test 2 Dump runs for the
Standard Water Float and the Phase Two™ Water Detector, respectively.
tS
01
tt
Q
i
go
u
01
r~*""^
— A — Standard
Water Float
^«-2-Phase
Water Float
?* *o *o „
Time
Figure 11. E85-25% Full-With Splash- Graphical display of water detection technology
response.
45
-------
01
u
01
V)
I
V)
01
&_
cc
o
tS
01
td
Q
i
is
u
01
V-R Standard
Water Probe
Figure 12. E85 Dump Test - Graphical display of water detection technology response.
Figure 13. E85 Dump Test - After the water dump.
46
-------
Figure 14. E85 Dump Test - After fuel dump (final condition).
Table 25. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Dump Test Observations
Test 2 Dump
Runs
EO
E15
ESS
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
Yes, it was dark
blue-green
No clear separation,
but stratification of
green in middle and
dark blue on bottom
(Figure 13)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by
Standard Water
Float?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
No clear separation,
but stratification of
yellow on top and
green below
(Figure 10)
No, fuel became
uniform green color
(Figure 14)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by
Standard Water
Float?
Yes
No
No
Note: Initial color of the fuel blends were yellow, initial color of water was dyed blue.
47
-------
Table 26. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase Two™ Water Detector Dump Test Observations
Test 2 Dump
Runs
EO
E15
ESS
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
Yes, it was dark
blue-green
No clear separation,
but stratification of
green in middle and
blue on bottom
(Figure 13)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by Phase
Two™ Water
Detector?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
No clear separation,
but stratification of
yellow on top and
green below
(Figure 10)
No, fuel became
uniform green color
(Figure 14)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by Phase
Two™ Water
Detector?
Yes
No
Yes, inner float
measured ~0.5
inches of a denser
phase below the
green
water-saturated fuel
Note: Initial color of the fuel blends were yellow, initial color of water was dyed blue.
6.5 Operational Factors
The Veeder-Root technologies were installed at the testing facility by the vendor, and Battelle
staff were trained on the proper use of the technologies as it pertained to this testing design.
Battelle staff checked the technology console for status messages continuously until an initial
float response was indicated, recorded several instrument parameter values at the time of initial
float response and every 10 minutes thereafter during the increment runs, and backed up the
collected data each day. No on-site calibrations were performed.
Signals from the two Veeder-Root probes equipped with water floats were transmitted to a
Veeder-Root TLS-350 console that was used to display and record the water heights at various
times during each run. During testing, the console was set to alarm when the water level in the
test vessel registered (for a given probe) 1 inch or more for at least 3 minutes. The console is a
basic box with a number keypad and several function buttons that allow the user to control the
information presented on a two-line liquid crystal display. The console programming causes the
liquid crystal display to revert to the date and time and an overall system status (i.e., "ALL
FUNCTIONS NORMAL") when there have been no user inputs for approximately 5 minutes.
The tank gauge system was designed to acquire information using the thermal paper printer
(small 2 inch wide strips), but it also has two serial ports that can be used to connect the console
to a computer or other device for remote access. During the current tests, the printer was used to
capture snapshots of information by periodically using the "print" button to obtain a hardcopy of
measurements, while the serial port was used to record real-time data directly to a laptop
computer. The console transferred information to the computer at 30-second intervals. The
resulting data file was in an unreadable format, however, that required use of a DOS executable
program that is not normally provided with the UST monitoring system. The console generated
48
-------
a binary data file that was then converted into a .csv format using the DOS program. The
delimited file was viewable in Microsoft Excel. A date-time entry was recorded as seconds
since midnight on January 1, 1970, and the date and time were decoded using a formula in the
spreadsheet. In general, the system was easy to use as intended and required no maintenance or
repair once testing began. The continuous data capturing process and using the electronic data
were somewhat difficult; however, this aspect of the console operation is not typically used at
retail sites.
49
-------
Chapter 7
Performance Summary for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float
7.1 Performance Summary for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float
The performance of the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float was evaluated for its accuracy,
sensitivity, precision, phase separation detection, and operational factors. The ethanol content,
fill height of fuel, and water ingress method/rate were varied to challenge the water detection
technologies under a variety of simulated UST conditions. The Standard Water Float responded
to the continuous water ingress when the test fuel was EO and El5, but showed no response when
flex fuel was used as the test fuel. The reason for the no response was that no clear separated
dense phase was formed in the flex fuel when water was added to the test vessel. As a result, the
performance parameters defined in the QAPP, and summarized below, could not be determined
for this technology when flex fuel was employed. Tables 27 and 28 present the performance
parameters determined using the data from the EO and El5 Test la and Ib water ingress runs.
The accuracy of the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float is shown by the differences that occurred
between the observed dense phase height and the dense phase height reported by the technology.
Bias represents the average accuracy over all of the runs. A difference of 0.0 inches indicates
that the heights were the same for the two methods (most accurate). A bias of 0.0 inches
indicates that the technology measurement is either very accurate or produces the same number
of overestimates as underestimates. The Standard Water Float was slightly positive for all E10
run results and slightly negative for all El 5 run results. The resulting bias was slightly negative
at-0.17 inch.
Table 27. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Accuracy
Parameter
Accuracy (Bias)
Initial Response
(inches)
-0.17
Initial Increment
Reading
(Time 0)
(inches)
-0.17
Final Increment
Reading
(Time 100)
(inches)
-0.24
This verification test evaluated sensitivity by calculating the TL and the MLC. The TL predicts
the minimum detection height (in inches for these test runs) that the technologies can detect with
a 95% confidence. Table 28 presents the sensitivity as expressed in the TL and MLC and the
precision of the technology by each variable. These results show that the Standard Water Float
was installed at about 1A inch or more from the bottom of the test vessel, which impacted the
minimum detectable height. The TL for the Standard Water Float was 0.68 inches. There was
no difference in the TL of the technology when separated by variable.
50
-------
The MLC in water height was used to estimate the smallest change (in inches for those runs) that
the evaluated technology can read. An MLC value near 0.0 indicates that the technology is able
to detect very small changes in the level of the dense phase. The Standard Water Float had very
similar MLC results, with an overall MLC of 0.06 inches (approximately 1/16 inch). It also had
slightly lower MLC values with the EO test runs at approximately 1/25* of an inch (0.04 inch).
Therefore, this technology detected the minimum 1/8* inch change in dense phase height in EO
and in El5 blends.
Table 28 also presents a ratio of the mean to the SD that is used to help determine the precision
of the collected data. Again, this parameter is summarized by the overall precision for the
Standard Water Float and by the individual variables. A high-precision value signifies a high
degree of reproducibility, whereas a low precision value signifies the opposite. Overall these
results indicate that the variables did not affect the precision of the technologies; however there
were slight differences. The Standard Water Float is more precise with El 5 over EO, 65% full
over 25% full, and without a splash over with a splash.
Finally, Table 29 summarizes the observations during the Test 2 Dump runs. The water dump
was detected by the Standard Water Float in all three fuel blends; however, once the fuel was
dumped in, the water was only detected in EO.
In general, the system was easy to use as intended. Once an ATG water detection technology is
installed, operation of the console involves following the prompts on the console screen.
The Standard Water Float responded to the water ingress when the test fuel was EO and El 5, but
showed no response when flex fuel was used as the test fuel. The reason for the no response was
that no clear separated dense phase was formed in the flex fuel when water was added to the test
vessel. As a result, the performance parameters defined in the QAPP could not be determined
for this technology when flex fuel was employed. The following table provides a summary of
verification test results for the Veeder-Root Standard Water Float; the calculated performance
parameters were determined using the pooled data from the EO and El5 water ingress runs.
Currently 40 CFR, Section 280.43(a) states water detection technologies should detect "water at
the bottom of the tank," which does not address water entrained in the fuel due to increased
miscibility with the presence of ethanol. The water sensor, tested according to "EPA's Standard
Test Procedures for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Automatic Tank Gauging Systems,"
did not detect water in the test vessel containing either intermediate (El 5) or high (E85) ethanol
blends if the water was suspended in the product or the water did not reach the bottom of the
tank. Because of this, there is not sufficient data to evaluate whether this technology, when used
with UST systems containing intermediate or high ethanol blends, would indicate a potential
release under every circumstance.
51
-------
Table 28. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Precision and Sensitivity
Test 1 Runs
EO Runs (n=6)
E15Runs(n=6)
25% Full Runs (n=6)
65% Full Runs (n=6)
With Splash Runs (n=5)
Without Splash Runs (n=7)
AIIRuns(n=12)
Statistics
Mean (x)
(inches)
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
SD
(inches)
0.013
0.012
0.015
0.009
0.013
0.012
0.012
Precision
(X/SD)
50
54
44
69
50
52
53
Sensitivity
TL
(inches)
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.68
0.71
0.69
0.68
MLC
(inches)
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.06
Table 29. Summary of Veeder-Root Standard Water Float Dump Test Observations
Test 2 Dump
Runs
EO
E15
ESS
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
Yes, it was dark
blue-green
No clear separation,
but stratification of
green in middle and
dark blue on bottom
(Figure 13)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by
Standard Water
Float?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
No clear separation,
but stratification of
yellow on top and
green below
(Figure 10)
No, fuel became
uniform green color
(Figure 14)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by
Standard Water
Float?
Yes
No
No
Note: Initial color of the fuel blends were yellow, initial color of water was blue.
52
-------
Chapter 8
Performance Summary for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector
8.1 Performance Summary for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector
The performance of the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector was evaluated for its
accuracy, sensitivity, precision, phase separation detection, and operational factors. The ethanol
content, fill height of fuel, and water ingress method/rate were varied to challenge the water
detection technologies under a variety of simulated UST conditions. The Phase-Two™ Water
Detector responded to the continuous water ingress when the test fuel was EO and El5, but
showed no response when flex fuel was used as the test fuel. The reason for the no response was
that no clear separated dense phase was formed in the flex fuel when water was added to the test
vessel. As a result, the performance parameters defined in the QAPP, and summarized below,
could not be determined for this technology when flex fuel was employed. Tables 30 and 31
present the performance parameters determined using the data from the EO and El5 Test la and
b water ingress runs.
The accuracy of the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector float is shown by the differences
that occurred between the observed dense phase height and the dense phase height reported by
the technology. Bias represents the average accuracy over all of the runs. A difference of
0.0 inches indicates that the heights were the same for the two methods (most accurate). A bias
of 0.0 inches indicates that the technology measurement is either very accurate or produces the
same number of overestimates as underestimates. The Phase Two™ Water Detector returned
slightly negative bias results for all test runs. The resulting bias was negative at -0.27 inch.
Table 30. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector Accuracy
Parameter
Accuracy (Bias)
Initial Response
(inches)
-0.27
Initial Increment
Reading
(inches)
-0.27
Final Increment
Reading
(inches)
-0.32
This verification test evaluates sensitivity by calculating the TL and the MLC. The TL predicts
the minimum detection height (in inches for these test runs) that the technologies can detect with
a 95% confidence. Table 31 presents the sensitivity as expressed in the TL and MLC and the
precision of the technology by each variable. These results showed that the technology was
installed at about /^ inch or more from the bottom of the test vessel, which impacted the
minimum detectable height. The TL for the Phase Two™ Water Detector was 0.51 inches.
53
-------
There were slight differences in the TL of the Phase Two™ Water Detector when separated by
fuel type.
The MLC in water height was used to estimate the smallest change (in inches for those runs) that
the evaluated technology can read. An MLC value near 0.0 indicates that the technology is able
to detect very small changes in the level of the dense phase. The Phase Two™ Water Detector
had very similar MLC results, with an overall MLC of 0.06 inches (approximately 1/16 inch). It
also had slightly lower MLC values with the EO test runs at approximately 1/25* of an inch (0.04
inch). Therefore, this technology detected the minimum 1/8* inch change in dense phase height
in EO and in El 5 blends.
Table 3 1 also presents a ratio of the mean to the SD that is used to help determine the precision
of the collected data. Again, this parameter is summarized by the overall precision for the Phase
Two™ Water Detector and by the individual variables. A high-precision value signifies a high
degree of reproducibility, whereas a low precision value signifies the opposite. Overall these
results indicate that the variables did not affect the precision of the technologies: however there
TA if
were slight differences. The Phase Two Water Detector was more precise with EO over El 5,
65% full over 25% full, and with a splash over without a splash.
Finally, Table 32 summarizes the observations during the Test 2 Dump runs. The water dump
was detected by the Phase Two™ Water Detector in all three fuel blends; however, once the fu
was dumped in, the water was only detected in EO and Flex fuel.
In general, the system was easy to use as intended. Once an ATG water detection technology is
installed, operation of the console involves following the prompts on the console screen.
The Phase-Two™ Water Detector responded to the water ingress when the test fuel was EO and
El5, but showed no response when flex fuel was used as the test fuel. The float appeared to be
neutrally buoyant in the flex fuel/water mixture. The reason for the no response was that no
clear separated dense phase was formed in the flex fuel when water was added to the test vessel.
As a result, the performance parameters defined in the QAPP could not be determined for this
technology when flex fuel was employed. The following table provides a summary of
verification test results for the Veeder-Root Phase-Two™ Water Detector; the calculated
performance parameters were determined using the pooled data from the EO and El 5 water
ingress runs.
Currently 40 CFR, Section 280.43(a) states water detection technologies should detect "water at
the bottom of the tank," which does not address water entrained in the fuel due to increased
miscibility with the presence of ethanol. The water sensor, tested according to "EPA's Standard
Test Procedures for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Automatic Tank Gauging Systems,"
did not detect water in the test vessel containing either intermediate (El 5) or high (E85) ethanol
blends if the water was suspended in the product or the water did not reach the bottom of the
tank. Because of this, there is not sufficient data to evaluate whether this technology, when used
with UST systems containing intermediate or high ethanol blends, would indicate a potential
release under every circumstance.
54
-------
Table 31. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase-Two
Sensitivity
TM
Water Detector Precision and
Test 1 Runs
EO Runs (n=6)
E15 Runs (n=6)
25% Full Runs (n=6)
65% Full Runs (n=6)
With Splash Runs (n=5)
Without Splash Runs (n=7)
AIIRuns(n=12)
Statistics
Mean (x)
(inches)
0.39
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
SD
(inches)
0.010
0.038
0.045
0.023
0.030
0.038
0.035
Precision
(X/SD)
40
12
9
18
14
11
12
Sensitivity
TL
(inches)
0.43
0.57
0.59
0.49
0.54
0.54
0.51
MLC
(inches)
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.06
Table 32. Summary of Veeder-Root Phase Two™ Water Detector Dump Test
Observations
Test 2 Dump
Runs
EO
E15
ESS
After Water Dump
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
Yes, it was dark
blue-green
No clear separation,
but stratification of
green in middle and
blue on bottom
(Figure 13)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by Phase
Two™ Water
Detector?
Yes
Yes
Yes
^2^^j^5ii^n
Was Phase
Separation
Observed?
Yes, it was blue
No clear separation,
but stratification of
yellow on top and
green below
(Figure 10)
No, fuel became
uniform green color
(Figure 14)
Was Phase
Separation
Detected by Phase
Two™ Water
Detector?
Yes
No
Yes, inner float
measured ~0.5
inches of a denser
phase below the
green
water-saturated fuel
Note: Initial color of the fuel blends were yellow, initial color of water was blue.
55
-------
Chapter 9
References
1. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Verification of Underground Storage Tank Automatic
Tank Gauging Leak Detection Systems. U.S. Environmental Technology Verification
Program, Battelle, 2011.
2. Quality Management Plan for the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center, Version 8.
U.S. Environmental Technology Verification Program, Battelle, April 2011.
3. ASTM, D4815-09: Standard Test Method for Determination ofMTBE, ETBE, TAME,
DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and Ci to €4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.
November 2009.
4. ASTM, D5501-09: Standard Test Method for Determination ofEthanol Content of
Denatured Fuel Ethanol by Gas Chromatography. May 2009.
5. Guidebook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing Fuel Ethanol. Center for
Transportation Research Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy.
6. Battelle, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Operation and Maintenance of Karl-
Fischer Water Analysis Instrumentation in SOP No. III-009-OO. 1992, Organic and
Polymer Chemistry Department.
7. Lieberman, G., Tables for One-Sided Statistical Tolerance Limits, ed. I.Q. Control. Vol.
Vol. XIV, No 10. 1958.
8. CRC Handbook of Tables and Probability and Statistics, ed. W.H.B. (ed.). 1966: The
Chemical Rubber Company.
56
-------
Appendix A
Summary of Deviations from the QAPP
A-l
-------
Deviation
(Date)
Description
Cause
ETV Report
Location
QAPP
Location
No. 1
(8/31/11)
Page 28 and following pages of the QAPP
indicated that two fuel fill heights (25% and
90%) would be established during the
water ingress and fuel leak tests. This
was revised to indicate that the fuel fill
height for water ingress tests would be
25% and 65%. The deviation happened
because if the test vessel had been filled
to 90%, a test run would require a
condition in the test vessel that may not be
achievable, because the vessel capacity
would possibly been exceeded.
Bench test results showed that E85
had the potential of holding a large
amount of water. The QAPP
indicated that the 95% fill height for
E85 would be reduced to a lesser
level or the two 90% full runs would
be removed from the tests.
The 90% level is a remnant of the
original EPA ATG protocol for
testing the leak rate of fuel out of a
storage tank. It was not intended
to apply to water leaking into a
tank. When the draft ETV QAPP
was separated into four separate
test types, the 90% level was not
revised for the water ingress tests.
Section 3.3
Page 12
Section B1
Page 28
Table 12 and Section C1.1: calibration
procedures for ethanol blends and
analysis of performance evaluation audit
(PEA) samples do not follow the QAPP.
The PEA samples for the two methods
used to determine the fuel ethanol content,
D4815(forE15andEO)and D5501 (for
E85), were analyzed according to the
calibration procedures specified in the
ASTM methods instead of the procedures
defined in the QAPP. This deviation also
applies to the samples that were collected
during testing, which were also analyzed
following the same ASTM methods.
D4815- Standard Test Method for
Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME,
DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and Ci to C4
Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas
No. 2 Chromatography uses a calibration curve
as specified in the QAPP Table 12;
(9/2/11) however, the curve was not analyzed once
every 30 samples as specified. Once the
calibration curve was established, it was to
be verified every run or every 10 samples
whichever was more frequent, with a
continuing calibration standard.
D5501- Standard Test Method for
Determination of Ethanol Content of
Denatured Fuel Ethanol by Gas
Chromatography uses a one-point
standard response factor for calibration
instead of a calibration curve as stated in
the QAPP Table 12. D5798-10 Standard
Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed70-Ed85)
for Automotive Spark-ignition Engines
specifies that Method D5501 should be
used for determination of ethanol content
in E85. The analytical laboratory, Intertek,
used a 96% ethanol certified standard for
the one-point instrument calibration.
The QAPP contained errors related
to calibration procedures. Certified
standards for fuel ethanol contents
between 70% and 85% that would
expand the calibration range are
not available.
Section 4.3
Page 26
Section
C1.1
Page 55-56
Section B5
Table 12
Page 51
A-2
-------
Deviation
(Date)
Description
Cause
ETV Report
Location
QAPP
Location
No. 3
(9/21/11)
QAPP Table 11 in Section B5: The true
value of the high ethanol blend may not
meet the acceptance criteria of +/-10% of
the target ethanol content of 85%. The
analytical method results were lower than
expected when compared to the metered
mix ticket received from the blender and
the Method to Determine the Total
Hydrocarbon Content of Alcohol Fuel from
the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Guidebook for Handling, Storing, and
Dispensing Fuel Ethanol. The accuracy of
the analytical method is questioned for the
following reasons:
. ASTM Method D5501-Standard Test
Method for Determination of Ethanol
Content of Denatured Fuel Ethanol by
Gas Chromatography uses a one-
point calibration standard response
factor based on a 96% ethanol
standard. The defined range for the
method is 93% to 97% ethanol
content, and it is not proven to have a
linear response lower than 93%.
. Although ASTM Method D5798-
Standard Specification for Fuel
Ethanol (Ed70-Ed85) for Automotive
Spark-ignition Engines specifies that
Method D5501 should be used for
determining ethanol content in E85,
this method may not have the
necessary accuracy.
Based on the recommendation of
ASTM Method D5798-10, Battelle
included use of ASTM Method
D5501 in the QAPP as the
verification method for E85 ethanol
content. However, upon receipt of
the analytical results, this method
no longer appears reliable for test
purposes. The analytical results
returned a value of 75% ethanol for
the E85 blend. This is outside of
the acceptable criteria stated in
Table 11. The mix ticket supplied
with the fuel defined the mixture as
85% ethanol?. In addition, the
method from the DOE Guidebook
that is readily used by the industry
resulted in an ethanol
concentration of 86.87%,
corroborating the mix ticket value.
Section 3.4.1
Page 16
Section B5
Table 11
Page 50
QAPP Section B and B2.1 stated that the
fuel ethanol content determination would
be performed before testing to verify that
No. 4 the ethanol concentration is within +/-10%
of the target level. A sample from the
(9/26/11) second blended batch of E15 was
analyzed as soon as possible by Method
D4815; however, the testing was not
delayed to awaiting the results.
Due to a change in the anticipated
run order for various reasons
(waste considerations, technology
communications issues, etc.), the
lag time allowed for the return of
analytical results was removed
from the schedule.
Section 3.3
Page 11
Section B
Page 28
Section B2.1
Page 47
The QAPP stated that the percent ethanol
should be tested and confirmed to be
No. 5 ±10% of nominal concentration prior to
each run. The EO fuel was not analyzed
(11/15/11) prior to testing.
Due to a change in the anticipated
run order for various reasons
(waste considerations, technology
communications issues, etc.), the
lag time allowed for the return of
analytical results was removed
from the schedule.
Section 3.3
Page 11
Section B
Page 28
Section B2.1
Page 47
The QAPP stated that a 10 to 250 ml_
sample of fuel would be collected into a
glass sampling jar with a Teflon-lined cap
No. 6 and sent to an analytical laboratory for
analysis of ethanol content at 0° to 5°C
(11/15/11) (32°to40°F). The samples for ethanol
content analysis were stored and shipped
at room temperature.
Battelle determined that cooling
during storage and shipping was
not necessary after discussing the
issue with the analytical laboratory.
This requirement was included in a
previous version of the QAPP
intending to use a different ASTM
method for the fuel ethanol content
determination.
Section 3.4.1
Page 16
Section B2.1
Page 47
A-3
-------
Deviation
(Date)
Description
Cause
ETV Report
Location
QAPP
Location
No. 7
(11/15/11)
The QAPP stated that the test vessel was
to be pre-filled with water to approximately
75% of the vendor-stated amount needed
to trigger a response prior to initiating the
water ingress runs. The test vessel was
not pre-filled with water because four
different floats were installed in the same
test vessel. Pre-filling the test vessel
relative to one of the other floats would
have caused the lowest float to respond to
water before the run had begun.
This pre-filling was thought to be
needed to shorten test times, but
the requirement was specified
before actual information was
received from the participating
vendors. After the technologies
were installed by the vendors, the
estimated time to detect water for
the most sensitive technology was
calculated using the tank volume
chart, and the time was determined
to be a manageable duration
without pre-filling the tank. In
addition, the conditions better
mimicked the actual ingress
scenario of a LIST.
Section 3.4.2
Page 17
Section B1
Page 28
No. 8
(11/15/11)
The QAPP stated that a grid with
incremental pattern spacing would be
placed within the view area of the test
vessel to clearly display the height(s) and
width(s) of various liquid phases in the
tank. A tape measure was mounted
vertically on the end of the vessel, but no
horizontal tape was installed
The horizontal lines were initially
included in the test vessel design to
enhance observation of the test run
and not to collect measured data.
Because the shell used to construct
the test vessel was deep red in
color, visualization of a water or
dense phase separation was
expected to be difficult. The
proposal to add a white grid to the
bottom of the test vessel to provide
a strong contrast for viewing test
conditions and dense phases was
modified by fully coating the vessel
interior with a white resin, thus
providing a better contrast than
would have been provided had just
a portion of the vessel bottom been
coated with a white resin and grid.
Section 3.2.2
Page 7
Section B2.2
Page 48
No. 9
(11/15/11)
The QAPP stated that water height would
be measured by standard ruler to at least
the nearest 1/32nd of an inch. Neither the
external tape measure or internal ruler was
incremented to 1/32nd; however the
internal increment was to the nearest
millimeter (1/25.4 inch).
When fabricating the test vessel,
the internal metal rulers were
installed for fuel compatibility and
ease of readability.
Section 3.4.3
Page 18
Section B5
Table 11
Page 50
No. 10
(11/15/11)
The QAPP stated that fuel density/specific
gravity would be monitored semi-
continuously. However, density was
monitored prior to each run, at the
midpoint of each run, and at the end of the
each run.
When the QAPP was written,
Battelle anticipated using a
continuous density monitor
installed in the test vessel. During
the job hazard analysis for the ETV
test, however, the method
proposed for continuously
extracting a sample for density
measurement was found to
represent a safety/explosion
hazard. Battelle also determined
that continuous density monitoring
was unnecessary.
Section 3.4.3
Page 18
Section B1
Table 9
Page 38
A-4
-------
Deviation
(Date)
Description
Cause
ETV Report
Location
QAPP
Location
No. 11
(11/15/11)
A Battelle laboratory ran the Karl-Fisher
Titration Method for water content. The
PEA results for NIST SRM 2900 (4.4%
water by mass) did not meet the
acceptance criteria of ±5% of the certified
value. The actual recovery for the SRM
was 120%. The PEA does not confirm
that Battelle's laboratory is able to
accurately measure low concentrations of
water in fuel. Water standards analyzed
with the PEA indicated that the analytical
method was not accurate at 0.1% water
although it was accurate at 1% and 10%.
The QAPP specified that if the PEA results
are not acceptable that the PEA would be
repeated. However, the water PEA was
not repeated as specified in the QAPP.
The PEA SRM sample was over
recovered; however, the analyst
included three other independent
NIST-traceable standards to verify
the method. Two of these
standards were within the
acceptable criteria.
Section 4.2.1
Page 24
Section
C1.1
Page 56
Table 4 of the QAPP listed the run to be
performed during the field portion of the
ETV test. Changes were made to the
Runs conducted, including:
No. 12 • Runs 11 and 15 were not conducted.
Run 10 was conducted as a duplicate
(11/15/11) of Run 3 rather than a duplicate of
Run 6.
The detailed 10-minute incremental
sensitivity tests were not conducted
for Runs 5 and 6.
Changes to the runs were made
after data were collected from the
initial test runs. These data
indicated that following the design
in some cases would result in
inconclusive observational data
and an accumulation of
unnecessary fuel waste.
Section 3.4.1
Page 15
Section 4.3
Page 26
Section B1
Table 4
Page 30
No. 13
(11/15/11)
Water ingress was not controlled by
peristaltic pump as described in the QAPP
but rather by gravity feed with an in-line
flow meter. Three flow measurements
were taken with a graduated cylinder and
stop watch prior to each run. The average
flow rate was used as a correction factor
for the nominal flow rate setting.
This change was due to the same
issue as defined in Deviation
Number 10. During the job hazard
analysis for the ETV test, the
peristaltic pump proposed for
adding water to the test vessel was
found to represent a
safety/explosion hazard because
the plastic tubing used in the pump
could build a static charge when
the steel rollers traversed the tubes
during use. The gravity feed option
was devised just before testing
began.
Section 4.1
Page 20
B1.1.3
Page 40
A-5
-------
Deviation
(Date)
Description
Cause
ETV Report
Location
QAPP
Location
No. 14
(11/15/11)
Quality control requirements for the
analytical data (Table 12) are different
than the QC data collected by the
analytical laboratories.
Intertek (ASTM Method D4815) and the
Marathon (ASTM Method Modified D5501)
analytical laboratories followed the ASTM
method requirements. Intertek QC data
were received from the analytical lab
during the PEA but not for subsequent
samples.
The QC data from the Karl-Fisher Titration
method included three control standards
every batch instead of a control standard
every sample.
The analytical laboratories and the
analytical methods changed
multiple times during the design
phase. ASTM QC requirements
were not incorporated into the final
version of the QAPP.
Section 4.3
Page 27
Section B5
Table 12
Page 51
No. 15
(11/15/11)
A PEA was not conducted for the E85
ethanol analysis performed by the
Marathon laboratory.
Many laboratories and methods
were investigated as an alternative
to using ASTM D5501 for the
ethanol determination at the high
end. The second analysis of the
E85 fuel was performed in kind
from the only laboratory identified
to use a modified D5501 method
that fit our parameters (Marathon
laboratory). The PEA sample was
sent for analysis with the E85
mixture; however, the laboratory
did not analyze it.
Section 4.3
Page 27
C1.1
Pages 55-56
A-6
-------
Appendix B
Tank Volume Chart
B-l
-------
Area of Circle Segments for a 6-ft Diameter Tank
Area/D2 values taken from:
Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American Concrete Pipe Association,
Arlington, VA, 1974, p 397
Diameter (D) = 71.25 inches
Gallons = gal/linear foot x 4.25 feet - 1.25 gallon + 0.25 gallon
Highlighted rows were the 25% and 65% fill heights that were used
for verification testing.
Tape
Height, inch
-0.04
0.68
1.39
2.10
2.81
3.53
4.24
4.95
5.66
6.38
7.09
7.80
8.51
9.23
9.94
10.65
11.36
12.08
12.79
13.50
14.21
14.93
15.64
16.35
17.06
17.78
18.49
Depth (d),
inch
0.71
1.43
2.14
2.85
3.56
4.28
4.99
5.70
6.41
7.13
7.84
8.55
9.26
9.98
10.69
11.40
12.11
12.83
13.54
14.25
14.96
15.68
16.39
17.10
17.81
18.53
19.24
d/D
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
Area/D2
0.0013
0.0037
0.0069
0.0105
0.0147
0.0192
0.0242
0.0294
0.0350
0.0409
0.0470
0.0534
0.0600
0.0668
0.0739
0.0811
0.0885
0.0961
0.1039
0.1118
0.1199
0.1281
0.1365
0.1449
0.1535
0.1623
0.1711
Area, ft2
0.046
0.130
0.243
0.370
0.518
0.677
0.853
1.036
1.234
1.442
1.657
1.883
2.115
2.355
2.605
2.859
3.120
3.388
3.663
3.941
4.227
4.516
4.812
5.108
5.411
5.722
6.032
Gallons
0.46
3.15
6.73
10.77
15.47
20.52
26.12
31.95
38.23
44.84
51.67
58.85
66.24
73.86
81.82
89.89
98.18
106.70
115.44
124.30
133.37
142.56
151.98
161.39
171.03
180.89
190.76
B-2
-------
Tape
Height, inch
19.20
19.91
20.63
21.34
22.05
22.76
23.48
24.19
24.90
25.61
26.33
27.04
27.75
28.46
29.18
29.89
30.60
31.31
32.03
32.74
33.45
34.16
34.88
35.59
36.30
37.01
37.73
38.44
39.15
39.86
40.58
41.29
42.00
42.71
43.43
44.14
44.85
45.56
Depth (d),
inch
19.95
20.66
21.38
22.09
22.80
23.51
24.23
24.94
25.65
26.36
27.08
27.79
28.50
29.21
29.93
30.64
31.35
32.06
32.78
33.49
34.20
34.91
35.63
36.34
37.05
37.76
38.48
39.19
39.90
40.61
41.33
42.04
42.75
43.46
44.18
44.89
45.60
46.31
d/D
0.28
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.6
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.64
0.65
Area/D2
0.1800
0.1890
0.1982
0.2074
0.2167
0.2260
0.2355
0.2450
0.2546
0.2642
0.2739
0.2836
0.2934
0.3032
0.3130
0.3229
0.3328
0.3428
0.3527
0.3627
0.3727
0.3827
0.3927
0.4027
0.4127
0.4227
0.4327
0.4426
0.4526
0.4625
0.4723
0.4822
0.492
0.5018
0.5115
0.5212
0.5308
0.5404
Area, ft2
6.346
6.663
6.987
7.312
7.640
7.967
8.302
8.637
8.976
9.314
9.656
9.998
10.343
10.689
11.034
11.383
11.733
12.085
12.434
12.787
13.139
13.492
13.844
14.197
14.549
14.902
15.254
15.603
15.956
16.305
16.650
16.999
17.345
17.690
18.032
18.374
18.713
19.051
Gallons
200.73
210.82
221.13
231.44
241.86
252.28
262.93
273.58
284.34
295.09
305.97
316.84
327.82
338.80
349.79
360.88
371.98
383.18
394.28
405.49
416.69
427.90
439.11
450.31
461.52
472.73
483.94
495.03
506.24
517.33
528.32
539.41
550.40
561.38
572.25
583.12
593.88
604.64
B-3
-------
Tape
Height, inch
46.28
46.99
47.70
48.41
49.13
49.84
50.55
51.26
51.98
52.69
53.40
54.11
54.83
55.54
56.25
56.96
57.68
58.39
59.10
59.81
60.53
61.24
61.95
62.66
63.38
64.09
64.80
65.51
66.23
66.94
67.65
68.36
69.08
69.79
70.50
Depth (d),
inch
47.03
47.74
48.45
49.16
49.88
50.59
51.30
52.01
52.73
53.44
54.15
54.86
55.58
56.29
57.00
57.71
58.43
59.14
59.85
60.56
61.28
61.99
62.70
63.41
64.13
64.84
65.55
66.26
66.98
67.69
68.40
69.11
69.83
70.54
71.25
d/D
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.69
0.7
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.8
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.9
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
Area/D2
0.5499
0.5594
0.5687
0.578
0.5872
0.5964
0.6054
0.6143
0.6231
0.6318
0.6404
0.6489
0.6573
0.6655
0.6726
0.6815
0.6893
0.6969
0.7043
0.7115
0.7186
0.7254
0.732
0.7384
0.7445
0.7504
0.756
0.7612
0.7662
0.7707
0.7749
0.7785
0.7816
0.7841
0.7854
Area, ft2
19.386
19.721
20.049
20.377
20.701
21.025
21.343
21.656
21.967
22.273
22.577
22.876
23.172
23.461
23.712
24.026
24.301
24.568
24.829
25.083
25.333
25.573
25.806
26.031
26.247
26.455
26.652
26.835
27.012
27.170
27.318
27.445
27.554
27.643
27.688
Gallons
615.28
625.93
636.35
646.78
657.09
667.40
677.48
687.46
697.32
707.07
716.71
726.24
735.65
744.84
752.80
762.77
771.51
780.03
788.32
796.39
804.35
811.97
819.37
826.54
833.38
839.99
846.27
852.09
857.70
862.74
867.45
871.48
874.96
877.76
879.21
B-4
-------
Appendix C
Barometric Pressure and Temperature Data
C-l
-------
Baroneter (in)
2011
T I I
Sat Sun Non Tue Wed Thu Fri
9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16
90.OT
40
Outside Tenperature (F)
2011
T^ \^ \^ \^ \^ \^ \
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16
C-2
-------
Baroneter (in)
2011
T \ I I T
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
Outside Tenperature
2011
1 I I I I I I
Sat Sun Non Tue Wed Thu Fri
9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23
C-3
-------
Baroneter (in)
2011
\ \^ \^ \^ \^ \^ \
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Non Tue
9/28 9/29 9/30 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4
Outside Tenperature
2011
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun flon Tue
9/28 9/29 9/30 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Veeder-Root Test Data
D-l
-------
TEST DAY 1
Run Number
1
Test Day
1
Date
9/13/11
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
EO-25-wo
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of Incremental Test (T=0)
Initial
11:30 AM
18-5/16
trace
21.9
21.7
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
1:45 PM
18-3/4
35
23.0
23.1
NA
NA
200
Final (T=1 00)
3:20 PM
19-1/8
56
23.8
24.0
NA
NA
200
182a
NAb
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
b. Unclear when ingress was stopped between minimum detect & incremental tests.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
190
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
59.0
61.0
59.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
177.0
183.0
177.0
Error
-7%
-9%
-12%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
197
6
Volume
Collected,
ml
59.7
1.2
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
179.0
3.5
Error
-9%
2%
D-2
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
12:18 PMa
12:18 PM
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
15
15
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.59
0.59
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.40a
0.67a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
48
48
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
8,741
8,741
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.31
2.31
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
35
37
39.5
41.2
43.5
46
48
50
52
53.5
56
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
1.38
1.46
1.56
1.62
1.71
1.81
1.89
1.97
2.05
2.11
2.20
STD Water
Technology,
inches
1.40
1.50
1.59
1.67
1.76
1.84
1.92
2.00
2.08
2.15
2.23
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
1.15
1.23
1.31
1.40
1.49
1.57
1.65
1.73
1.81
1.88
1.95
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,821
3,642
5,463
7,284
9,105
10,926
12,747
14,568
16,389
18,211
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.48
0.96
1.44
1.92
2.41
2.89
3.37
3.85
4.33
4.81
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
6.49
6.98
7.46
7.94
8.42
8.90
9.38
9.86
10.34
10.82
11.31
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.38
1.46
1.56
1.62
1.71
1.81
1.89
1.97
2.05
2.11
2.20
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.079
0.098
0.067
0.091
0.098
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.059
0.098
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
1.15
1.23
1.31
1.40
1.49
1.57
1.65
1.73
1.81
1.88
1.95
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.080
0.080
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.070
0.070
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
0.001
-0.018
0.023
-0.001
-0.018
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.011
-0.028
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.38
1.46
1.56
1.62
1.71
1.81
1.89
1.97
2.05
2.11
2.20
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.079
0.098
0.067
0.091
0.098
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.059
0.098
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
1.40
1.50
1.59
1.67
1.76
1.84
1.92
2.00
2.08
2.15
2.23
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.070
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
0.021
-0.008
0.013
-0.001
-0.018
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.011
-0.018
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-4
-------
TEST DAY 2
Run Number
3
Test Day
2
Date
9/14/11
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
EO-25-w
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
12:40 PM
18-3/16
trace
20.7
20.3
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
1 :44 PM
18-3/8
20.5
20.8
20.5
NA
NA
200
Final (T=1 00)
3:56 PM
18-3/4
45
21.0
20.7
NA
NA
200
177a
2:16 PM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
195
190
180
Volume Collected,
ml
58.0
56.0
53.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
174.0
168.0
159.0
Error
-11%
-12%
-12%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
188
8
Volume
Collected,
ml
55.7
2.5
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
167.0
7.5
Error
-11%
0%
D-5
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
1:28 PM
1:27 PM
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
16
16
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.63
0.63
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.38
0.64a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
48
47
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
8,512
8,334
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.25
2.20
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
21
23.5
26.5
29
31.5
34
36
38.5
41
43
45
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.83
0.93
1.04
1.14
1.24
1.34
1.42
1.52
1.61
1.69
1.77
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.86
0.97
1.07
1.18
1.27
1.37
1.46
1.55
1.64
1.72
1.80
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.60
0.71
0.81
0.91
1.01
1.10
1.19
1.28a
1.37
1.45
1.53
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,773
3,546
5,320
7,093
8,866
10,639
12,413
14,186
15,959
17,732
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.47
0.94
1.41
1.87
2.34
2.81
3.28
3.75
4.22
4.68
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
3.00
3.47
3.93
4.40
4.87
5.34
5.81
6.28
6.75
7.21
7.68
a. Reading was changed from 1.29 to correspond with the raw data.
D-6
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.83
0.93
1.04
1.14
1.24
1.34
1.42
1.52
1.61
1.69
1.77
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.098
0.118
0.098
0.098
0.098
0.079
0.098
0.098
0.079
0.079
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.60
0.71
0.81
0.91
1.01
1.10
1.19
1.28
1.37
1.45
1.53
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
0.012
-0.018
0.002
0.002
-0.008
0.011
-0.008
-0.008
0.001
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.83
0.93
1.04
1.14
1.24
1.34
1.42
1.52
1.61
1.69
1.77
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.098
0.118
0.098
0.098
0.098
0.079
0.098
0.098
0.079
0.079
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.86
0.97
1.07
1.18
1.27
1.37
1.46
1.55
1.64
1.72
1.80
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.110
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
0.012
-0.018
0.012
-0.008
0.002
0.011
-0.008
-0.008
0.001
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-7
-------
TEST DAY 3
Run Number
2
Test Day
3
Date
9/15/11
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
25 then 65
Ingress
Method
Dump
Run ID
EO-dump
Time
Fuel height V-R side
(inches)
DP V-R side (mm/inches)
Std Float reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Initial-
Water
Dump
(2 gal)
12:10
PM
17-
11/16
Trace
0
0.51
19.4
19.6
NA
NA
Reading
SMin
After
Dump 1
12:15
PM
15/0.59
0
0.51
NA
NA
Reading
10Min
After
Dump 1
12:20
PM
15/0.59
0
0.51
NA
NA
Water
Dump 2
12:28
PM
15/0.59
1.10
0.99
NA
NA
Reading
SMin
After
Dump 2
12:33
PM
28/1.10
1.11
1.00
NA
NA
Reading
10Min
After
Dump 2
12:38
PM
28/1.10
1.11
1.00
NA
NA
Mid
Values
Before
Fuel
Dump
12:39
PM
17-7/8
28/1.10
1.11
1.00
19.2
19.5
NA
NA
Shading indicates no measurement was taken.
Time
Fuel height V-R side
(inches)
DP V-R side (mm/inches)
Std Float Reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Fuel
Dump
1:21 PM
28/1.10
1.13
1.01
Not
recorded
Not
recorded
Reading
SMin
After
Fuel
Dump
1 :26 PM
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Reading
10Min
After
Fuel
Dump
1:31 PM
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Reading
15Min
After
Fuel
Dump
1:36 PM
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Reading
20Min
After
Fuel
Dump
1:41 PM
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Reading
25Min
After
Fuel
Dump
1 :46 PM
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Reading
SOMin
After
Fuel
Dump
1:51 PM
44-3/8
29/1.14
1.13
1.01
Not
recorded
Not
recorded
Not
recorded
Not
recorded
Shading indicates no measurement was taken.
D-8
-------
TEST DAY 4
Run Number
8
Test Day
4
Date
9/16/11
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
EO-65-wo
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
12:13 PM
44-1/2
trace
18.5
17.9
19.2
18.8
200
Mid-Point
1:17 PM
44-3/8
20
18.3
17.9
18.8
18.3
200
Final (T=1 00)
3:22 PM
45
43
18.2
17.8
18.5
18.0
200
179a
1:42 PM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
55.5
63.0
62.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.3
20.3
19.9
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
164.0
186.2
186.9
Error
-18%
-7%
-7%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
60.2
4.1
Collection
Time,
sec
20.2
0.2
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
179.1
13.0
Error
-10%
7%
D-9
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
1:00 PMa
12:58 PM
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
16
16
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.63
0.63
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.38
0.633
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
47
45
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
8,416
8,058
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.22
2.13
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
20
23
26
28
31
33
36
37
39
41
43
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.84
0.94
1.04
1.14
1.23
1.32a
1.41
1.49a
1.57a
1.65a
1.73a
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.58
0.68
0.78
0.87a
0.96a
1.05a
1.14
1.22
1.30
1.38
1.45a
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,791
3,581
5,372
7,162
8,953
10,744
12,534
14,325
16,115
17,906
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.47
0.95
1.42
1.89
2.37
2.84
3.31
3.78
4.26
4.73
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
3.03
3.50
3.97
4.45
4.92
5.39
5.87
6.34
6.81
7.28
7.76
a. Readings were changed to correspond with the raw data.
D-10
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.039
0.079
0.079
0.079
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.58
0.68
0.78
0.87
0.96
1.05
1.14
1.22
1.30
1.38
1.45
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.070
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.018
-0.018
0.011
-0.028
0.011
-0.028
0.041
0.001
0.001
-0.009
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.039
0.079
0.079
0.079
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.84
0.94
1.04
1.14
1.23
1.32
1.41
1.49
1.57
1.65
1.73
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.018
-0.018
0.021
-0.028
0.011
-0.028
0.041
0.001
0.001
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-ll
-------
TEST DAY 5 AM
Run Number
9
Test Day
5
Date
9/19/11
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
EO-65-w
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
10:14AM
44-13/16
trace
17.9
17.6
18.0
17.6
200
Mid-Point
11:11 AM
45
18
18.0
17.6
18.0
17.5
200
Final (T=1 00)
1:03 PM
45-5/16
43
18.1
17.8
18.1
17.7
200
183a
11:23 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
210
210
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
64.0
61.5
63.5
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
192.0
184.5
190.5
Error
-9%
-12%
-5%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
207
6
Volume
Collected,
ml
63.0
1.3
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
189.0
4.0
Error
-8%
4%
D-12
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
11:01 AM
11:01 AMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
16
16
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.63
0.63
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.39a
0.64a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
47
47
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
8,602
8,602
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.27
2.27
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
18
21
24
27
29
31
33
36
38
40
43
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.71
0.83
0.94
1.06
1.14
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.50
1.57
1.69
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.74
0.85
0.96
1.06
1.16
1.25
1.34a
1.43a
1.52a
1.61
1.69a
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.49
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.89a
0.99
1.08
1.17
1.25
1.33a
1.42
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,830
3,660
5,491
7,321
9,151
10,981
12,812
14,642
16,472
18,302
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.48
0.97
1.45
1.93
2.42
2.90
3.38
3.87
4.35
4.83
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
2.76
3.24
3.72
4.21
4.69
5.17
5.66
6.14
6.62
7.11
7.59
a. Readings were changed to correspond with the raw data.
D-13
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.71
0.83
0.94
1.06
1.14
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.50
1.57
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.49
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.89
0.99
1.08
1.17
1.25
1.33
1.42
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.090
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.018
-0.018
0.011
0.021
0.011
-0.028
0.001
0.001
-0.028
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.71
0.83
0.94
1.06
1.14
1.22
1.30
1.42
1.50
1.57
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.74
0.85
0.96
1.06
1.16
1.25
1.34
1.43
1.52
1.61
1.69
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.008
-0.018
0.021
0.011
0.011
-0.028
0.011
0.011
-0.038
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-14
-------
TEST DAY 5 PM
Run Number
12
Test Day
5
Date
9/19/2011
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
EO-65-wo-DUP
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
1:55 PM
44-3/4
trace
18.2
17.9
18.2
17.7
200
Mid-Point
2:49 PM
44-15/16
19
18.2
17.9
18.2
17.8
200
Final (T=1 00)
4:36 PM
45-3/16
43
18.4
18.1
18.3
17.8
200
183a
2:56 PM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
210
210
200
Volume Collected,
ml
64.0
61.5
63.5
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
192.0
184.5
190.5
Error
-9%
-12%
-5%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
207
6
Volume
Collected,
ml
63.0
1.3
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
189.0
4.0
Error
-8%
4%
D-15
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
2:38 PMa
2:38 PMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
16
16
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.63
0.63
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.40a
0.65a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
43
43
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
7,870
7,870
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.08
2.08
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
19
22
26
27
30
32
34
37
39
41
43
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.75
0.87
1.02
1.06
1.18
1.26
1.34
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.76
0.87
0.98
1.08
1.17
1.27
1.36
1.45
1.54
1.63
1.71
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.52
0.63
0.73
0.83
0.93
1.02
1.11
1.20
1.28
1.37
1.45
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,830
3,660
5,491
7,321
9,151
10,981
12,812
14,642
16,472
18,302
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.48
0.97
1.45
1.93
2.42
2.90
3.38
3.87
4.35
4.83
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
2.61
3.09
3.58
4.06
4.54
5.03
5.51
6.00
6.48
6.96
7.45
D-16
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.75
0.87
1.02
1.06
1.18
1.26
1.34
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.157
0.039
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.52
0.63
0.73
0.83
0.93
1.02
1.11
1.20
1.28
1.37
1.45
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.090
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.057
0.061
-0.018
0.011
0.011
-0.028
0.001
0.011
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.75
0.87
1.02
1.06
1.18
1.26
1.34
1.46
1.54
1.61
1.69
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.157
0.039
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.76
0.87
0.98
1.08
1.17
1.27
1.36
1.45
1.54
1.63
1.71
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.110
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.047
0.061
-0.028
0.021
0.011
-0.028
0.011
0.011
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-17
-------
TEST DAY 6
Run Number
4
Test Day
6
Date
9/20/1 1
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
E15-25-WO
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
10:17AM
17-13/16
trace
18.2
17.9
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
10:58 AM
17-7/8
20
18.4
18.1
NA
NA
200
Final (T=1 00)
12:56 PM
18-1/4
54
19.1
18.8
NA
NA
200
183a
11:1 6 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
62
61
60
Collection
Times,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
186.0
183.0
180.0
Error
-7%
-9%
-10%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
61.0
1.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
183.0
3.0
Error
-9%
2%
D-18
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
10:49 AMa
10:53 AMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
17
20
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.67
0.79
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.497
0.634
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
32
36
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
5,856
6,588
Water Volume
to Alarm,
1.55
1.74
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
20
26
29
32
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.79
1.02
1.14
1.26
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.74
0.88
1.02
1.16
1.29
1.41
1.53
1.65
1.76
1.87
1.97
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.68
0.82a
0.97
1.10
1.23
1.35
1.47
1.58
1.69
1.79
1.90
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,830
3,660
5,490
7,320
9,150
10,980
12,810
14,640
16,470
18,300
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.48
0.97
1.45
1.93
2.42
2.90
3.38
3.87
4.35
4.83
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
1.98
2.47
2.95
3.43
3.92
4.40
4.88
5.37
5.85
6.33
6.82
a. Reading was changed to correspond with the raw data.
D-19
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
1.02
1.14
1.26
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.118
0.118
0.157
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.68
0.82
0.97
1.10
1.23
1.35
1.47
1.58
1.69
1.79
1.90
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.140
0.150
0.130
0.130
0.120
0.120
0.110
0.110
0.100
0.110
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.096
0.032
0.012
-0.027
0.002
0.002
-0.008
-0.008
-0.018
-0.008
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
1.02
1.14
1.26
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.118
0.118
0.157
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.74
0.88
1.02
1.16
1.29
1.41
1.53
1.65
1.76
1.87
1.97
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.130
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.110
0.110
0.100
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.096
0.022
0.022
-0.027
0.002
0.002
0.002
-0.008
-0.008
-0.018
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-20
-------
TEST DAY 7 AM
Run Number
7
Test Day
7
Date
9/21/11
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
E15-25-W
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:36 AM
16-13/16
trace
18.9
18.6
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
10:11 AM
16-15/16
35
19.2
18.9
NA
NA
200
Final (T=1 00)
12:14 PM
17-1/4
79
20.7
20.1
NA
NA
200
176a
10:34 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
59.0
58.0
59.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
177.0
174.0
177.1
Error
-12%
-13%
-11%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
58.7
0.6
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
176.0
1.8
Error
-12%
1%
D-21
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
9:56 AMa
10:05AMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
24
30
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.94
1.18
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.45a
0.67a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
20
29
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
3,521
5,105
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
0.93
1.35
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
35
41
47
53
58
62
65
69
73
76
79
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
1.38
1.61
1.85
2.09
2.28
2.44
2.56
2.72
2.87
2.99
3.11
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.84
1.06
1.27
1.47
1.66
1.83
2.00
2.15
2.30
2.46
2.60
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.88
1.11
1.33
1.54
1.72
1.90
2.07
2.22
2.36
2.51
2.65
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,760
3,521
5,281
7,041
8,802
10,562
12,322
14,082
15,843
17,603
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.47
0.93
1.40
1.86
2.33
2.79
3.26
3.72
4.19
4.65
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
1.63
2.09
2.56
3.02
3.49
3.95
4.42
4.88
5.35
5.81
6.28
D-22
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.38
1.61
1.85
2.09
2.28
2.44
2.56
2.72
2.87
2.99
3.11
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.236
0.236
0.197
0.157
0.118
0.157
0.157
0.118
0.118
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.88
1.11
1.33
1.54
1.72
1.90
2.07
2.22
2.36
2.51
2.65
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.230
0.220
0.210
0.180
0.180
0.170
0.150
0.140
0.150
0.140
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.006
-0.016
-0.026
-0.017
0.023
0.052
-0.007
-0.017
0.032
0.022
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.38
1.61
1.85
2.09
2.28
2.44
2.56
2.72
2.87
2.99
3.11
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.236
0.236
0.197
0.157
0.118
0.157
0.157
0.118
0.118
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.84
1.06
1.27
1.47
1.66
1.83
2.00
2.15
2.30
2.46
2.60
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.220
0.210
0.200
0.190
0.170
0.170
0.150
0.150
0.160
0.140
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.016
-0.026
-0.036
-0.007
0.013
0.052
-0.007
-0.007
0.042
0.022
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-23
-------
TEST DAY 7 PM
Run Number
13
Test Day
7
Date
9/21/11
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
E15-25-WO-DUP
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
3:08 PM
15-15/16
trace
20.7
19.4
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
4:02 PM
16-1/8
25
20.7
20.4
NA
NA
200
Final (T=1 00)
6:08 PM
16-1/2
56
21.5
21.1
NA
NA
200
176a
4:28 PM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume Collected,
ml
59.0
58.0
59.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
177.0
174.0
177.1
Error
-12%
-13%
-11%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
58.7
0.6
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
176.0
1.8
Error
-12%
1%
D-24
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
3:36 PMa
3:37 PMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
14
19
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.55
0.75
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.387b
0.65a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
28
29
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
4,929
5,105
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
1.30
1.35
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
b. From computer screen rather than printout.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
25
29
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
56
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.98
1.14
1.30
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
2.20
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.88
1.02
1.15a
1.29
1.41
1.53a
1.65
1.77
1.88
1.99
2.09a
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.89
1.03
1.17
1.30
1.43
1.55
1.67
1.79
1.90
2.00
2.11
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,760
3,521
5,281
7,041
8,802
10,562
12,322
14,082
15,843
17,603
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.47
0.93
1.40
1.86
2.33
2.79
3.26
3.72
4.19
4.65
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
2.51
2.98
3.44
3.91
4.37
4.84
5.30
5.77
6.23
6.70
7.16
a. Readings were changed to correspond with the raw data.
D-25
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.98
1.14
1.30
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
2.20
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.157
0.157
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.079
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.89
1.03
1.17
1.30
1.43
1.55
1.67
1.79
1.90
2.00
2.11
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.140
0.140
0.130
0.130
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.110
0.100
0.110
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.017
-0.017
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.002
0.002
-0.008
-0.018
0.031
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.98
1.14
1.30
1.42
1.54
1.65
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.13
2.20
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.157
0.157
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.118
0.079
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.88
1.02
1.15
1.29
1.41
1.53
1.65
1.77
1.88
1.99
2.09
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.140
0.130
0.140
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.110
0.110
0.100
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.017
-0.027
0.022
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
-0.008
-0.008
0.021
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-26
-------
TEST DAY 8
Run
Number
5
Test
Day
8
Date
9/22/201 1
Fuel
Flex Fuel
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress
Method
Without
splash
Run ID
Flex-25-wo
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (inches)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:35 AM
17-1/4
Trace
18.2
18.0
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final (T=1 00)
12:35 PM
17-3/4
17-5/83
19.5
19.1
NA
NA
200
153b
Not Conducted
a. Phase separation is not clearly defined and could just be mixing.
b. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
50.0
51.0
52.0
Collection
Times,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
150.0
153.0
156.0
Error
-25%
-24%
-22%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
51.0
1.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
153.0
3.0
Error
-24%
2%
D-27
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
10:39 AM
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.54a'b
Elapsed
Time to
Alarm,
min
64
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
9,792
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
2.59
Water Added at
Test
Termination,
gal
7.28
Did not respond
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
b. Phase separation is not clearly defined and could just be mixing.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
TEST NOT CONDUCTED
D-28
-------
TEST DAY 9
Run Number
19
Test Day
9
Date
9/23/1 1
Fuel
flex
fuel
Fuel Level,
percent
25 then 65
Ingress
Method
Dump
Run ID
Flex-dump
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (inches)
Std Float reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Initial-
and
Second
Water
Dumps
(4 gal)
10:01 AM
16-1/16
0
0
6.65
18.8
18.2
NA
NA
Reading
16Min
After
Dump 1
10:17AM
2 to 3
0
6.79
NA
NA
Water
Dump 3
(2 gal)
10:22 AM
1.52
7.67
NA
NA
Mid
Values
Before
Fuel
Dump
10:26 AM
16-1/2
3 to 4
1.57
7.67
17.7
18.0
NA
NA
Shading indicates no measurement was taken.
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (inches)3
Std Float reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Fuel Dump
11:20 AM
16-1/2
0
1.46
7.85
Reading 30 Min
After Fuel Dump
12:04 PM
44-1/4
0
0
0.54
18.3
18.7
18.8
19.4
a.
The entire contents of the test vessel were uniformly-colored green after the fuel
dump, and no discernible separated phase existed.
Shading indicates no measurement was taken.
D-29
-------
TEST DAY 10
Run Number
6
Test Day
10
Date
9/26/201 1
Fuel
Flex Fuel
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
Flex-25-w
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:51 AM
16-3/4
0
17.9
17.7
NA
NA
200
Mid-Point
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final (T=1 00)
12:52 PM
17-1/4
See Note 1
18.1
17.9
NA
NA
200
160a
Not Conducted
1. Phase separation is not clearly defined and could just be mixing.
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume
Collected,
ml
53.0
54.0
53.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
159.0
162.0
159.0
Error
-21%
-19%
-21%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
53.3
0.6
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
160.0
1.7
Error
-20%
1%
D-30
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
1 1 :02 AMa
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.55a'b
Elapsed
Time to
Alarm,
min
71
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
11,360
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
3.00
Did not respond
Water Added at
Test
Termination,
gal
7.65
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
b. Phase separation is not clearly defined and could just be mixing.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
TEST NOT CONDUCTED
D-31
-------
TEST DAY 11
Run Number
14
Test Day
11
Date
9/27/201 1
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
E15-65-W
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:54 AM
45-1/16
trace
16.2
15.6
16.6
16.0
200
Mid-Point
10:43 AM
45-1/8
38
16.3
15.7
16.5
15.9
200
Final (T=1 00)
1:03 PM
45-3/8
92
16.9
16.5
16.9
16.3
200
152a
11:23 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
200
200
Volume Collected,
ml
50.5
50.5
50.5
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
151.5
151.5
151.5
Error
-24%
-24%
-24%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
200
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
50.5
0.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
151.5
0.0
Error
-24%
0%
D-32
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
10:19AMa
10:30AMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
22
31
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.87
1.22
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.44a
0.66a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
25
36
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
3,787
5,454
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
1.00
1.44
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
38
45
51
57
63
68
73
78
85
88
92
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
1.50
1.77
2.01
2.24
2.48
2.68
2.87
3.07
3.35
3.46
3.62
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.86
1.05
1.23
1.43
1.62
1.81
2.00
2.18
2.37
2.55
2.73
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.95
1.16
1.37
1.59
1.80
2.01
2.21
2.41
2.59
2.79
2.98
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,515
3,030
4,545
6,060
7,575
9,090
10,605
12,120
13,635
15,150
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
4.00
Cumulative
Total Water
Added To Test
Vessel,
gal
1.96
2.36
2.76
3.16
3.56
3.96
4.36
4.76
5.16
5.56
5.96
D-33
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.50
1.77
2.01
2.24
2.48
2.68
2.87
3.07
3.35
3.46
3.62
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.276
0.236
0.236
0.236
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.276
0.118
0.157
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.95
1.16
1.37
1.59
1.80
2.01
2.21
2.41
2.59
2.79
2.98
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.210
0.210
0.220
0.210
0.210
0.200
0.200
0.180
0.200
0.190
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.066
-0.026
-0.016
-0.026
0.013
0.003
0.003
-0.096
0.082
0.033
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.50
1.77
2.01
2.24
2.48
2.68
2.87
3.07
3.35
3.46
3.62
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.276
0.236
0.236
0.236
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.276
0.118
0.157
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.86
1.05
1.23
1.43
1.62
1.81
2.00
2.18
2.37
2.55
2.73
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.190
0.180
0.200
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.190
0.180
0.180
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.086
-0.056
-0.036
-0.046
-0.007
-0.007
-0.017
-0.086
0.062
0.023
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-34
-------
TEST DAY 12 AM
Run Number
16
Test Day
12
Date
9/28/1 1
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
25 then 65
Ingress
Method
Dump
Run ID
E15-dump
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm/inches)
Std Float reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Initial-
Water
Dump
(2 gal)
8:22 AM
17-1/4
28/1.10
0.80
0.76
15.6
15.7
NA
NA
Reading
SMin
After
Dump 1
8:27 AM
29/1.14
0.80
0.76
NA
NA
Reading
10Min
After
Dump 1
8:32 AM
29/1.14
0.80
0.76
NA
NA
Mid
Values
Before
Fuel
Dump
not
recorded
not
recorded
29/1.14
0.80
0.76
15.8
15.8
NA
NA
a. Only 1 water dump was performed.
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm/inches)
Std Float reading (inches)
Phase-Two reading (inches)
Temp 1 (°C)
Temp 2 (°C)
Temp 3 (°C)
Temp 4 (°C)
Fuel
Dump
9:12 AM
29/1.14
0
0
NA
NA
Reading
SMin
After
Fuel
Dump
9:17AM
not
recorded
0
0
Reading
10Min
After
Fuel
Dump
9:22 AM
965 / 38a
0
0
Reading
15Min
After
Fuel
Dump
9:27 AM
965 / 38a
0
0
Reading
20Min
After
Fuel
Dump
9:32 AM
990 / 39a
0
0
Reading
27Min
After
Fuel
Dump
9:39 AM
990 / 39a
0
0
Reading
SOMin
After
Fuel
Dump
9:42 AM
44-1/4
990 / 39a
0
0
16.5
16.6
16.5
16.6
a. Approximate values were recorded due to the dense phase being poorly defined; the entire contents of
the test vessel were uniformly-colored green.
Shading indicates no measurement was taken.
D-35
-------
TEST DAY 12PM
Run
Number
10
Test Day
12
Date
9/28/201 1
Fuel
EO
Fuel Level,
percent
25
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
EO-25-wo-DUP
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
12:02 PM
16-11/16
0
15.2
14.5
NA
NA
220
Mid-Point
1:09 PM
16-7/8
20
15.4
14.8
NA
NA
220
Final (T=1 00)
2:57 PM
17-1/4
40
15.6
14.9
NA
NA
220
181a
1:17 PM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
230
230
230
Volume Collected,
ml
63.0
63.0
63.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
189.0
189.0
189.0
Error
-18%
-18%
-18%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
230
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
63.0
0.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
189.0
0.0
Error
-18%
0%
D-36
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
12:41 PMa
12:47 PMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
13
15
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.51
0.59
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.40a
0.65a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
39
45
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
7,051
8,135
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
1.86
2.15
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
20
23
26
28
30
33
35
38
40
42
44
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.18
1.30
1.38
1.50
1.57
1.65
1.73
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.86
0.97
1.07
1.17
1.26
1.35
1.44
1.53
1.61
1.69
1.77
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.69
0.80
0.90
0.99
1.09
1.18
1.26
1.35
1.43
1.51
1.59
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,808
3,616
5,423
7,231
9,039
10,847
12,655
14,463
16,270
18,078
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.48
0.96
1.43
1.91
2.39
2.87
3.34
3.82
4.30
4.78
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
3.20
3.68
4.15
4.63
5.11
5.59
6.07
6.54
7.02
7.50
7.98
D-37
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.18
1.30
1.38
1.50
1.57
1.65
1.73
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.69
0.80
0.90
0.99
1.09
1.18
1.26
1.35
1.43
1.51
1.59
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.018
0.011
0.021
-0.028
0.001
-0.028
0.001
0.001
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
0.79
0.91
1.02
1.10
1.18
1.30
1.38
1.50
1.57
1.65
1.73
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.118
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.079
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.86
0.97
1.07
1.17
1.26
1.35
1.44
1.53
1.61
1.69
1.77
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.008
-0.018
0.021
0.011
-0.028
0.011
-0.028
0.001
0.001
0.001
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-38
-------
TEST DAY 13
Run Number
17
Test Day
13
Date
9/29/201 1
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress Method
Without splash
Run ID
E15-65-WO
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:48 AM
45-1/2
0
15.6
14.9
15.9
15.4
220
Mid-Point
10:25 AM
45-5/16
31
15.7
15.1
15.9
15.2
220
Final (T=1 00)
12:28 PM
45-9/16
77
16.4
15.8
16.4
15.7
220
188a
10:48 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
250
250
250
Volume Collected,
ml
71.0
71.0
72.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
213.0
213.0
216.0
Error
-15%
-15%
-14%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
250
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
71.3
0.6
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
214.0
1.7
Error
-14%
1%
D-39
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time At
Alarm
10:07AMa
10:16AMa
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
18
25
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.71
0.98
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.43a
0.65a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
19
28
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
3,578
5,273
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
0.95
1.39
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
31
37
42
47
52
57
61
66
70
73
77
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
1.22
1.46
1.65
1.85
2.05
2.24
2.40
2.60
2.76
2.87
3.03
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.83
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.63
1.81
1.98
2.14
2.29
2.43
2.57
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.88
1.09
1.30
1.49
1.68
1.86
2.03
2.20
2.34
2.49
2.63
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,883
3,766
5,650
7,533
9,416
11,299
13,182
15,066
16,949
18,832
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.50
0.99
1.49
1.99
2.49
2.98
3.48
3.98
4.48
4.97
Cumulative
Total Water
Added To Test
Vessel,
gal
1.84
2.34
2.84
3.33
3.83
4.33
4.83
5.32
5.82
6.32
6.82
D-40
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.22
1.46
1.65
1.85
2.05
2.24
2.40
2.60
2.76
2.87
3.03
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.157
0.197
0.157
0.118
0.157
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.88
1.09
1.30
1.49
1.68
1.86
2.03
2.20
2.34
2.49
2.63
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.210
0.210
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.170
0.170
0.140
0.150
0.140
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.026
0.013
-0.007
-0.007
-0.017
0.013
-0.027
-0.017
0.032
-0.017
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.22
1.46
1.65
1.85
2.05
2.24
2.40
2.60
2.76
2.87
3.03
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.236
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.157
0.197
0.157
0.118
0.157
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.83
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.63
1.81
1.98
2.14
2.29
2.43
2.57
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.220
0.200
0.200
0.180
0.180
0.170
0.160
0.150
0.140
0.140
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.016
0.003
0.003
-0.017
-0.017
0.013
-0.037
-0.007
0.022
-0.017
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-41
-------
TEST DAY 14
Run
Number
18
Test Day
14
Date
9/30/201 1
Fuel
E15
Fuel Level,
percent
65
Ingress
Method
With splash
Run ID
E15-65-W-DUP
Time
Fuel height V-R side (inches)
DP V-R side (mm)
Temp 1 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 2 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 3 (°C) (corrected)
Temp 4 (°C) (corrected)
Ingress rate (ml/min)
Ingress rate determined (ml/min)
Start of incremental test (T=0)
Initial
9:50 AM
45-1/8
0
15.2
14.5
15.6
14.8
220
Mid-Point
10:31 AM
45-1/4
36
15.2
14.4
15.5
14.7
220
Final (T=1 00)
12:46 PM
45-1/2
90
15.3
14.6
15.5
14.6
220
156a
11:06 AM
a. Determined using the average determined flow rate and applying the average % error.
Rotameter Calibration
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
220
220
220
Volume Collected,
ml
52.0
52.0
52.0
Collection
Time,
sec
20.0
20.0
20.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
156.0
156.0
156.0
Error
-29%
-29%
-29%
Average
Standard deviation
Observed
Flow Rate,
cm3/min
220
0
Volume
Collected,
ml
52.0
0.0
Collection
Times,
sec
20.0
0.0
Determined
Flow Rate,
ml/min
156.0
0.0
Error
-29%
0%
D-42
-------
Minimum Detection Height Test
Technology
VR Phase 2
VR STD Water
Time at
Alarm
10:10AM
10:21 AM
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
mm
21
30
Observed
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.83
1.18
Technology
Dense Phase
Height,
inches
0.41a
0.65a
Elapsed Time
to Alarm,
min
20
31
Water
Volume to
Alarm,
ml
3,120
4,836
Water Volume
to Alarm,
gal
0.82
1.28
a. Readings are not exactly at initial times, however within several seconds and a couple hundredths of an inch.
Smallest Detection Increment Test
Elapsed
Time,
min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
mm
36
43
48
53
60
65
70
75
80
84
90
Observed
Dense
Phase
Height,
inches
1.42
1.69
1.89
2.09
2.36
2.56
2.76
2.95
3.15
3.31
3.54
STD Water
Technology,
inches
0.83
1.02
1.21
1.40
1.58
1.77
1.95
2.14
2.32
2.50
2.68
Phase-
Two™
Technology,
inches
0.92
1.12
1.32
1.53
1.75
1.94
2.15
2.35
2.54
2.72
2.92
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
ml
0
1,560
3,120
4,680
6,240
7,800
9,360
10,920
12,480
14,040
15,600
Cumulative
Water Added
Since T = 0,
gal
0.00
0.41
0.82
1.24
1.65
2.06
2.47
2.88
3.30
3.71
4.12
Cumulative
Total Water
Added to Test
Vessel,
gal
1.69
2.10
2.51
2.93
3.34
3.75
4.16
4.57
4.99
5.40
5.81
D-43
-------
Smallest Detection Increment Difference
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.42
1.69
1.89
2.09
2.36
2.56
2.76
2.95
3.15
3.31
3.54
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.276
0.197
0.197
0.276
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.157
0.236
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.92
1.12
1.32
1.53
1.75
1.94
2.15
2.35
2.54
2.72
2.92
Phase-
Two™
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.200
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.190
0.210
0.200
0.190
0.180
0.200
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.076
0.003
0.013
-0.056
-0.007
0.013
0.003
-0.007
0.023
-0.036
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
Increment
Number
Time 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measured
Depth,
inches
1.42
1.69
1.89
2.09
2.36
2.56
2.76
2.95
3.15
3.31
3.54
Measured
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.276
0.197
0.197
0.276
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.197
0.157
0.236
STD Water
Technology
Depth,
inches
0.83
1.02
1.21
1.40
1.58
1.77
1.95
2.14
2.32
2.50
2.68
STD Water
Technology
Incremental
Change,
inches
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.190
0.180
0.190
0.180
0.180
0.180
Delta
Incremental
Change,
(Technology
- Measured)
inches
-0.086
-0.007
-0.007
-0.096
-0.007
-0.017
-0.007
-0.017
0.023
-0.056
Shading indicates that no measurement was taken.
D-44
------- |