M e m o r a n d u m
FROM:
Michael Baker, SBW
TO:
RTF Staff
DATE:
February 11, 2013
RE:
Phase I Review and Update Recommendations: Kitchen Pre-Rinse Spray Valves
This memo documents the results of DNV KEMA’s review of the UES (Unit Energy Savings) measure
Kitchen Pre-Rinse Spray Valves. This measure has been categorized by the RTF as a Small Saver, and
therefore this memo outlines recommendations consistent with that category. This measure covers
electric savings from reduced water heating load and embedded energy in the water and wastewater
treatment processes through the direct installation and operation of reduced flow rate pre-rinse spray
valves over standard flow rate pre-rinse spray valves using hot water heated with an electric water
heater. The review focuses on the derivation of Unit Energy Savings (UES).
Summary Recommendation. This measure should be classified Under Review.
The following recommendations lead to a change in status to Under Review.
1. Workbook needs to be updated to use latest ProCost template which includes Measure Cost and
EUL summary worksheets.
2. Incorporate the DOE Test Procedure electric water heating efficiency parameter into the kWh
per Year (water heating) equation.
3. Update the baseline Flow Rate parameter by adding the four additional FSTC tested spray valves
into the baseline flow rate data set.
4. Include the current efficient case spray valve, the Bicor model B064 PRV, into the baseline flow
rate data set.
5. Consider the T&S EB-0107-C valve with a Flow Rate of 0.64 GPM as the new efficient case.
6. Use a Days of Operation per Year value consistent with other RTF commercial kitchen measures.
7. Combine the Supply Water Energy Savings and Waste Water Energy Savings parameters into a
single Water Energy Intensity parameter and set to the 6th plan value of 5.3.
Limitation of Review. None.
Alterations to Workbook and Documentation.
2820 Northup Way, Suite 230
Bellevue, WA 98004
Page 1


A worksheet called “Summary” has been added to the workbook. This worksheet describes how
measures are identified, lists important constants and their sources, describes the savings
estimation algorithm and the associated baseline and efficient case parameters and their
sources for each measure and UES component.
Numerous cells within the workbook erroneously listed the measure baseline as the federal
minimum flow rate while the UES methodology baseline is in fact the flow rate for existing
valves that have been tested by FSTC in accordance with ASTM F2324-03 testing procedures. All
references to the baseline condition have been changed to correctly reflect the existing valve
baseline by changing the baseline description in the “Savings” worksheet and the original
measure name in the “LookTable” worksheet. The “Protocol Full Name” field in the
“MeasureTable” worksheet and the measure categories in the “PRSV4” worksheet now reflect
the correct baseline.
Recommendations for Updates. The RTF should implement the following recommendations:
1) Workbook Structure and Formulas
a) Update workbook with latest ProCost template to include Measure Cost and Effective Useful
Life (EUL) summary worksheets. This deficiency causes the measure status to change to Under
Review.
2) Documentation
a)
No changes recommended.
3) Measure Definition
a) No changes recommended.
4) UES Savings Estimation Method
a) Include an electric water heating Recovery Efficiency parameter into the water heating savings
(kWh per Year) equation. By dividing the existing kWh per Year equation by a water heating
efficiency parameter, the equation will now produce a kWh output value that takes into account
the electrical energy consumption due to water heater recovery losses. The current kWh per
Year equation is as follows (baseline equation shown):
10,929
𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 =
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
× 8.33
𝑙𝑏𝑠
× ∆𝑇 (℉) × 1
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
𝐵𝑡𝑢
3412
𝐵𝑡𝑢
𝑙𝑏∙℉
𝑘𝑊ℎ
The recommended kWh per Year equation adds the heating efficiency parameter value (shown
as ηwater heater ) to the denominator, as shown below (baseline equation shown):
10,929
𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 =
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
× 8.33
𝑙𝑏𝑠
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
× ∆𝑇 (℉) × 1
𝜂𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 × 3412
𝐵𝑡𝑢
𝑙𝑏∙℉
𝐵𝑡𝑢
𝑘𝑊ℎ
Page 2
The DOE Test Procedure uses a value of 0.98. It is recommended that this value be adopted for
the water heating efficiency parameter (Title 10 CFR 430 - Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Appendix E to Subpart B - Uniform Test Procedure for Measuring the Energy
Conservation of Water Heaters, effective June 10, 1998). This issue causes the measure to be
Under Review.
5) Input Parameters
a) Update the baseline Flow Rate parameter by adding the four additional FSTC tested spray valves
into the baseline flow rate data set. The four additional FSTC tested spray valves include:
o
o
o
o
Bricor B074 PRV
Chicago Faucet 90-LABCP
Fisher 10197 & 13641
T&S EB-0107-C
Including these additional spray valves into the existing baseline Flow Rate data set would result
in a new average baseline Flow Rate of 1.10 gpm, reduced from the current 1.18 gpm. This issue
causes the measure to be Under Review.
b) Include the current efficient case spray valve, the Bicor model B064 PRV, into the baseline flow
rate data set so the baseline better represents the available pre-rinse spray valve market.
Including this additional spray valve into the existing baseline Flow Rate data set would result in
a new average baseline Flow Rate of 1.15 gpm, reduced from the current 1.18 gpm. This issue
causes the measure to be Under Review.
c) The flow rate for the T&S EB-0107-C valve is 0.64 GPM giving it a slight efficiency advantage over
the current “efficient case” valve’s Flow Rate (tested at 0.65 GPM). Therefore this valve is
recommended to become the new “efficient case,” however the energy savings from this
change would be minimal while actually implementing this change could prove to be more
effort than the marginal savings warrants. If the T&S EB-0107-C valve is selected as the new
efficient case and recommendations 5a and 5b are also implemented, the new baseline Flow
Rate would be 1.08 gpm, reduced from the current 1.18 gpm. This issue causes the measure to
be Under Review.
d) Use a Days of Operation per Year parameter value consistent with other commercial kitchen
measures. The workbook currently uses the value of 350 for Days of Operation per Year, while
other RTF UES commercial kitchen measures employ a value of 360 or 365 for Days of Operation
per Year. It is recommended that an expert panel choose a consistent value. This issue causes
the measure to be Under Review.
e) Combine the Supply Water Energy Savings and Waste Water Energy Savings parameters into a
single Waste and Water Delivery System Energy parameter. This value should be consistent with
other RTF UES water saving measures, which utilize the Sixth Power Plan value of 5.3 kWh/1000
gallons, instead of the current 1.51 kWh/1000 gallons for supply water and 2.08 kWh/1000
gallons for waste water values (combined 3.58 kWh/1000 gallons). This issue causes the
measure to be Under Review.
Page 3
Additional Considerations.
1) No additional considerations.
Page 4