A11100 ISTOflM

NBSIR 80-2028

Information and Guidelines for A

Proposed Laboratory Accreditation

and Product Certification Program

for Photovoltaic Energy

Conversion Systems

Douglas B. Thomas

Office of Testing Laboratory

Evaluation Technology

Office of Engineering Standards

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

August 1980

»Q0

100

U56

80-2028

1980

c. 2

Prepared for Solar Energy Research Institute

Golden, CO 80401

National Bureau of Steward*

tibr*r>. E-01 Admin. W*

OCT 2 4 1980

f)oi a. ct

.

- Ctrc . NBSIR 80-2028

* * ' ^ f Q C? INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES FOR A

PROPOSED LABORATORY ACCREDITATION 2?

AND PRODUCT CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY C, ?

CONVERSION SYSTEMS

Douglas B. Thomas

Office of Testing Laboratory

Evaluation Technology

Office of Engineering Standards

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

August 1980

Prepared for Solar Energy Research Institute

Golden, CO 80401

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
7 a i|
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 1

1.

Introduction 2

2.

An Overview of Laboratory Accreditation 3

2.1 What is Laboratory Accreditation? 3

2.2 The Elements and Economics of Developing an Accreditation Program 5

2.3 Time-Factor Considerations 7

2.4 Alternatives to Accreditation 7

3.

An Overview of Product Certification 8

3.1 What is product certification? 8

3.2 Economic Consideration 10

3.3 Certified Product Labeling 11

3.4 Certified Product Lists 12

4. National Laboratory Accreditation Programs 13

4.1 The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program (NVLAP) 13

4.2 The American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (AALA) 14

5.

State Laboratory Accreditation and Product Certification Programs for

Testing Solar Collector Components and Systems 15

5.1 State of California Energy Commission Program 15

5.1.1 Laboratory Accreditation Program 15

5.1.2 Equipment Certification Program 16

5.2 State of Florida Solar Energy Center Program 17

6.

Other Federal, State, Professional, and Trade Association Programs

for Laboratory Accreditation 19

7.

Information Sources Regarding Product Certification 21

8.

Laboratory Accreditation and Product Certification Programs for

Photovoltaic Systems 21

8.1 Introduction 21

8.2 Preparation for the Test Laboratory and

Product Certification Program 22

8.3 Getting a Program Started 25

iii
Page

Appendix A. Additional Information on the Department of Commerce

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program .... 30

1. Historical Background 30

2. Laboratory Evaluations • 30

3. Agreement by the Laboratory 31

4. Accreditation Fees 31

5. Monitoring of Accredited Laboratories 32

6. Special NVLAP Procedures for Federal Agencies and

Standards-Writing Organizations 32

Appendix B. Additional Information on the American Association for

Laboratory Accreditation Program 34

1. Disciplines of Testing 34

2. Requirements (Criteria) for Accreditation 34

3. Membership and Accreditation Fees 34

4. Laboratory Assessment 34

5. Accreditation and Registration of Testing

Laboratories 35

Appendix C. Disciplines and Associated Tests for the American Association

for Laboratory Accreditation Program 36

Appendix D. American Council of Independent Laboratories Which Provide

Specific Product Certification Service 37

iv
ERRATA SHEET

FOR

NBSIR 80-2028

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

4, first paragraph, third line; change "verifi-cation" to "verification".

16, third paragraph, first line; change "six" to "nine". Also on the same line, change "labortories" to "laboratories".

22,

first paragraph, seventh line; change "ealier" to "earlier".

22, first paragraph, eighth line; change "initite" to "initiate".

22, third paragraph, eighth line; change "ceritif ication" to

"certification"

22, fourth paragraph, second line, change "proagram" to "program".

23, fifth line from the bottom; delete ", for example,".

24, fourth line from the top; change "selction" to "selection".

25, fourth line from the bottom of the page; change "contracts" to

"contractee"

Page 27, sixteen lines from the bottom; change "Assistant Secretary for

Science and Technology" to "Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation".

Page 30, three lines from the bottom; change "Science and Technology" to

"Productivity, Technology and Innovation".

Page 38, sixth line from the bottom; change "Value Engineering" to "VSE".

Information and Guidelines for a Proposed

Laboratory Accreditation and Product Certification

Program for Photovoltaic Energy Conversion Systems^

Douglas B. Thomas

Office of Testing Laboratory Evaluation Technology

Office of Engineering Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234 —Abstract

1 This report provides information and guidelines for use in

preparing and implementing a laboratory evaluation and product

certificate program for photovoltaic products, as required in the

Department of Energy's work plan for the National Photovoltaic Energy

Program.

The report presents an overview of the advantages and

disadvantages of laboratory accreditation and product certification

including economic factors that should be considered for such

programs. Detailed information is also provided on the two national

programs for accrediting laboratories, the Department of Commerce

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA).

Information on the California and Florida state programs for

laboratory accreditation and product certification of solar collector

systems is given as examples of programs that have been in operation

for several years. The organization of these programs and the

experience gained by the program administrators may be useful in

designing and implementing a program for photovoltaics. Also,

accreditation and certification programs which are operated by other

Federal and State agencies or professional and trade associations are listed for reference purposes.

i

i

i

1 This report was prepared under contract to the Solar Energy Research

Institute (Subcontract No. XP-9-8028-1) in support of the Photovoltaic

Performance Criteria and Test Standards (PC/TS) Project.

I

- 1

-
A number of steps are presented which need to be taken before any

laboratory accreditation and product certification program for

photovoltaics can be initiated. These steps include the selection of

the photovoltaic products to be certified and the selection of

pertinent performance criteria, levels of performance, and test

methodology. Once these and other preparatory steps have been taken,

a procedure is described to actually implement an appropriate program

for photovoltaics.

Key words: Energy conversion; laboratory accreditation;

photovoltaics; product certification; solar cells; solar collectors;

solar energy

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide information and guidelines to

the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) for its use in planning and

implementing procedures for developing both laboratory evaluation and product

certification programs for solar photovoltaic energy conversion systems.

Fostering the development of such programs is one of the four tasks for the

Photovoltaic Performance Criteria and Test Standards (PC/TS) Project^ of

SERI. This project was created to be responsive to the Solar Photovoltaic

Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1978 (PL-95-590).

Pertinent to this report is the part of PL-95-590 which states that

"manufacturers of photovoltaic components and systems shall have their

products tested in order to provide certification that such products shall

conform" to appropriate performance criteria that the Secretary of Energy

shall determine, prescribe, and publish.

This report is divided into three basic parts: (1) an overview of

laboratory accreditation and product certification, (2) a review of national,

state, professional and trade association programs for laboratory

accreditation and product certification, and (3) laboratory accreditation and

product certification for photovoltaic systems.

An overview of laboratory accreditation and product certification is

presented to enlighten the reader about the advantages and disadvantages of

these concepts; how testing laboratories, manufacturers, and consumers view

accreditation and certification; how the costs of these programs are covered;

and the improved product reliability that is expected to result from product

certification and laboratory accreditation.

2 Nuss, Gary R., Interim Implementation Structure for Development of

Performance Criteria and Test Standards for Photovoltaic Systems,

SERI/MR-61-270, August 1979.

- 2 -
Detailed information is presented on the Department of Commerce National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). The information includes

laboratory evaluation criteria and methodology, agreements by the laboratory,

accreditation fees, and laboratory monitoring procedures. Also, information

is provided on the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA)

program concerning testing disciplines, accreditation requirements, fees and

laboratory assessments. This program was initiated by the American Council of

Independent Laboratories and is promulgated through the private sector. The

two laboratory accreditation and certification programs for solar thermal

collectors established by the states of California and Florida are also

described in the report. The experiences gained in these programs are described briefly because they may be helpful to SERI in establishing such

programs for photovoltaic systems. A large number of other Federal, state,

professional, and trade association programs for laboratory accreditation and

product certification are listed and referenced.

Information and recommendations are included for establishing an accreditation and certification program for photovoltaic systems. As an alternative to a laboratory accreditation program, information is provided on "approved" laboratory programs. Some basic questions are raised concerning

the need for photovoltaic standards and test methods, costs of operating the

programs, the number of laboratories capable of testing the product, the

manufacturer's role in the certification process, and warranties for certified

products. Finally, instructions are given for applying for a laboratory

accreditation program through NVLAP or AALA and an organizational plan is

suggested for interfacing the necessary components of a laboratory

accreditation and certification program for photovoltaic systems.

The Electron Devices Division (EDD) of NBS is under subcontract to SERI

to provide assistance in achieving the tasks under the PC/TS project. EDD

selected the Office of Testing Laboratory Evaluation Technology to provide

this report.

2. An Overview of Laboratory Accreditation

2.1 What is Laboratory Accreditation?

The accreditation of a laboratory represents an official recognition that

the laboratory has the necessary personnel, physical resources, and quality

assurance needed to perform a specific testing activity adequately. The

process of accreditation involves the assessment of a laboratory's testing

capability by an accrediting authority using criteria that represent the

essential requirements for a laboratory's performance.

Accreditation that results from a properly administered program is

testimony to the fact that the laboratory had at the time of its evaluation

the attributes that were deemed necessary to properly conduct the testing for

which it is accredited. A properly administered program not only benefits the

- 3 -
accredited laboratory by recognizing its competency but also verifies for the user that the laboratory is capable of providing testing services that are accurate and reliable. Without this verifi- cation of a laboratory's

capabilities, laboratory selection may have to be based on "tips" from other

users or on advertising that represents a self-evaluation by the laboratory.

Sometimes, the lack of a laboratory's proficiency is realized long after the

test results have been received and paid for by the user. If the user has

strong reasons to believe that the testing had not been properly conducted,

his only recourse may be expensive and time-consuming litigation. An

additional asset of accreditation involves the competition between

laboratories offering similar services. Accreditation is helpful to

laboratories in their effort to establish and maintain a high standard of

testing and to limit competition from unqualified laboratories and

laboratories which sacrifice testing quality to increase profit.

It should be emphasized that although a laboratory has an acceptable

testing capability at the time it is evaluated for accreditation, its

capability may change following accreditation. Because of this possibility,

an accreditation program must include features for monitoring a laboratory's

performance on a continuing basis to insure that its proficiency is maintained

after accreditation. Without a monitoring program, a laboratory's proficiency

can decrease while its accreditation status remains valid. This subjects the user of the laboratory's services to a fraudulent situation since he believes

that his tests are being conducted at the level of competence the laboratory

had at the time it was evaluated for accreditation. Details concerning the

monitoring of accredited laboratories and other elements of accreditation will

be presented in subsequent sections.

The status of accreditation is a strong incentive for a laboratory to

maintain a high level of testing proficiency. If a laboratory loses its

accreditation, the news of the loss quickly reaches its clients who then

realize that something is "wrong" with the laboratory. This loss of

accreditation invariably leads to the loss of business. Logically, a laboratory in this situation will be eager to correct the problems that caused

the loss of accreditation in order to restore the confidence and continued

patronage of its clients.

A common misconception concerning laboratory accreditation is the belief

that accreditation represents a guarantee that the laboratory's testing is

always conducted properly and that the test results are always accurate. This

fallacy is easily recognized when one realizes that human and equipment

performance can never be guaranteed. Accreditation does, however, greatly

increase the probability that testing is conducted properly and accurately.

Also, the term accredited laboratory is sometimes confused with certified

laboratory. Certification implies a warranty or guarantee. As previously

mentioned, the performance of laboratory personnel and equipment cannot be

guaranteed. Thus, the term certified laboratory is a misnomer. The term

"laboratory certification" is properly used if it refers to the testing

process conducted by a laboratory in the certification of products.

_ 4 _
2.2 The Elements and Economics of Developing an Accreditation Program

A number of basic elements are needed to constitute a laboratory

accreditation program. They include:

(a) defining the program scope, i.e., identification of the product and

test methods to support an accreditation program,

(b) evaluating the technical integrity and appropriateness of the test

methods associated with the program,

(c) establishing laboratory accreditation criteria,

(d) establishing examination methodology for evaluating laboratories

(questionnaires, on-site visits, proficiency testing, etc.),

(e) establishing minimum precision, accuracy and repeatability

requirements for test equipment, facilities, and procedures,

(f) developing evaluation documents (forms, questionnaires, examination

sheets, etc.),

(g) sending questionnaires to laboratories to determine their testing

capabilities,

(h) securing and training laboratory examiners,

(i) scheduling and conducting on-site examination of laboratories,

(j) evaluating laboratory examination data from questionnaires and

on-site visits,

(k) developing and implementing proficiency testing programs (secure,

characterize, and distribute test samples),

(l) evaluating proficiency test data, and

(m) overall management of the accreditation program.

The development of these elements and their management and implementation

may involve large expendatures in time and funds. Any agency or association

that is considering a laboratory accreditation program should assess these

factors.

The costs of an accreditation program are usually underwritten, either

fully or partially by the accrediting agency, the program requestor, the

accredited laboratories, or the manufacturers of the products tested by the

accredited laboratories. Any costs that are incurred by the laboratories or the manufacturers are usually passed along to the users of the laboratory's

services or to the manuf acturer' s products. The rational used to justify an accreditation program may determine which of the above groups will finance the

program. For example, if an agency determines that a specific product can be

hazardous if it is not manufactured in accordance with established standards,

it may bear the full cost of a laboratory accreditation (and product

certification) program as a means of minimizing the possiblity of consumers

buying and using an unsafe product. The American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators have implemented a program for the evaluation and approval of

laboratories that test motor vehicle safety equipment. This Association bears

the full cost of the program except for a fee each laboratory pays for on-site

inspections by Association representatives.

- 5 -
One of the disadvantages of a laboratory accreditation program for the

certification testing of products concerns the cost of evaluating more

applicant laboratories than is required. If 15 laboratories are needed to

handle the required testing and 30 laboratories apply for accreditation, the

cost of evaluating the additional laboratories would add to the total cost of

the program. This total cost is reduced somewhat if the laboratories are required to pay evaluation fees but rarely do these fees cover the full cost

of the evaluations.

An example of a cost-sharing accreditation program is the Department of

Commerce National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). In this

program, much of the initial costs for establishing accreditation criteria and

examination methodologies for a given testing regime are covered by Department

of Commerce funds. Once a program becomes operational, annual accreditation

fees collected from participating laboratories may cover the cost of

maintaining the program.

If all or part of the costs of an accreditation program are recovered by

fees charged to the laboratories, the laboratories will, very likely, base

their decision to become accredited on the presumption that all or most of the

accreditation costs can be recovered by an increased volume of testing or through increased fees. The total costs incurred by a laboratory

contemplating accreditation not only include annual fees but also all costs

associated with required documentation, on-site examinations, proficiency

testing, etc. Usually, the latter costs are significantly larger than the

accreditation fees. From the laboratory's point of view, the decision to

become accredited is strongly influenced by the need for proficient testing of

the respective class of products, the number of laboratories that would

probably apply for accreditation, the number of users who may seek the

services of accredited laboratories, and the anticipated volume of testing.

One of the worse fates that could happen to a voluntary accreditation program

is a total lack of requests from laboratories for accreditation because the

economics are not favorable to the laboratories.

If an agency has determined a need for accredited laboratories, it may

decide to (a) establish its own program, (b) use one of the national programs

i.e., NVLAP or AALA^ (see Sections 4.1 and 4.2) that accredit laboratories,

provided certain program requirements are met, or (c) use laboratories that

have been accredited by another agency for testing a product of mutual

interest. An example of the latter would be a requirement by the State of

Arizona that all commercial models of solar collectors sold or used in the

State must be tested and certified by one of the nine laboratories that have

been accredited by the California State Energy Resources Conservation and

Development Commission (see Section 5.1).

3 The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA) is a non-profit organization composed of trade and professional organizations

with the purpose of accrediting laboratories in various areas of testing.

- 6 -
2.3 Time-Factor Considerations

The time factor is an important consideration in any decision to

establish a laboratory accreditation program. Many of the elements in a program can only be developed sequentially. The training of inspectors, for

example, cannot begin until the criteria and methodology for the examination

of laboratories have been established. This factor extends the total time

required to develop an accreditation program.

An agency that developes its own program for accrediting laboratories

(nationally) can assume that it will take from two to three years from the

time the program is initiated to the time the first laboratory is accredited.

This estimate is based on the time periods that were required to implement the

NVLAP and AALA programs to their present stage of progress. The two-to-threeyear period could be decreased somewhat if the agency were to adopt applicable

criteria and methodologies that have been successfully used in other

accreditation programs.

If an agency decides to establish accredited laboratories through a national program such as NVLAP or AALA, a period of approximately one year can

be assumed for developing and implementing a specific program. The period may

vary somewhat depending on the scope of the program. If NVLAP is used and the

requesting agency is a Federal agency or a standards- writing body, procedures

exist for reducing the time by approximately four months (see Appendix A,

Section 5).

If an agency fulfills its requirements for accredited laboratories by

adopting the laboratories accredited by another agency, a period of from three

to six months may be required to implement the program.

2.4 Alternatives to Accreditation

Any accreditation program that requires participating laboratories to pay

fees must be economically favorable to the laboratories. If this is not the

case, the program may fail from lack of participation.

An alternative form of accreditation is a laboratory "approval" program.

This type of program is similar to a laboratory accreditation program but

there are some significant differences. These differences are:

(a) The agency has full control over the numbers of laboratories that are approved and usually approves only enough laboratories to handle the

anticipated volume of testing. (Note: one laboratory may be

sufficient to handle all of the testing in a specific program.)

(b) Because of the limiting factor of (a) above, the "approved"

laboratories are almost assured of testing contracts.

- 7 -
(c) An "approved" laboratory program generally requires less time and

expense to put into operation because there is no obligation to

evaluate all laboratories that may apply.

(d) An "approved" laboratory generally does not pay annual fees for its

approved status.

An example of an "approved" laboratory program is the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) compliance testing program for law

enforcement equipment. IACP, the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (NBS)

and the Office of Testing Laboratory Evaluation Technology (NBS) established a program to solicit and evaluate independent laboratories which are capable of

testing selected categories of law enforcement equipment.

The program evaluates applicant laboratories by questionnaire

information, on-site inspections, and preliminary testing of specific samples

of law enforcement equipment. Generally, two laboratories are chosen for each

equipment category. The testing is conducted in accordance with NIJ^

performance standards established for each equipment category. Specific

models in each category are either obtained from the manufacturer or purchased

from suppliers by IACP. These models, after being tested by the "approved"

laboratories are listed on IACP qualified products lists. The lists specify

which models pass or fail the respective NIJ standard requirements. The

qualified products lists are distributed by IACP to police departments in the

U.S. and foreign countries for the purpose of assisting them in the selection

of reliable law enforcement equipment.

Other "approved" laboratory programs are operated by the Defense Supply

Agency of the Department of Defense for testing a variety of products and

materials and the Agriculture Department for the testing of meats and poultry.

3. An Overview of Product Certification

3.1 What is Product Certification?

Certification can be defined as an act of issuing an official warranty,

certificate or mark which guarantees that a product conforms to specific

standards or specifications. However, the meaning of the word "guarantee"

should be clarified. The guarantee implied by most product certification

programs is a statistical guarantee and not a guarantee that each product unit

will comply with the standards or specifications pertinent to the certification. The only way a certification sponsor could attempt to guarantee each

unit of a particular product model would be a 100 percent compliance testing

program in which every unit is tested for compliance. This amount of testing

4 National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

- 8 -
would be costly and probably would not represent a 100 percent guarantee since

it is unlikely that any laboratory can conduct such testing without occasional

error. Also, if any of the required tests are destructive, then 100 percent

compliance testing is not possible.

Certification testing should be distinguished from compliance testing.

Certification testing is the testing required to certify a particular

manufacturer's model of a product. The testing is a confirmation that the

design and performance of the units of the model tested meet the

specifications covered by the certification. The certification of a product

model is an implication that if the units of the model used in the

certification testing meet the required specifications, then all units of the

model (of the same design) subsequently manufactured should also meet the

required specifications. Compliance testing is used to confirm that specific

units of a certified product model meet specifications or is used to determine

if non-certif ied product units meet specific requirements. Thus,

certification testing is a form of compliance testing but compliance testing

is not certification testing.

The certification of a product model usually includes a written warranty

or at least an understanding that any product unit which fails to meet

specifications will be repaired or replaced by the manufacturer or the

certifier at no cost to the user. The objective of a product certification

program is to improve the overall compliance of a particular model or class of

products and is not a guarantee for each product unit.

A certifier, in the absence of a formal laboratory evaluation program,

may select one or more independent laboratories to serve as certifying

laboratories in the certification testing of products. These laboratories may

be accredited or approved laboratories from other programs or they may be

laboratories that the certifier selects on the basis of their established

reputation in a particular field of testing. As an alternative, the certifier

may establish an accredited or "approved" laboratory program for use in the

certification testing. The certifying laboratory usually tests a specified

number of units of a product model as furnished by the manufacturer. If a certain percentage of the tested units meets specification, the model is

certified and units are placed on the market.

The question concerning the use of manufacturer's or independent

laboratories for the certification and compliance testing of products is one that has been debated for many certification programs. Those who maintain

that both types of laboratories may be used, argue that both must comply with

the laboratory criteria and monitoring requirements of the respective program

and thus both should be equally competent and reliable to conduct the required

testing. The opposing point of view maintains that only independent

laboratories should be used because (a) certification and compliance testing

by a manufacturer's laboratory can result in biased testing, (b) the

independent laboratory has no economic interest in the sale of the product,

and (c) third-party independent testing is needed to verify the quality

control compliance testing conducted by the manufacturer. The reasoning that

- 9 -
supports the contention that both types of laboratories should be eligible to

conduct certification and compliance testing is valid. However, the opposing

reasoning is also valid and represents a testing system which assures the user

of the certified product that it has been tested by a laboratory that is

independent of the manufacturer and greatly decreases the chances of biased

testing. There is no simple solution to this controversy and each

certification program administrator must assess the advantages and

disadvantages of each approach and make a decision accordingly.

3.2 Economic Consideration

The increased probability of product compliance through certification is

advantageous to the product user but it also adds to the cost of each unit.

The cost of certifying a particular product may be excessive because of poor

product design, low quality materials or poor quality control during the

manufacturing process. If this is the case, frequent compliance testing is

needed to assure a high probability of product compliance. Also, the per-unit

cost of compliance testing can be significant if the product units are expensive and the testing is destructive.

If the compliance testing of electronic switches, for example, is

non-destructive and the cost of testing each switch is small compared to the

cost of the switch, it would be advantageous to test a large percentage

(perhaps even 100 percent) of the switches that eventually reach the user. Conversely, the compliance testing of police body armor is expensive,

destructive, and the cost of each unit varies from approximately $100 to

$500. Thus, the number of units that can be tested must be limited or the

total costs become prohibitive.

An example of an extreme case of product non-compliance and the

importance of compliance testing is the IACP body armor compliance testing

program. Test results showed that approximately 50 percent of the armor units

failed to meet standard specifications. This high failure rate was attributed

mainly to improper armor design. Careful analysis of the armor units tested

by IACP resulted in the conclusion that an improvement in materials and design

would have significantly increased the ballistic resistance of many of the

models tested. According to an IACP official, the body armor failure rate of

approximately 50 percent could have been reduced to a few percent if certain

improvements in material and design had been implemented by the manufacturers. These improvements would have resulted in a slight increase in the

manufacturing costs but the increase would have been less then the cost of the

compliance testing required for units that have a 50 percent failure rate.

Many products are designed and manufactured to be highly competitive by

meeting minimum standard requirements or minimum requirements established by

the product user. If a manufacturer can consistantly produce a product that

just meets the minimum requirements with none of the units ever falling below

the minimum he has achieved the best of two worlds. His production costs are

at a minimum and his rejection rate is zero. However, the production control

- 10 -
needed to achieve this optimum is rare and difficult to achieve. Although a product can be designed and manufactured to meet specific minimum

requirements, certain controllable and uncontrollable variables during the

manufacturing process will cause a significant number of units to fall below

the minimum requirements. If these unacceptable units are not identified

during the manufacturing process and no compliance testing is conducted before

they are placed in service, the user is bound to experience reduced product

performance.

A program of product certification with follow-up compliance testing by

an independent accredited or approved laboratory is a major step toward

insuring a high probability of product compliance. Once a product model has

been tested and certified, the first logical step needed to assure high

probability of product compliance for units continuously produced by the

manufacturer is compliance testing by the manufacturer. Although compliance

testing by most manufacturers is conducted properly and thoroughly, the

pressures on the manufacturer to hold down production costs and to beat

competition can result in test results that are incomplete or deceptive. To

eliminate this possibility, a product certification program should include

compliance testing by the certifying laboratory or some other independent

laboratory of randomly selected samples from the manuf acturer ' s production

lots. The number of samples selected and tested from each lot should be

determined in accordance with established sampling plans^ that correlate the

number of samples with desired product conformity.

In view of the above factors, it can be seen that optimum product

compliance can be achieved through:

(a) proper design, materials specification, and quality control during

the manufacturing process (a form of built-in reliability),

(b) certification that the product (model) meets specified requirements,

and

(c) compliance testing to assure continued compliance of the product

units produced by the manufacturer.

3.3 Certified Product Labeling

Once a product has been certified, some means of identifying the product

in the wholesale and retail market is required. This is usually accomplished

by certification labeling. The sponsor of the program or the certifying

laboratory designs a label (or uses an established universal label) that is

5 ASTM E122-72, Standard Recommended Practice for Choice of Sample Size to

Estimate the Average Quality of a Lot or Process.

MIL-STD-105D, Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes,

Department of Defense, 1963.

- 11 -
affixed to each product unit and usually identifies the certification sponsor

and/or the certifying laboratory. Also, the label may list, by reference, the

standards or specifications that the product meets. For practical purposes,

the labels are usually placed on the respective products by the manufacturer.

Although a certification label on a product is useful for the purpose of

identification, the label itself can present problems. After a product model

has been certified for a period of time, it is possible that an error or quality control problem during the manufacturing process results in a large

number of units being labeled before the error or problem is discovered. If a large quantity of these units do not meet specifications and the

manufacturer's compliance testing was not effective in detecting the units,

the units may be difficult or almost impossible to identify after they are shipped to warehouses, buyers or users. The problem of identifying specific

units is eased somewhat if the units are marked with lot numbers or serial

numbers. However, a product certification program is weakened considerably if

non-complying units are labeled and placed on the market even though the units

can be quickly identified and recalled. If the units cannot be identified,

the certification of the product is of little value to the user. This is just

another example of the importance of compliance testing by the manufacturer

and also by an independent laboratory. Once a product model has been

certified, each level of compliance testing is added insurance that labeled

units meet certification specifications.

3.4 Certified Product Lists

Although a certified product can be identified by means of a label, an additional identification system is needed for the groups of people who

specify or procure various products. This type of identification can be

achieved by certified products lists (CPL). These lists may include the

following information.

(a) Class or type of product

(b) Model name, number, style, or other designations of units that are in

compl i ance

(c) Name and address of the manuf acturers of the product models

(d) Standards or specifications with which the product models are in

compl i ance

(e) Date of the initial certification of each model

(f) The range of lot numbers or serial numbers of certified models

(requires up-dating)

(g) Model name, number, style, or other designations of units that were tested but were not in compliance^

(h) Product model modifications since the initial certification (requires

up-dati ng)

^ Some certified products lists do not list this information.

12 -
Certified products lists offer a convenient means of summarizing product

compliance information and up-dating status reports concerning a particular

certification program. A CPL, if up-dated at frequent intervals, provides

(1) current information to manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and

retailers regarding product models that have been added or removed from the

list; (2) references to new product standards or specifications; (3) the names

of new companies that have entered the product field and; (4) information on product modifications by the manufacturer.

Certified Products Lists should be established, maintained, and

distributed by the certification program sponsor. Generally, one list is

established for a particular class of products although some product classes

cover such a wide area of different models or types that lists are established

for various sub-classes of a product.

4. National Laboratory Accreditation Programs

4.1 The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)

The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) is a system to examine, upon request, the professional and technical competence of

private and public testing laboratories that serve regulatory and

non-regulatory product and certification needs. NVLAP was developed in

cooperation with the private sector and is administered by the Department of

Commerce. The intended goal of the program is to serve the needs of industry,

consumers, the Government, and others by accrediting testing laboratories that

comply with criteria established for a particular testing regimen.

Accreditation programs for testing laboratories which render a service

relative to specific products are established by the Secretary of Commerce

through a process known as "Finding of Need." This process is initiated by a request to the Secretary to establish a Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP).

Any person, group, business, or organization can request a LAP for a specific product but the request must comply with the procedures set out in

the Federal Register Notice dated February 25, 1976, (Title 15, Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 7).

In accordance with these procedures, a request for a LAP must provide the

following.

(a) Identification of the product;

(b) Text of an applicable product standard(s);

(c) Text of a test method(s) if not included in the product standard(s);

(d) The basis of need for accrediting laboratories that test the product

including;

(dl) An estimate of the number of laboratories that may wish to be

accredited;

- 13 -
( d2 ) An estimate of the number of users of such accredited

laboratories;

(d3) Whether the accreditation of laboratories that test the product

will benefit the public interest;

(d4) Whether there is a national need to accredit laboratories that

test the product beyond existing laboratory accreditation

programs in the public or private sector;

(e) A standard for the product that is deemed by the Secretary of

Commerce as being important to commerce, consumer well-being, or the

public health and safety;

(f) A valid testing methodology for ascertaining conformity to the

standard(s) of the specific product involved, and

(g) Feasibility and practicality of accrediting laboratories that test

the specific product.

Additional information concerning NVLAP is presented in Appendix A.

4.2 The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA) 7

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA) is a private

non-profit organization which has been established to accredit laboratories

operated by individuals, partnerships, corporations, universities, research

organizations, associations, and government agencies. At the time of this

writing, the AALA program is in the formative stages and is not yet

operational. Evaluation criteria have not yet been developed; however, the

association intends to accredit laboratories on the basis of criteria relating

to personnel, equipment, operational processes, quality assurance procedures,

and other relevant considerations.

The AALA program is supported by various sponsoring organizations. The

board of directors consists of representatives of the association membership

and these directors appoint the members of the Council of Accreditation, the

Executive Director, and others. The Council of Accreditation consisting of

twelve members is comprised of four members representing organizations that

provide laboratory services, four members representing organizations that use laboratory services, and four members from general interest organizations.

The technical activities of the Association are undertaken by

Accreditation Advisory Committees established by and directly responsible to

the Council of Accreditation. Each Advisory Committee controls the

Association's activities in one of the disciplines of testing in which

laboratories are accredited (See appendix C).

7 The National Bureau of Standards has made no formal evaluation of the AALA

program including the methodology used to accredit laboratories. The

information presented in this Section represents a summary of the

literature published by AALA and does not represent an appraisal or endorsement by the National Bureau of Standards.

- 14 -
Accreditation Advisory Committees are assisted in the inspection and

evaluation of laboratories by panels of specialist inspectors. These

inspectors visit applicant laboratories to appraise the adequacy of

facilities, personnel, equipment, and test procedures, and to discuss the work

and problems of the laboratories with their management and staff. The

inspectors work for the Association as experts in specific disciplines of work

and are briefed for each assignment by the Accreditation Advisory Committee

under whose direction they act.

Additional information concerning AALA is presented in appendix B.

5. State Laboratory Accreditation and Product Certification Programs

For Testing Solar Collector Components and Systems

5.1 State of California Energy Commission Program

5.1.1 Laboratory Accreditation Program

In 1978 the California Energy Commission (CEC) implemented a program for

laboratory accreditation and product certification for solar collector

components and systems. The procedures, application documentation, and

laboratory criteria for their accreditation program are presented in the CEC

document, "Standards and Procedures - Accreditation of Testing Laboratories

for Solar Components and Systems," May 31, 1978. Criteria are presented with

respect to:

(a) Organization and Management

- Personnel Requirements

- Personnel Records

(b) Human Resources

- Personnel Requirements

- Personnel Records

(c) Physical Resources

- Test Resources

- Support Equipment

- Records

- Substituted Equipment

- Storage

(d) Quality Assurance

- Instrument Inventory and Records

- Calibration Laboratory

- Recall System

- Instrument Label

- Human Resources

- Technical Library

- Quality Control Manual

- Training Program

- 15 -
(e) Conditions of Accreditation

- Application

- Renewal of Accreditation

- Modification of Accreditation

- Grounds for Revocation

- Resubmittal of Application for Accreditation

- Fees and Charges

- Laboratory Appeals Procedures

Accreditation by CEC covers a two-year period. During the evaluation of

a laboratory prior to accreditation, a CEC assessor conducts a complete

on-site inspection of the laboratory. During the inspection, the assessor examines human and physical resources, quality control procedures, and record

keeping practices. In addition, the laboratory is required to conduct all or portions of the tests for which the laboratory has requested accreditation.

After accreditation has been granted, an assessor may make unannounced on-site

visits to the laboratory to assure that it continues to meet all criteria

requirements. Also, the laboratory must participate in a proficiency test

program that involves the testing of samples or components that are prepared

by CEC.

In the CEC program, any independent laboratory can apply for

accreditation whether it is located in California, in another state, or in a foreign country. Applicant laboratories do not pay a fee for accreditation

but may be required to pay the costs of on-site inspections.

As of June 15, 1978, CEC had accredited six labortories, three of which

are located in California and one in each of the states of Arizona, Florida

and Alabama.

5.1.2 Equipment Certification Program

A certification program for solar energy equipment (products) was initiated by the California Energy Commission concurrently with its laboratory

accreditation program. The scope of the program includes the certification of

solar energy equipment in accordance with the ASHRAE Standard 93-77, "Method

of Testing to Determine the Thermal Performance of Solar Collectors," and the

NBS document NBSIR 77-1305A "Provisional Flat-Plate Solar Collector Testing

Procedures." The certification criteria classifies all equipment that

manufacturers may submit for certification as either "Standard Solar

Equipment" or "Innovative Solar Equipment." The "standard" equipment is

defined as equipment that was designed and tested in accordance with the two

above mentioned standards. The "innovative" equipment has design and

performance characterist ics that deviate from the "Standard" equipment and

cannot be fairly and adequately evaluated in accordance with the two program

standards.

- 16 -
The program procedures, manufacturer's requirements, and equipment

requirements are specified in the CEC document, "Certification Criteria for

Solar Energy Equipment," June 15, 1978. The CEC document includes program

forms covering the following areas.

(a) Application for Certifiction

(b) Product Description

(c) Product Installation

(d) Product Application

(e) General Requirements

(f) Specific Requirements

(g) Minimum Application Data and

(h) Certification Label Information

As of April 12, 1979, 54 solar collector models representing 26

manufacturers have been certified under the CEC program.

5.2 State of Florida Solar Energy Center Program

In 1976, the Florida Legislature enacted the Solar Energy Standards Act

which directs the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) to develop standards for

solar energy equipment manufactured or sold in the state, to establish

criteria for determining the performance of solar energy equipment, and to

maintain a testing facility for evaluating solar energy equipment performance.

As a result of this legislation, FSEC established a solar collector

certification program with specific requirements for laboratories that conduct

certification testing in accordance with prescribed performance standards.

The program requires that solar collectors be tested for compliance with FSEC

Standard 77-5 which is a modification of the ASHRAE Standard 93-77. FSEC

Standard 77-5 establishes test methodology in the following areas of solar

collector performance.

(a) Collector Time Constant Determination

(b) Thermal Efficiency Determination

(c) Incident Angle Modifier Determination

(d) Pressure Tests

(e) Exposure Tests

(f) Spray Tests

(g) Thermal Performance Recheck

(h) Collector Performance Rating

- 17 -
The FSEC certification program requires all solar collector certification

testing to be conducted by one of the following types of labortories.

(a) The laboratory at the Florida Solar Energy Center,

(b) A laboratory evaluated under the Air-Conditioning and Ref rigeration

Institute Foundation (ARIF) contract study for NBS^, or

(c) Any independent laboratory that provides the following

- A diagram of the test configuration used, the specification sheets

on all measuring and recording equipment, and copies of the test

procedures

- A signed affirmation from a responsible official of the laboratory

or a registered professional engineer that the test methods used

meet the standards set forth in Section 7.0 of FSEC 77-5

- Permission for FSEC personnel to visit the test facility and

observe test procedures.

Manufacturers who wish to submit solar collector models to FSEC for

certification are required to pay specific fees for testing and

certification. The fee for the complete certification sequence in accordance

with FSEC Standard 77-5 is $1,350 per model. If a model has been tested for

thermal performance by another organization whose test procedures and results

are accepted by FSEC, the fee for certification is $875. For models that have

been tested and inspected in accordance with FSEC 77-5 by another organization

whose results are acceptable to FSEC, the certification fee is $300. If a manufacturer has had a collector model certified under the NBS test method

NBSIR 74-6359 and wishes to have it certified in accordance with FSEC 77-5,

the fee is $150.

For each collector model certified by FSEC, the manufacturer receives a supply of certification labels to be attached to all units placed in service

or on the market. Once a collector model has been certified by FSEC, the

manufacturer agrees to:

(a) Represent a collector as certified only when it is manufactured of

the same materials and in accordance with the same specifications and

drawings as the collector that was originally submitted for

certification testing;

(b) Permanently affix a nameplate to each model unit which indiates the

manufacturer's name, address, model number, maximum operating

pressure, and voltage and current requirements;

^ Niessing, W.J., "Laboratories Technically Qualified to Test Solar

Collectors in Accordance with ASHRAE Standard 93-77: A Summary Report,"

NBS Report NBSIR 78-1535, November 1978.

9 The report by J. E. Hill and T. Kusuda, "Method of Testing for Rating

Solar Collectors Based on Thermal Performance," 1974; NBSIR 74-635, was prepared for the National Science Foundation.

- 18 -
(c) Notify FSEC of changes in collector materials or construction and

accept FSEC's judgment relative to whether these changes constitute a model change requiring re-testing;

(d) Provide copies of the FSEC Certification Summary Information Sheet

upon request;

(e) Permit FSEC to select at any time a unit of the certified model

offered for sale or on display, for the purpose of re-testing at FSEC

expense to verify the performance and compliance of the unit with the

original certification test data.

6. Other Federal, State, Professional, and Trade Association

Programs For Laboratory Accreditation

In addition to the National and State laboratory accreditation programs

described in Sections 4 and 5, a variety of other programs are sponsored by

Federal and State agencies and by professional and trade associations. The

following list of these programs was presented in the Hyer publication.*^

Federal Goverment Programs

Agriculture - meat and poultry laboratories

Defense - personnel support equipment, textiles

Defense - Defense Logistics Agency (DCASR)

Defense - Defense Electronics Supply Centre (DESC)

Defense - Navy, shock testing facilities

Environmental Protection Agency - public water testing labs

General Services Administration - Federal Supply Services, procurement

Health, Education and Welfare - Center for Disease Control

Health, Education and Welfare - milk testing laboratories

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - space vehicle components

Tennessee Valley Authority - energy materials and products

Transportation - Coast Guard, approved safety devices

Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration

International Association of Chiefs of Police - law enforcement

equipment**

Metallurgical Engineers of Atlanta, Inc. - carpeting* 2

Associated Laboratories, Inc. - carpeting* 2

ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. - carpeting* 2

*0 "Principal Aspects of U.S. Laboratory Accreditation Programs"; Charles W.

Hyer, The Marley Organization, Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut. January 24,

1979. Order No. 816656; U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20234.

** Funded by the Department of Justice for approved product compliance

purposes.

* 2 Operates on the basis of a Housing and Urban Development approval of

administrator.

- 19 -
State and Local Government Programs

California - thermal insulation testing laboratories

Connecticut - water and allied analysis laboratories

Kentucky - public water supply analysis laboratories

Massachussets - concrete testing laboratories

New York - water testing laboratories

North Carolina - electrical safety testing laboratories

Ohio - flammability, building products

Oregon - electrical safety testing laboratories

Pennsylvania - Department of Agriculture - dairy products

Washington - electrical safety testing laboratories

Dade County, FL - building products testing laboratories

Altanta, GA - electrical safety testing laboratories

Chicago, IL - electrical safety testing laboratories

Los Angeles, CA - electrical safety testing laboratories

Oakland, CA - electrical safety testing laboratories

Portland, OR - electrical safety testing laboratories

Richmond, VA - electrical safety testing laboratories

San Francisco, CA - electrical safety testing laboratories

Professional and Trade Association Programs

Air Diffusion Council - product certification related laboratories

Air Moving & Control Association - product certification related

laboratories

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators - automotive safety

products testing laboratories

American Industrial Hygiene Association - industrial hygiene laboratories

American Society of Mechanical Engineers - valve testing laboratories

American Society of Mechanical Engineers - pollution prevention devices,

components testing laboratories

Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association - product certification

related laboratories

Board of Accreditation Concrete Testing Laboratories - North Carolina

College of American Pathologists - human health related laboratories

International Electrotechnical Commission on Quality Assurance Systems

- electronic component product certification related laboratories

National Kitchen Cabinet Association - product related certification

laboratories

National Safe Transit Association - packaging testing laboratories

Ohio Association of Consulting Engineers - concrete testing labs - Ohio

Safety Glazing Certification Council - glazing products certification

related laboratories

United States Potters Association - lead (and other substances) analysis

laboratories

- 20 -
7. Information Sources Regarding Product Certification

The Office of Standards Information, Analysis and Development of the

National Bureau of Standards, has tabulated 240 product categories for .which

certification programs have been established. 13 The tabulation lists the

product category, the standards for which the products are certified, and the

organization or laboratory responsible for the certification program.

The American Council of Independent Laboratories lists 233 laboratories

in their 1980 directory of member laboratories. Of these laboratories, the ones listed in appendix D have included in their scope of activities specific

product certification services. Some of the laboratories offer only

certification testing services while others offer full management services for

product certification programs.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) administers a program

for the accreditation of product certification programs. This program is

described in the ANSI publication, "American National Standards Institute

Policy and Procedures and Manual of Operations for Accreditation of

Certification Programs;" August, 1976. The publication presents statements of

policy concerning ANSI accreditation of certification programs, ANSI

certification committee procedures, procedures for the accreditation of

certification programs, and a manual of operations for the accreditation of

certification programs. The manual of operations defines the criteria

established by ANSI for certification programs. Any agency or certifier who

is planning a product certification program should consult this publication as

a guide for outlining the essential elements of the program. Also, the

IS0/CERTIC0 Committee on Certification^ has published ISO Guide 16-1978(E)

titled, "Code of Principles on Third-Party Certification Systems and Related

Standards." This document provides generic criteria for third-party

certification systems and should serve as a guide in the planning of any

certification program that may include participation by foreign manufacturers

or buyers.

8. Laboratory Accreditation and Product Certification

Programs for Photovoltaic Systems

8.1 Introduction

The National Photovoltaic Energy Program of the Department of Energy was initiated in January, 1978, and is designed to expand the development and

13 Slattery, W.J.; "Tabulation of Voluntary Standards and Certification

Programs for Consumer Products"; NBS Technical Note 948; June 1977.

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

Mr. Daniel Chaucer, Chairman; Product Safety and Liability Consultant,

84-61 Furmanville Avenue, Rego Park, New York.

- 21 -
commercial use of photovoltaic (PV) systems as rapidly as possible through

research, process development, testing and applications -- all in support of

the manufacturing industry. The overall objective is to ensure that

photovoltaic conversion systems contribute significantly to the nation's

energy supply by the year 2000.

Within the broad scope of the National Photovoltaic Energy Program, the

Solar Energy Research Institute manages the Performance Criteria and Test

Standards (PC/TS) project. One of the tasks of this project is the

development and implementation of procedures for qualifying PV product testing

laboratories and PV product certification. To assist in that task, background

information concerning laboratory qualifications and product certification has

been provided in the ealier sections of the report. In this section, specific

steps and procedures are provided to initite a program for evaluating testing

laboratories and certifying PV products. These steps and procedures are divided into those that are for preparation and those that are for

implementation. While these steps and procedures are presented with respect

to photovoltaic products, in particular, they may be applied equally in

establishing such programs for other products.

Of particular relevance to the PC/TS project is the need to identify

which PV products need to be certified, establish product performance levels,

and identify and develop standard methods for testing product performance to

these levels. The associated decisions and actions to these needs must be

taken before a laboratory evaluation and product certification program can be

developed.

8.2 Preparation for the Test Laboratory and

Product Certification Program

Before any program involving accredited laboratories, "approved"

laboratories, or certification is initiated for photovoltaic products, a series of preparatory steps need to be taken. These steps are: (1) selection

of products to be certified; (2) selection and development of product

performance criteria, performance levels, and test methodology;

(3) determination of the number of testing laboratories needed; (4) selection

of the appropriate type of laboratory evaluation program; and (5) selection of

the appropriate type of product certification program. The considerations,

decisions, and actions associated with each of these steps are discussed below.

a. Selection of Products to be Certified

(1) Make preliminary selection of those products that need to be

certified in the early stages of the proagram [products that may need

to be certified in the later stages will need to be considered in

c(2)3;

(2) Develop justification for selecting the products in a(l);

- 22 -
(3) Determine whether any of the products in a(l) or their components are certified in other programs;

(4) Determine whether products certified in other programs are appropriate for the photovoltaic program;

(5) Based on step a(4), select those products identified in step a(l)

that need to be certified.

b. Selection and Development of Product Performance Criteria,

Performance Levels, and Test Methodology

(1) Determine what performance criteria the products must meet to be

certified;

(2) Determine what product performance levels should be required for the

product;

(3) Determine which existing test methods can be used to determine

compliance with the criteria and performance levels in b(l) and b(2),

respectively;

(4) Evaluate the test methods in b(3) for technical integrity and

appropri ateness;

(5) Develop test methods needed in addition to those in b(3);

(6) Identify the test methods to be used in the certification of

photovoltaic products.

c. Determination of the Number of Testing Laboratories Needed

(1) Determine the number of laboratories that are capable of testing the

products in a(5) in accordance with the test methods in b(6);

(2) Determine if the number of laboratories identified in c(l) is

sufficient to conduct the certification and compliance testing of the

products in a(5), (Note: The decisions made in this step may be

influenced by the need for the certification of additional products

in the later stages of the program. This additional certification

testing may warrant a later change in program needs for qualified

laboratories i . e . ; a change, for example, from an "approved"

laboratory program to an accredited laboratory program);

(3) If the number of laboratories in c(2) is insufficient to handle the

required testing, determine the feasibility of promoting the

expansion of the testing capability of the testing industry;

- 23 -
(4) If the expansion program in c( 3) is feasible, initiate a program to

establish the improved testing capability of the industry.

d. Selection of the Appropriate Type of Laboratory Evaluation Program

(1)

Appoint a DOE/SERI^ administrator to manage the selction of the

appropriate laboratory evaluation program;

(2)

Select the appropriate type of laboratory evaluation program, (Note:

If the number of laboratories needed for a testing laboratory program

is 10 or more, an accredited laboratory program should be chosen. If

the number of laboratories is less than 10, an "approved" laboratory

program will probably be best suited for the required testing):^

(3)

Determine what portion of the program costs for examining and

evaluating candidate laboratories shall be covered by fees charged to

the laboratories;

(4) Determine whether independent laboratories or both independent and

manufacturer's laboratories may be accredited or "approved" to

conduct product testing (see the last paragraph of section 3.1);

(5) Verify the appropriateness of the decisions made in d(3) and d(4)

through communication with NVLAP, AALA, or the selected "approved"

laboratory evaluators and modify as necessary;

e. Selection of the Appropriate Type of Product Certification Program

(1) Appoint a DOE/SERI administrator to manage the selection of the

appropriate product certification program [Note: This administrator

may be the same person selected in d ( 1 ) ];

(2) Determine^ 7 who will pay for the certification costs of the various

product models submitted by manufacturers;

It is assumed that DOE and SERI will have overall responsibility for

administering the photovoltaic laboratory testing and product certification

program within those agencies. If it is decided that another organization

will assume this responsibility, the name of that organization can be

substituted for "DOE/SERI" when it is used here after in Section 8.

In most cases, a laboratory accreditation program is not practical if the

number of laboratories needed is less than 10 because of program

implementation costs and proficiency testing limitations.

I 7 The information on which to make this determination may be obtained

directly by the DOE/SERI administrator or through a contractee.

- 24 -
(3) Determine^ how samples of product models submitted for

certification and compliance testing will be obtained;

(4) Determine^? who will provide a warranty for certified products

including repair or replacement of non-complying units;

(5) Determine!? who will pay for past-certification monitoring and

testing to insure compliance of certified products;

(6) Determine!? whether the program should provide for separate

certification of product models having different performance

capabilities;

(7) Review and revise, if necessary, the decisions in e(2) through e(6)

to insure that they will not inhibit the innovation or commercialization of photovoltaic products;

(8) Review the criteria established by ISO/CERTICO for product

certification programs to insure compatibility of the photovoltaic

certification program with the ISO/CERTICO criteria (See section 7.)

8.3 Getting a Program Started

Once the preparatory steps in the previous section have been taken, an organizational structure can be established to implement the laboratory

testing and product certification activities. Such a structure is presented

in figure 1 and will be used in some of the subsequent discussions in this

section.

The DOE/SERI administrator appointed to manage (within the agency) the

preparatory steps described in section 8.2 will have certain responsibilities

that depend on the decision of whether to conduct product testing with

accredited laboratories or with "approved" laboratories.

If the decision is made to use "approved" laboratories, the DOE/SERI

administrator may delegate the responsibilities to a contractee who will serve

as an executive program administrator. Such a contractee will need to be

selected through the issuance of a request-for-proposal (RFP) which will

define the program objectives and the contractee responsibilities for meeting

those objectives. The selected contracts should be proficient in the

management and implementation of laboratory evaluation programs.

!? The information on which to make this determination may be obtained

directly by the DOE/SERI administrator or through a contractee.

- 25 -
PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATOR

1 NVLAP, AALA OR

1 "APPROVED”

| LABORATORY PROGRAM

| CERTIFICATION

AGENCY

(Certifier)

_r~_

J

1

1 PRODUCT 1 CERTIFICATION

| MANUFACTURER MONITORING AGENT

PRODUCT

WHOLESALER

OR RETAILER

I

I I ACCREDITED

OR "APPROVED”

LABORATORIES

FIGURE 1: DOE/SERI PRODUCT CERTIFICATION SYSTEM

NOTE: The connecting lines indicate back-and-f orth communication between

system enti ties.

- ?5 -
If the decision is made to use one of the two national programs for

accrediting laboratories, it will be necessary to have direct communication

between the DOE/SERI administrator and the administrator of the selected

accreditation program to assure efficient implementation of laboratory

evaluation activities. In this case, the responsibility for directing the

program should not be delegated to a third party.

In requesting the development of an accreditation program, specific

information must be furnished to the administrator of the selected program.

For the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation program, a request

for an accreditation program should be sent to:

American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation

P.0. Box 546

Palatine, Illinois 60067

A listing of documented test methods that accredited laboratories will be

required to conduct should be included in the request. AALA may include these

test methods in one of the existing testing disciplines listed in appendix C or a separate discipline may be established if the test methods are not

appropriate for the existing disciplines.

For the Department of Commerce National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program, if the requesting organization is a Federal agency, the

request should be sent to:

Honorable Jordan J. Baruch

Assistant Secretary for Science

and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

The request should comply with the procedures presented in Title 15, Code

of Federal Regulations, Part 7b. If the request is submitted by an organization of the private sector or a standards-writing organization, the

request should be sent to:

Honorable Phillip M. Klutznick

Secretary of Commerce

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

For private sector organizations, the request should comply with the

procedures presented in Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 7a.

Standards-writing organizations should use the procedures in Title 15, Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 7c.

- 27 -
A formal request for an accreditation program for a specific product must

include a listing of documented test methods for which laboratories are to be

accredited. For the photovoltaic program, it will not be necessary to list

all test methods that may eventually be included in the advanced stages of the

program. A list of test methods that the DOE/SERI administrator feels is

essential in the initial stages of the program will be sufficient to initiate

a NVLAP program. However, the list of test methods should be as complete as possible since any methods that are added after the program is initiated

require a formal announcement in the Federal Register. A Federal Register

announcement is generally followed by a public comment period and a public

hearing, if such a hearing is requested. This process requires a considerable

amount of time and expense and its use should be minimized.

With regard to the implementation of a certification program, a certification agency (certifier) will need to be selected. An RFP may be

issued for selecting a certifier to manage and implement the certification

program. The certifier can be an independent laboratory or any organization

with the necessary personnel and experience required to effectively carry out

the objectives of the program. The certifier will select a certification

monitoring agent who will monitor all activities associated with the

certification and compliance testing of products.

When a manufacturer wishes to have a product model certified, the

manufacturer notifies the certifier of his intentions. The certifier, in

response, sends a set of application forms to the manufacturer which describes

the commitments between the certifier and the manufacturer concerning (a) fees

for certification and compliance testing; (b) product samples to be furnished

for certification testing; (c) product samples that the monitoring agent can obtain periodically from the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer for

compliance testing; (d) warranty guarantees; and (e) the use of a certification label on product samples. The application forms would also

require the manufacturer to furnish such information as:

(a) Product description

- Product name and serial number

- Product specifications and drawings

- Performance and rating test data

- Compliance with standards or specifications

(b) User information

- Installation instructions

- Operation instructions

- Safety instructions

- Maintenance instructions

- Input/output ratings

- Environmental limits

- Interface requirements

- Warranty provisions

- Parts lists

28 -
When the certifier accepts the manufacturer's request for the

certification of a product model, an agreement is reach concerning the

shipment of product samples by the manufacturer to either the certifier or an accredited or "approved" laboratory for certification testing. The agreement

also establishes the procedures for the selection of samples from the

manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer by the monitoring agent for compliance

testing by the laboratory. The certifier will also be responsible for

establishing and keeping up-to-date a certified products list that would be

available to agencies, organizations, or individuals who specify, buy, or use photovoltaic systems.

- 29 -
Appendix A. Additional Information on the Department of Commerce National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

1. Historical Background

The Department of Commerce National Voluntary Labortory Accreditation

Program (NVLAP) was officially announced on February 25, 1976.

The first request to establish a laboratory accreditation program (LAP) was received by the Secretary of Commerce on December 1, 1976. The request

was submitted jointly by three associations — the Thermal Insulation

Manufacturers Association, the National Mineral Wool Insulation Association,

Inc., and the National Cellulose Insulation Manuf acturers Association. The

request emphasized the need for the accreditation of laboratories that test

the various properties of thermal insulation materials. A second LAP request was submitted by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association on March 20, 1978.

The Secretary established that there was a national need for accredited

laboratories in these two areas of testing and appointed separate committees

to establish laboratory criteria for each LAP. The members of each committee

were chosen on a basis of achieving a balance between Federal, State, and

local government interests and manufacturer, testing laboratory, and user interests. The established expertise of each member in his or her respective

field was a strong factor in the selection. Each committee was charged with

the task of recommending general and specific criteria which could be used for

assessing the competency of laboratories seeking accreditation. The

recommended criteria were published in the Federal Register for public comment

and public hearings were held. The revised criteria become final and are now being used to evaluate laboratories.

2. Laboratory Evaluations

The decision to accredit a laboratory is based upon three factors:

(1) information supplied by the laboratory, (2) observations by examiners

during an on-site visit to the laboratory and (3) data obtained from

proficiency tests periodically conducted by the laboratory.! The National

Bureau of Standards is responsible for the examination and evaluation of

applicant laboratories. Accreditation is granted by the Assistant Secretary

of Commerce for Science and Technology acting on behalf of the Secretary of

Commerce.

! Not all test methods require proficiency testing.

- 30 -
3. Agreement by the Laboratory

As a condition for receiving and maintaining accreditation under the

NVLAP program, a laboratory must agree to:

(a) provide questionnaire information that will enable NVLAP evaluators to assess the laboratory's capability to perform the tests for which

accreditation is sought;

(b) allow on-site inspection of the laboratory prior to accreditation and

on a periodic basis while in the program;

(c) participate in proficiency sample testing programs that may be

required for maintaining accreditation;

(d) pay the accreditation fees and charges;

(e) avoid reference to NVLAP accreditation status and forbid the

laboratory's clients from referencing the same in consumer media and

product advertising, or on product labels, containers, and packaging.

Accreditation status may be stated on letter-head stationery, in

brochures, and in laboratory services advertising;

(f) limit any statements or references concerning NVLAP accreditation

status to those specific test methods for which the laboratory is

accredited.

4. Accreditation Fees

In NVLAP, the annual fees a laboratory pays generally depends on the

number and complexity of the test methods for which it desires accreditation.

In the thermal insulation LAP, the total annual fee, F, is determined by the

formula F = A + (Bi)(Ni) + (B 2 )(N 2 ) + (B 3 )(N 3 ) + (B 4 )(B4 ) + P where A equals $750; Bi, B 2 , B3 , and B4 are the fees for four levels

of test method complexity and are $50, $100, $150 and $200 respectively; N is

the number of test methods for the respective complexity level; and P is a proficiency testing fee of either $100 or $120 (depending on the type of

test). To give an example, if a laboratory wishes to be accredited for the

three test methods ASTM C165, ASTM C136 and ASTM C335 which have complexity

levels of B 2 , Bi and B 3 respectively; the annual fee is F = $750 + ($100)(1) + ($50) (1 ) + ( 150 )

( 1 ) + ($120) (2)2 or $1290. Additional

information concerning test methods and related fees for the thermal

insulation LAP and other LAPs are presented in the Federal Register Notice of

January 23, 1980; Volume 45, No. 16.

2 Test methods ASTM C165 and ASTM C335 require proficiency testing.

- 31 -
5. Monitoring of Accredited Laboratories

After a laboratory has been accredited under the NVLAP program, various

measures are taken to assure that the laboratory maintains its level of

proficiency. The proficiency tests associated with a specific LAP are designed to monitor each laboratory's ability to obtain correct test results.

In the thermal insulation LAP, laboratories are required to conduct

proficiency tests twice yearly for all but one of the seven test methods which

require such testing. One test method requires proficiency testing once yearly.

The proficiency test results from each laboratory are analyzed and

compared to a "target" value which represents an "average" of all

participating laboratories or a value obtained by a reference laboratory.

For test methods that do not require proficiency testing, each laboratory

is visited periodically on an unannounced basis by a NVLAP examiner. The

examiner inspects test equipment and, when possible, observes the procedures

for each test method of concern.

Under the NVLAP program, laboratories are granted accreditation on a one-year basis. At the end of the first and second years, the performance of

each laboratory is reviewed by (a) analyzing the over-all proficiency test

results covering the respective review period, (b) evaluating any compliants

received by NVLAP administrators concerning the laboratory's performance, and

(c) evaluating data and information acquired by NVLAP examiners during routine

or unannounced on-site examinations. If the review indicates that the

laboratory's performance has been acceptable, its accreditation is renewed for

another year. At the end of each three-year period, the laboratory is fully

evaluated to the same degree and detail as the initial evaluation used to

establish its accreditation.

6. Special NVLAP Procedures for Federal Agencies and

Standards-Writing Organizations

As previously mentioned, the procedures for the NVLAP program require the

Secretary of Commerce to conduct a "finding of need" for a specific LAP after

a formal request for the program is received. The "finding of need" process

includes the acquisition of the information and data presented in Section 1 of

this appendix and requires a Federal Register Notice that summarizes the

"findings," a public comment period lasting 30 days after the publication of

the Federal Register Notice, and a public hearing if requested by concerned

i ndividuals.

The total time required for the "finding of need" process depends on the

complexity of the requested LAP but generally requires approximately four

months. Since this process significantly extends the time required to fully

implement a LAP, optional NVLAP procedures were developed which allow Federal

agencies and standards-writing organizations to determine their own need for a

- 32 -
specific LAP. The procedures governing LAP requests from Federal agencies are presented in Title 15 CFR, Part 7b, March 9, 1979, and for standards-writing

organizations as presented in Title 15 CFR, Part 7c, April 25, 1979.

The NVLAP optional procedures not only allow the requesting organization

to determine the need for the program but allow it to recommend general and

specific laboratory criteria to the Secretary of Commerce. All recommended

criteria are expected to be compatable with existing criteria developed for

the NVLAP program. If the proposed criteria differs significantly from the

existing criteria, a detailed explanation of the reason for the deviation must

be presented.

- 33 -
Appendix B. Additional Information on the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation Program

At the time of this writing, the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (AALA) program is not operational and no laboratory evaluation

criteria have been developed. However, this information is provided based on literature promulgated by AALA.

1.

Disciplines of Testing

The AALA program defines a testing laboratory as any person, partnership,

corporation, university, research organization, association, or government

agency. Testing laboratories may be accredited for performing specific tests

or groups of tests in nine disciplines. Some examples of specific tests

associated with each discipline are listed in appendix C. The procedures for

the accreditation of a single laboratory in two or more disciplines is similar

to the process by which the Association accredits two or more separate

1 aboratories.

2.

Requirements (Criteria) for Accreditation

General and specific laboratory criteria for the various disciplines of

testing were being prepared by AALA during the writing of this report. A

spokesman for AALA stated that these criteria would be available in the latter

part of 1980.

3.

Membership and Accreditation Fees

Two basic fee structures are used to support the costs of operating the

AALA program. The fees relative to Association membership are structured in

accordance with four classes of laboratories. These classes and the

respective fees are (a) corporate membership with annual dues of $25.00 per

$100,000 of gross income with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $2,000;

(b) non-profit organization membership with annual dues of $25.00 per $100,000

of gross income with a minimum of $250 and a maximum of $1,000; (c) individual

membership with annual dues of $50.00 and (d) educational institutions and

governmental agencies membership with annual dues of $100.00. Accreditation

fees are established by the board of directors.

4.

Laboratory Assessment

Applicant laboratories are examined by inspectors who are selected from a panel of specialists in the disciplines for which accreditation is sought.

During the on-site examination, the inspectors may ask for a demonstration of

various tests or may wish to use specific items of equipment in order to judge

- 34 -
the capacity of the equipment. One of the requirements for accreditation is

the calibration of the laboratory's test equipment and the traceability of

those calibrations to the National Bureau of Standards.

If the evaluation of a laboratory shows that it conforms in all respects

with the requirements for accreditation, the Accreditation Advisory Committee

reports to the Council of the Association accordingly and accreditation is

granted. If however, the evaluation reveals certain conditions of

non-conformity, the accreditation of the laboratory may be granted on a provisional basis if the non-conformity is of a minor nature and can be

remedied within a short time. If the non-conformity is of a complex nature,

the Council may decide to defer accreditation.

5. Accreditation and Registration of Testing Laboratories

When the AALA Council directs that accreditation of a laboratory be

granted, the Executive Director immediately reports the Council's decision to

the person who signed the laboratory's application for accreditation in terms

of an advisory which includes:

(a) complete details of the classes or subclasses of test for which

accreditation is granted;

(b) the names of persons approved by the Council to sign AALA endorsed

test documents issued by the laboratory;

(c) any restrictions involved, such as limitations in the range in which

measurements may be made, accuracies to be quoted, equipment to be

used for certain tests, or specified test methods to be followed;

(d) any conditions, in addition to the general conditions defined in the

by-laws, which must be met immediately or continuously.

The Council's direction that accreditation be granted is implemented by

issue of the Executive Director's letter of advice.

When accreditation is completed, AALA ceases to consider that the

laboratory application for accreditation is confidential. It publishes, in

its AALA Register of Testing Laboratories, complete details of the terms of

registration. The AALA Register of Testing Laboratories has, for each

accredited laboratory, a separate entry showing the name of the testing

organization, the address of the laboratory, classification of the laboratory,

discipline and categories of testing included in the accreditation, and the names of approved signatories.

- 35 -
Appendix C. Disciplines and Associated Tests for the American Association for

Laboratory Accreditation Program

Acoustic and Vibration

Measurement

acoustic and vibration equipment; acoustic and

vibration characteristics of materials and

assemblies; measurement of sound and mechanical

vibration; dynamic balancing.

Biological Testing biological, bacteriological and mycological

tests on drugs, vitamins, and food water;

industrial cultures.

Chemical Testing agricultural materials and products; bitumens;

cements; ceramics; clays; cosmetics; detergents;

drugs; environmental chemistry; explosives;

fats; foods; fuels; gases; leather; lubricants;

metals; ores; paper; paints; petroleum products;

plastics; rubber; solvents; textiles; waters.

Electrical Testing calibration; testing of electrical equipment and

appliances; electrical tests on materials;

testing of electronic equipment.

Thermal Testing thermometers and pyrometers; checking furnaces

and ovens; thermal conductivity.

Mechanical Testing construction materials; soils; cement,

aggregates, concrete; bitumens, asphaltic

materials; wood products; metals; product

assemblies; calibration; fluid mechanics;

performance testing; metallography.

Metrology gauges; jigs and tools; length and angle

standards; mass; volume and density; pressure;

time.

Non-destructive Testing radiography of materials and assemblies;

ultrasonics for thickness and flaws; magnetic

particle and penetrant flaw detection.

Optics and Photometry lamp and lighting fittings; photometers;

calibration of optical instruments.

36 -
Appendix D. American Council of Independent Labaoratories Which Provide

Specific Product Certification Services

1. Approved Engineering Test Laboratories, Inc.

15720 Ventura Blvd.

Encino, California 91436

(213) 783-5985

2. Bowser-Morner Testing Laboratories, Inc.

420 Davis Avenue

P.0. Box 51

Dayton, Ohio 45401

(513) 253-8805

3. Communication Certification Laboratory

Research Park - University of Utah

P.0. Box 8106

Salt Lake City, Utah 84108

(801) 582-5842

4. Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Industrial Park

Cortland, New York 13045

(607) 753-6711

5. R. F. Geisser and Associates, Inc.

32 Cedar Street

P.0. Box 1245

Dedham, Massachusetts 02026

(617) 329-4430

6. Arnold Greene Testing Laboratories, Inc.

East Natick Industrial Park

6 Huron Drive

Natick, Massachusetts 01760

(617) 235-7330

7. Industrial Testing Laboratories

2813 Eighth Street

Berkeley, California 94710

(415) 848-3746

8. Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.

2425 New Holland Pike

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601

(717) 656-2301

- 37 -
9 . MET Electrical Testing Company, Inc.

916 West Patapsco Avenue

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

(301) 354-2200

10. Miami Testing Laboratory, Inc.

1640 West 32nd Place

Hialeah, Florida 33012

(305) 822-1141

11. Scientific Control Laboratories, Inc.

3136 S. Kolin Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60623

(312) 254-2406

12. Stilson Laboratories, Inc.

170 N. High street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 228-4385

13. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.l

333 Pfingsten Road

Northbrook, Illinois

(312) 272-8800

14. United States Testing Company, Inc.

1415 Park Avenue

Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

(201) 792-2400

15. Value Engineering Laboratory

2550 Huntington Avenue

Alexandria, Virginia 22303

(703) 960-4600

1 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. is not a member of ACIL but is listed here

because of its experience in managing product certification programs.

- 38 -
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2028

ssion No.

* 1S3

3. Rectptertt's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Information and Guidelines for a Proposed Laboratory

Accreditation and Product Certification Program for

Photovoltaic Energy Conversion Systems

5. Publication Date August 1980

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Douglas B. Thomas

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state. ZIP)

Solar Energy Research Institute

Golden, CO 80401

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

LJ Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary,^ is attached.

t significant information . If document includes a significant bibliography or

16* ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of mos

literature survey, mention it here.) This report provides information and guidelines for use in preparing and

implementing a laboratory evaluation and product certificate program for photovoltaic

products, as required in the Department of Energy's work plan for the National Photovoltaic Energy Program.

The report presents an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of laboratory accreditation and product certification including economic factors that should be

considered for such programs. Detailed information is also provided on the two

national programs for accrediting laboratories, the Department of Commerce National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the American Association for

LaDoratory Accreditation (AALA) . Information on the California and Florida state

programs for laboratory accreditation and product certification of solar collector

systems is given as examples of programs that have been in operation for several years.

The organization of these programs and the experience gained by the program administrators may be useful in designing and implementing a program for photovoltaics . Also

accreditation and certification programs which are operated by other Federal and State

agencies or professional and trade associations are listed for reference purposes.

(continued)

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name separated by semicolons) * Energy conversion; laboratory accreditation; photovoltaics; product certification;

solar collectors; solar energy

18. AVAILABILITY [X] Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003- ’

’

l~x) Ofder From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield

V A. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

43

22. Price

$ 6.00

USCOMM-DC
(Abstract continued)

A number of steps are presented which need to be taken before any

laboratory accreditation and product certification program for photovoltaics

can be initiated. These steps include the selection of the photovoltaic

products to be certified and the selection of pertinent performance criteria,

levels of performance, and test methodology. Once these and other preparatory

steps have been taken, a procedure is described to actually implement an appropriate program for photovoltaics.