### 13566 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 1981 / Notices

Issuance of Proposed Decisions and Orders; Week of February 2 Through February 6,1981
During the week of February 2 through February 6;1981, the proposed decisions and orders summarized below were issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy with regard to applications for gxception. 

### Under the procedural regulations that apply to exception proceedings (10 CFR Part 205, Subpart D) any person who will be aggrieved by the issuance of a proposed decision and order in final form may file a written notice of objection within ten days of service. For purposes of the procedural regulations, the date of service of notice is deemed to be the date of publication of. this Notice or the date an aggrieved person receives actual notice, whichever occurs first. The procedural regulations provide that an aggrieved party who fails to file a Notice of Objection within the time period specified in the regulations will be deemed to consent to the issuance of the proposed decision and order in final form. An aggrieved party who wished to contest a determination made in a proposed decision and order must also file a detailed statement of objections within 30 days of the date of service of the proposed decision and order. In the statement of objections, the aggrieved party must specify each issue of fact of law that it intends to contest in any further proceeding involving the exception matter. Copies of the full test of these proposed decisions and orders are available in the Public Docket Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Room B-120,2000 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20461, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., except federal holidays. George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings andAppeals. February 17, 1981. Burlington Northern, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, DEE-2104 EIA form 28 Burlington Northern Inc. filed'an Application for Exception from the requirement to file from EIA-28 (Energy Company Financial Reporting System). The Exception request , if granted, would relieve Burlington Northern Inc. of any obligation to prepare and submit Form EIA-28. On February 3,1981, the Department of Energy Issued a Proposed Decision and-Order which determined that the exception request be denied.
Conoco, Inc., Houston, Texas, BXE-158i, crude all Conoco Inc. filed an Application for Exception from the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 212

, Subpart D. The exception request, if granted

, would permit Conoco Inc

. to sell a portion of the crude oil produced from the Plum Bush Creek Unit in Washington County, Colorado at prices in excess of the applicable ceiling prices. On February 2, 1981, the Department of Energy issued a Proposed Decision and Order which determined that the exception request be granted. McMurrey Petroleum, Inc., Kilgore, Texas, BEE-1546, crude oil McMurrey Petroleum

, Inc. filed an Application for Exception from the provisions of 10 C

.F.R. § 212.131

. The exception request, if granted

, would permit McMurrey to certify the production from the B. D. Everett No.1 Lease during June 1980 according to its appropriate crude oil category

, On February 2, 1981, the Department of Energy issued a Proposed Decision and Order which determined that the exception request be granted.
Northland Oil & Refining Company. Tulsa, Oklahoma, DEE-0934, DEE-1892, DXE2539

, crude oil
Northland Oil & Refining Company filed three Applications

- for Exception from the provisions of 10 C

.F.R. § 211.67 (the Entitlements Program). The exception request

, if granted, would permit Northland to a portion of its entitlement purchase obligations during the-period April 1978 through March 1981 to account for crude oil receipts and runs to stills during the period February 1978 through January 1981. On February 3,1981 ' the Department of Energy issued• a Proposed Decision and Order which determined-that the exception request be granted. - SentryRefining

, Inc., Washington

, D.C., BEE1339, crude oil Sentry Refining, Inc. filed an Application for Exception from the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 211.87. The exception request

, if granted, would permit

- Sentry to receive additional entitlements for the crude oil acquired to establish an increased inventory for its expanded refinery

. On February 3,1981, the Department of Energy issued a Proposed Decision and Order which determined that the exception request be denied.

IFR Doc. 61-0003 Filed 2-20-81 ; 6A6 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-0.1



### Office of the Secretary Proposed Consent Orders With Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., Inc., Koch Industries, Inc., and Pennzoil Co. AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTlOt : Clarification of prior notices of proposed consent orders.

`The Office of the Special Counsel for Compliance (OSC) previously published - notice, as required by 10 CFR 205.199J, that it had entered into Consent Orders with-Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, Inc. (Corco), 45 FR 8099 (January 26,1981), with Koch Industries, Inc. (Koch), 46 FR 8100 (January 26, 19811 and with Pennzoil Company (Pennzoil), 46 FR 8101 (January 26, 1981). The notices stated that in accordance with the regulatory requirements, OSC would receive comments on the Consent Orders "for a period of not less than 30 days following publication of th[ese] notice [sj. `Accordingly, OSC is required to consider all comments received by 5:00 p.m. on February 25, 1981, the thirtieth day following publication of the notices. The Notices of Proposed Consent Orders with Corco and Kock incorrectly stated that. the thirtieth day following publication of the notices was February 21,1981. In accordance with the notices and regulation cited, all
comments received by the thirtieth day, February 25,1981, will be considered. 

### The Published Notice of the Proposed Consent Order with Pennzoil explained the distribution of only $6.5 million of the $10 million cash payment to be made by Pennzoil. The remaining $3.5 million will be refunded, under the same provisiop that governs the refunds to Pennzoil 's electric utility customers, to the Defense Fuel Supply Center.

Issued 4n Washington, D.C. February 17, 1981. -
Avrom Landesman, Acting Special Counsel far Compliance. (FR Doc. 81-0220 Filed 2-20-81 ; 1002 aml
(3ILLING CODE 6450-01-15



### Office of Conservation and Solar Energy
[Case iMo. F-0031


### `Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Petition for waiver of Consumer Product Test Procedures From Energy Kinetics Incorporated
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
SUMMARY : The energy conservation - program for consumer products, other than automobiles, was established pursuant to the Energy Policy Conservation Act. The Department of Energy (DOE) has amended the prescribed test procedure regulations for the energy conservation-program for

consumer products to allow the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Solar Energy temporarily to waive test procedure requirements for a particular covered product (45 FR 64108, Sept. 26, 1980). Waivers maybe granted when characteristics of the product prevent use of the prescribed test procedures or lead to results that provide materially-inaccurate comparative efficiency data. Pursuant to paragraph (b) of § 430.27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, DOE is required to

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 13566 1981Federal Register / Vol. 46 , No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 1981 / Notices

publish in the Federal Register all Petitions for Waiver and the supporting documentation from which confidential information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Also, DOE is required to solicit comments, data and information with respect to the determination of the petition. DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information no later than March 25, 1980.
ADDRESSES : Written comments and statements shall be sent to: Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Solar Energy, Case No. F- 003, Mail Stop GH-068, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. -
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Smith, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Solar Energy, Room GH-065, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252- 9127. Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Room 6B-128, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252- 9526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background On December 27,1980, Energy Kinetics Incorporated filed a Petition for Waiver from the DOE test procedure requirements for measuring the energy consumption of furnaces. Specifically, the petition contends that a particular model of boiler manufactured by Energy Kinetics has design characteristics which prevent testing in accordance with the prescribed DOE test procedures. The petitioner adds further that even if the above request is granted and the test procedures are modified which would allow testing of the model, the results obtained from the test procedures would provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Also, Energy Kinetics requested confidential treatment of the information contained in the Petition. Energy Kinetics believes the request for confidential treatment is justified in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11. In consideration of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of Part 430.27(b) of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, DOE is hereby publishing the "Petition for Waiver" in the Federal Register with the confidential information deleted. DOE has determined that the information deleted is confidential in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. DOE is hereby soliciting comments, data and 

### information respecting the - - determination of the petition.

Issued in Washington, D.C., February 12, 198L Frank DeGeorge, Acting Assistant Secretary Conservation and Solar Energy. [The original of this document contains information which is arguably confidential under 18 U.S.C. 1905. Such material has been deleted, from this copy and replaced with XXXXX's.] December 27,1980. Subject: Petition for Waiver, 10 CFR Part 430, 27 Gentlemen: This is an application by Energy Kinetics Inc., Boiler System for an exception to test procedures set forth in sub Part B of Part 430, Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix N, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces. Energy Kinetics Inc. (Applicant) plans to manufacture and commence marketing in January, 1981, an oil fired residential heating system which includes a low thermal mass, direct exhaust, purgeable boiler with characteristics which do not permit testing with procedures of the above specified test
code. 1. Description of Applicant' s Business. The Applicant, incorporated in February, 1980 in New Jersey, has spent considerable effort and expense during the past several years to develop and produce a more energy efficient, oilfired residential hot water beating system. The system incorporates a number of innovations to improve heat recovery and reduce operating and standby losses. The Applicant has produced an advanced prototype under contract with Brookhaven National Laboratories, Associated Universities Incorporated under the Conservation Program Management Group acting with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Brookhaven National Laboratories test of the prototype Indicated that the system qualifies as "a high efficiency boiler" within their standards. The Applicant has continued development and plans to market this system beginning January, 1981. 2. Federal Labeling and Testing Requirements. The low mass purgeable boiler system is a covered product since a component is an appliance (the boiler) falling within the "furnace" category as set forth in 16 CFR Part 305, and therefore is subject to the rules for using energy costs and consumption . information in labeling and advertising under the "Act". 3. Energy Kinetics System: Principles of Operation. 3.1 The System incorporates a low thermal mass, oil fired direct exhaust hot water boiler and a control system which purges the low thermal mass boiler of its energy-at the end of each demand cycle to a useful location, so reducing the boiler temperature to near ambient to significantly reduce losses in the standby portion of the operating cycle. 

### 13567

3.2 Details of the specific boiler design and control strategy are considered proprietary (confidential) and are included in a separate attachment to be treated without disclosure per provisions of 10 CFR 1004.1 of the waiver proceedure. Details permit review and evaluation by D.O.E. and N.B.S. 3.3 The Applicant believes that the general description in 3.1 (above) adequately describes the system for purposes of public comment as to why system does not conform to concepts of the test procedures for oil fired boilers. 4. Test Procedures Do Not Adequately Handle Applicant's System. The test procedures, while they apply to the Applicant's basic oil fired boiler as a covered product under the Act, such procedures do not adequately handle the testing and rating for said boiler for the following reasons: 4.1 The boiler, being a low mass, low water volume boiler requires forced circulation during all sequences of operation. The temperature rise range specified in the procedures creates an inadequate flow rate and results in problems similar to those previously designated for exception in finned tube boilers. The temperature rise for optimum system performance while less than the minimum 120° F. specified in the procedures is a characteristic of the individual system and is more typical of supply/return temperatures of conventional field installed systems, i.e., 20' F. to 60' F. rise. 4.2 The low mass purgeable system operates in a manner similar to a warm air furnace at the end of a burn cycle. The thermal mass of the hot air furnace and the Energy Kinetics boiler are similar. With the warm air furnace, the fan continues to run until the heat exchanger, cooled by return air, reaches a specified condition. The low mass purgeable boiler circulator continues operation until the boiler reaches near ambient temperature. The test procedure for boilers, which measures losses in standby starting at 200' F. is inappropriate. 4.3 The Energy Kinetics low mass system, starts each operating cycle from near ambient temperature, operates generally for a short cycle and the maximum attained temperature varies greatly, but in most cycles during a -heating season will not approach 200° F. Seasonal fuel efficiency, based on an assumed temperature level of 200° F., maintained throughout the heating season, is not representative of Energy Kinetics system performance. 4.4 The reduction of boiler standby temperature also reduces stack temperature in the standby cycle lessening stack draft in field installations. This further acts to reduce infiltration losses through the boiler in the off cycle. The procedure specification which requires maintaining stack draft in the off cycle overstates infiltration losses and places undue advantage on use of flue dampers and similar devices. 4.5 The Energy Kinetics direct exhaust with a power burner operating at a slight positive pressure has characteristics which make the specified control of draft

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 13567 1981

### 13566 Federal Register f Vol. 46, No

. 35 / Monday

, February 23, 1981

, 1 Notices. -

fluctuations not to exceed .005 inches Enclosure III-Report on Burner

-Boiler/ inconsistent with field operation and would Furnace Efficiency Test Project require instrumentation and controls beyond [Test Report No.: 80-37-Hi) the capability of the Applicant

. Efficiency Test Report For. Calori Coil 5. The Lack of an Appropriate Test Boiler, Prototype Oil Fired Purgeable Boiler, Procedure Is Unfair to the Applicant

. Marron Energy Kinetics, Inc., 140 Overlelgh For reasons described

, the current test Rgad , Bernardsville, N.J. 07924 procedures are not fair to the Applicant nor representative of seasonal efficiency Brookhaven National Laboratory , Burneravailable to potential users of the system

. Boiler/Furnace Efficiency July Test 1980 Project,
Should the Applicant be required to adhere to the existing test procedure : General Information (A) The Applicant would be legally Efficiency Tests Performed precluded from marketing a product because

. Steady-state and part

-load efficiency-tests of a lack of proper Test Procedure . were performed in the test facility

. Annual N (B) A waiver to adjust only water fuel use was calculated by the Annual Fuel temperature rise would permit a lest but Use and Efficiency Computational program. results would not be representative of fuel efficiency of an operating system. Equipment Tested (C) The Applicant would be deprived of The equipment tested was a prototype introducing an improved efficiency heating -" Wet-Base " steel boiler with a nonsystem with an equitable marketing position

. conventional heat exchanger design, fired. (D) The intent of Congress in passing the with a commercialized high speed retention Act would be frustrated as the public would head burner . The firing rate was nominally be deprived of an opportunity to obtain an 0,85 gallons/hr. innovative system with significant potential Manufacturer for National Energy Savings. Marran Energy Kinetics

, Inc., 140 Overleigh 6. Energy Kinetics System Testing

. Road, Bernardsville ,- N.J. 07924 The Applicant proposes that the

. system be tested in the manner for fuel savings which Model Number has been the basis of its development and Prototype

- Calori Coil Boiler. design

. Specifically

. Mode of Operation 6.1 Water flow rates should be regulated The boiler as tested is designed to provide throu h a b ass s stem to o timize b iler g yp y p o l ony space heat in residential applications t h l f d sys em per ormance w i e provi ing a using a boiler heat purging technique

- . . • continuous flow of hot water at the discharge temperature specified in the procedures . A Enclosures temperature rise f i the range of 30

.. F. to 60 ° (1) Hydronic Equipment Findings Report ' F. is expected

. Reference Manual

, BNL'50644. 6.2 Circulator operation and coolant flow (2) Annual Fuel Use and Efficiency
should be continued at the end of a run cycle Referexicd Manual , BNL 50818. similar to that of a hot air furnace until Efficiency Test Results - supply/return temperature reach levels of the manufacturers standard control system. Flue Color! Coil-Prototype Oil Fired Purgeable
temperatures and flows should be measured Boiler
at times specified in the procedure . The steady- state efficiency of the Calori6.3 Draft conditions should be those Coil Prototype was measured to be 83:3% by established by the.manufacturer as typical the testing method outlined in the Reference for operating conditions in field installations . Manual ( enclosure 1).
6.4 The Applicant has had the system In comparison

, typical conventional boilers

evaluated with the control strategy indicated

- have been found to operate with steady-state efficiencies between 70 and 75% with the above at an independent laboratory . The "best" conventional units reaching almost annual cyclic efficiency indicated a 85%. significant improvement over standard Part-load efficiency tests were performed appliances . The above referenced test at various heating loads (standby to full load) procedure modifications should approximate under the application of conventional control a fair AFUE value for the proposed systemi strategies as described in the Reference Yours truly, John D. Marron,
President.

Enclosure Letter

XXY-XX

Enclosure I-Oil Fired Boiler

XXXXX
Enclosure II-Insulation System

XXXXX Manual . The results of the pycle efficiency tests can be found in Fig.1 and Table 1. The cycle and steady

-state efficiency data were used to calculate the annual fuel consumption and the seasonal efficiency of the Calori CoilBoiler fired with its high-speed-retentionhead burner

. It can be seen from Table 1A that under conventional control strategies, 1,016 gallons of fuel oil will be consumed per year fop a structure in the New York City area with a design heating load of 50,000 Btu per hour and a=2. The units seasonal efficiency under this mode of operation was 71.9%. Part-load efficiency tests (standby to full load) were performed while approximating the manufacturer's purging control philosophy. The manufacturer's philosophy is a departure from conventional stategies. Under these tests the boiler circulator was allowed to start during the burner firing period and continued running after burner shutdown until the boiler outlet temperature reached approximately 107°F. The results of the cycle efficiency tests can be found in Fig. 2 and Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2A that under the purging control strategy, 88B gallons

.of fuel oil will be consumed •per year for the same structure and conditions stated above. The seasonal efficiency under the purge mode of operation was 82.5%. It should be noted that the Calori Coil Boiler tested provided space heat only and did not have domestic hot water capability

. It is therefore compared to other units operating at 0 gallons per day of domestic hot water. The Calori Coil Boiler qualifies as a high efficiency boiler (seasonal efficiency>70.0%) even when operated under conventional (non-purging) control strategies. In comparison to a "typical " conventional boiler-burner combination operation under the same conditions which would consume 1,332 gallons of fuel oil, the Calori Coil Boiler could reduce fuel consumption by about 318 gallons of fuel oil annually. The Calori Coil Boiler when operated as designed using the purging strategy can reduce its off cycle losses to almost negligible levels and yield an additional savings of 130 gallons of fuel oil annually . The combined savings potential of boiler design and operating strategy 'could reduce annual fuel consumption by about 33%, when compared to the "typical" conventional boiler-burner - combination operated under conventional -(non-purging) control strategies. The potential savings characteristics of the purgeable boiler have long been recognized by BNL. Other tests at BNL have revealed similar reductions in off

- cycle losses in a conventional boiler. With such reductions.in off-cycle losses ' the seasonal efficiency can be made to approach the steady-state efficiency as a limiting factor.

81w1G CODE 6450-614A

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 13568 1981