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 1981

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 09
Federal 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

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 09
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

. wereperformed 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 through a bypass system to optimize boiler ony space heat in residential applications l

system performance while provi ing a d

- 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 Coil

Boiler 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

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 09