DOE/EIA-0306 March 1982

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration 

Office of Energy Markets and End Use 

Energy End Use Division

Methodological Report on the 1980 

Manufacturing Industries Survey of 

Large Combustors (EIA-463)
This publication is available free of charge from the National Energy 

Information Center at the following address:

National Energy Information Center, EI-2C

Forrestal Building

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20585

(202) 252-8800

Released for printing March 22, 1982
March 1982 DOE/EIA-0306

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration 

Office of Energy Markets and End Use 

Energy End Use Division 

Washington, D.C. 20585

Methodological Report on the 1980 

Manufacturing Industries Survey of 

Large Combustors (EIA-463)
CONTACTS

The following information is provided in case questions arise concerning 

this report:

This report was prepared in the Energy Information Administrations (EIA), 

Office of Energy Markets and End Use under the directorship of Wray Smith 

(202/633-8544). General supervision of the report was provided by 

Kenneth A. Vagts, Director of Energy End Use Division (202/252-1112) and 

by Lynda T. Carlson, Chief of the Residential and Commercial Branch and 

Team Leader for Energy Consumption Data Collections (202/252-1116).

This report was prepared by John L. Preston (202/252-1124) with assistance 

from Stephen J. Dienstfrey (202/252-1128).

Other participants in the design and implementation of this survey were

John Makens (202/633-9333), Robert Latta (202/252-1121) and Thomas H. Woteki.

For information regarding additional copies of this report contact:

National Energy Information Center 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room 1F-048

Washington, B.C. 20585 

(202) 252-8800

ii
PREFACE

The 1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption Study and Survey of

Large Combustors (EIA-463) was designed to collect information on

large combustors in the United States and the manufacturing establishments

operating them. The survey was mailed to a list of respondents in late

November and early December 1980. On February 20, 1981, the Secretary

of Energy received notice from the Office of Management and Budget that

authority for this information collection activity had been withdrawn

and that the information already collected must be treated in a confidential

manner.

At that time, responses had been received from approximately 76 percent 

of the final survey frame and, even though this represented a respectable 

response rate, the usefulness of the survey was substantially diminished 

for the following specific reasons:

 The results of this survey are probably somewhat biased 

due to systematic nonresponse error.

 Because of the withdrawal of authority for this

survey, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

was unable to undertake a follow-up of respondents 

to resolve problems of missing and apparently 

questionable data.

This report presents a detailed overview of the methodology for this survey 

and a discussion of its limitations. This report is technical and is 

designed for analysts working with the results of this survey and for 

survey statisticians interested in specific survey methodologies.

iii
CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction...................................................... 1

2. Development of the Questionnaire.................................. 3

3. Selection of Respondents.......................................... 7

Development of the Survey List.................................. 7

Development of the Coverage Check Sample........................ 22

Final Mailing List.............................................. 29

4. Survey Implementation............................................. 33

5. The Final Survey Frame and Survey Response........................ 35

Final Survey Frame.............................................. 35

Response to the Survey.......................................... 36

6. Adjustment for Nonresponse........................................ 39

Possible Sources of Nonresponse Error........................... 39

The Weighting Procedure......................................... 41

Accuracy of the Weighted Results................................ 44

7. Error Resolution.................................................. 47

8. Suppression of Confidential Information*.......................... 49

Appendixes

A. Questionnaire and Other Materials................................. 51

B. Federal Register Notices.......................................... 65

C. Letter from the Office of Management and Budget................... 69
FIGURES

Page

1. Flow Diagram of the Development of the Survey List and Coverage Check

Sample................................................................... 8

2. Hypothetical Comparison of First and Second Approximations of the

Projected Number of Large Combustors .................................... 15

3. Hypothetical Linear Relationships Between Establishment Size and Percent

of Matched Employment.................................................... 16

TABLES

1. Study Objectives Fulfilled by Each Question of Section I................. 4

2. Study Objectives Fulfilled by Each Question of Section II................ 5

3. Contributions of the Government-Held Lists to the Composite List......... 12

4. Decision Rules for the Calculation of the Adjustment Coefficients,

Cj[ and d^................................................................ 18

5. Results of Matching Selected D&B Records with Composite List for All

Combustor Size Classes with Nc^-s of 0.25 or More......................... 22

6. Distribution of Group A Establishments by Size Strata.................... 24

7. Allocation of Sample of 1,000, Assuming Leg 1 is Proportional

to Nc g................................................................... 25

8. Allocation of Sample of 1,000, Assuming Lcg " is Proportional

to TTgNg.................................................................. 26

9. Allocation of Sample of 1,000, Taking ng Proportional to Tr gNg. ........... 26

10. Final Sampling Fractions and Sample Sizes for the Strata or Group A...... 27

11. Distribution of Establishments with Nc-fj Values Less Than 0.25 by

S tratum.................................................................. 28

12. Proportional and Theoretical Optimum Sample Allocation and 

Comparative Variances, Establishments with Nc^j Values Less 

Than 0.25................................................................ 30

13. Comparison of Assigned and Theoretical Optimum Sample Allocations

for Establishments with NC-M Less Than 0.25.............................. 31

14. Components of the Final Mailing List..................................... 32

15. The Final Survey Frame by Source......................................... 36

16. Acceptable Response by Response Category and Source...................... 37

17. Classification of MFBI Establishments with Large Boilers

by EIA-463 Status........................................................ 39

18. MFBI Boilers by EIA-463 Status and Maximum Design

Firing Rate.............................................................. 40

19. Comparison of Distribution of Boilers from the MFBI Survey

and the EIA-463 Survey by Maximum Design Firing Rate..................... 41

20. Parameters of Distributions of Weighting Factors......................... 43

vi
1. INTRODUCTION

The original impetus for the 1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption 

Study and Survey of Large Combustors (EIA-463) came from the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended, which calls for the establishment 

of a National Energy Information System. This system, as envisioned by the 

legislation, would

"... contain such information as is required to provide a 

description of and facilitate analysis of energy supply and 

consumption within and affecting the United States on the basis 

of such geographic areas and economic sectors as may be 

appropriate.... 11 (15 USC 790a)

One of the original goals of this study, therefore, was to assemble a 

subset of information for the manufacturing subsector.

During the early planning stages of this study, discussions were held 

with several bureaus and agencies within the Federal Government to identify 

specific data needs. Among these were: the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Industrial Economics of the 

Department of Commerce; the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department 

of Labor; the General Accounting Office; the Environmental Protection 

Agency; the Solar Energy Research Institute; the Economic Regulatory 

Administration of the Department of Energy; and the Office of Technology 

Assessment of the U.S. Congress. During these meetings, EIA contacted 

the Office of Fuels Conversion (OFC) of the Economic Regulatory 

Administration (ERA) which was responsible for implementing the Powerplant 

and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), Public Law 95-620. This law 

requires the identification of combustors that could be feasibly converted 

to coal. In order to comply with this legislative responsibility, the 

OFC was planning to implement a survey which would update existing data 

on large combustors.^ The OFC data collection effort was to have 

covered "large combustors" defined as boilers, gas turbines, combined 

cycle units, and internal combustion engines with a maximum design firing 

rate of 50 million or more Btu-per-hour.

IA previous survey had been conducted in 1975 resulting in a data set 

known as the Major Fuel Burning Installation (MFBI) file. A description 

of this file is provided on page 10.
A major concern in any survey conducted by a Government agency is respondent 

burden. Every effort is made by an agency conducting such a survey to 

avoid overburdening respondents. Because many responding establishments 

would have been included in both the EIA and ERA studies and because a 

good deal of similar information would have been required, it was decided 

to combine these efforts in order to reduce overall respondent burden. 

The first major step was to develop a questionnaire which would satisfy 

the needs of all parties.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

As a result of the legislation which the study was to serve, the following 

study objectives were jointly established by EIA and ERA:

 Obtain information on the consumption of mineral

fuels, nonmineral energy resources, and electricity for 

the manufacturing sector.

 Gather information to allow for the equitable administration 

of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act.

 Gather information to aid in responding to a national or 

regional energy emergency.

 Allow for the resulting data base to be matched with Bureau 

of the Census data so the economic data could be integrated 

into the results of this study, thus creating an extensive data 

base at no increase in respondent burden.

 Gather information on alternative-fuel burning capabilities of 

large combustors.

 Develop estimates of the efficiencies of industrial boilers 

by boiler characteristics.

These study objectives required information not only on the establishments 

operating large combustors in the United States but also on the combustors 

themselves. The questionnaire which was finally developed was therefore 

in two sections: Section I which collected information at the establishment 

level and Section II which collected information on individual large com 

bustors within establishments. A copy of the final questionnaire is 

included in Appendix A.

The questionnaire was designed so that individual questions could 

simultaneously satisfy several of the study objectives or administrative 

needs. This approach had the ultimate effect of minimizing respondent 

burden while still meeting several varied program needs. Tables 1 and 2 

show the study objectives or administrative needs which each question 

met.
Table 1. Study Objectives Fulfilled by Each Question of Section I

Questions

Iden 

tifi 

cation Edits

Study Objectives

Indus 

trial 

Energy Consuption

Admin 

ister 

PIFUA

Emer 

gency 

Plan 

ning

Census 

Match

Alter 

native 

Energy 

Poten 

tial

Boiler 

Effi 

ciency

1. Physical Location................. o

2. Employer Identification Number....

3. Primary Standard Industrial Code.. o

4. Number of Paid Employees.......... —

5. Company Ownership................. o

6. Seasonal Operation................ —

7. Change in Ownership Status........ o

8. Acquired Fuels.................... —

9. Generated Fuels................... —

10. Electricity Consumed and

	Generated......................... —

11. Nontraditional Energy............. —

12. Steam Purchase/Sales.............. —

13. Steam Generation.................. —

14. Count of Combustors In-Scope...... —

15. Inventory of Other Combustors..... —

16. Contact........................... o

17. Disclosure........................

18. Certification..................... o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o 

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

Fulfilled
Table 2. Study Objectives Fulfilled by Each Question of Section II

Questions

Iden 

tifi 

cation Edits

Indus 

trial 

Energy 

Consuption

S t u dy Objectives

Admin 

ister 

PIFUA

Emer 

gency 

Plan 

ning

Census 

Match

Alter 

native 

Energy 

Poten 

tial

Boiler 

Effi 

ciency

1. Combustor Identification......... o

2. Combined Cycle Unit.............. o

3. Combustor Type................... o

4. Boiler Operation................. —

5. Shaft Power......................

6. Installation Year................ o

7. Combustor Design and Actual

Fuel Use.........................

8. Solid Fuel Specification.........

9. Maximum Design Firing Rate....... —

10. Usual Operating Firing Rate

and Range........................ —

11. Flue Gas.........................

12. Termination Instruction.......... —

13. Hours of Use.....................

14. Downtime......................... —

o 

o 

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o 

o

o = Fulfilled
3. SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS

To fulfill its requirements, the ERA specified that it wanted to obtain 

approximately 95 percent coverage of large combustors and the establish 

ments which operated them. Furthermore, the ERA required a high degree 

of assurance that this extent of coverage had been achieved. No single 

listing of establishments met these specifications so it was necessary 

to construct a frame for the survey.

In an effort to obtain this nearly complete coverage, the survey frame 

was developed from a number of existing Government-held lists which were 

supplemented by selected establishments from the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) 

file of manufacturing establishments.

To evaluate the extent of the coverage of this frame, a sample of 

establishments was selected from the unused portions of the D&B file. 

It was contemplated that if the coverage check sample indicated that the 

desired coverage of the population of large combustors had not been 

achieved, the survey would be extended. This section describes the 

methodologies involved in developing the survey list and the coverage 

check sample. Because of the complexity and interrelatedness of these 

procedures, a flow chart of major steps is presented in Figure 1 on 

page 8. The reader is encouraged to refer to this figure periodically.

Development of the Survey List

The population of interest for this survey included all manufacturing 

establishments having specified types of combustors (boilers, gas 

turbines, internal combustion engines, or combined cycle units) with a 

maximum design firing rate of 50 million or more Btu-per-hour. As noted, 

no single list was available which contained the names and addresses of 

such establishments. The survey list was, therefore, developed in two 

steps. First, a composite list of seven existing Government-held lists 

was assembled. Second, this composite list was supplemented by selected 

establishments from the D&B file.

The Composite List

The composite list was developed from an earlier (1975) list of 

establishments operating large combustors (the Major Fuel Burning 

Installation file) and six additional Government-heId lists. The six 

additional lists were selected because they identified various types of
Figure 1. Flow Diagram of the Development of the Survey List

and Coverage Check Sample

00

D & B File 

(409,700)

"Small" D & B I

Establishments I

(273,363)

"Large" D & B

Establishments

(136,337)

Early Planning 

(255)

List of Industries

with a High

Btu/Employee

Ratio. See Text

Coke Producers

"Moderate

Likelihood of

Large Combustor

(121,031)

"HighLikelihood of 

Large Combustor 

(2,828)

Low

Likelihood of

Large Combustor

(270,536)

Industry 

Match

Low

Likelihood of Large Combustor Large Combusto

Group C 

(272,500) Large Combustor "HighLikelihood of 

Large Combustor 

(16,169)

Composite 

Match

Duplicates 

(3,301)

Not

Duplicated 

(12,868)

GovernmentHeld List. 

See Text.

Direct Flow

Flow for Comparison

Survey

List 

(10,276)

Supplementary

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate 

the number of establishments 

resulting from any given step.
Figure 1. Flow Diagram of the Development of the Master List 

and Coverage Check Sample (Continued)

Stratum A1

0.80 < Ncjj < 0.99

(895)

Stratum A2 

0.50 < Ncjj < 0.79

(2,503)

Sample for

Stratum A1

(298)

Sample for

Stratum A2

(417)

Stratum 81

0.10 < NCJJ < 0.25

(11,684)

Stratum B2

Ncjj<0.10

(108,458)

Sample 

Selection 

See Text. 

F = 1/200

Sample for

Stratum A3

(296)

Sample for

Stratum B1

(59)

Stratum C1

0.051 < NCJJ < 0.25

(4,500)

Sample for

Stratum B2

(271)

Sample for

Stratum C1

(9)

Coverage

Check

Sample

(1,685)

Stratum C2

NCJJ < .051

(268.000)

Sample for

Stratum C2

(335)
establishments which were large fuel consumers and therefore would have 

been likely to have operated combustors of interest to this study. 

Because the Government lists were prepared for different needs and reflected 

different time periods, however, each list would likely contain three 

types of establishments:

 Those which were in-scope to this study and 

unique to a given list

 Those which were in-scope but duplicated elsewhere

• Those which were out-of-scope to this study.

These seven lists were sequentially merged and unduplicated to the extent that 

differences in names and other identifying information would permit. Establish 

ments with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes not in manufacturing^ 

were also excluded where possible. Similarly, where information about fuel 

consumption was available, establishments with an annual consumption of less 

than 100 billion Btu of fuel were excluded. This is the level of consumption 

that would be required by a 50-million Btu-per-hour combustor—the minimum 

size of interest—operated for 2,000 hours per year. This cut-off was low, 

but deliberately so, to try to assure the desired coverage of large combustors. 

In all, a composite list of 6,716 establishments was developed in this manner. 

The seven separate lists are described in the following paragraphs and the con 

tribution of each to the composite list is summarized in Table 3 on page 12. 

The lists are presented and discussed in the same order in which they were 

merged and unduplicated.

Major Fuel Burning Installations (MFBI). The Federal Energy Administration 

conducted the MFBI survey in 1975. The survey included fuel consumption 

data on boilers, burners, or other large combustors that consume at least 

100 million Btu-per-hour and the establishments that operated them. The 

primary purpose of this survey had been to identify large consumers of 

oil or natural gas that could be switched to coal.

Early Planning Process Evaluation (EPPE). In carrying out its responsiblities, 

the Department of Energy collects descriptive information on large boilers 

which are in the process of being built or are planned for construction or 

installation in the future. This listing was used next to add to the compo 

site list because it identified boilers installed or under construction during 

the 1974-77 period, most of which would not be included on the 1975 MFBI file.

Coke Producers. The Department of Energy prepares an annual listing of coke 

producing plants in the United States based on data secured from the Bureau 

of Mines Form 6-1370A and Department of Energy Forms EIA-5 and EIA-5A. It 

was assumed that the operations of each of the 64 plants included on the list 

would require a combustor having a maximum design firing rate of at least 

50 million Btu-per-hour.

manufacturing SIC codes are 19 through 39.

10
Large Coal Consumers. The Department of Energy obtains a monthly fuel con 

sumption report (EIA-3) from manufacturing plants which are large consumers 

of coal. The 1978 annual summary of these reports was next used to add to 

the survey list. All establishments consuming 4,000 or more tons of coal 

per year were considered to be likely candidates to have a large combustor.

Large Gas Consumers. The Department of Energy receives reports on large 

gas consumers (EIA-50) to assist in its analysis of alternative-fuel demand 

due to natural gas curtailment. The subset of this file consisting of 

consumers with a potential demand of at least 100 million cubic feet of 

gas per year^ were added to the file.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). In a pilot project by 

the Texas Regional Office of the Department of Energy and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to inform industry of the provisions of the Fuel 

Use Act relating to pollution-associated activities, EPA's 1977-79 permit 

applications were reviewed. Selected energy and pollution information 

were entered into a data base known as "the PSD file." The PSD file was 

valuable in two respects. First, many entries confirmed the active 

status of an MFBI entry. Second, it was a good source of leads to new 

or existing plants (non-MFBI) which may have increased their combustor 

capacity to the extent that they could have been eligible for inclusion 

in this survey.

National Emissions Data Systems (NEDS). The NEDS file is the largest 

single body of data dealing with pollution measurement control. It 

covers the period of 1972-75 and identifies combustors and other 

sources having a potential emission of over 100 tons per year of any of 

five criteria pollutants plus characteristics of combustors, such as 

the design firing rate or the type of combustor. Installations having 

combustors with a design firing rate of 50 million or more Btu-per-hour 

were considered for inclusion in the composite mailing list.

The composite list was developed by merging these seven lists one at a 

time and removing duplicate entries. The MFBI file was designated as 

the base list because it included those combustors which most closely 

resembled those of interest for this study. The MFBI file contributed 

2,817 establishments to the composite list. The remaining 3,918 establish 

ments were added sequentially from the other six lists. This particular 

order of matching affected only the number added from any given list; the 

total number of establishments was unaffected by order, however. A final 

check of this list yielded 19 duplicates resulting in a final composite 

list of 6,716 establishments.

is equivalent to a 50-million Btu combustor operating for 

2,000 hours per year on natural gas containing 1,000 Btu per 

cubic foot.

11
Table 3. Contributions of the Government-Held Lists to the Composite List

List Title 

(in order used)

Total

Establishments 

In List

Total

Establishments

Potentially 

In-Scope a

Number

of

Contri 

butions

Contributions

as Percent of

Potentially 

In-Scope

Major Fuel Burning

Installations.............. 3,500

Early Planning Process 

Evaluation................. 789

Coke Producers............. 64

Large Coal Consumers....... 824

Large Gas Consumers........ 3,651

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration.............. 1,561

National Emissions

Data System................ 4,251

Subtotal................. 14,640

Less Additional

Duplicates............... —

2,817

255

64

640

1,600

634

3,954

9,964

Final Composite List.

2,817

76

26

249

870

455

2,242

6,735

-19 

6,716

100.0

29.8

40.6

39.9

54.4

71.8

56.7

67.9

aRepresents the number of establishments remaining after the removal of 

various nonqualifying establishments (see text).

The Supplementary List

It was presumed that this composite list was incomplete and should be 

supplemented by other selected establishments. These supplementary 

establishments were selected from the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) file of 

409,700 establishments^ with primary SIC codes in manufacturing. This 

file also was used to develop the coverage check sample which is described 

in a subsequent section.

The D&B file contained estimated establishment employment and establishment 

SIC codes but did not contain information on fuel consumption or combustors. 

The initial task, therefore, was to convert the available D&B information 

to an approximate measure of fuel consumption at any given establishment

3 The original D&B file contained 470,000 establishments. Those 

which were classified as primarily engaged in a nonmanufacturing activity 

or as auxiliary establishments not performing manufacturing operations 

were excluded.

12
and, from this, to develop a "projected number of combustors." The strategies 

for developing the supplementary list and the coverage check sample were 

designed by analyzing a distribution of establishments by the projected 

number of combustors and the matches of these establishments to the 

composite list.

Imputation of the Projected Number of Combustors. The methodology for 

imputing the projected number of combustors can be conveniently described 

in three steps. The first step, or the initial approximation, resulted 

in an estimate based upon the ratio of Btu consumed per employee by industry. 

The second step resulted in a modification of these estimates for differences 

by industry and size of establishment. The third step resulted in additional 

fine-tuning based upon confidence in the results of step two.

The initial approximation of the projected number of combustors was developed 

by first estimating the total fuel consumption (in Btu) for any given 

D&B establishment and then converting this consumption to a projected 

number of 50-million Btu-per-hour combustors. Fuel consumption was 

estimated by multiplying the establishment employment by annual Btu per 

employee derived from the 1976 Annual Survey of Manufactures.^ These 

estimates were prepared at the four-digit SIC level of detail.5

In converting these Btu estimates to projected numbers of large combustors, 

it was assumed that such a combustor would operate for 6,000 hours per year 

(three shifts a day, 5 days a week, for 50 weeks per year). These 

estimates were prepared using the equation:

Nc ij' = r iE ij / k

where: Nc^j ' = the projected number of 50-million Btu-per-hour

combustors in the j tn establishment of the 

industry;

^Estimates of the consumption of purchased fuels by industry were 

taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual 

Survey of Manufactures "Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed," Publication 

No. M76(AS)-4.1. These Btu estimates included only purchased fuel used 

for heat, power, and light. The estimates excluded feedstocks, electricity, 

and energy from other sources, whether purchased or not. Employment 

estimates for industries were taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures, "General Statistics 

for Industry Groups and Industries," Publication No. M76(AS)-1. Statistics 

for the year 1976 were the most recent available at the time these estimates 

were prepared.

^The SIC codes are hierarchical in nature. For example, SIC 20 includes 

establishments primarily engaged in the production of Food and Kindred Products. 

SIC 201 includes establishments manufacturing Meat Products and SIC 2011 

includes only Meat Packing plants.

13
r^ = the ratio of fuels consumed to employment 

for the itn four-digit SIC manufacturing 

industry from the 1976 Annual Survey of 

Manufactures;

E.JJ = D&B estimated employment of the j^

establishment of the itn industry; and

k = a scaling factor representing the Btu

consumption of a 50-million Btu-per-hour 

combustor operated for 6,000 hours per year, 

i.e., 3 x 1011 Btu.

The initial projections (Nc^^*) given by equation (1) can be interpreted 

as estimates of the expected or average number of large combustors per 

establishment. Because some fuel is consumed in nonqualifying combustors, 

(i.e. less than 50 million Btu-per-hour) the Nc^j' would be too high 

on the average, but might be considered more or less proportional to the 

actual average number of large combustors.

This initial approximation did not include two important factors. First, 

the relationship between fuel consumption and large combustors varies among 

industries. For example, the food processing industry consumes large 

quantities of fuels, but a high incidence of large combustors does not appear 

in that industry. Second, the assumption that the projected number of 

large combustors is a linear function of employment is probably an over 

simplification, especially with respect to smaller and midsize establishments. 

In general, large establishments would tend to have larger combustors 

than their smaller counterparts. Therefore, it was necessary to modify 

the initial estimates to account for these two factors, i.e., to develop 

a methodology which would assign relatively higher projected numbers of 

large combustors to the establishments in the industries and size classes 

that are more prone to use large combustors.

Essentially, this meant developing a second-degree equation for each 

industry of the form

Nc.." = (a.E.. + bi Ei?.)/k (2)

where: a^ and b^ are the necessary coefficients to account for increasing 

numbers of combustors within certain industries and size classes.

The effect of introducing such an adjustment is hypothetically illustrated 

in Figure 2 on the next page.

Prior to developing such second-degree equations, however, it was first 

necessary to identify those industries and size classes that would be more

prone than average to use large combustors. This was done by attempting 

to match the establishments in the composite list with a selected list 

of large D&B establishments. It was reasoned that the match rates 

within any given industry would be indicative of the overall incidence

14
Figure 2: Hypothetical Comparison of First and Second Approximations of 

the Projected Number of Large Combustors.

	tn ij l-j

V O

,£> u

e to •3 3

* a

^ o

a a)

0) 60

Equation (2)

Equation (1)

Employment

of large combustors within that industry. The rationale is that the 

composite list primarily included those establishments likely to have a 

large combustor while the specially constructed D&B list" included large 

establishments without regard to the use or nonuse of large combustors. 

Match rates between the two lists should therefore have been fairly high 

in industries which were well-represented in the composite list, thus 

indicating an overall higher incidence of large combustors. Conversely, 

low match rates would be expected in those industries not well-represented in 

the composite list, which would be indicative of an overall lower incidence 

of large combustors.

Similarly, it was reasoned that the match rates by employment size within 

industries would be indicative of the relation between employment and 

the incidence of large combustors for that industry. Five employment 

size classes were used: 20 through 49 (imputed employment = 32); 50 through

"For each four-digit SIC industry, the D&B establishments were arrayed in 

descending order of employment. Establishments were selected from these 

arrays until their number reached one and one-half times the number of 

establishments in the corresponding industry of the composite list. It 

was further stipulated, however, that no fewer than five D&B establishments 

be selected within an industry.

15
99 (imputed employment =70); 100 through 499 (imputed employment = 260); 

500 through 999 (imputed employment = 700); and 1,000 or more (imputed 

employment = 1,600). It follows that match rates should decline as establish 

ment size (measured by total employment) decreases. Assuming a linear 

relationship between establishment size and percent of matched employment 

leads to a series of functions, three of which are depicted hypothetically 

in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Hypothetical Linear Relationships Between Establishment Size 

and Percent of Matched Employment

d

0)

S

M-l >, 

O O

rH 

4-1 Gu d a <u w o

<u cu PL, ^3 O

Industry C

Industry B

Industry A

Establishment Size

For each of these hypothetical functions, the intercept indicates the 

increased likelihood of an entire industry having a higher-than-average 

incidence of large combustors. The slope of these functions indicates the 

extent to which the incidence of large combustors increases as employment size increases.

In this example,

• Industry A displays no overall increased tendency toward 

a higher-than-average incidence of combustors. The 

slightly positive slope of A indicates that there is a 

tendency to concentrate what large combustors there are 

in the larger establishments. (Intercept equals 0; slope 

is greater than 0.)

• Industry B does have an overall higher-than-average

incidence of combustors but there is no apparent tendency 

to concentrate them in the larger establishments. This 

example is unlikely but is included for illustrative 

purposes. (Intercept is greater than 0; slope equals 0.)

16
• Industry C has an overall higher-than-average incidence 

of combustors and there is also a tendency to concentrate 

them in the larger establishments. (Intercept is greater 

than 0; slope is greater than 0.)

Following this argument, linear functions were developed for each industry 

with employment size class as the independent variable and percent of 

matched employment as the dependent variable. Because of the small 

number of observations, no attempt was made to fit these functions by 

the method of least squares; rather, two points were defined by several 

approaches including modified methods of semi-averages and the linear 

function was extrapolated from these two points. Once the function had 

been thus determined, its intercept (c^) and its slope (d^) were calculated 

and used to adjust the first approximation of the projected number of 

large combustors. The decision rules and rationales for fitting these 

functions and the methods of calculating the slope and intercept coefficients 

are presented in Table 4.

The next step was to factor these adjustments into the equation for the 

initial approximation of the projected number of combustors (Nc^j 1 ), 

previously presented in equation (1). The aim was to modify this initial 

approximation by a factor which reflects the different likelihood that 

establishments with a given calculated fuel consumption would have large 

combustors depending on their industry classification and employment 

size. Letting this overall adjustment factor be represented as F^j 

and applying it to equation (1), yielded

(1 + Fi^Ncij 1 = (1 + Fij )(ri Ei .j/k) (3) 

or,

NCij " = (1 + FijXriEij/k). (4)

It should now be recalled that in the linear functions previously defined 

(see examples in Figure 3), the intercept is the increase in the percent 

of total matched employment when establishment size is at a minimum. It 

can be reasoned that the overall number of projected combustors in this 

industry should be increased by a like percentage. Similarly, the slope 

reflects the increase in the percent of matched employment given an 

increase in employment size class. By the same reasoning as with the 

intercept, the slope should also be factored into the first approximation 

of the projected number of combustors. Setting the overall adjustment 

factor (FjO equal to these linear equations (F^j = c-^ + d-^E^j) and 

substituting into equation (4),

^j + c.^E.. + d.r.E?.]

ri + c i ri )Eij + d^E^]. (5) 

This is the second-degree equation that was originally sought.

17
Table 4. Decision Rules for the Calculation of the Adjustment Coefficients, 

c and d

Situation Coefficients Rationale

No matches between 

composite list and 

selected D&B 

records. Only five 

establishments 

compared.

The minimum number of 

records (5) were 

compared indicating 

that a small number of 

establishments are 

classified in this 

industry. Additional 

searching would not be 

likely to yield a match.

No matches between 

composite list and 

selected D&B 

records. More than 

five establishments 

compared.

c^ and d± determined 

from the points [0,0] 

and [1600, 0.5(Y+1)] 

where Y = number 

of records searched.

More than the minimum 

number of records were 

compared indicating that 

this industry includes a 

fairly large number of 

establishments. Had one 

more record been searched 

(Y+l), the probability of 

a match would have been 

0.5. The match, had it 

been found, would have a 

high probability of occur 

ring in a large establish 

ment (employment of 1,600 

arbitrarily assigned.)

Matches found in 

only two of the 

five employment 

size classes.

c^ and d-[ determined 

from the points [X]_, 

Y!] and [X2 , Y 2 ] where 

KI and X2 are the mid 

points of the employ 

ment size classes 

yielding matches and Y]_ 

and Y 2 are the percents 

of matched employment.

Simple linear extrapolation 

of points. Assumes matches 

would be found in the other 

three classes.

(Continued on next page.)

18
Table 4. Decision Rules for the Calculation of the Adjustment Coefficients, 

C£ and d£ (Continued)

Situation Coefficients Rationale

Matches found in 

three employment 

size classes.

C£ and dj_ determined 

from the points

X2 )/2, 

+ Y2 )/2] and

X3 )/2,

Y3 )/2]

[(X2 

(Y2

with X's and Y's 

defined as above.

Modified method of semiaverages with simple 

linear extrapolation of 

two derived points. 

Assumes matches would be 

found in other two size 

classes.

Matches found in 

four employment 

size classes.

c^ and d^ determined 

from the points

+ X2 )/2,

+ Y2 )/2] and 

[(X3 + X4)/2,

(Y3 + Y4>/2] where 

X^ and X2 are the mid 

points of the two 

smaller employment size 

classes and X3 and X4 

are the large classes. 

The values of Y^ - Y4 are 

the corresponding percents 

of matched employment.

Method of semi-averages 

with simple linear 

extrapolation of two 

derived points. Assumes 

matches would be found 

in other size class.

Matches found in 

all five emp 

loyment classes.

C£ and

the points 

X2 

Y2

[(X3

determined from

X3 )/3, 

Y3 )/3] 

X5 )/3, 

Y5 )/3]

and

Modified method of semiaverages with simple 

linear extrapolation of 

two derived points.

(Y3 + Y4 

with X's and Y's defined 

as above.

19
Confidence in the adjustment factor, F^ j , increased as the total number 

of cases searched increased. It was therefore decided that the final 

imputation of the projected number of large combustors for each establish 

ment would be a weighted average of the initial approximation, 

and the second approximation, Nc^". That is,

Nc 1:j = WiCNc-t-j") + (1 - WiXNcij') (6)

where: W^ = Sj_ / (5 + S^) and Sj is the total number of records 

searched in the ith industry and at least 5 records 

were searched for every industry.

This weighting procedure gave equal weight (0.5) to Nc^j' when the 

number of records searched equaled 5. As Sj increased, W^ approached 

unity and (1 - Wj) approached zero, reflecting increased confidence in 

the second approximation for greater numbers of records searched.

Substitution of equations (1) and (5) into equation (6) yielded

+ [(1 - WiXRjEij)] (7) 

where: R^ = r-j/k. 

This simplified to:

NC;Lj = (WiCl + DRj^j + WiRi diE2.. (8) 

and its computational version,

Nc.. = 0^+0^.. (9)

It is convenient to refer to the Nc-j^ defined by equation (9) as the 

imputed expected number of large combustors at a given D&B establishment.' 

However, as in the case of the first approximation, Nc^j', the Nc-ji 

were comparative measures, taken to be roughly proportional to each 

establishment's expected number of large combustors. Although quite 

rough, these size measures were useful in choosing the supplementary 

establishments for the survey and in designing the coverage check 

sample.

Identification of the Supplementary Establishments. A preliminary analysis 

of annual Btu per employee within four-digit SIC and of distributions of 

these establishments by industry and employment size class" suggested 

that a survey list of 10,000 establishments would provide the desired

'Note that the scaling factor, k, is not shown explicitly in equation (9) 

as it is in equation (2). It is included in the alpha (a) and beta (g) 

coefficients, however.

°See the previous discussion of the development of the first approximation 

of the projected number of combustors on page 13.

20
coverage of large combustors. The survey budget tentatively provided 

for a canvass of approximately 12,000 establishments. Deducting the 

6,716 establishments in the composite list and the 2,000 allocated to 

the coverage check sample, a supplementary list of 3,300 establishments 

could be compiled from the D&B list. It was expected that adding the 

3,300 nonduplicating establishments (with respect to the composite 

list) with the largest Nc-ji values would achieve the desired coverage 

of large combustors in the survey. Having isolated these supplementary 

establishments, the size distribution of the remaining D&B establishments 

then could be analyzed for the purposes of designing the coverage check 

sample. The next steps, therefore, were to compute the Nc^^ as described 

in the previous section and to determine which D&B establishments with 

large values were not in the composite list.

Because the size of the D&B file (409,700) made it operationally unwieldly, 

it was divided into a number of subclasses (see Figure 1) for purposes 

of computing the Nc-ji and subsequent processing. The initial division 

was by two employment size classes: 20 or more employees, 136,337 estab 

lishments, and less than 20 employees, 273,363 establishments. The 

break at 20 employees was chosen on the premise that few of the smaller 

establishments would be assigned appreciable values of NC-M. The 

algorithm, equation (9), was applied first to the large employment group 

of D&B establishments. A review of the distribution of establishments' 

NC^-J values showed that an Nc^j equal to or greater than 0.25 was 

assigned to 15,306 of those establishments. This file was considered 

manageable for manual matching to the composite list to remove duplicates.

The establishments in the less-than-20 employment group would have an Nc^j 

value equal to or greater than 0.25 only if they were located in those 

four-digit SIC groups for which the a^ and 3^ parameters of equation (9) 

satisfied the condition:

(04X19) + (g i )(19) 2 > 0.25 (10)

This condition was satisfied by only 26 of the 470 four-digit SIC groups. 

These 26 industries contained a total of 2,828 establishments. Nc-ji 

values were calculated for each of these establishments and 863 had a 

value of 0.25 or more.

These 863 establishments, along with the 15,306 from the large employment 

group, were manually unduplicated against the composite list. The results 

of this unduplicating process are presented in Table 5. Of the 12,868 

establishments which were not matched, 3,560 had an NC.JJ of 1.00 or 

more. These 3,560 establishments together with 6,716 or the composite 

list, yielded a total survey mailing list of 10,276 establishments.

21
Table 5. Results of Matching Selected D&B Records with the Composite 

List for all Combustor Size Classes with an NC-M of 0.25 or 

More.

Number of Establishments Proportion of 

NC Class Total Unmatched Matched Total Matched

7.00-9.99...........

5.00-6.99. ..........

3.00-3.99...........

2.00-2.99...........

1.50-1.99...........

1.00-1.49...........

0.80-0.99...........

0.50-0.79...........

0.25-0.49...........

.... 1,034

.... 474

559

982

.... 917

... 1,372

,... 1,044

2

Q O O

.... 6,268

280

145

209

160

337

634

682

1,113

895

2,503

5,910

754

250

265

132

222

348

235

259

149

329

358

0.729

0.633

0.559

0.452

0.397

0.354

0.256

0.189

0.143

0.116

0.057

Total.................. 16,169 12,868 3,301 0.204

Development of the Coverage Check Sample

While the procedures for developing the survey list were designed to 

provide a high degree of coverage of large combustors, they could not 

ensure that this objective would be attained. Therefore, a check of the 

coverage actually achieved had been contemplated from the inception of 

the project. The coverage check would serve two specific aims:

• To provide an estimate of how well the final survey 

list covered the target universe; and

• To provide guidance regarding any further action 

that might be needed to improve the coverage.

The first of these aims recognizes that the completeness of coverage is 

an important measure of a survey's quality, and that providing an estimate 

of completeness is good statistical practice. The second aim recognizes 

that if there are coverage deficiencies, action may be needed to correct 

them. The kind of action that would be appropriate would differ, depending 

on how the undercoverage is distributed and its depth. Although the two 

aims are related, they are to some extent competitive because they called 

for different strategies in designing the coverage check sample. These 

competing strategies and their reconciliation are discussed in the following 

pages.

22
Initial Allocation of the Sample

The sampling frame for the coverage check sample was the residual D&B 

list of 402,839 manufacturing establishments which remained after the 

3,301 matched to the composite list and the 3,560 chosen to supplement 

it had been removed from the original D&B list of 409,700 establishments. 

Incidental to the earlier operations, the residual D&B list had been 

divided into the three groups:

Group A: 9,308 establishments with an NC-M in the 

range 0.25 - 0.99.

Group B: 120,142 establishments with an NC-M of less 

than 0.25, and with 20 or more employees.

Group C: 272,500 establishments with an NC-JJ of less 

than 0.25, and with fewer than 20 employees.

The establishments in Group A were much more likely to have large combustors 

than the establishments in Groups B and C. From this point of view, it was 

desirable to emphasize Group A in designing the coverage check sample. 

However, for estimating the overall coverage, it was desirable to allocate 

most of the coverage check sample to Groups B and C because of their 

high frequencies.

As previously mentioned, the survey budget provided for 12,000 establishments

for the survey and the coverage check sample combined. The master survey

list already contained 10,276 establishments so that a total coverage

check sample of approximately 1,700 could be selected. Under some reasonable

speculations regarding the allocation that would be optimum for the

overall estimate, about 250 establishments would have been allocated to

Group A and the remaining 1,450 or so to Groups B and C combined. But a

sample of 250 would not provide subgroup estimates of sufficient reliability

to identify any serious pockets of undercoverage that might exist in

Group A. Determining whether there were such pockets, and if so, identifying

them in terms of their characteristics—size, industry, or geographic

location—was a prerequisite for any coverage improvement program.

Increasing the sample from Group A to about 1,000 establishments would

afford a possibility of meeting the objective. Although the standard

error of the speculated optimum overall estimate would increase by 30 to

40 percent, it was felt that the additional information gained for Group A

would more than offset the loss. Larger shifts would not increase the

precision of the Group A estimates by much, and would seriously inflate

the standard error of the overall estimate. Accordingly, 1,000 establishments

were provisionally allocated to Group A, with about 700 being reserved for

Groups B and C combined.

Allocation to Detailed Strata

These broad groups were further stratified by size for the purpose of 

selecting the sample. Separate methodologies for allocation to the 

strata were applied to Groups A and B/C.

23
Group A. The establishments of Group A were divided into three size 

strata, according to their values of Nc^, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Distribution of Group A Establishments by Size Strata

Strata

Al: 

A2: 

A3:

0. 

0. 

0.

To

80 < NC-M < 0.99.......

50 < NC-M < 0.79.......

25 < NCi j < 0.49....... 

tal....................

Number of 

Establish 

ments

2

.... 5,

.... 9.

895 

503 

910

308

Projected Number 

of Large Combustors

Total 

(Ncg)*

800 

1,569 

2,053

4.422

Mean 

(Nc g )

0. 

0. 

0.

0.

89 

63 

35

48

Nc represents the total of the Nc. . for stratum g.

This stratification indicated that different actions to correct coverage 

deficiencies might be appropriate for different size groups. For example, 

the establishments with NC-JJ values close to unity were more likely to 

have unacceptably high undercoverage rates than establishments with 

moderate or small Nc^i values. If necessary, a supplementary survey 

to complete the coverage of the narrowly defined first stratum (Al) 

would be feasible. A complete survey of the smaller size classes might 

be unduly expensive relative to their undercoverage rates. However, a 

selective survey of particularly suspect establishments might be indicated,

The concept that the undercoverage rate was related to size also provided 

a basis for allocating the sample to the three strata. Assuming that 

nearly all establishments with Nc-ji values less than unity have either 

no large combustors or only one, their Nc^-j may be considered indices 

of the probabilities that those establishments have a large combustor.

For a given stratum, g, then, the probability that an establishment has 

a large combustor, P(Lcg')» would be more or less proportional to the 

mean stratum size, Nc , i.e.

o

P(Lc '

o

s(Nc

o

(12)

where: s = a proportionality constant*

The total number of establishments with large combustors, Lcg ', would 

be given approximately by

Lcg ' - s(Nc g )(Ng ) = k(Nc g ) (13)

where: Ng = the total number of establishments in stratum g.
Allocating the total sample of n = 1,000 establishments proportionally 

to the Leg' gave

ng = (sNcg/ZgsNcg )(l,000) = (Ncg /Z gNcg )(l t OOO) (14)

(for the proportionality constant, s, cancelled out), and yielded 

the distribution shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Allocation of Sample of 1,000, Assuming Lcg ' is 

Proportional to Nc

Str«

Al: 

A2: 

A3:

ita

0.80 < Nc 

0.50 < Nc 

0.25 < Nc

Ng

;i j < 0.99.... 895 

: t j < 0.79.... 2,503 

:<* < 0.49. ... 5,910

J

............. 9,308

Nc eo

800 

1,569 

2,053

U 452

ng

181 

355

464

1,000

f g - ng/Ng

0.202 

0.142 

0.079

0.107

The results of matching the D&B list against the composite list provided an 

alternative basis for determining the sample allocation. Recall that 

such matching had been attempted for the 16,169 D&B establishments with 

an NC^J greater than or equal to 0.25. That operation yielded 3,301 

matches. The results, by Nc-fj classes, were shown in Table 5.

It was reasonable to assume that the proportion of each class total that 

had been matched (ir g ) indicated, roughly, the probability that an 

establishment in that class had a large combustor. Assuming further 

that the probabilities were about the same for matched and unmatched 

establishments in each class gave the relation

* 

P(Lc g ") - s"ir g (15)

which, in turn, gave

Leg" « s"ifgNg (16)

as the expected number of unmatched establishments with large combustors. 

The sample allocation for the three strata of Group A then was computed 

as

ng = (ifgNg/IgirgNg) (1,000) (17) 

with the results presented in Table 8.

25
Table 8. Allocation of Sample of 1,000 Assuming Lc2 " is Proportional

. - T O

tO TT 0 N 0

Strata

Al: 

A2: 

A3:

0. 

0. 

0.

To

80 < 

50 < 

25 <

f fll

N g

NC I:J < 0.99.... 895 

Ncij < 0.79.... 2,503 

Nc^ < 0.49. ... 5,910

................ 9,308

TT

0.

0. 

0.

0.

g

143 

116 

057

081

TTgN

128 

290 

336

755

g

.0 

.3 

.9

.2

ng

170 

384 

446

1,000

fg =

0. 

0. 

0.

0.

ng/Ng

190 

153 

075

107

A comparison of Tables 7 and 8 indicates that the two methods produced very 

similar allocations to the strata.

In view of the fact that the coverage of large combustors could be improved 

as well as evaluated by this sample, it was decided to adjust the allocation 

to emphasize the strata with the highest likelihood of having a large combustor, i.e., the two strata with an NCJJ greater than 0.50. This was accom 

plished by allocating the sample to the strata proportional to Tr gNc g . 

These allocations are shown in Table 9 and were calculated by the formula:

ng = (IT gNcg /Z gTT gNcg ) (1,000). (18) 

Table 9. Allocation of Sample of 1,000, Taking ng Proportional

to ir BNc B o o

Strata

Al: 

A2: 

A3:

The

0.80 < Ncij < 0.99. 

0.50 < Nc-ji < 0.79. 

0.25 < Nc£j < 0.49.

Total. .............

sampling fractions,

"g

. 0.143 

. 0.116 

. 0.057

. 0.081

fg. 8.9

Nc g

800 

1,569 

2,053

4,422

derived, then

,g»c

114. 

182. 

117.

413.

were

g n g

4 277 

0 440 

0 283

4 1,000

converted

N g

895 

2,503 

5,910

9,308

f g=ng/Ng

0.309 

0.176 

0.048

0.107

to convenient

integral sampling fractions, fg , and then final samples, ng , were 

selected. These fractions and sample sizes are presented in Table 10.

26
Table 10. Final Sampling Fractions and Sample Size for the 

Strata of Group A

Strata

Al: 0.80 <

A 9 . n c;n <;

A3: 0.25 <

Nc • < 0 99

Ncij < 0.79.....

Nc< 4 < 0.49. ....

N8

895

2,503

5.910

f g

0.309

0.176

0.048

*8

1/3

1/6

1/20

n g

277

440

283

"8

298

417

296

Total.................... 9,308 0.107 0.109 1,000 1,011

Group B/C. The budget for the coverage check sample allowed for a maximum

of 689 establishments to be selected from Group B/C (1,700 less than

1,011 selected from Group A). The total number of establishments in

Group B/C was quite large. It included 392,642 establishments —

120,142 with 20 or more employees and 272,500 with less than 20 employees.

Because of its large size, stratifying it by the two employment size classes,

and within these, by Nc^-s values, appeared desirable.

The distribution by Nc^-s values was available for the larger employment 

group. It was not available, however, for the less-than-20 employee group, 

because the NC^J values had not been assigned to the bulk of those establish 

ments. For the joint purposes of estimating the distribution and producing 

a frame from which a final sample could be drawn, a systematic random 

sample of 545 establishments (1/500) was selected. This sample then was 

poststratified into the two size groups: establishments with NCJJ 

values of 0.05 or less and those with larger Nc-^j values. The 20-or-more 

employee group similarly was divided into two strata: one which included 

all establishments with NC-M values less than 0.10 and one which included 

the remaining establishments. The resulting stratum frequencies, Ng, and 

corresponding projected numbers of large combustors, Nc g , are shown in 

Table 11 on the next page.

The next step was to allocate the sample of n = 689 establishments to the 

four strata. This was done by examining a proportional and theoretically 

optimum allocation, and striking a compromise between those two methods.

The proportional allocation method distributed the sample according to the 

known (or estimated) total number of establishments in each stratum, Ng , i.e., 

by the formula

mg = (n)(Ng /I gNg ). (19)

The theoretically optimum allocation method distributed the sample, instead, 

by the formula

fcg = (n)(NgNCg- /2 /£ gNgi3c g /2 ). (20)

27
Table 11. Distribution of Establishments with Nc-y Values 

Less than 0.25 By Stratum

Strata

Number of Projected Number of

Establishments Large Combustors

(Ng ) (Ncg )

Mean Per 

Establishment

Employment of 20 or more 

Bl: 0.10 < NC-M < 0.25....

B2: Nc^ < 0.10. ..........

Employment of less than 20 

Cl: 0.05 < Nc,. < 0.25.... 

C2: Nc, , < 0.03...........

11,684 

108,458

4,500a 

268.000a

1,880 

2,667

345a 

736 a

0.1609 

0.0246

0.0767 

0.0028

Total................... 392,642 5,628 0.0143

aEstimated from sample.

This theoretically optimum allocation had the following rationale. Under 

stratified random sampling, the ordinary linear unbiased estimate of the 

total number of establishments having large combustors would be

Lc' = I g (Ng/ng )lcg

where: Ng and ng are, respectively, the total and sample numbers of 

establishments and lcg is the sample number with large combustors for 

each stratum, g. The corresponding variance of Lc 1 would be

(21)

Var(Lc') - ng )/(Ng - Dng ](Pg - P)

where: Pg = Lg / Ng , the proportion of the establishments in stratum 

g that have large combustors. Assigning the ng such that

- p) 1/2 j

g

would minimize Var(Lc). When the Pg are small, as expected here, the 

approximation

g

(n)(NgPg/ 2 )/Wg/ 2

(22)

(23)

(24)

is highly satisfactory. Assuming that almost none of the establishments 

would have more than one large combustor (as was done for Group A), the 

mean projected number of large combustors per stratum, Nc , could be 

taken as roughly proportional to the P . Substituting N"c for P in 

equation (24) yielded

(25)

which is the same as equation (20).

28
Table 12 on page 30 shows the sample allocations, m^ and tiL, for these two 

methods, and their comparative variances under the assumption that the 

Nc are satisfactory proxies for the P . The variance resulting from 

the theoretical optimum allocation approach was 64 percent of that produced 

by proportional allocation indicating that the optimum allocation was 

substantially better than proportional sampling, provided that the assumed 

relationship, P = sNc , was valid.

o o

The validity of this assumption was not known, however. If it were 

seriously in error, the allocation based on it could lead to poorer 

results than simple random sampling. Proportional sampling, on the 

other hand, seldom produces poorer results than random sampling. As a 

compromise which would afford protection against any gross disparities 

between the assumed and actual relations, the theoretical optimum and 

proportional sample sizes were averaged, and convenient sampling fractions 

corresponding approximately to those average sample sizes were assigned. 

The results are shown in Table 13 on page 31. As the comparative total 

variances indicate, the conservative shift toward proportional sampling 

increased the variance over that of the theoretical optimum design by 

merely 6 percent.

The totals in Table 13 are smaller than the corresponding totals in

Table 12 because of the use of the convenient assigned sampling fractions.

Final Mailing List

The 674 selected establishments with Nc^^ less than 0.25 along with the 

1,011 selected from the group with an Nc^j in the range of 0.25 - 1.00 

yielded a total sample of 1,685 establishments for the coverage check 

sample. Together with the 10,276 establishments in the survey list, 

they gave a combined total of 11,961 establiohments to which question 

naires were mailed. The complete mailing list is summarized in Table 14 

on page 32.

29
Table 12. Proportional and Theoretically Optimum Sample Allocation and Comparative Variances, 

Establishments with Nc-y Values less than 0.25.

LO

o

Total number of 

Establishments 

Strata

Employment of 20 or more 

Bl: 0.10 < NC-M < 0.25...

B2: NC-JJ < 0.10. .........

Employment of less than 20 

Cl: 0.05 < Nc t j < 0.25...

C2: Ncij < 0.05..........

11,684 

108,458

4,500 

268,000

392.642

Sample Allocation

Proportional

21 

190

8 

470

689

Comparative Variances

Theoretically Proportional 

Optimum

87 

317

23 

262

689

876,172 

1,482,962

178,977 

410,772

2.948.883

Theoretically 

Optimum

210,293 

887,799

62,045 

737,454

1.897.591
Table 13. Comparison of Assigned and Theoretical Optimum Sample Allocations, 

Establishments with NC Values Less Than 0.25

Strata

Employment of 20 or more 

Bl: 0.10 < NC-M < 0.25....

B2: Ncjj < 0.10...........

Employment of less than 20 

Cl: 0.05 < NC-M < 0.25. ... 

C2: Nc-r-; < 0.05...........

Assigned 

Sampling 

Fraction

1/200 

1/400

1/500 

1/800

Sample Number

Assigned

59

271

9 

335

Theoretically 

Optimum

85 

310

23 

256

Comparative Variance

Assigned

310,841 

1,038,937

159,055 

556.598

Theoretically 

Optimum

215,278 

907,905

62,045 

754.755

Total................... 0.00172 674 674 2,065,431 1,939,983
Table 14. Components of the Final Mailing List

Number 

Source______________________Contributed____________Percent

Composite List.................... 6,716 56.1

Supplementary List................ 3,560 29.8

Subtotal—Survey List........... 10,276 85.9

Coverage Check Sample............. 1,685 14.1

Total—Final Mailing List..... 11,961 100.0

32
4. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

In order not to disrupt the normal business operations of the respondents, 

the establishments on the final mailing list were sorted by parent 

corporation. Each corporation or company which was identified as having 

more than one establishment on the list was contacted by telephone to 

determine whether they preferred to coordinate all reporting for that company 

through one centralized location or have each establishment contacted 

separately. In every instance, these multi-establishment corporations 

chose to have all reporting done through a central office contact. This 

accounted for approximately two-thirds of the establishments on the 

final mailing list.

Mailing began on November 17, 1980, and continued for 3 weeks. Each 

establishment received a letter from the Administrator of EIA, a glossary 

of terms, one copy of Section I of the questionnaire, which collected 

information on establishment energy use, and five copies of Section 

II, which collected information on the individual large combustors at 

the establishment.^ (See Appendix A.) Respondents were asked to return 

the completed forms within 20 calendar days.

A notice (see Appendix B) was placed in the Federal Register (November 24, 

1980, page 77507) stating the forms had been mailed and that establishments 

which fell within the scope of the study and did not receive forms were 

required to contact the survey control office for inclusion in the study. 

The instructions and the Federal Register notice contained a toll-free 

"800" telephone number where inquiries regarding the study could be 

made. This resulted in establishments being added to the original mailing 

list.

Two weeks after the initial mailing, a postcard was sent to each 

establishment on the mailing list advising that the response would be 

due in 10 days. During the last week in January, a follow-up letter 

was mailed to establishments and parent companies which had not asked 

for an extension advising that their report was now overdue. Both of 

these notices generated requests for additional time.

A great many calls were received in the early part of the study^ requesting 

additional time to complete the form. It was common practice to grant

^Respondent consultations led to the conclusion that 5 copies would 

be adequate for 90 to 95 percent of the reporting establishments.

^Between December 1980 and the end of February 1981, approximately 

2,600 calls were received. The nature of the calls changed over time. 

Initially, there were inquiries concerning who had to report and why, 

as well as requests for time extensions for reporting. Subsequently, 

the calls dealt with problems the respondent was having with specific 

questions—clarifying definitions and intent.

33
such requests and, because of the volume of the calls, it was decided to 

publicize this practice. As a result, a notice was placed in the 

December 31, 1980, Federal Register (page 86531) advising that any 

reasonable request for an extension would be granted (see Appendix B).

Requests for extensions were received primarily from those corporations 

having several establishments which were required to report. Most 

respondents requested an additional 4 to 6 weeks because the forms had 

arrived at the establishment during the holiday season between Thanksgiving 

to New Years when a large number of the people who would be completing 

them were on vacation.

On February 20, 1981, the Secretary of Energy received a letter (see 

Appendix C) from the Office of Management and Budget advising that EIA's 

data collection authority for the study had been withdrawn. At that 

point, all data collection activity was terminated including subsequent 

follow-up for error resolution on specific responses. A notice (see 

Appendix B) appeared in the Federal Register on March 5, 1981, (page 

15312) advising that the study had been cancelled.

34
5. THE FINAL SURVEY FRAME AND SURVEY RESPONSE

As described previously, this study was originally designed to collect 

fuel consumption characteristics and other information on all large 

combustors and the establishments which operated them. As a result of 

the withdrawal of authority for this survey, the original goal of obtaining 

a complete census was not achieved.

This section of the methodology report examines response and nonresponse 

to the survey. Subsequent sections address methods of error resolution, 

nonresponse adjustments and bias, and confidentiality procedures—issues 

which are central to the use and interpretation of the data.

Final Survey Frame

Questionnaires were mailed to a total of 12,369 establishments: 10,276 

on the survey list, 1,685 in the coverage check sample, and 408 from 

establishments which requested forms as a result of the announcement in 

the Federal Register on November 24, 1980.

As described previously, a substantial effort was made to unduplicate 

the final mailing list and to exclude from it those establishments which 

were not intended for inclusion (e.g. nonmanufacturing establishments). 

Such efforts seldom produce perfectly clean lists, however, because of 

inconsistencies from sublist-to-sublist such as different versions of 

corporate names. The initial mailing of 12,369, therefore, could not be 

considered to be a final survey frame because it undoubtedly contained 

many of these inconsistencies.

The final frame for this survey was not fully defined until the end of 

June 1981 when a preliminary analysis of the mailing and receipt operations 

was completed. This analysis resulted in the exclusion of 1,913 establish 

ments, yielding a final survey frame of 10,456. Four broad types of 

exclusions were identified.

• Establishments which were not in the 50 States or the 

District of Columbia were excluded.

• Establishments which were out-of-business were excluded. 

These consisted of establishments which were unlocatable 

(i.e. returned by the U.S. Postal Service) and presumed 

to be out-of-business and those which were returned and 

known to be out-of-business with no successor.

35
• Establishments which were out-of-scope were excluded. 

These consisted of establishments which were Governmentoperated, nonmanufacturing, or under construction.

• Duplicate listings which were returned by recipients and 

designated accordingly were excluded.

The mailing list, exclusions, and the final survey frame are summarized 

by major source in Table 15.

Table 15. The Final Survey Frame by Source

Less 

Not in U.S. b ...........

Subtotal..............

Less

Out-of-Scoped . .........

Total

U 169

61

12,308

417

728

707

10,456

Survey 

List

10,276

57

10 219

328

370

684

8,837

Coverage 

Check

1,685

1

1,684

89

52

19

1 5?A

Other3

408

3

405

303

4

98

Establishments which requested forms as a result of the Federal 

Register notice on November 24, 1980.

bThe 50 States and the District of Columbia.

c Unlocatable establishments and those reported to be out-of-business 

with no successor.

^Establishments which were Government-operated, engaged primarily in a 

nonmanufacturing activity, or under construction.

Response to the Survey 

In general, there were four types of acceptable responses to this survey.

1. The recipient either telephoned or wrote a letter 

saying that no large combustors were operated but 

did not return the questionnaire.

^-Postal Service returns, notification of the receipt of duplicate 

questionnaires, etc., were not counted as an acceptable response.

36
2. The recipient returned Section I of the questionnaire 

stating that no large combustors were operated.

3. The recipient submitted a Section I but the use of 

a large combustor was not ascertainable.

4. The recipient submitted completed questionnaires 

indicating that large combustors were operated.

Table 16 summarizes the responses to the survey by these four categories 

of acceptable responses.

Table 16. Acceptable Response by Response Category and Source

Total Survey 

Category Establishments List

Section I/No Large Combustor... 

Section I/Large Combustor

Large Combustor(s) Reported....

T?/"% c! in/'M"ic?(*> R *3 t~ f* ^

Establishments which requested

50 

5,341

94 

2,498

7,983 

76.4

forms

50 

4,318

93 

2,354

6,815 

77.1

as a result of

Coverage 

Check Other3

1,023

1 

47 97

1,070 98 

70.2 100.0

the Federal

Register notice on November 24, 1981.

bThe response rate is expressed as a percent of final survey frame or 

its components.

As can be seen from this table, the overall response rate to this survey was 

7,983, or 76.4 percent of the final survey frame. Of these responses, 2,498 

establishments are known to operate large combustors.

37
6. ADJUSTMENT FOR NONRESPONSE

As a result of the withdrawal of data collection authority, data were 

collected on a sample of establishments and combustors rather than 

on the population as orginally intended. The sample which resulted may 

or may not be representative of the original population. To the extent 

that it is nonrepresentative (i.e., certain groups or types of establish 

ments are systematically excluded), the sample may be said to be subject 

to nonresponse error or bias.

Possible Sources of Nonresponse Error

There is no reasonable way of ascertaining whether a nonresponse bias 

actually exists and, if it does, the extent to which it impacts on the 

results. It is possible, however, to compare the distributions of boilers 

in this study to the results of the MFBI file-^- to develop some general 

understanding of the possible existence of a bias. Recall that the 

MFBI file contributed 2,817 establishments to the composite list (see 

Table 3). Of these, 1,052 establishments were reported on the MFBI 

survey as having at least one boiler with a maximum design firing rate 

of 100 million Btu or more per hour. From the survey control records of 

the current study, it was possible to classify these 1,052 MFBI establish 

ments by the EIA-463 status classifications of response, nonresponse, or 

exclusions. This classification is reproduced in Table 17.

Table 17. Classification of MFBI Establishments with Large Boilers 

by EIA-463 Status

EIA-463

Status

T"* "Yf* 1 11 c ~f on c 3-

MFBI

Establishments

...... 709

...... 220

. . ... 123

...... 1,052

Large Boilers

Number

2 1 99

752

444

3,395

(MFBI)

Mean

•* i n

3.42

3.61

3.23

Exclusions consists of establishments on the mailing list which were 

out-of-business, out-of-scope, or duplicates.

^This analysis must be confined to large boilers only because other large 

combustors were excluded from MFBI.

39
Table 17 provides some evidence that the nonresponding MFBI establishments 

in the EIA-463 survey had, on the average, larger numbers of MFBI boilers 

than those which did respond. This is a reasonable generalization because 

the establishments with larger numbers of combustors would have been likely 

to have requested and been granted time extensions beyond the date that 

the EIA-463 survey was terminated.

A similar analysis was undertaken of the MFBI boilers by status and three 

classes of maximum design firing rate of the boilers. These results are 

presented in Table 18.

Table 18. MFBI Boilers by EIA-463 Status and Maximum Design Firing Rate

Maximum Design Firing Rate 

(millions of Btu per hour)

EIA-463 

Status

T*Ji"^n T*^Q firt TI c P

T**vr*T nc "i OTIC*-*'

"Pa T*r*o n t~

Total

? 19Q

100.0

7S?

100.0

444

100.0

3,395

100.0

100-249

1,611

73.3

516

68.6

312

70 ^

2,439

71.8

250-499

467

21.2

195

25.9

99

22.3

761

22.4

500 and over

121

5.5

41

5.4

33

7.4

195

5.7

aExclusions consist of establishments on the mailing list which were 

out-of-business, out-of-scope, or duplicates.

This table provides some evidence that nonresponding establishments in 

the EIA-463 survey had, on the average, somewhat larger MFBI boilers 

than the responding establishments. However, there was no apparent 

nonresponse bias among establishments with the largest MFBI boilers 

(500 million or more Btu per hour).

The analyses presented in Tables 17 and 18 relate to MFBI boilers only. 

A direct comparison between the MFBI boilers and the boilers reported in 

this survey is also relevant. Table 17 shows that 2,199 boilers were 

included in the receipt category entitled "response." Table 19 compares 

the distributions of these MFBI boilers with the boilers actually reported 

on this survey by the same establishments. The EIA-463 boilers shown in 

this table are those with a maximum design firing rate of 100 million or 

more Btu-per-hour with an installation date of 1975 or earlier. In 

theory, these two distributions should be the same except for those 

boilers which had been taken out of service between 1975 and 1979.

40
Table 19. Comparison of Distributions of Boilers from the MFBI

Survey and the EIA-463 Survey by Maximum Design Firing Rate

Maximum Design Firing Rate

MFBI Boilers..........

EIA-463 Boilers.......

Increase on EIA-463...

Total

Boilers

? 1 QQ

100.0

2,403

100.0

204 

+9.3

100-249

1,611

73.3

1,700

70.7

89 

+5.5

(millions of Btu per

250-499

467

21.2

541

22.5

74 

+15.9

hour)

500 and over

121

5.5

162

6.7

41 

+33.9

Table 19 shows, however, that respondents to the EIA-463 reported more 

pre-1976 boilers with a maximum design firing rate of 100 million or more 

Btu-per-hour than respondents to the MFBI survey. This would indicate 

that responses to the EIA-463 were more complete than responses to the 

MFBI survey.

In summary, comparisons between the results of the MFBI survey and the 

EIA-463 survey provide limited evidence that:

• Response to the EIA-463 may have been somewhat 

biased against establishments operating large 

numbers of boilers and large boilers (250-499 

million Btu per hour).

• Those establishments which did respond to the 

EIA-463 survey did so in an accurate manner.

The Weighting Procedure

In order to approximate complete response levels, and to ameliorate the 

effect of a likely nonresponse bias, ratio estimation techniques were 

developed to estimate the total annual consumption of purchased fuels by 

large combustors. The weighting procedures were only used for the consump 

tion information because the technique was inappropriate for estimating the 

number of large combustors in the population. In ratio estimation, an 

auxiliary variable which is known to be correlated with the sample variable 

(in this case, the consumption of purchased fuels) is obtained for each 

unit of the sample frame. Population totals are then estimated from

41
sample totals by taking advantage of the correlation between these two 

variables. The basic approach uses the following equation:

Yg = WgXg (26)

where: Yg = the ratio estimate of the population 

total for the gtn stratum

Wg = the weight derived from the ratio of

value of the auxiliary variable for the 

sampling frame to the value of the 

auxiliary variable for the responders 

to the survey for the g tn stratum

Xg = the value of the sample variable for 

the gfc " stratum.

In this study, recall that during the process of sample selection, the 

projected number of combustors, Nc-f*, was estimated for establishments on 

the survey list. This value was chosen as the auxiliary variables for 

the ratio estimates because it should be fairly highly correlated with 

actual energy consumption in large combustors in 1979.

Prior to weighting, the mailing list had been stratified into NCJJ 

size classes and, within these classes, by four-digit SIC groups. In 

all, five Nc-ji classes were specified as follows:

• Class 1: NC-[J equal to or greater than 10.0

• Class 2: Nc^j equal to or greater than 4.0 

but less than 10.0

• Class 3: NC-JJ equal to or greater than 1.5 

but less than 4.0

• Class 4: Nc^j equal to or greater than 1.0 

but less than 1.5

• Class 5: NCJ_J less than 1.0.

Within each of these Nc^j classes, four-digit SIC industries were 

identified which had 20 or more responding establishments. In cases 

where the number of responding establishments was less than 20, four-digit 

industries were combined until the required minimum was reached. Weighting 

factors were developed separately for each SIC group within Nc^j class 

using the following formula:

Wgh = (Xgh - Ygh )/(Xgh - Ygh - Z gh ) (27)

where: W ^ = the weighting factor for the h SIC 

group in the g Nc^ . class

42
Xgh = the sum of projected number of large 

combustors for the establishments in 

the mailing list

Ygh = the sum of the projected number of

large combustors for out-of-business 

establishments

Zgh = the sum of the projected number of 

large combustors for nonresponding 

establishments.

As shown in equation (27), the projected number of large combustors for 

the out-of-business establishments was excluded from the calculation of 

weights and duplicates were included. This was done on the basis that 

nearly all out-of-business establishments had been identified through the 

sample selection process and returns by the U.S. Postal Service, but that 

out-of-scope and duplicate responses would have continued to be received 

had more establishments responded to the survey.

A total of 181 weights were developed for specified SIC groups within 

these five Nc-ji classes. These weights had an overall weighted mean 

of 1.378 with a minimum value of 1.000 and a maximum of 2.824. Table 20 

presents some characteristics of these distributions for each of the 

five Nc^j groups. It can be seen from this table that, except for the 

NC-M class of ten or more, the ranges of weights are fairly narrow and 

consistent.

Table 20. Parameters of Distributions of Weighting Factors

Weighting Factors

Range 

Nc£ •

10.00

4.00

1.50

1.00

Less

of

i

— Q QQ

_ -3 QQ

_ 1 AQ

than 1.00.....

Minimum

1.000

1.000

1.000

1 0*^^

1.001

Maximum

2.824

1.580

1.743

1.754

1.482

Weighted 

Means

1.418

1 771

1.261

1 771

1.182

Number of 

SIC Groups

20

OQ

51

47

43
As previously noted, this procedure was used for establishments on the 

mailing list for which an Nc^j value was available. There were also, 

however, a group of manufacturing establishments for which an Nc-^-j 

value was not available because of the nonavailability of an establishment 

employment estimate from the source list. In these cases, the appropriate 

sums of the numbers of establishments were substituted for the sums of 

the projected number of large combustors in equation (27). This method 

of estimation is generally referred to as simple expansion. For 

this special group of establishments (without Nc-ji values), the minimum 

weight was 1.100 and the maximum was 1.778 with a weighted mean of 1.360.

Accuracy of the Weighted Results

As pointed out previously, ratio estimators are most useful when there 

is a high correlation between the sample variable and the auxiliary 

variable.

These correlations are unknown for the establishments on the mailing 

list, but it was possible to estimate them from the responding establish 

ments which reported using a large (50-million or more Btu-per-hour) 

combustor. In all, there were 2,354 such establishments.^ Of these, 

2,001 also had an Nc^j value available. These establishments were 

used to develop correlations between the total annual Btu consumption by 

large combustors (the sample variable) and the projected NCJJ (the auxiliary 

variable).

In general, it was expected that there would be little if any correlation 

between Nc^j and the Btu consumption of large combustors for establishments 

across SIC groups within Nc^j groups. It was expected that fairly 

high correlations would be found within SIC groups, however. This is due 

to the fact that NC-M functions were developed uniquely for establishments 

within four-digit SIC industries (see previous discussions). Correlation 

coefficients developed from a set of values spanning several heterogeneous 

SIC groups would therefore be expected to be zero or nearly so. By a 

similar line of reasoning, it was also expected that correlations within 

SIC groups would be low when the group contained several heterogeneous 

four-digit industries which had been combined in order to fulfill the 

requirements of having 20 mailing list establishments per SIC group (see 

above).

^Responses were also received from 144 establishments in the coverage 

check sample or in response to the notice in the Federal Register. This 

yields a total of 2,498 responding establishments. See Table 13.

44
By and large, these expectations were confirmed. None of the correlations 

across SIC groups within the Ncji groups were significantly different 

from zero. Within the Nc^. group of 10 or more, 13 of the 20 SIC 

groups had positive correlations which are significantly different than 

zero. These correlations range from 0.32 to 0.97. All of these SIC 

groups with significant correlations contained either one four-digit SIC 

or were dominated by one or two closely related four-digit SIC's. The 

seven SIC groups which did not reach significance contained either a 

large number of four-digit SIC's with none dominant or the four-digit 

SIC which did dominate was a "not elsewhere classified" industry group, 

usually a heterogeneous collection of establishments with a low product 

specialization ratio.

Significant correlations were far less frequent within the SIC groups of

the other four NC-M classes. Specifically, out of 164 SIC groups comprising

these 4 classes, only 10 were positive and significantly different from zero.

At least two causes of this situation can be identified. First, of the

154 nonsignificant SIC groups, 144 had fewer than 20 respondents with a

large combustor and 98 had fewer than 10. In general, significant correlations

become progressively more difficult to find as the sample size decreases.

For example, with one-tail probability set at 0.05 and a sample size of

20, all correlations of less than 0.38 would be rejected as not significantly

different from zero. With a sample size of 10, all correlations of less

than 0.55 would be rejected. Moderate correlations may actually exist

which were undetectable with these small sample sizes.

The second possible reason for the large number of nonsignificant correlations 

in these four Nc^j groups is that the SIC classes tended to be heterogeneous, 

that is, the SIC classes contained several unrelated SIC industries. As 

noted previously, this would tend to result in nonsignificant correlations 

within the SIC groups.

Heterogeneity seems to be more of an intractable problem than small

sample size. With the fairly large number of significant correlations

which were found in the homogeneous SIC groups of the Nc-ji group of

10 or more, it is reasonable to assume that had sample sizes been larger

in the other Ncj4 - SIC groups, a substantially larger number of significant

correlations would have been found for those which were homogeneous.

In other words, the population correlation coefficients for homogeneous 

SIC groups are probably positive and high. Increased sample sizes, however, 

would probably not have resulted in increased numbers of significant 

correlations in the heterogeneous groups because the population correlation 

coefficient probably approaches zero. Overall, however, it is reasonable 

to assume that the correlations were significantly high to warrent the 

use of Nc^j as the auxiliary variable in the development of the nonresponse 

weights for this survey.

•^One-tail probabilities were all greater than 0.05.

45
This weighting procedure will, to some extent, compensate for the possible 

nonresponse biases identified in the previous section but the weighted 

numbers may still be subject to other problems. Inherent in the entire 

weighting procedure is the basic assumption that fuel use patterns and 

other combustor and establishment characteristics are invariant with 

respect to respondents and nonrespendents. The strength of this assumption 

is not known. Finally, there may be other nonresponse errors or biases 

which are present in the sample and not compensated for by the weighting 

procedure.

Given these limitations, however, it is possible to attach a very rough 

margin of error to the weighted estimates. Assuming that the weights 

developed for these SIC groups with significant correlations result in 

reasonably accurate weighted totals of Btu consumed for these groups and 

that the weights for remaining groups are in error by as much as 25 

percent in estimating Btu consumption for nonrespondents, total estimated 

Btu consumption by the population of large combustors could be in error 

by as much as 3.8 percent. If it assumed that all nonrespondent estimates 

are in error by 25 percent, the overall error in Btu consumption would 

be 6.3 percent. It is felt that these error rates are reasonable and 

will prevail as long as the data are fairly highly aggregated. Undoubtedly, 

error rates would increase with increased disaggregation.

^Increasing nonresponse errors from 25 to 50 percent results in 

overall error rates of 7.6 percent if confined to nonsignificant SIC's 

and 12.5 percent if assumed for all SIC groups.

46
7. ERROR RESOLUTION

Normal error resolution procedures followed by the EIA consist of respondent 

follow-up for omitted or suspect questionnaire entries which have been 

identified through a computer edit consisting of range checks, consistency 

checks, etc. For this survey, normal procedures for error resolution 

were precluded because of the withdrawal of data collection authority by 

0MB. In lieu of direct respondent follow-up, therefore, a series of 

edit checks were developed along with appropriate internal error resolution 

procedures. Most of these checks and recedes focused on Section II of 

the questionnaire with reference to Section I as appropriate and necessary.

Description of Error Resolution Procedures for Section II 

Item 2; Identification of Combined Cycle Units (CCU)

Only combinations of fired components consisting of a gas turbine or an 

internal combustion engine with one or more fired boilers were accepted 

as CCU's. All others were appropriately receded.

Item 3: Kind of Combustors

All single entries in Item 3 were checked and receded based upon responses 

to Items 4 and 5. Inappropriate multiple entries were receded as appropriate 

single entries based upon specially developed fuel tests or efficiency 

tests.

Items 4a and 4b; Boiler Operation

When flow rate entries for both steam and hot water were present, 

the appropriate one was selected based upon ratios of the maximum design 

firing rate to these entries. Flow rates were also subjected to a range 

check. Where possible, range check failures were corrected from other 

data in the questionnaire supplied by the respondent.

Item 4c: Functional End Use

For hot water boilers, only the functional end uses of (1) space-heating, 

and (2) process heat were acceptable. Other entries were deleted.

Item 5: Shaft Power

For a gas turbine or internal combustion engine, the entries for electricity 

generation (kw) or mechanical drive (hp) were subjected to a range check. 

Failures which were physically possible were accepted. Others were 

double-checked based on other responses and were corrected, if possible; 

otherwise, they were deleted.

47
Item 7; Fuel Design and Use

Several checks were performed on the data reported in this item. The 

first was a consistency check between the amounts of specific fuels 

consumed in all combustors of a given establishment with the total amount 

of that fuel consumed at the establishment level as reported in items 8 

and 9 of Section I. Discrepancies of up to 5 percent were accepted. 

Large discrepancies were corrected, if possible, based on other information 

supplied by the respondent.

A range check was also performed on the amounts of fuel consumed by a given 

combustor. Acceptable ranges were established for solid and liquid fuels, 

blast furnace gas, and all other gaseous fuels. Range check failures 

were adjusted, if possible, based on other data.

Finally, all fuels consumed by a given combustor were converted to Btu 

and summed. This total was divided by the product of the usual design 

firing rate (Item 10) and the hours used at this rate (Item 13). Ratios 

within the range of 0.2 to 5.0 were acceptable. This broad range was 

established because waste heat inputs, extensive periods of banking, 

various interpretations of "usual," or difficulty in estimating hours 

could lead to substantial variations in the ratio. This test was particu 

larly useful in identifying and correcting entries which reported gaseous 

fuels in cubic feet rather than in thousands of cubic feet (mcf) as requested.

Item 9: Combustor Size

The major edit for this item consisted of estimating the maximum design 

firing rate when it had not been entered by the respondent. These 

"provisional MDFR" estimates were prepared by one of the following approaches 

as appropriate:

Steam flow rate X 1,350.00

Hot water flow rate X 1.25

Shaft power (kw) X 22,700.00

Shaft power (hp) X 30,500.00

This approach produced approximate values suitable for categorizing 

combustors into MDFR classes but which lacked the precision for accurate 

MDFR values.

48
8. SUPPRESSION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

When the Office of Management and Budget withdrew data collection authority 

for this survey, it also specified that "... the data already collected 

be treated in a confidential manner." Several steps were taken to assure 

compliance with this requirement.

• All identifying information was physically separated 

from the rest of the questionnaire and was destroyed 

prior to keytaping and all remaining hard copy 

questionnaires were destroyed after keytaping.

• Separate random identification numbers were assigned 

Section I (establishment report) and Section II 

(combustor report) of questionnaires from the same 

respondent so that combustors could not be linked 

to specific establishments.

• Standard Industrial Classification codes, geographic 

identification, and employment was collapsed so that 

no cell was dominated by a single establishment or 

combustor beyond a specified level of dominance.

The basic units of analysis for dominance were the cells resulting from 

crossing SIC codes with employment levels. In this collapsing process, 

SIC codes were given priority for maintaining maximum detail. As a 

result, it was often necessary to confound the geographic dimension.

For example, a given four-digit SIC level may have passed the dominance 

test when considered by itself. When crossed with the geographic dimension, 

however, the resulting cells could fail the dominance test. In order to 

avoid collapsing the SIC codes, the geographic dimension was confounded 

by classifying the establishments into two or more of the cells. Thus, 

within a given SIC code, the same set of establishments may appear in 

two or more geographic regions. Data users should consider this deliberate 

confounding when performing an analysis by geographic regions.

49
Appendix A 

QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER MATERIALS
Department of Energy 

Washington, D.C. 20585

We need your help...

The U.S. Department of Energy is collecting information on 

energy consumption in manufacturing establishments (plants) 

which have large combustors of the types cited in the 

Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978. These are 

stationary units consisting of a boiler, gas turbine, inter 

nal combustion engine, or combinations of combustors 

referred to as combined cycle units, with a maximum design 

firing rate of 50 million Btu per hour or greater. We have 

asked Westat, Inc., a research firm located in Rockville, 

Maryland, to help us in this data collection effort.

The survey form enclosed, Form EIA-463, consists of two 

sections. Section I deals with overall establishment 

(plant) information. (The definition of an establishment is 

the same as that used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.) 

If your establishment does not operate any combustors of the 

kind cited, only Section I need be filled out. Section II 

deals with individual combustors. A separate Section II is 

to be filled out for each combustor.

Response to this survey is mandatory under the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 and the Powerplant and 

Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978. Failure to respond may 

result in criminal fines, civil penalties, and other sanc 

tions as provided by law. Refer to the instructions on the 

form for information regarding the confidentiality of the 

survey.

Please return your completed survey forms within twenty (20) 

calendar days after receipt. A postage-paid addressed label 

is enclosed for your use. If you have questions about this 

survey, please write or telephone:

Mr. Stephen J. Dienstfrey 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Industrial Survey Manager 

P.O. Box 2100 

Rockville, MD 20852 

(800) 638-6584

51
The data collected in this survey will provide important 

information on current energy use and help the Department of 

Energy administer its programs in an effective and equitable 

manner. Your cooperation will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Albert H. Linden, Jr.

Acting Administrator

Energy Information Administration

4 Enclosures

Section I (1)

Section II (5)

Instructions and Glossary of Terms

Postage-paid Addressed Mailing Label

52
FORMEIA-463 UNITED STATES

SECTION I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

FORM APPROVED

0MB NUMBER 038-S80011

1980 Manufacturing Industries SAMPLE COPY FOR 

Energy Consumption Study and INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. 

Survey of Large Combustors

This report is mandatory under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 

P.L. 93-275, and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, P.L. 95-620. 

Failure to respond may result in criminal fines, civil penalties and other sanctions, 

as provided by law.

The information reported on these forms may be (i) information that is exempt from disclosure to the public under the 

exemption for trade secrets and confidential commercial information specified in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 DSC 

552 (b) (4) (FOIA), or (ii) prohibited from public release by 18 USC 1905. However, before the determination can be made that 

particular information is within the coverage of either of these statutory provisions, the person submitting the information must 

make a showing, satisfactory to the Department of Energy, concerning its confidential nature.

Therefore, respondents wishing to claim such exemption must state specifically (on an element by element basis, if possible) in 

a letter accompanying submission of this form, why they consider the information concerned to be a trade secret or other 

proprietary information, whether such information is customarily treated as confidential information by these companies and 

the industry, and the type of competitive harm that would result from disclosure of the information. In accordance with the 

provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, DOE's Freedom of Information Act Regulations, DOE will determine whether the information 

submitted should be withheld from public disclosure. If DOE receives the responses and does not receive a request with 

substantive justification that the information submitted should not be released to the public, DOE may assume that the 

respondent does not object to disclosure to the public of any information submitted by it on the forms.

The provisions of Section 711 (a) of P.L. 95-620, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which incorporate by 

reference the provisions of Section 11 (d) of P.L. 93-319, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 

apply to the information submitted on this form. Upon request, therefore, DOE must provide information obtained on this form 

to the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Federal Trade Commission in accordance with the cited statutes 

and other applicable authority. The information must also be made available upon request to the Congress or any committee 

of the Congress and to the General Accounting Office.

WHAT TO FILL OUT:

 Complete Section I (on yellow paper) only once; it applies to your establishment (shown on mail label below) as a whole.

 Complete a separate copy of Section II (on blue paper) for:

 each boiler, gas turbine, and internal combustion engine with a maximum design firing rate of 50 million 

Btu/hr or greater, and

 each fired component of a combined cycle unit in which the components total a firing rate of 50 

million Btu/hr or greater.

 If your company did not operate this establishment at any time in 1979 answer only items 1 through 7 and 14 through 

18 of Section I. Then complete Section II forms required.

 If your establishment does not have any boiler, gas turbine, internal combustion engine and/or combined cycle units 

with a maximum design firing rate of 50 million Btu/hr or greater, answer only items 1 through 7 and 15 through 

18 of Section I.

SEE SECTION II, PAGE 4 FOR ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION I - ESTABLISHMENT (PLANT) REPORT

1. Name and physical location of establishment. ______________MAIL LABEL____________

NAME

NUMBER AND STREET

CITY, TOWN, VILLAGE, ETC.

COUNTY STATE ZIP label, including zip code.)

53

IPIease correct any error in name and mail address on
z 

o

o

z

HI

Q

ILLI

5 

I 

CO

_J 

CO

CO

2. Current Employer Identification Number (EIN). (This is the number used by this establishment on the 

latest Quarterly Federal Tax Return Form 941.)

I I__I

3. Primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for this establishment.

4. Number of paid employees at this establishment for the pay period including March 12, 1979. (Use the 

definition of employees specified by your State Employment Security Agency; be sure to include produc 

tion workers and all other employees.I THOU UN | TS

___| Employees

5. Is this establishment owned or controlled by another organization or company? 

(1) No (go to item 6)

(2) Yes (enter name and address of parent company)

NAME NUMBER AND STREET

CITY

6. Is this a seasonal operation?

(1) No (2) Yes (indicate number of months this 

establishment operated in 1979)

Months

7. Change in status of this establishment in 1979 or 1980. (mark one box only)

(1) No change in 1979 or 1980.

(2) Started as a new business (i.e., 1979 or 1980 was the initial year of operation of this establishment). 

Specify month and year started: _____

(3) Establishment was acquired or leased from another company in 1979 or 1980. 

Specify month and year in which acquired or leased:

MONTH YEAR

Former 

operator: NAME NUMBER AND STREET

STATE

(4) Establishment was sold or leased to another company in 1979 or 1980. 

Specify month and year in which sold or leased: _____

New 

operator: NUMBER AND STREET

STATE

(5) Establishment was permanently closed, dismantled, abandoned, or destroyed. 

Specify month and year in which closed, etc.: 

YEAR

FORM EIA-463 SECTION I Page 2 

54
-3.

W §

Q « ————— Q <n

O S

0 « 

-I.SJ

SJJfc D 0

"• ..

£

z 

g

0. 5

D 

(A

Z

O 

O

_l

LU

D

U8. Fill out the following table for fuels used by this establishment during calendar year 1979 for heat, power,

and/or generation of electricity. Actual shipment of fuels may have occurred earlier than 1979.

• Fill out all portions that apply; leave others blank.

— non-purchased fuels, such as interplant transfers.

• Do not include: — fuels produced as byproducts of onsite operations (these are to be reported in item 9).

— fuels used for transportation equipment. 

— fuels used for feedstocks (see Glossary for "feedstocks").

• Note that the amount of "wood, bark, wood waste" is asked for on a "50 percent moisture" basis. Adjustments 

may be necessary in estimating the amount used.

• Figures for amounts in excess of 100,000 may be rounded to thousands; if you prefer, however, you may report 

exact amounts.

Example: If this establishment used 1,256,680 mcf of natural gas in 1979, report either:

MIL THOU UNITS MIL THOU UNITS

AMOUNT USED FOR AVERAGE AVERAGE 

HEAT, POWER AND/OR Btu CONTENT % SULFUR 

GENERATION OF (HIGHER HEATING (BY 

FUEL ELECTRICITY VALUE) WEIGHT)

SOLIDS MIL THOU UNITS THOU UNITS 

(11) Anthracite | V////A^r\ per Ib %

C\2) Bituminous coal , v/////\ »~ i it, o/ (non-metallurgical uses) ———— ! ———— ^^ tOn ' ————————— per lb ———— %

(13) Lignite I Y////A^r\ per Ib %

(14) Coke and breeze | Y////A ton | per Ib %

(15) Wood, bark, wood waste , \/////A tTM IK (50% moisture basis) I Y////A ton per Ib \\J\J /U flHJISlLJI C L/0O/O/

Other solid fuels (specify) 

I V////A ton per Ib %

V////A ton per Ib %

LIQUIDS

(21) Motor gasoline , t////,\ \ , (for stationary engines) ———————— ^^ gal ————————— per gal

(22) Distillate fuel oils r/////J pal per pal %

(23) Residual fuel oils . v /////\ \ \ o/ /r r _ , j;jrj,i \/////\ gal per gal %

Other liquid fuels (specify) 

1 Y/////\ gal per gal %

1 Y////A gal per gal %

GASES

(31) Natural gas | Y////A mcf I I I per cu ft

(32) LPG, butane, propane | Y////A gal per gal

Other gaseous fuels (specify)

I Y////A mcf | | | per cu ft %

I Y////A mcf I I I Per cu ft %

FORM EIA-463 SECTION I Page 3 

55

(CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE!
"Si

CO 0

Q« D W

O 3 0 q, ——————

rfg

J 0

"- >. £ ——

z

O

Q.

§ 

D

CO

z

O 

O

_l

UJ

D u.

t 

O 

EC

O

ill

9. Please fill out the following table for fuels which were produced onsite as byproducts of establishment

operations during 1979.

• DO NOT INCLUDE any amounts of fuel reported in item 8.

• Note that "pulping liquor" is specified on a "bone-dry" basis; give the amount used in tons. 

• Fill out all portions that apply; leave others blank.

No fuels produced as byproducts in 1979 (go to item 10a & b)

AMOUNT USED AT AVERAGE 

SITE FOR HEAT, POWER Btu CONTENT AMOUNT SOLD OR 

AND/OR GENERATION OF (HIGHER HEATING TRANSFERRED 

FUEL ELECTRICITY VALUE) OFFSITE

MIL THOU UNITS THOU UNITS MIL THOU UNITS

(14) Coke | <CAAA\ ton | per Ib \////A ton

(15) Wood, bark, 

wood waste 

(50% moisture 

basis) I I V///A ton I per Ib Y.////A ton

(24) Pulping liquor 

(bone dry basis} I ] V///A ton I I I per Ib | | Y/AA<\ ton

Other solid fuel 

(specify!

I I YAAA ton I I oer Ib I <{AA/\ ton

Other liquid fuel 

(specify)

I I Y/A/A gal I I I per gal | YAAA aal

PROCESS OFF GASES:

(33) Blast furnace 

gas I I V////A mcf I I per cu ft | I YAAA mcf

(34) Coke oven gas | V////A mcf | per cu ft | YAAA mcf

(35) Refinery off qas | V/////\mtf I j per cu ft I A/AA mcf

Other process 

gases (specify)

| | t////A] mcf I per cu ft \'AAA mcf

10a. Please complete the following, (if "none" enter zero for units)

BIL MIL THOU UNITS

(1) Amount of electricity purchased or received in 1979 ............ \/AA/\ kWh

(2) Total amount of electricity generated onsite in 1979 ............ | | \/AAA kWh

(3) Amount of electricity sold or transferred offsite in 1979. ........ \/AA/\ kWh

(4) Electricity used onsite in 1979 

[this fiqure should be the same as (1) + (2) - (3)] .............. VA7/A kwh

10b. Of the total amount of electricity generated onsite in 1979 [the amount reported in 10a (2)] please 

report the amounts generated by each of the following:

No electricity generated (go to item 11)

(1) Steam ..................................................... | | Y////A kWh

(2) Gas turbines. ............................................... | | Y/7AA kWh

(3) Internal combustion enqines ................................. | | | Y/////A kWh

(4) Hydro. ..................................................... | Y////A kwh

(5) Other (specify! I | {/A/A kWh

FORM EIA-463 SECTION I Page 4 

56
OTHER 

SOURCES ENERGY 

STEAM TRANSFERS

STEAM GENERATION

LARGE COMBUSTORS

OFFICE 

USE ONLY

11. Please report the Btu output from any of the following energy sources used by this establishment in 1979. 

(do not report any amounts of energy reported in items 8, 9 or 101

None used in 1979 (go

ENERGY SOURCE

(1) Hydro. .................

(2) Wind ..................

(3) Geothermal .............

(4) Solar ..................

(5) Any other energy sources 

(specify)

to item 12)

Btu OUTPUT 

DERIVED FROM SOURCE 

IN 1979

MIL THOU UNITS

....... \////A Btu

....... Y////A Btu

....... Y////A Btu

....... V////A^u

l_ _l YA^/A Btu

12. Indicate amount of steam trar

a. Steam purchased or 

received

b. Steam sold or transferred 

off site

isferred into or out of this establishment during 1979. {If none, enter zero) 

AMOUNT OF STEAM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE

BIL MIL THOU UNITS

| I V////A\b & osig °F

| V/////\\b @ psig °F

\////A\b @ psig °F

| \////A\*> © osiq °F

13. Indicate amounts of steam generated at this establishment during 1979.

No steam generated (go to item 14!

 Include ~ Steam generated 

in any boilers, waste heat 

boilers, or other steam 

generating units.

steam or steam from blow 

down or condensate.

AMOUNT OF STEAM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE

BIL MIL THOU UNITS

I YS/AA^ @ psiq °F

I Y////A\^ @ psiq °F

I I Y////AVO & osiq °F

I V////A\b @ psig °F

I Y////A\b & osiq °F

14. Indicate the current number of combustors of each type at this establishment with a maximum design fir 

ing rate of 50 million Btu/hr or greater, (write single digits as 01, 03, 08, etc.!

NUMBER

a . Ill Boilers

b. | | Gas turbines

c. | | Internal combustion engines

d. ————— * I

e. | | Number o

f. j | | Total (a +

Combined cycle units 

f fired components in combined cycle units

b + c + e); equals the number of Section II forms to be completed for 

this report

FORM EIA-463 SECTION I Page 5 

57
COMBUSTORS OTHE 

CONTACT

DISCLOSURE

OFFICE USE 

ONLY

CERTIFICATION

15. Indicate the current number of all other combustors at this establishment (i.e., combustors not reported in 

item 14) in each category.

• Do not report combustors with a maximurr

• Under "internal combustion engines" 

do not include self-propelled vehicles; 

do include equipment such as portable 

generators with a maximum firing rate 

of 1 million Btu/hr or greater.

design firing rate of less than 1 million Btu/hr.

Boilers

Gas turbines

Internal combustion engines

Fluid heaters (fired petroleum heater, blast 

furnace stove, etc.!

Dryers (mineral dryer, paint dryer, food dryer, etc.)

Calciners (cement kiln, lime kiln, alumina kiln, etc.!

Reactors (blast furnace, cupola, reforming 

furnace, pyrolysis furnace, incinerator, etc.!

Melters (regenerative glass melter, reverberatory 

furnace, open hearth furnace, etc.!

Heat treaters (annealing lehr, brick kiln, 

tempering furnace, oven, etc.)

Reheaters (soaking pit, reheat furnace, etc.)

Sinterers/Pelletizers (vertical shaft furnace, grate 

kiln, sintering furnace, etc.!

For office use only

NUMBER OF OTHER COMBUSTORS

Maximum Design Firing Rate (in millions of Btu/hr)

1-9

^%

10-24

m

25-49

=

//^M/

50-99

1

in

100-249

1

W%//

250 

or 

greater

^^;^^

For 

office 

use 

only

m////// w//.

^/^

^//y//

m,

vmnnMii/, /^//^

w^/

16. Person to be contacted regarding this report. Name:

Title:

Mailing address (if different 

from mailinci label in item 1):

17. Disclosure Statement

a. Does the information supplied on this f 

commercial or financial information?

(1) | No (go to item 18)

b. Have you attached a written justificatio 

552(b)(4)? (see page V

(1) | No

Telephone No. ( )

orm contain trade secrets and/or privileged or confidential

(2) [ Yes (continue with item 17b) 

n for exemption from Freedom of Information Act, 5 DSC

(2 > D Yes

18. Certification (to apply to Section 1 and all forms which constitute Section II of this report): print the name 

and title of the individual designated by the company to sign this certification. This individual must sign in 

the space provided and enter date of signing.

This report is substantially accurate and has been prepared in accordance with instructions, and covers 

the period to

PRINTED NAME

SIGNATURE

FORM EIA-463 SECTION

TITLE

DATE

Page 6 

58'
SAMPLE COPY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.

FORM EIA-463 

SECTION II

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

1980 Manufacturing Industries 

Energy Consumption Study and 

Survey of Large Combustors

FORM APPROVED

0MB NUMBER 038-S80011

ID NO.

SECTION II - INDIVIDUAL COMBUSTOR REPORT

THIS REPORT IS MANDATORY (see page 4 of Section II, General Instructions)

Assign sequential numbers to each boiler, gas turbine, internal combustion engine and each fired component of a combined cycle unit for 

which you are reporting. As an example, if you are reporting for four boilers and one combined cycle unit with two fired components the 

numbers should go from 01 through 06 (01 through 04 would identify individual boilers: 05 and 06 would identify the two components of 

the combined cycle unit).

z o

<

o

LL

1-

2 m 

O

cc u.0

°W 

Q3 -1

*0

0

z o

< cc

LJJ Q. 

O 

CC

UJ

_l

o

00

cc

UJ

o

CL

t

<

I

<f>

1a. Enter the sequential number assigned to this combustor. | |

1b. Name or identification number assigned to this combustor in your company's records:

2a. Is this combustor part of a combined cycle unit?

(1) No (go to item 3) (2) Yes (continue with item 2b) 

2b. Please list the numbers (as assigned in item 1a) of all other fired components of this combined cycle unit.

Ill III III

3. What kind of combustor or component of a combined cycle unit is this? (mark one box only)

... Boiler (continue with ,„. . . , „ , . _ . , . . _, (1) . , ,. . (3) Internal Combustion Eng'ne (go to item 5)

(2) Gas Turbine (go to item 5)

4a. What is this boiler's design (rated) steam/hot water: 

U) Pressure? psig (2) Temperature? °F

MIL THOU UNITS MIL THOU UNITS

(3) Flow Rate? *(/////A Ib/hr (steam), or, \Y////,\ Btu/hr (hot water

boilers only) 

4b. For this boiler, what is the annual average steam/hot water: 

(1) Pressure? psig (2) Temperature? °F

(3) Deaerator pressure? osiq, or, Feedwater temperature? °F

4c. Is the steam or hot water produced by this boiler used for: (mark all that apply)

.... I I Space heating, ventilating, or ,„, I I _. . . ... (1) U a ir conditioning? (3) I— I Electncrty generation?

(2) Process heat' (4) I Mechanical drive < ther tnan electricity 

— ' I — I generation)?

(NOW GO TO ITEM 6)

5. Indicate below whether this gas turbine/internal combustion engine is used for electricity generation or 

mechanical drive (mark one box only). Also indicate the rated output of this unit. 

USE RATED OUTPUT

THOU UNITS

( 1 ) Electricity generation .................................... |_ | _ | kW

(2) Mechanical drive ........................................ | | _ [hp

59
Q

LU 5^S I

"i

V) 0 111 „

o «

O 3

0 q, —————— 

^

D 0 "- w

£ —————

COMBUSTOR DESIGN AND FUEL USE

6. In what year was this combustor initially installed at this establishment? Report year of initial installation 

regardless of any alterations or modifications since then.

7. In column (1) of the following table, indicate all the fuel(s) that

YEAR

this combustor was initially designed, or

has been modified, to use (mark all that apply). Indicate in column (2) the amount of each fuel used 

in this combustor in 1979.

DESK

FUEL MOOIFI

cni IDQ

(11) Anthracite

(12) Bituminous coal 

(13) Lignite 

(14) Coke and breeze

(15) Wood, bark, wood waste 

(50% moisture basis)

Other solid fuels (specify)

3NED OR AMOUNT 

ED TO USE USED IN 1979

(1) (2)

MIL THOU UNITS

"

I V///A ton

V////A ton

V////A ton

V////A ton

I V////A ton

I I Y////A ton

PI I I V////A ton

LIQUIDS

(21) Motor gasoline 

(22) Distillate fuel oils (1, 2, 4 & light diesel) 

(23) Residual fuel oils (5, 6 & heavy diesel) 

(24) Pulping liquor (bone dry basis) 

Other liquid fuels (specify)

GASES

(31) Natural gas 

(32) LPG, butane, propane 

(33) Blast furnace gas 

(34) Coke oven gas 

(35) Refinery off gas 

Other gaseous fuels (specify)

OTHER (specify)

r~~^

I 

~

— I

~

I I Y////A gal

I I Y////A aal

Y////A a al

YY///A ton

I | Y////A qai

I I V////A gal

I I \//////\ mcf

I V////A qal

I V////A mcf

I V////X mcf

V////A mcf

I V////A mcf

I I V////A mcf

V////A Btu

V////A Btu

FORM EIA-463 SECTION II Paae2 /CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE)

60
5

CO

8. If this combustor was either designed, or has been modified, to use a solid fuel, what was the design 

sulfur and Btu content of that fuel?

THOU UNITS

Not applicable % Sulfur I Btu/lb

CO

UJ

9. What is this combustor's current maximum design firing rate? BIL MIL THOU UNITS

Y////A Btu/hr

10. At what firing rate is this combustor operated when it is in use? (indicate both range and usual rate 

when not banked)

BIL MIL THOU UNITS BIL MIL THOU UNITS

RANGE: From I I I V///A Btu/hr to | | | V///A Btu/hr

USUAL RATE: {////A Btu/hr

co < 

«

LLJ

D 

_l 

LL

11a. Approximately what is the temperature of the flue gas at the exit of this combustor while in use at 

the usual firing rate ? (the rate indicated as usual in item 10)

11b. What type of heat recovery equipment is used beyond this exit? (mark all that apply)

(1) (4) |_| Economizer

(2)

None (7} Other (specify)

Regenerative air preheater (5) Waste heat boiler

(3) _j Recuperative air preheater (6) Raw material preheater

LU 

CD 

< CO

D

CCo

CO

D 

00 

§ 

O

o

12. If your company did not operate this plant in 1979, or if this combustor was installed after 1979, 

check box below.

Skip items 13 & 14

13. Please estimate the number of hours in 1979 this combustor was in use at approximately the usual 

firing rate.

Hours

14. During 1979, approximately how many days each month was this combustor not in use? (count only 

days on which this combustor was shut down for a 24 hour period)

NUMBER OF 

DAYS

NUMBER OF 

DAYS

NUMBER OF 

DAYS

NUMBER OF 

DAYS

(1) January

(2) February

(3) March

(4) April

(5) May

(7) July

(8) August

J (10) October 

I (11) November

I | (6) June L J (9) September _| (12) December I I I

NOTES OR COMMENTS:

FORM EIA-463 SECTION II PageS 

61
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This report is mandatory under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 

P.L. 93-275, and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, P.L. 95-620. 

Failure to respond may result in criminal fines, civil penalties and other sanctions, 

as provided by law.

The information reported on these forms may be (i) information that is exempt from disclosure to the public under the 

exemption for trade secrets and confidential commercial information specified in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552 

(b) (4) (FOIA), or (ii) prohibited from public release by 18 USC 1905. However, before the determination can be made that 

particular information is within the coverage of either of these statutory provisions, the person submitting the information must 

make a showing, satisfactory to the Department of Energy, concerning its confidential nature.

Therefore, respondents wishing to claim such exemption must state specifically (on an element by element basis, if possible) in 

a letter accompanying submission of this form, why they consider the information concerned to be a trade secret or other 

proprietary information, whether such information is customarily treated as confidential information by these companies and 

the industry, and the type of competitive harm that would result from disclosure of the information. In accordance with the 

provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, DOE's Freedom of Information Act Regulations, DOE will determine whether the information 

submitted should be withheld from public disclosure. If DOE receives the responses and does not receive a request with 

substantive justification that the information submitted should not be released to the public, DOE may assume that the 

respondent does not object to disclosure to the public of any information submitted by it on the forms.

The provisions of Section 711 (a) of P.L. 95-620, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which incorporate by 

reference the provisions of Section 11 (d) of P.L. 93-319, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 

apply to the information submitted on this form. Upon request, therefore, DOE must provide information obtained on this form 

to the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Federal Trade Commission in accordance with the cited statutes 

and other applicable authority. The information must also be made available upon request to the Congress or any committee 

of the Congress and to the General Accounting Office.

1. Complete a separate copy of Section II for:

• each boiler, gas turbine, and internal combustion engine with a maximum design firing rate of 50 million Btu/hr or 

greater, and

• each fired component of a combined cycle unit in which the components total a firing rate of 50 million Btu/hr 

or greater.

2. Fill out a copy of Section II for each combustor of the specified maximum firing rate, even if the combustor was unused in 

1979, unless the combustor was permanently destroyed or removed from the site prior to 1979.

3. All items which ask for figures for "1979" refer to the 12 months of calendar year 1979. If your establishment maintains its 

records on a fiscal year basis and the fiscal year ended between September 30, 1979 and March 31, 1980, you may use 

records from the fiscal year.

4. If records are not available for an item, carefully derived estimates are acceptable.

5. The Glossary explains key terms used in the forms.

6. If the space allowed for your answers is insufficient, use extra sheets of paper to record additional pertinent information. Be 

sure to identify the question number for each item reported on the extra sheets.

7. For additional copies of the forms write or call:

Mr. Stephen J. Dienstfrey, Industrial Survey Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 2100

Rockville, MD 20852

800-638-6584

or you may duplicate as many copies of the forms as needed. If you make duplicate copies, please be sure that the printed 

ID number which appears on page 1 is clearly legible on all reproduced copies.

8. If you wish to amend or correct any items after returning your completed forms, send the corrections to Mr. Dienstfrey at 

the address above. Clearly identify the item(s) to be amended or corrected.

FORM EIA-463 SECTION II Page 4

62
GLOSSARY

Anthracite — ASTM class I coal.

Bituminous Coal — ASTM classes II and III coal. Please note that sub-bituminous coal should be reported under 

this category.

Boiler — A unit which heats water for the generation of steam and/or hot water. 

Bone Dry — 0% moisture.

Calciner — A combustor which heats solid material to a high temperature without fusing. Its principal function is 

to decompose hydrates, carbonates, and other compounds and expel volatile matter. This will primarily refer to 

the heating of unformed materials in a kiln such as a rotary cement kiln, lime kiln, or alumina kiln.

Coke — The solid residue remaining from the destructive distillation of coal or other carbonaceous material such 

as pitch, petroleum, or petroleum residue. Coke which is used as a raw material in a blast furnace, cupola furnace 

or any other operation should not be reported as a fuel in this survey.

Combined Cycle Unit — An electric or mechanical power generating unit that consists of a combination of one 

or more combustion turbine units and one or more boilers with a substantial portion of the required energy input 

to the boiler(s) provided by the exhaust gas of the combustion turbine unit(s). Use of supplemental firing for the 

boiler does not preclude the unit from being designated a combined cycle unit.

Combustor — A unit which consumes fuels that are used primarily to provide heat. Examples are boilers, fur 

naces, ovens, combustion turbines, blast furnaces, internal combustion engines, and combined cycle units.

Dryer — A combustor which drives off or removes water or other volatile compounds from the material being 

processed. Typical types of dryers would be rotary mineral dryers, shaft mineral dryers, paint drying ovens, or 

food dryers.

Establishment — The definition of establishment for this survey is the same as that used by the Bureau of 

Census; in general, that is a single physical location where manufacturing is performed.

Feedstocks — Materials (which can also be used as fuels) which are consumed as raw materials in the production 

of intermediate or finished products. Feedstocks do not include materials used primarily for process heat. Coal 

used for coking, crude oil that is refined, and coke used in blast furnaces, are all considered feedstocks for this 

survey.

Firing Rate — Fuel heat input rate. The rate at which fuel is supplied to a combustor. The firing rate calculation 

is based on the higher heating value of the fuel.

Fluid heater — A combustor that heats (or preheats) gases or liquids. Examples of fluid heaters are fired 

petroleum heaters and blast furnace stoves. Combustors where a chemical reaction takes place simultaneously 

with heating are considered reactors, not heaters.

Gas Turbine — A heat engine that converts energy of fuel into work by using compressed hot gas as the 

working medium. Usually delivers its mechanical output through a rotating shaft. Also known as a combustion 

turbine.

Heat Treater — A combustor that heats a material to create or remove specific properties in the material. Heat 

treating is particularly widespread in the metals industries. Examples of heat treaters are glass annealing lehrs and 

brick kilns.

Higher Heating Value — The total heat obtained from the combustion of a specified amount of fuel and the 

stoichiometrically correct amount of air, both at 60° F when combustion starts, and the combustion products 

being cooled to 60° F before the heat release is measured. This is the heating value that is typically reported in 

the United States.

Hot Water Boiler — A boiler that can produce only hot water and not steam.

Internal Combustion Engine — A prime mover in which the fuel is burned within the engine and the products 

of combustion serve as the working medium.

Lignite — ASTM class IV coal.

63
GLOSSARY ICONJINUED)

Maximum Design Firing Rate — The maximum firing rate that the combustor is designed to achieve over a 

period of continuous operation.

mcf — One thousand cubic feet at 14.73 psia and 60° F.

Melter — A combustor where the principal function is the conversion of a solid to a liquid at high temperature. 

Examples include glass melters, aluminum reverberatory melters and open hearth furnaces.

Metallurgical Coal — Bituminous or coking coals which are used to produce coke for blast furnaces and cupola 

furnaces.

Onsite — Pertains to operations which are performed on the grounds of the establishment itself.

Reactor — A combustor in which a chemical reaction takes place. Examples include reforming furnaces or 

pyrolysis furnaces in the chemical industry, or blast furnaces or coke ovens in the steel industry.

Recuperative Air Preheater — A continuous heat exchanger where heat passes through a surface separating 

the exiting flue gases, which are being cooled, and the material being heated, usually incoming combustion air.

Regenerative Air Preheater — A cyclical heat exchanger where the exiting flue gases give up heat as they pass 

over exchanger internals. This heat is released to the material being heated, usually incoming combustion air, as it 

passes over the exchanger internals in the opposite part of the cycle (includes heat wheels).

Reheater — A combustor where the primary function is to bring the temperature of a solid material to a level 

appropriate for subsequent operations. Examples include steel reheating furnaces and soaking pits.

Sinterer/Pelletizer — A combustor which agglomerates ores, coke breeze, or metal powders without melting. 

Usual Rate — The most typical or frequent rate of operation.

MULTIPLY

Barrels

Btu

Btu

Btu/hr

Btu/hr

Horsepower

Horsepower

Horsepower-hour

Kilowatt

Kilowatt

Kilowatt-hour

CONVERSION FACTORS

BY

42.0

0.000393

0.000293

0.000393

0.000293

2545.0

0.7457

2545.0

3412.0

1.34

3412.0

TO OBTAIN

Gallons

Horsepower-hour

kWh

Horsepower

Kilowatt

Btu/hr

Kilowatt

Btu

Btu/hr

Horsepower

Btu

64
Appendix B 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption Study and 

Survey of Large Combustors

The U.S. Department of Energy has recently mailed out Form EIA-463, "The 

1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption Study and Survey of 

Large Combustors," to 10,000 establishments within Standard Industrial 

Classification Codes 20 to 39 that are likely to have a boiler, gas turbine, 

combined cycle unit, or internal combustion engine with a maximum design 

firing rate of 50 million Btu per hour or greater. (The selection of 50 

million Btu per hour as the basis for inclusion in the survey relates to 

the final regulation developed by the Department of Energy and reported 

in the Federal Register, Friday, June 6, 1980, (45 FR 38276), 10 CFR 500.4 

and 500.5.)

Response to this report is mandatory under the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act 

of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-620). If you did not receive this form and operate a 

combustor as described above, please contact: Mr. Stephen Dienstfrey, 

Industrial Survey Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 2110, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, (800) 638-6584.

Issued in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1980.

Albert H. Linden, Jr.

Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration

Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 228, Monday, 

November 24, 1980, p. 77507

65
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption Study and Survey of

Large Combustors, Form EIA-463

The U.S. Department of Energy has recently mailed out Form EIA-463. The 

information collected from this study will allow the Department to meet 

several statutory and regulatory mandates. These include, but are not 

limited to, the following: preparation of contingency plans for the 

purposes of advising the President should specific fuels be unavailable 

due to international events, labor stoppages, distribution malfunctions, 

or weather; forecasts of mid- and long-range energy needs in the industrial 

sector as required by the Congress; analysis of potential incentives for 

the conversion of certain combustors and/or processes to alternative and 

more plentiful energy supplies.

In view of the importance of these data, industries' desire to provide 

quality data, and the possible difficulties encountered by mailing the 

questionnaires over the holiday season, the Department of Energy will 

grant reasonable extensions beyond the normal filing date on a company by 

company basis. Requests for extensions should be sent to Mr. Stephen J. 

Dienstfrey, Industrial Survey Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. 

Box 2100, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Further clarification of this notice 

may be obtained by calling the Survey Receipt Center at (800) 638-6584.

Establishments which operate any boiler, gas turbine, internal combustion 

engine and/or combined cycle units with a maximum design firing rate of 

50 million Btu/hr or greater and have not received a copy of Form EIA-463 

should contact the above address for inclusion in this study. This study 

is mandatory under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 

93-275), and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, (Pub. L. 

95-620).

Issued in Washington, D.C., December 24, 1980.

Albert H. Linden, Jr.

Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration

Federal Register, Vol. 45, N. 252, Wednesday, 

December 31, 1980, p. 86531.

66
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy Consumption Study and Survey of

Large Combustors, Form EIA-463

On February 20, 1981, the Department of Energy received notice from the 

Office of Management and Budget withdrawing approval of Form EIA-463. As 

a result, those industrial establishments which have not yet responded 

are no longer required to do so. For further information regarding this 

matter contact Mr. Stephen J. Dienstfrey at (202) 252-1128.

Issued in Washington, D.C., February 26, 1981.

Albert H. Linden, Jr.

Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration

Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 43, Thursday, 

March 5, 1981, p. 15312.

67
Appendix C 

LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O5Q3

Honorable James B. Edwards 

Secretary

Department of Energy 

Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On October 15, 1980, the Office of Management and Budget 

approved form EIA-463, the "1980 Survey of Large Combustors 

in Manufacturing Industries" for use through December 31, 1981. 

The estimated number of respondents was 10,000; the estimated 

total of respondent burden was 69,000 hours.

We understand this form is the first of many being developed 

to expand the Department's collection of energy consumption 

data. Subsequent to the issuance of the form, many respondents 

furnished data showing that the information requested is need 

lessly detailed and cannot be used for the purposes intond-d.

W>i have reviewed cnese comments, and under the authority provided 

by 44 U.S.C. 3506, have determined that the collection is 

unnecessary and therefore unduly burdensome. Therefore, I hereby 

withdraw OMB's approval of this information collection activity 

and direct the Department of Energy not to eugage in any further 

collection of this information. We also expect you to treat the 

data already collected in a confidencial manner.

Sincerel

David A. Stockman 

Director

<*• o -:

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982 361-068/2012

69
U.S. Department of Energy 

Energy Information Administration 

National Energy Information Center, El-20 

Forrestal Building 

Washington, D.C. 20585

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY

PERMIT NO. G 20

FIRST CLASS MAIL

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300