11970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices

tend to mis-represent our purpose and intent.

This also would cast an untrue

representation of the product and put us at

a competitive disadvantage.

Kool-Fire IS NOT A HYBRID HEAT PUMP.

Hybrid system tests are based on the

assumption that at some outdoor

temperature, the heat pump electrical energy

usage for ‘‘heating’’ will stop and some other

‘‘single’’ source fuel will turn ‘‘on’’ for

‘‘heating’’. With Kool-Fire systems, the

outdoor fan turns ‘‘off’’ when the fossil fuel

burner turns ‘‘on’’, THE COMPRESSOR

NEVER TURNS ‘‘OFF’’. Therefore, electricity

PLUS another energy source are used

simultaneously.

IV. UNIQUE Kool-Fire features vs.

‘‘ordinary’’ furnaces:

Some of Kool-Fire’s differences compared

to ‘‘ordinary’’ fossil fuel furnaces are as

follows:

a. There is no steel plate heat exchanger,

Kool-Fire is an absorption heating system

causing heat to the absorbed into refrigerant

which has a boiling point of ¥40 Degree F.

(Similar to a ‘‘boiler’’ system)

b. Kool-Fire’s absorption system surface is

constantly ‘‘wet’’, surface temperatures never

exceed 55 Degree F.

c. Combustion air, both primary and

secondary, on a Kool-Fire constantly changes

from +50 to ¥40 Degree F. due to the fact

that all combustion occurs OUTDOORS.

d. Some of the test data I supplied Mr.

Dougherty on Kool-Fire was done by Ontario

Hydro and others throughout the 80’s. I

NOTED that the Canadian Gas Association

(CGA) test report of November 20, 1980, on

an ‘‘early’’ version of Kool-Fire, indicates a

‘‘tested’’ heating output of 12.33 KW with a

‘‘combined’’ measured input of 10.26 KW.

THIS TEST INDICATES KOOL-FIRE HAD A

COMBINED EFFICIENCY OF 120%, which

NO OTHER fossil fuel appliance in the world

has achieved. This data does not reflect the

over 20% efficiency improvement due to

design changes since that time.

e. When Kool-Fire cycles ‘‘off’’, unlike

vented furnaces, there is little heat build-up

in the exchanger because the absorption coil

is exposed to outdoor ambient. Kool-Fire’s

outdoor exchanger cools from 55 Degrees to

ambient rapidly. This fact eliminates any

possibility of acid formation on the outdoor

exchanger.

f. Kool-Fire’s design assures that a

‘‘matched’’ exchange rate exists between the

amount of liquid refrigerant boiling and the

amount of fossil fuel burning under the

outdoor exchanger. This fact of it’s design

insures that the surface temperature of the

exchanger does not exceed 55 Degree F.

Note: A limit control set at 65 Degree F.,

which is located ‘‘upstream’’ on the

compressor suction line, senses return gas

temperature. Two (2) 90 Degree F. limit

controls are also located on the top of the

outdoor exchanger coil. Any of these controls

will shut the fossil fuel burner ‘‘off’’, then

turn the outdoor fan ‘‘on’’, in the event of

‘‘low’’ refrigerant charge in the system.

To summarize:

Kool-fire burns it’s fossil fuel, OUTDOORS,

and is subject to extreme fluctuation of

temperatures that will have to be duplicated

in order to obtain accurate test results.

Kool-Fire systems function more like a

‘‘boiler’’ than like a furnace. The heat

transfers medium used is refrigerant instead

of water. I know of none other like it in the

world.

V. Concerning an HSPF rating for Kool-Fire

systems:

At this point, Mr. Ed Pollock, Mr. Brian

Dougherty, and I all agree that Kool-Fire

units cannot be tested and assigned an HSPF

rating because of their unique, duel-fuel,

burner-assisted design. Kool-fire DOES NOT

USE any supplemental electrical resistance

heat.

VI. Thoughts about Heating Season

Operating Costs (HSOC):

a. Existing DOE test procedures have been

developed to provide an ACCURATE

evaluation and comparison of products.

b. Instead of modifying existing

procedures, is the DOE at a point that NEW

test procedures are required that will reflect

the Comparative Annual Integrated Fuel

Efficiency (CAIFE) of Kool-Fire and other

‘‘unitue/dual-fuel’’ systems, that could

emerge in the future?

c. DOE might consider developing a test

procedure that measures the actual fuel

utilization of those energy sources used in

the ‘‘heating’’ mode based on their

‘‘economic’’ balance point. Then factor this

information in conjunction with the

‘‘thermal’’ balance point of the structure.

d. Tests should consider including the

TOTAL BTU OUTPUT, related costs to

purchase the INPUT FUEL being consumed,

and efficiencies of same. These facts could be

cross-plotted on some type graph format to

find the ‘‘economic’’ balance point of the

fuels being consumed. This information

could then be factored with the ‘‘bin’’

temperature profiles for a given geographical

location. These ‘‘bin’’ temperatures could be

the same as used by DOE in tests used for

‘‘ordinary’’ heating systems.

IN CONCLUSION:

The intent of all the DOE testing is to

provide an accurate, fair evaluation so that

United States consumers will be provided

factual information to enable them to make

an informed purchasing decision.

Unfortunately, times are changing and

technology has advanced. I realize this

stretches the imagination of those in the DOE

and NIST who are responsible to be sure that

this intent is fulfilled.

As previously described, Mr. Ed Pollock and

I have agreed upon a course of action to

resolve this matter.

We will be glad to work and supply input

for this test procedure in co-operation with

Mr. Pollock from DOE and Mr. Dougherty

from NIST. I am sure Mr. Dave Young from

Ontario Hydro will be able to provide

valuable input to this process. I have

contacted Mr. Hank Rutkowski, a wellknown Mechanical Engineer from the HVAC

industry, who is knowledgeable of existing

test procedures and is willing to lend his

expertise. Mr. Gerry Vandaarvart, the

inventor of Kool-fire from Canada, can offer

valuable assistance to arrive at an accurate

‘‘certification’’ and proper ‘‘heating’’ mode

test procedure.

I sincerely hope I have supplied enough facts

to warrant a PROMPT, FAVORABLE

RESPONSE to our ‘‘waiver’’ request and to

motivate DOE to IMMEDIATELY grant an

‘‘interim waiver’’.

Respectfully,

J.N. (Jim) Friedrich, CMS,

President.

cc: Mr. Gerry Vandaarvart (Kool-Fire

Research & Development)

Mr. Dave Young (Ontario Hydro)

Mr. Hank Rutkowski, Mechanical Engineer

Mr. Brian Dougherty (NIST)

Mr. Edward Pollock (DOE)

[FR Doc. 95–5291 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–4720–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared January 30, 1995 through

February 03, 1995 pursuant to the

Environmental Review Process (ERP),

under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended.

Requests for copies of EPA comments

can be directed to the Office of Federal

Activities at (202) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in the

Federal Register dated April 10, 1994

(59 FR 16807).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J31024–UT Rating

EO2, Blanchett Park Dam and Irrigation

Reservoir, Construction and Operation,

Uintah Water Conservancy District

(UWCD), Special-Use-Permit and COE

Section 404 Permit, Ashley National

Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Uintah

County, UT.

Summary

EPA supported the USFS selection of

No Action as the agency preferred

alternative. EPA expressed

environmental objections with the build

alternative due to the unmitigable

impacts to over 50 acres of montane

peat fen and loss of a portion of a

genetically pure native salmonid

population.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65235–ID Rating

EO2, Boise River Wildfire Recovery

Project, Implementation, North Fork

Boise River and Mores Creek Drainages,

Boise National Forest, Idaho City and

Mountain Home Ranger Districts, Boise

and Elmore Counties, ID.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices 11971

Summary

EPA expressed objections to the sale’s

potential effect on water quality.

Additional information is needed on

cumulative effects, water quality/fish

habitat effectiveness monitoring and

documentation for environmental effort

predictions.

ERP No. D–AFS–L81011–AK Rating

LO, Helicopter Glacier Landing Tours,

Implementation, Issuance of SpecialUse-Permits, Tongass National Forest,

Chatham Area, Juneau Ranger District,

Alaska.

Summary

EPA had no objection to the proposed

action.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–L67027–ID Stone

Cabin Open Pit Gold and Silver Mine

Development and Operation, Plan of

Operations Approval and NPDES Permit

Issuance, Florida Mountain, Boise

District, Owyhee County, ID.

Summary

EPA continued to have environmental

concerns with the preferred alternative.

EPA’s concerns are based on the

proposed mitigation plan for the COE

Section 404 permit application for

wetland fill and on the effectiveness of

the proposed treatment technology at

the Delamar mine site.

Dated: February 28, 1995.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–5304 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER–FRL–4720–7]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

260–5076 OR (202) 260–5075.

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed February 20,

1995 Through February 24, 1995

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 950057, DRAFT EIS, DOE, WA,

Washington Windplant No. 1,

Construction and Operation, 115

Megawatt (MW) Windpower Project,

Conditional-Use-Permit, NPDES and

COE Section 404 Permits, Klickitat

County, WA, Due: April 17, 1995,

Contact: Kathy Fisher (503) 230–4275.

EIS No. 950058, DRAFT EIS, FRC, WI,

Wisconsin River Basin Hydroelectric

Project, Application for Licensing for

ten FERC Hydroelectric Projects: Nos.

2119, 2239, 2476, 1999, 2212, 2590,

2256, 2255, 2291 and 2292, Vilas,

Forest, Oneida, Lincoln, Marathon,

Portage and Wood Counties, WI and

Gogebic County, MI, Due: April 17,

1995, Contact: Sabina Joe (202) 219–

1648.

EIS No. 950059, FINAL EIS, AFS, OR,

Washington Analysis Area/Baker City

Municipal Watershed Project,

Implementation, Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest, Baker Ranger District,

Baker County, OR, Due: April 03,

1995, Contact: Chuck Ernst (503) 523–

1901.

EIS No. 950060, FINAL EIS, NPS, NV,

AZ, Lake Mead National Recreation

Area, Management of Burros,

Implementation, Clark Co., NV and

Mohave Co., AZ, Due: April 03, 1995,

Contact: Kent Turner (702) 293–8946.

EIS No. 950061, DRAFT EIS, AFS, CA,

San Bernardino National Forest,

Realignment and Reconstruction,

Falls Road, Implementation, San

Bernardino County, CA, Due: April

17, 1995, Contact: Hal Seyden (909)

884–6634.

EIS No. 950062, DRAFT EIS, AFS, CO,

Loveland Ski Area Master

Development Plan, Implementation,

Arapaho National Forest, Clear Creek

Ranger District, Clear Creek County,

CO, Due: April 17, 1995, Contact: Sue

Greenley (303) 567–2901.

EIS No. 950063, FINAL EIS, USN, RI,

Davisville Naval Construction

Battalion Center, Base Reuse and

Development Plan, Implementation,

Town of North Kingstown,

Washington County, RI, Due: April

03, 1995, Contact: Robert

Ostermueller (215) 595–0759.

EIS No. 950064, DRAFT EIS, USN, PA,

Philadelphia (Former) Naval Base

Hospital Disposal and Reuse,

Implementation, City of Philadelphia,

PA, Due: April 17, 1995, Contact: Tina

Deininger (610) 595–0759.

EIS No. 950065, FINAL EIS, USN, CA,

US Navy Lease of Fleet and Industrial

Supply Center, (Naval Supply Center)

Property of the Port of Oakland for

Development of Intermodal Rail

Facilities and Maritime Cargo-Related

Tenant Uses, Alameda County, CA,

Due: April 03, 1995, Contact:

Raymond Chiang (415) 244–3022.

Dated: February 28, 1995.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–5305 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5162–8]

Committee Meetings of the Grand

Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

EPA) is announcing a meeting of the

Public Advisory Committee (PAC) of the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (Commission).

The PAC will meet from 10:00 a.m.,

MST on Thursday, March 9, to 12:00

Noon on Saturday, March 11, at the

Woodlands Plaza Hotel, 1175 West

Route 66, Flagstaff, Arizona. Activities

on Thursday, March 9, will include a

briefing on technical documents

produced by the Commission’s various

committees, and a field trip to a

visibility monitoring station at the

Grand Canyon. Friday, March 10 and

Saturday, March 11, will be devoted to

a workshop during which the PAC will

review the Commission’s emissions

inventory, emissions management

scenarios, economic and demographic

projections, and methodologies for

assessing social, environmental, equity,

and administrative impacts of emissions

management scenarios.

The Commission was established by

the EPA on November 13, 1991 (see 56

FR 57522, November 12, 1991). All

meetings are open to the public. These

meetings are not subject to provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

Public Law 92–463, as amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John T. Leary, Project Manager for the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission, Western Governor’s

Association, 600 17th Street, Suite 1705,

South Tower, Denver, Colorado 80202;

telephone number (303) 623–9378;

facsimile machine number (303) 534–

7309.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–5016 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5164–3]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee

Meetings

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that several

committees of the Science Advisory