Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Granting of the Application for Interim Waiver and Publishing of the Petition for Waiver of Kool-Fire From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioner and Central Air Conditioning Heat Pump Test Procedure (Case No. CAC-007)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Granting of

the Application for Interim Waiver and Publishing of the Petition for

Waiver of Kool-Fire From the Department of Energy Central Air

Conditioner and Central Air Conditioning Heat Pump Test Procedure (Case

No. CAC-007)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a letter granting an Interim Waiver

to Kool-Fire from the existing Department of Energy central air

conditioner and central air conditioning heat pump test procedure for

the company's lines of HC and LTH burner-assisted heat pumps.

Today's notice also publishes a ``Petition for Waiver'' from Kool-

Fire. Kool-Fire's Petition for Waiver requests DOE to grant relief from

the DOE heat pump test procedure for the Kool-Fire lines of HC and LTH

burner-assisted heat pumps, which operate in both the cooling and

heating modes. Kool-Fire requests that the heating mode tests be waived

for its burner-assisted heat pumps because the DOE procedure has no

provision for testing burner-assisted heat pumps. The Department is

soliciting comments, data, and information respecting the Petition for

Waiver.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information not later than

April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Case No.

CAC-007, Mail Stop EE-43, Room 5E-066, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7574.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-431, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202)

586-9611

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer

Products (other than [[Page 11968]] automobiles) was established

pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law

94-163, 89 Stat. 917, as amended by the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, 92 Stat. 3266, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12,

the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA

1988), Public Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT),

Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776, which requires DOE to prescribe

standardized test procedures to measure the energy consumption of

certain consumer products, including heat pumps. The intent of the test

procedures is to provide a comparable measure of energy consumption

that will assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. The test

procedures appear at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix M.

The Department amended the prescribed test procedures by adding 10

CFR 430.27 on September 26, 1980, creating the waiver process. 45 FR

64108. Thereafter, DOE further amended the appliance test procedure

waiver process to allow the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) to grant an Interim Waiver

from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that have petitioned

DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures. 51 FR 42823,

November 26, 1986.

The waiver process allows the Assistant Secretary to temporarily

waive test procedures for a particular basic model when a petitioner

shows that the basic model contains one or more design characteristics

which prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures, or

when the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a

manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide

materially inaccurate comparative data. Waivers generally remain in

effect until final test procedure amendments become effective,

resolving the problem that is the subject of the waiver.

The Interim Waiver provisions added by the 1986 amendment allow the

Secretary to grant an Interim Waiver when it is determined that the

applicant will experience economic hardship if the Application for

Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the Petition for

Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that

it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate

relief pending a determination on the Petition for Waiver. An Interim

Waiver remains in effect for a period of 180 days, or until DOE issues

its determination on the Petition for Waiver, whichever is sooner, and

may be extended for an additional 180 days, if necessary.

On July 18, 1994, Kool-Fire filed a Petition for Waiver and an

Application for Interim Waiver regarding the heat pump tests.

Additional information supporting the application was provided to DOE

in a letter dated January 6, 1995. Kool-Fire's application seeks a

Waiver from the DOE test of heating mode operation for its burner-

assisted heat pumps because the current DOE test procedure does not

address burner-assisted heat pumps. Kool-Fire also applied for an

Interim Waiver, based on economic hardship which would be experienced

if the Application for Interim Waiver is denied.

In Kool-Fire's Application for an Interim Waiver, the company

addresses the economic hardship likely to result absent a favorable

determination on its application. The company states that, lacking the

Interim Waiver, Kool-Fire's rejection by certain State Energy

Commissions has brought the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution

of its products to a virtual stand-still. In its January 6, 1995

letter, Kool-Fire included a letter from its Oregon distributor

claiming that lack of a DOE waiver for the company's product was

directly responsible for the loss of a 180-plus unit order. Kool-Fire

further stated that the inability to meet the DOE testing requirements

is impacting 100 percent of the Kool-Fire product line.

The Department knows of no other company which manufactures a heat

pump similar to the Kool-Fire burner-assisted system. However, the

Department has granted a waiver to Enviro Master International from the

need to determine a Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) because

its heat pumps could not be tested in the heating mode using the DOE

test procedure. Based on the economic hardship which will be suffered

by Kool-Fire if the Application for Interim Waiver is denied and the

precedent established in granting a waiver from the requirement to test

a heat pump in the heating mode when the product cannot be tested using

the DOE test procedure, the Department is granting Kool-Fire an Interim

Waiver from the requirement to test its lines of HC and LTH heat pumps

in the heating mode. Pursuant to paragraph (e) of Section 430.27 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Part 430, the following letter granting an

Interim Waiver to Kool-Fire was issued.

Pursuant to paragraph (b) of 10 CFR Part 430.27, DOE is hereby

publishing the ``Petition for Waiver'' in its entirety. The Petition

contains no confidential information. The Department solicits comments,

data, and information respecting the Petition.

Issued in Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

February 22, 1995.

Mr. J.N. Friedrich, President, Kool-Fire Division of Friedrich

Corporation, 1930 Lincoln Way East, P.O. Box 643, Massillon, OH

44648-0643.

Dear Mr. Friedrich: This is in response to your letters of July

18, 1994 and January 6, 1995, submitting an Application for Interim

Waiver and Petition for Waiver from the Department of Energy (DOE)

central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps

test procedure for Kool-Fire's model HC and LTH burner-assisted heat

pumps.

The Department agrees that the Kool-Fire lines of HC and LTH

burner-assisted heat pumps contain design characteristics which

prevent testing them in the heating mode according to the prescribed

test procedures. Thus, it appears likely that the Petition for

Waiver will be granted.

Kool-Fire's Application for Interim Waiver provides sufficient

information to determine that Kool-Fire has and will continue to

experience a severe negative economic impact absent a favorable

determination on its Application. Therefore, Kool-Fire's Application

for an Interim Waiver from the DOE test procedure for its model HC

and LTH burner-assisted heat pumps is granted.

Kool-Fire shall be required to test its HC and LTH series heat

pumps on the basis of the test procedures specified in 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B, Appendix M, for the cooling mode of operation,

Section 2.1. The heating mode test, Section 2.2, is waived.

This Interim Waiver is based upon the presumed validity of

statements and all allegations submitted by the company. This

Interim Waiver may be removed or modified at any time upon a

determination that the factual basis underlying the application is

incorrect.

The Interim Waiver shall remain in effect for a period of 180

days, or until DOE acts on the Petition for Waiver, whichever is

sooner, and may be extended for an additional 180-day period, if

necessary.

Sincerely,

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Kool-Fire

1930 Lincoln Way East P.O. Box 643 Massillon,

Ohio 44648-0643, 216-833-2117 Fax 216-833-2494

July 18, 1994.

Ms. Christine Ervin, [[Page 11969]]

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy,

U.S. Department of Energy, Mail Station EE-1, Forrestal Building,

1000 Independence Avenue., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.

RE: Petition for waiver and application for interim waiver for Kool-

Fire products.

Dear Ms. Ervin: For the past few months I have been working

through Mr. Ed Pollock from the DOE and with Mr. Brian Dougherty

with NIST to reestablish communications to resolve a ``certification

procedure'' and/or ``request for waiver'' which we began in 1990. As

of this date, Mr. Ed Pollock and I have agreed upon a course of

action. The agreed upon approach consists of and includes the

following four points:

1. The ``cooling mode'' performance of the Kool-Fire burner-

assisted heat pumps will be evaluated as per the DOE heat pump and

air conditioning test procedure. Kool-Fire systems will be tested at

82 degree F and 95 degree F and have an SEER rating.

2. Kool-Fire requests a waiver from having to use the DOE test

procedure to evaluate the ``heating'' mode performance of Kool-Fire

burner-assisted heat pumps. This waiver is requested because the

existing test procedure does not state how to test burner-assisted

heat pumps. An HSPF rating only reflects the seasonal space heating

efficiency of all-electric heat pumps, not dual fuel heat pumps like

the Kool-Fire HC and LTH models.

3. While Kool-Fire's request for a waiver from the ``heating''

mode portion of the DOE test procedure is being pursued through the

public review process, Kool-Fire requests that an ``interim waiver''

be IMMEDIATELY granted.

4. Kool-Fire will continue to work on the development of a NEW

test procedure for testing and rating the ``heating'' mode

performance of dual-fuel, burner assisted heat pumps. In developing

this new approach, Kool-Fire expects to use portions of the existing

DOE test procedures for heat pumps.

Mr. Brian Dougherty and I have exchanged a great deal of

information regarding the Kool-Fire product which we manufacture and

distribute throughout the United States. I would request that Mr.

Dougherty, due to his extensive involvement to date, continue to be

assigned to this project.

As a result of the efforts of Mr. Pollock and Mr. Dougherty, we

have reached the point where there is an understanding, as stated

above, on the procedure to follow to resolve the ``certification''

requirement. CRITICAL mid-term and short-term components to this

process are the granting of a ``waiver'' and ``interim waiver'',

respectively. Therefore, this letter will serve to initiate our

formal request for a ``waiver'' and ``interim waiver'' of the

HEATING operation mode of the Kool-Fire two thru four ton ``split

system'' products for the reasons enumerated herein.

Following are excerpts of my most recent reply to Mr. Dougherty

of June 28, 1994 in response to his letter of June 10, 1994 wherein

I explain situations which exist that would justify your granting

Kool-Fire this ``interim waiver'':

``A situation exists relating to our receipt of an ``interim

waiver''. Lacking this ``interim waiver'', Kool-Fire's acceptance by

certain State Energy Commissions has brought the distribution of our

products to a virtual stand-still in those areas. This situation can

and will cause both our manufacturing operation and distribution

network to experience severe ``economic hardship''.

We have been informed that with this ``interim waiver'', Kool-Fire

distribution would be approved and we could actively compete in the

market place with other heating/cooling manufactures. The sooner we

have this ``interim waiver'' in hand, the faster we can work to

develop a proper ``heating'' mode test procedure.''

I have sent Mr. Dougherty all the information I could find

related to laboratory testing, various certifications received, and

numerous data compiled from field tests and subsequent reports

presented since Kool-Fire's inception in 1979. Most of this testing

was done in Canada by Ontario Hydro and the Canadian Gas Association

(CGA), except for the AGA testing information from the early 80's on

earlier versions of Kool-Fire models and current ETL certification

procedures. I indexed this material to facilitate Mr. Dougherty's

use and perusal. Unlike other ``unique/dual-fuel'' systems, Kool-

Fire has been tested, perfected, and proven over the past 15 years,

primarily in the Canadian marketplace. I believe this, in itself,

lends creditability to it's concept and our requests for BOTH the

``waiver'' and the IMMEDIATELY NEEDED ``interim waiver''.

In this same letter to Mr. Dougherty, I commented on his

suggestions regarding ``possible testing methods'' as follows:

I. Regarding an SEER test for Kool-Fire:

a. I see no problem conducting this test, in the COOLING mode,

like a single speed heat pump or air conditioner. My only thoughts

as related to the SEER test is that. * * *

IN REALITY,

Kool-Fire is a COMBINATION air conditioner, reverse cycle ``heat

pump'' TYPE unit which utilizes an auxiliary heat absorption system

that is used in conjunction with a ``matched'' indoor forced air

heat exchanger.

Any SEER test for ``cooling'' must be augmented with an

appropriate test for the ``heating'' mode, else Kool-Fire could be

mis-construed to be a ``cooling'' only type system. This would cast

untrue representation of the product and put us at a competitive

disadvantage.

IN REALITY,

``COOLING'' IS SECONDARY to Kool-Fire's primary design intent of

``most efficient''' utilization of BOTH energy sources used in the

``HEATING'' mode.

II. Regarding heating mode tests as Mr. Dougherty suggested:

a. There appears to be a problem differentiating a test

procedure between the HC and the LTH model systems. To conduct a

test at 17 Degrees F. in the ``air to air'' reverse cycle mode would

not be indicative of a ``true'' indication of how any Kool-Fire

system operates and would tend to mis-represent it's design purpose

and intent. This also would cast an untrue representation of the

product and put us at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, current

electrical rates have increased to a point that now over 99% of the

systems installed are the HC models. This is due to the fact that

the ``economic'' balance point of natural gas and propane compared

to electrical energy costs dictates changing to the ``flame mode''

at outdoor ambient temperatures of 42 degrees F. and higher.

Kool-Fire's true comparative annual ``heating'' test must

consider the actual utilization of both energy sources used in the

``heating'' mode; based on the ``economic'' balance point of the

fuels used, compared to the ``thermal'' balance point of a

structure. These facts then could be factored with the ``bin''

temperature profiles similar to other DOE tests applied for

competitive ``year-round'' system. If these type facts are

determined, and if this information were published in conjuction

with the results of DOE tests performed at the higher temperatures

of 47 Degree dry bulb and 43 Degree wet bulb, both steady state and

cyclic; this information would be an accurate representation of

Kool-Fire's efficiency.

b. Due to circumstances outlined above, I question whether a

need exists to be concerned with developing a procedure to perform a

DOE Frost accumulation test. As I understand this test, part of the

equation considers the ``negative'' COP during the defrost cycle

when the reversing valve causes an ordinary heat pump system to

switch to the ``cooling'' mode.

Kool-Fire LTH model has NO ``negative'' COP. During defrost of

the Kool-Fire outdoor coil the outdoor blower turns OFF and the

fossil fuel burner turns ON to defrost the coil; Kool-Fire's

compressor NEVER turns ``off''. Kool-Fire's reversing valve DOES NOT

shift and cause the inside of the structure to be cooled. Unlike

``ordinary'' heat pumps, the ``outdoor coil'' of Kool-Fire is

ENCLOSED and not subject to ``wind effect''. 100% of the energy used

for defrost is used to heat the structure. While the ice is changing

to water it transfers the ``latent'' heat to the circulating

refrigerant that is heating the structure. This situation that

occurs during the defrost cycle of a Kool-Fire should be included in

the annual efficiency calculations for Kool-Fire and should be

reflected as a CREDIT for Kool-Fire systems.

c. Since Mr. Dougherty had talked to Mr. Dave Young, from

Ontario Hydro's Research and Development Department, and Mr.

Dougherty referred to the Cd (Coefficient of degradation) factor,

Dave probably has made him aware how the actual field tested cyclic

performance profile of Kool-Fire differs from ordinary heating

systems. The difference of Kool-Fire's actual operating profile

should be reflected in the Cd factor applied in any evaluation

equation. Then Kool-Fire can be accurately compared to others.

III. Could Kool-Fire be tested as a ``Hybrid'' heat pump?

After presenting Mr. Dougherty an explanation of Kool-Fire and

the differences between Kool-Fire and heating systems evaluated in

the ``hybrid'' heating system test procedures, Mr. Dougherty and I

mutually agree that:

THIS HYBRID TEST IS IN NO WAY INDICATIVE OF A ``true'' indication of

how any Kool-Fire system functions and could [[Page 11970]] 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 well-known 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