# TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

# FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: REFRIGERATORS, FURNACES, AND 

# TELEVISION SETS including EnvironmentalAssessment (DOEIEA-0372) Regulatory Impact Analysis

November 1988



### U.S. 

### Department 

### of 

## Energy Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy Building Equipment Division

### DOE/EA-0372



### ONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR PROPOSED ENERGY 0NSERVATIONSTANDARDS FOR TWOTYPES OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS; REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS,

### AND FREEZERS;

SMALL GAS FURNACES;ANDA PROPOSED 'NOSTANDARD"STANDARD FOR TELEVISIONSETS

TRODUCTIONANDSUMMARY his environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental impacts lting from new or amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, igerator-freezers, freezers, small gas furnaces, and television sets as mandated he National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 

### (NAECA, 1987). 

### A complete description of the Engineering and Economic Analysis of the proposed standards may be found elsewhere in the Technical Support Document (TSD). Four of the 14 

### scenarios for product design changes described in the Engineering Analysis of the 

### TSD are chosen for environmental assessment based on their relative importance as 

### design measures. Values for energy savings that result from product design changes are also taken from the 

### TSD. The two main environmental concerns addressed are emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity generation and the chlorofluorocarbons used in the production of rigid insulation foam. Each of the 12 

### design optionsfor refrigerators and freezers result in decreased electricity use and, therefore, reduced power piant emissions. Design changes that call for additional rigid foam insulation per appliance areof interest because they affect chlorofluorocarbon consumption. There is strong evidence that chlorofluorocarbons migrate tothe stratosphere, break down, and catalyze the destruction of stratosphericozone. The fourscenarios analyzed are product design levels 3, 

### 7, 

### and 8

### for refrigerators and freezers and a 78% 

### annual fuel use efficiency 

### (AFUE) requirement for 

### small gas furnaces. Emission savings from the Level 3 

### scenario for television set efficiencies are alsopresented, althoughthese results are not discussed in detail.In the Level 3 scenario, all refrigerator andfreezer doors would be changed to include rigid foam insulation one and a half inches thick. In theLevel 

### 7 scenario, all refrigerator and freezer doors would be changed to include rigid foam insulation two inches thick. In the Level 

### 8 scenario, the insulating value of the foam itself in the walls and doors of applianceswould be improved from a conductivity factor, 

### K, of 0.125 (~tu-inch)/(hr-ft2-OF) to a 

### K value of 0.1. Levels 

### 7 and 

### 8 refrigerators and freezers also include 5.3 

### EER compressors and more efficient fans. The design changes to small gas furnaces associated with an efficiency improvement to 78% are installing an intermittent ignition device and a fan for induced draft combustion. The 12 design changes for refrigerators and freezers and the three increased efficiency designs for small gas furnaces are described in greater detail in the TSD. Levels 1 and 2 designs for refrigerators and freezers are not analyzed because they do not call for changes in the quantity or nature of rigid foam insulatio used per unit; energy savings attributed to Levels 1and 2 are achieved throug the use of 4.5 and 5.0 

### EER compressors, respectively. Power plant emissi would be abated as a result of Levels 1and 2, but in smaller amounts than Levels 3-12, which result in greater energy savings. Levels 4, 5, and 6 are analyzed because they do not use more CFCs than the Level 3 scenario an reduction in emissions are between the those for the Level 

### 3 and the scenarios. Levels 9 through 11 are not analyzed because they are not addre the TSD and thereforevaluesfor estimated energy savings and numberso ances sold are not available for estimating environmental impacts. 

## L~S excluded because it is a lower priority design measure thanthe levels 

### ana The proposed efficiency standards will decrease air pollution b future energy demand. The greatest decreases in air pollution will oxides (listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, scenarioin the year 2010, the estimated SO2reduction will be 202, reduction represents 1.2% of the U.S. SO2 emissions expected to' power plantsin that year if no appliance standardsareestablished ' Although the quantity of raw materials used per appliance tively constant, increased energy efficiency 

### is expected to sli number of appliances sold, resulting in small increases in 

### r This demand increase is estimated by the Consumer Impact The main effect of increased applianceproduction is the 

### S duction. Theincrease is small, however, in comparison tot

2 

## 1 f

l i 

# ,:riing avoided at power plants. The contribution from steel production is in the estimates for net SO2 decreases resulting from design changes in tors and freezers. Level 8 decrease in nitrogen dioxide (NO2)emissionsfor theyear 2010 is 

### ted at 134,000tons. Thisdecrease in NO2 emissions represents 1.3% of the NO2 emissions expected tobe emitted by power plants in thatyear without

:appliance standards. Emissions savings projected from Level 7 design ges are nearly as great as the Level 8 savings because the only applicable
rence between the two scenarios is a slightly larger number of appliances sold e Level 8 scenario. Emissions savingsfrom Level 3 design changes amount to t half those from theLevel 8 design changes. Cumulative SO2 emissions reductions from increased efficiency of small gas rnaces is only about 3% of the reductions from Level 8refrigerator and freezer esign changes, or about 110,000 tons cumulative between 1993 and 2015. For eve1 3 television set standards, the reduction of SO2and NO, emissions amounts
o 10% of thatfrom theLevel 8 standardsfor refrigerators and freezers. Another consequence of standards will be reduction of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. C02from fossil fuel burning 

### is considered an environmental hazard because elevated C02concentrationsin the atmosphere are believed to trap heat from the sun that has been absorbed by the Earth and reradiated. This "greenhouse effect" is expected to gradually raise the mean global temperature. The Level 8 scenario is estimated toreduce worldwide C02emissions, for each of the years 2010 through 2015, by an amount equivalent to 0.2% of the 1985 base figure for anthropogenic C02emissions, which is 5.84 

### x lootons of carbon per year (Harte, 1985). 

### An additional effect of some design change scenarios is theincreased consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorofluorocarbon R-11 is contained in the rigid foam insulation used in the walls and doors of appliances. 

### Use of R-11 would increase if manufacturers increased the thickness of appliance insulation. Another CFC, R-12, is the heat exchange fluid used in refrigerators and freezers. The use of R-12 would increase if more refrigerators and freezers were produced in response to an increased demand for the more efficient appliances. During the year 2010, Level 8 increases in CFC consumption attributed to standards are estimated at 1.0% of the 1985total 

### U.S. R-11 and R-12 consumption (Hammitt, 1986).

### Other environmental effects related to a standards-induced decrease in electri- city generation are relatively insignificant comparedtothedecreases in SO,, NO,, and CO,. An 

### in-depth analysis of particulate emissions is not included in this assess- ment because they are insignificant compared to sulfur and nitrogen oxide emis- sions. Current electricity generating methods are far cleaner than those of the past. In 1984, power plants contributed only 7% 

### of U.S. total particulate emis- sions as 

### compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total SO2and NO2 emis- sions,respectively (EPA, 1986). More efficient small gasfurnaces will decrease the amount of gas or oil burned within some homes, thereby decreasing combustion effect? on indoor air quality. Indoor air problems are usually due to a combination of factors,including a tight house envelope, cigarette smoke, ventilation methods,water use habits, and radon

i.. 

### diffusion from soil. In comparison to the above factors, i
combustion gases used have a small effect onindoor air quality.

2 

### METHODS OFESTIMATING ENVIRONMENT The greatest impacts of the proposed standards are less electricity. Power plants' main environmental effects from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx),nitrogen oxides (N (CO,). The symbols SO, and NO, represent all emissions of SO, 

### a expressed in the equivalent weights of SO, and NO,, respectively. Carb ,emissionsare commonlyexpressed in tonsof carbon. The efficiencies of refrigerators and freezers can be i 

### insulation in their doors. If 'this design option is 

### cho response tostandards, chlorofluorocarbon consumption estimated on the basis of refrigerator and freezer dime additional CFCrequired toincrease the volume of rigid insulation the design optionsproposed requires the use of additio refrigerant) per appliance. A 

### secondary effect, the ch from standards,is also considered.

### r and Nitrogen 

### Oxide Emissions 

### of the scenarios analyzed for their environmental impacts (Level 3, andLevel 8 

### in refrigerators and freezers, 78% 

### AFUE small gasfurnaces, 

### el 3 

### efficiencies for televisions), emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning


### s are considered. !analyzing the impacts of Level 3, 

### 7, and 8 

### design changes to refrigerators eezers, increased sulfur emissions to come from increased steel production 

### iso considered. 

### As mentioned earlier in this report, these increases in steel ction result from slight increases in the number of appliances sold, equated

increase in the number of appliances manufactured. No changes in the 

### &t of steelused per refrigerator orfreezer are expected. alysis of the impacts resulting from78% 

### AFUE small gasfurnacesincludes consideration of SO2from in-home combustion of gas andoil. Figures for energy saved by reduced electric generation are taken from the 

### TSD. Primary energy saved from electric generation is allocated among the categories of coal on the one hand, and gas plus oil on the other, in the ratiosof 0.53 and 0.47, respectively, as 

### estimated in supporting material for the Electric 'Utility Analysis, also inthe TSD. This disaggregation intocoal andoil-plus-gas is 

### depicted in Figure I. 

### In order to capture the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in futureyears, emission rates for power plant fuel burning are calculated from projected emissions data and the projected quantities of the corresponding fuels used, as 

### described in Placet, et al. (1986). Gas and oil are combined because, from an electric utility perspective, they are interchangeable, Linear interpolation and extrapolation are used to derive emissions rates for years not covered in the report. Sulfur dioxide emissions from steel ~roduction are estimated assuming 100 

### pounds of steel per refrigerator or freezer (Mooz, 1982). An 

### SO2 emissions rate for steel production is calculated from the "NationalAir PollutantEmission Estimates, 1940-1985,"(EPA, 

### 198~), along with its supporting materials, and a value for 1985 national steel production from the U.S. 

### Department of 

### Commerce 

### (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986)*. SO2

### emissions from steel production are multi-

- 

### plied by the tonsof steel tobe used in manufacturing the additional appliancesin theLevel 3,7, and 8

### scenarios.

Uncertainty arisesbecauseEPA had tomake assumptions aboutthefurnacetypes used toproduce steel and about thesulfur content of the coal burned togenerate theelectricity for steel production.

### Figure 1.values for SO2 savings from in-home gas and oil combustion arepro

### by multiplying in-home fuel savings for gas and oil 

### by corresponding emisfor furnace operation, taken from Surprenant,et al. (1979).

&O~S and datasourcesfor calculating changesin NO2 emissions areidentiose for SO2emissionswith the exception of emissions from steel produc-

; Unlike in the scenario for SO2, no significant NO2 emissions are expected

increased steel production.

CarbonDioxideEmissions Values for COq abated are the sum of the C02savings from coal-, gas-, and -fired power plants and, for the 78% 

### AFUE,small gas furnace scenario only, O2 emissions from in-home combustion of gas and oil. The energy saved from ectricity generation is apportioned between coal and gas or oil as in the calculaion of SO2 and NO2. In addition, gas and oil are disaggregated into relative sharesof 0.70 and 0.30, respectively. These shares arethe averages of therelative quantities of these fuels to be used for electrical generation in the years 1990 through 1995, as estimated by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC, 1985). The energy values of the fuels saved are translated into tons of carbon using carbon/Btu values from the Carbon

### Dioxide Review, (Clark, 1982). The datafor a more accurate method of estimated relative gasandoil shares concerning order of dispatch in the various NERC regions are not available. Thi,s disaggregation into fuel shares should therefore be taken only as a rough representation of power plant fuel choiceson the margin.

2.3 ChlorofluorocarbonConsumption Design change level 3 involves adding foam to the doors of refrigeratorfreezers and freezers to a thickness of 1.5 inches. This would 1.equil.e additional foam in the doors of so~rle models 

### and the use offoal11toreplace fiberglass in others. TheLevel 7 design change specifies increasing the thickness of the foamused in the appliance doors to 2.0 inches. Design change level 8 includes the 2.0 inch thick insulation in appliance doors called for by Level 7 and also specifies an increase in the insulating value of the foam itself. Because they called for adding foam insulation tothe doors of refrigerators and freezers, all three design change scenarios for these appliances involve a change in the amount of CFCs used per

### appliance. The 

### 78% 

### AFUE small gas furnace scenario does not involve CFCproduction or consumption. Average refrigerator and freezer dimensions are used to estimate the dimen- sions of foamed areas, which in turn are used to estimate changes in CFC use. These estimated dimensionsoffoamedareas remain constant in all threescenarios while the thickness of door insulation varies; the only exception is an increase in the foamed area for refrigerator-freezers and freezers that have no door foam in thebase case scenario. The volume of foam is 

### estimated for each of ten product classes. The ten classes fit into six groups of height, width, and depth. For example, group 

### D includes all side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. Appendix A specifies the classes included in each group and lists the estimated dimensions of foamed areas for &' 

### groupsA 

### through 

### F. -4 -a,. 

### The estimates of foamed areasfor appliance groups C,

### Dl and E are based on

# ':": appliance dimensions asoutlined in theEngineering Analysis in the TSD. ' J!

4


### In order toestimatefoamed areasfor appliancesin groupsA,

### B, and

### F,aver, 

### 4'4 age adjusted volumes for the specified models are first obtained from theAssocia:.& tion of Home Appliance Manufacturers. These average adjusted volumes are 4,


### to identify the most appropriately sized models for which exterior dimension] listed by the California Energy Commission, (CEC, 1987). Appliance dime$ fromthe CECreport arethen used toestimate dimensions of foamed areas. When interior appliance dimensions are used to estimated the size of ! i: 

### areas, 1.0 inch is addedwhere appropriate in order toaccount for extra

### foa around corners. When exterior appliance dimensions are used toestimatc of foamed areas, 1.0 inch 

### is subtractedwhere appropriate toaccount for: lap of foamed areas around corners. It 

### is assumed that the bottom 

### ed ,1 

### lated areas begins 6.5 inches above floor level for each of the refrigera
> 7 

### and freezer models except freezers. The bottom edge of insulated 

### 6:" freezers 

### is estimated tobegin 2 inches above floor level. Volumes of foam are converted intopounds of the CFCR-11 ui 1.5 pounds of foam per cubic foot (Hammitt, 1986) and 0.2 poun F. 

### pound of foam. The ratio of 0.2 pounds of 

### R-11 per pound of

## & from the current annual quantity of R-11 used by manufactureq

- 

### and freezers (14,835,000 pounds--AHAM, 1987) along with the.;& appliances manufactured (7,145,000 appliances--AHAM, 1087)

### volumesof foam calculated as 

### outlined above andweighted by shipment (Roman, 1987and

### AHAM, 1986) The total change in CFCs is the sum of CFCs from increased foam use per appliance and increased CFCsfrom the production of a greater number of appliances. The former contribution to increased CFC use is the product of per unit 

### R-11increases andthebase case numberof appliances shipped. Thelattercontri

# 51 bution to increased CFC 

### use includes per unit R-11in the foam insulation and R-12 

### refrigerant in the additional appliances shipped. Values for the amountsof the R-12 

### used in refrigerators and freezers are 210 grams and 280 grams, respectively (Hammitt, 1986). Where R-12 values are included in totals, they are listed interms of their ozone damage potential (0.79) 

### relative toR-11 (Mooz, 1982).



# G 3 

### REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

3.1

### Level ThreeDesign Changes The Level 3 

### design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doorsof refrigerators and freezersto

### athicknessof one and a half inches. 

# 1 1 3.1.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen OxideEmissions 

## h \ Changes in the amountsof SO2and NO2 emitted result mainly from greater 

# i refrigerator andfreezer efficiency and resulting decreases in the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuel-burning plants. SO2 emissions are also affected by increased steel production because of slightly increased demand for the more efficientappliances. No additional steel is expected tobe used per appliance. Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 1,540,000tons between 1993and 2015 in theLevel 3

### scenario.Figuresfor changes in SO2emissions are listed in Table 1. 

### In the year 2000, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent roughly 0.3% 

### of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year 2010, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 0.6% 

### of the SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if standardsarenot established.There is evidence that decreases in sulfur emissions are followed by proportional decreases in acid deposition (Oppenheimer, 1983). Quantifying and qualifying the resulting abatement of environmental damage 

### is considerably more difficult. An attempt is made in the section titled "Valuing Decreases in Acid Precipitation". Level 3 design changes to refrigerators would result in an estimated decrease in NO2 emissions of 096,000 tons between 1993and 2015. Changes in NO2emissions are also listed in Table 1. NO2 decreases would represent 0.4% and 0.6% of the NO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

3.1.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions The cumulative reduction in C02emissions from Level 3 design changes is 88 million tons of carbon. For the year 2000, the estimated CO, reduction is 2.6

M million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated C02reduction is 5.8 million tons of carbon, or about 0.1% of estimated 1985 worldwide anthropogenic COz emissions. In other words, by 2010, Level 3 design changeswill decrease annual global C02emissions by one one-thousandth of current levels.

3.1.3 ChlorofluorocarbonConsumption The chlorofluorocarbon with the greatest ozone destruction potential, R-11

## , is used as a blowing agent in producing polyurethane foam, the insulation used in the walls of refrigerators and freezers. Most of the Level 3 increases in CFC use
can be attributed to the R-11 used as more insulation is blown into the doors of refrigerators and freezers. Similar tothe estimation of SO, emissions, estimations 

# - of CFCuse include the effectsof increased demand for efficient appliances. In the
case of CFCs, this includes the manufacturing of additional appliances including 

### R-11 in their foam walls and R-12 as a heat exchange fluid. R-12 is estimated to be 0.79 times asdamaging to the ozone asR-11 (Mooz, 1982). Level 3 design changes would result in an average CFC-11 consumption of 2.71 pounds per refrigerator-freezer and 1.95 pounds per freezer, increases of 0.28 pounds and 0.12 pounds of CFC-11, respectively. Adding in additional R-12 used in the Level 3 scenario and summing use between 1993 and 2015 yields a total increase of 66 million pounds of CFC-11 equivalent. In the year 2010, the estimated increase of 3.1 million pounds represents 0.7% of the 1985 

### U.S.

### emissionsof R-11 andR-12.

3.2 Level Seven Design Changes 

### The Level 7 design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doorsof refrigerators andfreezerstothicknessof two inches.

3.2.1

### Sulfur

### and Nitrogen 

### OxideEmissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 2,910,000 tons between 1993 and 2015. Figures for changes in SO2emissions are listed in Table 3. 

### In the year 2000, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent roughly 0.6% of the SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if no efficiencystandards are established. In the year 2010, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 1.1%

### of the SO2emissions estimated tocome from power plants in that year. Level 7 design changes to refrigerators and freezers would result inan estimated decrease in NO2emissions of 1,880,000tonsbetween 1893and 2015 (see Table 3.). 

### NO2 decreases would represent 0.7% and 1.2% of the NO2 emissions estimatedtocome from power plants in theyears 2000 and 2010, respectively.

3.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

### The cumulative reduction in C02emissions from Level 7 design changes 

### is 166 million tons of carbon. Forthe year 2000, the estimated C02reduction is4.9 million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated GO2reduction is 11

### million tonsof 

### carbon, or about 0.2% of 

### estimated 1985worldwide anthropogenic C02emissions expected if noappliance efficiency standards are established.

3.2.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption 

### The production of refrigerator-freezers would require 2.84 pounds of 

### R-11 for wall and door insulation in the Level 7 scenario, an increase of 0.41 poundsover the base case scenario. Freezers would require the use of 2.06 pounds of R-11 for rigid insulation, an increase of 0.24 pounds per unit. Level 7 increase in the chlorofluorocarbonsR-11 and R-12, listed in equivalent amountsof R-11, sums to 102 million pounds of R-11 equivalent for the years 1993 and 2015. In the year2010, the estimated increase of 4.8 million pounds represents 1.0% of the 1985 U.S. emissions of R-11 andR-12.

3.3 

### Level Eight Design Changes TheLevel 8 design change includes the Level 7 increase in foam insulation to two inches in appliances doors 

### as well as increasing the insulating quality of the foam itself. The current insulation conductivity factor for the foam used in appliance walls and doors is 

### K =0.125 (~tu-inch)/(hr-ft2- Level 8 design changes OF). would require a change in the

### K factor from 0.125 to0.10. Level 8 refrigerators and freezers also include 5.3 

### EER compressors and more efficient fans. Better insulation for refrigerators and freezers would result in decreased electricity consumption and a corresponding decrease in theburningof fossil fuels. The effects of Level 8 design changes include the two contributions. SO, changeswill result from decreased fossil fuel burning in power plants as well as an from increased steel production. Increased steel production is a result of greater demand for the more efficient appliances.

3.3.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen OxideEmissions Net SO2 emissions abated between 1993 and 2015 sum to 3.2 million tons. During the year 2000, 113,000 tons of SO2 will be abated, representing roughly 0.6% of the SO2emissionsestimated tocome from power plants in that year. By the year 2010, SO, emissions abated will be about 1.2% of the estimated annual SO2 emissions from power plants if no new appliance efficiency standards are established. Avoided NO, emissions resulting fromLevel 8 design changes are estimated as those emissions saved from decreases in fossil fuel burning in electric power plants. No significant NO, contribution is expected from the increases in steel production associated with increases in product demand. The cumulative NO, emissions avoided for the 23-year period studied are 2.1 million tons. Annual quantities of NO2 avoided are 66,000 tons (0.7% of estimated power plant emissions) and 134,000tons (1.3%) for theyears 2000 and 2010, respectively.

### 3.3.2 

### Carbon Dioxide Emissions Level 8 changes in 

### C02emissions add up to 185 million tonsof carbon for the years 1893 through 2015. 

### C02savings are listed in Table 6. The quantity of 

### C02saved increases each year through the period studied, reaching 14.3 million tons of carbon in theyear 2015. These savings represent 0.2% of estimated 1985 worldwide 

### C02emissions.

3.3.3Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption A change from a 

### K factor from0.125 to0.10involves changing the amount of 

### C02 and water used, and does not affect the amount of R-11 used. In other words, the amount of 

### R-11 used per appliance does not change from the Level 7 to the Level 8 scenario. The only difference between values for increased 

### CFC consumption between these two scenarios results from the difference in the number of appliances sold. Values for 

### CFC increases in the Level 8 scenario are listed in Table 6.

4 SMALLG A S F U R N A C E S The effects considered in determining the environmental impacts of more efficient small gas furnaces are a decrease in electricity generated 

### at fossil fuelburning power plants and decreases in gas and oil burned in homes. Small decreasesin electricity consumption will occur as some households shift fromelectric heating tosmall gasfurnaces. Although slight increases in shipments of small gas furnaces are expected, increases in the materials used in producing these furnaces will be offset by decreases in the the materials used in producing the larger furnaces and the electric heating devicesthatthe small gas furnaceswill replace. A change in furnace efficiencyto 78% does not affect the emissions from gas

or oil burned in these furnaces. Although changes in emissions rates may occur along with condensation of some of the vapor in the flue gases, this condensation does not occur until efficiencies in the range of 82-84% are reached (DeWerth, lS88).

### 4.0.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen OxideEmissions The decrease in SO2 emissions resulting from the 78% 

### AFUE standard amounts to 110,000 tons between 1993 and 2015, as shown in Table 7. Annual decreases in SO2emissions amount to 2.4% and 4.2% of the emissions estimated tocome from residential fuel combustion during theyears 2000 and 2010, respectively if no new efficiency standardsare adopted. 

### NO2emissions avoided between 1993and 2010 amountto 80,000tons. Annual percent decreases for the years 2000 and 2010 are 0.6% and 1.3% of 

### U.S. 

### NO2 emissions from residential fuel combustion, respectively assuming no new appliance standards are established.

4.0.2 

### Carbon Dioxide Emissions Decreases in 

### C02 emissions resulting from increased small gas furnace efficiencies add up to 8.5 tons of carbon through the year 2015. The greatest annual savings, achieved in the later years of the period studied, are about one ten-thousandth of 1985 global C02emissions.

5 

### TELEVISION SETS The television efficiency Level 3 scenario, which offersthe greatest energy savings for televisions, decreases electricity use by about 0.73 quadrillion Btusfor the years 1992through 2015. These electricity savings translate into cumulative savings of 309,000 tons of SO, and 193,000 tons of NO2. These reductions are each about 10% of the corresponding reductions from Level 8 refrigerator-freezer and freezer efficiencies. However, the proposed no standard for televisions results in no impact on the environment since it will not changethe statusquo. DOE is unaware of any state
or local energy conservation standard concerning television sets that would be preempted by the "no standard" standard. The only state standard of which DOE 

### is aware 

### is the New York State standard that bans the "instant on" feature of tube type televisions. However, since tube type television sets are no longer manufactured, such standardscurrently have noeffect.

# 1 6 

### EVALUATION OFENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS



# I 1 

# f
r
i 6.1 

### Valuing Decreases in Acid Precipitation Sulfur dioxide isthe major contributor to acid precipitation in the

### U.S. After a series of reactions with atmospheric gases and water, SO2forms sulfuric acid. More than half of the domestic SO2emitted as a result of human activities comes from coal burned in power plants. The next greatest contributor to acid precipitation is nitrogen dioxide. One-third of the domestic NO2 emitted from human activitiescomes from electricity generating facilities (Placet, 1986). Attaching values toincremental changesin acid precipitation is difficult. The effects of acid deposition on a given lake or forest depend on a variety of factors, including distance from pollutant source, buffering capacity, surroundingtopography, rate of snow melt, soil or sediment type, etc. Acid precipitation can have negligible effects in buffered natural systems-those containing substances that take up or react with acids-until the buffering capacity is used up. Continued acid precipitation brings water and forest ecosystems closer to their buffering capacity limits, which can greatly affect living systems. Allowing a body of water toreturn toits natural state of alkalinity (buffering capacity) may require tens to thousands of years. In attempting toquantify the effects of acid precipitation, it is therefore important to consider cumulative effects that may not currently be obvious. Some effects on humans resulting from adding acid to ecosystems are: decreases in fishing productivity, forest productivity, farming productivity, recreational opportunities, and the degradation of susceptible buildings and monuments.

6.2 

### Perspectives on Changes in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Atmospheric C02is relatively transparent to incoming solar energy (shortwave radiation) but impedes outgoing solar energy, which is in the form of heat (long-wave radiation). The net result of elevated C02concentrations is a trapping of heat near the Earth's surface. This trapping of heat, referred to as the "greenhouse effect", raises the mean global temperature. Because of human activity, the C02concentrationsin the atmosphere have increased from 290 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era to about 335 ppm in 1979.Expectedresults of a global temperature change are: perturbed air and ocean currents, perturbed precipitation patterns, changes in the gaseous equilibrium between the atmosphere and the biosphere, and the melting of some of the ice now covering polar lands and oceans followed by a rise in sea level (Council onEnvironmental Quality, 1981). 

### A doubling of thepre-industrial levels of C02is projected tooccur in the late part of the next century. Theprocess of controlling C02concentrations is dependent on two time determinants: lead times involved in changing current trends in fossil fuel use and lag times in environmental systems. 

### If the goal were to keep C02concentrations from exceeding 500 ppm, even a growth rate in fossil fuel use of 1.5%per year (compared 

### to a growth rate of 2.3%in 1980)could not continue much beyond theendof this century (Clark, 1982).

6.3 

### Perspectiveson Changesin Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption Chlorofluorocarbon use could upset the atmospheric equilibrium of ozone, a compound that partially screens ultraviolet radiation entering the Earth's atme sphere. Increases in 

### UV radiation translate into increased risks of skin cancer in humans, varied adverse effects on marine and terrestrial organisms and ecosystems, and a greater threat of altering global climatic patterns by contributing to the greenhouse effect.i L 

### 7 

### REFERENCES NAECA 1987. 

### National Appliance Energy ConservationAct,PublicLaw 100-12 U.S. Department of Energy. 1988. "Technical Support Document for the Analysis of Efficiency Standards on Small Gas Furnaces, Television Sets, Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, andFreezersn. Placet 

### M., D.G. Streets,E.R. Williams. 1986. "Environmental Trends Associated with theFifth National EnergyPolicyPlan,"Argonne National Lab. Harte, John. 1985. 

### Consider 

### a Spherical Cow,William Kaufmann, Inc., Los Altos CA. p. 258. Hammitt James K, Kathleen A. Wolf, Frank Camm, William 

### E. Mooz, Timothy H. Quinn, Anil Bamezai. 1986. "Product Uses and Market Trends for Potential Ozone-Depleting Substances, 1985-2000,"Rand, SantaMonica CA,R-3386-EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1086. "National Air Pollutant Emission Estimates, 1940-1984,"EPA-45014-85-014. Oppenheimer, 

### M. 1083. "The Relationship of Sulfur Emissions to Sulfate in Pre- cipitation,"

### Atmospheric Environment,Vol. 17. Mooz W. E., 

### S.H. Dole, D.L. Jaquette, W.H. Icrase, P.F. Morrison, S.L. Salem, R.G. Salter, K.A. Wolf. 1982. "Technical Options for Reducing Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions," Rand Corporation, Santa Monica CA R-2879- EP A. DeWerth, Douglas. 1988. Personal communications on January 12 between Mr. DeWerth (American Gas Association Laboratories) and Mr. Tim Springer (LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratory). U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. "Fossil Fuels and the Effect of Increasing Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide," 

### Global Energy Futures and the Carbon Dioxide Problem, Government Printing Office. Clark, William C. 1982. 

### Carbon Dioxide Review, Oxford University Press, New York 

### NY. pp. 357, 338. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986. 

### Survey of Current Business, Vol. 66,No 7. p S-25. (July). Surprenant 

### N.F., R.R. Hall, K.T. McGregor, A.F. Werner. 1979. "Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, Vol. 1, Gas 

### 81 Oil- Fired Residential Heating Sources," EPA60017-79-029.

### Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1987. "Appliance Energy Efficiency Realities


# ...With a New Wrinkle," presented by John 

### T. Weizeorick at theACEEE National ConferenceonAppliance Efficiency, Arlington VA. Roman,Paul. 1987. Personal communications on October 15between Mr. Roman (Association of Homes Appliance Manufacturers) and Dr. James 

### E. McMahon (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) regarding projections for market shares of refri- gerator andfreezer models. California Energy Commission. 1987. 'Directory of Certified Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers." kssociation of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1986. "Trends andForecasts,Fac- toryUnit Shipments(Domestic &

### Export)of Major Appliances," Chicago

### IL. North American Electric Reliability Council, 1985. "1985 Electric Power Supply andDemand--For 1984to 1994".Table 1. Refrigerators andFreezers 

### -Level Three Changes in Sulfur and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions

Abated Abated

.From Net Percent of

From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. SO, Generation Generation Production Power Plant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 1,540,000tons.

Abated Abated From Net Percent of .From From Increased Change Annual '

Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. NO, Generation Generation Production Power Plant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

Cumulative NO, reduction, 1993-2015 =996,000 tons.Table

### 2. Refrigerators andFreezers

-Level Three Changes in Carbon Dioxide and ChlorofluorocarbonEmissions


### co2 Thousandsof Tonsof Carbon

Year Abated From Coal Generation Abated From

Gas Generation Abated From

Oil Generation Net Change Percent of 1985World Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 =88million tonsof carbon.



### CFC All CFCvalues expressed in pounds of

### R-11equivalent.
Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change 

### U.S. 1985 Design Increased R-11 Year Changes Shipments &R-12*

Cumulative CFCincrease, 1993-2015 =66 million pounds of

### R-11 equivalent. 

## * Sumof estimated

### U.S. use of R-11 andR-12 (Hammitt, 1986).Table

### 3. Refrigerators andFreezers

-Level Seven Changes in Sulfur andNitrogen Dioxide Emissions

Abated

From Coal Generation Year (tons) Abated From Gas & 

### Oil Generation (tons) From Increased Steel Production (tons)

Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015 =

Abated

From Coal Generation Year (tons) Abated From Gas 

### & Oil Generation (tons) From Increased Steel Production (tons) Net Percent of Change Annual U.S. 

### SO, PowerPlant (tons) Emissions

2,910,000tons.

Net Percent of Change Annual U.S. NO, PowerPlant (tons) Emissions

Cumulative NO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 1,880,000tons.Table 4. Refrigerators andFreezers

-Level Seven Changes in CarbonDioxide and ChlorofluorocarbonEmissions


### co2 Thousandsof Tonsof Carbon

Year Abated From Coal Generation Abated From

Gas Generation Abated From

Oil Generation Net Change Percent of 1985World Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 = 166million tons of carbon.

UL' u All CFCvalues expressed in poundsof 

### R-11 equivalent.
Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change U.S. 1985 Design Increased 

### R-11 Year Changes Shipments &R-12*

Cumulative CFCincrease, 1993-2015 = 102million poundsof 

### R-11 equivalent. 

## * Sumof estimated U.S. use ofR-11 and R-12 (Hammitt, 1986).

### Table 5. RefrigeratorsandFreezers

-

### Level Eight Changes in SulfurandNitrogen Dioxide Emissions


## so2

L 

### Year Abated From Coal Generation (tons) Abated From Gas 

### & Oil Generation (tons) From Increased Steel Production (tons) Net Change

(tons) Percent of Annual 

### U.S. SO, Power Plant

Emissions

h 

### Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015 =

### 3,240,000tons.

Abated Abated From Net Percent of

From From Increased Change Annual Coal 

### Gas & Oil Steel 

### U.S. NO, Generation Generation Production PowerPlant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

Cumulative NO, reduction, 1993-2015=

### 2,000,000tons.

### Table 6. 

### Refrigerators andFreezers

-

### Level Eight Changes in CarbonDioxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions

c02 

### Thousands

### of Tonsof Carbon

Year Abated From Coal Generation Abated From

Gas Generation Abated From

Oil Generation Net Change Percent of 1985

### World Emissions

Cumulative C02

### reduction, 1993-2015 = 185

### million tons of 

### carbon.

b r b - - 

### All CFCvalues expressed in pounds of R-11 

### equivalent.
Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change U.S. 1985 

### Design Increased 

### R-11 Year Changes Shipments &R-12*



### Cumulative CFCincrease, 1993-2015 = 103

### million pounds of R-11 

### equivalent. 

## * Sumof estimated U.S. use of

### R-11 andR-12 

### (Hammitt, 1986).Table

### 7.78% Efficient Small Gas Furnaces Changes in Sulfur andNitrogen Dioxide Emissions


## so2

Year Abated From Coal Generation (tons) Abated From 

### Gas & Oil Generation (tons) Abated From In-home Combustion (tons) Net Change 

### U.S. SO, Residential (tons) Percent of Annual

Emissions

Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 110,000tons.

Year Abated From Coal Generation (tons) Abated From Gas & Oil Generation (tons) Abated From In-home Combustion (tons) Net Change U.S. NO, Residential (tons) Percent of Annual

Emissions

Cumulative NO2reduction, 1903-2015 =80,000tons.Table 8. 78%

### AFUE Small 

### GasFurnaces Changesin Carbon DioxideEmissions

Thousandsof Tonsof Carbon

Abated Abated Abated Net

From From From Change Percentof Coal Gas Oil 1985World Year Generation Generation Generation Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 =8.5million tonsof carbon.

### AppendixA. EstimatedDimensionsof Foamed Areas inRefrigerator-Freezers andFreezers

Foamed Dimension Product Class*

Area A 

### E B F C D Measurement .in inches Refrigerator height 39.5 36 3 8 60.5 - - 

### Door width 24 28 28 20 

### - 

## - Freezer height 11 19 16 60.5 16 28



### Door width 24 28 28 12 28 36 

### Refrigerator height 38 35 40 58.5 

### - - Cabinet width 22 26 30 20 

### - - depth 26 23 2 4 24 - - 

### Freezer height 12 19 18 58.5 55 32 

### Cabinet width 22 26 30 12 26 24 

### depth 26 23 24 24 21 26 

## * Product Class
A: Manual Defrost 

### B: Partially AutomaticDefrost
C: TopMounted Freezer,AutomaticDefrost Top MountedFreezer,AutomaticDefrost, Through-the-Door Ice Bottom Mounted Freezer,AutomaticDefrost
D: Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers,Through-the-DoorIce 

### E: 

### Upright Freezer, Manual Defrost Upright Freezer, Automatic Defrost
F: Chest Freezer