DOE F 1325.8

(12-84) 

## United States Government 

# memorandum Department of Energy

DATE: November 7, 1988 REPLY TO EH-25 ATTN OF:Approval of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Notice of SUBJECT:. Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards for

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Small Gas Furnaces and Television Sets (ACCRTS Item No. CE-516) TO: John R. Berg Acting Assistant Secretary Conservation and Renewable Energy
This is in response to the memorandum of October 28, 1988, from the Supervisory Engineer, Building Equipment Division, requesting approval of the subject EA and NOPR. Revised drafts of these documents were submitted on November 3, 1988. The Office of Environment, Safety and Health has reviewed these documents in accordance with our responsibilities under Department of Energy Order 5440.1C regarding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA adequately addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposal to prescribe energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances, and administer an energy program. Based upon my staff's review and analyses and their recommendations, and after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I have determined that the EA is adequate for publication subject to incorporation of the changes indicated on the attached copy of the EA. The proposal does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination is explained in the attached finding of no significant impact. In addition, the attached environmental discussion prepared for inclusion in the NOPR is adequate and is hereby approved. This EA has been designated as DOE/EA-0372. Please provide the Office of NEPA Project Assistance with a record of your distribution of the EA and five copies of the published EA.

Ernest C. (^Tayn d, ITI -Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health Attachments DOE F 1325.8 (12-84) 

### United States Government Department of Energy 

# memorandum

DATE: November 7, 1988 REPLY TO EH-25 ATTN OF:-Approval of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Notice of SUBJECT:. Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Small Gas Furnaces and Television Sets (ACCRTS Item No. CE-516) TO: John R. Berg Acting Assistant Secretary Conservation and Renewable Energy
This is in response to the memorandum of October 28, 1988, from the Supervisory Engineer, Building Equipment Division, requesting approval of the subject EA and NOPR. Revised drafts of these documents were submitted on November 3, 1988. The Office of Environment, Safety and Health has reviewed these documents in accordance with our responsibilities under Department of Energy Order 5440.lC regarding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA adequately addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposal to prescribe energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances, and administer an energy program. Based upon my staff's review and analyses and their recommendations, and after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I have determined that the EA is adequate for publication subject to incorporation of the changes indicated on the attached copy of the EA. The proposal does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination is explained in the attached finding of no significant impact. In addition, the attached environmental discussion prepared for inclusion in the NOPR is adequate and is hereby approved. This EA has been designated as DOE/EA-0372. Please provide the Office of NEPA Project Assistance with a record of your distribution of the EA and five copies of the published EA.

Attachments Ernest C. Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health

### DOE/EA-0372

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR TWO TYPES OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS; REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; SMALL GAS FURNACES; AND A PROPOSED "NO STANDARD" STANDARD FOR TELEVISION SETS

1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from new or amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, small gas furnaces, and television sets as mandated by the 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 EngineeringAnalysis 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 fossilfuel-fired electricity generation and the chlorofluorocarbons used in the production of rigid insulation foam. Each of the 12 design options for refrigerators and freezers result in decreased electricity use and, therefore, reduced power plantemissions. Design changes that call for additional rigid foam insulation per appliance are of interest because they affect chlorofluorocarbon consumption. There is strong evidence that chlorofluorocarbons migrate to the stratosphere, break down, and catalyze the destruction of stratospheric ozone.The four scenarios 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 also presented, although these results are not discussed in detail.

1 DOE/EA-0372


### ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTFORPROPOSEDENERGY CONSERVATIONSTANDARDSFORTWO TYPES OF CONSUMERPRODUCTS;REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS,AND FREEZERS;

SMALL GAS FURNACES;ANDA PROPOSED "NO STANDARD"STANDARDFOR TELEVISIONSETS

1 INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from new or amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, small gas furnaces, and television sets as mandated by the 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 ofthe 14 scenarios for product design changes described in the Engineering Analysis ofthe TSD are chosen for environmental assessment basedontheir relative importance as design measures. Values for energy savings that result from product design changes are alsotakenfrom 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 ofthe 12 design options for refrigerators and freezers result in decreased electricity use and, therefore, reduced power plant emissions. Design changes that call for additional rigid foam insulation per appliance are ofinterest because they affect chlorofluorocarbon consumption. There is strong evidence that chlorofluorocarbons migratetothe stratosphere, break down, and catalyzethe destruction ofstratosphericozone. Thefour scenarios 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 also presented, althoughthese results are not discussed in detail.

1In the Level 3 scenario, all refrigerator and freezer doors would be changed to

include rigid foam insulation one and a half inches thick. In the Level 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 appliances would be improved from a conductivity factor, K, of 0.125 (Btu-inch)/(hr-ft2- °F) 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 insulation used per unit; energy savings attributed to Levels 1 and 2 are achieved through the use of 4.5 and 5.0 EER compressors, respectively. Power plant emissions would be abated as a result of Levels 1 and 2, but in smaller amounts than for Levels 3-12, which result in greater energy savings. Levels 4, 5, and 6 are not analyzed because they do not use more CFCs than the Level 3 scenario and the reduction in emissions are between the those for the Level 3 and the Level 7 scenarios. Levels 9 through 11 are not analyzed because they are not addressed inthe TSD and therefore values for estimated energy savings and numbers of appliances sold are not available for estimating environmental impacts. Level 12 is excluded because it is a lower priority design measure than the levels analyzed. The proposed efficiency standards will decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand. The greatest decreases in air pollution will be in sulfur oxides (listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or SO0). For the Level 8 scenario in the year 2010, the estimated SO2 reduction will be 202,000 tons. This reduction represents 1.2% of the U.S. SO2 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants in that year if no appliance standards are established (Placet, 1986).Although the quantity of raw materials used per appliance will remain relatively constant, increased energy efficiency is expected to slightly increase the number of appliances sold, resulting in small increases in raw materials used. This demand increase is estimated by the Consumer Impact Analysis in the TSD.The main effect of increased appliance production is the SO9 emitted in steel production. The increase is small, however, in comparison to the SO9 decreases from In theLevel 3 scenario, all refrigerator and freezer doors would be changedto include rigid foam insulation one and a halfinches thiclc In theLevel 7 scenario, all refrigerator and freezer

## door~**w~uld** be changed to include rigid foam insulation two inches thick. In the Level 8 scenario, the insulating value of the foam itselfin the walls and doors ofapplianceswould be improved from a conductivity factor, K, of 0.125 (Btu-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 inthe 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 insulation used per unit; energy savings attributed to Levels 1 and 2 are achieved through the use of 4.5 and 5.0 EER compressors, respectively. Power plant emissions would be abated as a result of Levels 1 and 2, but in smaller amounts than for Levels 3-12, which result in greater energy savings. Levels 4, 5, and 6 are not analyzed because they do not use more CFCs than the Level 3 scenario and the reduction in emissions are between the those for the Level 3 and the Level 7 scenarios. Levels 9 through 11 are not analyzed because theyare not addressed in the TSD and therefore values for estimated energy savings and numbersof appliances sold are not available for estimating environmental impacts. Level 12 IS excludedbecause itis a lower prioritydesign measure thanthe levels analyzed. The proposed efficiency standards will decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand. The greatest decreases in air pollution will be in sulfur oxides (listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or S02)' For the Level 8 scenario in the year 2010, the estimated S02 reductionwill be 202,000 tons. This reduction represents 1.2% of the U.S. S02 emissions expected to be emitted by powerplantsinthatyearifno appliancestandards are established (Placet, HJ86). Although the quantity of raw materials used per appliance will remain relatively constant, increased energy efficiency is expected to slightly increase the number of appliances sold, resulting in small increases in raw materials used. This demand increase is estimated by the Consumer ImpactAnalysis in the TSD. The main effect ofincreased appliance production is theS02 emitted in steel production. The increase is small, however, in comparisonto the S02 decreases from

2fuel burning avoided at power plants. The contribution from steel production is

included in the estimates for net SO2 decreases resulting from design changes in refrigerators and freezers. The Level 8 decrease in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions for the year 2010 is estimated at 134,000 tons. This decrease in NO2 emissions represents 1.3% of the total NO2 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants in that year without new appliance standards. Emissions savings projected from Level 7 design changes are nearly as great as the Level 8 savings because the only applicable difference between the two scenarios is a slightly larger number of appliances sold in the Level 8 scenario. Emissions savings from Level 3 design changes amount to about half those from the Level 8 design changes. Cumulative SO2 emissions reductions from increased efficiency of small gas furnaces is only about 3% of the reductions from Level 8 refrigerator and freezer design changes, or about 110,000 tons cumulative between 1993 and 2015. For Level 3 television set standards, the reduction of SO2 and NO.9 emissions amounts to 10% of that from the Level 8 standards for refrigerators and freezers. Another consequence of standards will be reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 from fossil fuel burning is considered an environmental hazard because elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are believed to trap heatfrom 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 to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions, for each of the years 2010 through 2015, by an amount equivalent to 0.2% of the 1985 base figure for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which is 5.84 x 109 tons of carbon per year (Harte, 1985).An additional effect of some design change scenarios is the increased 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 1985 total U.S. R-11 and R-12 consumption (Hammitt, 1986).

3 fuel burning avoided at power plants. The contribution from steel production is included in the estimatesJoJ; net S02 decreases resulting from design changes in refrigerators andfreezers. The Level 8 decrease in nitrogen dioxide (N02) emissions for the year 2010 is estimated at 134,000 tons. This decrease in N02emissions represents 1.3% of the total N02 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants in that year without new appliance standards. Emissions savings projected from Level 7 design changes are nearly as great as the Level 8 savings because the only applicable difference between the two scenarios is a slightly larger numberofappliances sold intheLevel 8 scenario. Emissions savingsfrom Level 3 design changes amount to about halfthose from theLevel 8 design changes. Cumulative S02 emissions reductions from increased efficiency of small gas furnaces is only about 3% of the reductions from Level 8 refrigerator and freezer design changes, or about 110,000 tons cumulative between 1993 and 2015. For Level 3 television set standards, the reduction ofS02 and N02emissions amounts to 10%ofthat from theLevel 8 standardsfor refrigerators andfreezers. Another consequence of standards will be reduction of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. CO2 from fossil fuel burning is considered an environmental hazard because elevated CO2 concentrations in 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 to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions, for each ofthe years 2010 through 2015, by an amount equivalent to 0.2% of the 1985 base figure for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which is 5.84 X 109 tons of carbon per year (Harte, 1985). An additional effect ofsome design change scenariosis the increased consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorofluorocarbon R-ll is contained in the rigid foam insulation used in the walls and doors of appliances. Use of R-ll 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 H)85 total U.S. R-ll and R-12 consumption (Hammitt, 1986).

3Other environmental effects related to a standards-induced decrease in electricity generation are relatively insignificant compared to the decreases in SO2, NO2, 

### and CO2.An in-depth analysis of particulate emissions is not included in this assessment because they are insignificant compared to sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. Current electricity generating methods are far cleaner than those of thepast. In 1984, power plants contributed only 7% of U.S. total particulate emissions as compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total SO2 and NO2 emissions, respectively (EPA, 1986). More efficient small gas furnaces will decrease the amount of gas or oil burned within some homes, thereby decreasing combustion effects 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 diffusion from soil. In comparison to the above factors, incremental changes in combustion gases used have a small effect on indoor air quality.

2 METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The greatest impacts of the proposed standards are the result of generating less electricity

. Power plants' main environmental effects on air and water result from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The symbols SO2 and NO2 represent all emissions of SOX and NOX expressed in the equivalent weights of SO2 and NO2, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions are commonly expressed in tons of carbon. The efficiencies of refrigerators and freezers can be improved by using foam insulation in their doors. If this design option is chosen by the industry in response to standards, chlorofluorocarbon consumption will increase

. CFC use is estimated on the basis of refrigerator and freezer dimensions and the amount of additional CFC required to increase the volume of rigid insulation foam. None of the design options proposed requires the use of additional R-12 (a CFC used as a refrigerant) per appliance

. A secondary effect, the change in shipments resulting from standards, is also considered.

4 Other environmental effects related to a standards-induced decrease in electricity generation are relatively**insign~?cant** comparedtothe decreases in S02' N02, and CO2, " " 

### An in-depth analysis of particulate emissions is not included in this assessment because they are insignificant compared to sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. Current electricity generating methods are far cleaner than those of the past. In 1984, power plants contributed only 7% of U.S. total particulate emissions as compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total S02 and N02emissions, respectively (EPA, 1986). More efficient small gasfurnaces will decrease the amount ofgas oroil burned within some homes, thereby decreasing combustion effects on indoor air quality. Indoor air problems are usually due to a combination offactors, including a tight house envelope, cigarette smoke, ventilationmethods, wateruse habits, andradon diffusion from soil. in comparison to the above factors, incremental changes in combustion gases usedhave a small effect onindoor air quality.



### 2 METHODS OFESTIMATINGENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS The greatest impacts of the proposed standards are the result of generating less electricity. Power plants' main environmental effects on air and water result from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOJ, nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and carbon dioxide (C02), The symbols S02 and NO,) represent all emissions of SO and NO

_ x x expressed in the equivalent weights ofS02 and N02, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions are commonlyexpressedintonsofcarbon. The efficiencies of refrigerators and freezers can be improved by using foam insulation in their doors. If this design option is chosen by the industry in response to standards, chlorofluorocarbon consumption will increase. CFC use is estimated on the basis of refrigerator and freezer dimensions and the amount of additional CFC required to increase the volume ofrigid insulation foam. None of the design options proposed requires the use of additional R-12 (a CFC used as a refrigerant) per appliance. A secondary effect, the change in shipments resulting from standards, is also considered.

42.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions For each of the scenarios analyzed for their environmental impacts (Level 3, Level 7, and Level 8 in refrigerators and freezers, 78% AFUE small gas furnaces, and Level 3 efficiencies for televisions), emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning power plants are considered. In analyzing the impacts of Level 3, 7, and 8 design changes to refrigerators and freezers, increased sulfur emissions to come from increased steel production are also considered. As mentioneu earlier in this report, these increases in steel production result from slight increases in the number of appliances sold, equated to an increase in the number of appliances manufactured. No changes in the amount of steel used per refrigerator or freezer are expected. Analysis of the impacts resulting from 78% AFUE small gas furnaces includes the consideration of SO2 from in-home combustion of gas and oil. 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 as plus oil on the other, in the ratios of 0.53 and 0.47, respectively, as estimated in supporting material for the Electric Utility Analysis, also in the TSD. This disaggregation into coal and oil-plus-gas is depicted in Figure 1. In order to capture the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in future years, 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 production are estimated assuming 100 pounds of steel per refrigerator or freezer (Mooz, 1982). An S02 emissions ratefor steel production is calculated from the "National Air Pollutant Emission Estimates, 1940-1985," (EPA, 1986), 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 multiplied by the tons of steel to be used in manufacturing the additional appliances in the Level 3, 7, and 8 scenarios.* Uncertainty arises because EPA had to make assumptions about the furnace types used to produce steel and about the sulfur content of the coal burned to generate the electricity for steel production.

5 2.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen OxideEmissions For each of the scenarios analyzed for their environmental impacts (Level 3,

"l- •**~** Level 7, and Level 8 in refrigerators and freezers, 78% AFUE small gas furnaces, and Level 3 efficiencies for televisions), emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning power plants are considered. In analyzing the impacts of Level 3, 7, and 8 design changes to refrigerators and freezers, increased sulfur emissions to come from increased steel production are also considered. As mentioneu earlier in this report, these increases in steel production result from slight increases in the number of appliances sold, equated to an increase in the number of appliances manufactured. No changes in the amountofsteel used perrefrigeratororfreezer are expected. Analysis ofthe impactsresulting from 78%AFUE small gasfurnaces includes the considerationofS02from in-home combustionofgas 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 ratios of 0.53 and 0.47, respectively, as estimated in supporting material for the Electric UtilityAnalysis, also in the TSD. This disaggregationinto coal and oil-plus-gasis depicted in Figure 1. In order to capture the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in future years, 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 inthe report. Sulfur dioxide emissions from steel production are estimated assuming 100 pounds of steel per refrigerator or freezer (Mooz, 1982). An S02 emissions rate for steel production is calculatedfrom the "NationalAirPollutantEmissionEstimates, 1940-1985," (EPA, 1986), 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)*. S02 emissions from steel production are multiplied by the tons ofsteel to be used in manufacturing the additional appliances in theLevel 3, 7, and 8 scenarios. * Uncertainty arises because EPA had to make assumptions aboutthe furnace types used to producesteel and aboutthesulfur contentofthe coal burnedtogenerate the electricity for steel production.

5

## Electricity Savings due to Standards on Refrigerator-Freezers Level 3 Standards Level 8 Standards

0.7

0.6 -

0.5- (U D C7 0.4-)

0.1-I 0.7-7

0.0 -^--,- 1990 Total Electricity Savings

1995 Oil and Gas 0.0- 

### 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

## Year Year 

# - CJ) "0 ro :J 

# a 

# - :J +-' 

### r::o c 0

"- "0 ro :::l 

# a Electricity Savings due to Standards on Refrigerator-Freezers Level 3 Standards
0.7,...---------------,

0.6

0.5 Total Electricity Savings 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1**o.o~~~~~++~~~~~~~~~**



### 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

## Year 

# - CJ) "0 ro :::l 

# a


# - :::l +-' 

### r::o c 0

"- "0 ro ::J 

# a Level 8 Standards
0.7,----------------....,

0.6 Total Electricity Savings 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0**--t-T-f'~:r-f~~r-r~~~~~~~~** 

### 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

## YearThe values for SO2 savings from in-home gas and oil combustion are produced by multiplying in-home fuel savings for gas and oil by corresponding emission rates for furnace operation, taken from Surprenant, et al. (1979).Methods and data sources for calculating changes in NO2 emissions are identical to those for SO2 emissions with the exception of emissions from steel production. Unlike in the scenario for SO2, no significant NO9 emissions are expected from increased steel production.

2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Values for CO2 abated are the sum of the CO2 savings from coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and, for the 78% AFUE small gas furnace scenario only, CO2 emissions from in-home combustion of gas and oil. The energy saved fromelectricity generation is apportioned between coal and gas or oil as in the calculation of SO2 and NO2. In addition, gas and oil are disaggregated into relative shares of 0.70 and 0.30, respectively. These shares are the averages of the relative 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 data for a more accurate method of estimated relative gas and oil shares concerning order of dispatch in the various NERC regions are not available. This disaggregation into fuel shares should therefore be taken only as a rough representation of power plant fuel choices on the margin.

2.3 Chlorofluorocarbon ConsumptionDesign change level 3 involves adding foam to the doors of refrigeratorfreezers and freezers to a thickness of 1.5 inches. This would require additionalfoam in the doors of some models and the use of foam to replace fiberglass in others. The Level 7 design change specifies increasing the thickness of the foam used 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 to the doors of refrigerators and freezers, all three design change scenarios for these appliances involve a change in the amount of CFCs used per

7 The values for S02 savings from in-home gas- and oil combustion are produced by multiplying in-home fuel savings for gas and oil by corresponding emissionratesfor furnace

### ope~ati~n, takenfrom Surprenant, et al. (1979). Methods and datasources for calculating changes in N02emissions are identical to those for S02 emissions with the exception of emissions from steel production. Unlike in the scenario for S02' no significant N02 emissions are expected from increased steel production.

2.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions Values for CO2 abated are the sum of the CO2 savings from coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and, for the 78% AFUE small gas furnace scenario only, CO2 emissions from in-home combustion of gas and oil. The energy saved from electricity generation is apportioned between coal and gas or oil as in the calculation of 802 and N02. In addition, gas and oil are disaggregated into relative sharesof0.70 and 0.30, respectively. These shares are the averagesofthe relative 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 methodofestimatedrelative gas andoil shares concerning order of dispatch in the various NERC regions are not available. This disaggregation into fuel shares should therefore be taken only as a rough representationofpower plantfuel choices onthe margin.

2.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption Design change level 3 involves adding foam to the doors of refrigeratorfreezers and freezers to a thickness of 1.5 inches. This would require additional foam in the doors ofsome models and the use offoam to replace fiberglass in others. The Level 7 design change specifies increasing the thickness ofthe foam used 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 ofthe foam itself. Because they called for adding foam insulation to the doors of refrigerators and freezers, all three design change scenarios for these appliances involve a change in the amount of CFCs used per

7appliance. The 78% AFUE small gas furnace scenario does not involve CFC production or consumption.Average refrigerator and freezer dimensions are used to estimate the dimensions of foamed areas, which in turn are used to estimate changes in CFC use. These estimated dimensions of foamed areas remain constant in all three scenarios 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 the base 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 groups A through F. The estimates of foamed areas for appliance groups C, D, and E are based on appliance dimensions as outlined in the Engineering Analysis in the TSD.In order to estimate foamed areas for appliances in groups A, B, and F, average adjusted volumes for the specified models are first obtained from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. These average adjusted volumes are used to identify the most appropriately sized models for which exterior dimensions are listed by the California Energy Commission, (CEC, 1987). Appliance dimensions from the CEC report are then used to estimate dimensions of foamed areas. When interior appliance dimensions are used to estimated the size of foamed areas, 1.0 inch is added where appropriate in order to account for extra foam used around corners. When exterior appliance dimensions are used to estimate the sizeof foamed areas, 1.0 inch is subtracted where appropriate to account for the overlap of foamed areas around corners. It is assumed that the bottom edge of insulated areas begins 6.5 inches above floor level for each of the refrigerator-freezer and freezer models except freezers. The bottom edge of insulated areas for chest freezers is estimated to begin 2 inches above floor level. Volumes of foam are converted into pounds of the CFC R-11 using a factor of 1.5 pounds of foam per cubic foot (Hammitt, 1986) and 0.2 pounds of R-11 per pound of foam. The ratio of 0.2 pounds of R-11 per pound of foam is derived from the current annual quantity of R-11 used by manufacturers of refrigerators and freezers (14,835,000 pounds--AIIAM, 1987) along with the number of these appliances manufactured (7,145,000 appliances--AI-IAM, 1987) and their average

8 appliance. The 78%AFUE small gas furnace scenario does not involve CFC productionorconsumption. Average refrigerator and freezer dimensions are used to estimate the dimensions of foamed areas, which in turn are used to estimate changes in CFC use. These estimateddimensionsoffoamed areasremain constantin 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 throughF. The estimates offoamed areas for appliance groups C, D, andE are based on appliance dimensions as outlinedintheEngineeringAnalysis inthe TSD. In order to estimate foamed areas for appliances in groupsA, B, andF, average adjusted volumes for the specified models are first obtainedfrom theAssociation ofHome Appliance Manufacturers. These average adjusted volumes are used to identify the most appropriately sized models for which exterior dimensions are listed by the CaliforniaEnergy Commission, (CEC, 1987). Appliance dimensions from the CEC report arethen used toestimate dimensions offoamed areas. When interior appliance dimensions are used to estimated the size offoamed areas, 1.0inch is addedwhere appropriate in orderto account for extrafoam used around corners. When exterior appliance dimensions are used to estimatethesize offoamed areas, 1.0inchis subtractedwhere appropriate to account for theoverlap offoamed areas around corners. It is assumed that the bottom edge ofinsulated areas begins 6.5 inches above floor level for each of the refrigerator-freezer and freezer models except freezers. The bottom edge ofinsulated areas for chest freezers is estimatedtobegin2inches above floor level. Volumesoffoam are converted into pounds ofthe CFC

### R-ll using a factor of 1.5 pounds of foam per cubic foot (Hammitt, 1986) and 0.2 pounds of 

### R-ll per pound of foam. The ratio of 0.2 pounds of 

### R-ll per pound of foam is derived from the current annual quantity of

### R-ll used by manufacturers of refrigerators and freezers (14,835,000 pounds--AH.A}.;I, 1987) along with the number of these appliances manufactured (7,145,000 appliances--AfLW, 1987) and their average

8volumes of foam calculated as outlined above and weighted by shipment (Roman, 1987 and AHAM, 1986) The total change in CFCs is the sum of CFCs from increased foam use perappliance and increased CFCs from the production of a greater number of appliances. The former contribution to increased CFC use is the product of per unitR-11 increases and the base case number of appliances shipped. The latter contribution to increased CFC use includes per unit R-11 in the foam insulation and R-12 refrigerant in the additional appliances shipped. Values for the amounts of 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 in terms of their ozone damage potential (0.79) relative to R-11 (Mooz, 1982).

3 REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

3.1 Level Three Design Changes The Level 3 design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doors of refrigerators and freezers to a thickness of one and a half inches.
3.1.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Changes in the amounts of SO 2 and NO2 emitted result mainly from greaterrefrigerator and freezer efficiency and resulting decreases in the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuel-burning plants. SO 2 emissions are also affected by increased steel production because of slightly increased demand for the more efficient appliances. No additional steel is expected to be used per appliance. Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 1,540,000 tons between 1993 and 2015 in the Level 3 scenario. Figures for changesin SO2 emissions 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 SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if standards are not established.

9 volumes offoam calculated as outlined above and weighted byshipment (Roman, 1987 andAHANI, 1986) The total change in CFCs is the sum of CFCs from increased foam use per appliance and increased CFCs from the production of a greater number of appliances. The former contribution to increased CFC use is the product of per unit R-ll increases andthe base case numberof appliancesshipped. The latter contribution to increased CFC use includes per unit R-ll in the foam insulation and R-12 refrigerant in the additional appliances shipped. Values for the amounts of the R-12 used in refrigerators and freezers are 210 grams and 280 grams, respectively (Hammitt, 1986). Where R-12 values are included intotals, they are listed intermsoftheirozone damagepotential (0.79) relative toR-ll (Mooz, 1982).



### 3 REFRIGERATORSAND FREEZERS

3.1 

### Level ThreeDesign Changes The Level 3 design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doorsofrefrigerators andfreezers to a thicknessofone and a halfinches.

3.1.1 Sulfur 

### andNitrogen OxideEmissions Changes in the amounts of S02 and N02emitted result mainly from greater refrigerator andfreezer efficiency and resulting decreases in the amount ofelectricity generated by fossil fuel-burning plants. S02 emissions are also affected by increased steel production because of slightly increased demand for the more efficient appliances. No additional steel is expectedtobe used per appliance. Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 1,540,000 tons between 1993 and 2015 in theLevel 3 scenario.Figuresfor changes in S02 emissions are listed in Table 1. Inthe year 2000, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent roughly 0.3% of the S02 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year 2010, decreases in S02 emissions will represent about 0.6% of the 802 emissions estimated to come from power plants in thatyearifstandards are not established.

9There 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 decreasein NO2 emissions of 996,000 tons between 1993 and 2015. Changes in NO2 emissions 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 Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Level 3 design changes is 88 million tons of carbon. For the year 2000, the estimated CO2 reduction is 2.6 million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated CO., reduction is 5.8 million tonsof carbon, or about 0.1% of estimated 1985 worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In other words, by 2010, Level 3 design changes will decrease annual global CO2 emissions by one one-thousandth of current levels.
3.1.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption 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 to the estimation of SO2 emissions, estimations of CFC use include the effects of 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 as damaging to the ozone as R-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.

10 There is evidence that decreases in sulfur emissions are followed by proportional decreasesin acid deposition (Oppenheimer, 1983). Quantifying and qualifying the resulting abatement

### ~f e"'nvironmental 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 N02 emissions of 996,000 tons between 1993 and 2015. Changes in N02 emissions are also listed in Table 1. N02 decreaseswouldrepresent 0.4% and0.6% of the N02 emissions estimated to come from power plants in the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

3.1.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Level 3 design changes is 88 million tons of carbon. For the year 2000, the estimated CO2 reduction is 2.6 million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated CO2 reduction is 5.8 million tons of carbon, or about 0.1% of estimated 1985 worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Inotherwords, by 2010, Level 3 design changeswill decrease annual global CO2 emissionsbyone one-thousandthofcurrent levels.

3.1.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption The chlorofluorocarbon with the greatest ozone destruction potential, R-ll, 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-ll used as more insulation is blown into the doors of refrigerators andfreezers. Similar to the estimationof S02 emissions, estimations of CFC use include the effects ofincreased demandfor efficient appliances. Inthe case of CFCs, this includes the manufacturing of additional appliances including R-ll in their foam walls and R-12 as a heat exchange fluid. R-12 is estimated to be 0.79 times as damaging totheozone as R-ll (Mooz, 1982). Level 3 design changes would result in an average CFC-ll consumption of 2.71 pounds per refrigerator-freezer and 1.95 pounds per freezer, increases of0.28 pounds and 0.12 pounds of CFC-ll, 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-ll equivalent. In the year 2010, the estimated increase of 3.1 million pounds represents 0.7% of the 1985 U.S.

10emissions of R-11 and R-12.

3.2 Level Seven Design Changes The Level 7 design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doors of refrigerators and freezers to thickness of two inches.
3.2.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 2,910,000 tons between 1993 and 2015. Figures for changes in S02 emissions are listed in Table 3. In the year 2000, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent roughly 0.6% of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if no efficiency standards are established. In the year 2010, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 1.1% of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. Level 7 design changes to refrigerators and freezers would result in an estimated decrease in NO2 emissions of 1,880,000 tons between 1993 and 2015 (see Table 3.). NO2 decreases would represent 0.7% and 1.2% of the NO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

3.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Level 7 design changes is 166 million tons of carbon. For the year 2000, the estimated CO2 reduction is 4.9 million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated CO2 reduction is 11 million tons of carbon, or about 0.2% of estimated 1985 worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions expected if no appliance 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 pounds over 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 chlorofluorocarbons R-11 and R-12, listed in equivalent amounts of R-11, sums to 102 million pounds of R-11 equivalent for the years 1993 and 2015. In the year

11 emissionsofR-11 andR-12.

3.2 Level SevenDesign Changes The Level 7 design changes are the addition of rigid insulating foam to the doorsofrefrigerators andfreezers tothicknessoftwo 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 S02 emissions are listed in Table 3. In the year 2000, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent roughly 0.6% of the S02 emissions estimated to come from power plants in th?-t yearifno efficiency standards are established. In the year 2010, decreases in S02 emissions will represent about 1.1%ofthe S02 emissions estimated to come from power plantsinthatyear. Level 7 design changes to refrigerators and freezers would result in an estimated decrease in N02emissionsof 1,880,000tons between 1993 and 2015 (see Table 3.). N02 decreases would represent 0.7% and 1.2% of the N02emissions estimatedto come from powerplantsintheyears 2000 and 2010, respectively.

3.2.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Level 7 design changes is 166 million tonsof carbon. Fortheyear 2000, the estimated CO2reduction is 4.9 million tons of carbon. In 2010, the estimated CO2reductionis 11 million tonsof carbon, or about 0.2% ofestimated 1985 worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions expectedifno appliance efficiencystandards are established.

3.2.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption The production of refrigerator-freezers would require 2.84 pounds ofR-ll for wall and door insulation in the Level 7 scenario, an increase of 0.41 pounds over the base case scenario. Freezers would require the use of 2.06 pounds ofR-ll for rigid insulation, an increase of 0.24 pounds per unit. Level 7 increase in the chlorofluorocarbons 

### R-ll and

### R-12, listed in equivalent amountsofR-ll, sums to 102 million pounds of R-11 equivalent for the years 1993 and 2015. In the year

112010, the estimated increase of 4.8 million pounds represents 1.0% of the 1985

U.S. emissions of R-11 and R-12.

3.3 Level Eight Design Changes The Level 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 thefoam itself. The current insulation conductivity factor for the foam used in appliance walls and doors is K = 0.125 (Btu-inch)/(hr-ft2- °F). Level 8 design changes would require a change in the K factor from 0.125 to 0.10. Level 8 refrigerators and freezers also include 5.3 EER compressors and more efficient fans. Betterinsulation for refrigerators and freezers would result in decreased electricity consumption and a corresponding decrease in the burning of fossil fuels. The effects of Level 8 design changes include the two contributions. SO2 changes will 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 Oxide Emissions 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 S02 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. By the year 2010, SO2 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 NO2 emissions resulting from Level 8 design changes are estimated as those emissions saved from decreases in fossil fuel burning in electric power plants. No significant NO9 contribution is expected from the increases in steel production associated with increases in product demand. The cumulative NO9 emissions avoided for the 23-year period studied are 2.1 million tons. Annualquantities of NO2 avoided are 66,000 tons (0.7% of estimated power plant emissions) and 134,000 tons (1.3%) for the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

12 2010, the estimated increase of 4.8 million pounds represents 1.0% of the 1985 U.S. emissionsofR-11 andR-12: "

,**~**

3.3 LevelEight Design Changes The Level 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 conductivityfactor for the foam used in appliance walls and doors is K = 0.125 (Btu-inch)/(hr-ft2

-

### OF). Level 8 design changes would require a change in the 

### K factor from 0.125 to 0.10. 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 intheburningoffossil fuels. The effects of Level 8 design changes include the two contributions. S02 changeswill resultfrom decreasedfossil 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 S02 emissions abated between 1993 and 2015 sum to 3.2 million tons. During the year 2000, 113,000 tons of S02 will be abated, representing roughly 0.6% ofthe S02 emissions estimatedto comefrom power plantsin thatyear. By the year 2010, S02 emissions abated will be about 1.2% ofthe estimated annual S02 emissions from power plants if no new appliance efficiency standards are established. Avoided N02emissions resulting from Level 8 design changes are estimated as those emissions saved from decreases in fossil fuel burning in electric power plants. No significant N02 contribution is expected from the increases in steel production associated with increases in product demand. The cumulative N02 emissions avoided for the 23-year period studied are 2.1 million tons. Annual quantities of N02 avoided are 66,000 tons (0.7% of estimated power plant emissions) and 134,000 tons (1.3%) for the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

123.3.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Level 8 changes in CO2 emissions add up to 185 million tons of carbon for the years 1993 through 2015. CO2 savings are listed in Table 6. The quantity of CO2 saved increases each year through the period studied, reaching 14.3 million tons of carbon in the year 2015. These savings represent 0.2% of estimated 1985 worldwide CO9 emissions.
3.3.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption A change from a K factor from 0.125 to 0.10 involves changing the amount of CO, 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 SMALL GAS FURNACES The effects considered in determining the environmental impacts of moreefficient small gas furnaces are a decrease in electricity generated at fossil fuelburning power plants and decreases in gas and oil burned in homes. Smalldecreases in electricity consumption will occur as some households shift from electric heating to small gas furnaces. Although slight increases in shipments of small gas furnaces are expected, increases in the materials used in producing these furnaces will be offset bydecreases in the the materials used in producing the larger furnaces and the electric heating devices that the small gas furnaces will replace. A change in furnace efficiency to 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, 1988).

13 3.3.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions Level 8 changes in 

### CO,2 eJ-nissions add up to 185 million tonsofcarbonfor the years 1993 through 2015. CO2 savings are listed in Table 6. The quantity of CO2 saved increases each year through the period studied, reaching 14.3 million tons of carbon in the year 2015. These savings represent 0.2% ofestimated 1985 worldwide CO2 emissions.

3.3.3 Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption A change from a K factor from 0.125 to 0.10 involves changing the amountof CO2 and water used, and does not affect the amount of 

### R-ll used. In other words, the amount of

### R-ll 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 SMALL GAS FURNACES 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 decreases in electricity consumptionwill occur as some households shiftfrom electricheating to small gas furnaces. 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 devices thatthe small gas furnaces will replace. A change in furnace efficiency to 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 ofthe vapor in the flue gases, this condensation does not occur until efficiencies in the range of 82-84% are reached (De\Verth, 1988).

134.0.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

The decrease in SO2 emission resulting from the 78% AFUE standard amounts to 110,000 tons between 1993 and 2015, as shown in Table 7. Annual decreases in SO2 emissions amount to 2.4% and 4.2% of the emissions estimatedto come from residential fuel combustion during the years 2000 and 2010, respectively if no new efficiency standards are adopted. NO2 emissions avoided between 1993 and 2010 amount to 80,000 tons. 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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions.

5 TELEVISION SETSThe television efficiency Level 3 scenario, which offers the greatest energy savings for televisions, decreases electricity use by about 0.73 quadrillion Btus for theyears 1992 through 2015. These electricity savings translate into cumulative savings of 309,000 tons of SO2 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 change the status quo. 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 standards currently have no effect.

14 4.0.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen OxideEmissions The decrease in S02 emissioIlil resulting from the 78% AFUE standard amounts to 110,000 tons between 1993 and 2015, as shown in Table 7. Annual decreases in S02 emissions amount to 2.4% and 4.2% ofthe emissions estimated to come from residential fuel combustion during the years 2000 and 2010, respectivelyifno new efficiencystandards are adopted. N02emissions avoided between 1993 and 2010 amountto 80,000tons.Annual percent decreases for the years 2000 and 2010 are 0.6% and 1.3% of U.S. N02 emissions from residential fuel combustion, respectively assuming no new appliance standards are established.

4.0.2 CarbonDioxideEmissions Decreases in CO2 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-thousandthof 1985 global CO2emissions.

5 TELEVISION SETS The television efficiencyLevel 3 scenario, whichoffers the greatest energysavings for televisions, decreases electricityuse by about 0.73 quadrillionBtusfor the years 1992 through 2015. These electricity savings translate into cumulative savings of 309,000 tons of S02 and 193,000 tons of N02. These reductions are each about 10% of the corresponding reductions from Level 8 refrigerator-freezer and freezer efficiencies. However, the proposed no standardfor televisions results in no impact onthe environment since itwill not change the status quo. DOE is unawareofanystate 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 standards currentlyhave no effect.

146 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

6.1 Valuing Decreases in Acid Precipitation Sulfur dioxide is the major contributor to acid precipitation in the U.S. After a series of reactions with atmospheric gases and water, SO2 forms sulfuric acid. More than half of the domestic S02 emitted as a result of human activities comesfrom coal burned in power plants. The next greatest contributor to acid precipitation is nitrogen dioxide. One-third of the domestic NO2 emitted from human activities comes from electricity generating facilities (Placet, 1986). Attaching values to incremental changes in 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, surrounding topography, 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 to return to its natural state of alkalinity (buffering capacity) may require tens to thousands of years. In attempting to quantify 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 EmissionsAtmospheric CO0 is 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 COQ, concentrations 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 CO9 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 290 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era to about 335 ppm in 1979. Expected

15 

### 6 EVALUATIONOFENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

6.1 ValuingDecreases inAcidPrecipitation Sulfur dioxide is the major contributorto acid precipitationin theU.S. After a series of reactions with atmospheric gases and water, S02 forms sulfuric acid. More than halfofthe domestic S02 emitted as a result ofhuman activities comes from coal burned in power plants. The next greatest contributor to acid precipitation is nitrogen dioxide. One-third of the domestic N02 emitted from human activities comesfrom electricitygeneratingfacilities (Placet, 1986). Attaching values to incremental changes in acid precipitation is difficult. The effects of acid deposition on a given lake orforest depend on a varietyoffactors, 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 bodyofwater to return to its natural state of alkalinity (buffering capacity) mayrequire tensto thousands ofyears. In attempting to quantify 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 CarbonDioxideEmissions Atmospheric CO2 is 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 CO2 concentrations 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 ?,ctivity, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 290 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era to about 335 ppm in 1979. Expected

15results 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 on Environmental Quality, 1981). A doubling of the pre-industrial levels of CO,, is projected to occur in the latepart of the next century. The process of controlling CO2 concentrations 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 CO2 concentrations 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 the end of this century (Clark, 1982).

6.3 Perspectives on Changes in Chlorofluorocarbon Consumption Chlorofluorocarbon use could upset the atmospheric equilibrium of ozone, acompound that partially screens ultraviolet radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere. Increases in W radiation translate into increased risks of skin cancer inhumans, 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.

16 results 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 on Environmental Quality, 1QS1). A doubling ofthe pre-industrial levels ofCO2 is projected tooccurin the late partofthe next century. The process ofcontrolling CO2 concentrationsis dependent on two time determinants: lead times involved in changing current trendsin fossil fuel use and lag times in environmental systems. Ifthe goal were to keep CO2 concentrations from exceeding 500 ppm, even a growth rate infossil fuel use of 1.5% peryear (comparedto a growth rate of2.3% in lQSO) could not continue muchbeyondthe endofthis century(Clark, 1QS2).

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 atmosphere. 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.



### 167 REFERENCES

NAECA 1987. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Public Law 100-12 U.S. Department of Energy. 1988. "Technical Support Document for theAnalysis of Efficiency Standards on Small Gas Furnaces, Television Sets, Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers". Placet M., D.G. Streets, E.R. Williams. 1986. "Environmental Trends Associated with the Fifth National Energy Policy Plan," 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, Santa Monica CA, R-3386-EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. "National Air Pollutant Emission Estimates, 1940-1984," EPA-450/4-85-014.Oppenheimer, M. 1983. "The Relationship of Sulfur Emissions to Sulfate in Precipitation," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 17. Mooz W. E., S.H. Dole, D.L. Jaquette, W.H. Krase, 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- EPA. DeWerth, Douglas. 1988. Personal communications on January 12 between Mr. DeWerth (American Gas Association Laboratories) and Mr. Tim Springer (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory). 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. "EmissionsAssessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, Vol. 1, Gas & OilFired Residential Heating Sources," EPA 600/7-79-029.

17 

### 7 REFERENCES NAECA 1987. NationalA,pptianceEnergy 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, andFreezers". Placet M., D.G. Streets, E.R. vVilliams. 1986. "Environmental TrendsAssociated withtheFifthNationalEnergyPolicyPlan,"Argonne NationalLab. 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. 1986. "National Air Pollutant Emission Estimates, 1940-1984," EPA-450/4-85-014. Oppenheimer, M. 1983. "The Relationship of SulfurEmissions to Sulfate in Precipitation,"AtmosphericEnvironment, Vol. 17. Mooz W. E., S.H. Dole, D.L. Jaquette, W.H. Krase, P.F. Morrison, S.L. Salem, R.G. Salter, K.A. vVolf. 1982. "Technical Options for Reducing Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions," Rand Corporation, Santa Monica CA R-2879- EPA. DevVerth, 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 FubLres and the CarbonDioxideProblem, GovernmentPrinting Office. Clark, William C. 1982. Carbon Dioxide Review, Oxford University Press, New YorkNY. pp. 357, 338. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986. Survey of CurrentBusiness, Vol. 66, No 7. p S-25. (July). Surprenant N.F., R.R. Hall, K.T. McGregor, A.F. vVerner. 1979. "Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, Vol. 1, Gas & OilFiredResidential Heating Sources," EPA600/7-79-029.

17Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1987. "Appliance Energy

Efficiency Realities ... With a New Wrinkle," presented by John T. Weizeorick at the ACEEE National Conference`oi Appliance Efficiency, Arlington VA. Roman, Paul. 1987. Personal communications on October 15 between Mr. Roman (Association of Homes Appliance Manufacturers) and Dr. James E. McMahon(Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) regarding projections for market shares of refrigerator and freezer models. California Energy Commission. 1987. "Directory of Certified Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers."Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1986. "Trends and Forecasts, Factory Unit Shipments (Domestic & Export) of Major Appliances," Chicago IL. North American Electric Reliability Council, 1985. "1985 Electric Power Supply and Demand--For 1984 to 1994".

18 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1987. "Appliance Energy EfficiencyRealities ... With a New Wrinkle," presented by John T.Weizeorick at theACEEE National**Conferenc~'on"**ApplianceEfficiency, ArlingtonVA. Roman, Paul. 1987. Personal communicationson October 15 betweenMr. Roman (Association of Homes Appliance Manufacturers) and Dr. James E. McMahon (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) regarding projections for market shares of refrigerator andfreezer models. California Energy Commission. 1987. "Directory of Certified Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers." AssociationofHomeApplianceManufacturers. 1986. "Trends andForecasts,FactoryUnit Shipments (Domestic & Export)ofMajorAppliances," Chicago 1L. North American Electric Reliability Council, 1985. "1985 Electric Power Supply andDemand--For 1984 to 1994".

18Table 1. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Three Changes in Sulfur and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions



### so 2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NO2

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. SO2 Power Plant Emissions

-18,700 -2,900 +19 -21,600 -0.13 -46,200 -7,800 +18 -54,000 -0.30 -64,500 -13,700 +16 -78,100 -0.45 -78,200 -17,800 +20 -96,000 -0.56 -78,200 -20,000 +29 -100,000 -0.62 Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 1,540,000 tons.

Abated From Abated

From From

Increased Net

Change Percent of

Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. NO9 Generation (tons) Generation

(tons) Production

(tons) (tons) Power Plant Emissions

1995 -8,500 -3,400 - -11,800 -0.14 2000 -22,100 -9,100 - -31,200 -0.35 2005 -34,400 -15,000 - -49,400 -0.51 2010 -46,200 -17,800 - -64,000 -0.62 2015 -51,900 -21,500 - -73,400 -0.69

Cumulative NO9 reduction, 1993-2015 = 996,000 tons.

19 

### 8°2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

N0

### 2

Year

1005 2000 2005 2010 2015 Table 1. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Three Changesin Sulfur and NitrogenDioxideEmissions "**~** :..r

Abated Abated From Net Percentof

From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. S02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions
-18,700 -2,900 +19 -21,600 -0.13 -46,200 -7,800 +18 -54,000 -0.30 -64,500 -13,700 +16 -78,100 -0.45 -78,200 -17,800 +20 -96,000 -0.56 -78,200 -20,000 +29 -100,000 -0.62 Cumulative 802reduction, 1993-2015 = 1,540,000tons.

Abated Abated From Net Percentof

From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. N02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions
-8,500 -3,400 -11,800 -0.14 -22,100 -0,100 -31,200 -0.35 -34,400 -15,000 -40,400 -0.51 -46,200 -17,800 -64,000 -0.62 -51,000 -21,500 -73,400 -0.60 Cumulative NO

## zreduction, H)93-2015 = 996,000tons.

19Table 2. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Three Changes in Carbon Dioxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions
CO2 Thousands of Tons of Carbon

Abated Abated Abated Net From From From Change Percent of Coal Gas Oil 1985 World Year Generation Generation Generation Emissions

1995 -617 -219 -120 -957 -0.02 2000 -1,670 -593 -326 -2,590 -0.04 2005 -2,740 -972 -534 -4,240 -0.07 2010 -3,770 -1,340 -735 -5,840 -0.10 2015 -4,390 -1,560 -855 -6,800 -0.12 Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 88 million tons of carbon.

CFC All CFC values 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*
1995 +2,400,000 +275,000 +2,670,000 +0.58 2000 +2,400,000 +254,000 +2,650,000 +0.57 2005 +2,520,000 +227,000 +2,740,000 +0.59 2010 +2,800,000 +289,000 +3,090,000 +0.67 2015 +2,980,000 +407,000 +3,390,000 40.73 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015 = 66 million pounds of R-11 equivalent. * Sum of estimated U.S. use of R-11 and R-12 (Hammitt, 198G).

20 

### CO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### CFC

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Table 2. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Three Changesin CarbonDiQ{Ciq.e and ChlorofluorocarbonEmissions

Abated

From Coal Generation

-617 -1,670 -2,740 -3,770 -4,390 ThousandsofTonsofCarbon
Abated Abated Net

From From Change

Gas Oil Generation Generation

-219 -120 -957 -593 -326 -2,590 -972 -534 -4,240 -1,340 -735 -5,840 -1,560 -855 -6,800 Percentof 1985World Emissions

-0.02 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.12 Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 88 milliontonsofcarbon.

All CFC valuesexpressedin poundsofR-ll equivalent. Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change U.S. 1985 Design Increased R-ll Changes Shipments & R-12*
+2,400,000 +275,000 +2,670,000 +0.58 +2,400,000 +254,000 +2,650,000 +0.57 +2,520,000 +227,000 +2,740,000 +0.59 +2,800,000 +289,000 +3,090,000 +0.67 +2,980,000 +407,000 +3,390,000 +0.73 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015 = 66 million poundsofR-ll equivalent. * Sum ofestimatedU.S. use ofR-ll andR-12 (Hammitt, 1986).

20Table 3. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Seven Changes in Sulfur and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions
SO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### NO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Abated

From Coal Generation (tons) Abated

From Gas Si Oil Generation (tons) From

Increased Steel Production (tons) Net

Change

(tons) Percent of

Annual U.S. S02 Power Plant Emissions
-35,400 -5,500 +33 -40,800 -0.24 -87,400 -14,800 +32 -102,000 -0.57 -122,000 -25,800 +28 -148,000 -0.84 -148,000 -33,700 +35 -181,000 -1.06 -151,000 -37,800 +50 -188,000 -1.17 Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 2,910,000 tons.

Abated From 

### Coal Generation (tons) Abated From

From Increased 

### Gas & Oil Steel Generation Production (tons) (tons) Net Change

tons) Percent of

Annual U.S. NO2 Power Plant Emissions

-16,000
-6,400
- -22,300 -0.27

-41,800 -17,200 -
-59,000 -0.66 -64,900
-28,400 - -73,300 -0.97

-87,200 -33,700
- -120,000 -1.18 -98,200
-40,700 - -139,000 -1.30 Cumulative NO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 1,880,000 tons.

21 Table 3. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Seven Changesin 8)!lfur andNitrogenDioxideEmissions

'j**~** 8°2 Abated Abated From Net Percentof From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. S02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -35,400 -5,500 +33 -40,800 -0.24 2000 -87,400 -14,800 +32 -102,000 -0.57 2005 -122,000 -25,800 +28 -148,000 -0.84 2010 -148,000 -33,700 +35 -181,000 -1.06 2015 -151,000 -37,800 +50 -188,000 -1.17 Cumulative S02 reduction, 1993-2015

## = 2,91O,000 tons. 

### N02 Abated Abated From Net Percentof From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. N02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -16,000 -6,400 -22,300 -0.27 2000 -41,800 -17,200 -59,000 -0.66 2005 -64,900 -28,400 -73,300 -0.97 2010 -87,200 -33,700 -120,000 -1.18 2015 -98,200 -40,700 -139,000 -1.30 Cumulative N02 reduction, 1993-2015

## = 1,880,000tons.

21Table 4. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Seven Changes in Carbon Dioxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions 11 1
CO2 Thousands of Tons of Carbon

Abated Abated Abated Net From From From Change Percent of Coal Gas Oil 1985 World Year Generation Generation Generation Emissions
1995 -1,170 -414 -228 -1,810 -0.03 2000 -3,170 -1,120 -617 -4,900 -0.08 2005 -5,180 -1,840 -1,010 -8,020 -0.14 2010 -7,120 -2,530 -1,390 -11,000 -0.19 2015 -8,300 -2,940 -1,620 -12,900 -0.22 Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 166 million tons of carbon.

CFC All CFC values 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*

1995 +3,650,000 +496,000 +4,150,000 +0.90 2000 +3,660,000 +460,000 +4,120,000 +0.89 2005 +3,830,000 +412,000 +4,240,000 +0.92 2010 +4,260,000 +524,000 +4,780,000 +1.03 2015 +4,530,000 +742,000 +5,280,000 +1.14 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015 = 102 million pounds of R-11 equivalent. * Sum of estimated U.S. use of R-11 and R-12 (Hammitt, 1986). 

### CO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### CFC

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Table4. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Seven Changesin CarbonDioxid_e and ChlorofluorocarbonEmissions

:**~** '\;

Abated

From Coal Generation
-1,170 -3,170 -5,180 -7,120 -8,300 ThousandsofTonsofCarbon
Abated Abated Net

From From Change

Gas Oil Generation Generation

-414 -228 -1,810 -1,120 -617 -4,900 -1,840 -1,010 -8,020 -2,530 -1,390 -11,000 -2,940 -1,620 -12,900 Percentof 1985World Emissions

-0.03 -0.08 -0.14 -0.19 -0.22 Cumulative CO2reduction, 1993-2015

### = 166 milliontonsofcarbon.

All CFCvaluesexpressedin poundsofR-ll equivalent. Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change U.S. 1985 Design Increased R-ll Changes Shipments & R-12*
+3,650,000 +496,000 +4,150,000 +0.90 +3,660,000 +460,000 +4,120,000 +0.89 +3,830,000 +±12,000 +4,240,000 +0.92 +4,260,000 +524,000 +4,780,000 +1.03 +4,530,000 +742,000 +5,280,000 +1.14 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015

### = 102 million poundsofR-ll equivalent.
* Sum ofestimatedU.S. use ofR-ll andR-12 (Hammitt, 1986).



### 22Table 5. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Eight Changes in Sulfur and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions

so 2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NO2

Year Abated Abated From Net

From From Increased Change Coal Gas & Oil Steel Generation Generation Production (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Percent of Annual U.S. SO2 Power Plant Emissions
-39,300 -6,100 +36 -45,400 -0.26 -97,200 -16,400 +34 -113,000 -0.63 -135,000 -28,700 +30 -164,000 -0.94 -164,000 -37,400 +38 -202,000 -1.18 -167,000 -42,000 +54 -209,000 -1.30 Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 3,240,000 tons.

Abated Abated From Net Percent of From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. NO2 Generation Generation Production Power Plant (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -17,800 -7,100 - -24,800 -0.30 2000 -46,400 -19,200 - -65,600 -0.73 2005 -72,200 -31,500 - -104,000 -1.08 2010 -96,900 -37,400 - -134,000 -1.31 2015 -109,000 -45,200 - -154,000 -1.45

Cumulative NO9 reduction, 1993-2015 = 2,000,000 tons.

23 Table 5. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Eight Changesin SJJ-Ifur andNitrogenDioxide Emissions ';..**~** 

### 5°2 Abated Abated From Net Percentof From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. S02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -39,300 -6,100 +36 -45,400 -0.26 2000 -97,200 -16,400 +34 -113,000 -0.63 2005 -135,000 -28,700 +30 -164,000 -0.94 2010 -164,000 -37,400 +38 -202,000 -1.18 2015 -167,000 -42,000 +54 -209,000 -1.30 Cumulative S02reduction, 1993-2015

### = 3,240,000tons.
N0

### 2 Abated Abated From Net Percentof From From Increased Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil Steel U.S. N02 Generation Generation Production PowerPlant Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -17,800 -7,100 -2-1:,800 -0.30 2000 -46,400 -19,200 -65,600 -0.73 2005 -72,200 -31,500 -10-1:,000 -1.08 2010 -96,900 -37,400 -13-1:,000 -1.31 2015 -109,000 -45,200 -15-1:,000 -1.45 Cumulative N02 reduction, 1993-2015

### = 2,090,000tons.

23Table 6. Refrigerators and Freezers - Level Eight Changes in Carbon Dioxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions

C

### ot Thousands of Tons of Carbon



### Abated Abated Abated Net From From From Change Percent of Coal Gas Oil 1985 World Year Generation Generation Generation Emissions

1995 -1,300 -460 -253 -2,010 -0.03 2000 -3,520 -1,230 -686 -5,450 -0.09 2005 -5,750 -2,040 -1,120 -8,920 -0.15 2010 -7,920 -2,810 -1,540 -12,300 -0.21 2015 -9,230 -3,270 -1,800 -14,300 -0.24 Cumulative CO. reduction, 1993-2015 = 185 million tons of carbon.

CFC All CFC values 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*
1995 +3,650,000 +528,000 +4,180,000 +0.90 2000 +3,660,000 +490,000 +4,150,000 +0.90 2005 +3,830,000 +440,000 +4,270,000 +0.92 2010 +4,260,000 +561,000 +4,820,000 +1.04 2015 +4,530,000 +796,000 +5,330,000 +1.15 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015 = 103 million pounds of R-11 equivalent. * Sum of estimated U.S. use of R-11 and R-12 (Hammitt, 1986).

24 CO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### CFC

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Table 6. Refrigerators andFreezers

- Level Eight Changesin CarbonDioxide and ChlorofluorocarbonEmissions

Abated

From Coal Generation
-1,300 -3,520 -5,750 -7,920 -9,230**~.,f**

ThousandsofTonsofCarbon

Abated Abated Net

From From Change

Gas Oil Generation Generation

-460 -253 -2,010 -1,230 -686 -5,450 -2,040 -1,120 -8,920 -2,810 -1,540 -12,300 -3,270 -1,800 -14,300 Percentof 1985vVorld Emissions

-0.03 -O.Og -0.15 -0.21 -0.24 Cumulative CO2reduction, 1993-2015 = 185 milliontons ofcarbon.

All CFC valuesexpressed in poundsofR-ll equivalent. Increase Increase Net Percent of

From From Change U.S. 1985 Design Increased R-ll Changes Shipments & R-12*
+3,650,000 +528,000 +4,180,000 +0.90 +3,660,000 +490,000 +4,150,000 +0.90 +3,830,000 +440,000 +4,270,000 +0.92 +4,260,000 +561,000 +4,820,000 +1.04 +4,530,000 +796,000 +5,330,000 +1.15 Cumulative CFC increase, 1993-2015 = 103 million poundsofR-ll equivalent.
* Sum ofestimated U.S. use ofR-ll andR-12 (Hammitt, Hl86).

2-1Table 7. 78% Efficient Small Gas Furnaces Changes in Sulfur and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions

.11 -Z



### so2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Abated

From Coal Generation (tons) Abated

From Gas & Oil Generation (tons) Abated

From In-home Combustion (tons) Net

Change U.S. SO2 Residential (tons) Percent of

Annual

Emissions
-1,200 -200 -11 -1,500 -0.9 -3,300 -600 -22 -3,900 -2.4 -4,800 -1,000 -34 -5,800 -3.6 -5,500 -1,300 -46 -6,800 -4.2 -5,300 -1,300 -3 -6,600 -4.1 Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 110,000 tons. 

## NO2

ear Abated

From Coal Generation (tons) Abated

From Gas & Oil Generation (tons) Abated

From In-home Combustion (tons) Net

Change U.S. NO2 Residential (tons) Percent of

Annual

Emissions

1995 -600 -200 -92 -900 -0.2 2000 -1,600 -600 -217 -2,400 -0.6 2005 -2,600 -1,100 -409 -4,100 -1.0 2010 -3,200 -1,300 -648 -5,100 -1.3 2015 -3,500 -1,400 -894 -5,800 -1.5

Cumulative NO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 80,000 tons.

25 Table 7. 78%Efficient Small GasFurnaces Changesin Sulfur and NitrogenDioxide Emissions

; ... -**~** 

### 8°2 Abated Abated Abated Net Percentof From From From Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil In-home U.S. S02 Generation Generation Combustion Residential Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -1,200 -200 -11 -1,500 -0.9 2000 -3,300 -600 -22 -3,900 -2.4 2005 -4,800 -1,000 -34 -5,800 -3.6 2010 -5,500 -1,300 -46 -5,800 -4.2 2015 -5,300 -1,300 -3 -6,600 -4.1 CumulativeS02 reduction, 1993-2015 = 110,000tons.
N0

### 2 Abated Abated Abated Net Percentof From From From Change Annual Coal Gas & Oil In-home U.S. N02 Generation Generation Combustion Residential Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Emissions

1995 -500 -200 -92 -900 -0.2 2000 -1,500 -500 -217 -2,400 -0.5 2005 -2,600 -1,100 -409 -4,100 -1.0 2010 -3,200 -1,300 -648 -5,100 -1.3 2015 -3,500 -1,400 -894 -5,800 -1.5 Cumulative N02reduction, 1993-2015 = 80,000tons.

25Table 8. 78% AFUE Small Gas Furnaces Changes in Carbon Dioxide Emissions
CO2 Thousands of Tons of Carbon

ear Abated

From Coal Generation Abated

From Gas Generation Abated

From Oil Generation Net

Change Percent of

1985 World Emissions

1995 -41 -35 -10 -87 -0.001 2000 -119 -92 -27 -238 -0.004 2005 -203 -166 -46 -415 -0.007 2010 -265 -244 -60 -569 -0.010 2015 -292 -317 -71 -680 -0.012 Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 8.5 million tons of carbon.

26 CO2

Year

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Table 8. 78%AFUE Small GasFurnaces Changesi:o.**C~rbon** DioxideEmissions

.,**~**

ThousandsofTonsofCarbon
Abated Abated Abated Net

From From From Change Coal Gas Oil Generation Generation Generation

-41 -35 -10 -87 -119 -92 -27 -238 -203 -166 -46 -415 -265 -244 -60 -569 -292 -317 -71 -680 Percentof 1985World Emissions

-0.001 -0.004 -0.007 -0.010 -0.012 Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 8.5 milliontons ofcarbon.

26Appendix A. Estimated Dimensions of Foamed Areas in Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers

Foamed Dimension Product Class* Area A B C D E F Measurement in inches Refrigerator height 39.5 36 38 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 24 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 Automatic Defrost C: Top Mounted Freezer, Automatic Defrost

Top Mounted Freezer, Automatic Defrost, Through-the-Door Ice Bottom Mounted Freezer, Automatic Defrost D: Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers

Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers, Through-the-Door Ice E: Upright Freezer, Manual Defrost

Upright Freezer, Automatic Defrost F: Chest Freezer

27 Foamed

Area

Refrigerator Door Freezer

Door Refrigerator Cabinet

Freezer Cabinet

A: B: C: AppendixA.EstimatedDimensionsofFoamedAreas inRefrlgerator-Freezers andFreezers

Dimension Product Class*
A B C D Measurementininches height 

### 39.5 36 38 60.5 width 

### 24 28 28 20 height 11 

### 19 16 60.5 width 

### 24 28 28 12 height 

### 38 35 40 58.5 width 

### 22 26 30 20 depth 

### 26 23 24 24 height 

### 12 19 18 58.5 width 

### 22 26 30 12 depth 

### 26 23**2~ 2~**  *Product Class ManualDefrost PartiallyAutomaticDefrost TopMountedFreezer,AutomaticDefrost E F



### - -

- 

## - 16 28 28 36

- -



### - -

- - 

### 55 32 26 24 21 26

TopMountedFreezer,AutomaticDefrost, Through-the-DoorIce BottomMountedFreezer,AutomaticDefrost D: Side-by-SideRefrigerator-Freezers Side-by-SideRefrigerator-Freezers, Through-the-DoorIce E: UprightFreezer,Manual Defrost UprightFreezer,AutomaticDefrost F: ChestFreezer



### 27DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on Proposed Rulemaking for Energy Conservation Standards for 3 Types of Consumer Products. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), prescribes energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances, and requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to administer an energy conservation program for these products. As a general matter, these Federal standards preempt State and local standards and any other State and local requirements with respect to energy efficiency or energy use of these products. Among other things, NAECA requires DOE to consider amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; to establish standards for small gas furnaces; and to consider establishing energy conservation standards for television sets.
In accordance with NAECA, the Department has reviewed possible standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers, small gas furnaces and television sets as discussed in today's notice of proposed rulemaking.

1 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on Proposed Rulemaking for Energy Conservation Standards for 3 Types of Consumer Products. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), prescribes energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances, and requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to administer an energy conservation program for these products. As a general matter, these Federal standards preempt State and local standards and any other state and local requirements with respect to energy efficiency or energy use of these products. Among other things, NAECA requires DOE to consider amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; to establish standards for small gas furnaces; and to consider establishing energy conservation standards for television sets.
In accordance with NAECA, the Department has reviewed possible standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers, small gas furnaces and television sets as discussed in today's notice of proposed rulemaking.

1For refrigerators , refrigerator

-freezers and freezers, the Department is proposing a range of standards that includes not increasing the stringency of the standard level. DOE is soliciting comments and information from the public to be considered in promulgating the final rule. As discussed in the proposed rule, the final rule will specify a specific level for refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers and freezers. For small gas furnaces , the Department is proposing to determine that standards would result in a significant conservation of energy and be economically justified
. Therefore, the Department is today proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 430 to add standards for this product. Finally, for television sets, the Department is proposing to determine that an energy conservation standard would result in a significant conservation of energy but would not be economically justified
. Therefore , the Department is proposing to amend Part 430 to include a determination of no standard for television sets.

Based on an Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE has determined that none of the proposed standards , including the "no standard" for television sets , are a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. The EA is part of the Technical Support Document for the proposed standards and is available on request at the following address. Public availability: Hearings and Dockets Branch, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy , Docket

2 For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers, the Department is proposing a range of standards that includes not increasing the stringency of the standard level. DOE is soliciting comments and information from the public to be considered in promulgating the final rule. As discussed in the proposed rule, the final rule will specify a specific level for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers. For small gas furnaces, the Department is proposing to determine that standards would result in a significant conservation of energy and be economically justified. Therefore, the Department is today proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 430 to add standards for this product. Finally, for television sets, the Department is proposing to determine that an energy conservation standard would result in a significant conservation of energy but would not be economically justified. Therefore, the Department is proposing to amend Part 430 to include a determination of no standard for television sets.

Based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) , DOE has determined that none of the proposed standards, including the "no standard" for television sets, are a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. The EA is part of the Technical Support Document for the proposed standards and is available
on request at the following**addre~s.** Public availability: Hearings and Dockets Branch, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Docket

2Number CE-RM-87-102, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 6B-025,

Washington, DC 20585 ( 202) 586-9320.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. McCabe U.S. Department of Energy Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy Forrestal Building, Mail Station CE-132 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 (202) 586-9127 Donald E. Henninger U.S. Department of Energy Office of NEPA Project Assistance Forrestal Building, Mail Station EH-25 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington , DC 20585 (202) 586-4600 Martha S. Crosland U.S. Department of Energy Office of General Counsel Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-11 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 (202) 586-6947
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed standards pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Pub. L. 91-190, 40 U.S.C. 4221 et seq, and the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality [40 CFR Parts 1500-1808]. The EA addresses the possible incremental environmental effects attributable to the application of the proposed standards to the design of refrigerators, refrigerator

-freezers , and freezers; and small gas furnaces. The EA also looked at the impact of energy conservation standards for television sets. As discussed in the General Findings, the "no standard" standard for televisions will not change the status quo and therefore will not result in any environmental impact. The effect of

3 Number CE-RM-87-102, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 6B-025, Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9320. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael 

### J. McCabe U.S. Department of Energy Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy Forrestal Building, Mail station CE-132 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 (202) 586-9127 Donald E. Henninger U.s. Department of Energy Office of NEPA Project Assistance Forrestal Building, Mail Station EH-25 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-4600 Martha S. Crosland U.s. Department of Energy Office of General Counsel Forrestal Building, Mail station GC-11 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 (202) 586-6947
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed standards pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Pub. L. 91-190, 40 U.S.C. 4221 et seq, and the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality [40 CFR Parts 1500-1808]. The EA addresses the possible incremental environmental effects attributable to the application of the proposed standards to the design of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and small gas furnaces. The EA also looked at the impact of energy conservation standards for television sets. As discussed in the General Findings, the "no standard" standard for televisions will not change the status quo and therefore will not result in any environmental impact. The effect of

3the proposed standards range from no change to a slight improvement in

the outdoor environment as discussed in the General Findings below. Approach Used in The Analysis. This assessment evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed setting of new or amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators , refrigerator

-freezers , freezers, and small gas furnaces and the proposed setting of no standards for television sets in accordance with the NAECA

. A complete description of the Engineering and Economic Analysis of the proposed standards may be found in the Technical Support Document (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.
Four of the fourteen scenarios for product design changes described in the Engineering Analysis of the TSD were chosen for study based on their relative importance as design measures. Values for energy savings that result from product design changes are also taken from the TSD.
An in-depth analysis of particulate emissions is not included in this assessment because particulate emissions are relatively small compared to sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. Current electricity generating methods are far cleaner than those of the past. In 1984, power plants contributed only 7 percent of U.S. total particulate emissions as compared to contributions of 83 percent and 34 percent to total SO2 and NO2 emissions , respectively (EPA, 1986).

4 

### the proposed standards range from no change to a slight improvement in the outdoor environment as discussed in the General Findings below. Approach Used in The Analysis. This assessment evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed setting of new or amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and small gas furnaces and the proposed setting of no standards for television sets in accordance with the NAECA. A complete description of the Engineering and Economic Analysis of the proposed standards may be found in the Technical Support Document (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.
Four of the fourteen scenarios for product design changes described in the Engineering Analysis of the TSD were chosen for study based on their relative importance as design measures. Values for energy savings that result from product design changes are also taken from the TSD.
An in-depth analysis of particulate emissions is not included in this assessment because particulate emissions are relatively small compared to sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. Current electricity generating methods are far cleaner than those of the past. In 1984, power plants contributed only 7 percent of U.S. total particulate emissions as compared to contributions of 83 percent and 34 percent to total S02 and N02 emissions, respectively (EPA, 1986).

4General Findings.

1. Refrigerators , Refrigerator

-Freezers and Freezers. The proposed standards for refrigerators , refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers range from retaining the federally mandated standards contained in NAECA, up to three more stringent standards. The greatest impacts of the proposed standards , other than the minimum NAECA standards, are the result of generating less electricity. Power plants ' main environmental effects on air and water result from emissions of sulfur oxides ( SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon dioxide (CO2). All SO x and NOX emissions are expressed in the equivalent weights of SO2 and NO2, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions are commonly expressed as tons of carbon. Additionally, there would be some shifting of CFC use . General findings are summarized below:

A. Sulfur Dioxide. The greatest decrease in air pollution will occur for sulfur dioxide. The possible reductions range from no change up to 151,000 tons or 0.9 percent of the U.S. SO2 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants by the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.
B. Nitrogen Dioxide. The possible reductions in NO2 range from no change up to

j/ The upper levels are interpolated from data in Table 5 . 8 of the Technical Support Document for energy savings and Tables 1,2,5, and 6 of the Environmental Assessment for pollutant reductions. The interpolation is made between standard level 1 (engineering level 3) and standard level 4 (engineering level 8).

5 General Findings.
1. Refrigerators,**Refrigerator~Freezers** and Freezers. The proposed standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers range from retaining the federally mandated standards contained in NAECA, up to three more stringent standards. The greatest impacts of the proposed standards,**~ther** than the minimum NAECA standards, are the result of generating less electricity. Power plants' main environmental effects on air and water result from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx)' and carbon dioxide (C02). All SOx and NOx emissions are expressed in the equivalent weights of S02 and N02, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions are commonly expressed as tons of carbon. Additionally, there would be some shifting of CFC use. General findings are summarized below:
A. Sulfur Dioxide. The greatest decrease in air pollution will occur for sulfur dioxide. The possible reductions range from no change up to 151,000 tons or 0.9 percent of the u.S. S02 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants by the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.

### 1/
B. Nitrogen Dioxide. The possible reductions in N02 range from no change up to


### 1/ The upper levels are interpolated from data in Table 5.8 of the Technical Support Document for energy savings and Tables 1,2,5, and 6 of the Environmental Assessment for pollutant reductions. The interpolation is made between standard level 1 (engineering level 3) and standard level 4 (engineering level 8).
5100,000 tons or 1.0 percent of the total NO2 emissions expected to be

emitted by power plants by the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.2/

C. Carbon Dioxide. The possible reductions in CO2 range from no change up to the equivalent of 9,180,000 tons or 0.2 percent of the worldwide CO2 emissions for the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.V

D. Chlorofluorocarbons. An additional effect of some design change scenarios is an increased consumption of CFC ' s. CFC-11 is contained in the rigid foam insulation used in the appliances and CFC-12 is the heat exchange fluid used in refrigerators and freezers
. The possible increased use ranges from no change to one percent of the 1985 total United States CFC-11 and CFC-12 consumption for the most stringent standards proposed
. However, since CFC production has been limited, any extra consumption would have to come from other uses and would not result in a net increase in CFC production. None of the environmental impacts from the savings of SO2, NO2, or CO2 from the range of proposed standards are considered to be significant.



### 21 ibid. 2/ ibid.

6 

### 100,000 tons or 1.0 percent of the total N02 emissions expected to be emitted by power plants by the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.2J
C. Carbon Dioxide. The possible reductions in CO2 range from no change up to the equivalent of 9,180,000 tons or 0.2 percent of the worldwide CO2 emissions for the year 2010 for the most stringent standard proposed.'J..I
D. Chlorofluorocarbons. An 

### additional effect of some design change scenarios is an increased consumption of CFC's. CFC-11 is contained in the rigid foam insulation used in the appliances and CFC-12 is the heat exchange fluid used in refrigerators and freezers. The possible increased use ranges from no change to one percent of the 1985 total united states CFC-11 and CFC-12 consumption for the most stringent standards proposed. However, since CFC production has been limited, any extra consumption would have to come from other uses and would not result in
a net increase in CFC production. None of the environmental impacts from the savings of S02' N02'
or CO2 from the range of proposed standards are considered to be significant.



### 2J ibid. 

### 'J..I ibid.

62. Small Gas Furnaces. The greatest impact of the proposed standard for small gas furnaces is a decrease in electricity consumption as some households shift from electric heating to small gas furnaces and decreases in gas and oil burned in homes . General findings are summarized below:

A. Sulfur Dioxide. The reduction in SO2 would be 6800 tons or 4.2 percent of the emissions estimated to come from residential fuel combustion during
2010.
B. Nitrogen Dioxide

The reduction in NO2 would be 5100 tons or 1.3 percent of the emissions estimated to come from residential fuel combustion during
2010.

C. Carbon Dioxide

The reduction in CO2 would be equivalent to 569,000 tons of
carbon or
. 01 percent of the worldwide CO2 emissions for the year
2010. None of the environmental impacts from the savings of SO2, NO2, or CO2 from the proposed standard are considered to be significant.

3. Television Sets. The proposed "no standard" standard for television sets results in no impact on the environment since it will not change the status quo. DOE is unaware of any State or local energy conservation standards concerning television sets that would be preempted by the "no standard" standard. The only state standard for television sets

7 

### 2. Small Gas Furnaces. The greatest impact of the proposed standard for small gas furnaces is a decrease in electricity consumption as some households shift from electric heating to small gas furnaces and decreases in gas and oil burned in homes. General findings are summarized below:
A. Sulfur Dioxide. The reduction in S02 would be 6800 tons or 4.2 percent of the emissions estimated to come from residential fuel combustion during 2010.
B. Nitrogen Dioxide The reduction in N02 would be 5100 tons or 1.3 percent of the emissions estimated to come from residential fuel combustion during 2010.
C. Carbon Dioxide The reduction in CO2 would be equivalent to 569,000 tons of carbon or .01 percent of the worldwide CO2 emissions for the year 2010.None of the environmental impacts from the savings of S02' N02'
or CO2 from the proposed standard are considered to be significant.
3. Television Sets. The proposed "no standard" standard for television sets results in no impact on the environment since it will not change the status quo. DOE is unaware of any state"or local energy conservation standrrds concerning television sets that would be preempted by the "no standard" standard. The only state standard for television sets

7of 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 standards currently have no effect.

Determination. Based upon the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed interim standards do not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment , within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Issued in Washington, D.C. November 7 , 1988.

6-
Ernest C. Bay d II Assistant Se etary Environment , Safety and Health

8 

### 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 standards currently have no effect.
Determination. Based upon the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed interim standards do not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Issued in Washington, D.C.

8 NQvember 7, 1988.



### Ernest C. Bay Assistant Se Environment, Healtha. Environmental Review

DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed standards pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended , Pub. L. 91-190, 40 U.S.C. 4221 et sect., and the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1808 ). The EA addresses the possible incremental environmental effects attributable to the application of the proposed standards to the design of three types of covered products: refrigerators, refricierator

-freezers, and freezers; small gas furnaces ; and television sets.
A Findinq of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is published in today' s Federal Register
. The FONSI concludes that the proposed standards would result in no significant environmental impacts and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The EA is part of the Technical Support Document and is available at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address provided at the beginning of this notice. 

### a. Environmental Review DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed stannards pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, Pub. L. 9l-l90, 40 U.S.C. 4221 et seq., and the implementing requlations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1808). The EA addresses the possible incremental environmental effects attributable to the application of the proposed standards to the design of three types of covered proructs: refriaerators, refriqerator-freezers, and freezers; small
aas furnaces; and television sets.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is published in todav's Fereral Register. The FONSI concludes that the proposed stanrarcs would result in no siqnificant environmental impacts and that an environmental impact statement is not required.
The EA is part of the Technical Support Document and is**availa~le** 

### at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address provided at the beginning of this notice.



## Ii.:!U