4-i CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 -1 4.2 SCREENED -OUT TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................ 4 -2 4.3 REMAINING TECHNOLOGI ES ................................................................................... 4 -2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.3.1 HID Lamp Design Options ....................................................................................... 4 -24-1 CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) screening analysis of the technology options identified for high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps. As discussed in chapter 3 of the technical support document (TSD), DOE consults with industry, technical experts, and other interested parties to develop a list of technology options for consideration. The purpose of the screening analysis is to determine which options to consider further and which to

screen out.

Section 325(o)(2) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides that any new or revised standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is determined to be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) In view of the EPCA requirements, appendix A to subpart C of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430 (10 CFR part 430), Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (the Process Rule) sets forth procedures to guide DOE in its consideration and promulgation of new or revised efficiency standards. These procedures elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and, in part, eliminate problematic technologies early in the process of prescribing or amending an energy efficiency standard. In particular, sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule provide guidance to DOE for determining which technology options are unsuitable for further consideration:

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will consider technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then DOE will consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and service.

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. If DOE determines a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not consider this technology further.

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology further.

Section 4.2 discusses the technology options DOE screened out from further consideration. Section 4.3 lists the remaining design options DOE considered in its analyses.4-2

4.2 SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGIES

This section addresses the technologies that DOE screened out, having considered the following four factors: (1) technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse impacts on product utility to consumers; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A, (4)(a)(4).

DOE has not screened out any of the technology options at this stage of the rulemaking. However, because DOE has thus far been unable to ascertain the reason for the discontinuance of the use of sapphire arc tubes in commercially-available HPS lamps, DOE currently cannot

c onclude that this technology option meets all four screening criteria. For this reason, sapphire arc tubes are still under consideration as a potential design option. a DOE determined that all remaining technology options meet the four screening criteria.

4.3 REMAINING TECHNOLOGIES

DOE is considering the design options in Table 4.3.1 as viable means for improving HID lamp e fficacy. DOE determined that all these technologies (except for sapphire arc tube s) are in commercial use today, and are therefore technologically feasible and practicable to manufacture, install, and service. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with these technologies. Having met the policies set forth in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and 5(b), DOE considered these design opti ons in the engineering analysis (chapter 5). Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the de sign options shown below.

Table 4.3. 1 HID Lamp Design Options
Lamp Type Design Option Description

Mercury Vapor (MV) Change Lamp Type Use HPS or MH technology instead of MV technology

High

- Pressure Sodium (HPS) Sapphire Arc Tubes * Manufacture the arc tube of HPS lamps out of sapphire instead of polycrystalline alumina

Metal Halide (MH) Arc Tube Design Ceramic Arc

Tubes Use ceramic metal halide (CMH) technology

instead of quartz MH lamps

Arc Tube Shape Design the shape of the arc tube so that it

facilitates an increase in MH vapor pressure

Starting Method Use pulse

- start technology instead of probe

start technology

*Pending determination whether sapphire arc tubes meet all screening criteria, this technology option may be considered as a design option for improving HPS lamp efficacy in the engineering analysis for later stages of the rulemaking

.

a In the interim TSD, DOE analyzes the potential CSL and analytical results that would correspond to the sapphire arc tube if DOE determined in a later stage of the rulemaking that sapphire arc tubes met the screening criteria and are a design option.