ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS

20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE ® CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606

312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS: 200 DAINGERFIELD ROAD

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719

January 19, 1990

TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive

Boards and Attendees of January 9, 1990 Meeting

AHAM/DOE/LBL

January 9, 1990 Meeting

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Berkeley, California

REPORT

Attached is an agenda and a list of participants at the meeting (Attachment 1 & 2).

The general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on

ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, and room air conditioners, prior to

the issuing of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the

Department of Energy (DOE).

For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE

and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type of products presently

available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list of product classes,

and to review the inadequacies of the current test procedures for these products.

For room air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance of a uniform

and valid method of collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to

LBL the AHAM consultant retained for this purpose , Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can

begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format and reporting

parameters.

A. Microwave Ovens

Rose Rennekamp of Amana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave

oven discussion. The important points discussed for microwave ovens included

the following:

1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3)

Each of the product classes were reviewed and specification sheets were

provided to LBL with examples of specific product classes identified. It

was noted that the vast majority of the products presently being sold are

countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with

and without a browning element. However, many of the other product

classes including single cavity combination microwave/convection with and

without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segment of

the market.

It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product

classes could affect the efficiency of the microwave cooking portion of the

product. For instance, the porcelain coating required on the cavity for

thermal operation could absorb microwaves and thus reduce the microwave

energy available for cooking in the cavity.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

ASSOCIA nON OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS 

20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE· CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 

312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823 

GOVERNMENT RELA TIONS: 200 DAINGERFIELD ROAD 

ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA 22314 

703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719 I 

January 19, 1990 

TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive 

Boards and Attendees of January 9, 1990 Meeting 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

January 9, 1990 Meeting 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

Berkeley, California 

REPORT 

Attached is an agenda and a list of participants at the meeting (Attachment 1 & 2). 

The general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on 

ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, and room air conditioners, prior to 

the issuing of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE 

and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type of products presently 

available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list of product classes, 

and to review the inadequacies of the current test procedures for these products. 

For room air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance of a uniform 

and valid method of collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to 

LBL the AHAM consultant retained for this purpose, Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can 

begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format and reporting 

parameters. 

A. Microwave Ovens 

Rose Rennekamp of Amana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave 

oven discussion. The important points discussed for microwave ovens included 

the following: 

1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3) 

Each of the product classes were reviewed and specification sheets were 

provided to LBL with examples of specific product classes identified. It 

was noted that the vast majority of the products presently being sold are 

countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with 

and without a browning element. However, many of the other product 

classes including single cavity combination microwave/convection with and 

without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segment of 

the market. 

It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product 

classes could affect the efficiency of the microwave cooking portion of the 

product. For instance, the porcelain coating required on the cavity for 

thermal operation could absorb microwaves and thus reduce the microwave 

energy available for cooking in the cavity. 

ASSOCIA nON OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS 

20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE· CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 

312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823 

GOVERNMENT RELA TIONS: 200 DAINGERFIELD ROAD 

ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA 22314 

703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719 I 

January 19, 1990 

TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive 

Boards and Attendees of January 9, 1990 Meeting 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

January 9, 1990 Meeting 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

Berkeley, California 

REPORT 

Attached is an agenda and a list of participants at the meeting (Attachment 1 & 2). 

The general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on 

ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, and room air conditioners, prior to 

the issuing of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE 

and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type of products presently 

available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list of product classes, 

and to review the inadequacies of the current test procedures for these products. 

For room air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance of a uniform 

and valid method of collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to 

LBL the AHAM consultant retained for this purpose, Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can 

begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format and reporting 

parameters. 

A. Microwave Ovens 

Rose Rennekamp of Amana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave 

oven discussion. The important points discussed for microwave ovens included 

the following: 

1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3) 

Each of the product classes were reviewed and specification sheets were 

provided to LBL with examples of specific product classes identified. It 

was noted that the vast majority of the products presently being sold are 

countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with 

and without a browning element. However, many of the other product 

classes including single cavity combination microwave/convection with and 

without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segment of 

the market. 

It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product 

classes could affect the efficiency of the microwave cooking portion of the 

product. For instance, the porcelain coating required on the cavity for 

thermal operation could absorb microwaves and thus reduce the microwave 

energy available for cooking in the cavity. 
ARAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -2-

A. 2. DOE Test Procedure

The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure

because it is outdated and has been replaced by a new internationally

recognized procedure - International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supported by the U.S.

microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified

as having a number of shortcomings, including: the difficulty of keeping the

sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack of repeatability of the

test, which is exacerbated by the use of sodium chloride because it

encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., 1 hour

vs approximately 15 minutes for the new IEC test. The DOE procedure

would be inconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output

thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests

for the DOE.

It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new IEC

procedure is applicable to new technologies which employ combination

microwave/thermal cooking means. These procedures provide an

efficiency measure for microwave cooking only.

3. Product Usage

It was noted that product usage has changed considerably since the study to

establish this value was conducted in the mid-1970s. The DOE Test

Procedure uses a family size of 4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at

home. Family size and lifestyles have changed considerably since that

study. These changes affect the product usage for ranges, ovens and

microwave ovens and should be updated in order to properly arrive at the

product's annual energy consumption.

It was noted by DOE that product usage factors are not needed to calculate

efficiency, so the lack of good usage data should not delay the collection of

efficiency data for the rulemaking.

DOE agreed that usage data are important in life cycle cost analyses.

However, here they are not really tied to the test procedure usage factors,

but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures.

4. Action Items

The following items were identified as things needed by LBL and DOE for

microwave oven rulemaking.

a. A petition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for

microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary.

b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the

current IEC test procedure, IEC Publication 705-1988.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -2-

A. 2. DOE Test Procedure 

The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure 

because it is outdated and has been replaced by a new internationally 

recognized procedure - International Electrotechnical eom mission (lEe) 

Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supported by the U.S. 

microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified 

as having a number of shortcomings, including: the difficulty of keeping the 

sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack of repeatability of the 

test, which is exacerbated by the use of sodium chloride because it 

encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., I hour 

vs approximately 15 minutes for the new lEe test. The DOE procedure 

would be inconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output 

thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests 

for the DOE. 

It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new lEe 

procedure is applicable to new technologies which employ combination 

microwave/thermal cooking means. These procedures provide an 

efficiency measure for microwave cooking only. I 

i 

3. Product Usage ! 

It was noted that product usage has changed considerably since the study to 

establish this value was conducted in the mid-1970s. The DOE Test 

Procedure uses a family size of 4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at 

home. Family size and lifestyles have changed considerably since that 

study. These changes affect the product usage for ranges, ovens and 

microwave ovens and should be updated in order to properly arrive at the 

product's annual energy consumption. 

It was noted by DOE that product usage factors are not needed to calculate 

efficiency, so the lack of good usage data should not delay the collection of 

efficiency data for the rulemaking. 

DOE agreed that usage data are important in life cycle cost analyses. 

However, here they are not really tied to the test procedure usage factors, 

but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures. 

4. Action Items 

The following items were identified as things needed by LBL and DOE for 

microwave oven rUlemaking. 

a. A petition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for 

microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary. 

b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the 

current lEe test procedure, lEe Publication 705-1988. 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -2-

A. 2. DOE Test Procedure 

The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure 

because it is outdated and has been replaced by a new internationally 

recognized procedure - International Electrotechnical eom mission (lEe) 

Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supported by the U.S. 

microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified 

as having a number of shortcomings, including: the difficulty of keeping the 

sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack of repeatability of the 

test, which is exacerbated by the use of sodium chloride because it 

encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., I hour 

vs approximately 15 minutes for the new lEe test. The DOE procedure 

would be inconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output 

thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests 

for the DOE. 

It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new lEe 

procedure is applicable to new technologies which employ combination 

microwave/thermal cooking means. These procedures provide an 

efficiency measure for microwave cooking only. I 

i 

3. Product Usage ! 

It was noted that product usage has changed considerably since the study to 

establish this value was conducted in the mid-1970s. The DOE Test 

Procedure uses a family size of 4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at 

home. Family size and lifestyles have changed considerably since that 

study. These changes affect the product usage for ranges, ovens and 

microwave ovens and should be updated in order to properly arrive at the 

product's annual energy consumption. 

It was noted by DOE that product usage factors are not needed to calculate 

efficiency, so the lack of good usage data should not delay the collection of 

efficiency data for the rulemaking. 

DOE agreed that usage data are important in life cycle cost analyses. 

However, here they are not really tied to the test procedure usage factors, 

but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures. 

4. Action Items 

The following items were identified as things needed by LBL and DOE for 

microwave oven rUlemaking. 

a. A petition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for 

microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary. 

b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the 

current lEe test procedure, lEe Publication 705-1988. 
AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/19/90 Meeting - Report -3-

A. 4. b. (Cont.)

This data should include both efficiency and cost of baseline units, the

engineering characteristics of those units and what would be the added

cost for increasing the efficiency of the units using the design options

as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific

manufacturers.

c. Usage Information

DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry.

Since industry is not today able to provide a complete test procedure

which includes usage, DOE will need "a reasonable range of where

usage may fall."

d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study

LBL would like to get a copy of this study.

e. Other Data

LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or

penetation level, elasticity studies, historical average price data and

engineering product lifetime (to use with life cycle costing).

B. Ranges and Ovens

Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens.

Important points discussed during this session included the following:

1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4)

Each of the proposed product classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was

provided with specification sheets illustrating the product classes that are

available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the

following points were made.

a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent

product classes with increasing utility in terms of ease of cleaning and

safety.

b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are

classes that are presently small but growing in sales volume. 75-80%

of the cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are

solid disk elements.

c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat,

that is, they can operate all day long with convex and concave pots

and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/19/90 Meeting - Report -3-

A. 4. b. (Cont.) 

This data should include both efficiency and cost of baseline units, the 

engineering characteristics of those units and what would be the added 

cost for increasing the efficiency of the units using the design options 

as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific 

manufacturers. 

c. Usage Information 

DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry. 

Since industry is not today able to provide a complete test procedure 

which includes usage, DOE will need "a reasonable range of where 

usage may fall." 

d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study 

LBL would like to get a copy of this study. 

e. Other Data 

LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or 

penetation level, elasticity studies, historical average price data and 

engineering product lifetime (to use with life cycle costing). 

B. Ranges and Ovens 

Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens. 

Important points discussed during this session included the following: 

1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4) 

Each of the proposed product classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was 

provided with specification sheets illustrating the product classes that are 

available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the 

following points were made. 

a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent 

product classes with increasing utili ty in terms of ease of cleaning and 

safety. 

b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are 

classes that are presently small but growing in sales volume. 75-80% 

of the cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are 

solid disk elements. 

c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat, 

that is, they can operate all day long with convex and concave pots 

and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under , 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/19/90 Meeting - Report -3-

A. 4. b. (Cont.) 

This data should include both efficiency and cost of baseline units, the 

engineering characteristics of those units and what would be the added 

cost for increasing the efficiency of the units using the design options 

as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific 

manufacturers. 

c. Usage Information 

DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry. 

Since industry is not today able to provide a complete test procedure 

which includes usage, DOE will need "a reasonable range of where 

usage may fall." 

d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study 

LBL would like to get a copy of this study. 

e. Other Data 

LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or 

penetation level, elasticity studies, historical average price data and 

engineering product lifetime (to use with life cycle costing). 

B. Ranges and Ovens 

Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens. 

Important points discussed during this session included the following: 

1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4) 

Each of the proposed product classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was 

provided with specification sheets illustrating the product classes that are 

available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the 

following points were made. 

a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent 

product classes with increasing utili ty in terms of ease of cleaning and 

safety. 

b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are 

classes that are presently small but growing in sales volume. 75-80% 

of the cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are 

solid disk elements. 

c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat, 

that is, they can operate all day long with convex and concave pots 

and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under , 
AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -4-

B. 1. c. (Cont.)

Glass are temperature limited based on the allowable glass

temperature and thus require good contact with the cooking utensil for

most efficient operation.

d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore,

should be a separate class for steam cooking with and without

pressure.

e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and Sealed Burner technology is

relatively new but the category is growing rapidly.

f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is available but the efficiency

has not been tested. Its benefits include speed of cooking.

2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption

Mr. Soorus reviewed the background of the test procedure and how it was

developed and noted that it utilizes an aluminum block for purposes of

determining the efficiency of the heating element and oven. This

procedure may not be applicable to all cooktops and could not be used on

induction elements. The industry does not know how efficient the various

cooktops will be using the present aluminum block test procedure because

very little testing has been done and no data is available. In actual

practice, the efficiency of cooking is largely dependent on the load size

being cooked but the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account.

3. Product Usage

As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed

substantially since the studies conducted in the mid-1970s. These studies

should be updated based on today's family size and lifestyle.

4. Design Options Proposed by DOE

Attachment 5 is a review of the design options for ranges and ovens with

industry comments concerning these design options.

5. Action Items

The following were identified as being needed by DOE for this rulemaking.

a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product

classes, the applicability of the aluminum block test procedure to each

product class, and the estimated market share of each product class.

b. Data requested by LBL for baseline model in each product class.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -4-

B. 1. c. (Cont.) 

Glass are temperature limited based on the allowable glass 

temperature and thus require good contact with the cooking utensil for 

most efficient operation. 

d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore, 

should be a separate class for steam cooking with and without 

pressure •. 

e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and Sealed Burner technology is 

relatively new but the category is growing rapidly. 

f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is available but the efficiency 

has not been tested. Its benefits include speed of cooking. 

2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption 

Mr. Soorus reviewed the background of the test procedure and how it was 

developed and noted that it utilizes an aluminum block for purposes of 

determining the efficiency of the heating element and oven. This 

procedure may not be applicable to all cooktops and could not be used on 

induction elements. The industry does not know how efficient the various 

cooktops will be using the present aluminum block test procedure because 

very little testing has been done and no data is available. In actual 

practice, the efficiency of cooking is largely dependent on the load size 

being cooked but the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account. 

3. Product Usage 

As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed 

substantially since the studies conducted in the mid-1970s. These studies 

should be updated based on today's family size and lifestyle. 

4. Design Options Proposed by DOE 

Attachment 5 is a review of the design options for ranges and ovens with 

industry comments concerning these design options. 

5. Action Items 

The following were identified as being needed by DOE for this rulemaking. 

a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product 

classes, the applicability of the aluminum block test procedure to each 

product class, and the estimated market share of each product class. 

b. Data requested by LBL for baseline model in each product class. 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -4-

B. 1. c. (Cont.) 

Glass are temperature limited based on the allowable glass 

temperature and thus require good contact with the cooking utensil for 

most efficient operation. 

d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore, 

should be a separate class for steam cooking with and without 

pressure •. 

e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and Sealed Burner technology is 

relatively new but the category is growing rapidly. 

f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is available but the efficiency 

has not been tested. Its benefits include speed of cooking. 

2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption 

Mr. Soorus reviewed the background of the test procedure and how it was 

developed and noted that it utilizes an aluminum block for purposes of 

determining the efficiency of the heating element and oven. This 

procedure may not be applicable to all cooktops and could not be used on 

induction elements. The industry does not know how efficient the various 

cooktops will be using the present aluminum block test procedure because 

very little testing has been done and no data is available. In actual 

practice, the efficiency of cooking is largely dependent on the load size 

being cooked but the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account. 

3. Product Usage 

As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed 

substantially since the studies conducted in the mid-1970s. These studies 

should be updated based on today's family size and lifestyle. 

4. Design Options Proposed by DOE 

Attachment 5 is a review of the design options for ranges and ovens with 

industry comments concerning these design options. 

5. Action Items 

The following were identified as being needed by DOE for this rulemaking. 

a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product 

classes, the applicability of the aluminum block test procedure to each 

product class, and the estimated market share of each product class. 

b. Data requested by LBL for baseline model in each product class. 
AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -5-

B. 5. c. Any information than can be used to support and supplement a DOE

conclusion that it cannot issue a rule on classes other than those listed

in the 1982 rulemaking would be helpful for the ANPR. If this

conclusion can be substantiated, the data collection could be limited

to the 9 product classes that were originally identified.

d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would

be better than DOE's estimates and could be used to bound the high

and low end usage.

C. Room Air Conditioners

Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo of WCI led the discussion on room air

conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems

with the product classes and the test procedure, therefore, discussion at the

meeting was limited to the room air conditioners simulation model to be used

by LBL and data gathering.

1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models

LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation

models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated

efficiency gains for the design options.

The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge

National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air

conditioners and heat pumps but was adapted by Texas A&M's Dennis

O'Neill for room air conditioners. It was suggested that industry look at

how well the simulation program used by LBL coordinates with industry's

programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies of the simulation program

along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and

copies of the Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AITAM with copies

of any documentation it has regarding the room air conditioner

modification of the original ORNL heat pump simulation model.

2. Data Gathering

The following points were made during discussion of data gathering.

a. Baseline units should be those being produced for the 1990 standard.

b. LBL will need the most recent shipment weighted energy factor data

for its economic analysis.

c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet size limitations. If the largest

capacity unit within a product class is used as the baseline unit, then

when design options are added, the design options will probably also be

applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each

manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the

baseline unit.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -5-

B. 5. c. Any information than can be used to support and supplement a DOE 

conclusion that it cannot issue a rule on classes other than those listed 

in the 1982 rulemaking would be helpful for the ANPR. If this 

conclusion can be substantiated, the data collection could be limited 

to the 9 product classes that were originally identified. 

d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would 

be better than DOE's estimates and could be used to bound the high 

and low end usage. 

C. Room Air Conditioners 

Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo of WCI led the discussion on room air 

conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems 

with the product classes and the test procedure, therefore, discussion at the 

meeting was limited to the room air conditioners simulation model to be used 

by LBL and data gathering. 

1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models 

LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation 

models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated 

efficiency gains for the design options. 

The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps but was adapted by Texas A&M's Dennis 

O'N eill for room air conditioners. It was suggested that industry look at 

how well the simulation program used by LBL coordinates with industry's 

programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies of the simulation program 

along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and 

copies of the Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AHAM with copies 

of any documentation it has regarding the room air conditioner 

modification of the original ORNL heat pump simulation model. 

2. Data Gathering 

The following points were made during discussion of data gathering. 

a. Baseline units should be those being produced for the 1990 standard. 

b. LBL will need the most recent shipment weighted energy factor data 

for its economic analysis. 

c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet size limitations. If the largest 

capacity unit within a product class is used as the baseline unit, then 

when design options are added, the design options will probably also be 

applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each 

manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the 

baseline uni t. 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -5-

B. 5. c. Any information than can be used to support and supplement a DOE 

conclusion that it cannot issue a rule on classes other than those listed 

in the 1982 rulemaking would be helpful for the ANPR. If this 

conclusion can be substantiated, the data collection could be limited 

to the 9 product classes that were originally identified. 

d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would 

be better than DOE's estimates and could be used to bound the high 

and low end usage. 

C. Room Air Conditioners 

Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo of WCI led the discussion on room air 

conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems 

with the product classes and the test procedure, therefore, discussion at the 

meeting was limited to the room air conditioners simulation model to be used 

by LBL and data gathering. 

1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models 

LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation 

models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated 

efficiency gains for the design options. 

The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps but was adapted by Texas A&M's Dennis 

O'N eill for room air conditioners. It was suggested that industry look at 

how well the simulation program used by LBL coordinates with industry's 

programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies of the simulation program 

along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and 

copies of the Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AHAM with copies 

of any documentation it has regarding the room air conditioner 

modification of the original ORNL heat pump simulation model. 

2. Data Gathering 

The following points were made during discussion of data gathering. 

a. Baseline units should be those being produced for the 1990 standard. 

b. LBL will need the most recent shipment weighted energy factor data 

for its economic analysis. 

c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet size limitations. If the largest 

capacity unit within a product class is used as the baseline unit, then 

when design options are added, the design options will probably also be 

applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each 

manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the 

baseline uni t. 
AI-IAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -6-

C. 2. d. An explanation of the headings on the LBL thble for cost data must be

developed so that all cost data is consistent.

Uncertainty will be used to establish how good the cost value is. In

this case, the narrative accompanying the data can be just as

important as the number itself.

g•

e. Uncertainty should be properly defined because it is not always a plus

and minus value. It could be one-sided and therefore industry should

be requested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty.

I'. The efficiency value should indicate if it is an experimental number or

an estimate.

Design options should be listed individually and where applicable, in

combination. Each manufacturer should list them in the order in

which they will apply them.

h. ADAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve.

i. Every design option should be identified and addressed in the

rulemaking if its contribution to efficiency can be measured by the

test procedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for

steady state testing.

Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory,

the improvements projected are not always obtained when the

component is put into the product. An explanation of why this happens

would be useful to DOE.

k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data -- 9 point compressor data.

1. DOE and LBL would like a list of compressor , fan motor and air mover

suppliers and contacts.

m. DOE and LBL need information one

a. Reversing Valve

This is not factored into the simulation model and LBL would be

interested in the penalty associated with the use of a reversing

valve.

D. General

b. Effect of Side Louvers on Air Flow

Mr. Michael McCabe indicated that the ANPR will not be published in January

and while it may be published in February, it most likely will be published in

March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day comment period with a hearing date set

about three quarters of the way through the comment period.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -6-

C. 2. d. An explanation of the headings on the LBL table for cost data must be 

developed so that all cost data is consistent. 

Uncertainty will be used to establish how good the cost value is. In 

this case, the narrative accompanying the data can be just as 

important as the number itself. 

e. Uncertainty should be properly defined because it is not always a plus 

and minus value. It could be one-sided and therefore industry should 

be requested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty. 

f. The efficiency value should indicate if it is an experimental number or 

an estimate. 

g. Design options should be listed individually and where applicable, in 

combination. Each manufacturer should list them in the order in 

which they will apply them. 

h. AHAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve. 

i. Every design option should be identified and addressed in the 

rulemaking if its contribution to efficiency can be measured by the 

test procedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for 

steady state testing. 

j. Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory, 

the improvements projected are not always obtained when the 

component is put into the product. An explanation of why this happens 

would be useful to DOE. 

k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data -- 9 point compressor data. 

1. DOE and LBL would like a list of compressor, fan motor and air mover 

suppliers and contacts. 

m. DOE and LBL need information on: 

D. General 

a. Reversing Valve 

This is not factored into the simUlation model and LBL would be 

interested in the penalty associated with the use of a reversing 

valve. 

b. Effect of Side Louvers on Air Flow 

Mr. Michael McCabe indicated that the ANPR will not be published in January 

and while it may be published in February, it most likely will be published in 

March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day comment period with a hearing date set 

about three quarters of the way through the comment period. 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -6-

C. 2. d. An explanation of the headings on the LBL table for cost data must be 

developed so that all cost data is consistent. 

Uncertainty will be used to establish how good the cost value is. In 

this case, the narrative accompanying the data can be just as 

important as the number itself. 

e. Uncertainty should be properly defined because it is not always a plus 

and minus value. It could be one-sided and therefore industry should 

be requested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty. 

f. The efficiency value should indicate if it is an experimental number or 

an estimate. 

g. Design options should be listed individually and where applicable, in 

combination. Each manufacturer should list them in the order in 

which they will apply them. 

h. AHAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve. 

i. Every design option should be identified and addressed in the 

rulemaking if its contribution to efficiency can be measured by the 

test procedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for 

steady state testing. 

j. Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory, 

the improvements projected are not always obtained when the 

component is put into the product. An explanation of why this happens 

would be useful to DOE. 

k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data -- 9 point compressor data. 

1. DOE and LBL would like a list of compressor, fan motor and air mover 

suppliers and contacts. 

m. DOE and LBL need information on: 

D. General 

a. Reversing Valve 

This is not factored into the simUlation model and LBL would be 

interested in the penalty associated with the use of a reversing 

valve. 

b. Effect of Side Louvers on Air Flow 

Mr. Michael McCabe indicated that the ANPR will not be published in January 

and while it may be published in February, it most likely will be published in 

March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day comment period with a hearing date set 

about three quarters of the way through the comment period. 
AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -7-

D. (Cont.)

Industry data should be available as early as possible and could be included as

comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to come back to LBL and DOE

with a plan for providing the information requested. Both DOE and LBL

stressed that they would use whatever data is available. If industry does not

provide the data, it will be obtained from other sources. Incomplete or faulty

data can have a detrimental effect on the rulemaking.

In summary, industry must move quickly to get action plans in place to supply the

following information:

1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended

product class for ranges and'ovens and microwave ovens.

2. Market data information for each product class.

3. Identification of classes that can be tested under the current DOE Test

Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that can be

tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988.

4. Identification of product classes where test procedures need to be

developed.

5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and

changing trends on family size and food preparation in the home (industry

must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure

needs to be updated by current empirical data).

Respectfully submitted,

John T. Weizeorick

Vice President

Engineering &

Technical Services

Reviewed by Counsel:

Charles A. Samuels

JTW:ms

Attachments

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -7-

D. (Cont.l

) 

Industry data should be available as early as possible and could be included as 

comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to come back to LBL and DOE 

with a plan for providing the information requested. Both DOE and LBL 

stressed that they would use whatever data is available. If industry does not 

provide the data, it will be obtained from other sources. Incomplete or faulty 

data can have a detrimental effect on the rulemaking. 

In summary, industry must move quickly to get action plans in place to supply the 

following information: 

1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended 

product class for ranges and ovens and microwave ovens. 

2. Market data information for each product class. 

3. Identification of classes that can be tested under the current DOE Test 

Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that can be 

tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988. 

4. Identification of product classes where test procedures need to be 

developed. 

5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and 

changing trends on family size and food preparation in the home (industry 

must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure 

needs to be updated by current empirical data). 

Reviewed by Counsel: 

Charles A. Samuels 

JTW:ms 

Attachments 

Respectfully sub mi tted, 

~A7A£W~ 

~::;. Weizeorick 

Vice President 

Engineering & 

Technical Services 

AHAM/DOE/LBL 

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -7-

D. (Cont.l) 

Industry data should be available as early as possible and could be included as 

comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to come back to LBL and DOE 

with a plan for providing the information requested. Both DOE and LBL 

stressed that they would use whatever data is available. If industry does not 

provide the data, it will be obtained from other sources. Incomplete or faulty 

data can have a detrimental effect on the rulemaking. 

In summary, industry must move quickly to get action plans in place to supply the 

following information: 

1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended 

product class for ranges and ovens and microwave ovens. 

2. Market data information for each product class. 

3. Identification of classes that can be tested under the current DOE Test 

Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that can be 

tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988. 

4. Identification of product classes where test procedures need to be 

developed. 

5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and 

changing trends on family size and food preparation in the home (industry 

must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure 

needs to be updated by current empirical data). 

Reviewed by Counsel: 

Charles A. Samuels 

JTW:ms 

Attachments 

Respectfully sub mi tted, 

~A7A£W~ 

~::;. Weizeorick 

Vice President 

Engineering & 

Technical Services 
Attachment 1

January 9, 1990

AHAM meeting with DOE and LBL:

Ranges and ovens, microwave ovens,

and room air conditioners

AGENDA

8:30AM Coffee

9:00AM Microwave ovens

10:00AM Ranges and ovens.

12:00PM Lunch (at LBL cafeteria)

1:30PM Room air conditioners

4:00PM Wrap-up

5:00PM Adjourn

Proposed List of Attendees

ARAM and DOE at LBL

January 9, 1990

FROM DOE:

Carl Adams Barry Berlin

Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe

FROM LBL:

Terry Chan Jim McMahon

Benoit Lebot Greg Rosenquist

Isaac Turiel

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

8:30AM 

9:00AM 

10:00AM 

12:00PM 

1:30PM 

4:00PM 

5:00PM 

FROM DOE: 

January 9, 1990 

AHAM meeting with DOE and LBL: 

Ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, 

and room air conditioners 

AGENDA 

Coffee 

Microwave ovens 

Ranges and ovens. 

Lunch (at LBL cafeteria) 

Room air conditioners 

Wrap-up 

Adjourn 

Proposed List of Attendees 

AHAM and DOE at LBL 

January 9, 1990 

Carl Adams Barry Berlin 

Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe 

FROMLBL: 

Terry Chan 

Benoit Lebot 

Isaac Turiel 

Jim McMahon 

Greg Rosenquist 

Attachment 1 

8:30AM 

9:00AM 

10:00AM 

12:00PM 

1:30PM 

4:00PM 

5:00PM 

FROM DOE: 

January 9, 1990 

AHAM meeting with DOE and LBL: 

Ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, 

and room air conditioners 

AGENDA 

Coffee 

Microwave ovens 

Ranges and ovens. 

Lunch (at LBL cafeteria) 

Room air conditioners 

Wrap-up 

Adjourn 

Proposed List of Attendees 

AHAM and DOE at LBL 

January 9, 1990 

Carl Adams Barry Berlin 

Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe 

FROMLBL: 

Terry Chan 

Benoit Lebot 

Isaac Turiel 

Jim McMahon 

Greg Rosenquist 

Attachment 1 
Attachment 2

AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL

Participants List

Name Organization Phone Number

Ray Gorenflo WCI 201/287-2000

Stew Johnson WCI 615/382-1869

Dennis Wilson WCI 404/259-9751

James White GE Appliances 502/452-3498

Joanne Prater Magic Chef 615/478-4513

Rose Rennekamp Amana 319/622-2731

Anne Howard Sharp Electronics 201/529-8698

Bob Woods Thermador/Waste King 213/562-1133

Jim Griesser Whirlpool 614/383-7684

Leo Soorus Whirlpool 616/926-3240

Craig Schulz AHAM 312/984-5825

Jack Weizeorick AHAM 312/984-5842

Bill Beard AHAM Consultant 812/477-4000

Charles Samuels AHAM Counsel 202/293-0500

Carl Adams DOE 202/586-9142

Barry Berlin DOE 202/586-9457

Eugene Margolis DOE 202/586-9526

Michael McCabe DOE 202/586-9127

Terry Chan LBL 415/486-7439

Benoit Lebot LBL 615/486-6516

Jim McMahon LBL 415/486-6049

Greg Rosenquist LBL 415/486-6851

Steve Stoft LBL 415/486-7364

Isaac Turiel LBL 415/486-6493

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

Name 

Ray Gorenflo 

Stew Johnson 

Denn i s Wil son 

James White 

Joanne Prater 

Rose Rennekamp 

Anne Howard 

Bob Woods 

Jim Griesser 

Leo Soorus 

Craig Schulz 

Jack Weizeorick 

Bill Beard 

Charles Samuels 

Carl Adams 

Barry Berl in 

Eugene Margolis 

Michael McCabe 

Terry Chan 

Beno it Lebot 

Jim McMahon 

Greg Rosenqui st 

Steve Stoft 

Isaac Turiel 

AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL 

Participants List 

Organization 

WCI 

WCI 

WCI 

GE Appliances 

Magic Chef 

Amana 

Sharp Electronics 

Thermador/Waste King 

Whirlpool 

Whirlpool 

AHAM 

AHAM 

AHAM Consultant 

AHAM Counsel 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

Attachment 2 

Phone Number 

201/287-2000 

615/382-1869 

404/259-9751 

502/452-3498 

615/478-4513 

319/622-2731 

201/529-8698 

213/562-1133 

614/383-7684 

616/926-3240 

312/984-5825 

312/984-5842 

812/477-4000 

202/293-0500 

202/586-9142 

202/586-9457 

202/586-9526 

202/586-9127 

415/486-7439 

615/486-6516 

415/486-6049 

415/486-6851 

415/486-7364 

415/486-6493 

Name 

Ray Gorenflo 

Stew Johnson 

Denn i s Wil son 

James White 

Joanne Prater 

Rose Rennekamp 

Anne Howard 

Bob Woods 

Jim Griesser 

Leo Soorus 

Craig Schulz 

Jack Weizeorick 

Bill Beard 

Charles Samuels 

Carl Adams 

Barry Berl in 

Eugene Margolis 

Michael McCabe 

Terry Chan 

Beno it Lebot 

Jim McMahon 

Greg Rosenqui st 

Steve Stoft 

Isaac Turiel 

AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL 

Participants List 

Organization 

WCI 

WCI 

WCI 

GE Appliances 

Magic Chef 

Amana 

Sharp Electronics 

Thermador/Waste King 

Whirlpool 

Whirlpool 

AHAM 

AHAM 

AHAM Consultant 

AHAM Counsel 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

LBL 

Attachment 2 

Phone Number 

201/287-2000 

615/382-1869 

404/259-9751 

502/452-3498 

615/478-4513 

319/622-2731 

201/529-8698 

213/562-1133 

614/383-7684 

616/926-3240 

312/984-5825 

312/984-5842 

812/477-4000 

202/293-0500 

202/586-9142 

202/586-9457 

202/586-9526 

202/586-9127 

415/486-7439 

615/486-6516 

415/486-6049 

415/486-6851 

415/486-7364 

415/486-6493 
Attachment 3

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES

I. Single Cavity - Microwave Only

1. Countertop, Built-in and Wall Ovens

II. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement

1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean

5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas

Thermal and Without Self-Clean

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas

Thermal and With Self-Clean

III. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement

1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean

5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas

Thermal and Without Self-Clean

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas

Thermal and With Self-Clean

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

Attachment 3 

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES 

I. Single Cavity - Microwave Only 

1. Counter top, Built-in and Wall Ovens 

II. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement 

1. Counter top Ovens With Electric Thermal 

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and With Self-Clean 

III. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement 

1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and With Self-Clean 

Attachment 3 

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES 

I. Single Cavity - Microwave Only 

1. Counter top, Built-in and Wall Ovens 

II. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement 

1. Counter top Ovens With Electric Thermal 

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and With Self-Clean 

III. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement 

1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 

2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With 

Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 

8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and Without Self-Clean 

9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas 

Thermal and With Self-Clean 
Microwave Only

Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal

w/o air

Single Cavity

Microwave /Thermal

w/air

Single Cavity

Microwave/ Thermal

Two Cavity

CLASSES

X

1 Class

X

1 Class

Covere

TOTAL 19 Classes

(2)

Built-in or

Wall Oven

bine

Class

(2) + surf

Electric/Gas

w/and w/o

Self-Clean

(4 Classes)

(2) + surf

'Tectric/Gas

w/and w/o

Self-Clean

(4 Classes)

Under Individual Sta

(3)

Free Standing or

Drop-in or

Slide-in Ranges

ce elements = (3)

Electric/Gas

w/and w/o

Self-Clean

(4 Caasses)

ce elements = (3)

Electric/Gas

w/and w/o

Self-Clean

(4 Classes)

Wards

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

Microwave Only 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

w/o air 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

w/air 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

Two Cavity 

CLASSES 

(1) (2 ) (3 ) 

Free Standing or 

Bui It-i n or Drop-in or Counterto~ Wall Oven Slide-in Ranges 

(x Co bine 

lass 0 

(2) + surf ce elements = (3) 

X Electric/Gas Electric/Gas 

w/and w/o w/and w/o 

Self-Clean Self-Clean 

1 Class (4 Classes) (4 Calsses) 

(2) + surf ce elements = (3) 

X Electric/Gas Electric/Gas 

w/and w/o w/and w/o 

Self-Clean Self-Clean 

1 Class (4 Classes) (4 Classes) 

Covere Under Individual St ndards 

TOTAL 19 Classes 

Microwave Only 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

w/o air 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

w/air 

Single Cavity 

Microwave/Thermal 

Two Cavity 

CLASSES 

(1) (2 ) (3 ) 

Free Standing or 

Bui It-i n or Drop-in or Counterto~ Wall Oven Slide-in Ranges 

(x Co bine 

lass 0 

(2) + surf ce elements = (3) 

X Electric/Gas Electric/Gas 

w/and w/o w/and w/o 

Self-Clean Self-Clean 

1 Class (4 Classes) (4 Calsses) 

(2) + surf ce elements = (3) 

X Electric/Gas Electric/Gas 

w/and w/o w/and w/o 

Self-Clean Self-Clean 

1 Class (4 Classes) (4 Classes) 

Covere Under Individual St ndards 

TOTAL 19 Classes 
Attachment 4

RANGE PRODUCT CLASSES

Electrical Top Section Using

a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements

b. Solid Disk Elements

c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass

d. Induction Elements

e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass

f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature

g. Griddle--With Down Draft Feature

Electric Ovens

a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner

b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean

c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking

d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning

e. Halogen Lamp Oven

f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure

Gas Cooking Tops

a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord

b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord

c. Sealed Burners

d. Radiant Burners

Gas Ovens

a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish)

b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish)

c. Gas Self-Clean Oven

d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven

e. Gas Convection Standard Oven

f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

Attachment 4 

RANGE PRODUCT CLASSES 

Electrical Top Section Using 

a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements 

b. Solid Disk Elements 

c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass 

d. Induction Elements 

e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass 

f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature 

g. Griddle--With Down Draft Feature 

Electric Ovens 

a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner 

b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean 

c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking 

d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning 

e. Halogen Lamp Oven 

f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure 

Gas Cooking Tops 

a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord 

b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord 

c. Sealed Burners 

d. Radiant Burners 

Gas Ovens 

a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish) 

b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish) 

c. Gas Self-Clean Oven 

d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven 

e. Gas Convection Standard Oven 

f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven 

Attachment 4 

RANGE PRODUCT CLASSES 

Electrical Top Section Using 

a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements 

b. Solid Disk Elements 

c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass 

d. Induction Elements 

e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass 

f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature 

g. Griddle--With Down Draft Feature 

Electric Ovens 

a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner 

b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean 

c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking 

d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning 

e. Halogen Lamp Oven 

f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure 

Gas Cooking Tops 

a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord 

b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord 

c. Sealed Burners 

d. Radiant Burners 

Gas Ovens 

a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish) 

b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish) 

c. Gas Self-Clean Oven 

d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven 

e. Gas Convection Standard Oven 

f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven 
Attachment 5

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS

I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS

a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners

Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so

that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand.

• Consumer has not accepted technology

• Not sensitive to test procedure

b. Radiant gas burners

Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate

becomes a radiator of infrared energy and a gas jet passes through

holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking

utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a

higher efficiency than conventional burners.

o Delete

• Do not know if current test procedure is applicable

• Should be a product class

• Not being produced in U.S.

c. Insulation/Reflective surface

Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect

radiative energy to the cooking utensil.

• Suitable Design Option

d. More efficient burners

A new generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more

efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance--

May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner

gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to

10,000 Btu/hr for example).

• Not clear -- Product class or design option

II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS

a. Improved contact conductance - Design option for all product classes

This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops.

Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better

thermal contact with cooking utensils.

• Need comment -- test procedure uses aluminum block

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

Attachment 5 

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS 

I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS 

a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners 

Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so 

that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand. 

" Conswner has not accepted technology 

~ Not sensitive to test procedure 

b. Radiant gas burners 

Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate 

becomes a radi ator of i rlfrared energy and a gas jet passes through 

holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking 

utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a 

higher efficiency than conventional burners. 

• Delete 

• Do not know if current test procedure is applicable 

" Should be a product class 

" Not being produced in U.S. 

c. Insulation/Reflective surface 

Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect 

radiative energy to the cooking utensil. 

• Suitable Design Option 

d. More efficient burners 

A new generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more 

efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance--

May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner 

gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to 

10,000 Btu/hr for example). 

• Not clear -- Product class li)r design op-tion 

II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS 

a. Improved contact conductance - Design option for all product classes 

This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. 

Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better 

thermal contact with cooking utensils. 

" Need comment -- test procedure uses alwninwn block 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

Attachment 5 

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS 

I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS 

a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners 

Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so 

that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand. 

" Conswner has not accepted technology 

~ Not sensitive to test procedure 

b. Radiant gas burners 

Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate 

becomes a radi ator of i rlfrared energy and a gas jet passes through 

holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking 

utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a 

higher efficiency than conventional burners. 

• Delete 

• Do not know if current test procedure is applicable 

" Should be a product class 

" Not being produced in U.S. 

c. Insulation/Reflective surface 

Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect 

radiative energy to the cooking utensil. 

• Suitable Design Option 

d. More efficient burners 

A new generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more 

efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance--

May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner 

gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to 

10,000 Btu/hr for example). 

• Not clear -- Product class li)r design op-tion 

II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS 

a. Improved contact conductance - Design option for all product classes 

This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. 

Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better 

thermal contact with cooking utensils. 

" Need comment -- test procedure uses alwninwn block 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
-2-

b. Solid elements

Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal

mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used.

They also maintain flatness` better over time which improve

contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat

that allow a better control of the heating process.

® Product class

c. Halogen lamps

Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use

less electricity than conventional electric cooktops.

Product class

• Test procedure question

d. Induction Vuyri ¢r% - elements

Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan.

Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the

lowest heating losses ( conductive , convective and radiative losses).

Several European manufacturers are making them more available on

the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high

convenience and cooking efficiency.

Product class

® Test procedure question -- aluminum block cannot be used

e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes

except induction

As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce

thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking

utensil.

As an example , a manufacturer , Schott, has designed a highly

insulating microporous material " that enhances safety and energy

efficiency" for their new product , a smoothtop ( Appliance

Manufacturer-- p. 31 March 89).

III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC)

a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope

Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses.

• Design option

® Test procedure question

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

-2-

b. Solid elements 

Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal 

mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used. 

They also maintain flatness better over time which improve 

contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat 

that allow a better control of the heating process. 

II Product class 

c. Halogen lamps 

Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use 

less electricity than conventional electric cooktops. 

II Product class 

tI Test procedure question 

d. Induction l;iutn¢r$' - elements 

Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan. 

Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the 

lowest heating losses (conductive, convective and radiative losses). 

Several European manufacturers are making them more available on 

the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high 

convenience and cooking efficiency. 

II Product class 

II Test procedure question -- aluminum block cannot be used 

e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes 

except induction 

As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce 

thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking 

utens i1 . 

As an example, a manufacturer, Schott, has designed a highly 

insulating microporous material "that enhances safety and energy 

efficiency" for their new product, a smoothtop (Appliance 

Manufacturer--p. 31 March 89). 

III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC) 

a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope 

Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses. 

II Design option 

II Test procedure question 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

-2-

b. Solid elements 

Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal 

mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used. 

They also maintain flatness better over time which improve 

contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat 

that allow a better control of the heating process. 

II Product class 

c. Halogen lamps 

Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use 

less electricity than conventional electric cooktops. 

II Product class 

tI Test procedure question 

d. Induction l;iutn¢r$' - elements 

Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan. 

Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the 

lowest heating losses (conductive, convective and radiative losses). 

Several European manufacturers are making them more available on 

the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high 

convenience and cooking efficiency. 

II Product class 

II Test procedure question -- aluminum block cannot be used 

e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes 

except induction 

As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce 

thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking 

utens i1 . 

As an example, a manufacturer, Schott, has designed a highly 

insulating microporous material "that enhances safety and energy 

efficiency" for their new product, a smoothtop (Appliance 

Manufacturer--p. 31 March 89). 

III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC) 

a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope 

Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses. 

II Design option 

II Test procedure question 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
-3-

b. Reduced vent size - Design option for non self-clean ovens

Vent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding

a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through

the exhaust.

• Could effect performance

• Must consider UL fire and expulsion test

c. Reduced conduction losses

Standard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break,

improving gasket, and modifying inner panel.

® Design option

d. Insulation with lower conductivities

Advanced insulation panels ( with low conductivity and/or higher

density ) can also be used to reduce thermal losses.

• Design option

e. Use of reflective surfaces

Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase

oven efficiency.

• Design option

• Comment on material problems, i.e., chrome changing to

gunmetal black

f. Reduction of thermal mass

A reduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating

energy use.

• Design option

g. Forced convection during cooking

Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking

as well as overall energy efficiency.

a Product class

v Possible test procedure problems

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

-3-

b. Reduced vent size - Design option for non self-clean ovens 

Vent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding 

a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through 

the exhaust. 

_ Could effect performance 

• Must consider UL fire and expulsion test 

c. Reduced conduction losses 

Standard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break, 

improving gasket, and modifying inner panel. 

• Design option 

d. Insulation with lower conductivities 

Advanced insulation panels (with low conductivity and/or higher 

density) can also be used to reduce thermal losses. 

~ Design option 

e. Use of reflective surfaces 

Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase 

oven efficiency. 

• Design option 

• Comment on material problems~ ~.e.~ chrome changing to 

gunmetal black 

f. Reduction of thermal mass 

A reduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating 

energy use. 

• Design option 

g. Forced convection during cooking 

Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking 

as well as overall energy efficiency. 

_ Product class 

• Possible test procedure problems 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

-3-

b. Reduced vent size - Design option for non self-clean ovens 

Vent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding 

a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through 

the exhaust. 

_ Could effect performance 

• Must consider UL fire and expulsion test 

c. Reduced conduction losses 

Standard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break, 

improving gasket, and modifying inner panel. 

• Design option 

d. Insulation with lower conductivities 

Advanced insulation panels (with low conductivity and/or higher 

density) can also be used to reduce thermal losses. 

~ Design option 

e. Use of reflective surfaces 

Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase 

oven efficiency. 

• Design option 

• Comment on material problems~ ~.e.~ chrome changing to 

gunmetal black 

f. Reduction of thermal mass 

A reduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating 

energy use. 

• Design option 

g. Forced convection during cooking 

Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking 

as well as overall energy efficiency. 

_ Product class 

• Possible test procedure problems 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
-4-

h. Forced convection during cleaning

Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process

mainly during the preheating of the cavity.

® Design option for self-clean

i. Oven separator ( allowing the user to reduce oven volume when possible

An oven separator , quickly installed by the user, can reduce the

cooking volume when a small meal is baked : less volume is heated,

decreasing cooking time and energy use.

® Design option

j. Steam cooking

This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced

convection , saves both energy and time ( Appliance p. 40 May 89).

The food is said to be healthier : " vegetables retain their vitamins,

meats come out tender and juicy ". Redesign is necessary to include

a steam loop inside the oven.

® Separate product class

k. Halogen lamp

As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use

in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can

reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a

conventional oven (...) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during

broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance

p. 51 March 89).

1. Multiple cooking process

Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and

microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be

used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic

programs help the user to choose the best combination of heating.

Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed.

Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half

(Appliance p.40 May 89).

® Test procedure problem

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 12

-4-

h. Forced convection during cleaning 

Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process 

mainly during the preheating of the cavity. 

• Design option for self-clean 

i. Oven separator (allowing the user to reduce Oven volume when possible 

An oven separator, quickly installed by the user, can reduce the 

cooking volume when a small meal is baked: less volume is heated, 

decreasing cooking time and energy use. 

• Design option 

j. Steam cooking 

This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced 

convection, saves both energy and time (Appliance p. 40 May 89). 

The food is said to be healthier: "vegetables retain their vitamins, 

meats come out tender and juicy". Redesign is necessary to include 

a steam loop inside the oven. 

• Separate product class 

k. Halogen lamp 

As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use 

in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can 

reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a 

conventional oven ( ... ) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during 

broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance 

p. 51 March 89). 

1. Multiple cooking process 

Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and 

microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be 

used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic 

programs help the-user to choose the best combination of heating. 

Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed. 

Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half 

(Appliance p.40 May 89). 

• Test procedure problem 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

-4-

h. Forced convection during cleaning 

Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process 

mainly during the preheating of the cavity. 

• Design option for self-clean 

i. Oven separator (allowing the user to reduce Oven volume when possible 

An oven separator, quickly installed by the user, can reduce the 

cooking volume when a small meal is baked: less volume is heated, 

decreasing cooking time and energy use. 

• Design option 

j. Steam cooking 

This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced 

convection, saves both energy and time (Appliance p. 40 May 89). 

The food is said to be healthier: "vegetables retain their vitamins, 

meats come out tender and juicy". Redesign is necessary to include 

a steam loop inside the oven. 

• Separate product class 

k. Halogen lamp 

As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use 

in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can 

reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a 

conventional oven ( ... ) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during 

broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance 

p. 51 March 89). 

1. Multiple cooking process 

Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and 

microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be 

used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic 

programs help the-user to choose the best combination of heating. 

Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed. 

Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half 

(Appliance p.40 May 89). 

• Test procedure problem 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory