A Computer Study of the Energy Savings from using Various Economizer Changeover Strategies in a Retail Store

February 1997 by Al Balmer, Product Manager, 1986 and Adrienne Brown, Senior Product Manager (1997 revisions), Honeywell, Home and Building Control Division, Commercial Products, Golden Valley, MN 55422

Table of Contents
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Appendix A. Introduction ............................................................................. The Test Set-Up ........................................................................ Procedure ................................................................................ Results ..................................................................................... Discussion of Results ............................................................... Conclusion ............................................................................... Figures 6, 7, 8 Energy Savings Graphs ................................... 2 3 3 8 10 10 13

63-8542

I. INTRODUCTION
Economizers save energy in air conditioning systems by using outdoor air for free cooling. An outdoor air sensor, provides input to determine whether the outdoor air is suitable for cooling. A sensor that responds only to temperature provides dry bulb control input. One that responds simultaneously to both temperature and humidity provides enthalpy control input. Enthalpy is a measure of the total heat content of air. It is directly related to the amount of energy needed to mechanically cool a quantity of air. In 1986 Honeywell developed and first introduced a new low cost solid state enthalpy sensor (C7400) which provided higher accuracy, quicker response and greater stability than commonly used electro-mechanical (nylon) designs. The new enthalpy sensor was designed to be used with a new solid state changeover logic module (W7459). The increased sensor accuracy meant that the changeover setpoint could be adjusted for optimum energy savings. The improved stability ensured the savings would be retained over the operating life of the equipment. The new logic module was also capable of receiving two sensor inputsone from the outdoor air and the other from return air. This innovative developmenta logic control module that compares the outdoor air with the return airis called a differential changeover control. Differential enthalpy changeover saves more energy than temperature or single enthalpy changeover because the lowest enthalpy air is always used for either free cooling or to assist the mechanical cooling. This new low cost control system made differential enthalpy changeover affordable for the first time for small commercial buildings. Previously, differential enthalpy changeover was economical only for large commercial and institutional buildings with a building energy management system that provided the computer capacity to make psychometric (economizer) based enthalpy control decisions. A typical economizer system is illustrated in Figure 1. The system components include: an outdoor air (OA) sensor; changeover control module which may include the OA sensor; a mixed or discharge air (MA or DA) sensor; a damper actuator; outdoor air (OA) and return air (RA) dampers which are most often mechanically linked. An integrated economizer system includes adding a space thermostat to the control circuit to allow outdoor air to be used for free cooling ONLY WHEN there is a call for cooling. A fully integrated economizer incorporates a two or three stage commercial programmable thermostat. The thermostat is designed to provide unoccupied period system temperature setback and two or three cooling output stages. The first stage of cooling is connected to the economizer module for free cooling when the OA is suitable. There are one or two additional stages to energize mechanical cooling (compressor) if the first stage alone is unable to meet space cooling requirements.
OUTDOOR AIR (OA)
ACTUATOR

OA SENSOR

MIXED AIR
MA SENSOR

RETURN AIR (RA)

SPACE THERMOSTAT
M13018

Fig. 1. Schematic of an Economizer System.

The following is a typical sequence of economizer operation with a modulating control system: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The space thermostat determines if cooling is needed in the building. If so, it energizes the first stage of cooling. The changeover control module determines if the outdoor air is suitable for free cooling. If suitable, The actuator modulates the outdoor air and return air dampers to maintain the desired mixed or discharge air temperatureusually 55F. If the outdoor air alone is not sufficient to attain 55F mixed or discharge air temperature The second cooling stage of the space thermostat energizes the compressor to provide the first stage of mechanical cooling to assist the economizer until it can reach 55F. If the outdoor air is not suitable for free cooling, the outdoor air damper remains in the minimum ventilation position and the compressor is energized when space cooling is required.

This paper describes a study using a computer simulation of a retail store to determine the expected savings from various economizer changeover control systems. Savings were determined by comparing differential enthalpy changeover, single enthalpy changeover, and dry bulb changeover against a system with no economizer.

63-8542

II. THE TEST SET-UP

A digital computer was used to vary the seasonal and geographical weather conditions on a model of a retail store. Six different geographical regions were used. The retail store was modeled with the following characteristics: A single-story 4500 sq. ft. building on a concrete slab. Construction materials consisting of a brick exterior over concrete block walls with plaster on the interior walls and with ceiling insulation. A stand-alone building exposed on all exterior walls. Glass windows covering 25 percent of the wall area. Occupancy of 7 days per week for 12 hours per day. A false ceiling with a fluorescent lighting load of 1.25 Watts per sq. ft. A rooftop HVAC unit with natural gas heat and with air conditioning sized at 3 tons per 1000 sq. ft. of floor space. A single zone 2-stage cooling, l-stage heating thermostat with a 75F daytime cooling setpoint, a 70F daytime heating setpoint, a 55F night time heating setpoint setback, and with fan motor and cooling shutdown at night. Ventilation set at 10% outdoor air during occupancy (one air change per hour) and with the outdoor air damper closed when building is unoccupied. An occupancy which changed dynamically between 14 and 27 persons. No exhaust or make-up air system. A building balance point of 50F, the temperature at which neither heating nor cooling is required.

The weather simulation for each site was based on humidity and temperature data from the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) developed at the Sandia Laboratories from meteorological data compiled by the National Climatic Center. The sites were selected on the basis of providing a variety of regional humidity, length of cooling season, and temperature conditions as follows: (1) Lake Charles, LAa hot humid southern regionan area usually regarded as unfavorable for producing significant savings from economizers. (2) Los Angeles, CAa mild Pacific coastal area with long cooling seasons and an area which is usually very favorable for producing economizer savings. (3) Madison, WIa northern Midwest region with cold winters and relatively short cooling seasons. (4) New York, NYa Northeast region with cold winters, short cooling seasons, and moderate to high utility rates. (5) Albuquerque, NMa hot, dry Southwest region with a long cooling seasons. (6) Seattle, WAa north Pacific coastal region with mild seasons and with moderate to high humidity.

III. PROCEDURE
The computer simulation was used to determine the compressor and fan kilowatt hours for the different economizer systems at each location. The systems studied were: 1. One with no economizer, 2. An economizer with a dry bulb temperature changeover control set at 55F, 3. An economizer with a single enthalpy changeover control, 4. An economizer with differential enthalpy changeover control. Economizer savings were calculated, based on 1996 KWH utility rates, for compressor and fan KWH against the total KWH when no economizer was used, and for each economizer control strategy. Additional simulations included a study on the effects of: Increasing a dry bulb temperature changeover control to 65F, and Decreasing the single enthalpy changeover from the most aggressive A to a more moderate C setting. Setting A provides the greatest potential savings and highest enthalpy changeover setpoint for a single sensor changeover system, but also admits the most humid air.

63-8542

Figure 2 illustrates the concept of using enthalpy as a control variable for saving energy. Assume that an air conditioning system has return air of 75F and 50% RH. The bold line of constant enthalpy (28 Btu per pound) passing through the 75F and 50% RH point separates the chart into region A and region B. Outdoor air with the characteristics of region A has a lower enthalpy than the return air. It requires less energy to cool air with the characteristics of region A than that of region B. In this example, outdoor air in region A would be less expensive to cool than the return air at or above the bold line. It would be preferable to select the more suitable outdoor air.
85 90 95 100 105 110 (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

44

46
80 (27)

40

42

AI R

38

UN D

75 (24)

34

PO

PE

PY

AL

28

-B

TH

26

24

65 (18)

10 0 90

EN

80

70

22

20

60 (16) 55 (13) 50 (10) 45 (7) 40 (4)

60

50

18

40

16

35 (2)

75F, 50% RH RETURN AIR CO 20 NS TA NT EN TH AL PY

12

14

30

RE

70 (21)

TU

30

LA

TIV

32

EH

UM IDI TY

DR Y

36

(%

10

35 (2)

40 (4)

45 (7)

50 (10)

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 (13) (16) (18) (21) (24) (27) (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (APPROXIMATE) - FAHRENHEIT (CELSIUS)

REGIONS OF HIGHER (B) AND LOWER (A) ENERGY AIR RELATIVE TO 75F, 50% RH RETURN AIR.
M13014

63-8542

Figure 3 illustrates the dry bulb economizer system which was modeled to use outdoor air whenever there was a call for cooling and the outside air temperature was below the changeover temperature setting. Two changeover temperatures, 55F and 65F, were used since they are commonly used temperature settings. The energy savings resulting from a 55F setting are represented by the very narrow shaded region in Figure 3. The building was modeled for a 50F balance point. Below that temperature, the building required no cooling. Therefore, the lower boundary for energy savings occurs at 50F.
85 90 95 100 105 110 (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

44

46
80 (27)

40

42

DR

36

UN

34

PO

PE

PY

AL

28

-B

TH

26

24

65 (18)

10 0 90

EN

80

70

22

20

60 (16) 55 (13)

60

50

18

40

16

ENERGY SAVED
50 (10) 45 (7) 40 (4) 35 (2)

75F, 50% RH RETURN AIR

20

12

14

30

RE

70 (21)

TU

30

LA

TIV

32

EH

UM

75 (24)

IDI

TY (% )

R AI

38

10

35 (2)

40 (4)

45 (7)

50 (10)

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 (13) (16) (18) (21) (24) (27) (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (APPROXIMATE) - FAHRENHEIT (CELSIUS)

ENERGY SAVED BY USING A DRY BULB CHANGEOVER ECONOMIZER SET AT 55F.

M13015

63-8542

Figure 4 represents the greater possible savings and energy waste that results from increasing the changeover temperature setting from 55F to 65F. However, raising the temperature setting increases the risk of admitting highly humid air into the space. High humidity is uncomfortable and places an additional load on the mechanical coolingwasting energy. The higher setpoint does provide for greater possible savings but, systems tend to be set more conservatively at 55F to avoid occupant discomfort and complaint, frequently resulting in insignificant energy savings.
85 90 95 100 105 110 (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)
46 44

80 (27)

40

42

DR

36

UN

34

PE

PY

AL

28

-B

TH

26

24

65 (18)

10 0 90

EN

80

22

20

60 (16) 55 (13) 50 (10) 45 (7) 40 (4)

60

ENERGY WASTED

70

50

18

40

16

75F, 50% RH RETURN AIR

20

12

14

30

RE

70 (21)

TU

30

LA

TIV EH

32

PO

UM

75 (24)

IDI

TY (% )

R AI

38

10

35 (2)

ENERGY SAVED
35 (2) 40 (4) 45 (7) 50 (10) 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 (13) (16) (18) (21) (24) (27) (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (APPROXIMATE) - FAHRENHEIT (CELSIUS)

ENERGY SAVED BY USING A DRY BULB CHANGEOVER ECONOMIZER SET AT 65F.

M13016

63-8542

Figure 5 represents the economizer model and control characteristics with a single enthalpy sensor and changeover control with a selection of control settings from A to D. The A setting produces the most energy savings while potentially admitting the most humid air, while the D setting produces the least savings but also less humid air. Look carefully to locate the 65F bold vertical line. Note, the shaded area to the right of this line that represents about double the potential energy savings from the A setting.
85 90 95 100 105 110 (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)
46

DR

36

UN

34

PE

PY

AL

28

-B

TH

26

24

22

65F DRY BULB BOUNDARY

60 (16)

65 (18)

10 0 90

EN

80

70

60

20

A
55 (13) 50 (10) 45 (7) 40 (4) 35 (2)
18 16

50

40

75F, 50% RH RETURN AIR C

20

12

14

30

RE

70 (21)

TU

30

LA

TIV EH

32

PO

UM

75 (24)

IDI

CONTROL CONTROL POINT CURVE (APPROX. DEG.) AT 50% RH A 73 (23) B 70 (21) C 67 (19) D 63 (17)

44

80 (27)

40

42

TY (% )

R AI

38

10

ENERGY SAVED

B D C
35 (2) 40 (4) 45 (7) 50 (10)

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 (13) (16) (18) (21) (24) (27) (29) (32) (35) (38) (41) (43)

DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (APPROXIMATE) - FAHRENHEIT (CELSIUS)

ENERGY SAVED BY USING AN ENTHALPY CHANGEOVER ECONOMIZER SET AT A.

M13017

A
A

63-8542

A single sensor enthalpy or temperature changeover strategy is based on a simple control decisionwhether the outdoor air is above or below an arbitrary setpoint. That setpoint may be conservative, to safeguard occupant comfort, or aggressive, to maximize energy savings. This strategy ignores the fact that the return air may be MORE SUITABLE for occupant comfort and LESS EXPENSIVE to cool. In order to determine this, the control system would need simultaneous enthalpy sensor input from the return air, and the capability to compare the two inputs to select either source as the more suitable air whenever there was a call for cooling. This study included simulation of a dual enthalpy sensor input that provided differential control under the same climatic conditions as the dry bulb and single enthalpy sensor simulations. In the computer model, an allowance was made for tolerances associated with an actual changeover control. The differential enthalpy changeover was biased to use outdoor air only when the air was 10% RH or 3F below the return air.

IV. RESULTS
Figures 6, 7 and 8 are based on Table 1 which provides complete results of the energy savings simulation based on each economizer control strategy. Note that in Figures 6, 7 and 8 the computed savings are based on the total KWH usage which includes compressor plus fan energy consumption. Table 1 also shows that the economizer control strategies all effect the compressor runtime, not the system fan. This is because in this study the fan energy consumption was a constant 8543 KWH at each site, modeled for a 12 hour unoccupied period temperature setback, seven days per week. Table 1 makes clear that all of the potential savings can be realized by selecting an economizer strategy that reduces compressor runtimeand that the greatest KWH reduction, percentage reduction and dollar savings results from utilizing differential enthalpy control. Figure 6 illustrates the reduction in KWH energy usage for each control strategy in each city. Lake Charles requires the greatest amount of air conditioning (44,123 KWH) while Seattle requires the least (15,160). In every case, differential enthalpy produced the greatest reduction in KWH usage. For detail of the actual KWH reduction, please refer to Table 1.
44123 44113 42166 35643

50000 45000 40000 35000 30000

KWH

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

,
,,    ,


,
,     
   , 
 
, ,

LEGEND
29963 29933 25574 23823 27103 27036 22803 22793 20213 17067 24633 24615 21823 17670 18462 14322

NO ECONOMIZER 55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

ALBQ

LAKE CHAS

LOS ANGL

MADISON

NEW YORK

SEATTLE

15160 15150 11806 10907

M13019

Fig. 6. Energy usage in KWH for mechanical cooling.

63-8542

Figure 7 illustrates the percentage KWH reduction for each control stragegy. Note that the 55F dry bulb change over strategy produced less than 1% reduction while differential enthalpy changeover produced a range of 19.2% in Lake Charles to 47.2% in Los Angeles. In every case differential enthalpy produced significantly greater savings than even single enthalpy changeover, often twice the percentage reduction.
50 45 40 35
PERCENT

25.2

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 8 illustrates the estimate dollar savings in each city for each economizer control strategy. The savings range from $191.39 in Seattle to $926.08 in New York which traditionally has higher KWH rates. These savings do not take into account any additional utility taxes and fuel adjustment or demand charges for time of day use. The resulting savings would even be higher, but beyond the scope of this study to accurately estimate.
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700

803.61

,,, 
31.9 28.3 20.5 14.6 14.6 19.2 11.4 4.4 .10 .25 .10 11.4

 
LEGEND
LEGEND

47.2

55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

ALBQ

.02

LAKE CHAS

LOS ANGL

MADISON

.04

NEW YORK

SEATTLE
M13020

Fig. 7. Percent of energy saved.

DOLLARS

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Note that in figure 8 the energy savings for employing a dry bulb changeover strategy was negligible in every casea maximum of $5. Frequently, any savings made using dry bulb changeover is offset when the strategy allows cool but highly humid air to be admited on a call for cooling that requires extended compressor runtime to de-humidify.

 


,,, 
1188.63 884.30 521.90 542.72 373.07 14.6 152.81 338.42 356.87 2.55 6.23 2.29 .64 .59

.10

22.1

28.1

55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

ALBQ

LAKE CHAS

LOS ANGL

MADISON

NEW YORK

SEATTLE

.34

114.04 144.60

125.25

M13021

Fig. 8. Economizer dollar savings.

63-8542

V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The savings results with differential enthalpy changeover were greater than either the single enthalpy sensor system or the dry bulb sensor system. In many of the locations, the savings with differential changeover were about double the savings of a single enthalpy system. This was the case even when the single sensor system was operated in the most aggressive energy savings A setting. Single enthalpy changeover with an A setting produced more energy savings than any dry bulb economizer. It is dramatic that a single enthalpy changeover control on the least aggressive energy saving C setting produced about the same savings as a dry bulb changeover control aggressively set at 65F. This is seen in Table 1 by comparing the savings at Albuquerque and Madison for a dry bulb changeover control set at 65F with a single enthalpy changeover control set at C. This supports the argument in favor of using economizers with enthalpy changeover versus dry bulb changeover. The economizer with dry bulb changeover set at 55F produced insignificant savings. Even when the dry bulb setting was increased to 65F, the savings were small when compared to the potential savings from using enthalpy changeover.

VI. CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this study is that there is a substantial energy savings potential from installing economizers with differential enthalpy changeover, and that differential enthalpy savings can be nearly double the savings expected from single enthalpy changeover. It is also concluded that economizers with dry bulb changeover produce less savings than economizers with enthalpy changeover; and that, in practice, many economizers with dry bulb changeover are set too conservatively to produce any savings at all.

63-8542

10

Table 1. Compressor KWH per Year

CITY/UTILITY RATE (APR 96) Ratea KWH used Comp Cost w/no Economizer Economizer KWH/ Changeover Yr 21420 21390 20350 18843 17031 15280 COMPRESSOR KWH Reduction (hr) 0 30 1070 2577 4389 6140 KWH Reduction (%) 0 0.1 5.0 12.0 20.5 28.7 Dollar Savings /Yr 0 2.55 90.95 219.05 373.07 521.90 Fan KWH 8543 8543 8543 8543 8543 8543 Total KWH 29963 29933 28893 27386 25574 23823 Total KWH Reduct. Total $ (%) Savings 0 0.1 3.6 8.6 14.6 20.5 0 2.55 90.95 219.05 373.07 521.90

Albuquerque, (NM) No Economizer rate = 0.085/KWH cost w/no economizer/yr. = $1820.70 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthapy (D Setting) Lake Charles, (LA) No Economizer rate = 0.064/KWH cost w/no Economizer/yr = $2277.12 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthalpy (D Setting) Los Angeles, (CA) rate = 0.093/KWH cost w/no economizer/yr. = $1726.08 No Economizer 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthalpy (D Setting) Madison, (Wl) rate = 0.059/KWH cost w/no economizer/yr. = $841.34 No Economizer 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthapy (D Setting)

35580 35570 N/A 35050 33623 27100

0 10 N/A 530 1957 8480

0 0.03 N/A 1.5 5.5 23.8

0 0.64 N/A 33.92 125.25 542.72

8543 8543 N/A 8543 8543 8543

44123 44113 N/A 43593 42166 35643

0 0.02 N/A 1.2 4.4 19.2

0 0.64 N/A 33.92 125.25 542.72

18560 18493 14390 N/A 9919 5779

0 67 4170 NA 8641 12781

0 0.4 22.5 N/A 46 6 68.9

0 6.23 387.81 N/A 803.61 1188.63

8543 8543 8543 N/A 8543 8543

27103 27036 22933 N/A 18462 14322

0 0.2 15.4 N/A 31.9 47.2

0 6.23 387.81 N/A 803.61 1188.63

14260 14250 13340 13580 11670 8524

0 10 920 680 2590 5736

0 0.1 6.5 4.8 18.2 40.2

0 0.59 54.28 40.12 152.81 338.42

8543 8543 8543 8543 8543 8543

22803 22793 21883 22123 20213 17067

0 0.04 4.0 3.0 11.4 25.2

0 0.59 54.28 40.12 152.81 338.42

(continued)

11

63-8542

Table 1. Compressor KWH per Year (continued)

CITY/UTILITY RATE (APR 96) Ratea KWH used Comp Cost w/no Economizer New York, (NY) rate = 0.127/KWH cost w/no economizer/yr. = $2043.43 Economizer KWH/ Changeover Yr No Economizer 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthapy (D Setting) Seattle, (WA) rate = 0.034/KWH cost w/no economizer/yr. = $224.98 No Economizer 55 Dry Bulb 65 Dry Bulb Enthalpy C Setting Enthalpy A Setting Differential Enthapy (D Setting) 6617 6607 N/A N/A 3263 2364 0 10 N/A N/A 3354 4253 0 0.2 N/A N/A 50.7 64.3 0 0.34 N/A N/A 114.04 144.60 8543 8543 N/A N/A 8543 8543 15160 15150 N/A N/A 11806 10907 0 0.1 N/A N/A 22.1 28.1 0 0.34 N/A N/A 114.04 144.60 16090 16072 14870 N/A 13280 9127 COMPRESSOR KWH Reduction (hr) 0 18 1220 N/A 2810 6963 KWH Reduction (%) 0 0.1 7.6 N/A 17.5 43.3 Dollar Savings /Yr 0 2.29 154.94 N/A 356.87 884.30 Fan KWH 8543 8543 8543 N/A 8543 8543 Total KWH 24633 24615 23413 N/A 21823 17670 Total KWH Reduct. Total $ (%) Savings 0 0.1 5.0 N/A 11.4 28.3 0 2.29 154.94 N/A 356.87 884.30

63-8542

12

50000

45000

LEGEND

44123 44113 42166 35643

40000

NO ECONOMIZER 55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

35000
27103 27036

KWH

25000
18462 14322

29963 29933 25574 23823

30000
24633 24615 21823 17670

10000

5000

APPENDIX A. FIGURES 6, 7, 8 ENERGY SAVINGS GRAPHS

0 LAKE CHAS LOS ANGL

ALBQ

MADISON

SEATTLE

15160 15150 11806 10907

15000

22803 22793 20213 17067

13

20000

NEW YORK

M13019

   

,     ,    

,   
,,     

,,,     
Fig. 6. Energy usage in KWH for mechanical cooling.

63-8542

47.2

31.9

28.3

20.5

PERCENT

11.4

10
4.4 .25 .10 .02 .04

.10

5 MADISON

11.4

15

14.6 14.6

20

19.2

0 LAKE CHAS LOS ANGL

ALBQ

SEATTLE

.10

22.1

25

25.2

30

28.1

63-8542

50

45

LEGEND

40

55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

35

14

NEW YORK

M13020

  

 ,,, 
Fig. 7. Percent of energy saved.

1200
1188.63

1100

1000
803.61

900
884.30

LEGEND

800

55F DRY BULB ENTHALPY A DIFFERENTIAL

700
521.90 542.72

600

500
338.42 356.87

DOLLARS

125.25

2.55

6.23

100
.59 .64

2.29

0 LAKE CHAS LOS ANGL

ALBQ

MADISON

SEATTLE

.34

114.04 144.60

200

152.81

300

373.07 14.6

15

400

NEW YORK

M13021

Fig. 8. Economizer dollar savings.

63-8542

  

 ,,, 

63-8542 63-8542

Honeywell Inc. 1997 Printed in U.S.A.

2-97 16

Printed in U.S.A. on recycled paper containing at least 10% post-consumer paper fibers.