5 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings: Combined Building Shell and Heating System Retrofit Audit

Description: Revised DOE regulations allow greater flexibility in conducting DOE-funded low-income weatherization programs. Certain retrofits to heating and cooling systems for these houses are now permitted, as well as the traditional insulation and infiltration control measures. Also, different amounts of money may be spent on different houses, as long as the average expenditure per house does not exceed $1600. The expanded list of retrofit options provides an opportunity for increased energy savings, but it also complicates the process of selecting the combination of retrofits, house-by-house, that will yield maximum savings for the weatherization program. DOE asked ORNL to devise a procedure for selecting an optimum combination of building shell and heating system retrofits for single-family dwellings. To determine the best retrofits for each house that would maximize program savings, ORNL staff members developed an approach that used information from a preretrofit energy audit of candidate houses. Audit results are used to estimate annual energy savings for various retrofits for each house. Life-cycle benefits (B) are calculated, as are the estimated installation costs (C) for given retrofits in given houses. The benefit-to-cost ratios (B/Cs) are then ranked for all possible retrofits to all candidate houses, and the top-ranking B/C retrofits are selected for installation. This process maximizes program savings, and it is adaptable to varied housing types in different climates. The Audit-Directed Retrofit Program (ADRP) was field tested in a low-income housing retrofit program in Wisconsin during the winter of 1985-86. Results of the field test are reported in a companion document. This report describes the ADRP for the benefit of potential users.
Date: January 1, 1987
Creator: McCold, L.N.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results

Description: This report describes the field test of a retrofit audit. The field test was performed during the winter of 1985-86 in four South Central Wisconsin counties. The purpose of the field test was to measure the energy savings and cost effectiveness of the audit-directed retrofit program for optimizing the programs benefit-to-cost ratio. The audit-directed retrofit program is described briefly in this report and in more detail by another report in this series (ORNL/CON-228/P3). The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and results of the field test. Average energy savings of the 20 retrofitted houses are likely (0.90 probability) to lie between 152 and 262 therms/year/house. The most likely value of the average savings is 207 therms/year/house. These savings are significantly (p < .05) smaller than the audit-predicted savings (286 therms/year/house). Measured savings of individual houses were significantly different than predicted savings for half of the houses. Each house received at least one retrofit. Thirteen of the 20 retrofitted houses received a new condensing furnace or blown-in wall insulation; all but two of the houses received one or more minor retrofits. The seven houses which received condensing furnaces saved, on average, about as much as predicted, but three of the seven houses had significantly more or less savings than predicted. The six houses which received wall insulation saved, on average, about half as much as predicted. The remaining houses which received only minor retrofits saved, on average, less than predicted, but the difference was not significant. Actual retrofit costs were close to expected costs. Overall measured energy savings averaged 15 therms/year per hundred retrofit dollars invested. Houses which received wall insulation or a condensing furnace did slightly better, and the houses which received only minor retrofits did poorly. When estimated program costs were included, average savings dropped to ...
Date: January 1, 1988
Creator: McCold, L.N.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Environmental effects of the US Antarctic Program`s use of balloons in Antarctica

Description: The USAP uses balloons in Antarctica to conduct scientific research, to facilitate safe air transport, and to provide data for global weather predictions. However, there is the possibility that balloons or their payloads may adversely affect Antarctic fauna or flora. The purpose of this study is to provide background information upon which the USAP may draw when complying with its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Antarctic Treaty, and the Madrid Protocol.
Date: June 1, 1995
Creator: McCold, L.N.; Eddlemon, G.K. & Blasing, T.J.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

The conflict of interest problem in EIS preparation

Description: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that federal agencies prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) on proposals for major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that EISs be prepared directly by the lead agency or a contractor it selects. EIS contractors must execute a disclosure statement specifying that they have ``no financial or other interest`` in the outcome of the project. The intent of the ``conflict of interest`` prohibition is to ensure that the EIS is defensible, free of self-serving bias, and credible to the public. Those coming to the federal government for money, permits, or project approvals must not be placed in the position of analyzing the environmental consequences of their own proposals. This paper analyzes the conflict of interest problem faced by government contractors who maintain and operate government-owned or-controlled facilities for which EISs are required. In the US Department of Energy (DOE) system, these are referred to as ``M and O`` contractors. It also examines organizational conflicts presented by current or prospective government contractors who have a financial or other interest in the outcome of a project or program for which an EIS is prepared. In responding to these and related questions, the paper discusses and interprets the CEQ regulations and guidance on EIS preparation conflict of interest as well as leading federal court opinions. It also distinguishes ``preparers`` from ``participants`` in the EIS preparation process.
Date: May 1, 1997
Creator: Hansen, R.P.; Wolff, T.A. & McCold, L.N.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Phase 1 environmental report for the Advanced Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Description: The US Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed the construction and operation of the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS), a 330-MW(f) reactor, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to support neutron scattering and nuclear physics experiments. ANS would provide a steady-state source of neutrons that are thermalized to produce sources of hot, cold, and very coal neutrons. The use of these neutrons in ANS experiment facilities would be an essential component of national research efforts in basic materials science. Additionally, ANS capabilities would include production of transplutonium isotopes, irradiation of potential fusion and fission reactor materials, activation analysis, and production of medical and industrial isotopes such as {sup 252}Cf. Although ANS would not require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE regards the design, construction, and operation of ANS as activities that would produce a licensable facility; that is, DOE is following the regulatory guidelines that NRC would apply if NRC were licensing the facility. Those guidelines include instructions for the preparation of an environmental report (ER), a compilation of available data and preliminary analyses regarding the environmental impacts of nuclear facility construction and operation. The ER, described and outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, serves as a background document to facilitate the preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs). Using Regulatory Guide 4.2 as a model, this ANS ER provides analyses and information specific to the ANS site and area that can be adopted (and modified, if necessary) for the ANS EIS. The ER is being prepared in two phases. Phase 1 ER includes many of the data and analyses needed to prepare the EIS but does not include data or analyses of alternate sites or alternate technologies. Phase 2 ER will include the additional data and analyses stipulated by Regulatory Guide 4.2.
Date: February 1, 1992
Creator: Blasing, T.J.; Brown, R.A.; Cada, G.F.; Easterly, C.; Feldman, D.L.; Hagan, C.W. et al.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department