Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Scott Pigg Energy Center of Wisconsin Bruce Tonn Oak Ridge National Laboratory David Carroll APPRISE.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Scott Pigg Energy Center of Wisconsin Bruce Tonn Oak Ridge National Laboratory David Carroll APPRISE."— Presentation transcript:

1 1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Scott Pigg Energy Center of Wisconsin Bruce Tonn Oak Ridge National Laboratory David Carroll APPRISE National WAP Evaluation: Indoor Environmental Quality Field Study Findings

2 2Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Presentation Overview  Purpose  Field Study Design  Pre Weatherization Findings  Pre/Post Thermostat Behavior Findings

3 3Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy PURPOSE OF THE FIELD STUDY

4 4Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Purpose in Context  Impact evaluation – Program characterization – Energy and cost savings – Cost effectiveness – Non-Energy impacts  Indoor environmental quality study  Occupant survey

5 5Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Specific Information Goals  Carbon Monoxide – A series of measurements of different sources of CO in the home  Radon – Short term measurement of radon levels for the first floor and foundation level  Formaldehyde – Short term measurement of formaldehyde concentrations in living space  Temperature and Humidity – Longer term measurement of temperature and humidity at the central thermostat  Moisture Assessment – Visual inspection of above grade and foundation level moisture issues

6 6Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy STUDY PROTOCOL

7 7Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Field Study Procedures  Sample – 88 agencies in 35 states – 325 treatment and 189 control single family homes  Time Period – Heating season field period: November March 2011 – Cooling season field period: June August 2011  Testing – Housing unit diagnostics and combustion appliance tests  Monitoring – Short term – 7-day radon and 7-day formaldehyde samplers – Longer term – CO, temperature, humidity data loggers

8 8Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Field Study Sample low mid high very high Radon stratum Map boundaries are Census 2000 super-PUMAs Winter sample Summer sample

9 9Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Field Study Visits  Visit #1 – Post Audit / PreWX (11/10 through 1/11) – PreWx diagnostic testing, instrumentation, placement of samplers  Visit #2 – Visit #1 + 7 Days – Retrieval of radon and formaldehyde samplers / conduct occupant survey  Visit #3 – 30 days PostWX – PostWX diagnostic testing and placement of samplers  Visit #4 – Visit #3 + 7 Days – Retrieval of radon and formaldehyde samplers and data loggers

10 10Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy PRE-WEATHERIZATION IEQ FINDINGS

11 11Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Carbon Monoxide  Heating Systems – Central fuel fired system in 75% of homes; 40% atmospherically vented – Small percentage with inadequate draft (< 10%) – Small percentage with high CO production (<10%)  Water Heaters – About 20% incidence of atmospheric water heaters with marginal drafts – Higher incidence for measurements during warm weather – Only 1 in 200 water heaters had high CO production

12 12Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Carbon Monoxide - continued  Ambient CO Levels – Ambient CO levels never exceeded 5 ppm for about two- thirds of homes. – About one in ten homes had one or more episodes of CO elevation that peaked at 20 ppm or higher prior to weatherization (the highest was ppm). – A small percentage of homes (5%) exhibited persistent low- level CO.

13 13Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Radon  The study data indicate that 12% ±2 of single-family homes treated by the program have pre-weatherization radon levels are above the EPA guideline level of 4 pCi/l. In a few states, this fraction likely exceeds 25 percent of homes.  The study confirms that elevated radon is relatively rare in mobile homes and site-built homes in counties identified by EPA as having low radon potential.  Note: Evaluation funding is being used to remediate homes that were measured to exceed the EPA guideline.

14 14Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Formaldehyde  Formaldehyde levels were measured on the first floor above grade for a sub-sample of 145 homes  The average program home has a pre-weatherization indoor formaldehyde concentration of 14 ± 1 ppb, and most homes tested below 30 ppb.  Mobile homes may have higher formaldehyde levels than site-built homes, and weatherization may have a larger impact on these levels, but the available sample precludes solid conclusions.

15 15Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Humidity and Moisture Issues  Program homes tend to be on the dry side during the heating season: nearly half (44 ± 5%) have wintertime relative humidity below 30 percent, but ten percent or fewer (6 ± 4%) has relative humidity above 50 percent.  Fewer than 35% of foundations and 40% of above- grade spaces had observed moisture problems.  Water stains were the most common observed moisture problem in both foundations and above-grade spaces. About three in ten above-grade spaces had water stains and about one fifth of foundations had water stains. 

16 16Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy PRE/POST INDOOR TEMPERATURE FINDINGS

17 17Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Temperature – PreWX Findings  Wintertime indoor temperatures in program homes average 70.3 ± 0.5F, but range from less than 60F to more than 80F.  Households that showed evidence of practicing thermostat setback have indoor temperatures that average 3.0 ± 0.7F lower than households that do not practice setback prior to weatherization.  One quarter to one third of single-family program homes have a programmable thermostat prior to weatherization; temperatures average 1.5 ± 0.5F lower than in homes with a manual (or no) thermostat.

18 18Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy PreWX Indoor Temperature

19 19Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy One in four households showed evidence of thermostat setback before Weatherization % of homes with Evidence of Setback Mean indoor temperature (F) Overall 24% ±570.3 ±0.5 Manual (or no) thermostat (74 ±4%) 19% ±470.8 ±0.4 Programmable thermostat (26 ±4%) 34% ±969.2 ± I I22 Households that practice setback average 3.0 ± 0.5 F lower indoor temperature

20 20Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Pre & Post-weatherization Indoor Temperature Measurements Degrees FTreatment (n=292) Control (n=168) Mean Pre weatherization Mean Post weatherization Mean Change+0.14 ± ± 0.17 Minimum Change Maximum Change

21 21Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Conclusions  This study measured a slight increase in indoor temperature associated with weatherization (0.27 degrees).  One source of the change in indoor temperature could be that weatherized homes cool more slowly when temperatures drop or thermostats are set back.  This study only addresses the potential for short-run behavior change, not the long-run.  The study findings suggest that there is no short-term “take back” effect from weatherization.


Download ppt "1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Scott Pigg Energy Center of Wisconsin Bruce Tonn Oak Ridge National Laboratory David Carroll APPRISE."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google