1. Florida Weatherization Program Procedures And Guidelines For Handling Equipment
2. Florida Weatherization Program Procedures And Guidelines For Handling Service

High energy costs and climate-change mitigation efforts are creating pressures to decrease ventilation rates in buildings as a means of reducing the energy used to cool or warm indoor air. This chapter concentrates on the interrelated issues of building energy use, emissions from building materials, weatherization, and ventilation and on how they affect occupants. It addresses energy consumption in buildings, the means used to tighten buildings, programs to enhance the energy efficiency of buildings and reduce harmful emissions from building components, the training of personnel who implement weatherization programs, and the effect of tightening on ventilation, indoor environmental quality, and occupant health and productivity. The chapter concludes with the committee’s observations regarding those issues.Ventilation affects indoor levels of air pollutants, indoor moisture levels, exposures to biologic agents, and the thermal environment of homes. Research on those topics as opposed to ventilation itself is addressed in –.Energy use in buildings has been a concern in the United States since the oil embargoes of the 1970s but has gained new currency in recent years as a result of rising costs and an interest in limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. The Department of Energy (DOE) tracks trends in energy use.

Its 2009 Buildings Energy Data Book, which has data through 2006, notes that the. Dominant uses vary between residential and commercial structures (DOE, 2009). As noted in, the dominant uses of energy in the residential sector are ambient space heating (about 26%) and cooling, water heating, and lighting (each about 12–13%). In commercial buildings, lighting is the dominant category at about 25%, but space heating, cooling, and mechanical ventilation together account for more than 31%. DOE also estimates emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2), a greenhouse gas, from burning fossil fuels to generate energy (mainly natural gas on site and natural gas and coal for electricity production). Those figures are listed in, and they track the energy-use numbers closely. All told, building CO 2 emissions in 2006 accounted for 38% of total US CO 2 emissions—20% contributed by residential buildings, 18% by commercial structures.Weatherization describes the steps taken during building design or retrofit to increase energy efficiency by limiting unintended air and heat exchange between the indoor and outdoor environments.

Because those steps generally entail closing gaps in the building envelope, the process is also referred to as tightening. This section describes some of the means typically used to tighten buildings and the effect of tightening on ventilation.Strategies for Tightening BuildingsThere are four common methods for reducing unplanned air leakage in buildings.Air-tighten the enclosure. Sealing cracks, gaps, and holes in the building envelope with vapor barriers, and other construction changes reduce the amount of air that accidentally leaks in or out. In many US climates, this saves substantial amounts of energy. Sherman and McWilliams (2007) determined that around one-third of the energy used for heating and cooling is due to accidental air leakage. There are far fewer measurement data on accidental air leakage in commercial buildings, but it is reported to be around 20–30% (range, 0–58%) of the heating or cooling energy used (Edwards and Hamilton, 1993; Emmerich, 2005; Shaw, 1995). In a study of several California buildings, Mowris and Fisk (1988) observed that accidental air leakage made up 0–30% of the total air-exchange rate.

Persily and Norford (1987) found leakage of 31–58% in a three-story office building. About 20–40% of the air leakage can be sealed in existing residentialThere is, of course, great variation among buildings in these general categories; building age, material, size, location, and predominant use are important factors. And commercial buildings; in new construction, it is feasible to seal about 90% of potential leakage in typical stock (Spengler, 2010).Seal air-distribution systems. Holes and gaps in air handlers, supply and return ducts, and plenums lead to leakage in buildings. If the air-handling system is off, then they behave like any other leak. When an air handler is on, leaks are exacerbated by the greater pressure difference across holes or gaps. Cummings et al.

(1996) reported that measured duct leakage in commercial buildings averaged about 80 ft 3/min at 25 pascals/100 ft 2 of duct surface area; the largest outdoor-air infiltration rates were in vented spaces, such as attics, crawlspaces, mechanical closets, and wall cavities. Indoor relative humidity may increase if hot and humid outdoor air infiltrates these spaces.

In response, air-conditioning units may have longer run times to correct the imbalance and thus waste energy.Manage indoor–outdoor air-pressure differences. If airflow through heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment results in excessively pressurized or depressurized zones, rooms, or building cavities, then indoor air may be forced out or drawn in through the building enclosure. The most common example is return air plenums. Any air leak in exterior walls that bound a return plenum becomes an accidental outdoor-air intake when the air handler is operating. If a mechanical room is used as a mixing chamber for return and outdoor air, the room is likely to be depressurized by 10–30 pascals and may be depressurized by as much as 90 pascals (Spengler, 2010). Another example common in residential and small commercial buildings is a duct layout that includes supply diffusers in every room and air returns in corridors.

When doors to the corridor are closed, the rooms are pressurized, and the corridors are depressurized. The combination of that dynamic and duct leakage to the outside can greatly increase the air-exchange rate in a building. In a study of unplanned airflows in 70 commercial buildings, 8 had air-exchange rates of 2 to 10 air changes per hour (ACH) when the air handlers were running (Cummings et al., 1996). Similar results have been reported for residential buildings. A research project on 91 Florida homes found that the average air-exchange rate went from 0.21 ACH with air handlers off to 0.91 ACH with air handlers on (Cummings and Tooley, 1989). Depending on the circumstances, poorly managed pressure differences may decrease desired circulation of outdoor air indoors or increase energy costs through excessive intrusion of outdoor air.Replace atmospherically vented combustion equipment with high-efficiency combustion equipment in residential buildings.

Atmospherically vented combustion equipment typically vents through a chimney. TheA plenum is a space in which a building’s supply or return air is mixed or moves; it can be a duct, a joist space, an attic, a crawlspace, or a wall cavity (EPA, 2011b). Chimney ventilates the equipment room and, when the equipment is not running, exhausts air. When the equipment is running, it ventilates at a much higher rate because of the high flue-gas temperature. Measurements made in the 1980s found typical flows of air through chimneys of 50–100 ft 3/min (Spengler, 2010). High-efficiency combustion equipment, such as condensing furnaces, does not have a chimney—it vents to the outdoors through pipes in a side wall.

The combustion gases are vented to the outside through a small fan, which typically runs at about 25 ft 3/min. Exescript 3 3 7 00. When such furnaces are not firing, the flows are essentially zero. That dynamic affects single-family buildings, some low-rise multifamily buildings, and small commercial buildings that are constructed with residential methods. If the equipment is in a basement or crawlspace in a climate that has a substantial heating season, ventilation through the chimney is often controlling humidity that enters through the foundation. That does not, however, apply to sealed combustion units (which draw no air from the mechanical space) and heat pumps (which need no vents, because there is no combustion).Effects of Tightening on VentilationLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) investigators compiled a dataset on blower-door tests used to assess air leakage from homes across the country (Chan et al., 2003). Illustrates the results of the home air-tightness tests expressed as whole-house air exchange vs the year when a home was built. The solid line represents the smoothed fit through the data.

It shows that the air-exchange rate—as extrapolated from a blower-door pressurization test of air leakage—has been decreasing in homes built over the past 40 years. The trend in tighter house construction coincides with a housing boom in the United States in warm-climate areas, such as Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, where air conditioning often reduced the dependence on natural ventilation.An evaluation of air-tightness measurements in 201 commercial and institutional buildings in the United States by Emmerich and Persily (2005) found that the structures were tighter than the overall average for residential buildings but leakier than new residential construction. The authors state that “unlike the residential air tightness data, the database of US commercial building air tightness shows no indication of a trend toward tightness for newer buildings” (Persily and Emmerich, 2009).Several government and private initiatives are aimed at reducing energy use in residences and commercial structures.

Depending on the program, they may include energy audits, general or building-specific recommenda. FIGURE 8-1 Normalized air leakage in a sample of homes (measured as air changes per hour) vs year when a home was built (Chan et al., 2003).tions for action, and assistance in identifying or hiring contractors trained to perform remediations and upgrades. Improvements can include such weatherization measures as envelope and duct sealing, caulking, replacement of leaky windows, and increased insulation and such conservation steps as replacement of incandescent with compact fluorescent or LED lighting and appliance and HVAC upgrades. Information on some of the programs is summarized below.National Weatherization Assistance ProgramThe national Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was launched in 1976 to help Americans with limited financial means to respond to rapidly increasing fuel prices during the oil embargoes of the 1970s.

WAP weatherizes existing homes. Over the past 33 years, it has provided weatherization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households. Major funding comes from DOE, and additional support from a variety of sources, including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program block grants and energy utility programs (WAP, 2009b).WAP conducts energy audits and selects appropriate energy-conserving measures that can be implemented for costs that do not exceed a capped. Dollar amount.

In 2008, WAP provided services to around 100,000 households at a cap figure of $3,500 per unit. In 2009, that rose to 171,000 units. The target number of units weatherized for 2010 was 200,000 with a cap of $6,500 per unit (WAP, 2010).WAP grantees and subgrantees use professionally trained staff and contractors. They make their own decisions on how training is provided. Although that creates some variability across the country, protocols for building assessment, weatherization measures, and quality-assurance procedures have evolved into a fairly consistent industry set of practices (WAP, 2009a). Training may be provided by independent weatherization trainers, inhouse technical trainers, or local or regional weatherization training centers. Typically, it is supplied by a mixture of the three.

In 2009, 90% of states used state-agency staff for training, 75% used local-agency peers for training, and 70% used independent trainers (WAP, 2009a). Grantees also make their own decisions about certification. Some require certification by a national organization, such as the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) or the Building Performance Institute (BPI). Others provide their own certification, and 17 states do not require certification (WAP, 2009a).Many of the training facilities for WAP also provide instruction to private-sector building-performance contractors. Twelve weatherization training centers in 11 states offer training that reaches beyond the WAP community. BPI supplies education through a network of training affiliate organizations, individual certifications, company accreditations, and quality-assurance programs.

RESNET develops standards and certification for home-energy raters (WAP, 2009a). DOE is also planning to provide additional training for new workers in the weatherization field (WAP, 2009a).In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced ENERGY STAR as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Computers and monitors were the first labeled products. However, in 1996, EPA partnered with DOE for some product categories, and the ENERGY STAR label was extended to new homes and commercial and industrial buildings (EPA, 2010b). In 1999, EPA, DOE, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development started Home Performance with ENERGY STAR, an energy-performance program for existing homes.

The initiative provides guidelines and support for programs—often partnerships of government agencies, building-science technical-support organizations, building-performance contractors, and utility programs—to provide training and quality assurance for contractors who help homeowners to bring their properties up to ENERGY STAR standards for new construction. Receive an ENERGY STAR label, a home must be tested to demonstrate performance. More than 75,000 homes have been improved through the program (EPA, 2010b). More than a million US homes had received the ENERGY STAR label as of 2009, and 20% of the roughly 500,000 new homes constructed in 2009 were ENERGY STAR–labeled.The ENERGY STAR Indoor Air Package is a label that adds items that address a broader array of indoor environmental quality issues—including moisture control, pest management, combustion safety, ventilation, emissions from building materials, and radon control—to the baseline ENERGY STAR program (EPA, 2010b). It was initiated in 2005 and intended to contribute to improved indoor air quality in new homes compared with code-built homes.Other ProgramsNongovernment “green and affordable” housing programs are under way at the local and national levels.

Florida Weatherization Program Procedures And Guidelines For Handling Equipment

One example is the Enterprise Community Partnership, which serves low-income people in communities across the country and provides funds and expertise to enable developers to build and rehabilitate homes to be healthier, more energy-efficient, and consistent with sustainability criteria. The program started in 2004 and by 2009 had produced 17,500 new and renovated affordable homes (Enterprise Community Partners, 2010).Many energy utility companies have energy-efficiency programs that aid residential, commercial, and institutional customers. The amount of money spent each year on such programs is large, totaling $5.3 billion in 2009 (Nevius et al., 2010). Program budgets vary widely by US Census region: states in the West account for 45% of the national total; in the Northeast, 25%; in the South, 17%; and in the Midwest, 13%. Utilities in California alone reported combined budgets of about $1.6 billion—30% of the national total. Programs were most likely to address energy-efficiency improvements in residential furnaces and boilers and in commercial and industrial lighting.Commissioning and retrocommisioning are terms used to describe the usually independent evaluation of newly constructed or existing buildings (respectively) to determine whether they operate as designed or intended and whether they can be improved. It is more typically performed on commercial and public buildings.

Examination of the energy efficiency of HVAC, lighting, plumbing, and other mechanical systems is a typical component of the process. Effects of Programs on Energy Use and EmploymentA 2010 LBNL case study of 14 energy-efficiency programs undertaken by state and local governments, utility companies, and nonprofit organizations found a wide range of participation and a maximum energy saving of about 15% for an individual home (Fuller et al., 2010).

EPA reported that newly built homes implementing ENERGY STAR upgrades can realize up to 20% energy savings compared with conventional construction practice (EPA, 2007).Effinger and Friedman (2010) summarized the findings of an LBNL report on retrocommissioning. The study—which comprised 112 buildings, including offices, hospitals, hotels, a retail space, and a school—found that measures to improve energy efficiency resulted in savings of 8–31% (median, 16%). The equipment affected included air-handling units, pumps, chillers, cooling towers, outside air-temperature sensors, and heat exchangers. The cost of the implemented measures and the retrocommissioning itself had a simple payback of 0.5–2.5 years (median, 1.1 years).

The LBNL report itself (Mills, 2009) concluded that “these findings demonstrate that commissioning is arguably the single-most cost-effective strategy for reducing energy, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in buildings today.”Residential energy upgrade programs through DOE, state energy offices, and mandated service of public utilities are expected to grow substantially over the next decade. California has committed to reducing energy use in existing homes by 40% by 2020 (CPUC, 2008). Nationally, jobs in the sector are expected to grow from around 114,000 person-years of employment (PYE) in 2008 to 200,000–380,000 PYE by 2020 (Goldman et al., 2010).Well before the green-building movement gained currency in the 1990s, indoor air quality concerns were recognized as more sealed buildings were constructed, ventilation rates were reduced, and new equipment, materials, coatings, and furnishings were introduced. The time that it takes either to achieve no (or a minor) change in breathing frequency in a mouse assay or to drop below odor or irritation thresholds in humans (Kephalopoulos et al., 2005; Wolkoff and Nielson, 1995; Wolkoff et al., 1991). Indoor environment “comfort thresholds” are based on the time required for the VOC emissions to decay to the point where their room concentrations are below their indoor-relevant threshold, which is half the value of either the odor threshold or the sensory-irritation estimate (whichever is lower) for each individual VOC cited in the VOCBASE database (Jensen and Wolkoff, 1996; Kephalopoulos et al., 2005). In most cases, the odor threshold drives the determination of the time value for a specific VOC because sensory-irritation estimates are typically at least an order of magnitude higher than odor thresholds. In practice, use of half the odor threshold is a public-health protective safety factor to account for the presence of the same VOC from other outdoor or other indoor sources in the building.

With its focus on irritation and odor thresholds, the DICL test protocol does not address other potential health effects of exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as carcinogenic, allergenic, or endocrine-disrupting properties (Kephalopoulos et al., 2005; Levin, 2010).REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of CHemical substances) is the name used for the European Community’s (EC’s) legislation regarding chemical substances (European Commission Environment, 2011). In contrast to the other programs mentioned here, it has regulatory force with the European Union. The regulation includes provisions regarding emissions from building materials. In 2011, the EC announced that six toxic chemicals, three of which are widely used as plasticizers in flooring, adhesives, and textiles, were being phased out under the authority of REACH (European Commission Environment, 2011).In 1988, the Canadian government founded EcoLogo—an International Organization for Standards (ISO) Type 1 ecolabel that takes toxicity, recycled content, and renewable energy percentage into consideration but does not consider impacts such as raw material extraction (EcoLogo Program, 2011).

It certifies building and construction materials such as adhesives, heating and cooling systems, and paints.The most well known of the building-materials and furnishing testing systems in the United States may be the certification process promulgated by the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute, an industry-independent nonprofit organization established in 2001 (AQS, 2009b). GREENGUARD’s certification processes put building materials and building-related products (such as carpets) into chambers for a fixed period to measure emissions of VOCs, organic acids, formaldehyde, respirable particles, and other compounds. Green Seal is a nonprofit certification organization seeking to reduce the environmental impact of residential and commercial buildings and materials (Green Seal, 2010). It follows guidelines for labeling set.

The US government, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Trade Commission, awarding a Green Seal to those products that meet its standards. Building CertificationThere are numerous green-building or sustainable-building certification systems, including BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) in the UK and Canada; CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency) in Japan; Green Star in Australia; and Green Globe, GreenPoint, and LEED in the United States (AQS, 2009a; Srebric 2010).

Many of them were spawned by green building councils (GBCs), which exist in a number of developed or rapidly developing countries. The World Green Building Council Web site lists 82 nations that have established, associated, emerging, or prospective organizations in early February 2011 (WGBC, 2011).

The standards and certifications that the bodies promulgate collectively promote design practices that, in theory, reduce environmental impacts and costs over time, although the evidence base for this assertion is thin (Srebric, 2010).The US-based GBC’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification is a voluntary standard that has become widely accepted for certification of energy efficiency and perceived “greenness” of US buildings (EHHI, 2010; Srebric, 2010). It was one of the first and is among the most widespread standards in the United States. As of September 2010, the organization counted 442 cities, towns, or counties in 45 states; 35 state or territorial governments; and 14 federal agencies or departments that incorporated various LEED initiatives into their regulatory or policy frameworks (LEED, 2010).The goal of LEED and other rating systems is to provide guidance in the process of building or renovating “green” through a certification or voluntary compliance system. The LEED tiered scoring system for new construction and major renovations awards up to 110 points toward attaining certification at one of four levels: Certified (40–49 points), Silver (50–59), Gold (60–79), and Platinum (80 and above) (LEED, 2011). Seven categories are evaluated:.

Energy and atmosphere (up to 35 points). Sustainable sites (26). Indoor environmental quality (15). Materials and resources (14).

Water efficiency (10). Innovation in design (6). Regional “priority” credits (bonus points for water efficiency in the southwestern United States or use of insulation in colder regions, for example) (4). Those categories are similar to standards employed by GBCs in other countries.The Srebric white paper (2010) notes that both of LEED’s indoor environmental quality prerequisites and 12 of the 15 available points in the category address indoor air quality. The first prerequisite, “minimum indoor air quality performance,” is based on compliance with American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) building ventilation standards, while the second, “environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control,” is generally achieved by banning smoking in or near the building. Points are also awarded for using low-emitting materials—adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, flooring systems, and composite wood and agrifiber products—in construction, for indoor chemical and pollutant source control, and for designing for maintaining the thermal comfort of occupants.From a public-health standpoint, one of the primary criticisms of LEED is that it is possible to receive the highest level of certification without earning any points in indoor environmental quality.

Because the system was developed by various stakeholders in the design, materials, and construction industries with little input from the indoor-environment and public-health research communities, point values are weighted more heavily toward the built environment and less toward human exposure and health. The nonprofit organization Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), published a report in 2010 that offered a number of recommendations for improving the LEED scoring system.

They include adding health and environmental-science expertise to the GBC LEED board, simplifying the scoring system and specifying a minimum level of building performance within each of the rating categories, awarding points for the use of known safe products and deducting points for the use of known hazardous substances, and performing postoccupancy indoor air quality testing (EHHI, 2010). The organization also recommended that the GBC take an advocacy role in encouraging federal testing of chemicals used in building products. LEED responded to the EHHI report by acknowledging gaps in its standard but noting that that the criticism discounted the health benefits of buildings’ using less energy (Fisher, 2010).Numerous other organizations also promote standards for various building sectors or in particular regions. The Ecolabel Index lists a number of these (Ecolabel Index, 2011). One such example is Build It Green, a California-based nonprofit organization that developed a “GreenPoint” system that rates buildings on resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation, community, and energy efficiency (Build It Green, 2011).

The system includes consideration of off-gassing of VOCs from building materials and the adequacy of ventilation. Observations and SynthesisProduct-labeling, emissions-testing, and building-certification systems have the potential to foster the development and use of products and designs that promote environmental stewardship. However, weaknesses in current testing regimens and in the information base on the effectiveness of the systems limit the conclusions that can be drawn about their usefulness in protecting occupant health.The large number of materials-labeling systems creates confusion because of the lack of standardization, and steps are being taken to address this issue.

The European Union is pursuing harmonization among the various European rating systems now in place to ensure consistency within their borders (ECA, 2010). Tices change, and structures may be refurbished several times over their operational life. As a result, the contaminants in an extant building may be quite different from the ones that were present when the structure was new. It would be desirable to develop cleaning and maintenance data on the rate of introduction of new materials and furnishings or finishes after occupancy in buildings.Building ventilation rates vary by season and location, so longitudinal studies that evaluate the variability in emissions over time would be useful. Accurate characterization of indoor chemical concentrations requires numerous samples of a variety of materials, rigorous measurement methods, and accepted quality-assurance and quality-control procedures. Those need to be linked to quantitative work on the effect of LEED and other certification programs on resident health and productivity over time.Climate change complicates all the problems identified here by introducing more unaccounted-for variables and greater uncertainties. Currently, no building-rating system addresses the effect of changes in future climate conditions even though these changes will certainly affect performance over the lifetime of a structure.

To provide clues about performance in a variety of climate change scenarios, future research needs to focus on minimum ventilation rates and room sizes and on scenarios in which to measure emissions. An integrated understanding of the interplay among those factors is crucial for understanding the minimally necessary conditions to maintain healthy indoor environmental quality in a changing climate (Levin, 2010). Reports of respiratory symptoms associated with wallboard from China offer an example of a circumstance in which particular use conditions may have contributed to product breakdown and health problems (Babich et al., 2010; Hooper et al., 2010).As already noted, material testing and labeling systems represent an important source of information on product emissions and a driving force in lowering emissions.

Private sector, federal, and state government efforts are already yielding results as manufacturers seek the advantages that accrue from being able to sell green products. Promoting the use of testing and labeling systems by standards-setting organizations and in the marketplace will accelerate this process, helping to produce healthier indoor environments that are more resilient to the effects of climate change.Energy-efficiency upgrades and weatherization programs have the potential for altering indoor environments of homes. Such measures as sealing ducts, caulking, replacing windows, and increasing insulation may reduce energy consumption, but they may also change airflow patterns, reduce ventilation, and increase moisture and air pollution in a structure. Effects on Indoor Environmental Qualityprovides examples of potential indoor environmental quality problems resulting from energy-conservation measures in buildings.

Additional health or safety issues may arise as new applications are implemented by the home-remodeling industry and the emerging energy-performance industry. Even with the best intentions, indoor environmental quality issues may emerge with interventions that have not been sufficiently well screened for their effects on occupant safety and health.Researchers have examined the effects of poor ventilation on indoor air quality. Offermann (2010) simultaneously measured indoor and outdoor VOCs, aldehyde, CO 2, and PM 2.5 levels, and air-exchange rates in 108 newly constructed homes in California. Of the 108 homes, 26 had intermittently operating outside makeup-air systems or continuously operating air-to-air heat exchangers. Some 57% of the homes had 24-h air-exchange rates below the 0.3 ACH recommended in ASHRAE Standard 62.2 for residential buildings, and 25% had below 0.18 ACH (Offermann, 2010). The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) chronic 8-h reference exposure level (REL) for formaldehyde of 9 µg/m 3 was exceeded in 98% of the homes (Offermann, 2009). COEHHA’s acute-irritation REL of 55 µg/m 3 was exceeded in 28% of the homes (Wolkoff and Nielson, 2010).

Of homes with less than 0.3 ACH, 37% exceeded the 55 µg/m 3 acute-irritation REL for formaldehyde, and 14% of homes with more than 0.3 ACH exceeded that acute-irritation REL (Offermann, 2010). There was a significant inverse relationship (p 0.0001) between air-exchange rate and formaldehyde concentration.

ASHRAE Standard 62.2 allows the use of intermittently operating mechanical ventilation systems. In Offermann’s study, homes that had ducted outside-air systems operating intermittently when the heating or cooling systems were on could not maintain sufficient outside air to achieve the minimum ventilation recommendations (Offermann, 2010). All the homes that had continuously operating air-to-air exchangers met ASHRAE Standard 62.2 recommendations.Offermann (2010) concluded that homes with intermittent outside ducted air did not adequately safeguard occupants against poor indoor air quality, because the homes’ coupled fresh-air makeup systems were not operated for long enough periods. That suggested that it would be appropriate toA makeup-air system replaces indoor air exhausted through an HVAC system with outdoor air.Air-to-air exchangers place indoor air being exhausted from a building and outdoor air being drawn into the building in side-by-side chambers to allow the outdoor air to warm or cool to indoor levels through heat exchange.ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings.

BOX 8-1Examples of Potential Indoor Environmental Quality Problems Resulting from Energy-Conservation Measures in BuildingsAir sealing. Steps taken to make buildings more airtight may lower ventilation rates and, in the absence of source control or the introduction of mechanical ventilation, increase both indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity. Sealing also has the potential to modify internal air pressure and thus create other problems, such as deficiencies in the makeup air for combustion appliances and exhaust fans. Changing the pressure dynamics in a house can cause depressurization of the foundation or slab and lead to intrusion of soil gases and radon.Increased insulation. Heavily insulated foundation, wall, and roof systems are more vulnerable to water intrusion, air leakage, and water-vapor migration than more traditional assemblies. Adding insulation to foundations, walls, and roof systems that currently have subacute rain seepage or condensation problems can lead to decay, mold growth, or corrosion problems.

Adding insulation to the bottom side of some roof decks or to the inside of brick walls in cold and mixed climates may result in moisture problems.Some insulation materials may contain irritating chemical compounds, such as formaldehyde in UFFI and some fiberglass insulation and hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCD) in polystyrene insulation (Harrad et al., 2010; Roosens et al., 2009). The long-term durability of spray-on polyurethane foams is of concern because their thermal degradation can generate and release hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, amines, and isocyanates (Carter, 2010).Building codes in high-risk termite areas often prohibit the use of foam-board insulation on the exterior of a foundation because it interferes with the application of soil pesticide treatments. Foam board on either the interior or exterior of a foundation also makes it difficult to inspect for signs of termite invasion, such as mud tubes (Ogg, 2006). If changes in climatic conditions lead to termites’ becoming endemic in areas of the country where they were not previously a problem, then structures that have this form of insulation could be more susceptible to infestation.High-efficiency combustion equipment.

Replacing atmospherically vented combustion equipment (such as furnaces, boilers, and water heaters) in single-family and low-rise multifamily residential buildings with at least 90% efficient combustion or electric equipment lowers the ventilation rate in basements and crawlspaces. In some buildings, that may change the indoor moisture balance and result in cold-weather condensation in the building enclosure. The lowered ventilation rate may also result in increased radon exposure.Appearance of “legacy hazards.” Older homes may have materials that, if disturbed during renovations for energy improvements, can cause health hazards for renovation personnel and occupants. Those materials include asbestos in insulation and tiles and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in caulking. PCB-containing caulking materials—commonly used in the late 1950s though the 1970s—also pose a liability for owners of buildings constructed during that period, including schools and other public structures.

Environmental data (temperature, humidity, air velocity, HVAC recirculation, and concentrations of CO 2, nitrogen oxides, ozone, formaldehyde, and total VOCs) and occupant data (participants’ assessment of thermal, physical, and air quality and demographic, personal, medical, and work characteristics) were also collected. Occupants reported significantly fewer work-related mucosal symptoms (adjusted odds ratio OR, 0.7; 95% Confidence Interval CI, 0.6–0.9) and respiratory symptoms (adjusted OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4–0.9) when the UVGI lamps were on. Reports of musculoskeletal symptoms (0.8; 0.6–1.1) and systemic symptoms (headache, fatigue, or difficulty in concentrating) (1.1; 0.9–1.3) were not significantly different. Although median concentrations of viable microorganisms and endotoxins were reduced by 99% (CI, 67–100%) on surfaces exposed to UVGI, there were no significant decreases in airborne concentrations. The results suggested that limiting microbial contamination of HVAC systems might yield health benefits.Memarzadeh and colleagues (2010), who studied health-care facilities, cautioned that UVGI disinfection of HVAC systems should not be relied on as the sole intervention used to minimize microbial contamination. The authors stated that. Other factors, such as careful design of the built environment, installation and effective operation of the HVAC system, and a high level of attention to traditional cleaning and disinfection, must be assessed before a health care facility can decide to rely solely on UVGI to meet indoor air quality requirements for health care facilities.Ventilation effectiveness, the ability of a system to provide supply air that reaches the occupants’ breathing zone and distributes conditioned air within occupied spaces to dilute and remove air contaminants (Levin, 1996; NRC, 2006), is one of those factors.

The 2006 National Research Council report Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning found that ventilation effectiveness was—in combination with ventilation rate; filter efficiency; the control of temperature, humidity, and excess moisture; and HVAC operations, maintenance, and cleaning practices—a key factor in good indoor air quality. Experiments by Nielsen (2009) determined that air-distribution patterns with high ventilation effectiveness played an important role in minimizing airborne cross-infection in a hospital setting.Weatherization Workforce Training in Considerations of Indoor Environmental Quality and HealthAs awareness of the potential of weatherization programs to engender problems of indoor environmental quality and health has grown, initiatives have been undertaken to train the weatherization-industry workforce. To perform high-quality building retrofits that improve energy efficiency while maintaining or enhancing the health and safety of occupants. These are summarized briefly below.In January 2011, DOE issued revised guidance for WAP participants aimed at ensuring the health and safety of weatherization workers and recipients of weatherization services (DOE, 2011). The nonprofit National Center for Healthy Housing has developed training programs for a variety of stakeholders, including designers, builders, owners, code inspectors, and public-health workers.

Instruction covers new and existing single-family and multifamily buildings and includes ventilation, moisture control, dust control, integrated pest management, material emissions, and management of air-pressure relationships (NCHH, 2008).

What GAO FoundAs of September 2011, the 58 state-level grant recipients were awarded approximately $4.75 billion from DOE to implement the Weatherization Assistance Program under the Recovery Act and reported spending about $3.46 billion (about 73 percent). DOE expects to meet or exceed its production target of 607,000 homes and spend most of the act’s funds because some recipients have been able to exceed their production targets because of a lower average cost of weatherizing homes and lower training and technical assistance expenses than anticipated. In response to GAO’s prior recommendation that DOE clarify production targets and funding deadlines, among other things, DOE officials provided documentation showing actions taken concerning targets but failed to provide clarification of the consequences for not meeting the targets.Most recipients reported experiencing more implementation challenges in the first year of the Recovery Act than in the third year. Initial challenges included implementing new wage and reporting requirements and balancing training and technical assistance requirements with production targets. In the absence of a spending deadline for the weatherization grant program, DOE established a deadline of March 31, 2012, for recipients to complete spending Recovery Act weatherization funds. Recipients reported concerns with completing final Recovery Act requirements by DOE’s deadline, and continuing to support weatherization efforts after the deadline.

Officials from state and local agencies reported seeking alternative sources of funding to mitigate the loss of federal funds. DOE weatherization officials said they requested a 2-year extension from the Secretary of Energy to allow some recipients, on a case-by-case basis, to spend any remaining Recovery Act funds after March 2012. However as of November 2011, it had not been determined if an extension would be available for recipients. In the interim, the Office of Management and Budget released a September 2011 memorandum stating that Recovery Act funds should be spent by September 2013.A long-term Weatherization Assistance Program goal is to increase energy efficiency through cost-effective weatherization work. March 2010 estimates from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study project that energy savings will likely exceed the program’s costs, so that every $1 spent on the weatherization program for 2009 through 2011 would result in almost $2 in energy savings over the useful life of the investment; the laboratory plans to issue more definitive estimates in 2013. In response to GAO’s prior recommendation that DOE revisit methodologies used to determine the most cost-effective work, DOE officials stated that the results of this 2013 study will be used to strengthen current protocols for determining the most cost-effective weatherization work.According to GAO’s analysis, the quality of FTE data reported by recipients to FederalReporting.gov has improved over time. DOE performs quality assurance steps on the data that recipients provide to FederalReporting.gov, and DOE officials reported that data quality continues to improve.

According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act funded approximately 14,090 FTEs for the quarter ending September 30, 2011. FTEs are declining since the quarter ending December 2010 as weatherization work is completed.Why GAO Did This StudyThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $5 billion to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program to help low-income families by making long-term energy efficiency improvements to their homes. The Recovery Act requires GAO to conduct bimonthly reviews of how recipients such as state-level agencies use the act’s funds. As part of this review, GAO examined if the act is achieving its stated purposes. The act also requires GAO to comment and report quarterly on estimates of jobs funded and counted as full-time equivalents (FTE), as reported by recipients of Recovery Act funds. GAO examined (1) the status and use of weatherization grant program funds under the Recovery Act; (2) the challenges, if any, that recipients faced in implementing the weatherization program under the Recovery Act; (3) the extent to which the weatherization program under the Recovery Act has achieved its energy and cost savings goals; and (4) the changes, if any, over time in the quality of FTE data reported by Recovery Act recipients, particularly by program recipients.

GAO surveyed the 58 state-level grant recipients of the act’s weatherization funds, reviewed DOE and recipient-reported data, and interviewed state and local agency officials.GAO makes no new recommendations in this report but provides the status of prior recommendations that remain open and not implemented from GAO’s Recovery Act–mandated reports. DOE generally concurred with GAO’s findings and provided clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate. IntroductionDecember 16, 2011Report to the CongressIn response to the recent economic crisis, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to, among other things, preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. Since the Recovery Act was enacted, the Department of the Treasury has paid out approximately $420 billion in Recovery Act funds for use by, among others, state and local governments. The Recovery Act directed states to use the funds for various purposes, including assisting those most affected by the recession and investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure to provide long-term economic benefits.

Furthermore, the Recovery Act gave preference to activities that could be started and completed expeditiously. The Recovery Act provided $5 billion to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (weatherization program), which assists low-income families in reducing their energy bills by making long-term energy efficiency improvements to their homes. These improvements include installing insulation, sealing leaks, and modernizing heating equipment and air conditioning equipment. DOE distributed the Recovery Act funds for weatherization assistance to 58 recipients (state-level agencies), including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 territories, and 2 Indian tribes, to be spent by March 31, 2012.The Recovery Act requires that GAO conduct bimonthly reviews of how the act’s funds are used by recipients. As part of this review, we examined whether the act is achieving its stated purposes. The Recovery Act also requires GAO to comment and report quarterly on estimates of jobs funded and counted as full-time equivalents (FTE), as reported by recipients of Recovery Act funds. In this report, we update our May 2010 report and include new information on the use of Recovery Act funds provided for the weatherization program.

BackgroundDOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program was created under Title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976. By making long-term energy efficiency improvements, such as installing insulation, sealing leaks, and modernizing heating and air conditioning equipment, the weatherization program aims to, among other things, increase the energy efficiency of homes owned or occupied by low-income persons, reduce their total residential expenditures, improve their health and safety, and reduce the burden of energy prices. According to DOE, such improvements allow these households to spend the money saved on energy costs for other pressing needs. DOE makes weatherization program funds available through formula-based grants to state-level agencies in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Indian tribes. State-level agencies (recipients) then contract with local agencies (also referred to as subrecipients) to deliver weatherization services to eligible residents.

In addition to awarding the state-level grants, under the Recovery Act, DOE awarded Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers (SERC) grants to 27 recipients on a competitive basis. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included a provision that in any year the weatherization program funding is at least $275 million; up to 2 percent of the funding can be apportioned for SERC grants to pay for “materials, benefits, and renewable and domestic energy technologies” that are not traditionally allowed under the weatherization program. DOE awarded SERC grants for the first time in August 2010 under the Recovery Act.The Recovery Act appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which represents a significant increase for a program that had received about $225 million per year in recent years. Using Recovery Act funds, DOE awarded grants that will allow local agencies to weatherize approximately 607,000 homes by March 31, 2012, according to agency officials.

In the absence of a spending deadline for the weatherization grant program, DOE established a deadline of March 31, 2012, for recipients to complete spending Recovery Act weatherization funds. In addition to receiving Recovery Act funds, DOE continued to receive no-year weatherization funds through regular appropriations for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011: DOE received $450 million in fiscal year 2009; $210 million in fiscal year 2010; and $174 million in fiscal year 2011. Recipients of these funds may carry over balances from previous fiscal years. DOE guidance instructs recipients to spend their Recovery Act weatherization funds first, but DOE also encourages recipients to use their appropriations in the year received to avoid carrying over balances.In addition to being eligible for DOE funds, states and territories are eligible to receive Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds administered and distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services; recipients may spend up to 15 percent of these funds on weatherization activities. The maximum amount of LIHEAP funds available to states and territories for weatherization activities was approximately $750 million in fiscal year 2009, $750 million in fiscal year 2010, and $705 million in fiscal year 2011. These funds represent a significant increase from previous years.The Recovery Act changed a few existing provisions for weatherization.

Specifically:. The income eligibility level to qualify for services increased from 150 percent to 200 percent of the poverty level. The statewide average allowable assistance level per home increased from $2,500 to $6,500. The allowable funding for training and technical assistance increased from 10 percent up to 20 percent.In May 2010, we reported that recipients varied somewhat in how they determined income eligibility.

We recommended that DOE establish best practices in how income eligibility should be determined and documented. In response to our recommendation, in September 2010, DOE issued guidance that clarified the definition of income eligibility and strengthened the income eligibility requirements.The Recovery Act also applied Buy American and Davis-Bacon provisions to DOE’s weatherization program for the first time. Under the Recovery Act’s Buy American provision, all steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in Recovery Act-funded projects must be produced in the United States, subject to limited exceptions. Under the Davis-Bacon provision of the Recovery Act, recipients are required to pay the prevailing wage rate in the locality in which Recovery Act work is conducted, as determined by the Department of Labor.

Davis-Bacon provisions had not previously applied to weatherization projects funded through regular DOE appropriations.DOE provided the Recovery Act funds incrementally, as recipients completed certain requirements. Initially, each recipient received the first 10 percent of its allocated funds, which could be used for start-up activities, such as hiring and training staff, purchasing needed equipment, and performing energy audits of homes, among other things. Before a recipient could receive the next 40 percent of its funds, the recipient had to submit a weatherization plan outlining how Recovery Act weatherization funds would be used.

In this plan the recipient identified the number of homes to be weatherized and the strategies it would use to monitor its funds. To receive access to the final 50 percent of funds, a recipient had to weatherize at least 30 percent of the homes identified in its weatherization plan and meet other requirements. Progress in Spending and Production TargetsAccording to DOE data, as of September 30, 2011, recipients had spent most funds, primarily to weatherize low-income housing and provide training and technical assistance to train state and local agency officials as well as private contractors. Recipients Reported Fewer Implementation Challenges over TimeA majority of recipients responding to our survey reported initial challenges in implementing the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, but the percentage continuing to report these challenges had declined by the third year of the program. However, most recipients reported concerns about completing Recovery Act weatherization requirements and continuing to support weatherization efforts.Implementation Challenges Declined over TimeIn the first year of the weatherization program funded under the Recovery Act, most recipients who responded to our survey reported facing challenges in 26 of the 29 program implementation areas identified.

Early Estimates Indicate Cost-Effective Energy SavingsA long-term goal of the weatherization program is to increase energy efficiency through cost-effective weatherization work, and according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s March 2010 preliminary estimates, the Recovery Act weatherization program is expected to result in energy savings whose value will significantly exceed program costs. ORNL plans to issue a report with more definitive estimates of the benefits and costs of the program in 2013 that describes the results of its extensive evaluation of the weatherization program under the Recovery Act. For this purpose, the ORNL plan includes an extensive data collection effort on program costs and impacts on energy consumption for residential units weatherized during the program years 2009 through 2011.March 2010 Preliminary EstimatesAccording to ORNL’s March 2010 preliminary estimates, every $1 spent on the weatherization program for 2009 through 2011 would result in $1.80 in energy savings over the useful life of the investment. Because of the prospective nature of the March 2010 analysis—preceding the program’s actual implementation and results—ORNL relied on estimates of the costs of weatherization investments and energy savings to be expected over the 3 years covered by the Recovery Act; these estimates were generated using ORNL’s computer-based program, the National Energy Audit Tool (NEAT).

The detailed ORNL estimates reflect the differences among states in energy consumption for heating and cooling and in the sources of energy used in the residential sector. Quality of FTE Data Has Improved over Time, and the Number of FTEs Is DecliningTo meet our Recovery Act mandate to comment on recipient reports, we continued to monitor the data recipients reported from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2011. For this report, we focused our review on the quality of FTE data as reported by recipients of weatherization funds under the Recovery Act to FederalReporting.gov and efforts DOE made to validate those data. Each quarter, DOE performs quality assurance steps on the data that recipients provide to FederalReporting.gov, and officials reported that data quality continues to improve. Through these reviews and their interactions with recipients, DOE weatherization officials concluded that recipients now understand the reporting process and stated that the data reported for each reporting period have been of higher quality than the previous period. Reviewing the weatherization program data in FederalReporting.gov from the second reporting period, which ended on December 31, 2009, to the ninth reporting period, which ended on September 30, 2011, we continued to check for errors or potential problems by repeating analyses and edit checks discussed in previous reports.

We reviewed data associated with the 58 weatherization program recipient reports and 34 training center grants made to weatherization recipients posted on Recovery.gov for the ninth reporting quarter.Overall, the recipients reported on Recovery.gov that the Recovery Act weatherization program funded an increasing number of FTE positions for recipients and subrecipients from the quarter ending December 2009 through the quarter ending December 2010, increasing from about 8,300 FTEs to 15,400 FTEs over that period. After December 2010, the number of FTEs began to decline because some recipients completed weatherization work as the end of the program draws near. As of the quarter ending September 30, 2011, FTEs declined to about 14,090 as weatherization work was completed and funds spent. DOE weatherization officials told us recipients are reducing the number of FTEs by an average of 200 jobs per month, which will continue to decrease until no FTEs remain by the scheduled end of the program in March 2012. Following Office of Management and Budget guidance, recipients reported on FTEs directly paid for with Recovery Act funding and not the employment impact on suppliers of materials (indirect jobs) or on the local communities (induced jobs). DOE weatherization officials and recipients told us that the number of jobs funded by the Recovery Act would be greater than the peak of 15,400 FTEs if the data on jobs funded included the associated jobs from the manufacturers of weatherization products, such as companies producing caulking guns or blower door technologies.

Florida Weatherization Program Procedures And Guidelines For Handling Service

Figure 7 shows the changes in the number of FTEs recipients reported from the quarter ending December 31, 2009, through September 30, 2011. According to DOE officials, all weatherization recipients reported to FederalReporting.gov for the quarter ending September 2011.Figure 7: FTEs Recipients Reported for the Weatherization Assistance Program under the Recovery Act, October 2009 through September 2011Note: Beginning in the quarter ending September 2010, FTEs include the Recovery Act weatherization program and the FTEs associated with the 34 training centers funded by the Recovery Act. The number of FTEs associated with the training center funds is minimal compared with the number of FTEs from the 58 recipients for the overall weatherization program. We did not include FTE data for the quarter ending September 2009 because of concerns about comparability with subsequent quarters of FTE reporting.As in previous quarters, DOE performed a number of quality assurance steps on the data to help ensure the quality of the weatherization program’s Recovery Act data.

To support recipients’ data quality, DOE asks the 58 recipients to report data on expenditures and weatherization production each month in DOE’s PAGE system. DOE program officers who work directly with each recipient review the data submitted to ensure consistency. Also, DOE weatherization officials reported that they check data quality for data submitted by the 58 recipients in each recipient report against data collected in internal databases, such as PAGE. According to officials, data that do not correspond to the recipient report are flagged for comment and review. If discrepancies are found, DOE project officers work with the weatherization recipients to resolve them.According to DOE weatherization officials, DOE does not plan to use recipient-reported data internally, but the officials cited the data’s usefulness in providing independent data on the numbers of jobs funded by the weatherization program.

DOE weatherization officials told us that these data help support the program and its relevance by highlighting the extent to which DOE has achieved its program targets of funds spent, homes weatherized, and jobs funded. Agency Comments and Our EvaluationWe provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for its review and comment.

In its comments, DOE generally concurred with the majority of the findings and conclusions in our draft report. DOE noted that we characterized grant extensions differently on the first page than we did in the main body of the report; we added clarifying language in the highlights page to address DOE's comment. DOE also noted that, as of December 8, 2011, the number of recipients who have not received access to the additional Recovery Act funds is now three. We have added language to reflect the new number. Also in its comments, DOE provided clarifications to actions it has taken to address recommendations we made in May 2010 on the weatherization program under the Recovery Act.

With respect to our May 2010 recommendation that DOE develop and clarify weatherization program guidance that clarifies the specific methodology for calculating the average cost per home, DOE stated that its September 2011 guidance provides a formula for this calculation. We concur and will close this recommendation as implemented.

Regarding our May 2010 recommendation that DOE set time frames for states to develop and implement state monitoring programs, DOE identified training events and the issuance of a program notice announcing the rollout of “ The Weatherization Toolkit,” a compact disc that explains the steps to be followed in procuring materials and contractors. This recommendation remains largely unaddressed because these actions do not set time frames. Because we noted uneven progress among recipients in developing and implementing their monitoring programs, we believe that it is important for DOE to establish time frames. Moreover, the program notice cited by DOE predates our May 2010 recommendation, and we did not find it adequate for satisfying the need for time frames. DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOE’s comments are reproduced in appendix II.We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties.

The report is available at no charge on the GAO website at.If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.Frank RuscoDirector, Natural Resources and Environment. List of Congressional CommitteesThe Honorable Daniel InouyeChairmanThe Honorable Thad CochranVice ChairmanCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States SenateThe Honorable Jeff BingamanChairmanThe Honorable Lisa MurkowskiRanking MemberCommittee on Energy and Natural ResourcesUnited States SenateThe Honorable Joseph I.

LiebermanChairmanThe Honorable Susan M. CollinsRanking MemberCommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsUnited States SenateThe Honorable Harold RogersChairmanThe Honorable Norman D. DicksRanking MemberCommittee on AppropriationsHouse of RepresentativesThe Honorable Fred UptonChairmanThe Honorable Henry WaxmanRanking MemberCommittee on Energy and CommerceHouse of RepresentativesThe Honorable Darrell E.

IssaChairmanThe Honorable Elijah CummingsRanking MemberCommittee on Oversight and Government ReformHouse of Representatives.