Multifamily Health & Safety

Transcription

1 Multifamily Health & Safety A Can of Worms Andy Brooks: AEA Scott Blunk: HMG

2 Topics Background: How are EE and H&S related Whole Building Approach & H& S Opportunites Challenges: from an implementation perspective Examples: of how successful MF programs have handled H&S Taking a Measured Approach: Ex. Combustion Safety Testing 2

3 Background Tighter enclosure = more efficient building = less makeup air = increased chance of depressurization occurring within the units = increased likelihood of backdrafting combustion appliances Cannot ignore dangerous conditions that we might be making worse or even creating. Sign of spillage 3

4 Background We are trained building science experts. We cannot asses a building in good conscience and ignore H&S issues that we have the knowledge, skills and ability to identify and that would likely otherwise go undetected. ON THE OTHER HAND We are ENERGY professionals, not H&S inspectors We are typically being hired to save people money, not improve their IAQ or point out the obvious 4

5 The Elephant in the Room Liability In the unlikely event that something does go wrong, who is responsible? Building Owner? Contractor? Auditor? Funding Source? Program Administrator? Program Q&A Contractor? Not sure anyone knows the answer to this one, hence the extra level of caution on everyone's part 5

6 So where do we draw the line? EE Programs are typically funded by sources that require dollars to be spent on EE only and are often governed by the TRC or SIR metric. If the programs are not paying for the H&S piece, but they are requiring the H&S piece, who is going to pay for it? How far should we go with H&S measures? Only EE related H&S measures? Do we require correction of existing, non-ee related issues? How much money, if any, should be allocated from program funds to address these issues? What sources do we turn to for guidance? 6

7 7 Multifamily Whole Building Approach Most Multifamily programs are Direct Install programs Direct Install programs are what is also referred to as single measure Where the program targets only one energy feature such as lighting, shower heads, water heaters, etc. There are still many of these programs out there as they are simple, cost effective and easy to administer. Heschong Mahone Group pioneered the Whole Building Approach for Multifamily in California in Design for Comfort.

8 8 Multifamily Whole Building Approach Whole Building evaluates best sequence of measures for a building across multiple systems, including: Envelope HVAC Water heating systems Lighting and appliances Other green measures (water efficiency, recycling, etc.) Simply put it is looking at the building as a system

9 9 Health and Safety in Multifamily Combustion Safety Moisture and mold Gas Leaks Ventilation Asbestos Insects Rodents Trip & Fall Hazards Electrical Disability Access Fire Hydrant Safety Overcrowded Units Blind Driveway Occupant Safety CVA Filth

10 10 Health and Safety in Multifamily Combustion Safety

11 11 Health and Safety in Multifamily Moisture and mold

12 12 Health and Safety in Multifamily Gas Leaks

13 13 Health and Safety in Multifamily Ventilation

14 14 Health and Safety in Multifamily Combustion Safety Moisture and mold Gas Leaks Ventilation CVA Asbestos Insects Rodents Trip & Fall Hazards Electrical Disability Access Fire Hydrant Safety Overcrowded Units Blind Driveway Occupant Safety Filth We ve only looked at a few

15 15 Health and Safety in Multifamily HOW PROGRAMS HAVE ADDRESSED HEALTH AND SAFETY

16 16 Health and Safety in Multifamily SMUD Sacramento Program Highlights 20% reduction in whole building energy use Predicted energy savings using simulation Short program timeframe 9 months from qualification to construction Prevailing wage labor requirement Up front energy assessment (rater) incentive 25% incentive after work scope approval Partial construction progress payment At 50% construction completion

17 17 Health and Safety in Multifamily SMUD What and how was Health and Safety Addressed Nothing was included in the report from the rater The only issue that was addressed was Combustion Safety But Only if the unit had combustion appliances in them AND a measure was installed that affected the ventilation of the unit. How SMUD gave the apartment management team a CO alarm for each unit.

18 Health and Safety in Multifamily San Diego County 18 10% reduction (simulated) in whole building energy use to participate Layered incentives, program benefits, and requirements County of San Diego (March 2011 May 2012) HERS Rater training and technical support Tenant education City of San Diego (May 2011 May 2012) 15% of units must low or moderate income (up to 400% FPL) HERS Rater incentive for assessment and verification SDG&E (September 2011 December 2012) Health and safety testing Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Program coordination

19 Health and Safety in Multifamily San Diego County 19 The process Rater would perform the assessment on the building 3 rd party would perform combustion safety testing Another 3 rd party would QC each project This happened at both test in AND test out Health and Safety issues were brought to the county s attention and the county would give notice to proceed to the property management with the energy upgrades or what work needed to be done to address the health and safety issues

20 Health and Safety in Multifamily San Diego County 20 What and how was Health and Safety Addressed This was an example of a Can of Worms Initially it was believe that only Combustion Safety would be addressed Also know as job creep

21 Health and Safety in Multifamily San Diego County 21 What was found in these project that killed them or seriously delayed the projects Combustion issues Moisture and mold Gas leaks Ventilation CVA

22 Health and Safety in Multifamily San Diego County 22 Effect of this Health and Safety program: 20% drop out rate in the program but many more did not enter the program Since Can of Worms was fully open not 1 project has entered the program in almost 4 months In one complex ALL 76 of the units failed for one reason or another requiring owner to resolve these issues QC would find gas leaks after utility was there to fix QC personnel were asked to leave the property by the management

23 NYSERDA s Approach: AMP MPP3 MPP4 Assisted Multifamily Program 2004 Program Guidelines: AMP has continued the WAP policy of funding energy-related health and safety measures, even if they do not lead to fuel, electricity, or monetary savings. Multifamily Performance Program V3 Program Guidelines 2009: As there are no appreciable energy savings, and in cases a negative impact on the overall SIR, these measures, considered peripheral to energy efficiency, can be included in a work scope as long as they do not drive the project SIR below 1. Multifamily Performance Program V4 Program Guidelines 2010: The Energy Reduction Plan may include Health & Safety measures, but those measures will not be funded by the Program. As there are no appreciable energy savings, and in most cases a negative impact on the overall SIR and TRC test, these measures can be included in Section IV of the Energy Reduction Plan as recommendations, but NOT in the Detailed List of Recommended Measures presented to the Program. The Partner is welcome to provide additional analysis of the impact of Health and Safety measures to the project metrics outside the Energy Reduction 23

24 WAP (NYS PPM) Excerpts: The mission of the Weatherization Assistance Program, after providing energy conservation services, is to ensure the health and safety of assisted households, particularly the elderly, people with disabilities, and children. Measures which promote energy-related health and safety should be included in work scopes whenever possible. In rental units, subgrantees should encourage or require owners to correct health, safety, and code violations on behalf of low-income tenants before allowing weatherization work to proceed. Most subgrantees have established local networks that include organizations with access to other sources of funds to provide assisted households with assistance in areas such as structural repair, health care, child care, tenant advocacy, etc. Subgrantees utilize these resources on behalf of the assisted household and leverage additional funds for services that promote health and safety. In most states there is a 10-15% cap on H&S measures, total cost of H&S measures may not exceed 10-15% of total project cost 24

25 WAP and ASHRAE 62.2 Compliance We are beginning to see how some of these challenges are playing out in the single family home Weatherization in many states Single Family Home Example: Total Allocation per house = $5000 Cost to install mechanical ventilation - $ % of project cost just to meet 62.2 requirements If agency cannot find additional funding to pay for that measure that home will not be weatherized Report published by Green & Healthy Homes Initiative: The overall average cost of addressing health and safety hazards in $2,172 with no site reporting an average less than $1200. For WAP s using 10-15% of cost per unit to address H&S, the allowable funds range from $500 to $

26 WAP The same thing goes for MF, but on a larger scale. In many instances agencies have been left with no choice but to walk away from buildings with large amounts of asbestos or lead because they do not have adequate funds to have remediation performed. In many cases these buildings present very large EE opportunities 26

27 Typical Multifamily H&S Issues Ventilation and general IAQ issues Combustion Safety Others include Building structure and roofing hazards Moisture related issues (mold & mildew due to water intrusion, lack of adequate exhaust airflows in bathroom and kitchens etc.). DHW temps Electrical hazards Refrigerants Smoke & Fire safety Rodent and insect infestation Lead, Asbestos, Radon, VOC s, 27 27

28 Testing and Repair Costs How much testing should be done? What kind of tests? At what stage? At what cost? At whose expense? 28 28

29 Taking a Measured Approach Combustion Safety Testing in MF s HERCC Recommendations 29

30 MF HERCC Combustion Safety Testing Protocols Initial guidance on how to address combustion safety testing in MF s was developed in 2011 by a sub-committee of the California Multifamily Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (MF HERCC). The California Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee was convened by U.S. EPA Region 9 to develop consistent recommendations and standards for statewide home energy retrofit programs and consists of various industry professionals & MF Stakeholders. The sub-committee developed combustion safety testing protocols based on the BPI BA standards with amendments to make them more applicable to multifamily buildings. 30

31 MF HERCC Combustion Safety Testing Protocols The objectives of the committee were to: o Develop protocols that would ensure appropriate testing is performed any time it is warranted, but only when it is warranted. o To ensure that the testing and sampling procedures are not so onerous as to become cost prohibitive o To ensure that properly trained individuals are performing the tests How those goals were achieved: o Consensus driven process o A certain level of discretion left to the appropriately trained professional. Ex. The BPI Certified Professional shall evaluate whether the scope of work will affect the pressure dynamics in individual units. The BPI Certified Professional shall submit scope-of-work documentation to building owner and program administrator that identifies whether or not combustion safety testing must be required on the project and that explains why the testing is or is not required 31

32 MF HERCC Combustion Safety Testing Protocols Why were amendments needed? Lack of existing MF specific guidance In multifamily buildings a whole building worst-case scenario test is difficult to set up and does not reflect typical or likely operating conditions. In multifamily buildings there are pressurization and depressurization interactions between dwelling units, large mechanical rooms, common areas and hallways that may not be present in single-family homes. The retrofit work flow in a multifamily building can be different than a single family home as different trades are often scheduled or staged across units over time. 32

33 Eliminated the need to for testing out at the end of every day of construction (by installing CO monitor prior to construction) Provides guidance for contractors, auditors while providing assurance to program staff that due diligence is being done and safety is being ensured. 33

34 DISCUSSION Scott Blunk: Andy Brooks: 34 34

35 MF HERCC Combustion Safety Testing Protocols Testing Protocols All centralized combustion equipment. All units undergoing work either on combustion appliances or on other aspects of the unit that may affect the unit s pressure dynamics. All units whose pressure dynamics may be affected by work in other parts of the building. 35

36 MF HERCC Combustion Safety Testing Protocols Test-In Requirements The Auditor performs initial combustion safety testing of central system mechanical equipment and a minimum of 10% of the apartments that have combustion appliances (testing must be done before work starts). Deficiencies shall be immediately reported to the owner or owner s representative in any failed tested system. Audit report includes results of diagnostic testing in PDF format and, Includes summary of testing results and how the results inform the planned scope of work. For example, if reoccurring issues were found with apartment wall furnaces, the scope of work should include measures to correct these deficiencies. 36