Prediction of External Corrosion for Steel Cylinders--2007 Report

Depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF{sub 6}) is stored in over 62,000 containment cylinders at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in Paducah, Kentucky, and at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) in Portsmouth, Ohio. Over 4,800 of the cylinders at Portsmouth were recently moved there from the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The cylinders range in age up to 56 years and come in various models, but most are 48-inch diameter 'thin-wall'(312.5 mil) and 'thick-wall' (625 mil) cylinders and 30-inch diameter '30A' (including '30B') cylinders with 1/2-inch (500 mil) walls. Most of the cylinders are carbon steel, and they are subject to corrosion. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) manages the cylinders to maintain them and the DUF{sub 6} they contain. Cylinder management requirements are specified in the System Requirements Document (LMES 1997a), and the activities to fulfill them are specified in the System Engineering Management Plan (LMES 1997b). This report documents activities that address DUF{sub 6} cylinder management requirements involving measuring and forecasting cylinder wall thicknesses. As part of these activities, ultrasonic thickness (UT) measurements are made on samples of cylinders. For each sampled cylinder, multiple measurements are made in an attempt to find, approximately, the minimum wall thickness. Some cylinders have a skirt, which is an extension of the cylinder wall to protect the head (end) and valve. The head/skirt interface crevice is thought to be particularly vulnerable to corrosion, and for some skirted cylinders, in addition to the main body UT measurements, a separate suite of measurements is also made at the head/skirt interface. The main-body and head/skirt minimum thickness data are used to fit models relating minimum thickness to cylinder age, nominal thicknesses, and cylinder functional groups defined in terms of plant site, storage yard, top or bottom row storage positions, etc. These models are then used to compute projections of numbers of cylinders expected to fail various minimum wall thickness criteria. The minimum wall thickness criteria are as follows. For thin-wall cylinders: 0 (breach), 62.5, and 250 mils. For thick-wall cylinders: 0, 62.5, and 500 mils. For 30A cylinders: 0, 62.5, and 100 mils. Each of these criteria triplets are based respectively on (1) loss of DUF{sub 6} (breaching), (2) safe handling and stacking operations, and (3) ANSI N14.1 standards for off-site transport and contents transfer. This report complements and extends previous editions of the cylinder corrosion report by Lyon (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000), by Schmoyer and Lyon (2001, 2002, 2003), and by Schmoyer (2004). These reports are based on UT data collected in FY03 and before. In this report UT data collected after FY03 but before FY07 is combined with the earlier data, and all of the UT data is inventoried chronologically and by the various functional groups. The UT data is then used to fit models of maximum pit depth and minimum wall thickness, statistical outliers are investigated, and the fitted models are used to extrapolate minimum thickness estimates into the future and in turn to compute projections of numbers of cylinders expected to fail various thickness criteria. A model evaluation is performed comparing UT measurements made after FY05 with model-fitted projections based only on data collected in FY05 and before. As in previous reports, the projections depend on the treatment of outliers

Evaluation of the District of Columbia Energy Office Residential Conservation Assistance Program for Natural Gas-Heated Single-Family Homes

At the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), with assistance from the District of Columbia Energy Office (DCEO) performed an evaluation of part of the DCEO Residential Conservation Assistance Program (RCAP). The primary objective of the evaluation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DCEO weatherization program. Because Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds are used primarily for weatherization of single-family homes and because evaluating the performance of multi-family residences would be more complex than the project budget would support, ORNL and DCEO focused the study on gas-heated single-family homes. DCEO provided treatment information and arranged for the gas utility to provide billing data for 100 treatment houses and 434 control houses. The Princeton Scorkeeping Method (PRISM) software package was used to normalize energy use for standard weather conditions. The houses of the initial treatment group of 100 houses received over 450 measures costing a little over $180,000, including labor and materials. The average cost per house was$1,811 and the median cost per house was $1,674. Window replacement was the most common measure and accounted for about 35$620 per house. Eight houses received furnace or boiler replacements at an average cost of about $3,000 per house. The control-adjusted average measured savings are about 20 therms/year. The 95% confidence interval is approximately +20 to +60 therms/year. The average pre-weatherization energy consumption of the houses was about 1,100 therm/year. Consequently, the adjusted average savings is approximately 2% ({+-}4%)-not significantly different than zero. Most RCAP expenditures appear to go to repairs. While some repairs may have energy benefits, measures selected to meet repair needs generally have smaller energy benefits per unit cost than measures selected for energy conservation purposes. To the extent that extensive repairs are necessary or desirable, expectations of energy savings need to be adjusted. Since 2002, the DCEO has implemented a number of program improvements it believes enhance program performance. In 2003, DCEO published formal guidance for weatherization in RCAP (DCEO 2003). Consequently, the results of this study may not adequately represent the current performance of the program. DCEO should re-examine current RCAP weatherization patterns and energy savings to assess the effects of program changes

CUSTOMER RESPONSE TO BESTPRACTICES TRAINING AND SOFTWARE TOOLS PROVIDED BY DOE'S INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

The BestPractices program area, which has evolved into the Save Energy Now (SEN) Initiative, is a component of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) that provides technical assistance and disseminates information on energy-efficient technologies and practices to U.S. industrial firms. The BestPractices approach to information dissemination includes conducting training sessions which address energy-intensive systems (compressed air, steam, process heat, pumps, motors, and fans) and distributing DOE software tools on those same topics. The current report documents a recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) study undertaken to determine the implementation rate, attribution rate, and reduction factor for industrial end-users who received BestPractices training and registered software in FY 2006. The implementation rate is the proportion of service recipients taking energy-saving actions as a result of the service received. The attribution rate applies to those individuals taking energy-saving actions as a result of the services received and represents the portion of the savings achieved through those actions that is due to the service. The reduction factor is the saving that is realized from program-induced measures as a proportion of the potential savings that could be achieved if all service recipients took action. In addition to examining those factors, the ORNL study collected information on selected characteristics of service recipients, the perceived value of the services provided, and the potential energy savings that can be achieved through implementation of measures identified from the training or software. Because the provision of training is distinctly different from the provision of software tools, the two efforts were examined independently and the findings for each are reported separately

Results of the 2004 Knowledge and Opinions Surveys for the Baseline Knowledge Assessment of the U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program focuses on overcoming critical barriers to the widespread use of hydrogen fuel cell technology. The transition to a new, hydrogen-based energy economy requires an educated human infrastructure. With this in mind, the DOE Hydrogen Program conducted statistical surveys to measure and establish baselines for understanding and awareness about hydrogen, fuel cells, and a hydrogen economy. The baseline data will serve as a reference in designing an education program, and it will be used in comparisons with future survey results (2008 and 2011) to measure changes in understanding and awareness. Scientific sampling was used to survey four populations: (1) the general public, ages 18 and over; (2) students, ages 12-17; (3) state and local government officials; and (4) potential large-scale hydrogen users. It was decided that the survey design should include about 1,000 individuals in each of the general public and student categories, about 250 state and local officials, and almost 100 large-scale end users. The survey questions were designed to accomplish specific objectives. Technical questions measured technical understanding and awareness of hydrogen technology. Opinion questions measured attitudes about safety, cost, the environment, and convenience, as well as the likelihood of future applications of hydrogen technology. For most of the questions, "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" were acceptable answers. Questions about information sources assessed how energy technology information is received. The General Public and Student Survey samples were selected by random digit dialing. Potential large-scale end users were selected by random sampling. The State and Local Government Survey was of the entire targeted population of government officials (not a random sample). All four surveys were administered by computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). For each population, the length of the survey was less than 15 minutes. Design of an education program is beyond the scope of the report, and comparisons of the baseline data with future results will not be made until the survey is fielded again. Nevertheless, a few observations about the data are salient: For every population group, average scores on the technical knowledge questions were lower for the fuel cell questions than for the other technical questions. State and local officials expressed more confidence in hydrogen safety than large-scale end users, and they were much more confident than either the general public or students. State and local officials also scored much higher on the technical questions. Technical understanding appears to influence opinions about safety. For the General Public, Student, and Large-Scale End User Surveys, respondents with above-average scores on the eleven technical questions were more likely to have an opinion about hydrogen technology safety, and for those respondents who expressed an opinion, their opinion was more likely to be positive. These differences were statistically significant. Using criteria of "Sometimes" or "Frequently" to describe usage, respondents rated media sources for obtaining energy information. The general public and students responded that television is the primary media source of energy information. State and local officials and large-scale end users indicated that their primary media sources are newspapers, the Internet, and science and technology journals. In order of importance, the general public values safety, cost, environment, and convenience. The Large-Scale End User Survey suggests that there is presently little penetration of hydrogen technology; nor is there much planning for it

DATA COLLECTION, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR THE 2008/2009 HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS SURVEYS

The 2008/2009 Knowledge and Opinions Survey, conducted for the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Program will measure the levels of awareness and understanding of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies within five target populations: (1) the general public, (2) students, (3) personnel in state and local governments, (4) potential end users of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell technologies in business and industry, and (5) safety and code officials. The ultimate goal of the surveys is a statistically valid, nationally based assessment. Distinct information collections are required for each of the target populations. Each instrument for assessing baseline knowledge is targeted to the corresponding population group. While many questions are identical across all populations, some questions are unique to each respondent group. The biggest data quality limitation of the hydrogen survey data (at least of the general public and student components) will be nonresponse bias. To ensure as high a response rate as possible, various measures will be taken to minimize nonresponse, including automated callbacks, cycling callbacks throughout the weekdays, and availability of Spanish speaking interviewers. Statistical adjustments (i.e., sampling weights) will also be used to account for nonresponse and noncoverage. The primary objective of the data analysis is to estimate the proportions of target population individuals who would respond to the questions in the various possible ways. Data analysis will incorporate necessary adjustments for the sampling design and sampling weights (i.e., probability sampling). Otherwise, however, the analysis will involve standard estimates of proportions of the interviewees responding in various ways to the questions. Sample-weight-adjusted contingency table chi-square tests will also be computed to identify differences between demographic groups The first round of Knowledge and Opinions Surveys was conducted in 2004. Analysis of these surveys produced a baseline assessment of technical knowledge about hydrogen and fuel cells and a statistically valid description of opinions about safety and potential usage in the United States. The current surveys will repeat the process used in 2004. In addition the 2008/2009 survey results will be compared with the 2004 baseline results to assess changes in knowledge levels and opinions. In 2011/2012, the surveys will be repeated, and changes in knowledge and opinions will again be assessed. The information gained from these surveys will be used to enhance and update the DOE Hydrogen Program's education efforts

Transferring 2001 National Household Travel Survey

Policy makers rely on transportation statistics, including data on personal travel behavior, to formulate strategic transportation policies, and to improve the safety and efficiency of the U.S. transportation system. Data on personal travel trends are needed to examine the reliability, efficiency, capacity, and flexibility of the Nation's transportation system to meet current demands and to accommodate future demand. These data are also needed to assess the feasibility and efficiency of alternative congestion-mitigating technologies (e.g., high-speed rail, magnetically levitated trains, and intelligent vehicle and highway systems); to evaluate the merits of alternative transportation investment programs; and to assess the energy-use and air-quality impacts of various policies. To address these data needs, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) initiated an effort in 1969 to collect detailed data on personal travel. The 1969 survey was the first Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS). The survey was conducted again in 1977, 1983, 1990, 1995, and 2001. Data on daily travel were collected in 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990 and 1995. In 2001, the survey was renamed the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and it collected both daily and long-distance trips. The 2001 survey was sponsored by three USDOT agencies: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The primary objective of the survey was to collect trip-based data on the nature and characteristics of personal travel so that the relationships between the characteristics of personal travel and the demographics of the traveler can be established. Commercial and institutional travel were not part of the survey. Due to the survey's design, data in the NHTS survey series were not recommended for estimating travel statistics for categories smaller than the combination of Census division (e.g., New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific), MSA size, and the availability of rail. Extrapolating NHTS data within small geographic areas could risk developing and subsequently using unreliable estimates. For example, if a planning agency in City X of State Y estimates travel rates and other travel characteristics based on survey data collected from NHTS sample households that were located in City X of State Y, then the agency could risk developing and using unreliable estimates for their planning process. Typically, this limitation significantly increases as the size of an area decreases. That said, the NHTS contains a wealth of information that could allow statistical inferences about small geographic areas, with a pre-determined level of statistical certainty. The question then becomes whether a method can be developed that integrates the NHTS data and other data to estimate key travel characteristics for small geographic areas such as Census tract and transportation analysis zone, and whether this method can outperform other, competing methods

National Evaluation of the Weatherization Assistance Program: Preliminary Evaluation Plan for Program Year 2006

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Weatherization Assistance Program was created by Congress in 1976 under Title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act. The purpose and scope of the Program as currently stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10CFR 440.1 is 'to increase the energy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons, reduce their total residential expenditures, and improve their health and safety, especially low-income persons who are particularly vulnerable such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, families with children, high residential energy users, and households with high energy burden' (Code of Federal Regulations, 2005). DOE sponsored a comprehensive evaluation of the Program in the early 1990's to provide policy makers and program implementers with up-to-date and reliable information they needed for effective decision making and cost-effective operations. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) managed the five part study which was based primarily on data from Program Year (PY) 1989 and supplemented by data from 1991-92 (Brown, Berry, and Kinney, 1994). In more recent years, ORNL has conducted four metaevaluations of the Program's energy savings using studies conducted by individual states between the years 1990-1996 (Berry, 1997), 1996-1998 (Schweitzer and Berry, 1999), 1993-2002 (Berry and Schweitzer, 2003), and 1993-2005 (Schweitzer, 2005). DOE announced through its Weatherization Program Notice 05-1 (DOE, 2004) that it would undertake a new national evaluation of the Program because the Program that was evaluated comprehensively in the early 1990's is vastly different from the Program of today. The Program has incorporated new funding sources, management principles, audit procedures, and energy-efficiency measures in response to findings and recommendations resulting from the 1989 National Evaluation, the Weatherization Plus strategic planning process, and other federal, state, and local initiatives. For example, the use of computerized audits has increased, cooling and baseload measures have been added, weatherization approaches tailored to the unique construction characteristics of mobile homes have been developed, the weatherization of large multifamily buildings has expanded and become more sophisticated, the flexibility to improve 'energy-related' health and safety has been provided, and leveraging with utilities, other state programs, and owners of large multifamily buildings has increased considerably. The Department of Energy tasked ORNL with planning the new evaluation in light of its experience in conducting the previous national evaluation and the metaevaluations. This preliminary evaluation plan, developed by ORNL, documents how the new national evaluation will be performed. In the remaining portion of this section, the purpose and fundamental questions the evaluation will address are identified and how these questions were derived is discussed

NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DURING THE ARRA PERIOD: PROGRAM YEARS 2009-2011

This report describes the third major evaluation of the Program, encompassing program years 2009 to 2011. In this report, this period of time is referred to as the ARRA Period. This is a special period of time for the Program because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 has allocated $5 billion of funding for the Program. In normal program years, WAP s annual appropriation is in the range of$200-250 million, supporting the weatherization of approximately 100,000 homes. With the addition of ARRA funding during these program years, the expectation is that weatherization activity will exceed 300,000 homes per year. In addition to saving energy and reducing low-income energy bills, expanded WAP funding is expected to stimulate the economy by providing new jobs in the weatherization field and allowing low-income households to spend more money on goods and services by spending less on energy

COMPENDIUM: SURVEYS EVALUATING KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS CONCERNING HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

This compendium updates a 2003 literature review of surveys of knowledge and opinions of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Its purpose is to ensure that results of comparable surveys are considered in surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Over twice as many studies related to the DOE survey have been published since 2003 than prior to that date. The fact that there have been significantly more studies implies that there have been further demonstration projects and/or increased interest in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The primary findings of these 15 new surveys, all of which were conducted in Europe (E) or North America (NA), to the DOE surveys are as follows: 1.Respondents who are more educated are more accepting of hydrogen technologies (NA). 2.Respondents who are more knowledgeable about hydrogen and/or fuel cells are more accepting of hydrogen technologies (E, NA). 3.When asked about issues of trust, respondents generally expressed distrust of the government or political parties but trusted scientists and environmental protection organizations (E). 4.Technical knowledge about hydrogen and fuel cell technologies is low (E, NA). 5.Respondents may express opinions about a technology even when they are lacking in knowledge of that technology (E). 6.Women and men have different priorities when deciding on an automobile purchase (E). 7.Public acceptance to hydrogen is vulnerable to perceptions of decreased safety (E, NA). 8.Public acceptance to hydrogen is vulnerable to perceptions of increased cost (E, NA). The DOE surveys are similar to surveys that examine technical knowledge of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, although the technical questions are certainly different. The DOE surveys are also similar to the opinion surveys in that they address many of the same issues, such as safety, sources of energy information, or trust. There are many differences between the surveys reviewed in this compendium and the DOE surveys. The information for many of the surveys is collected face-to-face or electronically; however, all of the DOE surveys are conducted via telephone interviews. Most of the surveys concentrated on a specific population group, while the DOE surveys addressed five different populations (general public, students, government agencies, end users, and safety and codes officials). No survey (except the DOE survey) conducted since 2003 surveyed students knowledge and opinions of hydrogen and fuel cells. Although several surveys have solicited opinions of users (e.g., passengers of fuel-cell vehicles), no surveys were conducted of end users (industrial users needing large power supplies, commercial users needing uninterrupted power, or transportation businesses). While the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has surveyed its membership concerning standards, the population of safety and codes officials has not been surveyed. The greatest impact and importance of the DOE surveys is that five distinct population groups are surveyed for both knowledge and opinions on hydrogen and fuel cells. Knowledge levels can be computed for each population group and can be compared across the populations and across time. Opinions can be compared with knowledge levels. A baseline of knowledge levels was derived using the results of the 2004 surveys; this baseline will be compared with the results of the knowledge evaluation for the surveys of 2008/2009 and 2011/2012. The DOE knowledge and opinion surveys are unique in coverage and purpose. It must be noted, however, that response rates for telephone surveys have decreased dramatically over time. Developments in survey methodology research will have to be followed over the next few years so that necessary adjustments are made in the 20112012 DOE hydrogen survey design, to account for cell-phone-only individuals as well as other changes in telephone usage demographics