skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Green Building Research Laboratory

Abstract

This project provided support to the Green Building Research Laboratory at Portland State University (PSU) so it could work with researchers and industry to solve technical problems for the benefit of the green building industry. It also helped to facilitate the development of PSU’s undergraduate and graduate-level training in building science across the curriculum.

Authors:
 [1]
+ Show Author Affiliations
  1. Portland State Univ., Portland, OR (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Portland State Univ., Portland, OR (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1329637
Report Number(s):
Final Report-DOE-Portland State-0003870
DOE Contract Number:
EE0003870
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION

Citation Formats

Sailor, David Jean. Green Building Research Laboratory. United States: N. p., 2013. Web. doi:10.2172/1329637.
Copy to clipboard
Sailor, David Jean. Green Building Research Laboratory. United States. doi:10.2172/1329637.
Copy to clipboard
Sailor, David Jean. Sun . "Green Building Research Laboratory". United States. doi:10.2172/1329637. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1329637.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_1329637,
title = {Green Building Research Laboratory},
author = {Sailor, David Jean},
abstractNote = {This project provided support to the Green Building Research Laboratory at Portland State University (PSU) so it could work with researchers and industry to solve technical problems for the benefit of the green building industry. It also helped to facilitate the development of PSU’s undergraduate and graduate-level training in building science across the curriculum.},
doi = {10.2172/1329637},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Dec 29 00:00:00 EST 2013},
month = {Sun Dec 29 00:00:00 EST 2013}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (0.14 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/1329637
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • This paper discusses Building America whole-house systems research within the broad effort to reduce or eliminate the environmental impact of building and provides specific recommendations for future Building America research based on Building Science Corporation’s experience with several recent projects involving green home building programs.

  • ; ;

  • NNSA, an agency within DOE, proposes to replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The CMRR EIS examines the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action of consolidating and relocating the mission-critical CMR capabilities from a degraded building to a new modern building(s). The existing CMR Building, constructed in the early 1950s, houses most of LANL's analytical chemistry and materials characterization AC and MC capabilities. Other capabilities at the CMR Building include actinide processing, waste characterization, and nondestructive analysis that support a variety of NNSA and DOE nuclear materials management programs. Inmore » 1992, DOE initiated planning and implementation of CMR Building upgrades to address specific safety, reliability, consolidation, and security and safeguards issues. Later, in 1997 and 1998, a series of operational, safety, and seismic issues surfaced regarding the long-term viability of the CMR Building. Because of these issues, DOE determined that the extensive upgrades originally planned would be much more expensive and time consuming and of only marginal effectiveness. As a result, DOE decided to perform only the upgrades necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the CMR Building through 2010 and to seek an alternative path for long-term reliability. The CMRR EIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is to replace the CMR Building. The Preferred Alternative is to construct a new CMRR Facility at Technical Area (TA) 55, consisting of two or three buildings. One of the new buildings would provide space for administrative offices and support functions. The other building(s) would provide secure laboratory spaces for research and analytical support activities. The buildings would be expected to operate for a minimum of 50 years. Tunnels could be constructed to connect the buildings. Alternative 2 would be to construct the new CMRR Facility within an undeveloped ''greenfield'' area near TA-55 at TA-6. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be to continue using the existing CMR Building for administrative offices and support functions with the implementation of minimal necessary structural and system upgrades and repairs, together with the construction of new nuclear laboratory building(s) at either TA-55 or TA-6. The EIS also presents an analysis of impacts associated with the dispositioning of all or portions of the existing CMR Building.« less

  • NNSA, an agency within DOE, proposes to replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The CMRR EIS will examine the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action of consolidating and relocating the mission-critical CMR capabilities from a degraded building to a new modern building(s). The existing CMR Building, constructed in the early 1950s, houses most of LANL's analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities (AC and MC). Other capabilities at the CMR Building include actinide processing, waste characterization, and nondestructive analysis that support a variety of NNSA and DOE nuclear materials management programs.more » In 1992, DOE initiated planning and implementation of CMR Building upgrades to address specific safety, reliability, consolidation, and security and safeguards issues. Later, in 1997 and 1998, a series of operational, safety, and seismic issues surfaced regarding the long-term viability of the CMR Building. Because of these issues, DOE determined that the extensive upgrades originally planned would be much more expensive and time consuming and of only marginal effectiveness. As a result, DOE decided to perform only the upgrades necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the CMR Building through 2010 and to seek an alternative path for long-term reliability. The CMRR EIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The Proposed Action is to replace the CMR Building. The Preferred Alternative is to construct a new CMRR Facility at Technical Area (TA) 55, consisting of two or three buildings. One of the new buildings would provide space for administrative offices and support functions. The other building(s) would provide secure laboratory spaces for research and analytical support activities. The buildings would be expected to operate for a minimum of 50 years. Tunnels may be constructed to connect the buildings. Alternative 2 would be to construct the new CMRR Facility within an undeveloped ''greenfield'' area near TA-55 at TA-6. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be to continue using the existing CMR Building for administrative offices and support functions with the implementation of minimal necessary structural and system upgrades and repairs, together with the construction of new nuclear laboratory building(s) at either TA-55 or TA-6. The EIS also presents an analysis of impacts associated with the dispositioning of all or portions of the existing CMR Building.« less

  • The INPUFF (INtegrated PUFF) puff-dispersion model distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was employed to simulate conditions that conservatively match potential emissions from a proposed stack at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Seven emission scenarios that imitate extreme cases of credible release events were evaluated. Each scenario was repeated for seven classes of stability, three wind speeds, and two deposition velocities. A sensitivity study was performed to explore the effect of stack-gas velocity, mixing height, and ambient wind speed on plume height and downwind concentrations. 8 refs., 5 figs., 5 tabs.